sustainability assessment of complex bridges

1

Advanced Final Year Project Report

Sustainability Assessment of Complex

Bridges

Civil & Structural Engineering

University of Bradford

Prof. Crina Oltean-Dumbrava

James Serpell

11027311

2016

I

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENT WORK

Student Name: James Serpell

UoB Number: 11027311

Course: Civil & Structural Engineering

Signature: ………………………………………………………………………………..…….

Date: 20/04/16

FOR YOUR PROJECT TO BE ACCEPTED THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND SUBMITTED WITH IT In

submitting your project with this form you are agreeing that your final year project is completely YOUR

OWN WORK and that you are aware of the University definition of Plagiarism (reproduced below) and

that you may face formal disciplinary procedures should your project be found to contain such material.

Please note that in recent years several students have been denied a degree as a result of such

procedures.

_____________________________________________________________________________

University Regulations on Plagiarism The University has very strict regulations on the presentation of

work for formal assessment. The following extract has been reproduced to help you understand what

expectations and responsibilities are required of you as a registered student of the University. "A

dissertation, thesis, essay, project or any other work which is not undertaken in an examination room

under supervision but which is submitted by a student for formal assessment must be written by the

student and in the student’s own words, except for quotations from published and unpublished sources

which shall be clearly indicated and acknowledged as such" "…students must not use any means

whatever to obtain, directly or indirectly, assistance in their work or give or attempt to give, directly or

indirectly, such assistance to any other students in their work". Further information can be obtained on

the following University web address:

http://www.brad.ac.uk/admin/acsec/assu/university_policy_on_plagiarism.htm YOU ARE RISKING YOUR

DEGREE IF YOU SUBMIT A PROJECT WHICH CONTAINS PLAGIARISED MATERIAL

II

Abstract

Following the development of the ‘New Road-Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ (NRBSA) model, it was

clear that some improvements had to be made in order to take a step closer to creating a model that

has the potential to be used in reality. In order to make a name for itself & become a well known

sustainability assessment model, larger & more complex bridge designs would have to be assessed. This

report aims to adapt & improve the NRBSA model & develop a new model that is catered to complex

bridges. This will be completed in the following manner:

Reviewing existing literature to gain in-depth knowledge of the working methodology of

sustainability assessment models.

Use the advanced insight gained from the literature review to adapt & improve the NRBSA

model in developing the new ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model.

Test the newly developed CBSA model on the post-construction case-study project, the Oresund

Link.

Test the CBSA model on the proposed Solent Link project during the design stage.

Discuss the advancements made from the Sustainability Assessment of Road-Bridges report by

Serpell (2015), highlighting the improvements made to the sustainability assessment model.

III

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my personal tutor, Prof. Crina Oltean-Dumbrava, for her continued dedication in

helping me write this report. Prof. Oltean-Dumbrava pushed me to challenge myself in choosing

complex bridges as a subject matter which we both knew would be a difficult process. However, with

her encouragement & expert advice in professional report writing, I was able to put together a

dissertation that I am extremely proud of. Thank you.

IV

Table of Contents

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENT WORK ....................................................................................................... I

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... II

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... III

List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... XIX

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... XXI

Chapter 1 – Existing research into sustainability assessment of complex bridges ....................................... 1

1.1. – Review of Penang Second Bridge sustainability assessment using Analytical Hierarchy Process .. 1

1.1.1. – Analytical Hierarchy Process methodology .............................................................................. 1

1.1.2. – Penang Second Bridge Assessment .......................................................................................... 4

1.1.3. – Critical analysis of Analytical Hierarchy Process assessment of the Penang Second Bridge . 12

1.2. – Review of Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects assessment of Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region bridge foundations ............................................................................................. 16

1.2.1. – Project description for the Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects assessment of

the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Bridge foundations .................................................... 16

1.2.2. – Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects assessment of the Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region Bridge foundations ......................................................................................... 18

1.2.3. – Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects data analysis and discussion for the Hong

Kong Special Administrative Region Bridge foundation project ......................................................... 24

1.2.4. – Critical analysis of the Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects assessment process

............................................................................................................................................................ 25

1.3. – Critical analysis of the Oresund Bridge linking Sweden & Denmark ............................................. 26

1.3.1. – Planning & reasons for constructing the Oresund Bridge ..................................................... 27

1.3.2. – Aesthetics of the Oresund Bridge .......................................................................................... 27

1.3.3. – Construction of the Oresund Bridge ...................................................................................... 31

1.3.4. – Durability of the Oresund Bridge ........................................................................................... 33

1.3.5. – The future of the Oresund Bridge .......................................................................................... 34

1.3.6. – Critical analysis of the critical analysis of the Oresund Bridge............................................... 35

1.4. – Development of the Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment model ...................................... 36

1.4.1. - Adaption of New Road Bridge Sustainability Assessment model to create Complex Bridge

Sustainability Assessment model ........................................................................................................ 36

V

1.4.2. - Improvement of the New Road Bridge Sustainability Assessment model to create the

Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment model ............................................................................. 37

1.4.3. – Working methodology of the Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment model ................. 38

1.5. – Brief summary of Chapter 1 .......................................................................................................... 40

Chapter 2 – Case-study 1. The Oresund Link .............................................................................................. 41

2.1. – Stage 1-Initial research for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Oresund Link........ 42

2.2. – Stage 2-Indicator selection for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Oresund Link .. 43

2.3. – Stage 3-Indicator weighting for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Oresund Link 47

2.4. – Stage 4-Indicator aggregation for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Oresund Link

................................................................................................................................................................ 50

2.5. – Stage 5-Identifying key design options for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the

Oresund Link ........................................................................................................................................... 51

2.5.1. – Choice of the Oresund Link bridge deck design ..................................................................... 51

2.5.2. – Choice of the Oresund Link cable system .............................................................................. 53

2.5.3. – Choice of pre-fab construction method for the Oresund Link ............................................... 54

2.5.4. – Choice of the tunnel construction method for the Oresund Link .......................................... 56

2.5.5. – Choice of centre span design for the Oresund Link ............................................................... 57

2.6. – Stage 6-Pairwise comparison of the key design options for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability

Assessment’, the Oresund Link ............................................................................................................... 59

2.6.1. – Pairwise comparison of the Oresund Link deck design ......................................................... 59

2.6.2. – Pairwise comparison of the Oresund Link cable system design ............................................ 65

2.6.3. – Pairwise comparison of the Oresund Link concrete construction design.............................. 69

2.6.4. – Pairwise comparison of the Oresund Link tunnel construction design ................................. 74

2.6.5. – Pairwise comparison of the Oresund Link centre span design .............................................. 78

2.7. – Stage 7-Normalised indicator assessment for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the

Oresund Link ........................................................................................................................................... 82

2.7.1. – Normalisation of environmental indicators, the Oresund Link ............................................. 82

2.7.2. – Normalisation of economic indicators, the Oresund Link ..................................................... 88

2.7.3. – Normalisation of social indicators, the Oresund Link ............................................................ 93

2.8. – Stage 8-Results for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Oresund Link .................... 99

2.9. – Stage 9-Visualisation for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Oresund Link ......... 102

2.10. – Brief summary of Chapter 2 ...................................................................................................... 103

Chapter 3 – Case-study 2. The Solent Link ................................................................................................ 105

VI

3.1. – Stage 1-Initial research for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Solent Link ......... 106

3.2. – Stage 2-Indicator selection for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Solent Link ... 108

3.3. – Stage 3-Indicator weighting for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Solent Link .. 111

3.4. – Stage 4-Indicator aggregation for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Solent Link

.............................................................................................................................................................. 114

3.5. – Stage 5- Identifying key design options for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the

Solent Link ............................................................................................................................................. 115

3.5.1. – Choice of Solent Link crossing type ...................................................................................... 115

3.5.2. – Choice of Solent Link design to maintain shipping routes ................................................... 117

3.5.3. – Choice of the Solent Link to be floating or not .................................................................... 119

3.6. – Stage 6-Pairwise comparison of the key design options for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability

Assessment’, the Solent Link ................................................................................................................ 120

3.6.1. – Pairwise comparison of the Solent Link crossing type design ............................................. 121

3.6.2. – Pairwise comparison of Solent Link design to maintain shipping routes ............................ 126

3.6.3. – Pairwise comparison of Solent Link structural design ......................................................... 130

3.7. – Outline Design of the Solent Link ................................................................................................ 134

3.7.1. – Detailed description of the Solent Link design .................................................................... 134

3.7.2. – Basic design calculations for the Solent Link ....................................................................... 141

3.7.3. – Drawings for the Solent Link ................................................................................................ 145

3.8. – Stage 7-Normalised indicator assessment for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the

Solent Link ............................................................................................................................................. 149

3.8.1. - Normalisation of environmental indicators, the Solent Link ................................................ 149

3.8.2. – Normalisation of economic indicators, the Solent Link ....................................................... 156

3.8.3. – Normalisation of social indicators, the Solent Link .............................................................. 162

3.9. – Stage 8-Results for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Solent Link...................... 172

3.10. – Stage 9-Visualisation for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Solent Link ........... 175

3.11. – Brief summary of Chapter 3 ...................................................................................................... 176

Chapter 4 – Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 177

4.1. – Critical analysis of the ‘New Road-Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model in comparison with

the ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model ....................................................................... 177

4.1.1. – Critical analysis of the ‘New Road-Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model advantages in

comparison with the ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model advantages .................... 178

VII

4.1.2. – Critical analysis of the ‘New Road-Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model disadvantages in

comparison with the ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model disadvantages ............... 180

4.2. – Critical analysis of further advances to the ‘New Road-Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model

in the ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model ................................................................... 181

4.3. – Critical analysis of the ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model case-study results . 184

4.3.1. – Un-aggregated assessment of the Oresund Link & critical analysis of results .................... 184

4.3.2. – Un-aggregated assessment of the Solent Link & critical analysis of results ........................ 195

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 205

Future recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 211

References ................................................................................................................................................ 212

Appendix 1. Data collection ...................................................................................................................... 227

Appendix 1.1. – Environment ............................................................................................................... 227

Appendix 1.1.1. – Ecological impact ................................................................................................. 227

Appendix 1.1.2. – Energy use ............................................................................................................ 227

Appendix 1.1.3. – Waste management ............................................................................................. 228

Appendix 1.1.4. – Land use ............................................................................................................... 228

Appendix 1.1.5. – Natural material used .......................................................................................... 228

Appendix 1.1.6. – Consideration of environmental climate change ................................................ 228

Appendix 1.2. – Economy ..................................................................................................................... 229

Appendix 1.2.1. – Economic impact .................................................................................................. 229

Appendix 1.2.2. – Employment ......................................................................................................... 230

Appendix 1.2.3. – Economic Risk ...................................................................................................... 230

Appendix 1.2.4. – Financial investment ............................................................................................ 231

Appendix 1.3. – Society ......................................................................................................................... 231

Appendix 1.3.1. – Health & wellbeing ............................................................................................... 231

Appendix 1.3.2. – Transport impact .................................................................................................. 232

Appendix 1.3.3. – Stakeholder engagement ..................................................................................... 232

Appendix 1.3.4. – Health & Safety .................................................................................................... 232

Appendix 1.3.5. – Visual impact ........................................................................................................ 232

Appendix 1.3.6. – Equality ................................................................................................................ 232

Appendix 1.3.7. – Educational impact .............................................................................................. 233

Appendix 1.3.8. – Consideration of social climate change ............................................................... 233

VIII

Appendix 2. Meeting logbook ................................................................................................................... 234

Appendix 2.1. – Semester 1 .................................................................................................................. 234

Appendix 2.1.1. – Week 1 ................................................................................................................. 234

Appendix 2.1.2. – Week 2 ................................................................................................................. 234

Appendix 2.1.3. – Week 3 ................................................................................................................. 234

Appendix 2.1.4. – Week 4 ................................................................................................................. 234

Appendix 2.1.5. – Week 5 ................................................................................................................. 234

Appendix 2.1.6. – Week 6 ................................................................................................................. 235

Appendix 2.1.7. – Week 7 ................................................................................................................. 235

Appendix 2.1.8. – Week 8 ................................................................................................................. 235

Appendix 2.1.9. – Week 9 ................................................................................................................. 235

Appendix 2.1.10.- Week 10 ............................................................................................................... 235

Appendix 2.1.11. – Week 11 ............................................................................................................. 235

Appendix 2.1.12. – Week 12 ............................................................................................................. 236

Appendix 2.2. – Semester 2 .................................................................................................................. 236

Appendix 2.2.1. – Week 1 ................................................................................................................. 236

Appendix 2.2.2. – Week 2 ................................................................................................................. 236

Appendix 2.2.3. – Week 3 ................................................................................................................. 236

Appendix 2.2.4. – Week 4 ................................................................................................................. 236

Appendix 2.2.5. – Week 5 ................................................................................................................. 236

Appendix 2.2.6. – Week 6 ................................................................................................................. 237

Appendix 2.2.7. – Week 7 ................................................................................................................. 237

Appendix 2.2.8. – Week 8 ................................................................................................................. 237

Appendix 2.2.9. – Week 9 ................................................................................................................. 237

Appendix 2.2.10. – Week 10 ............................................................................................................. 237

Appendix 2.2.11. – Week 11 ............................................................................................................. 238

Appendix 2.2.12. – Week 12 ............................................................................................................. 238

Appendix 3. Report progression Gannt Chart ........................................................................................... 239

Appendix 4. Solent Link drawings ............................................................................................................. 241

IX

List of figures

Figure 1.1. Penang Second Bridge location (Yadollahi et al., 2014). ............................................................ 5

Figure 1.2. Penang Second Bridge (Datajembatan, 2015) ............................................................................ 5

Figure 1.3. P2B assessment final score comparisons (Yadollahi et al., 2014) ............................................ 10

Figure 1.4. P2B assessment indicator score comparisons (Yadollahi et al., 2014) ..................................... 11

Figure 1.5. Proposed HKSAR bridge (macaumagazine.net, 2015) .............................................................. 16

Figure 1.6. HKSAR pile arrangement options (Ugwu et al., 2006) .............................................................. 17

Figure 1.7. Flow chart credit system example (Ugwu et al., 2006) ............................................................. 21

Figure 1.8. SUSAIP graphical representation of HKSAR bridge pile results (Ugwu et al., 2006) ................. 24

Figure 1.9. The Oresund Bridge (denmarktour.org, 2016) ......................................................................... 26

Figure 1.10. The Oresund Bridge Truss Deck (dezeen.com, 2015) ............................................................. 28

Figure 1.11. Millau Viaduct (youtube.com, 2015) ...................................................................................... 28

Figure 1.12. The Oresund Bridge Level Change (wikipedia.org The Bridge, 2016) ..................................... 29

Figure 1.13. The Oresund Bridge Plan View (ferrycrossings.org.uk 2016) ................................................. 29

Figure 1.14. Alamillo Bridge (wikipedia.org Puente del Alamillo, 2016) .................................................... 31

Figure 1.15. Svanen placing a Truss Unit on the Oresund Bridge (roadtraffic-technology.com, 2016) ..... 32

Figure 1.16. Oresund Bridge Piers (tumbler.com Bridge Span, 2016) ........................................................ 34

Figure 2.1. The Oresund Link (co2-e-race.blogspot.co.uk, 2014) ............................................................... 42

Figure 2.2. Actual Oresund Bridge deck design (magebausa.com, 2016) .................................................. 52

Figure 2.3. Alternative deck design option for the Oresund Bridge (transport.gov.scot, 2016) ................ 53

Figure 2.4. Actual Oresund Bridge cable system (thebeautyoftransport.com, 2016) ................................ 54

Figure 2.5. The Great Belt suspension bridge (highways-denmark.com, 2016) ......................................... 54

Figure 2.6. Svanen placing a section of truss deck to the Oresund Link (roadtraffic-technology.com, 2016)

.................................................................................................................................................................... 55

Figure 2.7. Oresund Link tunnel building facility (dywidag-systems.com, 2016) ....................................... 56

Figure 2.8. Oresund Bridge centre span (skanska.com, 2016) ................................................................... 57

Figure 2.9. Lupu Bridge, China (youramazingplaces.com, 2016) ................................................................ 58

Figure 2.10. CBSA ROSE plot, the Oresund Link ........................................................................................ 103

Figure 3.1. Isle of Wight satellite view (Google Maps, 2016) ................................................................... 105

Figure 3.2. Red Squirrel (Whippey, 2012) ................................................................................................. 107

X

Figure 3.3. Seagrass (infectiousnew.com, 2012) ...................................................................................... 107

Figure 3.4. Solent Tunnel cross-section initial design (iwcp.co.uk, 2014) ................................................ 116

Figure 3.5. BNSF Rail Bridge, Oregon (Morgan, 2011) .............................................................................. 117

Figure 3.6. Whitby swing bridge (oldjoesphotos.co.uk, 2013) ................................................................. 118

Figure 3.7. Evergreen Point Floating Bridge 2 (dreamcarz1.org, 2016) .................................................... 119

Figure 3.8. Floating bridge concept sketch, Maldives (rhdhvarchitecture.com, 2016) ............................ 120

Figure 3.9. Solent Link location ................................................................................................................. 135

Figure 3.10. Solent Link Worsley Road connection .................................................................................. 136

Figure 3.11. Solent Link Lepe Road connection ........................................................................................ 137

Figure 3.12. Evergreen Point bridge (Jelson25, 2009) .............................................................................. 138

Figure 3.13. Cable-stayed arch over main span (ngarti.com, 2012) ......................................................... 138

Figure 3.14. Floating bridge pontoon design (kxro.com, 2013) ................................................................ 139

Figure 3.15. Ultra-sound pest repellent box ............................................................................................. 139

Figure 3.16. Wind turbine tree (seriouswonder.com, 2016) .................................................................... 140

Figure 3.17. Eco kerb (kirhammond.com, 2015)....................................................................................... 140

Figure 3.18. Chair lift (archiexpo.com, 2016) ............................................................................................ 141

Figure 3.19. Solent Link deck plan drawing .............................................................................................. 146

Figure 3.20. Solent Link deck elevation drawing ...................................................................................... 147

Figure 3.21. Solent Link deck cross-section drawing ................................................................................ 147

Figure 3.22. Solent Link mid-span plan drawing ....................................................................................... 148

Figure 3.23. Solent Link elevation drawing ............................................................................................... 148

Figure 3.24. General risk assessment scoring system (keyedin.com, 2014) ............................................. 167

Figure 3.25. CBSA ROSE plot, the Solent Link ........................................................................................... 175

Figure 4.1. Visualisation wheel, NRBSA model (Serpell, 2015) ................................................................. 179

Figure 4.2. Visualisation wheel, CBSA model ........................................................................................ 17980

List of tables Table 1.1. Fundamental scales for pairwise comparison (Yadollahi et al., 2014) ......................................... 2

Table 1.2. Random Index Values (Zhange & Zou, 2007) ............................................................................... 3

Table 1.3. Direct indicator score levels (Yadollahi et al., 2014) .................................................................... 4

XI

Table 1.4. Sustainability factors, Analytical Hierarchy Process of Penang Second Bridge (Yadollahi et al.,

2014) ............................................................................................................................................................. 7

Table 1.5. Direct weighting, Penang Second Bridge (Yadollahi et al., 2014) ................................................ 8

Table 1.6. Pairwise comparison, Penang Second Bridge (Yadollahi et al., 2014) ......................................... 9

Table 1.7. Consistency indices and ratios, Penang Second Bridge (Yadollahi et al., 2014) 2014) .............. 10

Table 1.8. SUSAIP indicator phase organisation (Ugwu et al., 2006) .......................................................... 20

Table 1.9. SUSAIP appraisal process segment (Ugwu et al., 2006) ............................................................. 23

Table 1.10. SUSAIP score index for HKSAR bridge pile results (Ugwu et al., 2006) .................................... 24

Table 2.1. Nine stages of CBSA process ...................................................................................................... 41

Table 2.2. Indicator selection for 'Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment', the Oresund Link ............ 44

Table 2.3. Indicator weighting for 'Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment', the Oresund Link ........... 47

Table 2.4. Key design options for the 'Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment', the Oresund Link

(Shrubshall, 2000) ....................................................................................................................................... 51

Table 2.5. Deck design option sub-indicators, the Oresund Link................................................................ 59

Table 2.6. Fundamental scales for pairwise comparison (Yadollahi et al., 2014) ....................................... 59

Table 2.7. Random Index Values (Zhange & Zou, 2007) ............................................................................. 61

Table 2.8. Direct indicator score levels (Yadollahi et al., 2014) .................................................................. 63

Table 2.9. Score breakdown, deck design options, the Oresund Link ........................................................ 64

Table 2.10. Weighted scores, deck design options, the Oresund Link ....................................................... 65

Table 2.11. Cable system design option sub-indicators, the Oresund Link ................................................ 65

Table 2.12. Score breakdown, cable system design options, the Oresund Link ......................................... 68

Table 2.13. Weighted scores, cable system design options, the Oresund Link .......................................... 69

Table 2.14. Concrete construction design option sub-indicators, the Oresund Link ................................. 69

Table 2.15. Score breakdown, concrete construction design options, the Oresund Link .......................... 73

Table 2.16. Weighted scores, concrete construction design options, the Oresund Link ........................... 74

Table 2.17. Tunnel construction design option sub-indicators, the Oresund Link ..................................... 74

Table 2.18. Score breakdown, tunnel construction design options, the Oresund Link .............................. 77

Table 2.19. Weighted scores, tunnel construction design options, the Oresund Link ............................... 78

Table 2.20. Centre span design option sub-indicators, the Oresund Link .................................................. 78

Table 2.21. Score breakdown, centre span design options, the Oresund Link ........................................... 81

Table 2.22. Weighted scores, centre span design options, the Oresund Link ............................................ 81

Table 2.23. Normalisation table template .................................................................................................. 82

XII

Table 2.24. Normalisation table for ‘the direct measures taken to preserve ecology’, the Oresund Link . 83

Table 2.25. Normalisation table for ‘the direct saving from taking prevention measures’, the Oresund

Link .............................................................................................................................................................. 83

Table 2.26. Normalisation table for ‘the direct cost of unforeseen ecological impact’, the Oresund Link 83

Table 2.27. Normalisation table for ‘amount of CO2 produced’, the Oresund Link ................................... 84

Table 2.28. Normalisation table for ‘energy saved’, the Oresund Link ...................................................... 84

Table 2.29. Normalisation table for ‘amount of waste sent directly to landfill’, the Oresund Link ........... 85

Table 2.30. Normalisation table for ‘amount of waste recycled’, the Oresund Link .................................. 85

Table 2.31. Normalisation table for ‘amount of waste re-used on site’, the Oresund Link ....................... 85

Table 2.32. Normalisation table for ‘amount of free land used’, the Oresund Link ................................... 86

Table 2.33. Normalisation table for ‘amount of pre-occupied land used’, the Oresund Link .................... 86

Table 2.34. Normalisation table for ‘amount of natural material used’, the Oresund Link ....................... 87

Table 2.35. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of sea level rise’, the Oresund Link ............................ 87

Table 2.36. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of temperature change’, the Oresund Link ............... 87

Table 2.37. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of rainfall increase’, the Oresund Link ....................... 88

Table 2.38. Normalisation table for ‘direct cost’, the Oresund Link ........................................................... 88

Table 2.39. Normalisation table for ‘indirect cost’, the Oresund Link ........................................................ 89

Table 2.40. Normalisation table for ‘direct income’, the Oresund Link ..................................................... 89

Table 2.41. Normalisation table for ‘indirect income’, the Oresund Link .................................................. 89

Table 2.42. Normalisation table for ‘number of local jobs, permanent full-time’, the Oresund Link ........ 90

Table 2.43. Normalisation table for ‘number of local jobs, permanent part-time’, the Oresund Link ...... 90

Table 2.44. Normalisation table for ‘number of local jobs, temporary full-time’, the Oresund Link ......... 91

Table 2.45. Normalisation table for ‘direct cost of insurance taken out’, the Oresund Link ..................... 91

Table 2.46. Normalisation table for ‘direct saving from insured events occurring’, the Oresund Link ...... 91

Table 2.47. Normalisation table for ‘direct saving from insured not taken out’, the Oresund Link ........... 92

Table 2.48. Normalisation table for ‘direct cost from uninsured event occurring’, the Oresund Link ...... 92

Table 2.49. Normalisation table for ‘investment from local sources’, the Oresund Link ........................... 93

Table 2.50. Normalisation table for ‘investment from non-local sources’, the Oresund Link ................... 93

Table 2.51. Normalisation table for ‘noise impact’, the Oresund Link ....................................................... 93

Table 2.52. Normalisation table for ‘light pollution’, the Oresund Link ..................................................... 94

Table 2.53. Normalisation table for ‘air quality’, the Oresund Link............................................................ 94

Table 2.54. Normalisation table for ‘delay time’, the Oresund Link ........................................................... 95

XIII

Table 2.55. Normalisation table for ‘time saved’, the Oresund Link .......................................................... 95

Table 2.56. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of stakeholders’, the Oresund Link ............................ 95

Table 2.57. Normalisation table for ‘complaints/disputes’, the Oresund Link ........................................... 96

Table 2.58. Normalisation table for ‘loss time due to accidents occurred’, the Oresund Link .................. 96

Table 2.59. Normalisation table for ‘Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics’, the Oresund Link ..................... 96

Table 2.60. Normalisation table for ‘impact of racial equality’, the Oresund Link ..................................... 97

Table 2.61. Normalisation table for ‘impact of gender equality’, the Oresund Link .................................. 97

Table 2.62. Normalisation table for ‘impact of disability equality’, the Oresund Link ............................... 98

Table 2.63. Normalisation table for ‘impact of age equality’, the Oresund Link ........................................ 98

Table 2.64. Normalisation table for ‘cost of improvements to the educational sector’, the Oresund Link

.................................................................................................................................................................... 98

Table 2.65. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of traffic congestion increase’, the Oresund Link ...... 99

Table 2.66. Results table, the Oresund Link................................................................................................ 99

Table 3.1. Indicator selection for 'Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment', the Solent Link .............. 108

Table 3.2. Indicator weighting for 'Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment', the Solent Link ............ 111

Table 3.3. Key design options for the 'Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment', the Solent Link ....... 115

Table 3.4. Crossing type design option sub-indicators, the Solent Link ................................................... 121

Table 3.5. Fundamental scales for pairwise comparison (Yadollahi et al., 2014) ..................................... 121

Table 3.6. Random Index Values (Zhange & Zou, 2007) ........................................................................... 123

Table 3.7. Direct indicator score levels (Yadollahi et al., 2014) ................................................................ 124

Table 3.8. Score breakdown, crossing type design options, the Solent Link ............................................ 125

Table 3.9. Weighted scores, crossing type design options, the Solent Link ............................................. 126

Table 3.10. Shipping route maintenance design option sub-indicators, the Solent Link ......................... 126

Table 3.11. Score breakdown, shipping route maintenance design options, the Solent Link .................. 129

Table 3.12. Weighted scores, shipping route maintenance design options, the Solent Link ................... 130

Table 3.13. Structural design option sub-indicators, the Solent Link ....................................................... 130

Table 3.14. Score breakdown, structural design options, the Solent Link ............................................... 133

Table 3.15. Weighted scores, structural design options, the Solent Link ................................................. 134

Table 3.16. Normalisation table for ‘the direct measures taken to preserve ecology’, the Solent Link .. 149

Table 3.17. Normalisation table for ‘the direct saving from taking prevention measures’, the Solent Link

.................................................................................................................................................................. 150

Table 3.18. Normalisation table for ‘Estimated amount of CO2 produced’, the Solent Link .................... 151

XIV

Table 3.19. Normalisation table for ‘energy saved’, the Solent Link ........................................................ 151

Table 3.20. Normalisation table for ‘Estimated amount of waste sent directly to landfill’, the Solent Link

.................................................................................................................................................................. 152

Table 3.21. Normalisation table for ‘Estimated amount of waste recycled’, the Solent Link .................. 152

Table 3.22. Normalisation table for ‘Estimated amount of waste re-used on site’, the Solent Link ........ 153

Table3.23. Normalisation table for ‘amount of free land used’, the Solent Link ..................................... 153

Table 3.24. Normalisation table for ‘amount of pre-occupied land used’, the Solent Link ...................... 154

Table 3.25. Normalisation table for ‘amount of natural material used’, the Solent Link ......................... 154

Table 3.26. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of sea level rise’, the Solent Link ............................. 155

Table 3.27. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of temperature change’, the Solent Link ................. 155

Table 3.28. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of rainfall increase’, the Solent Link ........................ 156

Table 3.29. Normalisation table for ‘estimated direct cost’, the Solent Link ........................................... 156

Table 3.30. Normalisation table for ‘indirect cost’, the Solent Link ......................................................... 157

Table 3.31. Normalisation table for ‘estimated direct income’, the Solent Link ...................................... 157

Table 3.32. Normalisation table for ‘estimated indirect income’, the Solent Link ................................... 158

Table 3.33. Normalisation table for ‘number of local jobs, permanent full-time’, the Solent Link.......... 158

Table 3.34. Normalisation table for ‘number of local jobs, permanent part-time’, the Solent Link ........ 159

Table 3.35. Normalisation table for ‘number of local jobs, temporary full-time’, the Solent Link .......... 159

Table 3.36. Normalisation table for ‘estimated direct cost of insurance taken out’, the Solent Link ...... 160

Table 3.37. Normalisation table for ‘estimated direct saving from insured events occurring’, the Solent

Link ............................................................................................................................................................ 160

Table 3.38. Normalisation table for ‘direct saving from insured not taken out’, the Solent Link ............ 161

Table 3.39. Normalisation table for ‘direct cost from uninsured event occurring’, the Solent Link ........ 161

Table 3.40. Normalisation table for ‘investment from local sources’, the Solent Link............................. 162

Table 3.41. Normalisation table for ‘investment from non-local sources’, the Solent Link ..................... 162

Table 3.42. Normalisation table for ‘noise impact’, the Solent Link ......................................................... 163

Table 3.43. Normalisation table for ‘light pollution’, the Solent Link ....................................................... 164

Table 3.44. Normalisation table for ‘air quality’, the Solent Link ............................................................. 164

Table 3.45. Normalisation table for ‘delay time’, the Solent Link ............................................................ 165

Table 3.46. Normalisation table for ‘time saved’, the Solent Link ............................................................ 166

Table 3.47. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of stakeholders’, the Solent Link ............................. 166

Table 3.48. Normalisation table for ‘risk assessment’, the Solent Link .................................................... 167

XV

Table 3.49. Normalisation table for ‘Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics’, the Solent Link ....................... 169

Table 3.50. Normalisation table for ‘impact of racial equality’, the Solent Link ...................................... 169

Table 3.51. Normalisation table for ‘impact of gender equality’, the Solent Link .................................... 170

Table 3.52. Normalisation table for ‘impact of disability equality’, the Solent Link ................................. 170

Table 3.53. Normalisation table for ‘impact of age equality’, the Solent Link ......................................... 171

Table 3.54. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of traffic congestion increase’, the Solent Link ....... 172

Table 3.55. Results table, the Solent Link ................................................................................................. 172

Table 4.1. Key design option table, the Oresund Link .............................................................................. 182

Table 4.2. Pairwise comparison sub-indicator table, the Oresund Link ................................................... 182

Table 4.3. Design option scoring table ...................................................................................................... 183

Table 4.4. Design option overall sustainability score table ...................................................................... 184

Table 4.5. Aggregated indicators/sub-indicators, the Oresund Link ........................................................ 185

Table 4.6. Normalisation table for ‘amount of water used’, the Oresund Link ........................................ 186

Table 4.7. Normalisation table for ‘amount of water saved’, the Oresund Link ...................................... 186

Table 4.8. Normalisation table for ‘amount of water recycled’, the Oresund Link .................................. 187

Table 4.9. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of possible economic crash’, the Oresund Link ......... 187

Table 4.10. Normalisation table for ‘vibration’, the Oresund Link ........................................................... 188

Table 4.11. Normalisation table for ‘cost of impact on listed structures’, the Oresund Link ................... 188

Table 4.12. Normalisation table for ‘cost of impact on protected land’, the Oresund Link ..................... 189

Table 4.13. Normalisation table for ‘cost of impact on archaeological sites’, the Oresund Link ............. 189

Table 4.14. Normalisation table for ‘loss of revenue from parking metres’, the Oresund Link ............... 190

Table 4.15. Normalisation table for ‘loss of revenue from parking fines’, the Oresund Link ................... 190

Table 4.16. Normalisation table for ‘loss of revenue from other community facilities’, the Oresund Link

.................................................................................................................................................................. 191

Table 4.17. Normalisation table for ‘income generated from community facilities’, the Oresund Link .. 191

Table 4.18. Un-aggregated results table, the Oresund Link ..................................................................... 192

Table 4.19. Aggregated indicators/sub-indicators, the Solent Link .......................................................... 195

Table 4.20. Normalisation table for ‘amount of water used’, the Solent Link ......................................... 196

Table 4.21. Normalisation table for ‘amount of water saved’, the Solent Link ........................................ 196

Table 4.22. Normalisation table for ‘amount of water recycled’, the Solent Link .................................... 197

Table 4.23. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of possible economic crash’, the Solent Link ........... 197

Table 4.24. Normalisation table for ‘vibration’, the Solent Link ............................................................... 198

XVI

Table 4.25. Normalisation table for ‘cost of impact on listed structures’, the Solent Link ...................... 198

Table 4.26. Normalisation table for ‘cost of impact on protected land’, the Solent Link ........................ 199

Table 4.27. Normalisation table for ‘cost of impact on archaeological sites’, the Solent Link ................. 199

Table 4.28. Normalisation table for ‘loss of revenue from parking metres’, the Solent Link ................... 200

Table 4.29. Normalisation table for ‘loss of revenue from parking fines’, the Solent Link ...................... 200

Table 4.30. Normalisation table for ‘loss of revenue from other community facilities’, the Solent Link . 201

Table 4.31. Normalisation table for ‘income generated from community facilities’, the Solent Link ..... 201

Table 4.32. Un-aggregated results table, the Solent Link ......................................................................... 202

List of equations

Equation 1.1. Sustainability factor pair comparison matrix (Yadollahi et al., 2014) .................................... 2

Equation 1.2. Final weighting through normalisation (Yadollahi et al., 2014) ............................................. 2

Equation 1.3. Consistency Ratio (Yadollahi et al., 2014) .............................................................................. 3

Equation 1.4. Consistency Index (Yadollahi et al., 2014) .............................................................................. 3

Equation 2.1. Deck design option weighting normalisation, the Oresund Link .......................................... 61

Equation 2.2. Consistency Ratio (Yadollahi et al., 2014) ............................................................................ 61

Equation 2.3. Consistency Index (Yadollahi et al., 2014) ............................................................................ 61

Equation 2.4. Deck design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Oresund Link ................ 61



Equation 2.7. Deck design option Consistency Index, the Oresund Link .................................................... 62

Equation 2.8. Deck design option Consistency Ratio, the Oresund Link .................................................... 62

Equation 2.9. Cable system design option weighting normalisation, the Oresund Link ............................ 66

Equation 2.10. Cable system design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Oresund Link . 66



Equation 2.13. Cable system design option Consistency Index, the Oresund Link .................................... 67

Equation 2.14. Cable system design option Consistency Ratio, the Oresund Link ..................................... 67

Equation 2.15. Concrete construction design option weighting normalisation, the Oresund Link............ 71

XVII

Equation 2.16. Concrete construction design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the

Oresund Link ............................................................................................................................................... 71


Oresund Link ............................................................................................................................................... 71


Oresund Link ............................................................................................................................................... 71

Equation 2.19. Concrete construction design option Consistency Index, the Oresund Link ...................... 71

Equation 2.20. Concrete construction design option Consistency Ratio, the Oresund Link ...................... 72

Equation 2.21. Tunnel construction design option weighting normalisation, the Oresund Link ............... 75

Equation 2.22. Tunnel construction design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Oresund

Link .............................................................................................................................................................. 76


Link .............................................................................................................................................................. 76


Link .............................................................................................................................................................. 76

Equation 2.25. Tunnel construction design option Consistency Index, the Oresund Link ......................... 76

Equation 2.26. Tunnel construction design option Consistency Ratio, the Oresund Link .......................... 76

Equation 2.27. Centre span design option weighting normalisation, the Oresund Link ............................ 79

Equation 2.28. Centre span design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Oresund Link ... 79



Equation 2.31. Centre span design option Consistency Index, the Oresund Link ...................................... 80

Equation 2.32. Centre span design option Consistency Ratio, the Oresund Link ....................................... 80

Equation 3.1. Crossing type design option weighting normalisation, the Solent Link ............................. 122

Equation 3.2. Consistency Ratio (Yadollahi et al., 2014) .......................................................................... 122

Equation 3.3. Consistency Index (Yadollahi et al., 2014) .......................................................................... 123

Equation 3.4. Crossing type design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Solent Link .... 123



Equation 3.7. Crossing type design option Consistency Index, the Solent Link........................................ 124

Equation 3.8. Crossing type design option Consistency Ratio, the Solent Link ........................................ 124

Equation 3.9. Shipping route maintenance design option weighting normalisation, the Solent Link ..... 127

XVIII

Equation 3.10. Shipping route maintenance design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the

Solent Link ................................................................................................................................................. 127


Solent Link ................................................................................................................................................. 128


Solent Link ................................................................................................................................................. 128

Equation 3.13. Shipping route maintenance design option Consistency Index, the Solent Link.............. 128

Equation 3.14. Shipping route maintenance design option Consistency Ratio, the Solent Link .............. 128

Equation 3.15. Structural design option weighting normalisation, the Solent Link ................................. 131

Equation 3.16. Structural design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Solent Link ........ 131



Equation 3.19. Structural design option Consistency Index, the Solent Link ........................................... 132

Equation 3.20. Structural design option Consistency Ratio, the Solent Link ............................................ 132

Equation 3.21. Solent Link deck volume ................................................................................................... 142

Equation 3.22. Solent Link main span columns volume ........................................................................... 142

Equation 3.23. Solent Link horizontal bracing system volume ................................................................. 142

Equation 3.24. Solent Link main span arch volume .................................................................................. 142

Equation 3.25. Solent Link parapet volume .............................................................................................. 142

Equation 3.26. Solent Link dead load........................................................................................................ 142

Equation 3.27. Solent Link live load .......................................................................................................... 142

Equation 3.28. Solent Link total load ........................................................................................................ 142

Equation 3.29. Buoyancy force equation (tutorvista.com, 2016) ............................................................. 143

Equation 3.30. Solent Link buoyancy force equation ............................................................................... 143

Equation 3.31. Solent Link pontoon depth including a factor of safety ................................................... 143

Equation 3.32. Ship impact force (Gluver, 1998) ...................................................................................... 143

Equation 3.33. Solent Link ship impact force ............................................................................................ 144

Equation 3.34. Solent Link transferred longitudinal ship impact force .................................................... 144

Equation 3.35. Solent Link main span dead load ...................................................................................... 144

Equation 3.36. Solent Link main span live load ........................................................................................ 144

Equation 3.37. Solent Link main span total load ...................................................................................... 144

Equation 3.38. Solent Link main span total load with a factor of safety .................................................. 144

XIX

Equation 3.39. Solent Link main span minimum number of cables ......................................................... 145

Equation 3.40. Bridge change of length due to temperature change ...................................................... 145

Equation 3.41. Solent Link change of length due to temperature change ............................................... 145

Equation 3.42. Solent Link change of length due to temperature change with factor of safety ............. 145

Equation 3.43. Average Road-Noise Impact ............................................................................................. 163

Equation 4.1. Normalised weighting matrix, the Oresund Link ................................................................ 183

List of abbreviations

AHP – Analytical Hierarchy Process

BREEAM – Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology

CBSA – Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment

CEEQUAL – Civil Engineering Environmental Quality

DEFRA – Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment

GDP – Gross Domestic Product

H&S – Health & Safety

HKSAR – Hong Kong Administrative Region

IFCA – Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority

IT – Information Technology

LEED – Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design

MCDM – Multi-Criteria Decision Making

NRBSA – New Road-Bridge Sustainability Assessment

P1B – Penang First Bridge

P2B – Penang Second Bridge

Pre-fab – Prefabrication

XX

RS – Rating System

RSPB – Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

SA – Sustainability Assessment

SPeAR – Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine

SUSAIP – Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects

SWP – Spider Web Plot

XXI

Introduction

“Sustainability assessment models use different methodologies to analyse the environmental, economic

and social aspects of a project to determine its sustainable impact, especially in regards to future

climate change expectations such as global warming and population increase” (Serpell, 2015). Many

well-established sustainability assessment (SA) models are used on a generic basis such as ‘Sustainable

Project Appraisal Routine’ (SPeAR), ‘Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment

Methodology’ (BREEAM), ‘Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design’ (LEED) etc. There are some

examples of SA models which are aimed at more specific areas such as ‘Civil Engineering Environmental

Quality’ (CEEQUAL), which is aimed purely at infrastructure projects. This was the basis behind the

development of the NRBSA model in Serpell’s Sustainability Assessment of Road-Bridges report (2015).

The NRBSA model was created in order to develop a SA model which was aimed purely at road-bridges.

This way, the indicators used would be more consistent throughout different assessments, the

comparison data for normalisation would be easier to find & therefore, the overall sustainability score

should be much more accurate in comparison to a generic assessment model.

The NRBSA model was developed using literature about existing SA models which provided insight into

the working methodology & how to analyse assessment results. A working methodology for the NRBSA

model was established which followed a step-by-step process. This was then tested against three case-

study projects and the results were analysed. From this analysis & the overall report conclusions, several

recommendations for future works were put forward. These included: the need for more indicators to

be assessed, the implementation of an aggregation stage, improved indicator assessment methods, the

need for more comparative data in the normalisation stage & the need for a more statistical/objective

approach to indicator weighting.

Therefore, this report aims to deal with these issues as well as implementing additional improvements.

The literature review in this report looks at the working methods of two different SA models which led

to some new aspects which were integrated in the development of the ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability

Assessment’ model. These aspects include the ‘Analytical Hierarchy Process’ (AHP) & the pairwise

comparison methods being introduced as well as the idea of assessing key design options individually as

well as the overall project.

XXII

Once the new CBSA model was developed, through adaption & improvement of the NRBSA model, it

was been tested on two case-study examples. One example was the highly complex Oresund Link which

has been assessed at the post-construction stage. The last example was the proposed Solent Link

(connecting England to the Isle of Wight) which has been assessed during the design stage.

Finally, the results of these case-study assessments have been analysed & the aspects of the report itself

are discussed. Conclusions & future recommendations have been put forward which focus mainly on the

integration of the CBSA model into real life examples & the establishment of a useable business model.

Page | 1

Chapter 1 – Existing research into sustainability assessment of

complex bridges

As discussed in The Sustainability Assessment of Road-Bridges (Serpell, 2015), there are many different

models for sustainability assessment (SA) of general civil & structural engineering projects but there are

not many catered to bridges. The literature review of Serpell’s report is based around analysing indicator

selection and working methodology of existing SA models in order to develop a new model aimed at

assessing road-bridges specifically. This chapter aims to review previously conducted SA examples of

large/complex bridges (not limited to road-bridges). This will aid in the improvement and adaption of

The New Road-Bridge Sustainability Assessment Model (NRBSA) which will then be used to assess

complex bridge case-studies.

1.1. – Review of Penang Second Bridge sustainability assessment using

Analytical Hierarchy Process

An article published by Yadollahi et al. (2014) describes the ideology and working methodology of a

multi-criteria analysis method known as The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The method is used to

assess the sustainability of the Penang Second Bridge, Malaysia. Yadollahi et al. compare the AHP

method to 4 other SA models in order to determine any relation between overall scores and scores of

specific indicators. Two of the additional models are aimed at transportation infrastructure whilst the

other two are proposed specifically at bridge projects. The article also entails conclusions and

recommendations for future works.

1.1.1. – Analytical Hierarchy Process methodology

‘The general procedure of multi-criteria decision analysis refers to a set of potential alternatives, a set of

objectives or criteria, a number of decision-makers, a preference structure or weights, and a set of

performance evaluations of alternatives for each objective’ (Yadollahi et al., 2014). Yadollahi et al.

modified this procedure to a 4 step system:

Page | 2

1. Determine the normalised weighting for each indicator.

2. Determine score values for each indicator.

3. Calculate normalised scores for each indicator by multiplying the weighting from Step 1 with the

score from Step 2.

4. Calculate the overall score for the bridge by summing the normalised score values.

The AHP & Direct Rating methods are used to determine the weighting and un-normalised score values

respectively.

The AHP method, developed by Saaty (1980), is used to compare the importance of different indicators

to the overall sustainability of the bridge. This is done through matrix generation as shown in Equation

1.1.

Equation 1.1. Sustainability factor pair comparison matrix (Yadollahi et al., 2014)

𝐷 = [

𝑤11 … 𝑤1𝑛

⋮ 𝑤𝑖𝑗 ⋮𝑤𝑛1 … 𝑤𝑛𝑛

]

n is the number of indicators and therefore, the number of indicator comparisons is [n(n-1)]/2. For

Equation 1, the value in the ith row and the jth column represents the importance of factor i in

comparison to factor j, shown as wij=wi/wj. wi and wj are weighted values determined by project

decision-makers. Fundamental weighting values are shown in Table 1.1.

The final weighting is determined through normalisation, shown in Equation 1.2. (Yadollahi et al., 2014).

Equation 1.2. Final weighting through normalisation (Yadollahi et al., 2014)

𝑤𝑖 =1

𝑛∑

𝑤𝑖𝑗

(∑ 𝑤𝑖𝑗𝑛𝑖 )

𝑛

𝑗=1

; 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑖, 𝑗 = 1,2,…

Table 1.1. Fundamental scales for pairwise comparison (Yadollahi et al., 2014)

Page | 3

The eigenvector is calculated by dividing the weighting vector (W) by the consistency vector (V), where

V=A*W. The eigenvalue (λmax) is obtained by taking the average of all the values within the eigenvector

(Yadollahi et al., 2014).

“The results of the pairwise comparisons should be checked for consistency using the indices

consistency index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR)” (Saaty, 1980). The equation for CR is shown in

Equation 1.3.

Equation 1.3. Consistency Ratio (Yadollahi et al., 2014)

𝐶𝑅 =𝐶𝐼

𝑅𝐼

The value for CI (which is required to calculate CR) is determined using Equation 1.4.

Equation 1.4. Consistency Index (Yadollahi et al., 2014)

𝐶𝐼 =𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑚

𝑚 − 1

m is the number of elements in the matrix row and RI is the random index values, determined from

Table 1.2. “CRs greater than 0.1 shows the inconsistency in the respondent’s judgements occurs and the

results may not be reliable enough” (Saaty, 2008).

Yadollahi et al. (2014) also mention the determination of the weighting values for indicator comparison

using a survey for selected experts. For the Penang Bridge project, 35 Malaysian bridge engineering

professionals assigned weightings using the five-point Linkert Scale.

In addition, Yadollahi et al. (2014) suggest a direct weighting stage to determine the indicator score.

Again, this is done by decision makers and generally scored on a scale ranging from 1-10. “Sustainability

scores for the bridge project can be determined based on visual screening, field observation and tests, a

bridge inventory database or, in some cases, further detailed investigation” (Yadollahi et al., 2014). The

score level range is shown in Table 1.3.

Table 1.2. Random Index Values (Zhange & Zou, 2007)

Page | 4

The AHP is completed using some assumptions. “It is assumed that the SFs are mutually independent,

but comparable to the elements of the same level. The effectiveness and validity of the methods

depend on how to categorise the sustainability goals and the relationship/nature of the SF at the same

level. In addition, the matrix in the AHP should be all in the same mathematical form and scale”

(Yahollahi et al. 2014).

1.1.2. – Penang Second Bridge Assessment

The Penang Second Bridge (P2B) connects Batu Kawan, on mainland Malaysia, with Batu Maung on

Penang Island. The bridge is part of a larger socio-economic development plan to Malaysia’s northern

corridor economic region. The First Penang Bridge (P1B) and ferry system could not meet increased

traffic requirements and therefore, the P2B was deemed necessary to avoid congestion (Yadollahi et al.,

2014).

The bridge is a 24 km (16.9 km of which covers water) cable-stayed bridge with a beam and slab deck.

Included, is a 450 m x 150 m x 30 m ship navigation channel surrounded by a steel fender buffer system

with a ship impact of 12.5 km/hr (Yadollahi et al., 2014). The bridge location is shown in Figure 1.1.

Table 1.3. Direct indicator score levels (Yadollahi et al., 2014)

Page | 5

An image of the bridge is shown in Figure 1.2.

Figure 1.1. Penang Second Bridge location (Yadollahi et al., 2014).

Figure 1.2. Penang Second Bridge (Datajembatan, 2015)

Page | 6

Data and relevant information about the bridge for assessment was acquired from reports published by

the Malaysia Jambatan Kedua Sdn Bhd (JKSB, 2013) whilst the rest was obtained via informal discussions

or interviews with the project professionals (Yadollahi et al., 2014). 13 indicators were chosen to assess

the bridge which are shown in Table 1.4. along with the sustainability considerations affiliated which

each indicator.

Page | 7

Table 1.4. Sustainability factors, Analytical Hierarchy Process of Penang Second Bridge (Yadollahi et al., 2014)

Page | 8

The above indicators (Sustainability Factors) were all assessed using AHP. The direct weighting method

was implemented and determined over semi-structured interviews with 15 Malaysian academics and 20

bridge practitioners who had key involvement in sustainable development planning (Yadollahi et al.,

2014). The results are shown in Table 5. Also shown in Table 1.5. is a notation of which of the four other

sustainable assessment models or Rating Systems (RS) considered which indicators.

Table 1.5. Direct weighting, Penang Second Bridge (Yadollahi et al., 2014)

Page | 9

Analysis of the direct scoring shows that most indicators are seen as relatively import. However, there

are a couple on the less important scale such as Custom Credits (5.1) and Pavement Technologies (6.4).

These are just below the reasonably important Equity and Social Issues (7.3) and Sustainable Site (7.5).

The weights of these criteria were determined using pairwise comparison through informal discussions

or interviews with experts including: engineers, contractors, consultants and employer parties (Yadollahi

et al., 2014). Table 1.6. shows the results of the comparison between different credit points and the AHP

for the P2B

The results show that the P2B achieves the highest sustainability score from RS-II with 9.3339, while the

lowest score is achieved from RS-IV, at 7.8617. It is also clear that there are some differences between

weightings for each RS.

Consistency has been checked and the CIs and CRs for each of the other RSs are shown in Table 1.7.

Table 1.6. Pairwise comparison, Penang Second Bridge (Yadollahi et al., 2014)

Page | 10

From Table 1.7., it can be said that, although it is close, no RS has a consistency ratio over 0.1 and

therefore, they can all be viewed as delivering reliable results.

A comparison between the overall scores of the RSs and the AHP method using the same indicators as

the RSs is graphically represented in Figure 1.3.

It is shown that the P2B received its lowest score from using RS-IVs indicators for both methods. In

addition, although there are differences in the weighting values between RSs, there is little difference in

the final scores.

A comparison between the percentage weightings of individual indicators within each assessment

model is shown in Figure 1.4.

Table 1.7. Consistency indices and ratios, Penang Second Bridge (Yadollahi et al., 2014) 2014)

Figure 1.3. P2B assessment final score comparisons (Yadollahi et al., 2014)

Page | 11

The Environment & Water factor is the most important factor in both AHP and RS-I with 34.28% and

23.08%, respectively. In addition, while Energy and Maintenance & Access in RS-I have greater weights

in AHP systems, Project Delivery Process, Construction Activity, Material & Resources and Alternative

Transportation have greater weights in the AHP. Similarly, Traffic Efficiency & Alternative Transportation

is the key factor in both AHP and RS-II by 52.38% and 36%. Comparing RS-II and the AHP system in

Malaysia, it can be seen that only Material & Resources and Sustainable Site achieve remarkably more

weights in RS-II than AHP. On the other hand, weights of Energy & Atmosphere in RS-III with 37.81% are

more than other factors. Innovation is also considered as a main factor in the AHP system with 40.5%

and is dramatically greater than RS-III with 1.45%. Moreover, Access & Equity and Construction Activity

with 33.57% have the same weights in RS-IV. Besides, Traffic Efficiency & Alternative Transportation,

Innovation, Environment & Water, Access & Equity and Construction Activity are critical factors in the

AHP system in Malaysia (Yadollahi et al., 2014).

In general, the bridge life cycle can be divided into four main lifespan phases: design, construction,

maintenance and demolition. Most of the indicators focus on the design stage, where Traffic Efficiency

& Alternative Transportation remains the most important factor for the bridge sustainability. Next,

Innovation is given the highest indicator score for the construction stage, for example, the use of SBG

and IBS, and for its construction method. In the maintenance stage, the design of minimal maintenance

Figure 1.4. P2B assessment indicator score comparisons (Yadollahi et al., 2014)

Page | 12

and the use of a Health Monitoring System are rated ‘very important’ based on Maintenance & Access.

Then, Environment & Atmosphere shall be the main factor for the demolition stage as to its impacts to

the environment, which is rated ‘very important’ according to its indicator score. Overall, the indicator,

Traffic Efficiency & Alternative Transportation, is viewed as the most important for Malaysia (Yadollahi

et al., 2014).

1.1.3. – Critical analysis of Analytical Hierarchy Process assessment of the Penang Second Bridge

Critical analysis of the AHP reveals its strengths and weaknesses as well as areas where more

information or research is needed. As well as analysing the method itself, the assessment the P2B is also

reviewed to determine whether the bridge is ‘sustainable’.

Yadollahi et al. (2014) compared the results of the AHP of the P2B with the following 4 other assessment

models: Green Bridge Design Standard (Snelling, 2010), Rating System for Sustainable Bridges (Hunt,

2005), Green Leadership In Transportation and Environmental Sustainability (GreenLITES, 2010) and

Greenroads (Muench et al., 2011). The first two models are aimed specifically at bridges whereas, the

other two are aimed at transportation in general. As the results for each of the models were fairly

similar overall, it shows good comparability of the AHP which means it is reliable.

AHP uses multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) as part of the method. This means that not only are the

first-choice design criteria assessed but so are alternative options. Every option for a specific indicator

are compared and a ‘best-choice’ is suggested using the given design objectives and areas of

importance. This helps in the design and planning process in order to optimise results.

The AHP is aimed at assessing the entire life-cycle of a bridge and so, a true result of how much the

project affects the environment/economy/society. This means, that the bridge sustainability can be

adapted and improved over its life-span.

The AHP is sub-divided into 4 fairly simple stages which allows for ease in completing the procedure as

well as being teachable to different contractors/consultants. This may save money as companies would

not need to hire professional to carry out the process.

Weightings are determined for different indicators depending on how important the decision-makers of

the project believe them to be. However, this is not done entirely subjectively as this would affect the

comparability of the model. Instead, the weighting for different sub-indicators and assessed using

pairwise comparison of matrices. This provides a scientific and reliable method, however, it would be

Page | 13

time consuming depending on the number of sub-indicators to compare. The more accurate an

assessment wants to be, the more indicators/sub-indicators it should analyse and therefore, more

time/money is needed.

The following quote is taken from Yadollahi et al.’s (2014) article, considering the calculation of

weightings. “The eigenvector is obtained by dividing the weight vector (W) with the consistency vector

(V) where V is given by A*W” (Sharma, Al-Hussein, Safouhi, & Bouferguene, 2008). However, the value

or meaning of A is not given in the article and therefore, further research is needed. In addition, the

article proposes that all SFs are compared. This would mean that two SFs which do not really have much

in common would be compared, wasting time and money. However, it does mean that every indicator &

its overall significance to sustainability is considered & provides a reliable score.

The application of the consistency indices/ratio is a useful way to check if the assessment will give

reliable results before too much progress.

Yadollahi et al.’s (2014) article mentions how, for the P2B assessment, weighting for each SF were

determined using questionnaire results. In which, 35 Malaysian bridge engineering professionals were

asked to rate the importance of the different SFs on a 5-point Linkert scale. This is not consistent with

the method previously mentioned in which weightings were determined using pairwise comparison and

a nine-point rating system. It is not mentioned why this happened and so the results of the pairwise

comparison cannot be assessed. Therefore, it cannot be said whether it is a good method or not.

The assumptions of the AHP are mostly understandable and relatable to any project. However, the

assumption that the categorisation of the sustainability goals and the indicator relationships are at the

same level can cause some difficulty. Some indicators, mostly social ones, are given as qualitative data

and therefore, it is difficult to convert them to quantitative data in a valid way. This is true for converting

data the other way.

The direct rating method to determine indicator scores is done so subjectively but with detailed

information at hand so that and educated decision is made. Information can come from visual screening,

field observation and tests, a bridge inventory database or, in some cases, further detailed investigation.

Therefore, if there is enough information at hand, valid results can be determined. However, some of

this information takes time and money to collect.

Page | 14

According to the case-study brief, the P2B was built to deal with increased traffic in the area in relation

to the local economic boom. Therefore, it can be assumed (as it is not directly mentioned in the article)

that the main objective that the AHP would deem important is based around traffic congestion.

The data used in the AHP assessment was collected from official publications and professional directly

involved with the project so it can be said that it is reliable.

Although, only 13 indicators were assessed in the process, there are many sub-indicators under each

heading as shown in Table 4. This means that a good number of comparisons were made which provides

a good base for decision-makers to make their design choices. In addition, the SFs cover the main

sustainability issues over the life span of a bridge and so, provides the view as a whole.

Through the study, several new technologies were compared and discovered to be beneficial such as:

high damping rubber bearing, industrialised building system, precast segmental box girders, concurrent

engineering approach, multi-lane free flow traffic system. These were also compliant with the

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Yadollahi et al. 2014).

According to the pairwise comparison of the relative weights and RSs, the SF of Traffic Efficiency &

Alternative Transportation serves as the most important mechanism in achieving sustainability in the

local environment, which was expected. On the other hand, Equity & Social Issues, Payment

Technologies and Custom Credits were categorised as the least important factors among the 12 SFs.

Most of the attributes of these factors can be grouped under the construction phase (Yadollahi et al.

2014).

“More effort and attention are required on the site management and safety precautions so as to

address the recent reported incident of the collapse of a ramp that was constructed by the local

contractors. It is necessary to develop a comprehensive or collaborative policy that caters to effective

safety and site management for both foreign and local contractors. Furthermore, some deficits have

been observed and require further attention, such as the lack of an emergency line for the traffic system

and an energy saving lighting system. In the future, these deficits need to be overcome at the design

stage” (Yadollahi et al., 2014).

Overall, the environmental effects of the P2B were very positive. This was achieved through imposing

high environmental standards, continuous monitoring as well as the use of less embodied energy by

using high reinforcement/concrete ratios. Moreover, fish activity around the bridges pillars was

Page | 15

increased and negative impacts were negligible. From the social perspective, total stakeholder

engagement was accounted for as well as occupational and public road safety during the construction

stage. Local materials and construction employment were utilised in additional to vocational training.

This improved the P2Bs economic stance (Yadollahi et al. 2014).

Yadollahi et al. (2014) did mention some of AHPs limitations. For example, the model can and is used to

assess the bridges life-cycle, however, this means that the designers must have to promise to use the

results appropriately if the product is to be related to the model’s results. Unless, there is some form of

legally binding notion that the contractors/consultants will build the bridge as suggested by the AHP,

there is no say that they will. It is actually likely that they will not, as the model’s suggestions will

probably be expensive for the companies in the short run (even if they do work out cheaper for the local

economy in the future) and so they will not want to spend extra money if they do not have to.

As mentioned before, the weighting method is partially subjective. However, to achieve a generally

accepted result, further studies are required to produce appropriate indicators, to calibrate their

pertinent weights through discussion by local scholars from related regions and to develop more ranking

approaches. It is also recommended that the judgements of the various members of the decision-

making committee be weighed with respect to their level of skill and expertise in terms of certain

evaluation criteria. These weights can be proposed by the top management of transportation authority’s

or other primary decision-makers (Yadollahi et al. 2014).

In answering the question of how many indicators to assess, the report suggests “sustainability

assessment can be expanded in the future to include other criteria when applicable. Obviously, funding

is the key issue for future study; herein, cost models can be developed for each SF and connected to the

analysis to conduct a complete LCC analysis for each factor” (Yadollahi et al., 2014).

The method can be generalised for other countries, types of bridges or certain infrastructure projects,

which makes for a good assessment model.

“The analysis includes both qualitative and quantitative aspects to contribute to the bridge’s

sustainability score. However, as also recommended by Campbell (2009), some considerations should be

taken into account such as improving the refinement of the SF’s and point assignment, applying more

explicit guidelines for allocating points to standardise the system, applying a sensitivity analysis to test

the robustness of results under different scenarios, using different assumptions for various factors and

investigating to understand the interrelationships between SFs” (Yadollahi et al. 2014).

Page | 16

1.2. – Review of Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects assessment of

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region bridge foundations

Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects (SUSAIP) is another SA model developed for

infrastructure projects. Its working methodology is similar to models previously mentioned with some

minor differences. Ugwu et al. (2006) delivered a report of a project example of the assessment process

for bridge foundations. The project example is for a bridge in the Hong Kong Special Administrative

Region (HKSAR) however, the details of the region is not covered in great detail in Ugwu et al.’s report as

it focuses purely on the design of the bridge foundations alone.

1.2.1. – Project description for the Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects assessment of the

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Bridge foundations

The 5km HKSAR bridge was planned to relieve existing traffic congestion in the increasingly developing

region and was estimated a total project cost of over US$500 million. The segment of the bridge which is

considered in the assessment is around 3km with a cost of around US$300 million. The separately

packaged specialist works and state-of-the-art traffic management systems are not considered. “The

contract duration is less than 30 months, with an even less actual construction time. The project is also

driven by strong environmental considerations, being located along several environmentally sensitive

receivers aggregated along various dimensions such as noise, ecosystems, culture, etc” (Ugwu et al.,

2006). An animated image of the proposed bridge is shown in Figure 1.5.

Figure 1.5. Proposed HKSAR bridge (macaumagazine.net, 2015)

Page | 17

Preliminary cost analysis indicated that the total cost of the deck structure was around 40% of the total

cost of the bridge. The design/construction of the deck was majorly influenced by the design of the pile

foundations in varying depths of water and it was also estimated that the total cost of the piles

contributed to around 30% of the deck’s total cost. It was decided to use the bridge pile design for

detailed sustainability appraisal because of the significant quantities involved, and the cumulative

impact on the overall infrastructure sustainability (Ugwu et al., 2006).

A control pile design of a 4-pile, square base arrangement is compared to the variable pile design of a 3-

pile, triangular base arrangement. The former is a conventional option for bridge design as opposed to

the less commonly used 3-pile arrangement. Figure 1.6. shows the cross-sectional and 3D perspectives

for each option. The same engineer assessed both options to ensure consistency in results (Ugwu et al.,

2006).

Figure 1.6. HKSAR pile arrangement options (Ugwu et al., 2006)

Page | 18

1.2.2. – Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects assessment of the Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region Bridge foundations

SUSAIP uses a nine step process for full assessment and appraisal which is detailed below. Information

of the steps was acquired from Ugwu et al.’s report (2006).

Step 1 – Scenario background

Key project data and information is gathered such as: cost, dimensional details, drawings, client,

location, stakeholders, time and duration for each stage, as well as appropriate constraints.

Step 2 – Design infrastructure scheme

Developing various design options for comparison & appraisal. This is done in detail by the designer so

not to waste time on assessing insufficient design options.

Step 3 – Engineering analysis sheet

The purpose of an engineering analysis sheet is to make the assessment comparison as easy as possible

in order to reduce mistakes. The relevant information is gathered from Step 2 and formatted into the

analysis sheet for each design option. Therefore, highlighting areas of importance which should be

considered.

Step 4 – Indicator selection

Appropriate sustainability indicators are selected for the appraisal process.

Step 5 – Indicator scoring

Local analysis, reasonable judgement and sometimes subjective judgement is used to assign scorings to

each indicator in regards to how well the project performed (sustainably) in that area. The engineer can

delegate the scoring of certain areas to the appropriate experts if need be.

Step 6 – Indicator weighting

Each indicator is assigned a weighting relating to its relative significance to the overall sustainability of

the project. This is done using both local and general information.

Page | 19

Step 7 – Compute sustainability index

An index table is used to compute the final scores of the design options for each indicator and overall.

Step 8 – Display results

Results of the appraisal are displayed in an attractive, simplistic manner which can be used in presenting

results to relevant stakeholders. Examples of this include a ROSE diagram plot.

Step 9 – Simulation analysis

If necessary, a sensitivity analysis of each indicator is performed to check its actual significance to

sustainability.

The steps which require further detailing for the HKSAR bridge project are given in the remainder of this

sub-chapter.

The indicators and their respective sub-indicators are organised into which stage of the foundation’s life-

cycle they have most impact in regards to sustainability goals. This allows the project team to give

adequate consideration to indicator appraisal at appropriate phases (Ugwu et al., 2006). The

organisational breakdown is shown in Table 1.8.

Page | 20

Table 1.8. SUSAIP indicator phase organisation (Ugwu et al., 2006)

Page | 21

There are a variety of different sustainability appraisal methods which can be used in the scoring

process. Different methods work better for different indicators. These methods are detailed below.

Information of the methods was acquired from Ugwu et al.’s report (2006).

Method A – Credit-based scoring system

Used for indicators which are difficult to quantify such as visual impact, H&S etc.

Method B – Scaled scoring

Suitable for indicators with upper and lower boundary limits set by legislation, guidelines, quality

objectives etc. Values assigned proportionally based on designer’s judgement.

Method C – Benchmark comparison

Suitable for indicators which are not related to statutory guidelines for sustainability performance such

as direct cost and land acquisition. Percentage of performance improvement is compared for two or

more options.

Method D – Flow chart credit system

Similar to a credit-based scoring system but a flow chart is used. An example is shown in Figure 1.7.

Figure 1.7. Flow chart credit system example (Ugwu et al., 2006)

Page | 22

Method E – Subjective marking

Scores are purely based on assessor’s own judgement.

Each indicator is assigned an appropriate sustainability assessment method used to score the

performance. Table 1.9. shows part of the quantitative process for appraisal of the HKSAR foundation

assessment.

Page | 23

Tab

le 1

.9. S

USA

IP a

pp

rais

al p

roce

ss s

egm

ent

(Ug

wu

et

al.,

20

06)

Page | 24

1.2.3. – Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects data analysis and discussion for the Hong

Kong Special Administrative Region Bridge foundation project

A graphical display of the project example’s results is provided in Figure 1.8.

A breakdown of the score index is given in Table 1.10.

From reviewing the graphical display, it is clearly shown that the 3-pile arrangement scores higher than

the more commonly used 4-pile arrangement. Both options have a similar distribution of scoring in

regards to sustainability goals, but Option B proved to perform slightly better. Both options scored

extremely high in the environmental aspect but scored between 40 and 60 in all other aspects except for

project administration.

Figure 1.8. SUSAIP graphical representation of HKSAR bridge pile results (Ugwu et al., 2006)

Table 1.10. SUSAIP score index for HKSAR bridge pile results (Ugwu et al., 2006)

Page | 25

To compare the options in further detail, the score index table is reviewed. From the percentage

improvement column, it is shown that Option B out-performed Option A on most aspects which list as:

economy, environment and H&S. Each option tied scores for societal aspects and project administration

and finally, Option A out-performed Option B in regards to resource utilisation. Although, resource

utilisation is important for sustainable performance, the ‘3 pillars’ of economy, environment and society

are the basis behind sustainability. As these aspects were all either better or equal for Option B, then

that is more likely to be the overall better performer. The largest difference between each option was in

the economic aspect at an improvement percentage of 31.25%. This is most likely due to the reduction

in material usage which will save overall expenditure.

This review is aided by Ugwu et al.’s (2006) analysis of their own work. This analysis showed that there

was a 25% reduction in initial construction cost for Option B. Also, Option B had great environmental

benefits due to the reduction in excavation and therefore waste-management.

In reality, the contractors used Option A but that was only because the SUSAIP assessment was done

after construction had commenced. Normally, this would not be the case and the appraisal would be

done during the design stage, however, Ugwu et al.’s (2006) report was only used as an example to see

if it worked.

1.2.4. – Critical analysis of the Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects assessment process

In general, SUSAIP has a good structure for assessing a project’s sustainability. It’s nine step programme

is well described and easy to follow. It follows a similar structure to many other models in that its main

processes include indicator selection, scoring, weighting and aggregating.

One criticism could be the use of different sustainability appraisal methods based on the type of

indicator. Although, the flexibility ensures perhaps more accuracy in the scoring stage, it shows

inconsistency which can reduce the reliability of the assessment. Realistically, one single method should

be used throughout. This may cause difficulty with some indicators but it is not impossible. Usually the

method used is a credit-based scoring system.

Secondly, the HKSAR bridge example only assessed a segment of the entire project. Therefore, the

results do not represent the bridge but just the choice in foundations. Admittedly, this was the aim of

Ugwu et al.’s (2006) report, however, it does not represent the possible difficulties in assessing more

intricate segments of the bridge such as reinforcement.

Page | 26

Unfortunately, the results of the assessment were not utilised as it was done after construction had

started. As said by Ugwu et al. (2006) though, SUSAIP should be performed during the entire design

stage and possibly even the planning stage in order to reap the full reward. SUSAIP could also potentially

be used throughout the entire life-cycle as to maintain sustainable decision making. For example, it

could be used to determine the more sustainable option of two or more construction methods.

The use of a Spider Web plot for the graphical representation of the results could be improved. It shows

what general area of sustainability the option performed best and it has the added bonus that both

results can be shown on one graph which improves comparability. However, it does not show whether

results are sustainable or not. They merely show a number. A ROSE plot would show this and show

results of all indicators (as long as there are not too many). Although, both sets of results cannot be

shown in one plot.

1.3. – Critical analysis of the Oresund Bridge linking Sweden & Denmark

C.J. Shrubshall (2000) wrote a short report, giving a fairly basic critical analysis of the Oresund Bridge

which links Sweden & Denmark. The analysis covers the following topics: planning, aesthetics,

construction, durability, structural design and the future of the bridge. The whole crossing itself is a

bridge/tunnel combination, however, Shrubhall’s analysis only focuses on the bridge section. The

Oresund Bridge is shown in Figure 1.9.

Figure 1.9. The Oresund Bridge (denmarktour.org, 2016)

Page | 27

1.3.1. – Planning & reasons for constructing the Oresund Bridge

Plans to link the Oresund region have been around for centuries. However, until the decision was made

to build one, conflicting arguments had always halted the procedure. In the 19th Century, plans were

opposed by nationalist from both Sweden & Denmark and in the later years, fears of the environmental

impact to sea-life stopped the plans from coming to fruition. The go-ahead was finally given once,

technology had reached a point where sustaining the environment throughout the crossings life could

be achieved (Shrubshall, 2000).

The governments from both countries believed that the crossing would increase cultural, educational

and economic links. Not only would business thrive but due to the regions expertise in Information

Technology (IT) and Biomedicine, the region could become one of Europe’s leading ‘knowledge centres’.

In addition, the employment rate in Malmo (Sweden) is less than that in Copenhagen (Denmark) but the

housing is cheaper in Malmo. The crossing would allow more people to live in Malmo for cheaper whilst

also increasing the Swedish economy and still have a suitable commute to work in Copenhagen

(Shrubshall, 2000).

1.3.2. – Aesthetics of the Oresund Bridge

Analysis of aesthetics is always subjective. However, Fritz Leonhardt’s ’10 rules of aesthetics’ can

provide some form of structure when making an opinion. The 10 rules cover the following areas:

fulfilment of function, proportions, order, refinement, integration into the environment, surface texture,

colour, character, complexity and incorporation of nature.

For fulfilment of function, “the use of a cable-stayed bridge allows the structure and load paths to be

seen clearly. The symmetry of the cables about the piers gives a sense of balance seen in most cable-

stayed bridges. However, the combination of the cables and trussed deck could be seen as a confusion

of structural elements. As the approach bridges consist of trusses of the same depth it looks slightly

strange to suddenly have cables supporting the truss. The truss and cables are of course required on the

main span as it maintains the continuity of the deck from the approach bridges” (Shrubshall, 2000).

Proportionally the bridge is sound, although it is of Shrubhall’s opinion, that cable-stayed bridges look

better with thinner decks and larger piers. The Oresund Bridge is the opposite of this but this is due to

the decision to have the railway run beneath the road (Shrubshall, 2000). An image of the thick truss

deck is shown in Figure 1.10. (Shrubshall, 2000).

Page | 28

Order is affected by sections of bridge which do not quite look well combined or interlocked. The truss

deck of the Oresund Bridge creates lines and edges which could have conflicted with the flow of the

road deck, but instead it is in good order due to the consistency in the truss length and depth along the

main span and approaching spans. The pylons thin out towards the top and are not joined to each other

which maintains a certain flow. Shrubshall’s only criticism of the Oresund Bridge’s order is that the

pylons would have looked better as a single line rather than pairs. An example of this kind of

arrangement is the Millau Viaduct, shown in Figure 1.11. (Shrubshall, 2000).

Figure 1.10. The Oresund Bridge Truss Deck (dezeen.com, 2015)

Figure 1.11. Millau Viaduct (youtube.com, 2015)

Page | 29

The tapered pylons of the Oresund Bridge also shows good refinement in regards to aesthetics. It is

more aesthetically pleasing to taper a section out rather than just stop dead. A criticism of the

refinement of the Oresund Bridge is that the approach spans are not at the same level as the main span

whereas, a constant level of the entire bridge would look better (Shrubshall, 2000). This change in level

is shown in Figure 1.12.

From a plan view of the Oresund Bridge, it can be seen that it has a curve which seems to integrate well

with the sea environment, shown in Figure 1.13. It looks better than if the crossing were a straight line

(Shrubshall, 2000).

Figure 1.12. The Oresund Bridge Level Change (wikipedia.org The Bridge, 2016)

Figure 1.13. The Oresund Bridge Plan View (ferrycrossings.org.uk 2016)

Page | 30

The surface texture of the Oresund Bridge was most-likely overlooked due to the fact that there are no

pedestrian lanes and therefore, no one would be able to appreciate it (Shrubshall, 2000).

Different components of bridges are often given different colours in order to show some segregation

and outline each component. The Oresund Bridge does not have an outlandish colour scheme, however

its truss section and cables are black in comparison to the concrete grey of the other components. In

addition, “George Rothne, the designer of the Oresund Bridge was keen to use black for the truss as it

gives a variety of different colours in different lights” (Shrubshall, 2000).

Unfortunately, the Oresund Bridge seems to lack a certain character and does not have any flamboyant

qualities. It could be argued that the character of the bridge comes from the unusual way in which it was

constructed, like a lego set. Although, this cannot be seen unless you know how it was built (Shrubshall,

2000).

Similarly, the bridges complexity isn’t obvious. The complexity really comes from the interaction of the

truss deck and the cable-stays which both provide structural qualities and are built to complement each

other (Shrubshall, 2000).

Finally, the Oresund Bridge does not really incorporate nature in its design. There is no plant-life or

urban greenery. The only way the bridge may incorporate nature is in the same way it incorporates the

environment in its curved plan view (Shrubshall, 2000).

Overall, the Oresund Bridge does not ‘catch the eye’ in a sense compared to other bridges such as the

Alamillo Bridge in Seville, shown in Figure 1.14. Nevertheless, it does conform to most of the ’10 rules’

which make a bridge ‘beautiful’. The Oresund Bridge is more about practicality than aesthetics

(Shrubshall, 2000).

Page | 31

1.3.3. – Construction of the Oresund Bridge

The majority of the Oresund Bridge was constructed using prefabricated units. The only section of the

bridge that was in-situ was the main piers. Pre-fab (prefabrication) on this scale is not common but it did

have multiple advantages (Shrubshall, 2000).

The tendering of concrete contractors for in-situ castings on such a large scale and out at sea can prove

extremely difficult. Therefore, the more pre-fab units, the easier it is to tender contractors which will

save time, money and most probably ensure quality. Pre-fab also reduces the risk of contaminating the

water in comparison to in-situ. In addition, the amount of time disrupting maritime traffic was reduced

due to the pre-fab method (Shrubshall, 2000).

A major disadvantage for the pre-fab method was the requirement of specialist equipment. A heavy-

lifting sea-going crane (called Svanen, shown in Figure 1.15.) was required to manoeuvre the units which

was extremely costly, especially for the duration that it was needed. The manoeuvring procedure itself

was a H&S (Health & Safety) risk and was restricted by the weather. Also, it was an added risk due to its

rarity as any major breakdown could have taken a long time to fix. On another note, the caissons were

still too heavy for the crane and had to be towed and sunk into place (Shrubshall, 2000).

Figure 1.14. Alamillo Bridge (wikipedia.org Puente del Alamillo, 2016)

Page | 32

“The main span of the bridge was constructed in four sections, supported on temporary piers, almost

like a propped cantilever” (Shrubshall, 2000). Temporary support piers are generally unappealing as they

are particularly expensive and time consuming to build considering they are redundant once the bridge

has been built. However, as the main span on the bridge is in shallow water and the seabed is made-up

of sufficiently strong material, the temporary piers/foundations did not require much reinforcement and

therefore, were cheaper than normal. Once the unit was laid on top of the supports, the cables were

attached, taking the load and allowing the temporary supports to be moved to the next section

(Shrubshall, 2000).

The trusses on the Oresund Bridge were welded in-situ which is also generally unappealing as it is

usually expensive, time-consuming and can lack quality. This is especially the case in sea conditions.

Nonetheless, it was imperative to the design. The conditions were improved for welding with the use of

temporary welding cabins which sheltered the workers from the elements and created a ‘workshop

environment’, ensuring maximum efficiency (Shrubshall, 2000).

Figure 1.15. Svanen placing a Truss Unit on the Oresund Bridge (roadtraffic-technology.com, 2016)

Page | 33

The bridge bearings were procured so that they could allow movement between the deck and piers,

carry vertical loads up to 90,000kN and between the pair of bearings on each pier, carry a horizontal

force of 40,000kN (ship collision) (Shrubshall, 2000).

As part of any critical analysis, Shrubshall considered the construction alternatives. The main alternative

for the Oresund Bridge would be to have the road and rail transport on the same level. This obviously

would have changed the construction methods which would have its own advantages and

disadvantages. For one, the dead load of the deck would have been a lot lighter as it would consist of

one concrete level, which would prove cheaper and easier in pre-tensioning the cables. However,

without the truss deck level, the concrete deck would have to be a lot stiffer in order to comply with

railway deflection standards. Also, the truss partly supported the deck itself and so without it, the pylons

would probably have to be larger (stronger). On the other hand, without the truss deck, the wind load

(which for a sea crossing is substantial) would be reduced but the horizontal bearing capacity of the

piers would still have to be large enough to withstand a ship collision, so this would probably not change

too much (Shrubshall, 2000).

In conclusion, more work is needed in comparing construction alternatives in regards to gathering data

and reviewing options. Although, it can still be said that because construction was within budget and on

schedule, arguing the case would only show if construction would be even more efficient.

1.3.4. – Durability of the Oresund Bridge

Like many recent bridge builds, the Oresund Bridge is designed for a 100 year life-cycle. During this time

the economic benefits of the bridge should be significant. As well as the indirect economic improvement

to both cities, the bridge has had a toll station introduced which aims to directly ‘pay for itself’ within 30

years (Shrubshall, 2000).

Corrosion is a huge element for any maritime structure. The most susceptible component of the bridge

to corrosion are the truss girders. Which, along with the rest of the steel members, have been covered

with a widely used protective coating, at an optimised thickness. Moreover, the designers introduced

free run-off around nodes and ‘water traps’ which would reduce water retention. The bearings were

also procured to withstand aggressive sea conditions with a life-cycle of 30 years (Shrubshall, 2000).

Apart from changing the bearings, the main maintenance job for the bridge is to replace the cables. As

the Oresund Bridge is a cable-stayed bridge, this process is made a lot easier and less disruptive than

Page | 34

replacing the cables on a suspension bridge. The bridge is designed so that it is still serviceable when

one cable is removed. Therefore, each cable is replaced one at a time (Shrubshall, 2000).

As mentioned previously, the Oresund Bridge has been designed to withstand the force of a ship

collision. The approach deck piers are leaf piers which are much more resistant to perpendicular force

than two square piers. The bridge is designed for a worst case scenario of one whole pier being

destroyed. In which case, the welding of the truss deck over the pier would hold and act as a continuous

beam. The two main piers are not leaf piers but do have a larger compressive force acting on them from

the pylons which in turn, would increase their moment capacity. The difference in these pier types can

be seen in Figure 1.16. Artificial islands have also been constructed around the main piers which aim to

slow down any converging ship before impact (Shrubshall, 2000).

The designers have not actively protected the bridge against intentional damage from say, a terrorist

attack. It was viewed too unlikely in the cost-benefit analysis (Shrubshall, 2000).

1.3.5. – The future of the Oresund Bridge

As with many transport projects, the Oresund Bridge has been assessed to sustain the ever increasing

traffic volume. Studies show that there was a 17% traffic increase in the Oresund region in the first 6

months of the bridge being open. However, this is quite usual after a new build. Although, if this number

Figure 1.16. Oresund Bridge Piers (tumbler.com Bridge Span, 2016)

Page | 35

continues to climb (even slowly), then the capacity of the two-lane Oresund Bridge will be at capacity in

just decades (Shrubshall, 2000).

The bridges deck has been left with some space on either edge which would potentially be turned into

an extra lane for each direction. Although, this would require extra deck components to be built to make

it wider. Another option would be to hand extra truss members off the side of the existing deck which

would be a more complex procedure but could allow for more than one two additional lanes

(Shrubshall, 2000).

1.3.6. – Critical analysis of the critical analysis of the Oresund Bridge

Shrubshall’s report is very useful for this report as it provides a good basis for the SA of a complex bridge

such as the Oresund Bridge. It covers a lot of areas which an SA would consider in some detail. However,

a full SA would consider a lot more sustainability components such as cost, indirect economic benefit,

stakeholder engagement etc. Some areas are only briefly described rather than assessed in quantitative

detail which would not be sufficient for SA.

Shrubshall’s report gives a good basis about the bridge section of the Oresund Link but not the tunnel

section. This makes sense as it is only a bridge analysis. However, it could be argued that the tunnel is

part of the same crossing and should really be assessed as well.

A limited background into the Oresund region is described which entails the main need for the crossing.

This includes unemployment rates of Malmo, cheap housing in Malmo and the vision of Europe’s leading

‘knowledge centres’ for IT and Biomedicine. This is a good basis to determine importance of various

indicators and establish weightings.

Aesthetics is an important indicator of the social impact of a project and Shrubshall’s report gives

extensive detail on how this was assessed for the Oresund Bridge. Fritz Leonhardt’s ‘10 rules of

aesthetics’ provide a semi-structure when analysing aesthetics which is generally a subjective task.

The construction of the Oresund Bridge was fairly unusual in that is was mostly pre-fab. Shrubshall’s

report gives a basic comparison of the differences between pre-fab and in-situ construction and why the

pre-fab method was chosen. Pairwise comparison for these methods is a good way of assessing different

options to choose the most sustainable one. This was also the case with comparing durability of either

option.

Page | 36

The future of the Oresund Bridge and the ability to adapt to changes in the environment is the basis of

SA. Options for additional lanes to deal with increasing traffic volumes was explored but not in great

detail. There was also no mention of the rise in sea levels which could affect the loading on the bridge

itself. However, this may have been negligible.

1.4. – Development of the Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment model

A new SA model, The Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment (CBSA) model will be developed and

tested by analysing a number of case studies. The CBSA model will be an adaption of the NRBSA model

in that it will cater to different kinds of bridges rather than purely road bridges. However, it will be

focused on complex structures which may have proven difficult or time consuming for the NRBSA model

or indeed other recognised models such as the Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine (SPeAR) and Civil

Engineering Environmental Quality (CEEQUAL) models. CBSA will also be an improvement of NRBSA in

that the literature will be used from Chapter 1 to establish more accurate assessment method, better

structure and a more appealing presentation.

1.4.1. - Adaption of New Road Bridge Sustainability Assessment model to create Complex Bridge

Sustainability Assessment model

The NRBSA model must be adapted to cater for other bridge types. Therefore, the characteristics of the

model which made is specifically aimed at road-bridges must be identified. In short, the only feature of

the NRBSA model that was wholly aimed at road-bridges was the indicator assessment methods

themselves. These methods include the calculation of the economic & social losses and gains due to

change in traffic congestion introduced by Mathews et al. (2015). The various risk assessments are also

different due to the additional aspects to be considered. These methods can still be used for the road

traffic aspects of a complex bridge but extra methods should be introduced to consider other aspects

such as train lines and tunnelling.

With the addition of the new aspects of the case-study projects such as tunnelling, a larger quantity of

indicators will have to be assessed. Therefore, unlike Serpell’s (2015) report on NRBSA, the aggregation

stage of the model will have to be utilised in order to maintain an organised working method. This will

allow the assessor to prioritise between indicators, based on the initial research stage, and reduce the

number of insignificant indicators which will save time and money.

Page | 37

Second, the NRBSA model process must be improved in regards to its accuracy, usability, comparability

& presentation. This improvement will show progress in the model’s development rather than just using

the same model on different case-studies. There is always room for improvement.

1.4.2. - Improvement of the New Road Bridge Sustainability Assessment model to create the Complex

Bridge Sustainability Assessment model

Chapters 1.1. and 1.2. will be used to improve the NRBSA model. Each chapter discusses another

assessment model which has been critically analysed. The significant advantages of each model will be

integrated into the NRBSA model to create the CBSA model. These improvements will enhance the

model’s accuracy, usability, representation, comparability & it’s presentation.

The AHP process focuses on comparing alternative design options and assessing their sustainability in

order to determine which to use. This is very useful in the design stage of a project as it will set the

standard of how chose between design alternatives. This will be the main improvement of the NRBSA

model.

The AHP process itself is actually very similar to the NRBSA process in assessing design options. It follows

the same basis of establishing normalised weightings, indicator scores & overall scores. Therefore, this

basis of working methodology will be kept in the developing of the CBSA model.

A significant difference that the AHP process uses is pairwise comparison. This is the method used to

compare sustainability of different design options. A number of suitable indicators are chosen to assess

and are all given associative weightings. Each indicator is then compared against the same indicator for

the other design choice with which is wins, draws or loses. The scores and weightings are then

multiplied and an overall score for each design option is determined. Therefore, the best scoring option

is the most sustainable and should be chosen in the design process. The use of pairwise comparison is

an accurate method which provides detailed insight into the ‘real’ sustainability of each option and will

be integrated into the CBSA model.

The use of the consistency ratio is also a good way of determining whether the assessor is keeping

consistent in delegating weighting values for each indicator. In reality, the weighting value comparison

values between each indicator will be determined by a group of experts and therefore, there is a nature

of subjectivity. The consistency ratio will be integrated into the CBSA model to ensure reliability.

Page | 38

In addition, the AHP process is used on the example of the Penang Second Bridge. Tables are shown

which provide details of the chosen indicators and sub-indicators. This gives some good examples to

look out for when the case-studies are being assessed in this report.

The SUSAIP model was also used to compare various design options. In particular, foundation design.

Therefore, reinforcement the importance of this step in SA.

The nine step process is also very similar to the NRBSA model, providing simple, easy-to-use instructions

on the working method. Maintaining the easy-to-use quality of a model is very important as it will

reduce confusion and the occurrence of human error in assessment, increasing validity.

The assessment method used in NRBSA is scaled scoring, which is described by Ugwu et al. as ‘suitable

for indicators with upper and lower boundary limits set by legislation, guidelines, quality objectives etc.’

(Ugwu et al., 2006). However, it still proved useful in assessing all other indicator types in Serpell’s

(2015) report and therefore, will be kept as the main assessment method in the CBSA model.

Finally, SUSAIP uses a Spider Web Plot (SWP) for the presentation of results instead of a ROSE plot as

used in the NRBSA and SPeAR models. The SWP has the advantage that numerical values are shown

which can allow the client to really see the differences between each indicator. However, it does not

really show whether the results are sustainable or not, it just shows a number. In reality, the client will

most likely just like to see which options are more sustainable, not the numerical differences. Therefore,

the use of the ROSE plot will be maintained in the visualisation stage of the CBSA model.

1.4.3. – Working methodology of the Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment model

With these changes described in the previous sub-chapters, the NBRSA has now been altered to create

the CBSA model which will use the following working methodology:

Stage 1 – Initial research

Research of the bridges location will determine the sustainability ‘needs’ relative to that location. For

example, if the area is extremely urbanised, then environmental measures will be given high priority in

assessing the new bridge (Serpell, 2015).

Stage 2 – Indicator selection

Suitable indicators and sub-indicators will be selected for both the key design options and the rest of the

bridge and are based on Stage 1 (Serpell, 2015).

Page | 39

Stage 3 – Indicator weighting

The link’s indicators will be weighted according to their significance to its overall sustainability (Serpell,

2015).

Stage 4 – Indicator aggregation

A minimum weighting limit will be established and any indicators which fall below this limit in regards to

weighting value will be extracted from the assessment process. This is to save time and money by

ignoring insignificant indicators (Serpell, 2015).

Stage 5 – Identifying key design options

Key design options will be identified such as foundations, transport types etc. These options will have

significant effect on the overall sustainability of the bridge and therefore, the choice of the more

sustainable option is of vital importance. Examples of these are shown in Chapter 1.2.1.

Stage 6 – Pairwise comparison of key design options

The options identified in Stage 2 are compared using pairwise comparison. Consistency is also checked

using the consistency ratio method. Examples of this are shown in Chapter 1.1.1.

Stage 7 – Normalised indicator assessment

Once the most sustainable design options have been identified and the rest of the bridge has been

weighted, their sustainability (along with the rest of the bridge) will be assessed on a more general

basis, like in the NRBSA model. The normalisation will use the scaled scoring method (Serpell, 2015).

Stage 8 – Results

The resulting weighted scores will be put into a table format like in the NRBSA model which will give

detailed information of the entire assessment process (Serpell, 2015).

Stage 9 – Visualisation

Finally, the results will be integrated into a ROSE plot for presentation (Serpell, 2015).

Page | 40

1.5. – Brief summary of Chapter 1

The AHP process shows a detailed and accurate method for SA for any project but it has proved

particularly useful for bridges. Yadollahi et al. (2014), provided an insight into not only how AHP works

by using a complex bridge example, but critically analysed the results in comparison to several other

methods which proved it sufficient. This information will be helpful in adapting and developing a new SA

model for the assessment of complex bridges.

SUSAIP is similar to AHP in its methodology but has some minor differences which provide an outlook on

how SA models can vary and what this does to the results. SUSAIP in turn also focuses on comparing

design options in order to choose the more sustainable option which is the true goal of SA itself. Ugwu

et al. (2006), give a detailed example of how bridge foundation design options were assessed and in fact

should have differed from the option actually taken. This information will be useful in improving the

comparison aspect of the new SA model for assessment of complex bridges.

Although, it is not exactly a SA method, critical analysis of the scale provided by C.J. Shrubshall (2000)

gives detailed information about an amazing complex bridge example in the Oresund Bridge. The

information provided will help in creating the SA model which will in turn analyse the Oresund Link as a

case-study. In particular, C.J. Shrubshall’s (2000) work will aid in comparing between design alternatives

such as deck design and layering of transportation types.

The aim of Chapter 1.4 was to use the critical analysis of the literature review in Chapter 1 in order to

adapt and improve the NRBSA model in creating the CBSA model. In short, this aim was achieved.

The main change in the assessment process will be the comparing of key design options of the project.

This will be vital in determining which option to choose in the design stage and ultimately create the

most sustainable bridge possible.

Other discrete changes were made in order to improve accuracy and reliability of the results. For one,

the use of pairwise comparison provides a much more objective view which will increase reliability,

especially when its consistency ratio is also calculated as an added precaution.

In addition, the working methodology has been slightly altered to allow for the aggregation stage which

was not utilised in Serpell’s (2015) report. The weighting stage will be proceeded prior to indicator

assessment and any indicators which prove to be insignificant will be aggregated.

Page | 41

Chapter 2 – Case-study 1. The Oresund Link

Chapter 2 will cover the original work of the ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ of the case

study of the Oresund Link. The case study of the Oresund Link is an extremely affective project on which

to test the newly developed CBSA model. Not only is it large scale (the longest cable-stayed bridge in the

world) but it is unique in that the crossing is part bridge and part tunnel. There are various key design

decisions that were made which can be individually assessed in order to determine whether the most

sustainable option was chosen. There was also a history of criticism of the plans to build the link

regarding the environmental impact which provides an important factor of SA to consider. The nine

stages of the CBSA model will be carried out in assessing the Oresund Link, which will determine if the

project was as sustainable as it claims to be.

The nine stages of the CBSA process are shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Nine stages of CBSA process

Stage 1 – Initial research Stage 4 – Indicator aggregation Stage 7 – Normalised indicator assessment

Stage 2 – Indicator selection Stage 5 – Identifying key design options

Stage 8 – Results

Stage 3 – Indicator weighting Stage 6 – Pairwise comparison of key design options


The Oresund Link is shown in Figure 2.1. below.

Page | 42

2.1. – Stage 1-Initial research for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’,

the Oresund Link

The first place to look when conducting initial research of an existing project is the reasons for planning

the link in the first place. As discussed in Chapter 1.3.1. the governments from both countries believed

that the crossing would increase cultural, educational and economic links. There is also a strong history

behind the Oresund Link in that it had been planned for a long time (around the 19th Century) but it was

continuously put aside due to criticisms of its environmental impact on sea-life (Shrubshall, 2000).

From an economic view, business would thrive in both locations as is the main effect of most large

bridge projects. In addition, the employment rate in Malmo was less than that in Copenhagen but the

housing is cheaper in Malmo. ‘Malmo had a troubled economic situation following the mid-1970s.

Between 1990-1995, 27,000 jobs were lost, and the budget deficit was more than one billion Swedish

Krona. In 1995, Malmo had Sweden’s highest unemployment rate’ (laboureconomics.com, 2012). The

Figure 2.1. The Oresund Link (co2-e-race.blogspot.co.uk, 2014)

Page | 43

crossing would allow more people to live in Malmo for cheaper whilst also increasing the Swedish

economy and still have a suitable commute to work in Copenhagen (Shrubshall, 2000).

Environmental concerns were mainly based around the process of dredging the sea bed. Not only would

mussel banks & eelgrass (which birds & fish feed on) be destroyed but the process would loosen

sediment & pollutants which can directly kill of sea life as well as indirectly through reducing water flow

which would affect the growth of plant-life which feeds the rest of the ecosystem. Other environmental

concerns include air & noise contamination from the increase in traffic along the region. Finally, the

plans were given the go ahead once stakeholders were convinced that construction technology had

reached the point where environmental protection would be at an acceptable level (american.edu,

2016).

From a social point of view, the region is known for its expertise in IT and Biomedicine and the

connection would only expand this educational factor. Although both cities are geographically close,

their cultural differences are great. Therefore, the link would allow both societies to interact and explore

each other’s culture. However, this cultural difference has also proved an issue in designing the bridge

for various reasons such as cars travelling on different sides of the road and train lines using different

voltages.

Using this information, a few areas of sustainability can be given higher priority in the assessment

process which will be highlighted in the weighting stage. These areas include employment, economic

impact, ecological impact, air quality, noise impact, traffic congestion & a new indicator in educational

impact.

2.2. – Stage 2-Indicator selection for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability

Assessment’, the Oresund Link

Following the initial research stage, a variety of relevant indicators & sub-indicators will be chosen for

assessment. All indicators will consider the entire life cycle of the Oresund Link. These indicators will be

placed under the 3 pillars of sustainability: environment, economy & society. The breakdown of these

indicators are shown in Table 2.2.

Page | 44

Table 2.2. Indicator selection for 'Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment', the Oresund Link

Sustainability Pillar Indicator Sub-indicator

Environment Ecological Impact Direct cost of measures taken to preserve ecology

Direct saving from taking preservation measures

Direct cost of unforeseen ecological impact

Energy use Amount of CO2 produced

Energy saved

Waste management Amount of waste sent directly to landfill

Amount of waste recycled

Amount of waste re-used on site

Land use Amount of free land used

Amount of pre-occupied land used

Water use Amount of water wasted

Amount of water saved

Amount of water recycled

Natural materials Amount of natural material used

Consideration of environmental climate change

Consideration of sea level rise

Consideration of temperature change

Consideration of rainfall increase

Economy Economic impact Direct cost

Indirect cost

Page | 45

Direct income

Indirect income

Employment Number of local jobs, permanent full-time

Number of local jobs, permanent part-time

Number of local jobs, temporary full-time

Economic risk Direct cost of insurance taken out

Direct saving from insured event occurring

Direct saving from not taking insurance

Direct cost of uninsured event occurring

Financial investment Investment from local sources

Investment from non-local sources

Consideration of economic climate change

Consideration of possible economic crash

Society Health & wellbeing Noise impact

Light pollution

Vibration

Air quality

Transport impact Delay time

Time saved

Stakeholder engagement Consideration of stakeholders

Complaints/disputes

Page | 46

Health & safety Lost time due to accidents occurred

Cultural heritage impact Cost of impact on listed structures

Cost of impact on protected land

Cost of impact on archaeological sites

Visual impact Leonhardt’s ’10 rules of aesthetics’

Community facilities Loss of revenue from parking metres

Loss of revenue from parking fines

Loss of revenue from other community facilities

Income generated from community facilities

Equality Impact of racial equality

Impact of gender equality

Impact of disability equality

Impact of age equality

Educational impact Cost of improvements to the educational sector

Consideration of social climate change

Consideration of traffic congestion increase

Page | 47

2.3. – Stage 3-Indicator weighting for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability


All the indicators mentioned in Chapter 2.2. will be weighted according to their significance to the

overall sustainability of the Oresund region. Weighting values will be between 0.00 and 1.00 to an

accuracy of 0.05 (1.00 being extremely significant and 0.00 being extremely insignificant). These values

would normally be decided by a group of experts with careful consideration of the location, type of

project, overall impact that it will have as well as other aspects. However, for the purpose of this report,

the weightings will be devised by the author based on the initial research stage in Chapter 2.1.

Professional advice has been sought after but the information needed is vital to their business and

therefore, they were not willing to release it. These weighting values are shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3. Indicator weighting for 'Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment', the Oresund Link

Sustainability Pillar Indicator Sub-indicator Weighting


0.80


0.85


0.90

Energy use Amount of CO2 produced

0.40

Energy saved 0.45

Waste management Amount of waste sent directly to landfill

0.40


0.45


0.50


0.60

Page | 48


0.65


0.15

Amount of water saved 0.10


0.15


0.30



0.50


0.60


0.60

Economy Economic impact Direct cost 0.90

Indirect cost 0.85

Direct income 0.95

Indirect income 0.85


0.95


0.90


0.85

Economic risk Direct cost of insurance taken out

0.80

Direct saving from insured event occurring

0.80

Direct saving from insurance not taken out

0.70

Page | 49


0.85


0.80


0.75



0.10

Society Health & wellbeing Noise impact 0.80

Light pollution 0.35

Vibration 0.15

Air quality 0.85

Transport impact Delay time 0.90

Time saved 0.95


0.60

Complaints/disputes 0.60

Health & safety Loss time due to accidents occurred

0.65


0.15


0.15


0.15


0.20


0.15


0.15

Page | 50


0.10


0.15

Equality Impact of racial equality 0.35


0.35


0.35

Impact of age equality 0.35

Educational impact Cost of improvements to the educational sector

0.80



0.90

2.4. – Stage 4-Indicator aggregation for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability


The newly weighted indicators & sub-indicators will be aggregated by establishing a minimum weighting

value required in order to be assessed. This is an important step in reducing time/money consumption

in the assessment process. The minimum weighting value for assessment will be anything less than 0.20.

This means the following indicators/sub-indicators have been aggregated: amount of water saved,

amount of water recycled, consideration of possible economic crash, vibration, cultural heritage impact

and community facilities.

These have been given such a low weighting value for the following reasons: the Oresund Region does

not have a particular shortage of water, the possibility of economic crash affecting the Oresund Link

being so low, there will be no vibration works powerful enough to affect nearby facilities, the lack of

cultural heritage on the development site and the lack of community facilities affected.

Page | 51

This now leaves 42 sub-indicators to be assessed for both the key design options and the Oresund Link

as a whole.

2.5. – Stage 5-Identifying key design options for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability


There are several key design choices that were made for the Oresund Link which would have greatly

affected its overall sustainability. The CBSA model aims to assess these choices and their alternatives to

determine whether the most sustainable choice was made. These design options are shown in Table 2.4.

The first three design options mentioned in Table 2.4. concerning deck design, cable design and pre-

fab/in-situ construction were all taken directly from this reports literature review, sourced by C.J.

Shrubshall (2000). The last two mentioned, concerning tunnel construction & the centre span were put

forward by the author.

Table 2.4. Key design options for the 'Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment', the Oresund Link (Shrubshall, 2000)

De

sign

Op

tio

ns

Chosen Option Alternative

Truss/Slab deck combination with rail & road

lanes on different levels

Purely slab deck with rail & road lanes on

same level

Cable-stayed bridge Suspension bridge

Mainly pre-fab construction Mainly in-situ construction

Immerse tunnel sections Bore tunnel

Four pillars around corner of centre span Arch member between centre span

The general reasoning for the chosen design options will be described, whilst a detailed assessment

using pairwise comparison will be completed for each set of options in Chapter 2.6.

2.5.1. – Choice of the Oresund Link bridge deck design

The designers of the Oresund Link decided to keep road & rail traffic on separate levels, using a simple

concrete slab for the road lanes with a truss deck attached below the slab for the rail tracks. There are

several advantages with this option. For one, if the transport modes were on the same level, a barrier

Page | 52

would have to be implemented to avoid collisions of either vehicle. This would be unsightly and may

actually prove a distraction for drivers, increasing the health risk. In addition, the concrete slab would

have to be a lot stiffer in order to comply with the deflection limitations for railway design. Also, the

truss partly supports the deck itself and so without it, the pylons would probably have to be larger,

adding to the cost and complexity of construction (Shrubshall, 2000).

However, there are also some advantages to the alternative option. The dead load of the deck would

have been a lot lighter as it would consist of one concrete level, which would prove cheaper and easier

in pre-tensioning the cables. Also, with the lack of an extra level, the wind load would be greatly

reduced. However, as the horizontal bearing capacity of the piers would have been designed to

withstand a ship collision and therefore, would not make any difference to the design (Shrubshall,

2000).

Figure 2.2. shows the actual Oresund Bridge deck design.

Figure 2.2. Actual Oresund Bridge deck design (magebausa.com, 2016)

Page | 53

Figure 2.3. shows a similar example of how the alternative deck design option would have looked.

2.5.2. – Choice of the Oresund Link cable system

The Oresund Link’s bridge was originally designed as a suspension bridge. However, the decision was

made to build a cable-stayed bridge for the following reasons. The main reason being a suspension

bridge is generally too flexible and would allow too much deflection in the bridge deck than would be

allowable for rail standards. The suspension bridge could be made stiff enough but it would require

over-sized cables, extra strong anchors and regular maintenance. The required anchors themselves are

an issue as they create additional work and another area for a ship to possibly collide.

The cable-stayed design provides enough stiffness for the railway as well as not requiring anchors

making it the more appealing option.

Figure 2.4. shows the actual cable system of the Oresund Bridge.

Figure 2.3. Alternative deck design option for the Oresund Bridge (transport.gov.scot, 2016)

Page | 54

Figure 2.5. shows a suspension bridge which would have looked similar to the Oresund Bridge if it was a

suspension bridge.

2.5.3. – Choice of pre-fab construction method for the Oresund Link

The majority of the Oresund Link was constructed using prefabricated units. The only section of the

bridge that was in-situ was the main piers. Pre-fab on this scale is not common but it did have multiple

Figure 2.4. Actual Oresund Bridge cable system (thebeautyoftransport.com, 2016)

Figure 2.5. The Great Belt suspension bridge (highways-denmark.com, 2016)

Page | 55

advantages. The tendering of concrete contractors for in-situ castings on such a large scale and out at

sea can prove extremely difficult. Therefore, the more pre-fab units, the easier it is to tender contractors

which will save time, money and most probably ensure quality. Pre-fab also reduces the risk of

contaminating the water in comparison to in-situ. In addition, dragging pre-fab units out to sea did not

create a disruption to maritime traffic as an in-situ concrete pour would (Shrubshall, 2000).

A major disadvantage for the pre-fab method was the requirement of specialist equipment. The heavy-

lifting sea-going crane, Svanen, was required to manoeuvre the units which was extremely costly,

especially for the duration that it was needed. The manoeuvring procedure itself was a H&S risk and was

restricted by the weather. Also, it was an added risk due to its rarity as any major breakdown could have

taken a long time to fix (Shrubshall, 2000). Figure 2.6. shows Svanen placing a section of the truss deck.

Figure 2.6. Svanen placing a section of truss deck to the Oresund Link (roadtraffic-technology.com, 2016)

Page | 56

2.5.4. – Choice of the tunnel construction method for the Oresund Link

The designers of the Oresund Link decided to use the immersion method to construct the Link’s tunnel

rather than the more common boring method. There were several reasons for this choice. First, a bored

tunnel is limited to having a circular cross-section. Therefore, in order to fit all means of transport (4

road lanes, 2 rail tracks & an emergency exit route) the cross-sectional area would be a lot larger. This is

far more uneconomical than the rectangular cross-section actually used which was made possible with

the immersion method. In addition to the economic cross-section, the immersion method allows for a

more economic length as well, saving yet more money. This is because boring tunnels generally requires

at least one diameter’s depth below the seabed. This coupled with the low gradient level specifications

for rail transport, a bored tunnel would have to emerge a lot further in-land on the Copenhagen side.

Figure 2.7. shows the tunnel building facility being flooded in order to float out two tunnel sections.

The boring method is generally a cheaper & easier construction method. However, with the economic

advantages of the immersion technique, the boring method would actually have been more expensive

overall. Therefore, it was not chosen for the Oresund Link.

Figure 2.7. Oresund Link tunnel building facility (dywidag-systems.com, 2016)

Page | 57

2.5.5. – Choice of centre span design for the Oresund Link

Once it was decided that the Oresund Link’s bridge would be cable-stayed, the question was asked as

the design of the centre span. Many options were considered but the two main ones were the four-

pillars (which was used) or an arch which would stretch from either longitudinal side of the centre span.

The deciding factor in the end for the designers was the fact that an arch span would create more of a

risk of ship collision. This is because the arches gradient lowers towards the foundation and could

potentially lead to a tall ship sailing too close to the side and collide with the arch. However, there are

other advantages and disadvantages for either choice.

Figure 2.8. shows the actual centre span of the Oresund Bridge with the four pillars.

Figure 2.9. shows what the Oresund Bridge’s centre span could have looked with an arch.

Figure 2.8. Oresund Bridge centre span (skanska.com, 2016)

Page | 58

An advantage of the arch design is its resistance to horizontal wind loading. If the arch is less wide than

the deck below, then the cables will angle out horizontally as well as longitudinally. This allows the arch

to transfer wind loading in both directions. Additionally, arch bridges are generally seen as more

attractive than the straight pillar design.

Apart from the main advantage of the pillar design in reducing the risk of ship collision, maintenance

proves to be easier and less disruptive than an arch design. If a maintenance check was to be made of

the archway, some sort of gantry system would have to be established to check the bottom side of the

arch. This would most like mean traffic would have to be disturbed when workers are boarding the

gantry. The pillars can be maintained using a gantry system but traffic would not have to be disturbed as

the workers can board at the bottom of the pillar, off the road.

Figure 2.9. Lupu Bridge, China (youramazingplaces.com, 2016)

Page | 59

2.6. – Stage 6-Pairwise comparison of the key design options for ‘Complex

Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Oresund Link

Each of the design options mentioned in Chapter 2.5. will assessed individually using the AHP and

pairwise comparison. In each assessment process, up to 10 sub-indicators will be chosen for assessment.

These will be seen as the most important or relevant sub-indicators for the corresponding design option.

Pairwise comparison will be used on the weightings of these sub-indicators which will be normalised,

checked for consistency & finally scored. This way, it can be determined whether or not the most

sustainable option was chosen by the Oresund Link’s designers.

2.6.1. – Pairwise comparison of the Oresund Link deck design

Five sub-indicators have been deemed the most significant for the deck design options and will be

assessed. These sub-indicators are: consideration of temperature change, consideration of rainfall

increase, direct cost, visual impact & consideration of traffic congestion increase. Table 2.5. shows these

sub-indicators and their corresponding reference numbers.

Table 2.5. Deck design option sub-indicators, the Oresund Link

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4. SI.5.

Consideration of

temperature

change

Consideration of

rainfall increase

Direct cost Visual impact Consideration of

traffic congestion

increase

The first step in pairwise comparison is to determine the importance of each sub-indicator in

comparison to each other. This is done using the nine-point scale shown in Table 2.6.


Page | 60

The results have been determined by the author and are shown in comparison matrix format below

along with the sum value of each column.

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4. SI.5.

SI.1. 1 1/7 3 1/7 1/3

SI.2. 7 1 7 2 1

SI.3. 1/3 1/7 1 1/3 1/3

SI.4. 7 1/2 3 1 2

SI.5. 3 1 3 1/2 1

Total 55/3 39/14 17 167/42 14/3

These values are then normalised. This is done by calculating the sum of each column, then dividing

each element of the matrix by its corresponding column total value. A new matrix is compiled of these

new elements of which the sum of each row is calculated. This is shown in the matrix below.

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4. SI.5. Total

SI.1. 1 ÷ 55/3 1/7 ÷ 39/14 3 ÷ 17 1/7 ÷ 167/42 1/3 ÷ 14/3 0.39

SI.2. 7 ÷ 55/3 1 ÷ 39/14 7 ÷ 17 2 ÷ 167/42 1 ÷ 14/3 1.87

SI.3. 1/3 ÷ 55/3 1/7 ÷ 39/14 1 ÷ 17 1/3 ÷ 167/42 1/3 ÷ 14/3 0.28

SI.4. 7 ÷ 55/3 1/2 ÷ 39/14 3 ÷ 17 1 ÷ 167/42 2 ÷ 14/3 1.42

SI.5. 3 ÷ 55/3 1 ÷ 39/14 3 ÷ 17 1/2 ÷ 167/42 1 ÷ 14/3 1.04

The sum of the rows are then normalised and shown as the priority matrix by dividing them by the

number of criteria (5). This is shown in Equation 2.1. below.

Page | 61

[ 0.391.870.281.421.04]

÷ 5 =

[ 0.080.370.060.280.21]

The consistency is then checked using the Consistency Ratio (CR) shown in Equation 2.2. This is

calculated using the Consistency Index (CI) & the Random Index (RI).


𝐶𝑅 =𝐶𝐼

𝑅𝐼

The RI is taken from Table 2.7., below.

The CI is calculated using Equation 2.3. This is calculated with the principle eigenvector (λmax) and the

number of criteria (m).



𝑚 − 1

The principle eigenvector can be estimated in a three step process. First, the priority matrix is multiplied

by the comparison matrix. This is shown in Equation 2.4. below.

Equation 2.4. Deck design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Oresund Link

[

17

1/373

1/71

1/71/21

37133

1/72

1/31

1/2

1/31

1/321 ]

𝑥

[ 0.080.370.060.280.21]

=

[ 0.422.120.301.081.14]

Equation 2.1. Deck design option weighting normalisation, the Oresund Link


Page | 62

In the next step, each element of the resulting matrix is divided by its corresponding element of the

priority matrix. This is shown in Equation 2.5.


[ 0.42 ÷ 0.082.12 ÷ 0.370.3 ÷ 0.061.08 ÷ 0.281.14 ÷ 0.21]

=

[ 5.255.735

3.865.43]

Finally, the principle eigenvector is calculated by finding the average value of the above matrix. This is

shown in Equation 2.6.


𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (5.25 + 5.73 + 5 + 3.86 + 5.43)

5= 5.05

The CI can now be calculated (Equation 2.7).

Equation 2.7. Deck design option Consistency Index, the Oresund Link

𝐶𝐼 =5.05 − 5

5 − 1= 0.01

Using Table 2.7. and the calculated CI value, the CR can now be determined (Equation 2.8.)

Equation 2.8. Deck design option Consistency Ratio, the Oresund Link

𝐶𝑅 =0.01

1.12= 0.01

As the CR value is less than 0.1, the weighting value choices are deemed consistent and therefore, the

values can be used in scoring the sub-indicators.

Scoring of each sub-indicator for each design option is done using a 0-10 point scale. The higher the

value, the better the sustainability. The score value has been determined by the author, based on

extensive data & research of the Oresund Link itself as well as other similar examples. The segregation

of the scores is shown in Table 2.8.

Page | 63

The consideration of temperature change (SI.1.) has been given a score of 8.0 for the actual deck design

compared to a score of 9.0 for the alternative option. This is due to the calculation of maximum deck

expansion over the bridges life-cycle of 2540mm (Hughes, 2010). This value was greatly influenced by

the flexibility of steel in different temperatures. If the alternative deck design was chosen, there would

be no steel truss system and the expansion value would be a lot less, reducing the risk of failure.

The consideration of rainfall increase (SI.2.) has been given a score of 6.0 for both designs. This is

because sufficient drainage measures have been taken to allow for surface water runoff volumes for

high rainfall events, including allowing water runoff at bridge nodes which in turn avoids steel corrosion.

(Hughes, 2010). However, no literature can be found to suggest that runoff water is at all filtered before

it flows into the sea. This has a slight negative environmental impact due to a small percentage of

contaminants picked up from the road way going into the sea. Over the bridge’s lifetime and with

expected rainfall increase, this could have a larger negative impact on the marine ecology. Both design

options would have the same drainage systems and therefore, score the same.

The direct cost (SI.3.) has been given a score of 8.5 for the actual deck design compared to a score of 9.0

for the alternative design. This is because the alternative option would most likely prove to be cheaper

due to the lack of steel. However, the pillars & deck would need to be larger/wider which would add to

the cost.

The visual impact (SI.4.) has been given a score of 8.5 for the actual deck design compared to a score of

9.5 for the alternative design. This is because it is of Shrubhall’s opinion, that cable-stayed bridges look


Page | 64

better proportionally with thinner decks and larger piers which is not the case for the Oresund Bridge

and so it is marked down slightly (Shrubshall, 2000). All other areas of both designs would conform to

the rest of Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics.

The consideration of traffic congestion increase (SI.5.) has been given a score of 9.5 for the actual deck

design compared to a score of 6.5 for the alternative design. This is because there are different, cheaper

options for the actual deck design is extra road/rail lanes would need to be added. Widening the truss

would be able to hold two extra road lanes as well as add rail lanes underneath. Whereas, a one-level

deck would be wide enough as it is and if extra lanes were to be put in, the pillars would need to be

extended as well, which is a very pricey process.

A breakdown of the scores is shown in Table 2.9. below.

Table 2.9. Score breakdown, deck design options, the Oresund Link

Actual deck design Alternative deck design

SI.1. 8.0 9.0

SI.2. 6.0 6.0

SI.3. 8.5 9.0

SI.4. 8.5 9.5

SI.5. 9.5 6.5

Each score is then multiplied by its appropriate weighting & the total score for each design option is

calculated. This is shown in Table 2.10.

Page | 65

Table 2.10. Weighted scores, deck design options, the Oresund Link

Actual deck design score Alternative deck design score

SI.1. 8.0 x 0.08 9.0 x 0.08

SI.2. 6.0 x 0.37 6.0 x 0.37

SI.3. 8.5 x 0.06 9.0 x 0.06

SI.4. 8.5 x 0.28 9.5 x 0.28

SI.5. 9.5 x 0.21 6.5 x 0.21

Total score 7.75 7.51

From Table 2.10. it can be said that the actual deck design (multi-level) received a higher overall

sustainability score for the chosen sub-indicators and is therefore, the more sustainable design.

2.6.2. – Pairwise comparison of the Oresund Link cable system design

Four sub-indicators have been deemed the most significant for the cable system design options and will

be assessed. These sub-indicators are: direct cost, health & safety, visual impact & amount of CO2

produced. Table 2.11. shows these sub-indicators and their corresponding reference numbers.

Table 2.11. Cable system design option sub-indicators, the Oresund Link

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4.

Direct cost Health & safety Visual impact Amount of CO2

produced

The results of the nine-point scale have been determined by the author and are shown in comparison

matrix format below along with the sum value of each column.

Page | 66

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4.

SI.1. 1 5 2 1/2

SI.2. 1/5 1 1/8 1/4

SI.3. 1/2 8 1 2

SI.4. 2 4 1/2 1

Total 37/10 18 29/8 15/4

The pre-normalised values are shown below.

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4. Total

SI.1. 1 ÷ 37/10 5 ÷ 18 2 ÷ 29/8 1/2 ÷ 15/4 1.23

SI.2. 1/5 ÷ 37/10 1 ÷ 18 1/8 ÷ 29/8 1/4 ÷ 15/4 0.21

SI.3. 1/2 ÷ 37/10 8 ÷ 18 1 ÷ 29/8 2 ÷ 15/4 1.39

SI.4. 2 ÷ 37/10 4 ÷ 18 1/2 ÷ 29/8 1 ÷ 15/4 1.17

The values are normalised and form the priority matrix, shown in Equation 2.9. below.

[

1.230.211.391.17

] ÷ 4 = [

0.310.050.350.29

]

The priority matrix is multiplied by the comparison matrix. This is shown in Equation 2.10. below.

Equation 2.10. Cable system design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Oresund Link

[

11/51/22

5184

21/81

1/2

1/21/421

] 𝑥 [

0.310.050.350.29

] = [

1.260.160.911.00

]

Equation 2.9. Cable system design option weighting normalisation, the Oresund Link

Page | 67

The 2nd step of the principle eigenvector calculation is shown in Equation 2.11.


[

1.26 ÷ 0.310.16 ÷ 0.050.91 ÷ 0.351.00 ÷ 0.29

] = [

4.063.202.603.45

]

The principle eigenvector is calculated in Equation 2.12.


𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (4.06 + 3.20 + 2.60 + 3.45)

4= 3.33

The CI is calculated (Equation 2.13).

Equation 2.13. Cable system design option Consistency Index, the Oresund Link

𝐶𝐼 =3.33 − 4

4 − 1= −0.22


Equation 2.14. Cable system design option Consistency Ratio, the Oresund Link

𝐶𝑅 =−0.22

0.9= −0.24



The sub-indicators for each design option are now scored on the 1-10 point scale.

The direct cost (SI.1.) has been given a score of 9.0 for the actual cable system design compared to a

score of 7.5 for the alternative option. This is due to the fact that a suspension bridge would most

probably cost a fair bit more to construct than the actual design option of cable stayed. This is because

of the two anchor points which would need to be constructed for the suspension cables. In addition, a

suspension bridge is generally too flexible for the movement specifications of the railway and therefore,

extra costs would be spent of strengthening/stiffening the bridge deck in order to comply.

Page | 68

The H&S (SI.2.) has been given a score of .95 for the actual cable system design compared to a score of

8.0 for the alternative option. This is because the anchor points required by a suspension bridge create

additional collision points for ships. In addition, cable-stayed bridges are generally easier and therefore,

safer in the maintenance process.

The visual impact (SI.3.) has been given a score of 9.0 for the actual cable system design compared to a

score of 9.5 for the alternative design. This is because both options conform fully to Leonhardt’s 10 rules

of aesthetics. However, on average more people prefer the look of suspension bridges to cable-stayed

(Hughes, 2010).

The amount of CO2 produced (SI.4.) has been given a score of 8.0 for the actual cable system design

compared to a score of 7.5 for the alternative design. This is because the suspension bridge option

would use more materials for the anchor points and cables themselves. Therefore, more CO2 will be

produced in the production process of the materials.


Table 2.12. Score breakdown, cable system design options, the Oresund Link

Actual cable system design

score

Alternative cable system design

score

SI.1. 9.0 7.5

SI.2. 9.5 8.0

SI.3. 9.0 9.5

SI.4. 8.0 7.5

Total weighted scores are shown in Table 2.13.

Page | 69

Table 2.13. Weighted scores, cable system design options, the Oresund Link


score


score

SI.1. 9.0 x 0.31 7.5 x 0.31

SI.2. 9.5 x 0.05 8.0 x 0.05

SI.3. 9.0 x 0.35 9.5 x 0.35

SI.4. 8.0 x 0.29 7.5 x 0.29


From Table 2.13. it can be said that the actual cable system design (cable-stayed) received a higher

overall sustainability score for the chosen sub-indicators and is therefore, the more sustainable design.

2.6.3. – Pairwise comparison of the Oresund Link concrete construction design

Seven sub-indicators have been deemed the most significant for the concrete construction design

options and will be assessed. These sub-indicators are: ecological impact, amount of CO2 produced,

direct cost, number of local jobs temporary/full-time, delay time, H&S and amount of waste recycled.

Table 2.14. shows these sub-indicators and their corresponding reference numbers.

Table 2.14. Concrete construction design option sub-indicators, the Oresund Link

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4. SI.5. SI.6. SI.7.

Ecological

impact

Amount of

CO2

produced

Direct cost Number of

local jobs

temporary/full-

time

Delay

time

H&S Amount of

waste

recycled



Page | 70

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4. SI.5. SI.6. SI.7.

SI.1. 1 1/3 1/2 1/6 1/4 2 1/5

SI.2. 3 1 3 1/2 1/2 5 2

SI.3. 2 1/3 1 1/3 1/3 5 1/4

SI.4. 6 2 3 1 1/2 8 1/2

SI.5. 4 2 3 2 1 7 1

SI.6. 1/2 1/5 1/5 1/8 1/7 1 8

SI.7. 5 1/2 4 2 1 1/8 1

Total 43/2 191/30 147/10 49/8 313/84 225/8 259/20


SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4. SI.5. SI.6. SI.7. Total

SI.1. 1 ÷ 43/2 1/3 ÷

191/30

1/2 ÷

147/10

1/6 ÷

49/8

1/4 ÷

313/84

2 ÷

225/8

1/5 ÷

259/20

0.31

SI.2. 3 ÷ 43/2 1 ÷

191/30

3 ÷

147/10

1/2 ÷

49/8

1/2 ÷

313/84

5 ÷

225/8

2 ÷

259/20

0.47

SI.3. 2 ÷ 43/2 1/3 ÷

191/30

1 ÷

147/10

1/3 ÷

49/8

1/3 ÷

313/84

5 ÷

225/8

1/4 ÷

259/20

0.55

SI.4. 6 ÷ 43/2 2 ÷

191/30

3 ÷

147/10 1 ÷ 49/8

1/2 ÷

313/84

8 ÷

225/8

1/2 ÷

259/20

1.42

SI.5. 4 ÷ 43/2 2 ÷

191/30

3 ÷

147/10 2 ÷ 49/8

1 ÷

313/84

7 ÷

225/8

1 ÷

259/20

1.63

SI.6. 1/2 ÷

43/2

1/5 ÷

191/30

1/5 ÷

147/10

1/8 ÷

49/8

1/7 ÷

313/84

1 ÷

225/8

8 ÷

259/20

0.78

SI.7. 5 ÷ 43/2 1/2 ÷

191/30

4 ÷

147/10 2 ÷ 49/8

1 ÷

313/84

1/8 ÷

225/8

1 ÷

259/20

1.26


Page | 71

[ 0.310.470.551.421.630.781.26]

÷ 7 =

[ 0.040.070.080.200.230.110.18]


Equation 2.16. Concrete construction design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Oresund Link

[

13264

1/25

1/31

1/322

1/51/2

1/23133

1/54

1/61/21/312

1/82

1/41/21/31/21

1/71

255871

1/8

1/52

1/41/2181

]

𝑥

[ 0.040.070.080.200.230.110.18]

=

[ 0.080.260.342.112.790.641.71]



[ 0.08 ÷ 0.040.26 ÷ 0.070.34 ÷ 0.082.11 ÷ 0.202.79 ÷ 0.230.64 ÷ 0.111.71 ÷ 0.18]

=

[ 2.113.684.2110.5312.115.799.48 ]



𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (11.25 + 22.29 + 11.50 + 9.55 + 9.22 + 15.10 + 7.67)

7= 7.52


Equation 2.19. Concrete construction design option Consistency Index, the Oresund Link

𝐶𝐼 =7.52 − 7

7 − 1= 0.09

Equation 2.15. Concrete construction design option weighting normalisation, the Oresund Link

Page | 72


Equation 2.20. Concrete construction design option Consistency Ratio, the Oresund Link

𝐶𝑅 =0.09

1.32= 0.07




The ecological impact (SI.1.) has been given a score of 9.5 for the actual concrete construction design

compared to a score of 7.5 for the alternative option. This is due to the fact that pouring in-situ concrete

over the sea creates a huge and probable risk of concrete spilling/leaking into the sea. This kind of

contamination can kill fish directly as well as kill marine plant-life which feeds the fish which in turn

feeds the birds. Using pre-cast concrete mitigates this risk altogether.

The amount of CO2 produced (SI.2.) has been given a score of 9.5 for the actual concrete construction

design compared to a score of 9.0 for the alternative option. This is because if the concrete was to be

poured in-site, a lot of concrete would be needed all at one time which would come from several

batching plants both in the cities and outside. This additional transportation would produce more CO2

than using pre-case units which can be poured at a steady rate from fewer batching plants.

The direct cost (SI.3.) has been given a score of 7.5 for the actual concrete construction design

compared to a score of 9.0 for the alternative design. This is because pouring the concrete in-situ would

overall be cheaper due to the measures that had to be taken to produce & manoeuvre the pre-cast

units, in particular, the use of the heavy-lifting marine crane, Svanen.

The number of local jobs, temporary/full-time (SI.4.) has been given a score of 8.0 for the actual

concrete construction design compared to a score of 8.5 for the alternative design. This is because, as

previously mentioned, pouring the concrete in-situ would require several local batching plants & their

operatives. This would create more temporary jobs than the specialists needed for pre-cast

construction.

The delay time (SI.5.) has been given a score of 9.5 for the actual concrete construction design

compared to a score of 8.5 for the alternative design. This is because the in-situ concrete needs around

Page | 73

30 days to properly cure (especially in the hazardous weather conditions) and therefore, would slow

construction time which would in turn create more transport delay time in the end.

The H&S (SI.6.) has been given a score of 9.0 for the actual concrete construction design compared to a

score of 9.5 for the alternative design. This is because the manoeuvring of the heavy pre-cast units in

the hazardous weather conditions created new risks which would not be present for in-situ

construction.

The amount of waste recycled (SI.7.) has been given a score of 9.5 for the actual concrete construction

design compared to a score of 8.0 for the alternative design. This is because in general, the use of pre-

cast construction reduced waste of concrete as it is poured at a more controlled rate. In fact, on

average, in-situ construction has around 50% more waste than pre-cast (wrap, 2016).


Table 2.15. Score breakdown, concrete construction design options, the Oresund Link

Actual concrete construction

design score

Alternative concrete

construction design score

SI.1. 9.5 7.5

SI.2. 9.5 9.0

SI.3. 7.5 9.0

SI.4. 8.0 8.5

SI.5. 9.5 8.5

SI.6. 9.0 9.5

SI.7. 9.5 8.0


Page | 74

Table 2.16. Weighted scores, concrete construction design options, the Oresund Link


score


score

SI.1. 9.5 x 0.04 7.5 x 0.04

SI.2. 9.5 x 0.07 9.0 x 0.07

SI.3. 7.5 x 0.08 9.0 x 0.08

SI.4. 8.0 x 0.20 8.5 x 0.20

SI.5. 9.5 x 0.23 8.5 x 0.23

SI.6. 9.0 x 0.11 9.5 x 0.11

SI.7. 9.5 x 0.18 8.0 x 0.18


From Table 2.16. it can be said that the actual concrete construction design (pre-case) received a higher

overall sustainability score for the chosen sub-indicators and is therefore, the more sustainable design.

2.6.4. – Pairwise comparison of the Oresund Link tunnel construction design

Four sub-indicators have been deemed the most significant for the tunnel construction design options

and will be assessed. These sub-indicators are: ecological impact, amount of waste re-used on site,

direct cost & consideration of traffic congestion increase. Table 2.17. shows these sub-indicators and

their corresponding reference numbers.

Table 2.17. Tunnel construction design option sub-indicators, the Oresund Link

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4.

Ecological impact Amount of waste

re-used on site

Direct cost Consideration of

traffic congestion

increase

Page | 75



SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4.

SI.1. 1 1/4 1/2 1/2

SI.2. 4 1 5 3

SI.3. 2 1/5 1 1/2

SI.4. 2 1/3 2 1

Total 9 107/60 17/2 5



SI.1. 1 ÷ 9 1/4 ÷ 107/60 1/2 ÷ 17/2 1/2 ÷ 5 0.41

SI.2. 4 ÷ 9 1 ÷ 107/60 5 ÷ 17/2 3 ÷ 5 2.19

SI.3. 2 ÷ 9 1/5 ÷ 107/60 1 ÷ 17/2 1/2 ÷ 5 0.55

SI.4. 2 ÷ 9 1/3 ÷ 107/60 2 ÷ 17/2 1 ÷ 5 0.84


[

0.412.190.550.84

] ÷ 4 = [

0.100.550.140.21

]


Equation 2.21. Tunnel construction design option weighting normalisation, the Oresund Link

Page | 76

Equation 2.22. Tunnel construction design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Oresund Link

[

1422

1/41

1/51/3

1/2512

1/23

1/21

] 𝑥 [

0.100.550.140.21

] = [

0.175.081.390.74

]



[

0.17 ÷ 0.105.08 ÷ 0.551.39 ÷ 0.140.74 ÷ 0.21

] = [

1.689.242.353.53

]



𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (1.68 + 9.24 + 2.35 + 3.53)

4= 4.20


Equation 2.25. Tunnel construction design option Consistency Index, the Oresund Link

𝐶𝐼 =4.20 − 4

4 − 1= 0.07


Equation 2.26. Tunnel construction design option Consistency Ratio, the Oresund Link

𝐶𝑅 =0.07

0.9= 0.07




The ecological impact (SI.1.) has been given a score of 6.0 for the actual tunnel construction design

compared to a score of 7.5 for the alternative option. This is due to the fact that a bored tunnel would

for the most part, dredge underneath the seabed as opposed to the immersed tunnel which required

Page | 77

the digging of a 4km trench through the seabed. Even though the release of sediment was kept to a

minimum, a lot of ecology would have been destroyed.

The amount of waste re-used on site (SI.2.) has been given a score of 9.0 for the actual tunnel

construction design compared to a score of 9.5 for the alternative option. This is because both methods

would have dredged up the Copenhagen Limestone which was used to build the artificial island but the

boring method would have dredged a fair bit more material and therefore, would reduce the amount of

material that had to be procured.

The direct cost (SI.3.) has been given a score of 8.0 for the actual tunnel construction design compared

to a score of 6.5 for the alternative design. This is because of the difficulties found in dredging the

especially strong Copenhagen Limestone during the project. Although, boring tunnels in on average, the

cheaper option (lensim.co.rs, 2016), it would be especially expensive to procure a boring machine that

could dredge the limestone. It would also most probably break down underground which would prove

very expensive to fix.

The consideration of traffic congestion increase (SI.4.) has been given a score of 8.5 for the actual tunnel

construction design compared to a score of 7.5 for the alternative design. This is because the immersion

method allows for the much more economical rectangular cross-section shape as opposed to the boring

method which is limited to circular. It is easier to allow for extra lanes in a rectangular shape tunnel as

opposed to a circular one.


Table 2.18. Score breakdown, tunnel construction design options, the Oresund Link

Actual tunnel construction

design score

Alternative tunnel construction

design score

SI.1. 6.0 7.5

SI.2. 9.0 9.5

SI.3. 8.0 6.5

SI.4. 8.5 7.5

Page | 78


Table 2.19. Weighted scores, tunnel construction design options, the Oresund Link

Actual tunnel construction

design score

Alternative tunnel construction

design score

SI.1. 6.0 x 0.10 7.5 x 0.10

SI.2. 9.0 x 0.55 9.5 x 0.55

SI.3. 8.0 x 0.14 6.5 x 0.14

SI.4. 8.5 x 0.21 7.5 x 0.21


From Table 2.19. it can be said that the alternative tunnel construction design (bored) received a higher

overall sustainability score (although it is very close) for the chosen sub-indicators and is therefore, the

more sustainable design.

2.6.5. – Pairwise comparison of the Oresund Link centre span design

Three sub-indicators have been deemed the most significant for the centre span design options and will

be assessed. These sub-indicators are: direct cost, H&S & visual impact. Table 2.20. shows these sub-

indicators and their corresponding reference numbers.

Table 2.20. Centre span design option sub-indicators, the Oresund Link

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3.

Direct cost H&S Visual impact



Page | 79

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3.

SI.1. 1 5 1/2

SI.2. 1/5 1 1/8

SI.3. 2 8 1

Total 16/5 14 13/8


SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. Total

SI.1. 1 ÷ 16/5 5 ÷ 14 1/2 ÷ 13/8 0.98

SI.2. 1/5 ÷ 16/5 1 ÷ 14 1/8 ÷ 13/8 0.21

SI.3. 2 ÷ 16/5 8 ÷ 14 1 ÷ 13/8 1.81


[0.980.211.81

] ÷ 3 = [0.330.070.60

]


Equation 2.28. Centre span design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Oresund Link

[1 5 1/2

1/5 1 1/82 8 1

] 𝑥 [0.330.070.60

] = [0.980.043.25

]


Equation 2.27. Centre span design option weighting normalisation, the Oresund Link

Page | 80


[0.98 ÷ 0.330.04 ÷ 0.073.25 ÷ 0.60

] = [2.980.635.42

]



𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (2.98 + 0.63 + 5.42)

3= 3.01


Equation 2.31. Centre span design option Consistency Index, the Oresund Link

𝐶𝐼 =3.01 − 3

3 − 1= 0.01


Equation 2.32. Centre span design option Consistency Ratio, the Oresund Link

𝐶𝑅 =0.01

0.58= 0.02




The direct cost (SI.1.) has been given a score of 9.5 for the actual centre span design compared to a

score of 9.0 for the alternative option. This is due to the fact that the arch span would most probably be

slightly more expensive than the actual design of the 4 pillars. This is purely due to the fact that the arch

would be made from hollow steel tubing which would have been especially pre-fabricated in order to

also take the strain from the cables.

The H&S (SI.2.) has been given a score of 9.5 for the actual centre span design compared to a score of

8.0 for the alternative option. This is because as the arch grades down to the piers at either end of the

centre span, it would reduce the clearance height and create additional points for ships to collide.

Page | 81

The visual impact (SI.3.) has been given a score of 9.5 for the actual centre span design compared to a

score of 8.5 for the alternative design. This is because the arch design would not conform to certain

aspects of Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics such as proportion & refinement.


Table 2.21. Score breakdown, centre span design options, the Oresund Link

Actual centre span design score Alternative centre span design

score

SI.1. 9.5 9.0

SI.2. 9.5 8.0

SI.3. 9.5 8.5


Table 2.22. Weighted scores, centre span design options, the Oresund Link

Actual centre span design score Alternative centre span design

score

SI.1. 9.5 x 0.33 9.0 x 0.33

SI.2. 9.5 x 0.07 8.0 x 0.07

SI.3. 9.5 x 0.60 8.5 x 0.60


From Table 2.22. it can be said that the actual centre span design (four pillars) received a higher overall

sustainability score for the chosen sub-indicators and is therefore, the more sustainable design.

Page | 82

2.7. – Stage 7-Normalised indicator assessment for ‘Complex Bridge

Sustainability Assessment’, the Oresund Link

The Oresund Link is then assessed on an overall basis of sustainability. The weighting method in Chapter

2.3. is different to that in Chapter 2.6. due to the fact that for pairwise comparison (Chapter 2.6.) the

sub-indicators are in direct comparison as opposed to an overall sustainability assessment which is

similar to that used in the NRBSA (Serpell, 2015). The relevant data which has been compiled [Appendix

1] is assessed & normalised using the scaled scoring method. Each sub-indicator will be scored on the

five-point Linkert Scale which ranges through that sub-indicators sustainability performance. The five

performance scores are: Very Poor Performance (VPP), Poor Performance (PP), Average (A), Good

Performance (GP) & Very Good Performance (VGP). These results will later be weighted and tabulated in

Chapter 2.8.

A template of the tabulated Linkert Scale that will be used in normalising the data is shown in Table

2.23.

Table 2.23. Normalisation table template

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise

Poor practise Average Good practise Very good

practise

Data range

2.7.1. – Normalisation of environmental indicators, the Oresund Link

Ecological impact

‘The direct cost of measures taken to preserve ecology’ comes to approximately £24,300,000 [Appendix

1.1.1].

Table 2.24. shows the data normalisation for ‘the direct cost of measures taken to preserve ecology’.

Page | 83

Table 2.24. Normalisation table for ‘the direct measures taken to preserve ecology’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range £0-£100 £101 - £5000 £5001 -

£1,000,000

£1,000,001 -

£5,000,000

>£5,000,000

From Table 2.24, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘the direct measures to preserve ecology’ has

scored VGP.

‘The direct saving from taking prevention measures’ comes to approximately £200,051,000 [Appendix

1.1.1].

Table 2.25. shows the data normalisation for ‘the direct saving from taking prevention measures’.

Table 2.25. Normalisation table for ‘the direct saving from taking prevention measures’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range £0-£10,000 £10,001 -

£50,000

£50,001 -

£2,000,000

£2,000,001 -

£20,000,000

>£20,000,000

From Table 2.25, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘the direct saving from taking prevention

measures’ has scored VGP.

‘The direct cost of unforeseen ecological impact’ comes to £0 [Appendix 1.1.1].

Table 2.26. shows the data normalisation for ‘the direct cost of unforeseen ecological impact’.

Table 2.26. Normalisation table for ‘the direct cost of unforeseen ecological impact’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range >£50,0000 £20,001 -

£50,000

£1001 -

£20,000

£1 - £1000 £0

Page | 84

From Table 2.26, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘the direct cost of unforeseen ecological impact’

has scored VGP.

Energy use

‘Amount of CO2 produced’ comes to approximately 29,935Ggrms [Appendix 1.1.2].

Table 2.27. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of CO2 produced’.

Table 2.27. Normalisation table for ‘amount of CO2 produced’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range >50,000Ggrms 10,001Ggrms

–

50,000Ggrms

3001Ggrms –

10,000Ggrms

1501Ggrms –

3000Ggrms

0Ggrms –

1500Ggrms

From Table 2.27, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of CO2 produced’ has scored PP.

‘Energy saved’ comes to 0Gg [Appendix 1.1.2].

Table 2.28. shows the data normalisation for ‘energy saved’.

Table 2.28. Normalisation table for ‘energy saved’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range 0Gg 1Gg – 5Gg 6Gg – 1000Gg 1001Gg –

5000Gg

>5000Gg

From Table 2.28, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘energy saved’ has scored VPP.

Waste management

‘Amount of waste send directly to landfill’ comes to 0t [Appendix 1.1.3].

Table 2.29. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of waste sent directly to landfill’.

Page | 85

Table 2.29. Normalisation table for ‘amount of waste sent directly to landfill’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range >10,000t 5001t –

10,000t

501t – 5000t 1t – 500t 0t

From Table 2.29, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of waste sent directly to landfill’ has

scored VGP.

‘Amount of waste recycled’ comes to approximately 1,600,000t [Appendix 1.1.3].

Table 2.30. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of waste recycled’.

Table 2.30. Normalisation table for ‘amount of waste recycled’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range 0t 1t – 500t 501t – 2000t 2001t – 5000t >5000t

From Table 2.30, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of waste recycled’ has scored VGP.

‘Amount of waste re-used on site’ comes to approximately 200kt [Appendix 1.1.3].

Table 2.31. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of waste re-used on site’.

Table 2.31. Normalisation table for ‘amount of waste re-used on site’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise


From Table 2.31, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of waste re-used on site’ has scored

VGP.

Page | 86

Land use

‘Amount of free land used’ comes to approximately 7570ha [Appendix 1.1.4].

Table 2.32. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of free land used’.

Table 2.32. Normalisation table for ‘amount of free land used’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range 0ha-1ha 2ha – 100ha 101ha –

1000ha

1001ha –

3000ha

>3000ha

From Table 2.32, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of free land used’ has scored VGP.

‘Amount of pre-occupied land used’ comes to approximately 410ha [Appendix 1.1.4].

Table 2.33. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of pre-occupied land used’.

Table 2.33. Normalisation table for ‘amount of pre-occupied land used’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range >3000ha 1001ha –

3000ha

101ha –

1000ha

2ha – 100ha 0ha – 1ha

From Table 2.33, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of pre-occupied land used’ has scored

A.

Natural material used

‘Amount of natural material used’ comes to approximately 200kt [Appendix 1.1.5].

Table 2.34. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of natural material used’.

Page | 87

Table 2.34. Normalisation table for ‘amount of natural material used’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range 0t 1t – 500t 501t – 5000t 5001t –

10,000t

>10,000t

From Table 2.34, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of natural material used’ has scored

VGP.


‘Consideration of sea level rise’ has been noted as considered [Appendix 1.1.6].

There is no in-between in assessing such an indicator & therefore, it scores either VGP or VPP depending

on whether it has been considered or not. Table 2.35. shows the data normalisation for ‘consideration

of sea level rise’.

Table 2.35. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of sea level rise’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range Not

considered

- - - Considered

From Table 2.35, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘consideration of sea level rise’ has scored VGP.

‘Consideration of temperature change’ has been noted as considered [Appendix 1.1.6].

Table 2.36. shows the data normalisation for ‘consideration of temperature change’.

Table 2.36. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of temperature change’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range Not

considered

- - - Considered

Page | 88

From Table 2.36, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘consideration of temperature change’ has

scored VGP.

‘Consideration of rainfall increase’ has been noted as considered [Appendix 1.1.6].

Table 2.37. shows the data normalisation for ‘consideration of rainfall increase’.

Table 2.37. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of rainfall increase’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range Not

considered

- - - Considered

From Table 2.37, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘consideration of rainfall increase’ has scored

VGP.

2.7.2. – Normalisation of economic indicators, the Oresund Link

Economic impact

‘Direct cost’ comes to approximately £3,970,000,000. [Appendix 1.2.1].

Table 2.38. shows the data normalisation for ‘direct cost’.

Table 2.38. Normalisation table for ‘direct cost’, the Oresund Link

Sustainabilit

y score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range >£20,000,000,00

0

£10,000,000,00

1 -

£20,000,000,00

0

£5,000,000,001

-

£10,000,000,00

0

£1,000,000,00

1 -

£5,000,000,00

0

£0 -

£1,000,000,00

0

From Table 2.38, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘direct cost’ has scored GP.

‘Indirect cost’ comes to approximately £175,000,000. [Appendix 1.2.1].

Table 2.39. shows the data normalisation for ‘indirect cost’.

Page | 89

Table 2.39. Normalisation table for ‘indirect cost’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor practise Poor practise Average Good practise Very good

practise

Data range >£500,000,000 £200,000,001-

£500,000,000

£10,000,001-

£200,000,000

£5,000,001-

£10,000,000

£0 -

£5,000,000

From Table 2.39, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘indirect cost’ has scored A.

‘Direct income’ comes to approximately £18,500,000. [Appendix 1.2.1].

Table 2.40. shows the data normalisation for ‘direct income’.

Table 2.40. Normalisation table for ‘direct income’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor practise Poor

practise

Average Good practise Very good

practise

Data range £0 £1 -

£1,500,000

£1,500,001-

£18,000,000

£18,000,001 -

£30,000,000

>£30,000,000

From Table 2.40, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘direct income’ has scored A.

‘Indirect income’ comes to approximately £56,500,000,000. [Appendix 1.2.1].

Table 2.41. shows the data normalisation for ‘indirect income’.

Table 2.41. Normalisation table for ‘indirect income’, the Oresund Link

Sustainabilit

y score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range £0 -

£500,000,00

0

£500,000,001

-

£1,000,000,00

0

£1,000,000,001

-

£50,000,000,00

0

£50,000,000,00

1 -

£100,000,000,0

00

>£100,000,000,0

00

From Table 2.41, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘indirect income’ has scored GP.

Page | 90

Employment

‘Number of local jobs, permanent full-time’ comes to approximately 202. [Appendix 1.2.2].

Table 2.42. shows the data normalisation for ‘number of local jobs, permanent full-time’.

Table 2.42. Normalisation table for ‘number of local jobs, permanent full-time’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range 0 1 - 10 11 - 200 201 - 500 >500

From Table 2.42, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘number of local jobs, permanent full-time’ has

scored GP.

‘Number of local jobs, permanent part-time’ comes to approximately 100. [Appendix 1.2.2].

Table 2.43. shows the data normalisation for ‘number of local jobs, permanent part-time’.

Table 2.43. Normalisation table for ‘number of local jobs, permanent part-time’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range 0 1 - 5 6 - 100 101 - 300 >300

From Table 2.43, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘number of local jobs, permanent part-time’ has

scored A.

‘Number of local jobs, temporary full-time’ comes to approximately 5604. [Appendix 1.2.2].

Table 2.44. shows the data normalisation for ‘number of local jobs, temporary full-time’.

Page | 91

Table 2.44. Normalisation table for ‘number of local jobs, temporary full-time’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range 0 1 - 1000 1001 – 10,000 10,001 –

30,000

>30,000

From Table 2.44, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘number of local jobs, temporary full-time’ has

scored A.

Economic risk

‘Direct cost of insurance taken out’ comes to approximately £100,000,000. [Appendix 1.2.3].

Table 2.45. shows the data normalisation for ‘direct cost of insurance taken out’.

Table 2.45. Normalisation table for ‘direct cost of insurance taken out’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor practise Poor practise Average Good

practise

Very good

practise

Data range >£100,000,000 £10,000,001

-

£100,000,000

£50,001 -

£10,000,000

£10,001 -

£50,000

£0 - £10,000

From Table 2.45, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘direct cost of insurance taken out’ has scored

PP.

‘Direct saving from insured events occurring’ comes to approximately £158,000,000. [Appendix 1.2.3].

Table 2.46. shows the data normalisation for ‘direct saving from insured events occurring’.

Table 2.46. Normalisation table for ‘direct saving from insured events occurring’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range £0 - £10,000 £10,001 -

£50,000

£50,001 -

£10,000,000

£10,000,001 -

£100,000,000

>£100,000,000

Page | 92

From Table 2.46, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘direct saving from insured events occurring’ has

scored VGP.

‘Direct saving from insured not taken out’ comes to approximately £8,860,000. [Appendix 1.2.3].

Table 2.47. shows the data normalisation for ‘direct saving from insured not taken out’.

Table 2.47. Normalisation table for ‘direct saving from insured not taken out’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range £0 - £1,000,000 £1,000,001

-

£50,000,000

£50,000,001 -

£200,000,000

£200,000,001

-

£700,000,000

>£700,000,000

From Table 2.47, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘direct saving from insured not taken out’ has

scored PP.

‘Direct cost from uninsured event occurring’ comes to approximately £21,300,000. [Appendix 1.2.3].

Table 2.48. shows the data normalisation for ‘direct cost from uninsured event occurring’.

Table 2.48. Normalisation table for ‘direct cost from uninsured event occurring’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise

Data range >£700,000,000 £200,000,001

-

£700,000,000

£50,000,001 -

£200,000,000

£1,000,001 -

£50,000,000

£0 -

£1,000,000

From Table 2.48, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘direct cost from uninsured event occurring’ has

scored GP.

Financial investment

‘Investment from local sources’ comes to approximately £4,040,000. [Appendix 1.2.4].

Table 2.49. shows the data normalisation for ‘investment from local sources’.

Page | 93

Table 2.49. Normalisation table for ‘investment from local sources’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£10,000,000 £5,000,001

-

£10,000,000

£500,001 -

£5,000,000

£1 - £500,000 £0

From Table 2.49, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘investment from local sources’ has scored A.

‘Investment from non-local sources’ comes to approximately £2,100,000,000. [Appendix 1.2.4].

Table 2.50. shows the data normalisation for ‘investment from non-local sources’.

Table 2.50. Normalisation table for ‘investment from non-local sources’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range £0 -

£10,000,000

£10,000,001

-

£100,000,000

£100,000,001 -

£1,000,000,000

£1,000,000,001

-

£5,000,000,000

>£5,000,000,000

From Table 2.50, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘investment from non-local sources’ has scored

GP.

2.7.3. – Normalisation of social indicators, the Oresund Link

Health & Wellbeing

‘Noise impact’ comes to approximately 33.57db. [Appendix 1.3.1].

Table 2.51. shows the data normalisation for ‘noise impact.

Table 2.51. Normalisation table for ‘noise impact’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >75db 56db –

75db

31db - 55db 21db – 30db 0db – 20db

Page | 94

From Table 2.51, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘noise impact’ has scored A.

‘Light pollution’ comes to approximately 20.9 mag/arcsec2. [Appendix 1.3.1].

Table 2.52. shows the data normalisation for ‘light pollution.

Table 2.52. Normalisation table for ‘light pollution’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range <19.4mag/arcsec2 19.4

mag/arcsec2

– 20.4

mag/arcsec2

20.5

mag/arcsec2 –

21.5

mag/arcsec2

21.6

mag/arcsec2 –

21.8

mag/arcsec2

>21.8

mag/arcsec2

From Table 2.52, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘light pollution’ has scored A.

‘Air quality’ comes to approximately 50% reduction of air pollutants. [Appendix 1.3.1].

Table 2.53. shows the data normalisation for ‘air quality’.

Table 2.53. Normalisation table for ‘air quality’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >30% increase 21%

increase –

30%

increase

11% increase –

20% increase

0% increase –

10% increase

<0%

reduction

From Table 2.53, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘air quality’ has scored VGP.

Transport impact

‘Delay time’ is negligible. [Appendix 1.3.2].

Table 2.54. shows the data normalisation for ‘delay time’.

Page | 95

Table 2.54. Normalisation table for ‘delay time’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >20 mins 11 mins –

20 mins

6 mins – 10

mins

3 mins – 5

mins

0 mins – 2

mins

From Table 2.54, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘delay time’ has scored VGP.

‘Time saved’ comes to approximately 73mins. [Appendix 1.3.2].

Table 2.55. shows the data normalisation for ‘time saved’.

Table 2.55. Normalisation table for ‘time saved’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range 0 mins – 10 mins 11 mins –

25 mins

26 mins – 60

mins

61 mins – 90

mins

> 90 mins

From Table 2.55, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘time saved’ has scored GP.

Stakeholder engagement

‘Consideration of stakeholders’ has been noted as considered. [Appendix 1.3.3].

Table 2.56. shows the data normalisation for ‘consideration of stakeholders’.

Table 2.56. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of stakeholders’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range Not considered - - - Considered

From Table 2.56, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘consideration of stakeholders’ has scored VGP.

‘Complaints/disputes’ is negligible. [Appendix 1.3.3].

Page | 96

Table 2.57. shows the data normalisation for ‘complaints/disputes’.

Table 2.57. Normalisation table for ‘complaints/disputes’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range > c/ds 21 c/ds –

35 c/ds

6 c/ds – 20

c/ds

1 c/ds – 5

c/ds

0 c/ds

From Table 2.57, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘complaints/disputes’ has scored VGP.

Health & Safety

‘Loss time due to accidents occurred’ comes to 4.4hrs. [Appendix 1.3.4].

Table 2.58. shows the data normalisation for ‘loss time due to accidents occurred’.

Table 2.58. Normalisation table for ‘loss time due to accidents occurred’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range > 48 hrs 25 hrs – 48

hrs

5 hrs – 24 hrs 3 hrs – 5 hrs 0 hrs – 2 hrs

From Table 2.58, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘time due to accidents occurred’ has scored GP.

Visual impact

‘Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics’ conforms to all 10 rules. [Appendix 1.3.5].

Table 2.59. shows the data normalisation for ‘Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics’.

Table 2.59. Normalisation table for ‘Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range 0 rules – 3

rules

4 rules – 5

rules

6 rules – 7

rules

8 rules – 9

rules

10 rules

Page | 97

From Table 2.59, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics’ has scored

VGP.

Equality

‘Impact of racial equality’ conforms to company policy. [Appendix 1.3.6].

Table 2.60. shows the data normalisation for ‘impact of racial equality’.

Table 2.60. Normalisation table for ‘impact of racial equality’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range Doesn’t

conform

- - - Conforms

From Table 2.60, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘impact of racial equality’ has scored VGP.

‘Impact of gender equality’ conforms to company policy. [Appendix 1.3.6].

Table 2.61. shows the data normalisation for ‘impact of gender equality’.

Table 2.61. Normalisation table for ‘impact of gender equality’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


conform

- - - Conforms

From Table 2.61, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘impact of gender equality’ has scored VGP.

‘Impact of disability equality’ conforms to company policy. [Appendix 1.3.6].

Table 2.62. shows the data normalisation for ‘impact of disability equality’.

Page | 98

Table 2.62. Normalisation table for ‘impact of disability equality’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


conform

- - - Conforms

From Table 2.62, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘impact of disability equality’ has scored VGP.

‘Impact of age equality’ conforms to company policy. [Appendix 1.3.6].

Table 2.63. shows the data normalisation for ‘impact of age equality’.

Table 2.63. Normalisation table for ‘impact of age equality’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


conform

- - - Conforms

From Table 2.63, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘impact of age equality’ has scored VGP.

Educational impact

‘Cost of improvements to the educational sector’ comes to 7.9% increase in GDP spent. [Appendix

1.3.7].

Table 2.64. shows the data normalisation for ‘cost of improvements to the educational sector’.

Table 2.64. Normalisation table for ‘cost of improvements to the educational sector’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range 0% increase 1% increase

– 2%

increase

3% increase –

5% increase

6% increase –

7% increase

>7% increase

Page | 99



‘Consideration of traffic congestion increase’ has been noted as considered. [Appendix 1.3.8].

Table 2.65. shows the data normalisation for ‘consideration of traffic congestion increase’.

Table 2.65. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of traffic congestion increase’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


From Table 2.65, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘consideration of traffic congestion increase’ has

scored VGP.

2.8. – Stage 8-Results for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the

Oresund Link

The results of the normalised indicator assessment are then compiled into a final table alongside their

respective weightings. Using this table, the sustainability scores for each sub-indicator, indicator,

sustainability pillar & finally overall project score can be broken down. This is shown in Table 2.66.

Table 2.66. Results table, the Oresund Link

Sust

pillar

Indic Sub-indic Non-

weight

sust score

Weight

factor

Weight

sust

score

Tot indic

weight

sust score

Tot pillar

weight

sust score

Env Ecological

impact

Cost of

pres meas

VGP 0.8 0.8VGP 0.9VGP 2.3VGP

Saving of

pres meas

VGP 0.85 0.85VGP

Page | 100

Cost of

impact

VGP 0.9 0.9VGP

Energy use CO2 PP 0.4 0.4PP 0.45VPP

Energy

saved

VPP 0.45 0.45VPP

Waste man Landfill VGP 0.40 0.40VGP 0.5VGP

Recycled VGP 0.45 0.45VGP

Re-used VGP 0.5 0.5VGP

Land use Free land VGP 0.65 0.6VGP 0.65A

Non-free

land

A 0.65 0.65A

Natural

material

Amount

used

VGP 0.3 0.3VGP 0.3VGP

Consider

Env Climate

Change

Sea level VGP 0.5 0.5VGP 0.6VGP

Temp VGP 0.6 0.6VGP

Rainfall VGP 0.6 0.6VGP

Econ

Economic

impact

Direct cost GP 0.9 0.9GP 0.95A 1.8GP

Indirect

cost

A 0.85 0.85A

Direct

income

A 0.9 0.95A

Indirect

income

GP 0.85 0.85GP

Employ Perm F/T GP 0.95 0.95GP 0.95GP

Perm P/T A 0.9 0.9A

Temp F/T A 0.85 0.85A

Cost insure PP 0.8 0.8PP 0.85GP

Page | 101

Economic

risk

Save event VGP 0.8 0.8VGP

Save insure PP 0.7 0.7PP

Cost event GP 0.85 0.85GP

Financial

investment

Local A 0.8 0.8A 0.8A

Non-local GP 0.75 0.75GP

Soc H&W Noise A 0.8 0.8A 0.85VGP 3.7VGP

Light A 0.35 0.35A

Air VGP 0.85 0.85VGP

Transport

impact

Delay VGP 0.9 0.9VGP 0.95GP

Time saved GP 0.95 0.95GP

Stake

Engage

Consider VGP 0.6 0.6VGP 0.6VGP

Complaints VGP 0.6 0.6VGP

H&S Loss time GP 0.65 0.65GP 0.65GP

Visual

impact

Leonhardt

rules


Equality Race VGP 0.35 0.35VGP 0.35VGP

Gender VGP 0.35 0.35VGP

Disability VGP 0.35 0.35VGP

Age VGP 0.35 0.35VGP

Education GDP spent VGP 0.8 0.8VGP 0.8VGP

Soc Climate

Change

Congestion

increase


Overall

sust

score

6VGP

Page | 102

Analysis of the table shows the overall sustainability score for the Oresund Link is Very Good Practise. It

also shows that the project performed fairly well economically but excellently in regards to environment

& society considerations. Going by individual indicators, the project performed best in its ecological

impact, waste management, use of natural material, consideration of environmental climate change,

H&S, stakeholder engagement, visual impact, equality, educational improvements and consideration of

social climate change. The project too performed well in covering employment, economic risk, transport

impact and H&S. However, it performed very poorly in it’s use of energy.

2.9. – Stage 9-Visualisation for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the

Oresund Link

The scoring system is well represented by a ROSE plot visualisation wheel, namely the poorly scoring

areas. Measures that could be taken to improve the sustainability of these aspects include using

renewable energy services, reducing excessive energy use in construction & promoting sustainable

forms of transport such as cycling.

The ROSE plot is shown in Figure 2.10. The colours represent the individual scores of the sustainability

pillars, their respective indicators & sub-indicators. The colour of the centre circle represents the overall

project score.

Page | 103

Figure 2.10. CBSA ROSE plot, the Oresund Link


Chapter 2 consisted of the full CBSA assessment of the Oresund Link. This begun with an initial research

stage which provided an in-depth understanding of the needs & aspirations of the Oresund Region prior

to the bridges construction. This way, the assessor can establish a hierarchy of the most important

indicators for assessment which are weighted & aggregated accordingly.

Key

Very good

Good practise

Average

Poor practise

Very poor

practise

Economy

Page | 104

Next, the key design options are assessed against their alternative options. This way, it can be found out

whether the most sustainable options were chosen which would significantly affect the link’s overall

sustainability.

Finally, the link is assessed as a whole, in a similar fashion to that of the NRBSA model (Serpell, 2015). It

was eventually discovered that it scored excellently, especially in the areas of environmental & social

issues.

However, from the pairwise comparison of the key design options, it was discovered that the choice to

construct the tunnel section using the immersion method instead of the boring method was the least

sustainable option of the two. This was mainly due to the ecological impact created from dredging the

4.5km tunnel trench instead of boring underground, which would have affected less of the sea-life. In

addition, the boring method would have excavated more material which could have been used to fill the

artificial island, saving time & money.

This case study was helpful is assessing the sustainability of an existing bridge, but realistically, the

assessment should take place during the planning/design stage in order to use the results to design the

most sustainable project.

Page | 105

Chapter 3 – Case-study 2. The Solent Link

Chapter 3 will cover the original work of the assessment of a bridge in the design stage using the CBSA

model. The fact that the bridge is in the design stage is extremely useful as the model can help the

designers chose the most sustainable options for the bridge. Once the key design options have been

decided, there will be an outline design section for the link.

The bridge will be based in the Solent Region and will be the first direct connection for the Isle of Wight

to England. There has already been some very basic planning for the proposed bridge but has been put

aside. The BBC included it in an article titled ‘Could these five projects improve life in the UK?’ (BBC,

2013). Therefore, it is a viable option for assessment as it has the potential for fruition in the future.

Figure 3.1 shows a satellite image of the Isle of Wight as it is, without any crossings.

Figure 3.1. Isle of Wight satellite view (Google Maps, 2016)

Page | 106

3.1. – Stage 1-Initial research for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’,

the Solent Link

Firstly, the economic benefits of any crossing plans should be suitable. The fact that the Isle of Wight

does not already have a fixed link with the mainland has led to a dying local economy and the

introduction of one should warrant fairly substantial economic benefits to both the Isle of Wight & the

nearby English cites of Portsmouth & Southampton. Campaigner George Bristow believes the

introduction of a crossing would give the island a 30% increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (BBC,

2013).

In addition, the proposals have been mainly welcomed by local residents. Frustration has been evident

regarding the price of ferry crossings. A return trip for two adults in a car can reach over £100 in high

season (BBC, 2013). The frustration is summed up well in a written letter to the Daily Telegraph. “Every

other island community in the British Isles which had the feasibility of a bridge has seen one built. Why

is there no bridge to the Isle of Wight?” (Baulf, 2011). Residents have even been open to the idea of

implementing a toll system on the crossing. It would help to pay for itself as well as potentially drive

down prices of the competing ferry companies (BBC, 2013). Not all residents are for the proposal. Some

believe that the ferry prices are fair. Some have also shown concerns of a crossing allowing Grey

Squirrels from the mainland invading the island and wiping out the Red Squirrel community (BBC, 2013).

Figure 3.2 shows a Red Squirrel which is currently almost non-existent on the mainland but still thrive on

the Isle of Wight.

Page | 107

As well as the shown concerns for the impact on the island’s Red Squirrels, there have been progress on

the adjacent marine environment becoming a conserved/protected area. The Southern Inshore Fisheries

and Conservation Authority (IFCA) want to preserve seagrass & rocky reef habitats through new by-laws

(BBC, 2014). These plans have been backed by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs

(DEFRA) & the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (RSPB, 2014).

Figure 3.3 shows the to-be protected seagrass.

Figure 3.2. Red Squirrel (Whippey, 2012)

Figure 3.3. Seagrass (infectiousnew.com, 2012)

Page | 108

Plans have also been put forward to make the crossing a tunnel. This would be a more expensive option,

priced at around £1 billion but would mitigate the risk of squirrel invasion & crime increase (iwcp.co.uk,

2014). The crossing would be a rail link that would be roughly £10 return (iwcp.co.uk, 2014).

Using this information, a few areas of sustainability can be given higher priority in the assessment

process which will be highlighted in the weighting stage. These areas are mainly concerned with the

economic & ecological impacts as well the direct income from the crossing (toll price).

3.2. – Stage 2-Indicator selection for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability

Assessment’, the Solent Link

Following the initial research stage, a variety of relevant indicators & sub-indicators will be chosen for

assessment. All indicators will consider the entire life cycle of the Solent Link. These indicators will be

placed under the 3 pillars of sustainability: environment, economy & society. The breakdown of these

indicators are shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Indicator selection for 'Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment', the Solent Link

Sustainability Pillar Indicator Sub-indicator



Energy use Estimated amount of CO2 produced

Energy saved

Waste management Estimated amount of waste sent directly to landfill

Estimated amount of waste recycled

Page | 109

Estimated amount of waste re-used on site




Amount of water saved







Economy Economic impact Estimated direct cost

Indirect cost

Estimated direct income

Estimated indirect income




Economic risk Estimated direct cost of insurance taken out

Estimated direct saving from insured event occurring

Direct saving from not taking insurance

Page | 110






Society Health & wellbeing Noise impact

Light pollution

Vibration

Air quality

Transport impact Delay time

Time saved


Health & safety Risk assessment








Page | 111


Equality Impact of racial equality






3.3. – Stage 3-Indicator weighting for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability


All the indicators mentioned in Chapter 3.2. will be weighted according to their significance to the

overall sustainability of the Solent region. The weighting is of the same method as used in Chapter 2.2.

The weightings are shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2. Indicator weighting for 'Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment', the Solent Link

Sustainability Pillar Indicator Sub-indicator Weighting


0.90


0.95

Energy use Estimated amount of CO2 produced

0.40

Energy saved 0.45

Page | 112

Waste management Estimated amount of waste sent directly to landfill

0.40

Estimated amount of waste recycled

0.45

Estimated amount of waste re-used on site

0.50


0.60


0.65


0.15



0.15


0.30



0.80


0.70


0.70

Economy Economic impact Estimated direct cost 0.90

Indirect cost 0.85

Estimated direct income 0.95

Estimated indirect income

0.85


0.85


0.80

Page | 113


0.75

Economic risk Estimated direct cost of insurance taken out

0.80

Estimated direct saving from insured event occurring

0.80


0.70


0.85


0.80


0.75



0.10

Society Health & wellbeing Noise impact 0.80

Light pollution 0.35

Vibration 0.15

Air quality 0.85

Transport impact Delay time 0.90

Time saved 0.95


0.75

Health & safety Risk assessment 0.65


0.15


0.15

Page | 114


0.15


0.20


0.15


0.15


0.10


0.15

Equality Impact of racial equality 0.35


0.35


0.35

Impact of age equality 0.35



0.90

3.4. – Stage 4-Indicator aggregation for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability


The same minimum weighting value used in Chapter 2.4. will be used for the Solent Link’s assessment,

anything less than 0.20. This means the following indicators/sub-indicators have been aggregated:

amount of water saved, amount of water recycled, consideration of possible economic crash, vibration,

cultural heritage impact and community facilities.

These have been given such a low weighting value for the following reasons: the Solent Region does not

have a particular shortage of water, the possibility of economic crash affecting the Solent Link being so

Page | 115

low, there will be no vibration works powerful enough to affect nearby facilities, the lack of cultural

heritage on the development site and the lack of community facilities affected.

This now leaves 39 sub-indicators to be assessed for both the key design options and the Solent Link as a

whole.

3.5. – Stage 5- Identifying key design options for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability


There are several key design choices that were made for the Solent Link which could affect its overall

sustainability. The CBSA model aims to assess these choices and their alternatives in order to find the

most sustainable option. These design options are shown in Table 3.3. All options have been put forward

by the author except for the choice between using a bridge or a tunnel which has been mentioned by

two Isle of Wight businessmen, Carl Feeney & Kevin Prince (iwcp.co.uk, 2014). The last three design

option comparisons are based on the choice of a bridge design instead of a tunnel.

Table 3.3. Key design options for the 'Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment', the Solent Link

De

sign

Op

tio

ns

Option 1 Option 2

Tunnel Bridge

Swing bridge mechanism Raised deck

Floating bridge Standing bridge

The general reasoning for the chosen design options will be described, whilst a detailed assessment

using pairwise comparison will be completed for each set of options in Chapter 3.6.

3.5.1. – Choice of Solent Link crossing type

Along with the main idea to create a crossing between the Isle of Wight & England, there is also the

issue of choosing the type of crossing, bridge or tunnel. Of course, if the choice of a tunnel is found to be

the more sustainable option, the CBSA model can still be used to assess its overall sustainability,

contrary to what the name suggests. Its ability to assess tunnels has been proven from its assessment of

the Oresund Link in Chapter 2.

Page | 116

The construction of a bridge would be the much cheaper option as a rule of thumb by comparing

tunnel’s with bridges & therefore, have less negative economic impact. There is also the possibility of

constructing a floating bridge which will be discussed later on. This will have the advantage of

maintaining the to-be protected marine environment. In addition, the bridge has the opportunity to

have a positive visual impact & possibly become a point of interest for the region.

There are some disadvantages of building a bridge. It provides a possible crossing for squirrels which the

locals have already shown concern about with the invasion of the Grey Squirrel to the island. It would

provide an issue with allowing ships to continue to travel, which with the region’s major ports of

Portsmouth & Southampton is a big issue. The visual impact of the bridge could actually be a negative

one as well.

The construction of a tunnel mitigates the issues of negative visual impact, blocking shipping lanes &

providing a crossing for squirrels. However, as mentioned before, it would be a much more expensive

venture. In addition, the tunnel would have to be bored under the seabed if it was to avoid destroying

the marine environment. This introduces other limitations such as the transport types allowed on the

link as road lanes would require a larger cross-section to be bored.

Figure 3.4 shows the initial cross-section design for the proposed Solent Tunnel.

Figure 3.4. Solent Tunnel cross-section initial design (iwcp.co.uk, 2014)

Page | 117

3.5.2. – Choice of Solent Link design to maintain shipping routes

If the construction of a bridge is chosen, consideration of the existing shipping routes must be taken into

account. The two choices that are to be compared are a swing mechanism along the bridge route

compared to the standard design of a risen section to allow ships to pass underneath.

A swing mechanism design is not standard for bridge crossings, especially one that would span as far as

is required for the Solent Region. However, it has proved effective in previous examples, such as the

BNSF Rail Bridge in Portland, Oregon. The use of a swing bridge allows the bridge to sit closer to the

water which will reduce dead loads & therefore, cost of materials overall.

Figure 3.5. shows the BNSF Rail Bridge.

However, the swing bridge does have some disadvantages. Scheduled times would have to be planned

in which the swing bridge would open to let ships pass. This will disrupt the existing shipping pattern as

well as create additional delays for the bridges passengers. In addition, swing bridges tend to look less

attractive because of parts required for the mechanism to work, however, this is not always the case.

The swing bridge in Whitby is aesthetically pleasing and is actually a point of interest for the town.

Figure 3.6. shows the Whitby swing bridge.

Figure 3.5. BNSF Rail Bridge, Oregon (Morgan, 2011)

Page | 118

The design to have a raised deck which will allow ships to continuously pass underneath is the more

standard design & therefore, would not require additional specialists during construction. It would also

mitigate the issue of transport disruption both water & land based. However, there would be more

materials required which will add to costs as well as the fact that the construction of the piers would

destroy the to-be protected seabed. This issue can be mitigated by designing a floating bridge but there

would still be limitations on how high the deck can be raised as the pontoons can only take so much

dead load.

An example of this is shown by the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge 2, shown in Figure 3.7.

Figure 3.6. Whitby swing bridge (oldjoesphotos.co.uk, 2013)

Page | 119

3.5.3. – Choice of the Solent Link to be floating or not

The main decision maker in have the Solent Link to be floating or not it whether the damage to the

seabed would be great enough to warrant it. There has been concern about the protection of the

marine life & it is potentially going to become the law. Other advantages of floating bridges are their

proximity to the water which will save on materials. If designed well they can also be quite attractive & a

potential tourist attraction. However, there would be limitations. Rail traffic would not be viable along

the bridge as the lack of tension along the span would surpass the flexibility specifications of the railway.

A concept sketch for a floating bridge in the Maldives is shown in Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.7. Evergreen Point Floating Bridge 2 (dreamcarz1.org, 2016)

Page | 120

The standard design of a bridge with piers would be a much more conventional & therefore, easier

build. It would mitigate the issues of dealing with horizontal forces from sea currents & buoyancy

calculations for the dead loads. However, there would most likely be complaints or even legal

constraints for building over the environmentally vulnerable seabed.

3.6. – Stage 6-Pairwise comparison of the key design options for ‘Complex

Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Solent Link

Each of the design options mentioned in Chapter 3.5. will assessed individually using the AHP and

pairwise comparison. In each assessment process, up to 10 sub-indicators will be chosen for assessment.

These will be seen as the most important or relevant sub-indicators for the corresponding design option.

Pairwise comparison will be used on the weightings of these sub-indicators which will be normalised,

checked for consistency & finally scored. This way, the most sustainable design can be chosen for the

Solent Link.

Figure 3.8. Floating bridge concept sketch, Maldives (rhdhvarchitecture.com, 2016)

Page | 121

3.6.1. – Pairwise comparison of the Solent Link crossing type design

Four sub-indicators have been deemed the most significant for the crossing type design options and will

be assessed. These sub-indicators are: ecological impact, direct cost, visual impact & consideration of

traffic congestion increase. Table 3.4. shows these sub-indicators and their corresponding reference

numbers.

Table 3.4. Crossing type design option sub-indicators, the Solent Link

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4.

Ecological impact Direct cost Visual impact Consideration of

traffic congestion

increase

The first step in pairwise comparison is to determine the importance of each sub-indicator in

comparison to each other. This is done using the nine-point scale shown in Table 3.5.

The results have been determined by the author and are shown in comparison matrix format below

along with the sum value of each column.


Page | 122

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4.

SI.1. 1 1/4 1/5 1/4

SI.2. 4 1 1/2 1

SI.3. 5 2 1 2

SI.4. 4 1 1/2 1

Total 14 13/4 11/5 13/4

These values are then normalised. A new matrix is compiled of these new elements of which the sum of

each row is calculated. This is shown in the matrix below.


SI.1. 1 ÷ 14 1/4 ÷ 13/4 1/5 ÷ 11/5 1/4 ÷ 13/4 0.32

SI.2. 4 ÷ 14 1 ÷ 13/4 1/2 ÷ 11/5 1 ÷ 13/4 1.13

SI.3. 5 ÷ 14 2 ÷ 13/4 1 ÷ 11/5 2 ÷ 13/4 2.04

SI.4. 4 ÷ 14 1 ÷ 13/4 1/2 ÷ 11/5 1 ÷ 13/4 1.13

The sum of the rows are then normalised and shown as the priority matrix. This is shown in Equation

3.1. below.

[

0.321.132.041.13

] ÷ 4 = [

0.080.280.510.28

]

The consistency is then checked using the Consistency Ratio (CR) shown in Equation 3.2. This is

calculated using the Consistency Index (CI) & the Random Index (RI).


𝐶𝑅 =𝐶𝐼

𝑅𝐼

Equation 3.1. Crossing type design option weighting normalisation, the Solent Link

Page | 123

The RI is taken from Table 3.6., below.

The CI is calculated using Equation 3.3. This is calculated with the principle eigenvector (λmax) and the

number of criteria (m).



𝑚 − 1

The principle eigenvector can be estimated in a three step process. First, the priority matrix is multiplied

by the comparison matrix. This is shown in Equation 3.4. below.

Equation 3.4. Crossing type design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Solent Link

[

1454

1/4121

1/51/21

1/2

1/4121

] 𝑥 [

0.080.280.510.28

] = [

0.321.142.031.14

]

In the next step, each element of the resulting matrix is divided by its corresponding element of the

priority matrix. This is shown in Equation 3.5.


[

0.32 ÷ 0.081.14 ÷ 0.282.03 ÷ 0.511.14 ÷ 0.28

] = [

4.004.073.984.07

]

Finally, the principle eigenvector is calculated by finding the average value of the above matrix. This is

shown in Equation 3.6.


𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (4.00 + 4.07 + 3.98 + 4.07)

4= 4.03


Page | 124

The CI can now be calculated (Equation 3.7).

Equation 3.7. Crossing type design option Consistency Index, the Solent Link

𝐶𝐼 =4.03 − 4

4 − 1= 0.01


Equation 3.8. Crossing type design option Consistency Ratio, the Solent Link

𝐶𝑅 =0.01

0.9= 0.01



Scoring of each sub-indicator for each design option is done using a 0-10 point scale. The higher the

value, the better the sustainability. The score value has been determined by the author, based on

extensive data & research of the Solent Link itself as well as other similar examples. The segregation of

the scores is shown in Table 3.7.

The ecological impact (SI.1.) has been given a score of 7.0 for design option 1 (bridge) compared to a

score of 7.5 for design option 2 (tunnel). This is due to the fact that both options would at least disturb

the marine ecology & would probably destroy some as well. However, the tunnel option is slightly better

as it mitigates the risk of Grey Squirrels invading the Isle of Wight & wiping out its population of Red

Squirrels.


Page | 125

The direct cost (SI.2.) has been given a score of 8.0 for design option 1 (bridge) compared to a score of

4.5 for design option 2 (tunnel). This is because although the bridge would be relatively pricey, however,

the tunnel would be a lot more expensive. Tunnel’s mile for mile can be up to four times the price of a

bridge (Kalundu, 2015).

The visual impact (SI.3.) has been given a score of 6.0 for design option 1 (bridge) compared to a score of

5.0 for design option 2 (tunnel). This is because a bridge will have a major visual impact on the

surrounding environment but it could be positive or negative. It was been scored higher than the tunnel

which will only have a small visual impact at the entrance/exit points of the tunnel.

The consideration of traffic congestion increase (SI.4.) has been given a score of 7.5 for design option 1

(bridge) compared to a score of 5.5 for design option 2 (tunnel). This is because a bridge is a lot easier to

add new traffic lanes to in the future. The tunnel will have to be designed with an extra-large cross

section in order to warrant potential future lane additions.


Table 3.8. Score breakdown, crossing type design options, the Solent Link

Option 1 Option 2

SI.1. 7.0 7.5

SI.2. 8.0 4.5

SI.3. 6.0 5.0

SI.4. 7.5 5.5

Each score is then multiplied by its appropriate weighting & the total score for each design option is

calculated. This is shown in Table 3.9.

Page | 126

Table 3.9. Weighted scores, crossing type design options, the Solent Link

Option 1 score Option 2 score

SI.1. 7.0 x 0.08 7.5 x 0.08

SI.2. 8.0 x 0.28 4.5 x 0.28

SI.3. 6.0 x 0.51 5.0 x 0.51

SI.4. 7.5 x 0.28 5.5 x 0.28


From Table 3.9. it can be said that design option 1 (bridge) received a higher overall sustainability score

for the chosen sub-indicators and is therefore, the more sustainable design.

Therefore, the other two design option comparisons will be made as they are considered for bridge

design.

3.6.2. – Pairwise comparison of Solent Link design to maintain shipping routes

Four sub-indicators have been deemed the most significant for the shipping route maintenance design

options and will be assessed. These sub-indicators are: direct cost, delay time, visual impact &

consideration of traffic congestion increase. Table 3.10. shows these sub-indicators and their

corresponding reference numbers.

Table 3.10. Shipping route maintenance design option sub-indicators, the Solent Link

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4.

Direct cost Delay time Visual impact Consideration of

traffic congestion

increase



Page | 127

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4.

SI.1. 1 1/3 1/2 1/2

SI.2. 3 1 1 1/2

SI.3. 2 1 1 1

SI.4. 2 2 1 1

Total 8 13/3 7/2 3



SI.1. 1 ÷ 8 1/3 ÷ 13/3 1/2 ÷ 7/2 1/2 ÷ 3 0.51

SI.2. 3 ÷ 8 1 ÷ 13/3 1 ÷ 7/2 1/2 ÷ 3 1.06

SI.3. 2 ÷ 8 1 ÷ 13/3 1 ÷ 7/2 1 ÷ 3 1.10

SI.4. 2 ÷ 8 2 ÷ 13/3 1 ÷ 7/2 1 ÷ 3 1.33


[

0.511.061.101.33

] ÷ 4 = [

0.130.270.280.33

]


Equation 3.10. Shipping route maintenance design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Solent Link

[

1322

1/3112

1/2111

1/21/211

] 𝑥 [

0.130.270.280.33

] = [

0.521.111.141.41

]


Equation 3.9. Shipping route maintenance design option weighting normalisation, the Solent Link

Page | 128


[

0.52 ÷ 0.131.11 ÷ 0.271.14 ÷ 0.281.41 ÷ 0.33

] = [

4.004.114.074.28

]



𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (4.00 + 4.11 + 4.07 + 4.28)

4= 4.11


Equation 3.13. Shipping route maintenance design option Consistency Index, the Solent Link

𝐶𝐼 =4.11 − 4

4 − 1= 0.04


Equation 3.14. Shipping route maintenance design option Consistency Ratio, the Solent Link

𝐶𝑅 =0.04

0.9= 0.04




The direct cost (SI.1.) has been given a score of 7.0 for design option 1 (swing mechanism) compared to

a score of 7.5 for design option 2 (raised deck). This is because although raising the bridge deck would

add to material & therefore cost, the swing mechanism itself would most likely cost slightly more as it is

such specialist equipment.

The delay time (SI.2.) has been given a score of 5.0 for design option 1 (swing mechanism) compared to

a score of 9.5 for design option 2 (raised deck). This is because the swing bridge would create travel

delays for both ships & road vehicles depending on where it is opened or closed. Whereas, raising the

deck would create no transport delays for either vehicle.

Page | 129

The visual impact (SI.3.) has been given a score of 7.0 for design option 1 (swing mechanism) compared

to a score of 7.5 for design option 2 (raised deck). Both options are quite different but it seems the

swing mechanism would look slightly out of place in the middle of such a long crossing in comparison to

a standard raised deck.

The consideration of traffic congestion increase (SI.4.) has been given a score of 5.5 for design option 1

(swing mechanism) compared to a score of 7.5 for design option 2 (raised deck). This is because the

swing bridge would have to be used more often with an increase in congestion in both the water & on

the road which will create more delays, shorten the mechanisms life span & increase maintenance

expenditure. The raised deck can simply have extra space on either side for potential extra lanes in the

future.


Table 3.11. Score breakdown, shipping route maintenance design options, the Solent Link

Option 1 Option 2

SI.1. 7.0 7.5

SI.2. 5.0 9.5

SI.3. 7.0 7.5

SI.4. 5.5 7.5


Page | 130

Table 3.12. Weighted scores, shipping route maintenance design options, the Solent Link


SI.1. 7.0 x 0.13 7.5 x 0.13

SI.2. 5.0 x 0.27 9.5 x 0.27

SI.3. 7.0 x 0.28 7.5 x 0.28

SI.4. 5.5 x 0.33 7.5 x 0.33


From Table 3.12. it can be said that design option 2 (raised deck) received a higher overall sustainability

score for the chosen sub-indicators and is therefore, the more sustainable design.

3.6.3. – Pairwise comparison of Solent Link structural design

Four sub-indicators have been deemed the most significant for the structural design options and will be

assessed. These sub-indicators are: ecological impact, consideration of sea level rise, direct cost & visual

impact. Table 3.13. shows these sub-indicators and their corresponding reference numbers.

Table 3.13. Structural design option sub-indicators, the Solent Link

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4.

Ecological impact Consideration of

sea level rise

Direct cost Visual impact



Page | 131

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4.

SI.1. 1 1/7 1/4 1/3

SI.2. 7 1 3 4

SI.3. 4 1/3 1 2

SI.4. 3 1/4 1/2 1

Total 15 145/84 19/4 22/3



SI.1. 1 ÷ 15 1/7 ÷ 145/84 1/4 ÷ 19/4 1/3 ÷ 22/3 0.25

SI.2. 7 ÷ 15 1 ÷ 145/84 3 ÷ 19/4 4 ÷ 22/3 2.22

SI.3. 4 ÷ 15 1/3 ÷ 145/84 1 ÷ 19/4 2 ÷ 22/3 0.94

SI.4. 3 ÷ 15 1/4 ÷ 145/84 1/2 ÷ 19/4 1 ÷ 22/3 0.59


[

0.252.220.940.59

] ÷ 4 = [

0.060.560.240.15

]


Equation 3.16. Structural design option principle eigenvector calculation, Step 1, the Solent Link

[

1743

1/71

1/31/4

1/431

1/2

1/3421

] 𝑥 [

0.060.560.240.15

] = [

0.252.300.960.59

]


Equation 3.15. Structural design option weighting normalisation, the Solent Link

Page | 132


[

0.25 ÷ 0.062.30 ÷ 0.560.96 ÷ 0.240.59 ÷ 0.15

] = [

4.174.114.003.93

]



𝜆𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (4.17 + 4.11 + 4.00 + 3.93)

4= 4.05


Equation 3.19. Structural design option Consistency Index, the Solent Link

𝐶𝐼 =4.05 − 4

4 − 1= 0.02


Equation 3.20. Structural design option Consistency Ratio, the Solent Link

𝐶𝑅 =0.02

0.9= 0.02




The ecological impact (SI.1.) has been given a score of 9.0 for design option 1 (floating) compared to a

score of 6.5 for design option 2 (standing). This is because the floating bridge will completely mitigate

the issue of destroying the protected marine life in comparison to the standing bridge, where the pier

foundations would require excavation of the seabed. However, both options still run the risk of Grey

Squirrel invasion.

The consideration of sea level rise (SI.2.) has been given a score of 9.0 for design option 1 (floating)

compared to a score of 9.5 for design option 2 (standing). This is because the rising of the sea level will

Page | 133

have an outstanding effect on the design of a floating bridge in comparison to a standing one. Therefore,

extra costs may in incurred.

The direct cost (SI.3.) has been given a score of 8.0 for design option 1 (floating) compared to a score of

7.0 for design option 2 (standing). The floating bridge will likely be cheaper due to the reduction in

material. However, the use of specialist pontoons will be build some of the costs back up.

The visual impact (SI.4.) has been given a score of 8.0 for design option 1 (floating) compared to a score

of 8.5 for design option 2 (standing). This is because going by Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics, there is

more room for a floating bridge to not comply & therefore, be seen as less aesthetically pleasing than a

standing bridge.


Table 3.14. Score breakdown, structural design options, the Solent Link

Option 1 Option 2

SI.1. 9.0 6.5

SI.2. 9.0 9.5

SI.3. 8.0 7.0

SI.4. 8.0 8.5


Page | 134

Table 3.15. Weighted scores, structural design options, the Solent Link


SI.1. 9.0 x 0.06 6.5 x 0.06

SI.2. 9.0 x 0.56 9.5 x 0.56

SI.3. 8.0 x 0.24 7.0 x 0.24

SI.4. 8.0 x 0.15 8.5 x 0.15


From Table 3.15. it can be said that design option 1 (floating) received a higher overall sustainability

score for the chosen sub-indicators and is therefore, the more sustainable design.

3.7. – Outline Design of the Solent Link

From the key design option comparisons in Chapter 3.6, it has been decided that the most sustainable

option is to build a floating bridge with a raised deck in the middle to allow ships to pass through. In

addition, notes have been taken from the initial research stage in Chapter 3.1. to try to create a

connection with the cities of Portsmouth & Southampton. There will also be an attempt to stay out of

the major shipping routes so that there is no congestion, going under the main span. Measures will be

implemented to stop the crossing of squirrels over the bridge as well as trying to make it look as

aesthetically pleasing as possible.

3.7.1. – Detailed description of the Solent Link design

The bridge will exit the Isle of Wight at Gurnard, in the middle of the Northern part of the island. It will

enter the mainland in Lepe, to the left of Southampton harbour. This location has been chosen as it is

out of the way of the major shipping routes on the East side of the region and reduces shipping

congestion. There are also existing roads on both sides that can be linked to. The Worsley Road on the

Isle of Wight connects with the Newport Road which leads directly into the centre of the island & the

Page | 135

Lepe Road travels up to Southampton along the West side of the harbour. Figure 3.9 shows a plan view

of the bridges location (highlighted in red).

Figure 3.9. Solent Link location

There will be some additional work required for the approach roads on either side in order to join with

the existing roads mentioned previously. Both roads are one-lane each way & will not need extending

unless additional lanes are required in the future. On the Isle of Wight’s side, a route will have to be

cleared through some un-occupied woodland area and the connection made with Worsley Road. This

area is shown in Figure 3.10. (highlighted in red).

Page | 136

Figure 3.10. Solent Link Worsley Road connection

On the English side, the bridge will be raised in order to pass over the Lepe car park & connect with the

Lepe Rd as is goes uphill. This area is shown in Figure 3.11. (highlighted in red).

Page | 137

Figure 3.11. Solent Link Lepe Road connection

The link will be a road-bridge with one lane going each way with a walk/cycle way on each side. There

will be a toll booth on the Isle of Wight side which will spread to two lanes each way as cars pass

through the toll in order to reduce congestion. It will go back to one lane each way after the toll booth.

The bridge will be a similar style to the Evergreen Point bridge in that the deck level will stay low to sea

level until it reaches the main span where the deck will rise using light concrete piers. The clearance of

the deck to water level will be high enough to let yachts through but not ferries & cargo ships. As the

bridge is not in the way of the major shipping routes this is deemed acceptable. The Evergreen Point

bridge is shown in Figure 3.12.

Page | 138

Figure 3.12. Evergreen Point bridge (Jelson25, 2009)

However, instead of a truss system of suspend the main span like on the Evergreen Point bridge, an

arched cable-stayed system will be used. This is mainly for the visual impact as the arch will follow the

curvature of the raised deck, maintaining proportion & order. An example of such a system is shown in

Figure 3.13. However, the difference in the curvature of the arch & the roof will be more subtle.

Figure 3.13. Cable-stayed arch over main span (ngarti.com, 2012)

Page | 139

The pontoon system which allows the bridge to float will be continuous and made from concrete blocks

which are filled with air & are anchored to the land at either side of the bridge. An example of the design

is shown in Figure 3.14.

The crossing of squirrels over the bridge can be stopped with several repellent products. The main tactic

will be to install several ultrasound boxes on either approach road which have been tried and tested

with repelling most large pests. An example of this product is shown in Figure 3.15.

Figure 3.14. Floating bridge pontoon design (kxro.com, 2013)

Figure 3.15. Ultra-sound pest repellent box

Page | 140

The will also be several wine turbine trees installed along the walk/cycle path. These are a good way to

utilise the windy conditions over the Link to generate renewable energy which can be connected to

power homes & businesses on either side of the link. They are also an attractive feature which will be

appealing to the link users. An example of one of the trees is shown in Figure 3.16.

Eco-kerbs will divide the walk/cycle way with the roadway. The ground surface will be inclined in order

to allow surface water to drain into the kerbs. An example is shown in Figure 3.17.

Figure 3.16. Wind turbine tree (seriouswonder.com, 2016)

Figure 3.17. Eco kerb (kirhammond.com, 2015)

Page | 141

Two chair-lifts will be installed that will travel from one side of the gradient of the main span to the

centre. People can call the lifts which will not take long to reach them, take the lift to the top & take the

other lift back down. The use of two lifts is to reduce the waiting time for people either side of the main

span. The lifts will be attached to the steel parapets. An example of one of these lifts being used on a set

of stairs is shown in Figure 3.18.

3.7.2. – Basic design calculations for the Solent Link

Basic design calculations will be made in order to allow the author to complete the outline design of the

bridge in regards to the overall loading of the structure & the pontoon space that is needed to keep the

bridge afloat. There will also be equations for horizontal loading from the wind & sea current which will

needed to be designed for as well at cable tensioning over the main span.

Dead, live & total loading

The dead load is calculated by multiplying the unit weights of reinforced concrete & steel with the

volumes of those respective materials. The bridge’s deck, parapets, main span columns & horizontal

bracing system will be made from concrete whilst the main span arch will be made from steel. The live

load is calculated by multiplying the average live load for a two-lane road bridge by the length of the

Figure 3.18. Chair lift (archiexpo.com, 2016)

Page | 142

bridge itself. The total load is then calculated by summing the dead & live loads. This process is shown in

the following procedure.

Equation 3.21. Solent Link deck volume

𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑘 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 13𝑚 𝑥 3000𝑚 𝑥 0.2𝑚 = 7800𝑚^3

Equation 3.22. Solent Link main span columns volume

𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛𝑠 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 64 𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛𝑠 𝑥 (1𝑚 𝑥 1𝑚 𝑥 19/2𝑚) = 608𝑚^3

Equation 3.23. Solent Link horizontal bracing system volume

𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 600 𝑚𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑥 (0.2𝑚 𝑥 0.2𝑚 𝑥 16.4𝑚) = 394𝑚^3

Unit weight of reinforced concrete = 24kN/m3 (dlsweb.edu, 2016)

Equation 3.24. Solent Link main span arch volume

𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = [(0.5𝑚^2 𝑥 𝜋) – (0.4𝑚^2 𝑥 𝜋)] 𝑥 [44𝑚 + (13𝑚 𝑥 4.4𝑚)]

= 29𝑚^3

Equation 3.25. Solent Link parapet volume

𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑡 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = (0.5𝑚 𝑥 3000𝑚 𝑥 1.5𝑚)

2 = 1125𝑚^3

Unit weight of mild steel = 77kN/m3 (dlsweb.edu, 2016)

Equation 3.26. Solent Link dead load

𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = [24(7800 + 608 + 394)] + [77(29 + 1125)] = 300,106𝑘𝑁

Two-lane road bridge live load = 9.35kN/m (Nowak, 1993)

Equation 3.27. Solent Link live load

𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 9.35 𝑥 3000 = 321𝑘𝑁

Equation 3.28. Solent Link total load

𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 300,106 + 321 = 𝟑𝟎𝟎, 𝟒𝟐𝟕𝒌𝑵

Depth of pontoons

The volume of the pontoons required to keep the bridge afloat is calculated using the buoyancy force

equation (Equation 3.29).

Page | 143

Equation 3.29. Buoyancy force equation (tutorvista.com, 2016)

𝐹𝑏 = 𝑔𝜌𝑉

- g = acceleration due to gravity

- ρ = Density of water

- V = Volume

This formula is rearranged to make the volume the subject. The buoyancy force must equal the total

load of the bridge in order to stay afloat. The bridges length & width will remain the same as the deck in

order to look in proportion so the depth (D) is the unit to be calculated.

Equation 3.30. Solent Link buoyancy force equation

𝐷 𝑥 3000 𝑥 13 = 300427

9.811000 𝑥 1000

= 30,624𝑚^3

𝐷 =30,624

3000 𝑥 13= 0.8𝑚

Therefore, a minimum pontoon depth of 0.8m is needed to keep the bridge afloat. This will be

multiplied by a safety factor of 1.25 in order to mitigate any risks. This is shown in Equation 3.31.

Equation 3.31. Solent Link pontoon depth including a factor of safety

𝐷 = 0.80 𝑥 1.25 = 𝟏𝒎

Horizontal forces

Horizontal forces from wind, waves & potential ship collisions are a major factor in designing a floating

bridge. The worst case scenario in terms of horizontal force would be for a large ship to collide into the

side of the bridge. There will be a bracing system placed between the bridge deck & the pontoons that

aims to transfer this impact load longitudinally so that the bridge can absorb the blow. In this procedure,

the transferred longitudinal load for the worst case impact force of a large ship will be calculated.

Equation 3.32. Ship impact force (Gluver, 1998)

𝐹 [𝑀𝑁] = 0.98(𝐷𝑊𝑇)^0.5(𝑉

16)

- DWT = Dead Weight Tonnage of the ship

- V = Ship impact speed (knots)

Page | 144

Worst case Dead Weight Tonnage of a cargo ship = 200,000T (Lowe, 2013)

Average top speed of cargo ship = 25 knots (McDermott, 2010)

Equation 3.33. Solent Link ship impact force

𝐹 = 0.98(200,000)0.5𝑥 (25

16) = 685𝑀𝑁

The bracing system will have two members which will share the force. They will both be at an angle of

52 degrees. Therefore, the transferred longitudinal force is shown in Equation 3.34.

Equation 3.34. Solent Link transferred longitudinal ship impact force

𝐹𝑙 =

6852

tan (52)= 𝟐𝟔𝟑𝑴𝑵

This value will have to be considered in the structural design of the bridge.

Cable tension

The number of cables required for the cable-stayed arch design must be calculated. This is done by

calculating the dead & live loads of purely the main span which will be supported by the cables. This will

be multiplied by a factor of safety of 1.2. The average amount that one pre-tensioned cable will then be

divided into this value to find how many cables are needed overall.

Equation 3.35. Solent Link main span dead load

𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 24(13 𝑥 0.2 𝑥 20) + 77((0.5𝑚 𝑥 20𝑚 𝑥 1.5𝑚)

2𝑥 2) = 2403𝑘𝑁

Equation 3.36. Solent Link main span live load

𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 9.35 𝑥 20 = 187𝑘𝑁

Equation 3.37. Solent Link main span total load

𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 = 2403 + 187 = 2590𝑘𝑁

Equation 3.38. Solent Link main span total load with a factor of safety

𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑘 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑡𝑦 = 2590 𝑥 1.2 = 3108𝑘𝑁

Page | 145

The minimum breaking strength of a 13mm diameter uncoated, fibre core, improved plow steel cable =

95.2kN (theengineeringtoolbox.com, 2016). The minimum number of cables required to support the

main span is calculated in Equation 3.39.

Equation 3.39. Solent Link main span minimum number of cables

𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠 =3108

95.2= 𝟑𝟐 𝒄𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆𝒔

Seventeen cables will run down either side of the bridge over the main span at a spacing of 1.25m.

Free-end tolerance

The maximum expansion of the bridge due to temperature change will be calculated so that the space at

the free end of the bridge can be designed. The equation of this change in length is shown in Equation

3.40.

Equation 3.40. Bridge change of length due to temperature change

𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 𝐿 𝑥 ∆𝑇 𝑥 𝛼

- L = Bridge length

- ∆𝑇 = Temperature range

- 𝛼 = Temperature error coefficient

Equation 3.41. Solent Link change of length due to temperature change

𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 3,000,000 𝑥 29 𝑥 12𝑥10−6 = 1044𝑚𝑚

This is multiplied by a factor of safety of 1.2 in Equation 3.41.

Equation 3.42. Solent Link change of length due to temperature change with factor of safety

𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 1044 𝑥 1.2 = 1253𝑚𝑚

Therefore, a length of 1255mm will be left for the free-end tolerance.

3.7.3. – Drawings for the Solent Link

Some basic drawings have been made for the proposed Solent Link. These drawings include: deck plan,

deck elevation, deck cross-section, mid-span plan & mid-span elevation. Descriptions of the main

aspects of each drawing will be included.

Page | 146

Deck plan

The normal deck plan consists of pre-cast, T-shaped parapet units running on either side. There is a

2700mm walk/cycle path on one side, leaving two road lanes of 4490mm wide each. This makes a space

of 11,680mm between each parapet face & means that the bridge could potentially have four lanes of

2920mm widths if so required in the future. There is also eco-kerbing running along either side of the

road to allow for drainage. The horizontal bracing members which are between the deck & the pontoons

are shown with dashed lines. A snapshot of the drawing is shown in Figure 3.19. Please see Appendix 4

for full drawing.

Figure 3.19. Solent Link deck plan drawing

Deck elevation

The elevation view shows the 1m deep, concrete cased, continuous pontoons at the bottom of the

bridge. The 200mm x 200mm square concrete members make up the diagonal bracing for horizontal

loads and is sandwiched between the pontoon & the deck. The deck is a 200mm think continuous

concrete slab. On top of the deck, on either side are the parapets which stand 1500mm high from

walkway level. A snapshot of the deck elevation drawing is shown in Figure 3.20. Please see Appendix 4

for full drawing.

Page | 147

Figure 3.20. Solent Link deck elevation drawing

Deck cross-section

The Cross-Section view shows the T-shape of the parapets & how they would resist from a car crash. It

also shows the incline of the road that would allow surface water to drain into the eco-kerbs. A snapshot

of the cross-section drawing is shown in Figure 3.21. Please see Appendix 4 for full drawing.

Figure 3.21. Solent Link deck cross-section drawing

Page | 148

Mid-span plan

The mid-span plan view, shows the layout of the 1m x 1m concrete columns that are used to raise the

deck to the required water clearance height of 20m. It also shows the 5 purlins connecting the 0.5m

diameter steel arch. A snapshot of the drawing is shown in Figure 3.22. Please see Appendix 4 for full

drawing.

Figure 3.22. Solent Link mid-span plan drawing

Mid-span elevation

The mid-span elevation view really shows the cable-stayed arch system which suspends the free

standing deck. It is also good to view the curvature of the deck as it is raised over the 20m clearance

height using the concrete columns. A snapshot of the drawing is shown in Figure 3.23. Please see

Appendix 4 for full drawing.

Figure 3.23. Solent Link elevation drawing

Page | 149

3.8. – Stage 7-Normalised indicator assessment for ‘Complex Bridge

Sustainability Assessment’, the Solent Link

The data for the Solent Link is now assessed as a whole in comparison to similar locations/projects.

Rather than gathering data for the normalisation process like in Chapter 2.7. Data will be directly

calculated/assumed for the Solent Link in this chapter which can then be assessed.

3.8.1. - Normalisation of environmental indicators, the Solent Link

Ecological impact

‘The direct cost of measures taken to preserve ecology’ is based on the money spent on ultra-sound pest

repellent boxes & the cost difference between using pontoon foundations instead of standard piers. This

is because both of these measures were done directly to preserve ecology.

The cost of one good standard, industrial pest repellent box is roughly £40. There will be around 8

installed overall. This comes to £320.

The estimated cost for the floating bridge, including the use of specialist labour & materials, is estimated

using the similar example of the Evergreen Point Bridge. This estimate is approximately £55 million

(Williamson, 2012). If the bridge was supported using standard concrete piers, going by the cost of the

Kolia Bhomora Setu bridge in India, which is a similar size bridge, the cost would be around £47 million

(webcitation.org, 2007).

Therefore, the additional cost taken to preserve ecology is £8 million. The cost of the repellent boxes is

seen as negligible.

Table 3.16. shows the data normalisation for ‘the direct cost of measures taken to preserve ecology’.

Table 3.16. Normalisation table for ‘the direct measures taken to preserve ecology’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range £0-£100 £101 - £5000 £5001 -

£1,000,000

£1,000,001 -

£5,000,000

>£5,000,000

Page | 150

From Table 3.16, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘the direct measures to preserve ecology’ has

scored VGP.

‘The direct saving from taking prevention measures’ is based on the amount of seagrass that would be

destroyed if pier supports were used. It will also be based on the loss of Red Squirrel population.

If piers were used, approximately 3900m2 of seagrass would have to be destroyed. The economic cost

of seagrass is approximately £45,000 per km2 (ICRI, 2008). Therefore, the cost of destroying the seagrass

using a pier system would be around £175,500.

The population of Red Squirrels on the Isle of Wight is around 3500. The penalty cost for introducing a

Grey Squirrel to a Red Squirrels territory is £5000 (White Squirrel Project, 2016). If its assumed that the

invasion of one Grey Squirrel equals the loss of one Red Squirrel & all the Red Squirrels are driven out,

the overall cost will be £17.5 million.

Therefore, the overall saving from taking ecological preservation measures is £17,675,500.

Table 3.17. shows the data normalisation for ‘the direct saving from taking prevention measures’.

Table 3.17. Normalisation table for ‘the direct saving from taking prevention measures’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range £0-£5000 £5001 -

£10,000

£10,001 -

£1,000,000

£1,000,001 -

£15,000,000

>£15,000,000

From Table 3.17, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘the direct saving from taking prevention

measures’ has scored VGP.

Energy use

‘Estimated amount of CO2 produced’ is based on material production & vehicle emissions.

There will be around 8802m3 of reinforced concrete & around 1154m3 of steel used on the bridge. The

CO2 emissions from concrete production is around 154 kg CO2 per m3 (Van Gorkum, 2010). There is

around 5712 kg CO2 per m3 (Van Gorkum, 2010). Therefore, material production for the Solent Link

emits approximately 8Gg CO2.

Page | 151

The average CO2 emissions of one car passing over the Solent Link would be about 763g CO2. About 4.3

million people make return trips via ferry in a year. Assuming an average of about two people per car

load, this makes 4.3 million potential journeys across the Solent Link in year (Isle of Wight Tourist Board,

2013). Over the bridges 100 year life span, this would equate to approximately 329Gg CO2.

Therefore, the overall CO2 emissions during the bridges lifespan would be approximately 337Gg CO2.

Table 3.18. shows the data normalisation for ‘Estimated amount of CO2 produced’.

Table 3.18. Normalisation table for ‘Estimated amount of CO2 produced’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range >9500Ggrms 1901Ggrms –

9500Ggrms

571Ggrms –

1900Ggrms

286Ggrms –

570Ggrms

0Ggrms –

285Ggrms

From Table 3.18, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘Estimated amount of CO2 produced’ has scored

GP.

‘Energy saved’ is based on the energy generated from the wind turbine trees along the walk/cycle path.

There will be approximately 60 trees along the route. Each tree generates approximately 3.1kw.

Therefore, over the bridges lifespan (assuming the trees are re-installed after the end of their life), there

will be an overall production of approximately 163 million kwh.

Table 3.19. shows the data normalisation for ‘energy saved’.

Table 3.19. Normalisation table for ‘energy saved’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range 0kwh 1kwh –

876,000kwh

876,001kwh –

2628000kwh

2628001kwh –

13,140,000kwh

>13,140,000kwh

From Table 3.19, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘energy saved’ has scored VGP.

Page | 152

Waste management

‘Estimated amount of waste send directly to landfill’ will be aimed to get a negligible amount through

proper use of waste segregation on site. However, this will have to be re-assessed after construction

stage for accurate results.

Table 3.20. shows the data normalisation for ‘Estimated amount of waste sent directly to landfill’.

Table 3.20. Normalisation table for ‘Estimated amount of waste sent directly to landfill’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range >10,000t 5001t –

10,000t

501t – 5000t 1t – 500t 0t

From Table 3.20, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘Estimated amount of waste sent directly to

landfill’ has scored VGP.

‘Estimated amount of waste recycled’ will be based on the average amount of concrete & steel that is

wasted on site but sent away to be recycled into aggregate or recycled steel.

There will be around 39,000m2 of reinforced concrete & around 3052m2 of steel used on the bridge. The

average amount of concrete waste on site is 2.5m3 per m2 used & for steel waste, around 1.3m3 per m2.

Therefore, when converted to tonnes, there will be approximately 108,225t of concrete waste & 3174t

of steel which equates to 111,399t of recycled waste overall.

Table 3.21. shows the data normalisation for ‘Estimated amount of waste recycled’.

Table 3.21. Normalisation table for ‘Estimated amount of waste recycled’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise


From Table 3.21, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘Estimated amount of waste recycled’ has

scored VGP.

Page | 153

‘Estimated amount of waste re-used on site’ will be negligible as there will be minimal exaction works.

Table 3.22. shows the data normalisation for ‘Estimated amount of waste re-used on site’.

Table 3.22. Normalisation table for ‘Estimated amount of waste re-used on site’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise


From Table 3.22, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘Estimated amount of waste re-used on site’ has

scored VPP.

Land use

‘Amount of free land used’ will be based on the land required for the approach roads.

Approximately 1950m2 of free land (un-occupied forest) will be used for the approach road on the Isle of

Wight side & marginally on the English side.

Table 3.23. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of free land used’.

Table3.23. Normalisation table for ‘amount of free land used’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range 0ha-0.5ha 0.6ha – 1ha 1.5ha – 10ha 11ha – 30ha >30ha

From Table 3.23, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of free land used’ has scored A.

‘Amount of pre-occupied land used’ is based on the land required for the approach roads.

This amount is negligible as the bridge rises over the car-park on the English side & therefore, will not

use the land.

Table 3.24. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of pre-occupied land used’.

Page | 154

Table 3.24. Normalisation table for ‘amount of pre-occupied land used’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range >30ha 11ha – 30ha 1.5ha – 10ha 0.6ha – 1ha 0ha – 0.5ha

From Table 3.24, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of pre-occupied land used’ has scored

VGP.

Natural material used

‘Amount of natural material used’ will be based on the amount of timbre used as temporary formwork

as there is no natural material used for the bridges design.

As the deck would more than likely be poured in large sections of around 500m at a time, the formwork

required would be about 125m3. Converted to tonnage, this makes 37.5t.

Table 3.25. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of natural material used’.

Table 3.25. Normalisation table for ‘amount of natural material used’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise


From Table 3.25, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of natural material used’ has scored PP.


‘Consideration of sea level rise’ is based on the change in clearance height for boats passing under the

main span as well as whether or not the water will rise over the pontoon height, causing the bridge to

sink.

The average sea level rise is around 3mm a year (Christopher, 2015) and therefore, 300mm in its life

time. The pontoons will probably be immersed around 100mm which will be 400mm towards the end of

Page | 155

the bridges life. This still leaves 600mm to the top of the pontoons and therefore, this has been

considered for.

The average height of the largest yacht that would pass under the main span would be about 15m

(delphiayachts.eu, 2016). The height clearance is 20m and therefore, this has been well considered for.

There is no in-between in assessing such an indicator & therefore, it scores either VGP or VPP depending

on whether it has been considered or not. Table 3.26. shows the data normalisation for ‘consideration

of sea level rise’.

Table 3.26. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of sea level rise’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range Not

considered

- - - Considered

From Table 3.26, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘consideration of sea level rise’ has scored VGP.

‘Consideration of temperature change’ is based on the size of the free-end space allowed for the

expansion of the bridge due to temperature.

This space has been calculated & designed for & is therefore, considered.

Table 3.27. shows the data normalisation for ‘consideration of temperature change’.

Table 3.27. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of temperature change’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range Not

considered

- - - Considered

From Table 3.27, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘consideration of temperature change’ has

scored VGP.

‘Consideration of rainfall increase’ is based on the drainage design on the bridge.

Page | 156

The inclination of the road has been designed to allow surface water to flow into the eco-kerbs which

can take rainfall events of up to 100 years.

Table 3.28. shows the data normalisation for ‘consideration of rainfall increase’.

Table 3.28. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of rainfall increase’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range Not

considered

- - - Considered

From Table 3.28, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘consideration of rainfall increase’ has scored

VGP.

3.8.2. – Normalisation of economic indicators, the Solent Link

Economic impact

‘Estimated direct cost’ comes to approximately £55,000,000.

Table 3.29. shows the data normalisation for ‘estimated direct cost’.

Table 3.29. Normalisation table for ‘estimated direct cost’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise

Data range >£100,000,000 £70,000,001

-

£100,000,000

£30,000,001 -

£70,000,000

£10,000,001 -

£30,000,000

£0 -

£10,000,000

From Table 3.29, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘estimated direct cost’ has scored A.

‘Indirect cost’ is based on the travel delay time of shipping & the cost of land used.

The delay time to shipping will be negligible because the construction method statement will have the

one side of the bridge built first which can support the main span, followed by the other side of the

bridge being built from the other side. This allows a constant shipping route throughout construction.

Page | 157

The cost to use un-occupied forestry is £150/ha. Therefore, the cost is approximately £300.

Table 3.30. shows the data normalisation for ‘indirect cost’.

Table 3.30. Normalisation table for ‘indirect cost’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise

Data range >£100,000,000 £50,000,001-

£100,000,000

£1,000,001-

£50,000,000

£500,001-

£1,000,000

£0 - £500,000

From Table 3.30, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘indirect cost’ has scored VGP.

‘Estimated direct income’ is based on the income from the toll road.

The toll road will charge on average £2 per passing. This will make approximately £860 million over its

life time.

Table 3.31. shows the data normalisation for ‘estimated direct income’.

Table 3.31. Normalisation table for ‘estimated direct income’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range £0 £1 -

£1,500,000

£1,500,001-

£18,000,000

£18,000,001 -

£30,000,000

>£30,000,000

From Table 3.31, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘estimated direct income’ has scored VGP.

‘Estimated indirect income’ is based on the estimated increase to the area GDP.

The estimated increase to the area’s GDP after the construction of a bridge would be around 30% (BBC,

2013). The area’s current GDP is approximately £2 billion (timetric.com, 2015) & therefore a 30%

increase would be £600 million.

Table 3.32. shows the data normalisation for ‘estimated indirect income’.

Page | 158

Table 3.32. Normalisation table for ‘estimated indirect income’, the Solent Link

Sustainabilit

y score

Very poor

practise


practise

Data range £0 -

£100,000,00

0

£100,000,001

-

£300,000,000

,

£300,000,001 -

£1,000,000,00

0

£1,000,000,001

-

£50,000,000,00

0

>£50,000,000,00

0

From Table 3.32, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘estimated indirect income’ has scored A.

Employment

‘Number of local jobs, permanent full-time’ is based on the amount of local employees that will work on

the toll booths.

The amount of employees will be 12 (each toll booth is run by three people each on an 8 hour shift).

Table 3.33. shows the data normalisation for ‘number of local jobs, permanent full-time’.

Table 3.33. Normalisation table for ‘number of local jobs, permanent full-time’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range 0 1 - 10 11 - 200 201 - 500 >500

From Table 3.33, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘number of local jobs, permanent full-time’ has

scored A.

‘Number of local jobs, permanent part-time’ is based on the number of local employees that will work

on the maintenance of the bridge.

The maintenance schedule is shown below:

Re-lay asphalt every 20 years – 4 gangs of 4 operatives each.

Change turbine trees every 10 years – 2 gangs of 3 operatives each.

Change lighting every 5 years – 1 gang of 2 operatives.

Page | 159

Structural checks of concrete every 20 years – 5 gangs of 3 operatives each.

Cable maintenance every 10 years – 1 gang of 2 operatives.

Steel corrosion maintenance every 10 years – 1 gang of 2 operatives.

Replace pest repellent boxes every year – 1 operative

Therefore, overall there will be 41 permanent, part-time jobs.

Table 3.34. shows the data normalisation for ‘number of local jobs, permanent part-time’.

Table 3.34. Normalisation table for ‘number of local jobs, permanent part-time’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range 0 1 - 3 4 - 70 71 - 200 >200

From Table 3.34, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘number of local jobs, permanent part-time’ has

scored A.

‘Number of local jobs, temporary full-time’ is based on the number of local employees required during

construction.

The number of employees needed for construction, going by the amount needed for the Oresund Link,

will be around 950 people. There are no floating bridge specialists in the area so they cannot be added.

Table 3.35. shows the data normalisation for ‘number of local jobs, temporary full-time’.

Table 3.35. Normalisation table for ‘number of local jobs, temporary full-time’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range 0 1 - 500 501 – 5000 5001 – 10,000 >10,000

From Table 3.35, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘number of local jobs, temporary full-time’ has

scored A.

Page | 160

Economic risk

‘Estimated direct cost of insurance taken out’ is based on the estimated amount taken out to insure

against severe weather damage, ship collision damage, road-vehicle collision damage & terrorist attack.

The insurance costs for these aspects are compiled into one contract with an estimated cost of around

£19 million based on the data from the Oresund Link.

Table 3.36. shows the data normalisation for ‘estimated direct cost of insurance taken out’.

Table 3.36. Normalisation table for ‘estimated direct cost of insurance taken out’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score

Very poor practise Poor practise Average Good

practise

Very good

practise

Data range >£100,000,000 £10,000,001

-

£100,000,000

£50,001 -

£10,000,000

£10,001 -

£50,000

£0 - £10,000

From Table 3.36, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘estimated direct cost of insurance taken out’

has scored PP.

‘Estimated Direct saving from insured events occurring’ is based on the data from the Oresund Link &

comes to approximately £158,000,000. [Appendix 1.2.3].

Table 3.37. shows the data normalisation for ‘estimated direct saving from insured events occurring’.

Table 3.37. Normalisation table for ‘estimated direct saving from insured events occurring’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range £0 - £10,000 £10,001 -

£50,000

£50,001 -

£10,000,000

£10,000,001 -

£100,000,000

>£100,000,000

From Table 3.37, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘estimated direct saving from insured events

occurring’ has scored VGP.

Page | 161

‘Direct saving from insured not taken out’ will be negligible as insurance will be bought for all

foreseeable incidents.

Table 3.38. shows the data normalisation for ‘direct saving from insured not taken out’.

Table 3.38. Normalisation table for ‘direct saving from insured not taken out’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range £0 - £1,000,000 £1,000,001

-

£50,000,000

£50,000,001 -

£200,000,000

£200,000,001

-

£700,000,000

>£700,000,000

From Table 3.38, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘direct saving from insured not taken out’ has

scored VPP.

‘Direct cost from uninsured event occurring’ is negligible as all foreseeable incidents are insured for.

Table 3.39. shows the data normalisation for ‘direct cost from uninsured event occurring’.

Table 3.39. Normalisation table for ‘direct cost from uninsured event occurring’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise

Data range >£700,000,000 £200,000,001

-

£700,000,000

£50,000,001 -

£200,000,000

£1,000,001 -

£50,000,000

£0 -

£1,000,000

From Table 3.39, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘direct cost from uninsured event occurring’ has

scored VGP.

Financial investment

‘Investment from local sources’ will be negligible as all the government has noted that billions could be

funded for the project. As the project would only cost £55 million, the government could pay for the

whole project (Merrick, 2014).

Page | 162

Table 3.40. shows the data normalisation for ‘investment from local sources’.

Table 3.40. Normalisation table for ‘investment from local sources’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£5,000,000 £1,000,001

-

£5,000,000

£200,001 -

£1,000,000

£1 - £200,000 £0

From Table 3.40, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘investment from local sources’ has scored VGP.

‘Investment from non-local sources’ comes to approximately £55 million.

Table 3.41. shows the data normalisation for ‘investment from non-local sources’.

Table 3.41. Normalisation table for ‘investment from non-local sources’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range £0 - £1,900,000 £1,900,001

-

£19,000,000

£19,000,001 -

£190,000,000

£190,000,001

-

£950,000,000

>£950,000,000

From Table 3.41, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘investment from non-local sources’ has scored

A.

3.8.3. – Normalisation of social indicators, the Solent Link

Health & Wellbeing

‘Noise impact’ will be based on the average noise impact of traffic to the nearest occupied space

(housing or business).

Page | 163

Nearest occupied space is housing on the Isle of Wight side which will be 75m away from the road. The

road noise impact throughout the day is shown below:

Lday – 23db (CALTRANS, 1998)

Levening – 19db (CALTRANS, 1998)

Lnight – 14db (CALTRANS, 1998)

Using the Average Road-Noise Impact Equation shown in Equation 3.43, the average impact of the

Solent Link road can be calculated.

Equation 3.43. Average Road-Noise Impact

Lden = 10log10[(12/24)*10(Lday/10)+(4/24)*10(Levening+5/10)+(8/24)*10(Lnight+10/10)]

Therefore, the average road-noise impact for the Solent Link is 23.5db.

Table 3.42. shows the data normalisation for ‘noise impact.

Table 3.42. Normalisation table for ‘noise impact’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >75db 56db –

75db

31db - 55db 21db – 30db 0db – 20db

From Table 3.42, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘noise impact’ has scored GP.

‘Light pollution’ will be around 20.9 mag/arcsec2 [Appendix 1.3.1]. This is because the lighting system on

the Solent Link will be similar to that on the Oresund Link.

Table 3.43. shows the data normalisation for ‘light pollution.

Page | 164

Table 3.43. Normalisation table for ‘light pollution’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range <19.4mag/arcsec2 19.4

mag/arcsec2

– 20.4

mag/arcsec2

20.5

mag/arcsec2 –

21.5

mag/arcsec2

21.6

mag/arcsec2 –

21.8

mag/arcsec2

>21.8

mag/arcsec2

From Table 3.43, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘light pollution’ has scored A.

‘Air quality’ is based on the approximate increase in air pollutants emitted from the increase of road-

traffic and pollutant reduction from the reduction in ferry travel.

The increase of air pollutants due to the increase in road-traffic is estimated to be around 30% (RAC

Foundation, 2014).

The estimated reduction in air pollutants comes to around 20% (Farrell, 2003).

Therefore, the overall increase in air pollutants due to the introduction of the Solent Link is about 10%.

Table 3.44. shows the data normalisation for ‘air quality’.

Table 3.44. Normalisation table for ‘air quality’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >30% increase 21%

increase –

30%

increase

11% increase –

20% increase

0% increase –

10% increase

<0%

reduction

From Table 3.44, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘air quality’ has scored GP.

Page | 165

Transport impact

‘Delay time’ is based on the delay of both road & marine transport during the bridge construction.

The delay time to shipping will be negligible because the construction method statement will have the

one side of the bridge built first which can support the main span, followed by the other side of the

bridge being built from the other side. This allows a constant shipping route throughout construction.

The only travel delay will be during the construction works to link the approach roads the Solent Link’s

road. It will be part of the construction method statement to have at least one lane open constantly

during works. Traffic on during this time will probably have to be controlled using a traffic light system.

The average delay from this will be around 3 minutes.

Therefore, the overall delay time will be around 3 minutes.

Table 3.45. shows the data normalisation for ‘delay time’.

Table 3.45. Normalisation table for ‘delay time’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >20 mins 11 mins –

20 mins

6 mins – 10

mins

3 mins – 5

mins

0 mins – 2

mins

From Table 3.45, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘delay time’ has scored GP.

‘Time saved’ is based on the average time for a car to pass over the Solent Link in comparison to how

long it takes to travel by ferry.

The travel time for a ferry trip is about 60 minutes (redfunnel.co.uk, 2016).

The estimated travel time for a car to pass over the Solent Link is based on an average speed of 50mph

over the distance of 1.9 miles. This equates to a travel time of around 2.5 minutes.

Therefore, the time saved due to the link is 57.5 minutes.

Table 3.46. shows the data normalisation for ‘time saved’.

Page | 166

Table 3.46. Normalisation table for ‘time saved’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range 0 mins – 2 mins 3 mins – 5

mins

6 mins – 11

mins

12 mins – 17

mins

> 17 mins

From Table 3.46, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘time saved’ has scored VGP.

Stakeholder engagement

‘Consideration of stakeholders’ is based on the group of stakeholders who will/will not be part of the

design/planning process for the bridge.

It will be planned to involve stakeholders similar to the Oresund Link’s designers/planners which is

shown below:

Regional & National Government. Part of design process.

Environmental Agency. Part of design process.

Local Residents. Informed of progress & plan.

Local business owners. Informed of progress & plan.

Tourists. Informed of progress & plan.

Therefore, the stakeholders are deemed as fully considered.

Table 3.47. shows the data normalisation for ‘consideration of stakeholders’.

Table 3.47. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of stakeholders’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


From Table 3.47, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘consideration of stakeholders’ has scored VGP.

Page | 167

Health & Safety

‘Risk assessment’ is based on the average score that the H&S risk assessment will achieve for the

construction, use, maintenance & design process.

These processes will be properly planned for in order to score an excellent in the risk assessment

process. Although, a floating bridge is unusual, it has been done before many times & therefore, there

should be no surprises or exceptions when planning for H&S procedures.

The risk assessment is based on a traffic light scoring system shown in Figure 3.24.

Table 3.48. shows the data normalisation for ‘risk assessment’.

Table 3.48. Normalisation table for ‘risk assessment’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range 15 - 25 8 - 12 1 - 6 1 - 3 1 - 2

From Table 3.48, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘time due to accidents occurred’ has scored

VGP.

Figure 3.24. General risk assessment scoring system (keyedin.com, 2014)

Page | 168

Visual impact

‘Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics’ is based on how many of the 10 rules are conformed to in the design.

These rules are: fulfilment of function, proportions, order, refinement, integration into the environment,

surface texture, colour, character, complexity and incorporation of nature.

The Solent Link conforms with Shurbshall’s comments of the Oresund Link’s fulfilment of function “the

use of a cable-stayed bridge allows the structure and load paths to be seen clearly. The symmetry of the

cables about the piers gives a sense of balance seen in most cable-stayed bridges” (Shrubshall, 2000).

Proportionally, the Solent Link works well in that thin decks are proportionate with cable-stayed systems

as agreed with by Shrubshall “cable-stayed bridges look better with thinner decks and larger piers”

(Shrubshall, 2000).

Unfortunately, the Solent Link does not maintain a visual order. This is due to the raised deck in the

centre completely changing the bridges visual impact of staying low to the water’s surface.

However, in regards to refinement, the Solent Link’s main span does comply. The way the arch

compliments the curvature of the raised deck & tapers out conforms to the rule of refinement.

The Solent Link will definitely integrate into the environment. The way that the majority of the deck sits

low to the water surface represents the bridge’s attempts to protect the marine environment. In

addition, the curvature from a plan view integrates with the sea current.

The surface texture of the bridge will consist of good quality asphalt, concrete & steel which will be

maintained & therefore, conforms to the rule.

There will be no unusual colouring to the bridge due to the attempt to reduce maintenance costs. In

addition, painting of bridges can make them look more out-of-place & actually leaving them creates a

natural visual impact, much like the Oresund Link.

The arch system over the main span & the addition of the wind turbine trees will provide the bridge with

some character.

The main complexity of the bridge is the fact that it is floating. This can be seen by the way the deck

stays low to the water surface with no other fixed structural elements evident.

Page | 169

The incorporation of nature can be seen from the wind turbine trees. Due to the windy weather

conditions, it is not feasible to grow any plant-life on the bridge, therefore, the turbine trees give the

effect of a natural environment whilst clearly showing how they harness natures power for our gain.

Therefore, overall the Solent Link conforms to 9 of Leonhardt’s rules of aesthetics.

Table 3.49. shows the data normalisation for ‘Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics’.

Table 3.49. Normalisation table for ‘Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range 0 rules – 3

rules

4 rules – 5

rules

6 rules – 7

rules

8 rules – 9

rules

10 rules

From Table 3.49, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics’ has scored

GP.

Equality

‘Impact of racial equality’ is based on the plans to hire a construction/design/maintenance/demolition

company with completely equal employment policies as well as having equal employment on the toll

booths.

This will all be planned for throughout the bridge’s lifespan & is therefore, deemed conformed to.

Table 3.50. shows the data normalisation for ‘impact of racial equality’.

Table 3.50. Normalisation table for ‘impact of racial equality’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


conform

- - - Conforms


Page | 170

‘Impact of gender equality’ is based on the plans to hire a construction/design/maintenance/demolition


booths.

This will all be planned for throughout the bridge’s lifespan & is therefore, deemed conformed to.

Table 3.51. shows the data normalisation for ‘impact of gender equality’.

Table 3.51. Normalisation table for ‘impact of gender equality’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


conform

- - - Conforms

From Table 3.51, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘impact of gender equality’ has scored VGP.

‘Impact of disability equality’ is based on the plans to hire a

construction/design/maintenance/demolition company with completely equal employment policies as

well as having equal employment on the toll booths. It is also based on the design to allow for disabled

people to cross the bridge’s walkway.

The equal employment will be planned for throughout the bridge’s lifespan & is therefore, deemed

conformed to.

Unfortunately, it was not deemed feasible to build the main span arch with a suitable gradient for

wheelchairs & elderly people. However, two chair-lifts will be installed over the main span to allow

disabled people to cross. This issue is therefore, deemed conformed to.

Table 3.52. shows the data normalisation for ‘impact of disability equality’.

Table 3.52. Normalisation table for ‘impact of disability equality’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


conform

- - - Conforms

Page | 171

From Table 3.52, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘impact of disability equality’ has scored VGP.

‘Impact of age equality’ is based on the plans to hire a construction/design/maintenance/demolition


booths. It is also based on the design to allow for elderly people to cross the bridge’s walkway.

The equal employment will be planned for throughout the bridge’s lifespan & is therefore, deemed

conformed to.

Unfortunately, it was not deemed feasible to build the main span arch with a suitable gradient for

wheelchairs & elderly people. However, two chair-lifts will be installed over the main span to allow

elderly people to cross. This issue is therefore, deemed conformed to.

Table 3.53. shows the data normalisation for ‘impact of age equality’.

Table 3.53. Normalisation table for ‘impact of age equality’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


conform

- - - Conforms

From Table 3.53, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘impact of age equality’ has scored VGP.


‘Consideration of traffic congestion increase’ is based on whether the design of the bridge has allowed

for the potential requirement for extra road lanes & extra boat space under the main span.

The road width has been designed so that if two extra lanes are required in the future, this is easily

achievable by removing the walk/cycle way. This is therefore considered.

The main span has a width of 20m which is plenty of room for at least 3 boats to pass & will not be

required to increase. Therefore, this is deemed considered.

Table 3.54. shows the data normalisation for ‘consideration of traffic congestion increase’.

Page | 172

Table 3.54. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of traffic congestion increase’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


From Table 3.54, it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘consideration of traffic congestion increase’ has

scored VGP.

3.9. – Stage 8-Results for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the Solent

Link

The results of the normalised indicator assessment are then compiled into a final table alongside their

respective weightings. Using this table, the sustainability scores for each sub-indicator, indicator,

sustainability pillar & finally overall project score can be broken down. This is shown in Table 3.55.

Table 3.55. Results table, the Solent Link

Sust

pillar


weight

sust score

Weight

factor

Weight

sust

score

Tot indic

weight

sust score

Tot pillar

weight

sust score

Env Ecological

impact

Cost of

pres meas


Saving of

pres meas

VGP 0.95 0.95VGP

Energy use CO2 GP 0.4 0.4GP 0.45VGP

Energy

saved

VGP 0.45 0.45VGP



Re-used VPP 0.5 0.5VGP

Page | 173

Land use Free land A 0.6 0.6A 0.65VGP

Non-free

land

VGP 0.65 0.65VGP

Natural

material

Amount

used

PP 0.3 0.3PP 0.3PP

Consider

Env Climate

Change


Temp VGP 0.7 0.7VGP


Econ

Economic

impact

Direct cost A 0.9 0.9A 0.95VGP 2.6VGP

Indirect

cost

VGP 0.85 0.85VGP

Direct

income

VGP 0.95 0.95VGP

Indirect

income

A 0.85 0.85A

Employ Perm F/T A 0.85 0.85A 0.85A

Perm P/T A 0.8 0.8A

Temp F/T A 0.75 0.75A

Economic

risk

Cost insure PP 0.8 0.8PP 0.85VGP


Save insure VPP 0.7 0.7VPP

Cost event VGP 0.85 0.85VGP

Financial

investment

Local VGP 0.8 0.8VGP 0.8VGP

Non-local A 0.75 0.75A

Soc H&W Noise GP 0.8 0.8GP 0.85GP 3.7VGP

Light A 0.35 0.35A

Page | 174

Air GP 0.85 0.85GP

Transport

impact

Delay GP 0.9 0.9GP 0.95VGP

Time saved VGP 0.95 0.95VGP

Stake

Engage


H&S RA VGP 0.65 0.65VGP 0.75GP

Visual

impact

Leonhardt

rules

GP 0.2 0.2GP 0.2GP





Soc Climate

Change

Congestion

increase


Overall

sust

score

9.65VGP

Analysis of the table shows the overall sustainability score for the Solent Link is Very Good Practise. It

also shows that the project performed excellently in regards to all three sustainability pillars of

environment, economy & society. This is to be expected as the assessment was done during the design

stage of the project & therefore the most sustainable design options were chosen accordingly.

Going by individual indicators, the project performed excellently in almost all areas with some

exceptions. The Solent Link performed fairly well for the indicators Health & Wellbeing as well as Visual

Impact.

The link achieved an average score Employment. This is due to the fact that a lot of bridges implement a

toll booth & also have their standard maintenance jobs. It would be unsustainable to create extra work

& therefore cost purely to gain local employment.

Page | 175

The project only performed poorly in its use of natural materials. Unfortunately, the available natural

materials of timbre & masonry. were just not feasible for the project. Masonry would have been too

heavy as a main construction material & timbre would rot in the marine conditions.

3.10. – Stage 9-Visualisation for ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’, the

Solent Link

The scoring system is well represented by a ROSE plot visualisation wheel. The ROSE plot is shown in

Figure 3.25. The colours represent the individual scores of the sustainability pillars, their respective

indicators & sub-indicators. The colour of the centre circle represents the overall project score.

Figure 3.25. CBSA ROSE plot, the Solent Link

Key

Very good

Good practise

Average

Poor practise

Very poor

practise

Economy

Page | 176


Chapter 3 consisted of the full CBSA assessment of the proposed Solent Link. This begun with an initial

research stage which provided an in-depth understanding of the needs & aspirations of the Isle of Wight

which uncovered a general local consensus that some form of fixed link to the mainland was needed. In

fact, the proposal had gained enough weight to warrant members of parliament such as George

Osbourne looking into the matter. As well as the local aspiration for a fixed link, there were also

concerns, mainly based around the effect on the local ecology such as the Red Squirrel & the seagrass.

Therefore, some design options & alternatives were established.

These key design options were assessed for their comparable sustainability using the pairwise

comparison method. From this stage, it was determined that the most sustainable design option for the

link would be a floating bridge with a raised deck in the middle to allow ships to pass through. Once, this

was decided, the outline design for the rest of the bridge was completed.

The outline design gave a more in-depth detailed summary of certain aspects of the proposed bridge

such as location, connections to existing roads, land use, modes of transport, structural design & other

miscellaneous aspects such as pest control, renewable energy & disabled/elderly access. Next, several

basic design equations were completed in order to establish the sizes/strengths/quantities of certain

materials & structural elements would be required. Finally, several construction drawings were

completed in order to give a visual representation of the bridge.

Then, the newly designed bridge was assessed overall for its sustainability. This was expected to get a

high score because the design process had already been influenced by the CBSA model in order to

choose the most sustainable design options.

After analysing the results, the Solent Link scored as expected, Very Good Practise in almost every

aspect. However, there were some indicators/sub-indicators which didn’t achieve the highest score. This

was mainly because if the design had been changed to suit that aspect, a more crucial area of the design

would have had its sustainability impacted & overall would have actually reduced the score. This shows

that the model works through its weighting system. Sustainability is all about balancing the pillars to

achieve the ultimate best outcome.

Page | 177

Chapter 4 – Discussion

Chapter 4 will cover the overall discussion of the report & the details within it. A critical analysis

conducted by the author will thoroughly assess the good & bad points of the SA models that have been

compiled as well as the existing literature that led to their development. First, the discussion will look

back at the prior report ‘Sustainability Assessment of Road-Bridges’ by Serpell (2015), and debate

whether the conclusions & future recommendations from that report have been tackled is this report.

Following this, any other advances that the CBSA model has made from the NRBSA model will be

discussed. Finally, the direct results from the case-studies within this report will be evaluated.

4.1. – Critical analysis of the ‘New Road-Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model

in comparison with the ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model

The conclusion & future recommendations chapter of Sustainability Assessment of Road-Bridges

(Serpell, 2015), addressed some good points & some issues with its own model (NRBSA) & put forward

some suggestions in order help the model improve. These advantages & disadvantages are listed below

& will be further discussed in this sub-chapter.

Advantages

The use of consistent units of measurement throughout assessment (monetary).

The use of different indicators when assessing a different stage of the project’s life-cycle.

The use of specific indicators & normalisation data for road-bridges rather than generic.

The importance of an initial research stage prior to assessment.

The advantages of a visualisation wheel in displaying results to the client.

Page | 178

Disadvantages

The need for more indicators in order to utilise the aggregation stage.

The representation of the indicator assessment process to the overall sustainability.

The need for more comparative data during the normalisation stage.

The need for a more objective approach to indicator weighting.

4.1.1. – Critical analysis of the ‘New Road-Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model advantages in

comparison with the ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model advantages

The use of a consistent unit of measurement throughout the assessment process is good maintaining

comparability between individual indicators & sub-indicators. It is also useful if that unit of

measurement is also used for the scoring system such as in the ‘Sustainability Accounting’ model.

However, it is not absolutely necessary and can actually be seen as a waste of time & therefore money.

The client is not likely to want to see comparable results down to the accuracy of say £1 (if using

monetary values). Instead, they’d prefer to see the results on a Linkert Scale basis (Very Poor Practice –

Very Good Practice). Using a consistent unit of measurement can be time consuming as there will be

data that will have to be converted which can be difficult & also may impact that data’s overall result.

Instead, it would be preferable, for each indicator to be assessed using its usual unit of measurement &

then this can be normalised to a Linkert Scale which is kept consistent & used in the Results stage.

The use of different indicators when assessing a different stage in a project’s life-cycle is still good

practice. A great advantage of both the NRBSA & the CBSA models are their flexibility & adaptability to

different situations. In fact, this process has been shown in this report in that different indicators were

used in assessing the Oresund Link & the Solent Link because they were assessed in different stages. For

example, in the H&S indicator, a sub-indicator of ‘loss of time due to accidents’ was used for the already

built Oresund Bridge compared with a sub-indicator of ‘risk assessment’ for the Solent Link which was in

the design stage.

Similarly, the use of specific indicators & normalisation data are still used for different project’s

altogether. Just because two bridges are both road-bridges does not mean they can be assessed using

the exact same indicators & data. They will most likely have major differences in other aspects such as

their structural design.

Page | 179

The importance of the initial research stage is still shown in the CBSA model. It is the starting process

which affects the indicator selection & their respective weightings. It is the basis of the overall

sustainability of the project.

Finally, the advantages of the visualisation wheel are still valid. It provides an attractive whilst

informative outlook on the project’s results which will be appreciated by the client. However, there

were some changes to the look of the wheel for the CBSA model. This was purely done on an aesthetic

basis as the breakdown of the colours with the white background reduces confusion between indicator

scores. Figure 4.1. shows the visualisation wheel for the NRBSA model.

Stakeholder engage.

Econ

om

ic risk

Waste management

Key

Very good practise

Good practise

Average

Poor practise

Very poor practise

Figure 4.1. Visualisation wheel, NRBSA model (Serpell, 2015)

Page | 180

Figure 4.2. shows the visualisation wheel for the CBSA model.

Figure 4.2. Visualisation wheel, CBSA model

4.1.2. – Critical analysis of the ‘New Road-Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model disadvantages in

comparison with the ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model disadvantages

The need for more indicators to be chosen for assessment has been shown in this report. The most sub-

indicators chosen for the NRBSA model in Serpell’s report (2015) was 16. The most sub-indicators

chosen for the CBSA model was 54. This amount of sub-indicators warranted the need for the

aggregation stage to reduce the amount of sub-indicators selected for assessment based on their

expected impact on the overall sustainability of the project. However, it would be good to see whether

Economy

Key

Very good

Good practise

Average

Poor practise

Very poor

practise

Page | 181

these aggregated sub-indicators would have affected the overall results. If they do, then it’s clear that

the aggregation stage has not been done properly. The un-aggregated assessments of the CBSA for the

Oresund & Solent Links will be tested in Chapter 4.3.

The representation of the indicator assessment process to the overall sustainability is based on whether

the indicator assessment is too simplistic or does not fully represent the project’s overall sustainability.

In reality, the simpler the assessment process, the better, as it shows model usability & reduces the risk

of human error. However, it is true that the assessment process must be representative of the overall

sustainability. Therefore, the indicators for the CBSA model have been carefully chosen to allow for this.

For example, the assessment of economic risk could be unrepresentative if purely based on insurance

cost & savings. That is why the cost & saving of insurance not taken out is also assessed so that the

impact of an uninsured event occurring is not ignored.

The need for more comparative data during the normalisation stage has still proven difficult but with

the introduction of complex bridges instead of purely road-bridges up for assessment, more

comparative data is available. For example, the Oresund Link is quite rare in that it is part tunnel & part

bridge. However, there are lots of examples of cable-stayed bridges, bridges with mixed transport

modes & obviously lots of immersed tunnels. Therefore, a lot more comparative data can be collected.

The need for a more objective approach in indicator weighting has partly been addressed in the

development of the CBSA model. Professional opinion is still required for the overall assessment of the

project, however, with the introduction of the design option comparison stage, the statistical pairwise

comparison method can be implemented in determining weightings & their consistency. This stage is

discussed further in Chapter 4.2.

4.2. – Critical analysis of further advances to the ‘New Road-Bridge

Sustainability Assessment’ model in the ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability

Assessment’ model

The main advancement from the NRBSA model in the development of the CBSA model was the

introduction of the key design option comparison stage. A bridge’s overall sustainability can be greatly

influenced by the key design options that are chosen. For example, the design of a cable-stayed bridge

Page | 182

would have a very different sustainability score to the same bridge if it was designed as a suspension

bridge. Therefore, these options & their alternatives are identified & directly compared in regards to

sustainability. This way, it can be established whether or not the designers designed the most

sustainable bridge available. This stage is even more useful if the assessment is completed during the

design stage as it can directly influence the design options in order to build the most sustainable bridge.

Table 4.1 shows an example of the key design options for the assessment of the Oresund Link.

Table 4.1. Key design option table, the Oresund Link

De

sign

Op

tio

ns

Chosen Option Alternative

Truss/Slab deck combination with rail & road

lanes on different levels

Purely slab deck with rail & road lanes on

same level

Cable-stayed bridge Suspension bridge

Mainly pre-fab construction Mainly in-situ construction

Immerse tunnel sections Bore tunnel

Four pillars around corner of centre span Arch member between centre span

In addition, to allowing the designers to choose the most sustainable options, this stage also implements

the pairwise comparison method in assessing the comparative sustainability of each option. This is done

through choosing up to 10 of the main indicators which will determine the sustainability of the design

options & assessing their importance to each other. An example of the choosing process of the sub-

indicators is highlighted in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. Pairwise comparison sub-indicator table, the Oresund Link

SI.1. SI.2. SI.3. SI.4. SI.5.

Consideration of

temperature

change

Consideration of

rainfall increase

Direct cost Visual impact Consideration of

traffic congestion

increase

The importance of each sub-indicator in comparison is scored on a nine-point scale & put into a matrix

format. The matrix is then normalised so that each weighting value lies between 0.00 & 1.00. This allows

Page | 183

for ease in the scoring process later on & provides a more representative set of weightings, rather than

a subjective choice. An example of a normalised weighting matrix is shown in Equation 4.1.

[ 0.391.870.281.421.04]

÷ 5 =

[ 0.080.370.060.280.21]

These values are then checked for their consistency. This is a good way to check that the subjective

matter of deciding on sub-indicator weightings is not inconsistent & therefore, unrepresentative.

Once the weightings have been determined as consistently chosen, the design options are then scored

on a 100-point scale which is then weighted & the overall score calculated to the determine the overall

sustainability scores of either option. The 100-point scale scoring is also done subjectively but in reality

it would be completed by a team of professionals. In addition, the overall score is dependent on the

weightings which have been checked for consistency. Table 4.3. shows the scoring of sub-indicators for

two design options.

Table 4.3. Design option scoring table

Actual deck design Alternative deck design

SI.1. 80 90

SI.2. 60 60

SI.3. 85 90

SI.4. 85 95

SI.5. 95 65

Table 4.4. shows the weighted scores of Table 4.3. & the design options overall sustainability scores.

Equation 4.1. Normalised weighting matrix, the Oresund Link

Page | 184

Table 4.4. Design option overall sustainability score table

Actual deck design score Alternative deck design score

SI.1. 80 x 0.08 90 x 0.08

SI.2. 60 x 0.37 60 x 0.37

SI.3. 85 x 0.06 90 x 0.06

SI.4. 85 x 0.28 95 x 0.28

SI.5. 95 x 0.21 65 x 0.21


4.3. – Critical analysis of the ‘Complex Bridge Sustainability Assessment’ model

case-study results

Individual analysis of each case-study’s results has already been competed in the results chapter for

each case-study. However, it was mentioned in Chapter 4.1. that it would be a good idea to compare the

results of each case-study with the un-aggregated assessment of their respective project assessment.

This would be a good way to test if the aggregation stage works & if it doesn’t, would it need improving

or removing it altogether.

4.3.1. – Un-aggregated assessment of the Oresund Link & critical analysis of results

There was a total of 12 aggregated sub-indicators for the CBSA of the Oresund Link. These are shown in

Table 4.5. alongside their respective weightings & indicator groups.

Page | 185

Table 4.5. Aggregated indicators/sub-indicators, the Oresund Link

Water use Amount of water wasted 0.15


Amount of water recycled 0.15



0.10

Health & Wellbeing Vibration 0.15


0.15


0.15


0.15


0.15


0.15


0.10


0.15

These sub-indicators will now be assessed and normalised.

Water use

‘Amount of water used’ is based on the volume of water that was used in the bridges construction (all

other life-cycle stages will be negligible).

There is no literature providing this information & there were no specialist tasks which required the use

of water so the estimated value will be taken from an average construction site of around the same size.

This comes to around 27,000m3 (BAM SMaRT RL, 2014).

Table 4.6. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of water used’.

Page | 186

Table 4.6. Normalisation table for ‘amount of water used’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >100,000m3 50,001m3 –

100,000m3

10,001m3 –

50,000m3

1001m3 –

10,000m3

0m3 – 1000m3

From Table 4.6., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of water used’ has scored A.

‘Amount of water saved’ will be based on the estimated volume of water that was saved due to design

options that reduced water usage.

There is no evidence for such choices being made and therefore, the results for water saved will be

negligible.

Table 4.7. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of water saved’.

Table 4.7. Normalisation table for ‘amount of water saved’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range 0m3 – 500m3 501m3 –

5000m3

5001m3 –

25,000m3

25,001m3 –

50,000m3

>50,000m3

From Table 4.7., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of water saved’ has scored VPP.

‘Amount of water recycled’ will be based on the volume of water saved whilst using any green

technology during construction or usage that use rainwater for other uses.

This amount will be negligible as no such technologies are evident in the Oresund Link’s construction.

Table 4.8. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of water recycled’.

Page | 187

Table 4.8. Normalisation table for ‘amount of water recycled’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


5000m3

5001m3 –

25,000m3

25,001m3 –

50,000m3

>50,000m3

From Table 4.8., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of water recycled’ has scored VPP.


‘Consideration of possible economic crash’ will be based on the evidence of any saved up funding to be

used in case of emergency so that the project does not stop if an economic crash was to happen.

Government funding & loans for the Oresund Link accounted for roughly 10% over the estimated

construction costs (dn.se, 2-14), enough to continue with the project to a certain point or at least to

invest into the area to help get the economy back on its feet. This is therefore, deemed considered.

Table 4.9. shows the data normalisation for ‘consideration of possible economic crash’.

Table 4.9. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of possible economic crash’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


From Table 4.9., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘consideration of possible economic crash’ has

scored VGP.

Health & Wellbeing

‘Vibration’ will be based on the measurement of vibrations during construction works.

The majority of vibration would come from the caisson drilling. The average vibration effect of drilling

caissons from 25ft is about 0.089 inch/sec (US Department of Transport, 1996). Therefore, the effect of

Page | 188

the caisson drilling to the nearest occupied structure (housing) would be 0.0007 inch/sec (less than a

millimetre) and is therefore regarded negligible.

Table 4.10. shows the data normalisation for ‘vibration’.

Table 4.10. Normalisation table for ‘vibration’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >0.2 in/s 0.021 in/s –

0.2 in/s

0.005 in/s –

0.02 in/s

0 in/s – 0.004

in/s

0 in/s

From Table 4.10., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘vibration’ has scored VGP.

Cultural heritage impact

‘Cost of impact on listed structures’ will be based on the financial cost of any damages/renovations to

listed structures.

There were no listed structures on the site so this is deemed negligible.

Table 4.11. shows the data normalisation for ‘cost of impact on listed structures’.

Table 4.11. Normalisation table for ‘cost of impact on listed structures’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£20,000 £5001 -

£20,000

£101 - £5000 £1 - £100 £0

From Table 4.11., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘cost of impact on listed structures’ has scored

VGP.

‘Cost of impact on protected land’ will be based on the financial cost of any damages/renovations to

protected land.

There was no protected land on the site so this is deemed negligible.

Page | 189

Table 4.12. shows the data normalisation for ‘cost of impact on protected land’.

Table 4.12. Normalisation table for ‘cost of impact on protected land’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£10,000 £3001 -

£10,000

£101 - £3000 £1 - £100 £0

From Table 4.12., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘cost of impact on protected land’ has scored

VGP.

‘Cost of impact on archaeological sites’ will be based on the financial cost of any damages/renovations

to archaeological sites.

There were no archaeological sites discovered, although there were some un-activated bombs from the

WWII era. However, these had to be detonated in a controlled manner & did not have any financial cost

on the project. Therefore, this is deemed negligible.

Table 4.13. shows the data normalisation for ‘cost of impact on archaeological sites’.

Table 4.13. Normalisation table for ‘cost of impact on archaeological sites’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£30,000 £10,001 -

£30,000

£501 - £10,000 £1 - £500 £0

From Table 4.13., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘cost of impact on archaeological sites’ has

scored VGP.

Community facilities

‘Loss of revenue from parking metres’ will be based on the financial loss due to parking metres if a car

park had been destroyed.

Page | 190

No car parks were destroyed in the construction of the Oresund Link & therefore, this is deemed

negligible.

Table 4.14. shows the data normalisation for ‘loss of revenue from parking metres’.

Table 4.14. Normalisation table for ‘loss of revenue from parking metres’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£10,000 £1001 -

£10,000

£101 - £1000 £1 - £100 £0

From Table 4.14., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘loss of revenue from parking metres’ has

scored VGP.

‘Loss of revenue from parking fines’ will be based on the financial loss due to parking spaces if a car park

had been destroyed.

No car parks were destroyed in the construction of the Oresund Link & therefore, this is deemed

negligible.

Table 4.15. shows the data normalisation for ‘loss of revenue from parking fines’.

Table 4.15. Normalisation table for ‘loss of revenue from parking fines’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£7000 £1001 -

£7000

£101 - £1000 £1 - £100 £0

From Table 4.15., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘loss of revenue from parking fines’ has scored

VGP.

‘Loss of revenue from other community facilities’ will be based on the financial loss due to any other

community facilities being destroyed.

Page | 191

No community facilities were destroyed in the construction of the Oresund Link & therefore, this is

deemed negligible.

Table 4.16. shows the data normalisation for ‘loss of revenue from other community facilities’.

Table 4.16. Normalisation table for ‘loss of revenue from other community facilities’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£1000 £501 -

£1000

£51 - £500 £1 - £50 £0

From Table 4.16., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘loss of revenue from other community

facilities’ has scored VGP.

‘Income generated from community facilities’ will be based on the financial gain from the introduction

of any new community facilities as part of the project.

No community facilities were built in the construction of the Oresund Link & therefore, this is deemed

negligible.

Table 4.17. shows the data normalisation for ‘income generated from community facilities’.

Table 4.17. Normalisation table for ‘income generated from community facilities’, the Oresund Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range £0 £1 - £50 £51 - £500 £501 - £1000 >£1000

From Table 4.17., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘income generated from community facilities’

has scored VPP.

These new results are now added to the overall results table so that it can be assessed whether or not

they make any difference to the overall sustainability score of the Oresund Link. The results table is

shown in Table 4.18.

Page | 192

Table 4.18. Un-aggregated results table, the Oresund Link

Sust

pillar


weight

sust score

Weight

factor

Weight

sust

score

Tot indic

weight

sust score

Tot pillar

weight

sust score

Env Ecological

impact

Cost of

pres meas


Saving of

pres meas

VGP 0.85 0.85VGP

Cost of

impact

VGP 0.9 0.9VGP


Energy

saved

VPP 0.45 0.45VPP





Non-free

land

A 0.65 0.65A

Water use Water used A 0.15 0.15A 0.15VPP

Water

saved

VPP 0.10 0.10VPP

Water

recycled

VPP 0.15 0.15VPP

Natural

material

Amount

used


Consider

Env Climate

Change


Temp VGP 0.6 0.6VGP


Page | 193

Econ

Economic

impact


Indirect

cost

A 0.85 0.85A

Direct

income

A 0.9 0.95A

Indirect

income

GP 0.85 0.85GP


Perm P/T A 0.9 0.9A

Temp F/T A 0.85 0.85A

Economic

risk





Financial

investment

Local A 0.8 0.8A 0.8A


Consider Ec

Climate

Change

Economic

crash


Soc H&W Noise A 0.8 0.8A 0.85VGP 4VGP

Light A 0.35 0.35A

Vibration VGP 0.15 0.15VGP


Transport

impact




Page | 194

Stake

Engage



Cul Herr Listed build VGP 0.15 0.15VGP 0.15VGP

Land VGP 0.15 0.15VGP

Archeol site VGP 0.15 0.15VGP

Visual

impact

Leonhardt

rules


Comm facil Parking

meter

VGP 0.15 0.15VGP 0.15VGP

Parking fine VGP 0.15 0.15VGP

Other cost VGP 0.10 0.10VGP

Income VGP 0.15 0.15VGP






Soc Climate

Change

Congestion

increase


Overall

sust

score

6.3VGP

From analysing the table, it can be seen that the addition of the once aggregated sub-indicators that

there has been no real change to the overall score, except for a slight increase in the numerical

weighting of the Very Good Practice score. This means that for the CBSA of the Oresund Link, the

aggregation stage worked in saving time & effort.

Page | 195

4.3.2. – Un-aggregated assessment of the Solent Link & critical analysis of results

There was a total of 12 aggregated sub-indicators for the CBSA of the Solent Link. These are shown in

Table 4.19. alongside their respective weightings & indicator groups.

Table 4.19. Aggregated indicators/sub-indicators, the Solent Link

Water use Amount of water wasted 0.15


Amount of water recycled 0.15



0.10

Health & Wellbeing Vibration 0.15


0.15


0.15


0.15


0.15


0.15


0.10


0.15

These sub-indicators will now be assessed and normalised.

Water use

‘Amount of water used’ will be based on the estimated volume of water that will be used in the bridges

construction (all other life-cycle stages will be negligible).

Page | 196

There are no specialist needs for water use for the project so the estimated value will be taken from an

average construction site of around the same size. This comes to around 2700m3 (BAM SMaRT RL, 2014)

Table 4.20. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of water used’.

Table 4.20. Normalisation table for ‘amount of water used’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >50,000m3 25,001m3 –

50,000m3

2001m3 –

25,000m3

501m3 –

2000m3

0m3 – 500m3

From Table 4.20., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of water used’ has scored A.

‘Amount of water saved’ will be based on the estimated volume of water that will be saved due to

design choices which reduce the use of water.

There are no areas of construction which require excessive water use & therefore, no design choices

have been made to save water. Therefore, the results for water saved will be negligible.

Table 4.21. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of water saved’.

Table 4.21. Normalisation table for ‘amount of water saved’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


3000m3

3001m3 –

15,000m3

15,001m3 –

30,000m3

>30,000m3

From Table 4.21., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of water saved’ has scored VPP.

‘Amount of water recycled’ will be based on the volume of water saved whilst using any green

technology during construction or usage that use rainwater for other uses.

There are no feasible areas of the bridge which require rainwater harvesting & therefore the amount of

water recycled for the Solent Link is deemed negligible.

Page | 197

Table 4.22. shows the data normalisation for ‘amount of water recycled’.

Table 4.22. Normalisation table for ‘amount of water recycled’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


3000m3

3001m3 –

15,000m3

15,001m3 –

30,000m3

>30,000m3

From Table 4.22., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘amount of water recycled’ has scored VPP.


‘Consideration of possible economic crash’ will be based on any saved up funding that could be used in

case of emergency so that the project does not stop if an economic crash was to happen.

Government funding have already said that they would pledge billions into the project which will only

cost around £55 million & therefore, there could easily be enough emergency back-up money put to the

side for such an event. This is therefore, deemed considered.

Table 4.23. shows the data normalisation for ‘consideration of possible economic crash’.

Table 4.23. Normalisation table for ‘consideration of possible economic crash’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise


From Table 4.23., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘consideration of possible economic crash’ has

scored VGP.

Health & Wellbeing

‘Vibration’ will be based on the estimated measurement of vibrations during construction works.

The majority of vibration would come from the foundation works for the raised section over the Lepe

car park. These works would require large excavators which produce an average vibration effect of

Page | 198

about 0.089 inch/sec from 25ft (US Department of Transport, 1996). Therefore, the effect of the

foundation works to the nearest occupied structure (car park) would be 0.089 inch/sec.

Table 4.24. shows the data normalisation for ‘vibration’.

Table 4.24. Normalisation table for ‘vibration’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >0.2 in/s 0.021 in/s –

0.2 in/s

0.005 in/s –

0.02 in/s

0 in/s – 0.004

in/s

0 in/s

From Table 4.24., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘vibration’ has scored PP.

Cultural heritage impact

‘Cost of impact on listed structures’ will be based on the financial cost of any damages/renovations to

listed structures.

There are no listed structures on the site so this is deemed negligible.

Table 4.25. shows the data normalisation for ‘cost of impact on listed structures’.

Table 4.25. Normalisation table for ‘cost of impact on listed structures’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£20,000 £5001 -

£20,000

£101 - £5000 £1 - £100 £0

From Table 4.25., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘cost of impact on listed structures’ has scored

VGP.

‘Cost of impact on protected land’ will be based on the financial cost of any damages/renovations to

protected land.

There is no protected land on the site so this is deemed negligible.

Page | 199

Table 4.26. shows the data normalisation for ‘cost of impact on protected land’.

Table 4.26. Normalisation table for ‘cost of impact on protected land’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£10,000 £3001 -

£10,000

£101 - £3000 £1 - £100 £0

From Table 4.26., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘cost of impact on protected land’ has scored

VGP.

‘Cost of impact on archaeological sites’ will be based on the financial cost of any damages/renovations

to archaeological sites.

There are no discovered archaeological sites on the construction site, however, it cannot be promised

that some will not be discovered in the excavation process. However, there is such little excavation

within the project scope that it is highly unlikely. This is deemed negligible but should be assessed post-

construction to get a more accurate result.

Table 4.27. shows the data normalisation for ‘cost of impact on archaeological sites’.

Table 4.27. Normalisation table for ‘cost of impact on archaeological sites’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£30,000 £10,001 -

£30,000

£501 - £10,000 £1 - £500 £0

From Table 4.27., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘cost of impact on archaeological sites’ has

scored VGP.

Community facilities

‘Loss of revenue from parking metres’ will be based on the financial loss due to parking metres if a car

park had been destroyed.

Page | 200

There is a car park on the Lepe side of the bridge, however the design has allowed for it to stay in

business unaffected by rising the bridge over the car park. Therefore, the financial loss is negligible.

Table 4.28. shows the data normalisation for ‘loss of revenue from parking metres’.

Table 4.28. Normalisation table for ‘loss of revenue from parking metres’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£10,000 £1001 -

£10,000

£101 - £1000 £1 - £100 £0

From Table 4.28., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘loss of revenue from parking metres’ has

scored VGP.

‘Loss of revenue from parking fines’ will be based on the financial loss due to parking spaces if a car park

had been destroyed.

There is a car park on the Lepe side of the bridge, however the design has allowed for it to stay in

business unaffected by rising the bridge over the car park. Therefore, the financial loss is negligible.

Table 4.29. shows the data normalisation for ‘loss of revenue from parking fines’.

Table 4.29. Normalisation table for ‘loss of revenue from parking fines’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£7000 £1001 -

£7000

£101 - £1000 £1 - £100 £0

From Table 4.29., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘loss of revenue from parking fines’ has scored

VGP.

‘Loss of revenue from other community facilities’ will be based on the financial loss due to any other

community facilities being destroyed.

Page | 201

There are no other community facilities on the construction site & therefore, the loss of revenue is

deemed negligible.

Table 4.30. shows the data normalisation for ‘loss of revenue from other community facilities’.

Table 4.30. Normalisation table for ‘loss of revenue from other community facilities’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range >£1000 £501 -

£1000

£51 - £500 £1 - £50 £0

From Table 4.30., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘loss of revenue from other community

facilities’ has scored VGP.

‘Income generated from community facilities’ will be based on the financial gain from the introduction

of any new community facilities as part of the project.

No community facilities will be built in the construction of the Solent Link & therefore, this is deemed

negligible.

Table 4.31. shows the data normalisation for ‘income generated from community facilities’.

Table 4.31. Normalisation table for ‘income generated from community facilities’, the Solent Link

Sustainability

score


practise


practise

Data range £0 £1 - £50 £51 - £500 £501 - £1000 >£1000

From Table 4.31., it can be said that the sub-indicator of ‘income generated from community facilities’

has scored VPP.

These new results are now added to the overall results table so that it can be assessed whether or not

they make any difference to the overall sustainability score of the Solent Link. The results table is shown

in Table 4.32.

Page | 202

Table 4.32. Un-aggregated results table, the Solent Link

Sust

pillar


weight

sust score

Weight

factor

Weight

sust

score

Tot indic

weight

sust score

Tot pillar

weight

sust score

Env Ecological

impact

Cost of

pres meas


Saving of

pres meas

VGP 0.85 0.85VGP

Cost of

impact

VGP 0.9 0.9VGP


Energy

saved

VPP 0.45 0.45VPP





Non-free

land

A 0.65 0.65A

Water use Water used A 0.15 0.15A 0.15VPP

Water

saved

VPP 0.10 0.10VPP

Water

recycled

VPP 0.15 0.15VPP

Natural

material

Amount

used


Consider

Env Climate

Change


Temp VGP 0.6 0.6VGP


Page | 203

Econ

Economic

impact


Indirect

cost

A 0.85 0.85A

Direct

income

A 0.9 0.95A

Indirect

income

GP 0.85 0.85GP


Perm P/T A 0.9 0.9A

Temp F/T A 0.85 0.85A

Economic

risk





Financial

investment

Local A 0.8 0.8A 0.8A


Consider Ec

Climate

Change

Economic

crash


Soc H&W Noise A 0.8 0.8A 0.85VGP 4VGP

Light A 0.35 0.35A

Vibration PP 0.15 0.15PP


Transport

impact




Page | 204

Stake

Engage



Cul Herr Listed build VGP 0.15 0.15VGP 0.15VGP

Land VGP 0.15 0.15VGP

Archeol site VGP 0.15 0.15VGP

Visual

impact

Leonhardt

rules


Comm facil Parking

meter

VGP 0.15 0.15VGP 0.15VGP

Parking fine VGP 0.15 0.15VGP

Other cost VGP 0.10 0.10VGP

Income VGP 0.15 0.15VGP






Soc Climate

Change

Congestion

increase


Overall

sust

score

6.3VGP

From analysing the table, it can be seen that the addition of the once aggregated sub-indicators that

there has been no real change to the overall score, except for a slight increase in the numerical

weighting of the Very Good Practice score. This means that for the CBSA of the Solent Link, the

aggregation stage worked in saving time & effort.

Page | 205

Conclusions

Chapter 1 of this report covered a review of existing literature into the subject matter of sustainability

assessment. However, rather than going into in-depth detail on how on the indicator selection &

assessment process like in The Sustainability Assessment of Road-Bridges (Serpell, 2015), the literature

review in this report explored two different SA models which both had methodologies which

contributed to the development of the CBSA model. In addition, a critical analysis report by Shrubshall

(2015) was also reviewed, as it discussed the details of the Oresund Bridge, which was to be one of the

case-studies that this report was to assess.

Chapter 1.1. looked into the sustainability assessment of the Penang Second Bridge using the Analytical

Hierarchy Process. Although it was interesting to see the review of the bridge itself, the part that was

most integral to the writing of this report was the AHP method itself. The AHP method collects

weighting values for sub-indicators through professional opinion like most models. However, it was

different in that it compared each sub-indicator to all other sub-indicators on how significant either one

was to the overall sustainability of the project. This was done using a nine-point weighting scale shown

in Table 1.1.

These values are then put in a matrix format & normalised so that each sub-indicator has a weighting

value between 0.00 & 1.00.

These values are then also checked for their consistency which gets rid of any doubt that the subjective

manner in choosing the weightings affects the overall sustainability of the project. If the Consistency

Ratio (CR) value is less than 0.1, the weightings are deemed consistent & can be used in the scoring

process.

Table 11. Fundamental scales for pairwise comparison (Yadollahi et al., 2014)

Page | 206

Each indicator is scored on a 0-10 point scale determining how significant the indicator is to the project’s

overall sustainability. This table is shown in Table 1.3.

These indicator scores are then multiplied by their respective weightings to get their overall

sustainability score.

This method has been implemented in the development of the CBSA model and has vastly improved its

reliability, purely by adding a sense of statistical evaluation & consistency checking.

Chapter 1.2. reviewed the SUSAIP assessment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Bridge

foundations. This piece of literature was useful in that it clearly stated the stages of its working method.

This working method actually proved to be very similar to that of the NRBSA model which was

refreshing. The two main points that were taken away from this literature in the development of the

CBSA model were the use of different indicator assessment tactics & also the fact that it assessed the

key design options of the bridges foundations.

The various indicator assessment methods are highlighted below.

Method A – Credit-based scoring system

Used for indicators which are difficult to quantify such as visual impact, H&S etc.

Method B – Scaled scoring

Suitable for indicators with upper and lower boundary limits set by legislation, guidelines, quality

objectives etc. Values assigned proportionally based on designer’s judgement.


Page | 207

Method C – Benchmark comparison

Suitable for indicators which are not related to statutory guidelines for sustainability performance such

as direct cost and land acquisition. Percentage of performance improvement is compared for two or

more options.

Method D – Flow chart credit system

Similar to a credit-based scoring system but a flow chart is used. An example is shown in Figure 1.7.

Method E – Subjective marking

Scores are purely based on assessor’s own judgement.

This helped in the development of the CBSA model as it was a realisation that if various indicator

assessment methods can be used for different types of indicators & their different units of

measurement, then a consistent unit of measurement would not have to be kept to. This saves time &

money as well as reducing the risk of human error.

In addition, the fact that the literature assessed the bridge foundation design options individually led to

the additional CBSA working stage of establishing & individually assessing design options for all projects.

Figure 1.7. Flow chart credit system example (Ugwu et al., 2006)

Page | 208

The final piece of literature that was looked at was the critical analysis of the Oresund Bridge. Although,

it wasn’t a sustainability assessment, it provided an in-depth review of the bridge which ended up being

one of the case-study projects. The main difficulty in sustainability assessment is collecting the intricate

data of the project and this literature gave insight into a lot of it.

The critical analysis reviewed the following areas of the Oresund Bridge:

Planning

Aesthetics

Construction method

Durability (structure)

The future of the bridge

All of these areas are included in sustainability assessment & therefore, the literature proved extremely

helpful.

Chapter 1.4. includes the development of the CBSA model using the previously mentioned literature

review. This was done by first adapting the NRBSA model to cater to not only bridges other than road-

bridges but complex bridges. This mainly consist of large bridges with a huge impact on the surrounding

environment & bridges with rare/unusual designs. The newly adapted NRBSA model was then improved

overall through the introduction of the design option comparison stage, the addition of more sub-

indicators which led to the implementation of the aggregation stage as well as an improved visualisation

wheel. The working methodology of the CBSA model was developed and is shown below.

Stage 1 – Initial research

Research of the bridges location will determine the sustainability ‘needs’ relative to that location. For

example, if the area is extremely urbanised, then environmental measures will be given high priority in

assessing the new bridge (Serpell, 2015).

Stage 2 – Indicator selection

Suitable indicators and sub-indicators will be selected for both the key design options and the rest of the

bridge and are based on Stage 1 (Serpell, 2015).

Page | 209

Stage 3 – Indicator weighting

The link’s indicators will be weighted according to their significance to its overall sustainability (Serpell,

2015).

Stage 4 – Indicator aggregation

A minimum weighting limit will be established and any indicators which fall below this limit in regards to

weighting value will be extracted from the assessment process. This is to save time and money by

ignoring insignificant indicators (Serpell, 2015).

Stage 5 – Identifying key design options

Key design options will be identified such as foundations, transport types etc. These options will have

significant effect on the overall sustainability of the bridge and therefore, the choice of the more

sustainable option is of vital importance. Examples of these are shown in Chapter 1.2.1.

Stage 6 – Pairwise comparison of key design options

The options identified in Stage 2 are compared using pairwise comparison. Consistency is also checked

using the consistency ratio method. Examples of this are shown in Chapter 1.1.1.

Stage 7 – Normalised indicator assessment

Once the most sustainable design options have been identified and the rest of the bridge has been

weighted, their sustainability (along with the rest of the bridge) will be assessed on a more general

basis, like in the NRBSA model. The normalisation will use the scaled scoring method (Serpell, 2015).

Stage 8 – Results

The resulting weighted scores will be put into a table format like in the NRBSA model which will give

detailed information of the entire assessment process (Serpell, 2015).


Finally, the results will be integrated into a ROSE plot for presentation (Serpell, 2015).

This method was finally used to assess both the Oresund Link (case-study 1) & the proposed Solent Link

(case-study 2). Each case-study is individually analysed within their respective chapters. However, one

Page | 210

main difference between the two case-studies is that they are done in different stages of the project’s

life-cycle. The post-construction analysis of the Oresund Link allows people to see what went well, what

went poorly & what can be improved upon. The fact that the link has been built means that most of the

data is accurate rather than estimated & gives a better representation. Although, a lot of the data for

the Solent Link assessment is estimated (as it is done during the design stage), it still gives a good

representation & allows the designer to choose the most sustainable design options prior to building the

bridge.

Page | 211

Future recommendations

The main aim for any future advancement of the CBSA model is to move it from just an academic

research report & begin to create a useable business model which can be implemented & sold to

consulting & contracting companies for their projects.

It is highly unlikely that companies would want to purchase such service unless it was legally required or

it provided benefits to their company. There has already been an influx of buildings achieving BREEAM

awards which have given the designers & contactors a brilliant representation & have led to them

getting more contracts. Arup’s SPeAR model has begun to do this for infrastructure projects. Therefore,

there is a market for it. The CBSA model would just need to get a few big projects to establish itself as a

good option for companies to choose.

In order to help the model get more contracts, its usability needs to be improved so that it can be done

quickly & efficiently. This can be done by several means.

Ugwu et al. (2006) mentioned the use of an engineering analysis sheet in their methodology for the

SUSAIP model. Such a sheet could not only help the assessor in gathering data but could actually be

used to allow the client to fill the sheet like a survey. However, if this was the case, measures would

have to be taken in order to reduce the risk of the client fabricating data for a better end result.

In addition, there is already a computer programme which allows the assessor to complete the AHP &

pairwise comparison process quickly & with minimal risk of errors. If this programme was used, it would

also be possible for every sub-indicator to be compared rather than just up to 10, as in the design option

comparison stage.

Finally, a group of professionals & experts on complex bridge design, construction, use, maintenance &

demolition need to be hired so that reliable weightings & scores are established.

Page | 212

References

$12.5 million for life time. US Congress. (2002). Congressional Record, Volume 151. [online].

Available at:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oj5jAMspUfAC&pg=PA10632&lpg=PA10632&dq=cost+bridge+

terrorist+attack+insurance&source=bl&ots=DzNKF_Pyqa&sig=zSpALMs-

xVXEsSXOqMylA6ReSBo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjoqab1s8DLAhUEeg8KHasTBGAQ6AEIIzAB#v=o

nepage&q=cost%20bridge%20terrorist%20attack%20insurance&f=false [Accessed 14/03/16]

Agrifood. (2014). Price Premiums for providing eco-labelled seafood. [online]. Available at:

http://www.agrifood.se/Files/AgriFood_WP20144.pdf [Accessed 24/03/16]

American.edu. (2016). The Oresund Link. [online]. Available at:

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ORESUND.HTM [Accessed 24/03/16]

Archiexpo.com. (2016). The disabled platform stair-lift/Standard. [online]. Available at:

http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/thyssenkrupp-access/product-61349-265757.html [Accessed

16/04/16]

BAM Nuttall. (2014). Rocky Lane Cost Assessment Database.

BBC. (2013). Could these five projects improve life in the UK? [online]. Available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23587557 [Accessed 12/04/16]

BBC. (2014). IFCA by-laws protect sea bed from trawlers. [online]. Available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26009060 [Accessed 12/04/16]

BIS. (2010). ESTIMATING THE AMOUNT OF CO2 EMISSIONS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

CAN INFLUENCE. [online]. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31737/10-1316-

estimating-co2-emissions-supporting-low-carbon-igt-report.pdf [Accessed 24/03/16]

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oj5jAMspUfAC&pg=PA10632&lpg=PA10632&dq=cost+bridge+terrorist+attack+insurance&source=bl&ots=DzNKF_Pyqa&sig=zSpALMs-xVXEsSXOqMylA6ReSBo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjoqab1s8DLAhUEeg8KHasTBGAQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=cost%20bridge%20terrorist%20attack%20insurance&f=false




http://www.agrifood.se/Files/AgriFood_WP20144.pdf

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ORESUND.HTM

http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/thyssenkrupp-access/product-61349-265757.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23587557

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26009060

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31737/10-1316-estimating-co2-emissions-supporting-low-carbon-igt-report.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31737/10-1316-estimating-co2-emissions-supporting-low-carbon-igt-report.pdf

Page | 213

Bridgeinsurance.co.uk. (2016). Health & Safety and Risk Management Services. [online]. Available at:

http://www.bridgeinsurance.co.uk/services/risk-management [Accessed 11/03/16]

CALTRANS. (1998). Technical Noise Supplement. [online]. Available at:

http://www.strongsville.org/content/documents/ODOT_Ch_3_Fundamentals_of_Highway_Traffic_

Noise.pdf [Accessed 25/03/16]

Campbell, A.J. (2009). A multi-criteria approach for rating roadway sustainability (Electronic Theses,

Treatises and Dissertations). Paper 99. [online] Available at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/99

[Accessed 17/04/16]

Capreform.eu (2008). Farm Land Price Boom. [online]. Available at: http://capreform.eu/farm-land-

price-boom/ [Accessed 03/03/16]

Christopher. (2015). Unbated mean sea-level rise over the satellite altimeter era. [online]. Available

at: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2635.html [Accessed 24/03/16]

Co2-e-race.blogspot.co.uk. (2014). Largest parade of cars – Over a bridge. [online]. Available at:

http://co2-e-race.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/largest-parade-of-electric-cars-over.html [Accessed

06/03/16]

Datajembatan (2015). Penang II (Sultan Abdul Halim Muadzam Shah) Bridge. [online] Available at:

http://www.datajembatan.com/idx/192508d816bd12cf54f16b3599f4edab4b94da109c26db0976b9

1593e199a1da3185422c0418f4fcbf708f244a54cdfb9a6f9d5ce9ff [Accessed 06/12/15]

Delphiayachts.eu. (2016). Delphia 40.3 Technical Data. [online]. Available at:

http://en.delphiayachts.eu/yacht/delphia-40-3/technical-data [Accessed 15/04/16]

Denmarktour.org. (2016). Bridge from Denmark to Sweden. [online] Available at:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=%c3%96resund+Bridge&view=detailv2&id=C28516A2A889

http://www.bridgeinsurance.co.uk/services/risk-management

http://www.strongsville.org/content/documents/ODOT_Ch_3_Fundamentals_of_Highway_Traffic_Noise.pdf

http://www.strongsville.org/content/documents/ODOT_Ch_3_Fundamentals_of_Highway_Traffic_Noise.pdf

http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/99

http://capreform.eu/farm-land-price-boom/

http://capreform.eu/farm-land-price-boom/

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2635.html

http://co2-e-race.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/largest-parade-of-electric-cars-over.html

http://www.datajembatan.com/idx/192508d816bd12cf54f16b3599f4edab4b94da109c26db0976b91593e199a1da3185422c0418f4fcbf708f244a54cdfb9a6f9d5ce9ff

http://www.datajembatan.com/idx/192508d816bd12cf54f16b3599f4edab4b94da109c26db0976b91593e199a1da3185422c0418f4fcbf708f244a54cdfb9a6f9d5ce9ff

http://en.delphiayachts.eu/yacht/delphia-40-3/technical-data

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=%c3%96resund+Bridge&view=detailv2&id=C28516A2A8890D0EDDC4FF466ED6C2D6B69FB712&selectedindex=24&ccid=5vYJzyyn&simid=607993634245709295&thid=OIP.Me6f609cf2ca7fc147d8145321976858bH0&mode=overlay&first=1

Page | 214

0D0EDDC4FF466ED6C2D6B69FB712&selectedindex=24&ccid=5vYJzyyn&simid=60799363424570929

5&thid=OIP.Me6f609cf2ca7fc147d8145321976858bH0&mode=overlay&first=1 [Accessed 19/01/16]

Dezeen.com. (2015). Dezeen’s A-Zvent Calandar: Oresund Bridge by ASO Group. [online] Available

at: http://www.dezeen.com/2015/12/15/dezeens-a-z-advent-calendar-oresund-bridge-aso-group-

copenhagen-malmo/ [Accessed 19/01/16]

Dlsweb.edu. (2016). Dead load. [online]. Available at:

https://www.dlsweb.rmit.edu.au/toolbox/buildright/content/bcgbc4010a/01_loads_loading/01_pri

mary_loads/page_002.htm [Accessed 14/04/16]

Dn.se. (2014). Oresund bridge provides multi-billion profits. [online]. Available at:

http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/oresundsbron-ger-mangmiljardvinster/ [Accessed 15/03/16]

Dreamcarz1.org. (2016). The World’s 10 Strangest Bridges. [online]. Available at:

https://www.dreamcarz1.org/2016/02/the-worlds-10-strangest-bridges/ [Accessed 13/04/16]

Dywidag-systems.com. (2016). The Oresund Link: Millennium Connection between Sweden &

Denmark made possible with DYWIDAG Technology. [online]. Available at: https://www.dywidag-

systems.com/emea/projects/project-details/article/oeresund-link-copenhagen-denmark.html

[Accessed 10/03/16]

EAPA. (2013). Asphalt Pavements on Bridge Decks. [online]. Available at:

http://www.eapa.org/userfiles/2/Publications/EAPA%20Paper%20-

%20Asphalt%20pavements%20on%20Bridge%20Decks%20-%202013.pdf [Accessed 24/03/16]

Earthobservatory.com. (2016). Global Temperatures. [online]. Available at:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php [Accessed 24/03/16]

EPA. (2014). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. [online]. Available at:

https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f14040a.pdf [Accessed 24/03/16]



http://www.dezeen.com/2015/12/15/dezeens-a-z-advent-calendar-oresund-bridge-aso-group-copenhagen-malmo/

http://www.dezeen.com/2015/12/15/dezeens-a-z-advent-calendar-oresund-bridge-aso-group-copenhagen-malmo/

https://www.dlsweb.rmit.edu.au/toolbox/buildright/content/bcgbc4010a/01_loads_loading/01_primary_loads/page_002.htm

https://www.dlsweb.rmit.edu.au/toolbox/buildright/content/bcgbc4010a/01_loads_loading/01_primary_loads/page_002.htm

http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/oresundsbron-ger-mangmiljardvinster/

https://www.dreamcarz1.org/2016/02/the-worlds-10-strangest-bridges/

https://www.dywidag-systems.com/emea/projects/project-details/article/oeresund-link-copenhagen-denmark.html

https://www.dywidag-systems.com/emea/projects/project-details/article/oeresund-link-copenhagen-denmark.html

http://www.eapa.org/userfiles/2/Publications/EAPA%20Paper%20-%20Asphalt%20pavements%20on%20Bridge%20Decks%20-%202013.pdf

http://www.eapa.org/userfiles/2/Publications/EAPA%20Paper%20-%20Asphalt%20pavements%20on%20Bridge%20Decks%20-%202013.pdf

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f14040a.pdf

Page | 215

EPSON (2013). European Land Use Pattern. Volume VI, The Oresund Region Case Study Report.

[online]. Available at:

http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/AppliedResearch/EU-

LUPA/FR/Volume_VI_Case_studies_Oresund.pdf [Accessed 03/03/16]

European Parliament. (2010). Fisheries. Policy Department – Structural and Cohesion Policies.

[online]. Available at:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2010/438585/IPOL-

PECH_NT(2010)438585_EN.pdf [Accessed 24/03/16]

Exchange.com. (2009). Oasis of the seas: dimensions. [online]. Available at:

https://exchange.dnv.com/Exchange/main.aspx?extool=vessel&subview=dimensions&vesselid=270

91 [Accessed 24/03/16]

Farrell. (2003). Comparing air pollution from ferry and landside commuting. [online]. Available at:

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.brad.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S136192090300021X

[Accessed 16/04/16]

FDOT. (2014). Bridge Costs. Florida Department of Transportation. [online]. Available at:

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/Bridges.pdf [Access 11/03/16]

Ferrycrossings.org.uk. (2016). Oresund Bridge, Denmark and Sweden. [online] Available at:

http://ferrycrossings.org.uk/travel-guides/denmark/oresund-bridge/ [Accessed 19/01/16]

Fhwa.gov. (2015). Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges. [online]. Available at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm

[Accessed 25/03/16]

Globalpropertyguide.com (2015). Copenhagen house prices rising strongly, but Danes are way over-

borrowed. [online] Available at: http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Denmark/Price-

History [Accessed 03/03/16]

http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/AppliedResearch/EU-LUPA/FR/Volume_VI_Case_studies_Oresund.pdf

http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/AppliedResearch/EU-LUPA/FR/Volume_VI_Case_studies_Oresund.pdf

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2010/438585/IPOL-PECH_NT(2010)438585_EN.pdf

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2010/438585/IPOL-PECH_NT(2010)438585_EN.pdf



http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.brad.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S136192090300021X

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/Bridges.pdf

http://ferrycrossings.org.uk/travel-guides/denmark/oresund-bridge/

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Denmark/Price-History

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Denmark/Price-History

Page | 216

Gluver, H. (1998). Ship Collision Analysis. [online]. Available at:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t3DXmc-

mFhEC&dq=probability+of+ship+collision+bridge&source=gbs_navlinks_s [Accessed 14/03/16]

Gluver. (1998). Ship Collision Analysis. [online]. Available at:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t3DXmc-

mFhEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=impact+force+of+large+ship+collision&source=bl&ots=xmBZ3dV5

0e&sig=oGxLj7Jxu5xsk7eNuLp-nt-

KE7I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipgumIto7MAhXJcRQKHdsKARwQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=impac

t%20force%20of%20large%20ship%20collision&f=false [Accessed 14/04/16]

GreenLITES. (2010). GreenLITES Project Design Certification Program. New York State Department of

Transportation (NYSDOT). [online] Available at: https://www.nysdot.gov/programs/greenlites

[Accessed 17/04/16]

Hamberg, T. (2014). Oresund Bridge provides multi-billion profits. [online]. Available at:

http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/oresundsbron-ger-mangmiljardvinster/ [Accessed 11/03/16]

Hergardt, B. [email protected]. Total maintenance cost estimate. 9th March 2016

Hughes. (2010). A CRITICAL ANALYIS OF THE ØRESUND BRIDGE, CONNECTING COPENHAGEN TO

MALMÖ. [online]. Available at:

http://www.bath.ac.uk/ace/uploads/StudentProjects/Bridgeconference2011/papers/Saleema%20H

ughes.pdf [Accessed 06/04/16]

Hughsandsalvidge.co.uk. (2016). Projects. [online]. Available at:

http://www.hughesandsalvidge.co.uk/projects [Accessed 11/03/16]

Hunt, L.R. (2005). Development of a rating system for sustainable bridges (PhD thesis).

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t3DXmc-mFhEC&dq=probability+of+ship+collision+bridge&source=gbs_navlinks_s

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t3DXmc-mFhEC&dq=probability+of+ship+collision+bridge&source=gbs_navlinks_s

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=t3DXmc-mFhEC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=impact+force+of+large+ship+collision&source=bl&ots=xmBZ3dV50e&sig=oGxLj7Jxu5xsk7eNuLp-nt-KE7I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipgumIto7MAhXJcRQKHdsKARwQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=impact%20force%20of%20large%20ship%20collision&f=false





https://www.nysdot.gov/programs/greenlites

http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/oresundsbron-ger-mangmiljardvinster/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.bath.ac.uk/ace/uploads/StudentProjects/Bridgeconference2011/papers/Saleema%20Hughes.pdf

http://www.bath.ac.uk/ace/uploads/StudentProjects/Bridgeconference2011/papers/Saleema%20Hughes.pdf

http://www.hughesandsalvidge.co.uk/projects

Page | 217

ICRI. (2008). Economic Values of Coral Reefs, Mangroves & Seagrasses. [online]. Available at:

http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcrcp/strategy/reprioritization/wgroups/resources/climate/resource

s/econvalue.pdf [Accessed 15/04/16]

iihs.org. (2016). Frontal Crash Tests. [online]. Available at: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-

info/frontal-crash-tests [Accessed 08/04/16]

infectiousnews.com. (2012). Indian Seagrasses used to fight infections. [online]. Available at:

https://infectiousnews.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/indian-seagrasses-used-to-fight-infections/

[Accessed 12/04/16]

Isle of Wight Tourist Board. (2013). On Overview of the Isle of Wight, 2013. [online]. Available at:

http://visitwightpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Annual-Tourism-Traffic-to-the-Isle-of-

Wight-2013.pdf [Accessed 15/04/16]

iwcp.co.uk. (2014). Solent tunnel plans revealed. [online]. Available at:

http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/news/solent-tunnel-plans-revealed-70332.aspx [Accessed 12/04/16]

Jelson25. (2009). A picture of the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge (520 bridge) in Seattle,

Washington, shot from about 1,500', looking south-east. [online]. Available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Point_Floating_Bridge#/media/File:Aerial_520_Bridge_Au

gust_2009.JPG [Accessed 14/04/16]

JKSB (2013). Jambatan Kedua Sdn. Bhd. (JKSB) [Online]. Available:

http://www.jambatankedua.com.my/webv1/2013 [Accessed 17/04/16]

Johansson. (2012). Transforming dumps into gold mines. Experiences from Swedish case studies.

[online]. Available at: http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:570355/FULLTEXT02.pdf [Accessed

24/03/16]

http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcrcp/strategy/reprioritization/wgroups/resources/climate/resources/econvalue.pdf

http://coralreef.noaa.gov/aboutcrcp/strategy/reprioritization/wgroups/resources/climate/resources/econvalue.pdf

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/ratings-info/frontal-crash-tests

https://infectiousnews.wordpress.com/2012/10/04/indian-seagrasses-used-to-fight-infections/

http://visitwightpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Annual-Tourism-Traffic-to-the-Isle-of-Wight-2013.pdf

http://visitwightpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Annual-Tourism-Traffic-to-the-Isle-of-Wight-2013.pdf

http://www.iwcp.co.uk/news/news/solent-tunnel-plans-revealed-70332.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Point_Floating_Bridge#/media/File:Aerial_520_Bridge_August_2009.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Point_Floating_Bridge#/media/File:Aerial_520_Bridge_August_2009.JPG

http://www.jambatankedua.com.my/webv1/2013

http://liu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:570355/FULLTEXT02.pdf

Page | 218

Kalundu. (2015). Mile for mile, is it cheaper to build a bridge or an underground tunnel over a body

of water? [online]. Available at: https://www.quora.com/Mile-for-mile-is-it-cheaper-to-build-a-

bridge-or-an-underground-tunnel-over-a-body-of-water [Accessed 13/04/16]

Keyedin.com. (2014). Building an effective project risk management scoring matrix. [online].

Available at: http://www.keyedin.com/keyedinprojects/article/building-an-effective-project-risk-

management-scoring-matrix/ [Accessed 16/04/16]

Kirhammond.com. (2015). Posts tagged with: kerb. [online]. Available at:

https://kirhammond.wordpress.com/tag/kerb/ [Accessed 15/04/16]

Krokeborg, J. (2001). Straight Crossings 2001

Kxro.com. (2013). Changes being made to Aberdeen pontoon construction. [online]. Available at:

https://kxro.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/changes-being-made-to-aberdeen-pontoon-construction/

[Accessed 14/04/16]

Laboureconomics.com. (2012). An economic overview of Malmo, Sweden. [online]. Available at:

https://laboureconomics.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/an-economic-overview-of-malmo-sweden/

[Accessed 06/03/16]

Lensim.co.rs. (2016). Types of Tunnels & Construction Methods. [online]. Available at:

http://www.lensim.co.rs/files/File/Tunnels.pdf [Accessed 06/04/16]

Lightpollutionmap.info. (2015). Light Pollution Map. [online]. Available at:

http://www.lightpollutionmap.info/#zoom=10&lat=7476473.98359&lon=1426270.87047&layers=B0

TFFFTTT [Accessed 25/03/16]

Lowe. (2013). Approximately how many tones can the average large cargo ship carry. [online].

Available at: https://www.quora.com/Approximately-how-many-tons-can-the-average-large-cargo-

ship-carry [Accessed 14/04/16]

https://www.quora.com/Mile-for-mile-is-it-cheaper-to-build-a-bridge-or-an-underground-tunnel-over-a-body-of-water

https://www.quora.com/Mile-for-mile-is-it-cheaper-to-build-a-bridge-or-an-underground-tunnel-over-a-body-of-water

http://www.keyedin.com/keyedinprojects/article/building-an-effective-project-risk-management-scoring-matrix/

http://www.keyedin.com/keyedinprojects/article/building-an-effective-project-risk-management-scoring-matrix/

https://kirhammond.wordpress.com/tag/kerb/

https://kxro.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/changes-being-made-to-aberdeen-pontoon-construction/

https://laboureconomics.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/an-economic-overview-of-malmo-sweden/

http://www.lensim.co.rs/files/File/Tunnels.pdf

http://www.lightpollutionmap.info/#zoom=10&lat=7476473.98359&lon=1426270.87047&layers=B0TFFFTTT

http://www.lightpollutionmap.info/#zoom=10&lat=7476473.98359&lon=1426270.87047&layers=B0TFFFTTT

https://www.quora.com/Approximately-how-many-tons-can-the-average-large-cargo-ship-carry

https://www.quora.com/Approximately-how-many-tons-can-the-average-large-cargo-ship-carry

Page | 219

Macaumagazine.net. (2015). Thursday 27th August. [online]. Available at:

http://macaomagazine.net/node/1503 [Accessed 24/01/16]

Magebausa.com. (2016). Oresund Bridge. [online]. Available at:

http://www.magebausa.com/en/804/References.htm?Reference=19554 [Accessed 08/03/16]

Mathews et al, (2015). Environmental Impact Assessment Review – Social Cost Impact of Pipeline

Infrastructure Projects

McDermott. (2010). Modern cargo ships now travelling slower than 19th century clippers. [online].

Available at: http://www.treehugger.com/cars/modern-cargo-ships-now-traveling-slower-than-

19th-century-clippers.html [Accessed 14/04/16]

Merrick. (2014). George Osbourne vows to look into a fixed link from the mainland – but only if

islanders want it. [online]. Available at:

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11612410.Chancellor_pledges_to_investigate_bridge_or_tunnel

_to_the_Isle_of_Wight/ [Accessed 15/04/16]

Mirror.co.uk. (2014). Scientists calculate odd ways to die. [online]. Available at:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-die-282884 [Accessed

08/04/16]

Morgan. (2011). BNSF Railway bridge across the Columbia River in Portland, Oregon, showing the

swing-span section turning. [online]. Available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_bridge#/media/File:BNSF_Bridge_9.6_swing_span_turned.jpg

[Accessed 13/04/16]

Muench, S.T., Anderson, J.L., Hatfield, J.P., Koester, J.R., So ¨derlund, M., (2011). Greenroads Manual

v1.5. Seattle, WA. [online] Available at:

http://aggregain.wrap.org.uk/sustainability/try_a_sustainability_tool/co2_emissions.html [Accessed

17/04/16]

http://macaomagazine.net/node/1503

http://www.magebausa.com/en/804/References.htm?Reference=19554

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/modern-cargo-ships-now-traveling-slower-than-19th-century-clippers.html

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/modern-cargo-ships-now-traveling-slower-than-19th-century-clippers.html

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11612410.Chancellor_pledges_to_investigate_bridge_or_tunnel_to_the_Isle_of_Wight/

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11612410.Chancellor_pledges_to_investigate_bridge_or_tunnel_to_the_Isle_of_Wight/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-die-282884

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_River

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland,_Oregon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_bridge#/media/File:BNSF_Bridge_9.6_swing_span_turned.jpg

http://aggregain.wrap.org.uk/sustainability/try_a_sustainability_tool/co2_emissions.html

Page | 220

ngarti.com. (2012). Arch Bridge Design. [online]. Available at: http://ngarti.com/2012/12/arch-

bridge-design/ [Accessed 14/04/16]

Nowak. (1993). Live Load Model for Highway Bridges. [online]. Available at:

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/30400/0000020.pdf [Accessed

14/04/16]

OECD. (2003). OECD Territorial Reviews OECD Territorial Reviews: Oresund, Denmark/Sweden 2003

OECD Territorial Reviews Series. [online]. Available at:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=K3Vu8FHavKgC&pg=PA38&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=fals

e [Accessed 06/04/16]

OECD. (2013). The case of Oresund (Denmark-Sweden) – Regions and Innovation: Collaborating

Across Borders. [online]. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-

policy/publicationsdocuments/Oresund.pdf [Accessed 15/03/16]

OECD. (2014). Education at a Glance 2014 – Denmark. [online]. Available at:

http://www.oecd.org/edu/Denmark-EAG2014-Country-Note.pdf [Accessed 25/03/16]

OECD. (2014). Education at a Glance 2014 – Sweden. [online]. Available at:

https://www.oecd.org/edu/Sweden-EAG2014-Country-Note.pdf [Accessed 25/03/16]

Oldjoesphotos.co.uk. (2013). Whitby Swing Bridge. [online]. Available at:

http://www.oldjoesphotos.co.uk/gallerys/yorkshire/whitby/ [Accessed 13/04/16]

OMEGA. (2014). Project Profile: Sweden, The Oresund Link. [online]. Available at:

http://www.omegacentre.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2014/12/SWEDEN_ORESUND_PROFILE.pdf [Accessed 11/03/16]

http://ngarti.com/2012/12/arch-bridge-design/

http://ngarti.com/2012/12/arch-bridge-design/

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/30400/0000020.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?id=K3Vu8FHavKgC&pg=PA38

https://books.google.com/books?id=K3Vu8FHavKgC&pg=PA38

http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/publicationsdocuments/Oresund.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/publicationsdocuments/Oresund.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/edu/Denmark-EAG2014-Country-Note.pdf

https://www.oecd.org/edu/Sweden-EAG2014-Country-Note.pdf

http://www.oldjoesphotos.co.uk/gallerys/yorkshire/whitby/

http://www.omegacentre.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/SWEDEN_ORESUND_PROFILE.pdf


Page | 221

Oresundsbron.com. (2016). Company. [online]. Available at:

https://www.oresundsbron.com/en/info/company [Accessed 11/03/16]

Oresundsbron.com. (2016). Performance. [online]. Available at:

https://www.oresundsbron.com/en/info/performance [Accessed 11/03/16]

Oresundsbron.com. (2016). Welcome to the Oresund Bridge. [online]. Available at:

https://www.oresundsbron.com/en/node/6738 [Accessed 11/03/16]

Owlnet. (2008). Bridge Damage and Repair Costs from Hurricane Katrina. [online]. Available at:

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~jp7/Padgett_JBE_Jan08_Bridge_Damage_and_Repair_Costs_from_Hu

rricane_Katrina_PUBLISHED.pdf [Accessed 14/03/16]

Parag, C. (1999). Current & Future Trends in Bridge Design, Construction and Maintenance

RAC Foundation. (2014). Air Quality & Road Transport. [online]. Available at:

http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/racf_ricardo_aea_ai

r_quality_report_hitchcock_et_al_june_2014.pdf [Accessed 16/04/16]

Redfunnel.co.uk. (2016). Vehicle Ferry Service FAQs. [online]. Available at:

http://www.redfunnel.co.uk/ferry-travel/passenger-vehicle-ferry-service/vehicle-ferry-service-faqs/

[Accessed 16/04/16]

Roadtraffic-technology.com. (2016). Oresund Bridge. [online] Available at: http://www.roadtraffic-

technology.com/projects/oresund/oresund8.html [Accessed 19/01/16]

Saaty, T.L. (2008). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision-making: Why pairwise

comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors. The Analytic

Hierarchy/Network Process. RACSAM (Review of the Royal Spanish Academy of Sciences, Series A,

Mathematics). pp102, 251– 318

https://www.oresundsbron.com/en/info/company

https://www.oresundsbron.com/en/info/performance

https://www.oresundsbron.com/en/node/6738

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~jp7/Padgett_JBE_Jan08_Bridge_Damage_and_Repair_Costs_from_Hurricane_Katrina_PUBLISHED.pdf

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~jp7/Padgett_JBE_Jan08_Bridge_Damage_and_Repair_Costs_from_Hurricane_Katrina_PUBLISHED.pdf

http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/racf_ricardo_aea_air_quality_report_hitchcock_et_al_june_2014.pdf

http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/racf_ricardo_aea_air_quality_report_hitchcock_et_al_june_2014.pdf

http://www.redfunnel.co.uk/ferry-travel/passenger-vehicle-ferry-service/vehicle-ferry-service-faqs/

http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/oresund/oresund8.html

http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/oresund/oresund8.html

Page | 222

Sakerhetspolisen.se. (2016). Sweden as a potential attack target. [online]. Available at:

http://www.sakerhetspolisen.se/en/swedish-security-service/counter-terrorism/threats-and-threat-

assessment/sweden-as-a-potential-attack-target.html [Accessed 15/03/16]

Seat61.com. (2016). Trains versus Planes. [online]. Available at:

http://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm#.VvQUU_mLTIU [Accessed 24/03/16]

Seriouswonder.com. (2016). Tree shaped wind turbines: A technogaian revolution ahead. [online].

Available at: http://www.seriouswonder.com/tree-shaped-wind-turbines-technogaian-revolution-

ahead/ [Accessed 15/04/16]

Serpell, J (2015). Sustainability Assessment of Road-Bridges. pp.2

Sharma, V., Al-Hussein, M., Safouhi, H., & Bouferguene, A. (2008). Municipal infrastructure asset

levels of service assessment for investment decisions using analytic hierarchy process. Journal of

Infrastructure Systems, 14, 193–200

Shrubshall, C.J. (2000). A Critical Analysis of the Oresund Bridge linking Sweden and Denmark.

[online] Available at:

file:///C:/Users/jamesserpell/Documents/James/University/MEng%20Year/MEng%20FYP/Literature

/Shrubshall_Oresund.pdf [Accessed 19/01/16]

Skanska.com. (2016). Oresund Bridge, Sweden & Denmark. [online]. Available at:

http://www.skanska-sustainability-case-studies.com/index.php/latest-case-studies/item/83-

oresund-bridge-sweden-and-denmark?tmpl=component&print=1 [Accessed 11/03/16]

Skanska.com. (2016). Oresund Bridge, Sweden and Denmark. [online]. Available at:

http://www.skanska-sustainability-case-studies.com/index.php/latest-case-studies/item/83-

oresund-bridge-sweden-and-denmark?tmpl=component&print=1 [Accessed 10/03/16]

http://www.sakerhetspolisen.se/en/swedish-security-service/counter-terrorism/threats-and-threat-assessment/sweden-as-a-potential-attack-target.html

http://www.sakerhetspolisen.se/en/swedish-security-service/counter-terrorism/threats-and-threat-assessment/sweden-as-a-potential-attack-target.html

http://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm#.VvQUU_mLTIU

http://www.seriouswonder.com/tree-shaped-wind-turbines-technogaian-revolution-ahead/

http://www.seriouswonder.com/tree-shaped-wind-turbines-technogaian-revolution-ahead/

http://www.skanska-sustainability-case-studies.com/index.php/latest-case-studies/item/83-oresund-bridge-sweden-and-denmark?tmpl=component&print=1




Page | 223

Slate.com. (2015). The Oresund Bridge brings literal meanings to Bridge and Tunnel. [online].

Available at:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2015/07/16/the_resund_bridge_is_one_part_bridge_o

ne_part_tunnel_all_efficient_transporation.html [Accessed 24/03/16]

Snelling, S.A. (2010). Towards Green Bridges Paper presented at the Transportation Research Board

89th Annual Meeting

Spangenberg. (2002). The construction of the Øresund Link between Denmark and Sweden: the

effect of a multifaceted safety campaign. [online]. Available at:

http://www.arbejdsmiljoforskning.dk/~/media/Boeger-og-rapporter/17-papers--doctoral-

dissertation-2010-spangenberg.pdf [Accessed 25/03/16]

The US Department of Transport, (1996). Transit Noise and Impact Assessment. Chapter 12 – Noise

and Vibration during Construction. [online] Available at: http://ntl.bts.gov/data/rail05/ch12.pdf.

[Accessed 17/04/16]

Thebeautyoftransport.com. (2016). The Bridge (Oresund Link, Denmark-Sweden). [online]. Available

at: https://thebeautyoftransport.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/the-bridge-oresund-link-

denmarksweden/ [Accessed 08/03/16]

Theengineeringtoolbox.com. (2016). Wire rope – strength. [online]. Available at:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wire-rope-strength-d_1518.html [Accessed 14/04/16]

Thefarmingforum.co.uk (2014). Farm for sale in Sweden! [online] Available at:

http://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/farm-for-sale-in-sweden.38406/ [Accessed

03/03/16]

Theguardian.com. (2016). How will climate change affect rainfall. [online]. Available at:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/15/climate-change-rainfall [Accessed

24/03/16]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2015/07/16/the_resund_bridge_is_one_part_bridge_one_part_tunnel_all_efficient_transporation.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2015/07/16/the_resund_bridge_is_one_part_bridge_one_part_tunnel_all_efficient_transporation.html

http://www.arbejdsmiljoforskning.dk/~/media/Boeger-og-rapporter/17-papers--doctoral-dissertation-2010-spangenberg.pdf

http://www.arbejdsmiljoforskning.dk/~/media/Boeger-og-rapporter/17-papers--doctoral-dissertation-2010-spangenberg.pdf

http://ntl.bts.gov/data/rail05/ch12.pdf

https://thebeautyoftransport.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/the-bridge-oresund-link-denmarksweden/

https://thebeautyoftransport.wordpress.com/2015/07/15/the-bridge-oresund-link-denmarksweden/

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/wire-rope-strength-d_1518.html

http://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/farm-for-sale-in-sweden.38406/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/15/climate-change-rainfall

Page | 224

Timetric.com. (2015). Isle of Wight, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at current market prices by NUTS

3 Regions. [online]. Available at: https://timetric.com/index/2M9-_N1dROmaTpd7HJg5FQ/

[Accessed 15/04/16]

Transport.gov.scot. (2016). Executive Summary. [online]. Available at:

http://www.transport.gov.scot/report/j10724c-04.htm [Accessed 08/03/16]

Tumbler.com Bridge Span (2016). Bridge Span. [online] Available at:

https://www.tumblr.com/search/bridge%20span [Accessed 19/01/16]

Tutorvista.com. (2016). Buoyancy Formula. [online]. Available at:

http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/buoyancy-formula.html [Accessed 14/04/16]

UCL (2014). Centre for Mega Projects in Transport & Development. Project Profile: Sweden, The

Oresund Link. [online]. Available at: http://www.omegacentre.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2014/12/SWEDEN_ORESUND_PROFILE.pdf [Accessed 01/03/16]

Ugwu et al. (2006). Sustainability Appraisal in Infrastructure Projects (SUSAIP): Part 2: A case study in

bridge design. Automation in Construction. [online]. Available at:

file:///C:/Users/jamesserpell/Documents/James/University/MEng%20Year/MEng%20FYP/Literature

/SUSAIP-Part%202%20-%20A%20case%20study%20in%20bridge.pdf [Accessed 24/01/16]

Van Gorkum. (2010). CO2 emissions and energy consumption during the construction of concrete

structures. [online]. Available at: file:///C:/Users/jamesserpell/Downloads/AF-211_Van_Gorkum_-

_CO2_emissions_and_energy_consumption_construction_concrete_structures_.pdf [Accessed

24/03/16]

Webarchive.org. (2006). Saltholm. [online]. Available at:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070624151442/http://www.skovognatur.dk/Udgivelser/Reservatfol

dere/salt.htm [Accessed 24/03/16]

https://timetric.com/index/2M9-_N1dROmaTpd7HJg5FQ/

http://www.transport.gov.scot/report/j10724c-04.htm

https://www.tumblr.com/search/bridge%20span

http://formulas.tutorvista.com/physics/buoyancy-formula.html



https://web.archive.org/web/20070624151442/http:/www.skovognatur.dk/Udgivelser/Reservatfoldere/salt.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20070624151442/http:/www.skovognatur.dk/Udgivelser/Reservatfoldere/salt.htm

Page | 225

Webcitation.org. (2007). Kaliabhomora Bridge. [online]. Available at:

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/akash_p_b/KALIABHOMORA.ht

m&date=2009-10-25+12:09:21 [Accessed 15/04/16]

Whippy. (2012). Winter coat – in England. [online]. Available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_squirrel#/media/File:Redsquirrel_eating_2012.jpg [Accessed

12/04/16]

Wikipedia.org Puente del Alamillo. (2016). Puente del Alamillo. [online] Available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puente_del_Alamillo [Accessed 19/01/16]

Wikipedia.org The Brige. (2016). The Bridge (Danish/Swedish TV Series). [online] Available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_(Danish/Swedish_TV_series) [Accessed 19/01/16]

Williamson. (2012). Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount - 1774 to

Present.

Wrap. (2016). Waste Reduction Potential of Precast concrete Manufactured Offsite. [online].

Available at: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Pre-cast%20concrete%20-

%20Full%20case%20study1.pdf [Accessed 06/04/16]

Yadollahi et al. (2014). A multi-criteria analysis for bridge sustainability assessment: a case study of

Penang Second Bridge, Malaysia. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering. 11:5, pp.638-654.

[online] Accessed 04/11/15. Available at:

http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.brad.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/15732479.2014.893002

[Accessed 17/04/16]

Youramazingplaces.com. (2016). The World’s 10 Most Amazing Bridges. [online]. Available at:

http://www.youramazingplaces.com/the-worlds-10-most-amazing-bridges/ [Accessed 10/03/16]

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.geocities.com/akash_p_b/KALIABHOMORA.htm&date=2009-10-25+12:09:21



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_squirrel#/media/File:Redsquirrel_eating_2012.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puente_del_Alamillo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_(Danish/Swedish_TV_series)

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/

http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Pre-cast%20concrete%20-%20Full%20case%20study1.pdf

http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Pre-cast%20concrete%20-%20Full%20case%20study1.pdf

http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.brad.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/15732479.2014.893002

http://www.youramazingplaces.com/the-worlds-10-most-amazing-bridges/

Page | 226

Youtube.com. (2015). The Tallest Bridge in the World, France. [online] Available at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDi0kg6_nek [Accessed 19/01/16]

Zhange & Zou (2007). Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process risk assessment approach for joint venture

construction projects in China. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 133, 771–779

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDi0kg6_nek

Page | 227

Appendix 1. Data collection

Appendix 1.1. – Environment

Appendix 1.1.1. – Ecological impact

Direct cost of measures taken to preserve ecology

- Cost of artificial island built to preserve ecology of Saltholm. 30 million euros. OECD. (2013).

£24.3 million.

- Cost of silt capture during dredging. £0 (no additional measures, just steady dredging).


- Cost of avian impact. £5000 per bird (assumed). Probability 40,000 birds impacted. £200 million.

Webarchive.org. (2006).

- Cost of flora impact. No protected species but provides food for birds & animals. Link with avian

impact.

- Cost of marine impact. Cost of cod in Swedish Kroner 23.4 SEK. Agrifood. (2014). Probability of

2.5% decrease in fish due to dredging. American.edu. (2016). 1 million fish in the region.

European Parliament. (2010). Therefore, 25000 fish = 585000 SEK. £51,000.


- £0. (Assumed, EIA would need to be repeated).

Appendix 1.1.2. – Energy use

Amount of CO2 produced

- Carbon Footprint of road traffic use. Average CO2 for car per mile = 411g. EPA. (2014). Miles on

Link = 10 miles. Average amount of vehicles pass per year = 6205000. Slate.com. (2015). 100

year life time. 2550 Gg CO2 emissions.

- Carbon footprint of rail traffic use. Average CO2 for train per mile = 30g. Seat61.com. (2016).

Average number of trains per day = 65. oresundsbron.com. (2016). 711.75 Mg CO2.

- Carbon footprint of concrete manufacture. 154 kg CO2 per m3. Van Gorkum. (2010). 160 million

m3 of concrete. Therefore, 24643 Gg CO2.

- Carbon footprint of steel manufacture. 714 per ton. Van Gorkum. (2010). 8t/m3. 480000 m3.

Therefore, 2741 Gg CO2.

Page | 228

Energy saved

- LED light saving. Negligible.

Appendix 1.1.3. – Waste management

Amount of waste send directly to landfill

- Negligible.


- 1.6 million tonnes of excavated waste. Johansson. (2012).


- 20Mm3 of re-used Copenhagen Limestone for the Peberholm island. Copenhagen Limestone

weighs 150 pounds per cubic foot = 10kg/m3. 200Mg. 200kt.

Appendix 1.1.4. – Land use

Amount of free land used

- Sea bed. 7570 ha.


- Approach land. 410 ha.

Appendix 1.1.5. – Natural material used

Amount of natural material used

- 200kt of re-used Copenhagen Limestone for the Peberholm island.

Appendix 1.1.6. – Consideration of environmental climate change

Consideration of sea-level rise

- Height clearance under main span for ships. Present clearance = 57m. C.J. Shrubshall. (2000).

Average height of cruise ship = 47m (above water line). Exchange.com. (2009). Average sea level

rise = 3mm per year (300mm in life time). Christopher. (2015). Considered.

- Difference to horizontal loading on piers. Negligible. Considered.

- Peberholm flooding. Peberholm 20m high. Considered.


- Expansion/contraction of steel/tarmac/concrete. Expansion = 2540mm. Hughes. (2010). Finite

element analysis and thermal expansion monitoring. Considered.

Page | 229


- Surface water runoff. Rainfall increase 2% per degree of warming. Theguardian.com. (2016).

Estimated degree increase. 0.2 degrees per decade (2 degrees in life time).

Earthobservatory.com. (2016). Therefore, 4% rainfall increase. Waterproofing layer, sub-surface

asphalt drainage can take up to 10% increase in rainfall. EAPA. (2013). Considered.

Appendix 1.2. – Economy

Appendix 1.2.1. – Economic impact

Direct Cost

- 2.6 billion euros (design & construction). UCL (2014). £2.1 billion.

- 7.5 billion Danish kroner (maintenance). Hergardt, B. [email protected]. Total

maintenance cost estimate. 9th March 2016. £815 million.

- $60 per square foot (demolition). Oresund bridge has 25.3 million square feet. $1.5 billion.

FDOT. (2014). £1.06 billion.

Indirect Cost

- Land use: Denmark road (by 20m): 3km airport, 2km residential, 4.5km agricultural. Denmark

rail (by 17m): airport 3km, residential 2.5km, agricultural 5km. Sweden road: agricultural 9km.

Sweden rail: agricultural 10km. EPSON (2013).

Cost of land: Denmark residential: £2118 per s m. globalpropertyguide.com (2015).

Denmark agricultural: £10,000 per acre. capreform.eu (2008).

Denmark airport: same as agricultural. Same ref as land use.

Sweden agricultural: £4000 per acre. thefarmingforum.co.uk (2014).

Total cost = £176 million.

- Zero shipping transport disruption. (Shrubshall, 2000).

- Minimal road traffic disruption. Negligible cost. Krokeborg, J. (2001).

- Minimal rail traffic disruption. Negligible cost. Krokeborg, J. (2001).

Direct Income

- 1.7 million DKK per year. 170 million DKK in life time. oresundsbron.com. (2016). £18.5 million.


Page | 230

Indirect Income

- 6.5 billion SEK per year. Therefore 650 billion SEK over life time. Hamberg, T. (2014). £56.5

billion.

Appendix 1.2.2. – Employment

Number of local jobs, permanent full-time

- Toll road – 2. oresundsbron.com. (2016).

- Bridge maintenance/operation centre – 200. oresundsbron.com. (2016).


- Maintenance – 100. Parag, C. (1999). Current & Future Trends in Bridge Design, Construction

and Maintenance.


- Design – 4. OMEGA. (2014).

- Construction – 5000. skanska.com. (2016).

- Demolition – 100. Hughsandsalvidge.co.uk. (2016).

Appendix 1.2.3. – Economic Risk

Direct cost of insurance taken out

- 9.21 million DKK per year. 921 million DKK life time. Hergardt, B. [email protected]. Total

maintenance cost estimate. 9th March 2016. £100 million.

Direct saving from insured events occurring

- Extreme weather conditions halting construction – 500 million DKK. Bridgeinsurance.co.uk.

(2016). £54.3 million.

- Ship collision (damaging the structure) - $6 million per impact. Owlnet. (2008). £4.3 million.

Probability of ship collision – 1 in 10 years. Gluver, H. (1998) = £43 million over life span.

- Plane collision (damaging the structure) - $30 million per impact. Owlnet. (2008). £21.3 million.

Probability of plane collision – 1 in 100 years. [no information found, authors estimate] = £21.3

million over life span.

- Road collision (damaging the structure) - $1 million per impact. Owlnet. (2008). £709,000.

Probability of road collision – 1 in 5 years. iihs.org. (2016). = £35.5 million over life span.


Page | 231

- Train collision (damaging the structure) - $6 million per impact. Owlnet. (2008).

Probability of train collision – 1 in 100 years. mirror.co.uk (2014). = £4.3 million.


- Terrorist attack - $125,000 per year. $12.5 million for life time. US Congress. (2002). £8.86

million.

Direct cost of uninsured event from occurring

- Terrorist attack - $30 million per attack. Owlnet. (2008). £21.3 million.

Probability of terrorist attach – 1 in 100 year. sakerhetspolisen.se. (2016) = £21.3 million in life

span.

Appendix 1.2.4. – Financial investment

Investment from local sources

- Tax money used for land connections. 5 million euros. OECD. (2013). £4.04 million.


- Rest of Link paid for by owner, Danish/Swedish built company Oresundsbro Konsortiet. Loans

taken from Government. 2.595 billion euros. dn.se. (2014). £2.1 billion.

Appendix 1.3. – Society

Appendix 1.3.1. – Health & wellbeing

Noise impact

- Noise impact during construction. Average noise level in daytime = 83db. Fhwa.gov. (2015).

Average noise level in evening = 70. Average noise at night = 70. [all data for 15m]

Nearest house = 40m from construction

Average noise impact for housing: daytime = 31.13db, evening = 26.25db, night = 26.25db.

- Noise impact during use. Average noise level in daytime = 50db. CALTRANS. (1998). Evening =

40. Night = 30.

- Highest noise impact is during construction. Lden =

10log10[(12/24)*10(Lday/10)+(4/24)*10(Levening+5/10)+(8/24)*10(Lnight+10/10)] = 33.57db.

Light pollution

- Radiance of bridge = 20.9 mag/arcsec2. Lightpollutionmap.info. (2015).

Page | 232

Air Quality

- Air pollution reduced by 50% due to 25% increase in rail travel & reduce in ferry travel. Hughes.

(2010).

Appendix 1.3.2. – Transport impact

Delay time

- Transport delay time during construction. Negligible.

- Estimated transport delay time during demolition. Negligible.

Time saved

- Time saved by rail. Time before = N/A. Time after = 43min.

- Time saved by car. Time before = 2h. Time after = 47min. Saving = 1hr 13min.

Appendix 1.3.3. – Stakeholder engagement

Consideration of stakeholders

- Regional & National Government. Part of design process.

- Environmental Agency. Part of design process.

- Local Residents. Informed of progress & plan.

- Local business owners. Informed of progress & plan.

- Tourists. Informed of progress & plan. Skanska.com. (2016)

Complaints/disputes

- Negligible. Skanska.com. (2016)

Appendix 1.3.4. – Health & Safety

Lost time due to accidents occurred

- Lost time due to injury. 4.4 hours. Spangenberg. (2002).

Appendix 1.3.5. – Visual impact

Leonhardt’s 10 rules of aesthetics

- Conforms to all 10 rules. Shrubshall. (2000).

Appendix 1.3.6. – Equality

Impact of racial equality

- Racial equality in the workplace. Conformity due to company policy. Skanska. (2010).

Page | 233


- Gender equality in the workplace. Conformity due to company policy. Skanska. (2010).


- Disability equality in the workplace. Conformity due to company policy. Skanska. (2010).


- Age equality in the workplace. Conformity due to company policy. Skanska. (2010).

Appendix 1.3.7. – Educational impact

Cost of improvements to the educational sector

- Educational growth in Malmo. 6.8% growth of GDP spent on Education after bridge built. OECD.

(2014).

- Educational growth in Copenhagen. 7.9% growth of GDP spent on education after bridge built.

OECD. (2014).

Appendix 1.3.8. – Consideration of social climate change


- Possibility to add lane expansion via hanging extra truss or widening carriageway. Considered.

Shrubshall. (2000).

Page | 234

Appendix 2. Meeting logbook

Appendix 2.1. – Semester 1

Appendix 2.1.1. – Week 1

Student Report: No meeting was scheduled. I took this week for independent research

and to develop ideas for The Advanced Final Year Project.











Student Report: Meeting scheduled. Discussed ideas for project developed in the

previous weeks. Advised to choose from 2 ideas, stick to sustainability assessment (now

will be referred to as SA) of road-bridges or to assess rail-bridges. Either choice will

require more challenging case-studies than Stage 3. Instructed to return next week with a

title choice & working method.

Page | 235


Student Report: Meeting scheduled. Discussed title choice of ‘Sustainability Assessment

of Rail-Bridges’ and choice of possible case-studies, The Oresund Bridge and Forth Rail

Bridge. Advised to research The Humber Bridge. Advised to change the title to

‘Sustainability Assessment of Complex Bridges’ to allow for both assessment of rail & road

bridges. Supervisor reviewed working method and instructed to allow for design &

assessment of a new build. Instructed to design a single element of the new build to show

skill range. Meet times now changed from 11:00am Tues to 11:00am Thurs.


Student Report: Meeting scheduled. Supervisor asked for updated versions of Gannt

Chart and Project Details Form to be sent. Reminder that interim report due in Week 12

includes: Gannt Chart, Aims & Objectives and Literature Review. Supervisor scheduled for

Chapter 1 to be completed by Week 9 meet and Lit Review to be finished by Week 10. No

meeting scheduled next week as supervisor is away.


Student Report: No meeting scheduled. Supervisor away on other business.


Student Report: Meeting scheduled but not completed. Supervisor away on other

business.

Appendix 2.1.10.- Week 10

Student Report: Meeting scheduled. Student told supervisor of recent events which

caused for little work completed. Supervisor accepted reasons but advised to get started

as soon as possible. Student asked technical question about working methodology of the

Penang Bridge Multi-Criteria Assessment paper, supervisor advised student to visit maths

‘drop-in’ session. Supervisor advised student to review journal impact factor for literature

(how well regarded the journal is in the appropriate field).


Student Report: No meeting scheduled. Student did not have any questions for

supervisor.

Page | 236


Student Report: No meeting scheduled. Student did not have any questions for

supervisor.

Appendix 2.2. – Semester 2


Student Report: No meeting scheduled.




Student Report: Meeting scheduled. Discussed progress since interim report hand in.

Discussed interim report. Supervisor advised student to make some minor changes to

layout and general presentation. Supervisor also asked student to update Gannt chart as

progress had differed.


Student Report: Meeting scheduled. Discussed additional layout issues. List of

equations, tables & figures are all separate lists and should be shown on the contents

page. All page numbering before main report should be in roman numerals. Brief

summary of chapter should be at end of chapter, not sub-chapter. No capital ‘T’ in the

‘The’ of ‘The Oresund Bridge’. Possibly bullet point references to avoid confusion as to

where different references start and end.



Page | 237


Student Report: Meeting scheduled. Discussed latest progress in writing of

Adaptation/Improvement of model. Supervisor advised to: not use abbreviations in

titles/sub-titles, make a case for why improvement is needed and to make reference to

where the ‘stages’ are discussed in the paper. Supervisor also advised to integrate the

chapter into another chapter as it was too small to be considered to be an out and out

chapter. Supervisor mentioned that there would be a meeting involving Arup

representatives and that information could be salvaged.




Student Report: Meeting scheduled. Discussed latest progress (beginning to assess

Oresund Link). Supervisor said that I would not be able to get professional opinion with

weightings as it is classified information. Student will have to decide the weightings but

must make the method clear. Supervisor also advised on general writing tips such as:

where to place figures, what wording to use in titles, etc. Supervisor also advised to

emphasise what is original work as this is 70% of the overall mark. Also, try to include a 4th

chapter for discussion.


Student Report: Meeting scheduled. Discussed latest progress and supervisor happy

that student is on track (Oresund assessment should be complete by the end of the

week). Discussed plans to design/assess original bridge design. Student put forward idea

to design a Pontoon (floating) bridge in order to avoid damaging protected sea-life.

Supervisor praised idea but also suggested other methods such as the Bingley bridge

which crosses a protected marsh-land. Discussed level of design and decided to do

outline design with some aspects of detailed design if suitable (in regards to time

management). Supervisor advised student that next/last meeting would be in Week 11.


Student Report: Short meeting scheduled. Student advised supervisor that progress was

going well.

Page | 238


Student Report: Meeting Scheduled. Progress still going well. Supervisor advised

student on how to critically analyse in the final ‘Discussion’ chapter. Advised on where and

how to lay out the rest of the report (intro, abstract etc.).



Page | 239

Appendix 3. Report progression Gannt Chart

Page | 240

Page | 241

Appendix 4. Solent Link drawings

[Please see Page 242 & Page 243].