Skip to main content
Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience logoLink to Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
. 2022 Mar 24;2022:3872069. doi: 10.1155/2022/3872069

Quantifying Carbon Emissions Generated by Monorail Transits: A Life Cycle Assessment Approach

Teng Li 1, Eryu Zhu 1,
PMCID: PMC8970910  PMID: 35371213

Abstract

The use of rail transits results in the generation of a large amount of carbon emissions. Throughout the life cycle of a rail transit system, huge amounts of carbon are emitted, which contributes to the threat posed by carbon emission on the city ecosystem. Despite the many methods previously proposed to quantify carbon emissions from rail transit systems, a method that can be applied to measure carbon emissions of monorail systems is yet to be developed. We have used the life cycle assessment (LCA) method to propose a method that can be used to quantify carbon emissions from monorail transits. The life cycle of a monorail transit system was divided into four stages (production, construction, use, and end-of-life). A monorail transit line segment in Chongqing, China, was selected for a case study. The results show that the “use” stage of the monorail transit line system significantly increases (93.2%) carbon emissions, while the “end-of-life” stage does not contribute significantly to the total carbon emitted. The processes of generation of steal, concrete, and cement are the three leading processes that contribute to the emission of carbon dioxide. The percentages of carbon emitted during these processes are 32%, 29.6%, and 13.3%, respectively. Prestressed concrete activity accounts for the largest proportion (91.1%) of the total carbon emissions. The results presented herein can potentially help in realizing sustainable development and developing green transportation.

1. Introduction

Global climate changes have aroused great concern worldwide as they have seriously affected social sustainability [1]. One important way to address the problem of climate change is to reduce carbon emissions [2]. The transportation sector facilitates human travel and helps in economic development. However, a large amount of energy is consumed during transportation, resulting in substantial carbon emissions. It has been reported that the transportation sector accounts for 14% of total carbon emissions worldwide [3]. Moreover, carbon emissions from the transportation sector have increased by 29% from 1990 to 2009 [4].

The monorail system uses a single rail instead of two rails as used in traditional rail systems during operation [5]. The monorail systems are low-noise systems that are safe to use. They are characterized by good climbing ability and small turning radii [6, 7]. At present, monorails are in operation in many countries worldwide, such as Japan, Germany, and the United States of America. Egypt, Thailand, Brazil, China, and a few other countries are actively building their monorail systems. This provides a glimpse into the great potential for further advances of monorail transits in the future. Huge quantities of raw materials (such as cement, concrete, and steel) are required for the efficient development of infrastructure required to build the monorail systems. The production of these raw materials is often accompanied by an enormous amount of carbon emissions. As large-scale construction of monorail systems will be realized in the near future, it is necessary to quantify carbon emissions to realize sustainable development.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a method of assessing the impacts exerted by products on the environment during their lifetime [8]. In general, process-based LCA consists of four steps: (1) goal and scope definition, (2) inventory analysis, (3) environmental impact assessment, and (4) interpretation [8]. The LCA method has been widely used to evaluate the environmental performance of rail transits in recent years (Table 1).

Table 1.

LCA and its application in the field of transport.

Reference Country, region Type of rail Lifespan (years) Function unit Data Life cycle stages
[9] USA Railway, RTS, subway, and HSR Varying PMT and VMT Sectors and literature Vehicle (manufacture, operation, maintenance, insurance); infrastructure (construction, operation, maintenance); fuel consumption
[10] USA Railway, metro, CR, and LRT PKT Literature Train manufacturing, train maintenance, station construction, track construction, station operation, station maintenance, electricity generation supply chains
[11] USA, California HSR PKT SimaPro Vehicle, station, energy production
[12] USA, California HSR 20 PKT Literature Vehicle, infrastructure, energy production
[13] Turkey HSR and railway 40 PKM SimaPro 7.3.3 Infrastructure (production of electrical energy, construction of lines, maintenance of lines, operation of lines, waste disposal); operation (production of electrical energy, production of train vehicles, maintenance of train vehicles, operation of train vehicles, waste disposal)
[14] Italy, Rome Metro 30 VKT Operators and GaBi Material acquisition, manufacturing, use, and end-of-life
[15] China HSR 20 SKM Chinese Core Life Cycle Database (CLCD) and ecoinvent Vehicle operation, vehicle manufacturing/maintenance/disposal, infrastructure construction
[16] USA, New Jersey Commuter 1 mile Literature Material manufacturing
[17] Brazil, Rio de Janeiro Metro 60 IPCC 2006 Infrastructure construction, train manufacture, maintenance, infrastructure operation, and train operation
[18] Portugal HSR 35 PKT SimaPro and ecoinvent Material, manufacturing, use, disposal
[19] Austria, Vienna Subway 100 PKT Biding documents and GEMIS 4.5 Infrastructure construction, infrastructure operation
[20] Spain, Bueno HSR 60 PKM/year, TKM/year Literature Infrastructure construction, infrastructure maintenance, operation, 60 years
[21] Canada, Toronto Subway 8 (construction time) Year Literature, construction data Infrastructure construction, operation
[22] China, Shanghai Metro 50 1 km Observed data Materials production, materials transportation, on-site construction, operation, and maintenance, 50 years, 1 km, PKT, VKT
[23] India, Mumbai Railway 25 PKT, VKT Department data Manufacturing, maintenance and operation, infrastructure construction, infrastructure maintenance
[24] State of Qatar, Doha Metro 1000 PKT Company data and GaBi 6.0 Train operations, train stations operation
[25] Turkey Railway TKM SimaPro and ecoinvent
[26] China, Shanghai HSR 100 - Literature Conception stage, construction stage, operation and maintenance stage, and disposal stage
[27] China HSR 100 T/km T/vehicle IO-LCA hybrid Material production, construction
[28] France HSR 120 Travel of up to 17 metric tons per axle Experts and ecoinvent 3.1 Production, maintenance, end-of-life
[29] Belgium Railway 6 TKM Country-specific data and ecoinvent Transport operation, rail equipment, and infrastructure
[30] China, Fuzhou Subway Construction time Km In-service lines, regional database (IKE) Infrastructure construction
[31] Spain HSR 100 Year Google Earth Construction, maintenance, one-year operation
[32] USA, Houston HSR 60 PKT Ecoinvent Raw material extraction and processing, vehicle manufacturing, material distribution, construction, operation and maintenance, and end-of-life
VKT
[33] Turkey, Kayseri LRT 50 PKM Company, SimaPro, and ecoinvent Extraction and production of raw materials, transportation of the raw materials to construction sites, vehicle manufacture, transportation of vehicles, construction of infrastructure, operation, maintenance, and waste disposal

Table 1 presents the data and research contexts of 25 selected works in which LCA was applied to research into transport systems. Among these 25 selected studies, 12 articles focused on HSR systems, 9 on metro or subways, and 6 on railways. Results obtained by studying light rail transits (LRTs) were reported in two papers. To the best of our knowledge, there are no reports on the carbon emissions from monorail transit systems. It has also been observed that the life cycle has been described and categorized differently by different research groups. Researchers chose the length of the life cycle based on the characteristics of the system. The results obtained in different cases were different. Researchers analyzed databases from their own country or nearby countries to match their local situation. For example, CLCD is generally used as the database for Chinese research. The object of research considered in this paper is a monorail transit in Chongqing, China. Hence, CLCD was selected as the database.

Table 1 demonstrates that LCA can provide a systematic framework to evaluate the life cycle environmental impacts of various rail transit systems. However, there are some research gaps:

  1. To date, researchers have widely focused on metro and HSR. To the best of our knowledge, carbon emission has not been quantified from the perspective of the whole life cycle for the case of monorail transit.

  2. Researchers have widely studied the four stages of rail transit systems (i.e., production, construction, use, and end-of-life), but a detailed study on the carbon emissions caused by materials production and construction works in the maintenance stage of the rail transit systems has not been conducted.

The aim of the present work is to quantify carbon emissions attributable to monorail transit systems using an LCA approach, with a monorail transit line in Chongqing, China, as a case study. The research work here is organized in four sections. Section 1 provides a brief introduction to the Chongqing monorail line 2 in China. Section 2 briefly introduces the methodologies of the LCA calculation. In Section 3, the case study for calculating the carbon emissions during the four stages of a monorail transit line in Chongqing is presented; the calculation results are interpreted; the observations are discussed; the uncertainty analysis and sensitivity analysis are conducted; recommendations are given. In section 4, the conclusions are derived and a summary of the key findings are presented. The results presented are expected to serve as a source of information and data that can be used to conduct LCAs in the future.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is based on a process-based LCA method. The different steps involved in the execution of the LCA method are defined in ISO 14040 [8]: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis, environment impact analysis, and interpretation. The results obtained following the LCA method reveal the potential environmental impacts of the monorail system (from cradle to grave). The methodology is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Methodology followed for carbon emission analysis.

2.1. Goal and Scope: Definition

The goal of this study is to assess the carbon emissions of a monorail transit line segment during the whole life cycle of its operation. The system boundary of the monorail transit was defined based on the guidelines presented in the EN 15978 standard [34]. Specifically, the process is divided into the production (associated with the extraction and upstream production, transport to a factory, and manufacturing processes), construction (associated with the processes of transportation to the working site and installation), use (associated with the use, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the system and the usage of operational energy), and end-of-life (associated with the processes of demolition, material transport, waste processing, and disposal) stages. The basic assumptions made have been presented:

  1. The life cycle length of the system is 50 years. The lifespan is the same as the lifespan assumed in previous works on a Chinese subway [22] and a light rail case [33].

  2. Vehicles were absent from the system, and this could be attributed to the lack of data. Studies have been previously conducted under similar situations, and the results have been reported [17, 1922, 2631].

  3. All the wastes are landfilled, and carbon emissions caused by waste transportation during the process of waste processing and waste disposal are primarily considered.

  4. Operational energy consumption remains the same every year (this assumption helps simplify the calculations).

  5. All the materials are locally available, and the transportation distance is 50 km.

The detailed system boundary is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

System boundary.

2.2. Inventory Analysis

The second step in LCA involves the process of inventory analysis. In this step, information on carbon emission factors associated with different materials and resource (material and energy) consumption at all stages is collected.

2.2.1. Carbon Emission Factors

We chose data presented in the Chinese Core Life Cycle Database (the most authoritative database for LCA in China) [35] to conduct our research to effectively reflect the Chinese conditions. The baseline emission factors of China's regional power grid (from 2011 to 2017) in Chongqing were obtained based on the data from the Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People's Republic of China [36].

2.2.2. Materials and Energy

Data on material consumption is obtained from construction files, which contain information on the types and quantities of materials used. The Budgetary Norm of Highway Project (JTGT_3832-2018) [37] is studied to determine the machine-teams involved in the different working activities occurring in the construction stage and during the process of demolition associated with the end-of-life stage. The Budget Norm of Maintenance and Strengthening of Highway Bridges (YNG/T B02-2011) [38] is considered to determine the machine-teams involved in the maintenance works associated with the use stage. The data presented in the Expense Standard of Machine-Team of Highway Project (JTGT_3833-2018) [39] are analyzed to obtain the unit energy consumption of different machine-teams. The China Urban Rail Transit Almanac 2019 [40] is referred to, to determine the amount of electricity consumed by the monorail transit lines and stations. The carbon emissions of the monorail transit line are obtained by multiplying the electricity carbon emission factors with the total quantity of electricity.

2.3. Environmental Impact Assessment

The third step involves environmental impact assessment or life cycle impact assessment [41]. Results obtained using the various analytical methods reveal that carbon emission (for monorail transits) is realized in four stages. Total carbon emission is calculated using the following equation:

Ctot=CPD+CCS+CUS+CEL, (1)

where Ctot, CPD, CCS, CUS, and CEL correspond to the amounts of carbon emitted during the life cycle, the production stage, the construction stage, the use stage, and the end-of-life stage, respectively.

The amount of carbon emissions produced in the production stage is equal to the carbon emission factors of various materials multiplied by the corresponding material quantities. This can be represented by the following equation:

CPD=iCFMF,i×QMF,i, (2)

where CFMF,i represents the carbon emission factors of the ith material and QMF,i represents the consumed quantities of the ith material.

Carbon emissions produced during the construction stage are primarily generated during the transportation of the construction materials and consumption of energy (by different construction machines). The amount of carbon emissions generated in the construction stage can be represented by the following equation:

CMC=iCFmt,i×Qmt,i×Di+iCFcf,i×Qcf,i+CFe×Qce, (3)

where CFmt,i represents the carbon emission factor for the ith construction material transportation mode, Qmt,i represents the quantity of the ith transported construction materials, and Di represents the distance between the production factory and the construction site. Here, it is assumed that road freight is the only transportation mode adopted. CFcf,i represents the carbon emission factor of the ith consumed fuel mode in the construction stage, Qcf,i represents the quantity of the ith fuel consumed in the construction stage, CFe represents the regional carbon emission factor for electricity, and Qce represents the quantity of electricity utilized by the construction machines during the construction stage.

The carbon emissions during the use stage are primarily generated during maintenance works and the consumption of electricity by the vehicles and stations. The amounts of the carbon emissions produced during the use stage can be determined using the following equation:

CUS=Cop+Cmt, (4)

where CUS represents the amount of carbon emissions generated from the monorail line in the use stage, Cop represents the carbon emissions produced during the operational phase, and Cmtp represents the carbon emissions produced during the maintenance phase.

Cop=Csy×Y, (5)
Csy=CFe×Qoe. (6)

In (5) and (6), Csy represents the annual carbon emissions generated from the monorail line in the course of its operation, Y is the service life in the operational stage, and Qoe represents the amount of electricity consumed during the operational stage.

In the maintenance phase, the origin of carbon emissions can be attributed to the processes of material production and fuel consumption (consumed by construction machines). The amount of carbon emissions produced in the maintenance stage can be calculated using the following equation:

Cmt=iCFmt,i×Qmt,i+iCFmfc,i×Qmfc,i+CFe×Qme, (7)

where CFmt,i represents the carbon emission factors of the ith material, Qmt,i represents the consumed quantities of the ith material, CFmfc,i represents the carbon emission factor for the ith consumed fuel (consumed by machines during the maintenance process), Qmfc,i indicates the quantity of the ith fuel consumed (realized during the maintenance process), and Qme represents the quantity of electricity utilized by the construction machines during the maintenance process.

The carbon emissions generated during the end-of-life stage are produced during the consumption of energy by the construction machines during the processes of demolition and waste transportation. The amount of carbon emission produced during the end-of-life stage can be calculated using the following equation:

CEL=iCFf  d,i×Qf  d,i+CFe×Qde+iCFdm  t,i×Qdm  t,i×Di, (8)

where CFf  d,i represents the carbon emission factor corresponding to the consumed fuel mode (disposal process), Qfc,i represents the quantity of the ith fuel consumed during the disposal process, Qde refers to the quantity of electricity utilized by the construction machines during the disposal process, CFdm  t,i represents the carbon emission factor for the ith disposal transportation mode, Qdm  t,i represents the quantity of the ith transported materials, and Di indicates the distance between the construction site and the disposal area.

2.4. Interpretation

In this step, the conclusions are arrived at based on the results obtained during inventory analysis and impact assessment. The key stages, working activities, and materials (used throughout the life cycle) that affect the extent of carbon emission produced during the functioning of a monorail transit were identified. The uncertainty analysis and sensitivity analysis methods were used, and the data were analyzed using Oracle Crystal Ball software to determine the possible range of life cycle carbon emissions of a monorail transit. The parameters that affect the results are also identified.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Monorail Transit Line: Background Information

The monorail transit line 2 in Chongqing, China, is selected for a case study to demonstrate and validate the proposed LCA approach. It was inaugurated in December 2004 as the first straddle monorail line in China. It is one of the two straddle monorail lines that are currently in operation in China. Its operational mileage has reached 31.36 km. We have selected a section (from Niujiaotuo to Daping; length: 2409.09 m) of the entire route for our studies. We have quantified the carbon emissions produced in the selected section. The specific route under consideration is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Case scenario.

3.2. Calculating Carbon Emissions: Results

3.2.1. Carbon Emissions in the Production Stage

According to equation (2), the carbon emissions produced during the production of the materials primarily used for production are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Carbon emissions generated during the production of materials primarily used for production.

Material Unit Quantity Factor (kg/unit) Carbon emissions (t)
Cement t 622.30 719.62 447.82
C20 concrete m3 868.71 201.38 174.94
C25 concrete m3 105.07 250.54 26.32
C30 concrete m3 2,556.20 306.78 784.19
C40 concrete m3 6.04 391.03 2.36
C50 concrete m3 13.59 510.94 6.94
Sand t 2,195.88 9.57 21.01
Gravel t 1,728.33 12.69 21.93
Stone m3 35.94 6.05 0.22
Brick 200 × 95 × 53 1000 474.83 504.00 239.31
Building blocks m3 789.65 146.00 115.29
Waterproofing m2 3,088.14 2.37 7.32
Coating t 41.46 25.00 1.03
Steel Q235B t 163.85 1,789.06 293.14
Other steel t 29.97 1,789.06 53.61
Steel plate t 0.29 1,789.06 0.52
Steel reinforcement t 408.39 1,789.06 730.63
Wood m3 35.87 10.45 0.37
Aluminum t 0.78 18.57 0.01
Mixed mortar (M5) m3 236.82 228.03 54.00
Mixed mortar (M2.5) m3 50.10 199.23 9.98
Cement mortar (1 : 1) m3 34.29 730.2 25.04
Cement mortar (1 : 2) m3 43.74 531.52 23.25
Cement mortar (1 : 2.5) m3 252.34 469.41 118.45
Cement mortar (1 : 3) m3 527.62 393.65 207.70
Total 3,365.43

The total amount of carbon emissions produced during the production of main materials was 3,365.43 t.

3.2.2. Carbon Emissions Produced during the Construction Stage

The carbon emissions produced during the construction stage are primarily generated during the processes of material transportation and construction. Equation (3) and the assumptions made were taken into consideration to calculate the amount of carbon emissions produced during the process of transportation of the materials (Table 3).

Table 3.

Carbon emissions produced during transportation of the materials during the construction stage.

Item Means and energy Distance (km) Quantity Carbon emissions (t)
Steel Truck, diesel 50 1,376.36 t 4.88
Concrete Mixer, diesel 50 3549.61 m3 68.87
Aluminum Truck, diesel 50 0.78 t 0.01
Sand and gravel Truck, diesel 50 3,924.21 t 13.91
Stone Truck, diesel 50 35.94 m3 0.55
Brick Truck, diesel 50 478.15 m3 7.32
Building blocks Truck, diesel 50 789.65 m3 12.08
Wood Truck, diesel 50 35.87 m3 0.55
Coating Truck, diesel 50 41.46 t 0.16
Cement Truck, diesel 50 622.3 t 2.41
Mortar Truck, diesel 50 1,144.91 m3 2.75
Total 113.49

The total amount of carbon emissions produced during the transportation of materials was 113.49 t.

The total amount of carbon emissions produced during the transportation of materials was 113.49t. The amount of carbon emissions produced during the process of on-site construction was calculated (equation (3), Table 4). The carbon emission factors corresponding to electricity and diesel are 1.294 t CO2/MWh and 3.664 kg/kg, respectively.

Table 4.

Carbon emissions produced during on-site construction.

Working activities Item Construction machine Energy Energy consumption Carbon emissions (t)
Foundation Earth excavation Crawler type mechanical single bucket excavator within 1.0 m³ Diesel 1,209.33 kg 4.44
Stone excavation Crawler type mechanical single bucket excavator within 1.0 m³ Diesel 766.86 kg 2.81
Motorized air compressor within 9 m3/min Electricity 1,433.42 kWh 1.66
Impact drilling pile Crawler type mechanical single bucket excavator within 1.0 m³ Diesel 114.23 kg 0.42
Trucks within 10 t Diesel 310.87 kg 1.14
Truck crane within 16 t Diesel 278.41 kg 1.02
JK8 percussion drill Electricity 10,157.69 kWh 13.10
Mud separator Electricity 74.55 kWh 0.10
Mud mixer Electricity 434.89 kWh 0.56
Mud pump within Φ 100 mm Electricity 1,275.30 kWh 1.65
AC arc welder within 42 kV A Electricity 331.52 kWh 0.43
Manual digging pile Single barrel slow winch within 50 kN Electricity 15,087.19 kWh 19.46

Bridge substructure Concrete Concrete delivery pump within 60 m3/h Electricity 18,372.52 kWh 23.70
Truck crane within 25 t Diesel 2,868.75 kg 10.53
Steel Truck crane within 25 t Diesel 2,562.28 kg 9.40
Automatic steel seam welder Electricity 4,148.22 kWh 5.35
AC arc welder within 32 kV A Electricity 9,809.58 kWh 12.65
Bearing Truck crane within 20 t Diesel 206.96 kg 0.21
AC arc welder within 32 kV A Electricity 178.36 kWh 0.23

Bridge superstructure Concrete Concrete delivery pump within 60 m3/h Electricity 43,544.45 kWh 56.17
Truck crane within 25 t Diesel 40,285.13 kg 147.85
Cast-in-place T-beam reinforcement AC arc welder within 32 kV A Electricity 44,693.70 kWh 57.66
AC butt welder within 150 kV A Electricity 20,485.11 kWh 26.43
Centralized and standardized processing of rebar CNC vertical rebar bending center Electricity 711.17 kWh 0.92
AC arc welder within 32 kV A Electricity 44,693.70 kWh 57.66
AC butt welder within 150 kV A Electricity 20,485.11 kWh 26.43
Prestressed concrete Concrete delivery pump within 60 m3/h Electricity 98,556.12 kWh 127.14
Single-cylinder slow-motion winch within 30 kN Electricity 2,681,021.27 kWh 3,458.52
Single-cylinder slow-motion winch within 50 kN Electricity 934,667.96 kWh 1,205.72
Φ100 mm electric multistage water pump (≤120 m) Electricity 204,479.87 kWh 263.78
AC arc welder within 32 kV A Electricity 51,668.13 kWh 66.65
Steel strand Prestressed steel tensile machine Electricity 2,284.49 kWh 2.95
Bellows rolling machine Electricity 571.23 kWh 0.74
Prestressed reinforcement Prestressed stretching machine within 900 kN Electricity 6980.95 kWh 9.01
Bellows rolling machine Electricity 621.10 kWh 0.80
Single-cylinder slow-motion winch within 50 kN Electricity 6,607.41 kWh 6.61

Other installation Optical cable laying Trucks within 10 t Diesel 134.38 kg 0.49
Engine-driven air compressor within 17 m3/min Electricity 46.36 kWh 0.06
Electric cable laying Trucks within 10 t Diesel 33.58 kg 0.12
Truck crane within 5 t Diesel 9.95 kg 0.04

The amount of carbon emissions produced in the area of the chosen line segment was calculated to be 5,653.58 t. When the amount of carbon emissions produced during the transportation of the main material is taken into account, the total amount of carbon emissions generated during the construction stage is calculated to be 5,767.18 t.

3.2.3. Carbon Emissions Produced during the Maintenance Phase of the Use Stage

The assumptions were taken into account, and the carbon emissions produced during the maintenance phase were calculated (equation (7), Table 5). The guidelines presented in the Budget Norm of Maintenance and Strengthening of Highway Bridges (YNG/T B02-2011) [38] were followed, and it was assumed that each time, one concrete treatment, 100 m-long expansion joint, 10 dm3-volume bearings, 1000 m-long cracked concrete, and 400 m3-area concrete beam section were maintained. According to the Budget Norm of Maintenance and Strengthening of Highway Bridges (YNG/T B02-2011) [38], the maintenance works are carried out once every ten years.

Table 5.

Amount of carbon emissions produced during maintenance works.

Working activities Items Unit Quantity Carbon emission factors Carbon emissions (t)
Concrete treatment Polymer mortar m3 2.80 354.75 kg carbon emissions/m3 0.99
Concrete protective coating kg 33.60 25 kg carbon emissions/t 0.00
Electric concrete grinding machine within 3 kw Machine-team 9 5 kWh/machine-team 0.06
Handheld electric percussion drilling within 3 kw Machine-team 18 98.28 kWh/machine-team 2.29
Electric single-stage centrifugal clean water pump within 50 mm Machine-team 56 23 kWh/machine-team 1.67
Engine-driven air compressor within 0.3 m3/min Machine-team 15.20 16.1 kWh/machine-team 0.32
Total carbon emissions t 5.33

Expansion joint repair and replacement (per 10 m) Plain round bar t 0.01 1789.06 kg/t 0.02
Steel plate t 0.05 1789.06 kg/t 0.09
Petroleum asphalt t 0.01 174.244 kg/t 0.00
AC arc welder within 32 kV A Machine-team 1.90 96.53 kWh/machine-team 0.24
Total carbon emissions t 0.35

Bearing replacement (per 10 dm3) HRB400 steel rebar t 0.10 1789.06 kg/t 0.18
Steel plate t 0.01 1789.06 kg/t 0.02
AC arc welder within 32 kV A Machine-team 0.02 96.53 kWh/machine-team 0.00
Total carbon emissions t 0.20

Crack treatment (per 100 m) Engine-driven air compressor within 0.3 m3/min Machine-team 3.6 16.1 kWh/machine-team 0.08
Total carbon emissions t 0.08

Section enlargement (per 10 m3) C30 pump concrete m3 15 306.78 kg/m3 4.60
32.5 cement t 7.65 719.62 kg/t 5.51
Medium (coarse) sand m3 8.85 9.57 kg/m3 0.08
Gravel m3 8.40 12.69 kg/m3 0.11
Concrete mixer within 250 L Machine-team 1.24 20.91 kWh/machine-team 0.03
4–6 m3/h concrete jet Machine-team 3.17 15.4 kWh/machine-team 0.06
Engine-driven air compressor within 9 m3/min Machine-team 2.78 51.50 kg diesel/machine-team 0.52
Total carbon emissions t 10.91

The total amount of carbon emissions produced during material, electricity, and fuel consumption during the construction of the machine was calculated to be 16.87 t/10 years. If the life cycle is considered to be 50 years long, the total carbon emission is calculated to be 60.51 t.

3.2.4. Amount of Carbon Emissions Produced during the Operation Phase of the Use Stage

The data presented in the Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People's Republic of China [36] was analyzed to determine the baseline emission factors corresponding to the regional power grid in China. The data for different years were collected, and the carbon emission factors of different regions (time range: 2006–2017) were determined. Chongqing is situated in central China. The ARMA time series method was used to predict the electricity carbon emission factors of central China (for the years spanning 2002–2018) based on the existing data, as data for the years before 2006 and after 2017 were unattainable. The forecast results for 2002 and 2018 are 1.294 t CO2/MWh and 0.5907 t CO2/MWh, respectively.

The annual power consumption amounts and the annual passenger turnover were determined by analyzing the statistical data presented in the China Urban Rail Transit Yearbook 2019 [40]. The amount of carbon emission produced was calculated accordingly. The amount of carbon emissions produced by monorail line 2 (during its operation in 2018) was calculated to be 34,029.22 t. The total amount of carbon emissions produced during the 50-year-long life cycle was calculated to be 1,701,461 t. The amount of carbon emissions produced per unit length was 54255.77 t/km. The amount of carbon emissions produced by the chosen part of line 2 (length: 2.4 km) was 130,213.85 t. Equation (4) was used to calculate the total amount of carbon emissions generated during the whole use stage. The amount was calculated to be 130,274.36 t.

3.2.5. Carbon Emissions Produced during the End-of-Life Stage

Equation (8) was used, and the assumptions made were considered to calculate the amount of the carbon emissions produced during the process of structure demolition and waste disposal during the end-of-life stage. The engine-driven air compressor within 9 m3/min was primarily used during the demolition process. The total amount of energy consumed during the demolition process was calculated to be 11,916.83 kWh. The total amount of carbon emissions generated during the demolition process was calculated to be 356.35 t. The total amount of carbon emissions generated during the process of waste transportation was calculated to be 113.49 t, and the total amount of carbon emissions produced during this stage was 469.84 t.

3.3. Amount of Carbon Emissions Produced during Different Stages

A comparison of the amounts of carbon emissions produced during different stages of the life cycle of the material is presented in Figure 4(a) and Figure 4(b). Analysis of the figures indicates that the maximum amount of the carbon emissions generated during the life cycle of the monorail transit is produced during the use stage (93.2%). The amount produced in this stage is significantly higher than the amount produced during the other stages. This can be primarily attributed to the fact that the amount of carbon emissions produced during the process of energy consumption during the entire 50-year-long operation period is considered during the study of the operational phase. A huge amount of carbon emissions is produced during this phase. Various maintenance works are carried out during the life cycle of the material. Each stage requires a certain amount of manpower and materials for completion. Different types of machinery are also required for the effective execution of the process. Maintenance work is carried out once every 10 years. Thus, a total of five maintenance cycles are carried out during the whole life cycle. This results in the generation of a large amount of carbon emissions in the use stage. A considerable amount of carbon emissions is also produced during the construction stage (4.1%). This can be attributed to the fact that a huge quantity of energy is consumed by different working machines during this process. The amount of carbon emissions generated during the production stage (2.4%) is slightly lower than the amount generated during the construction stage. It has also been observed that the amount of carbon emissions generated from the end-of-life stage is only 0.3% of the total amount generated, an insignificant amount as compared to emissions produced in other stages.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

(a) Amounts of carbon emissions generated during different stages of operation throughout the life of the material. (b) Proportion of carbon emissions generated during different life cycle stages.

3.4. Carbon Emissions from Different Materials

Figures 5(a) and 5(b) provide a comparison of the amounts of carbon emissions produced during the use of different materials. As the figures show, there are significant differences in the amount of carbon emissions generated by different types of materials. The top 11 construction materials that contribute the most toward the production of carbon emissions are listed in Figure 5(a). The cumulative amount of the carbon emissions generated by these 11 materials is 3365.15 t, accounting for almost all of the total carbon emissions generated during the production stage. Specifically, the use of steel (32%), concrete (29.6%), cement (13.3%), and mortar (13%) results in the production of the maximum amount of carbon emissions during the production stage.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

(a) Amounts of carbon emissions generated during the use of different materials. (b) Proportions of carbon emissions generated during the use of different materials.

This can be attributed to the fact that a monorail line is a reinforced concrete structure that requires the use of a large amount of steel (1,376.36 t), concrete (3,549.61 m3), cement (622.3 t), and mortar (1,144.91 m3). The corresponding carbon emission factors are significantly high. The total amount of carbon emissions produced is large as the consumption and carbon emission factors of these materials are significantly high. Therefore, the key to improving the environmental performance of monorail transit lies in decreasing the amount of carbon emissions generated by these materials. It has been previously reported [42] that an efficient water reducing agent can be used to replace cement during the process of concrete production. This can help in reducing the amount of carbon emissions produced during the material production stage. The concrete strength can be improved simultaneously to reduce the amount of cement and concrete used. Furthermore, designers could consider using more amounts of renewable construction materials (such as renewable concrete) in the design stage [43]. Mortar, bricks, building blocks, gravel, sand, and other materials also contribute to the generation of carbon emissions in the production stage. The use of these materials results in the generation of insignificant amounts of carbon emissions.

3.5. Carbon Emissions: Analysis of Working Activities Occurring in the Construction Stage

A comparison of the amounts of carbon emissions generated at different stages of the construction stage is presented in Figure 6. Fifteen working activities are considered. The results reveal that prestressed concrete activity accounts for the largest proportion (91.1%) of the total carbon emissions produced in this stage. The amount of carbon emission produced during prestressed concrete activity is significantly higher than the amount produced during other construction activities. This can be primarily attributed to the fact that a huge quantity of electricity is consumed during the operation of machines single-cylinder slow-motion winch within 30 KN (2,681,021.27 kWh), single-cylinder slow-motion winch within 50 KN (934,667.96 kWh), Φ100 mm electric multistage water pump (≤120 m; 204,479.87 kWh), and concrete delivery pump (60 m3/h; 98,556.12 kWh). In addition, a considerable amount of carbon emissions is generated during the construction of the beam concrete (3.6%). The amount of carbon emissions generated during the processes of beam reinforcement (1.5%) and rebar processing (1.5%) is slightly lower than the amount produced during the process of beam concrete construction. The amount of carbon emissions attributable to other construction activities accounts for less than 1% of the total carbon emissions originating from all construction activities. This indicates that these activities do not significantly affect the environment.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Proportions of carbon emissions generated during different construction activities.

3.6. Uncertainty Analysis: Construction Stage and Production Stage

The uncertainty of carbon emissions corresponding to material and fuel consumption can be attributed to construction errors. Uncertainty analysis was conducted using the Oracle Crystal Ball (Figure 7) to evaluate the possible range of carbon emissions for a monorail segment during its life cycle. Standard normal distributions were assumed for the input parameters, and the number of testing times was set to 100,000. The probability distributions corresponding to the target variables were normal distributions. The variation range calculated for carbon emissions was 100,000–180,000 t.

Figure 7.

Figure 7

Uncertainty analysis conducted for carbon emissions produced during the life cycle of the material.

3.7. Life Cycle: Sensitivity Analysis

The Oracle Crystal Ball was used to determine the sensitivity of carbon emissions during the life cycle of the monorail transit line. The results are shown in Table 6.

Table 6.

Sensitivity analysis conducted for carbon emissions produced during the production stage.

Order Parameters Variance contribution (%) Rank correlation
1 Life cycle length 47.0 0.69
2 Annual operation electricity consumption 46.9 0.68
2 Single-cylinder slow-motion winch within 30 KN 0.1 0.02
3 Single-cylinder slow-motion winch within 50 KN 0.1 0.01
4 C40 concrete quantity 0.1 0.01
5 Cement mortar (1 : 3) quantity 0.1 0.01
6 Brick 200 × 95 × 53 quantity 0.1 0.01
7 Others 0.1 -

Analysis of the data presented in Table 6 reveals that the length of the life cycle, amount of electricity consumed annually, single-cylinder slow-motion winch within 30 KN quantity, single-cylinder slow-motion winch within 50 KN quantity, use of C40 concrete quantity, cement mortar (1 : 3) quantity, and brick 200 × 95 × 53 quantity are the sensitive factors that affect the final carbon emission results. The length of the life cycle and the amount of electricity consumed annually during the operation of the system significantly influence the amount of carbon emission produced by the monorail system during its lifetime. In addition, the quantities of single-cylinder slow-motion winch within 30 KN, single-cylinder slow-motion winch within 50 KN, C40 concrete, cement mortar (1 : 3), and brick 200 × 95 × 53 also exert a certain influence on the results. It was observed that the degrees of influence were almost the same.

3.8. Discussion of the Approach

This calculation framework can be used to calculate the amount of carbon emission produced by a monorail line during its lifetime, but it can also be used to calculate the amount of carbon emissions produced by ordinary railway, light rail, subway, and other rail transportation systems. The calculation results can help design the monorail transit system, and the results can help reduce the amount of carbon emission produced at the initial stages of the process.

As there are few monorail lines in operation in China, it is difficult to obtain field data. It is challenging to verify the universality of the results calculated from the only data available. More data can be obtained in the future as the construction of monorail traffic has been planned. Our model will be further optimized to make it universal.

3.9. Recommendations for Future Research

More attention should be paid to the following research directions:

  1. Verification and application of the approach used by us should be realized by analyzing fundamental data. Therefore, attention should be paid to obtaining more amounts of data to improve the developed approach.

  2. Some scenarios can be designed to simulate the carbon emission reduction effects based on the calculation results presented. This can potentially help in proposing helpful suggestions that can be exploited by designers and politicians for the sustainable development of the city.

4. Conclusions

We calculated the amount of carbon emissions produced during the operation of a monorail transit line (during its lifetime) using the LCA method. A segment of the Chongqing monorail line 2 was selected for the case study for validating the developed model. The following conclusions were drawn:

  1. The life cycle of the monorail transit line can be theoretically divided into four stages: the production, construction, use, and end-of-life stages. The use stage contributes >90% of the carbon emissions produced during the lifetime of the monorail transit line. A significant amount of carbon emissions is produced during the construction and production stages. The amount of emissions produced during the end-of-life stage is less than the amount produced in the other three stages.

  2. Steel, concrete, and cement are the most important sources of carbon emissions.

  3. Prestressed concrete activity accounts for the maximum proportion (91.1%) of the total carbon emissions. Significant amounts of carbon emissions are generated during the process of beam concrete construction (3.6%). The amounts of carbon emissions generated during the process of beam reinforcement (1.5%) and rebar processing (1.5%) are slightly lower than the amounts generated during the process of beam concrete construction.

In summary, the results presented herein can help gain a better understanding of the effects of the monorail transit industry on the ecosystem. The results can potentially help develop ideas that can be used by designers working in the rail transit industry to meet low carbon emission goals.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported and financed by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant no. 2021JBM426).

Abbreviations

ARMA:

Autoregressive moving average

CE:

Carbon emissions

CEF:

Carbon emission factor

GHG:

Greenhouse gas

HSR:

High-speed rail

IO:

Input-output

LCA:

Life cycle assessment

LRT:

Light rail transit

PKT:

Passenger kilometer traveled

VKT:

Vehicle kilometer traveled

PMT:

Passenger mile traveled

RTS:

Rapid transit system

SKM:

Per seat per kilometer traveled

VMT:

Vehicle mile traveled.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  • 1.Cramer W., Guiot J., Fader M., et al. Climate change and interconnected risks to sustainable development in the Mediterranean. Nature Climate Change . 2018;8(11):972–980. doi: 10.1038/s41558-018-0299-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mi Z., Guan D., Liu Z., et al. Cities: the core of climate change mitigation. Journal of Cleaner Production . 2019;207:582–589. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.034. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC; 2014. Core writing team; p. p. 151. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bueno G., Hoyos D., Capellán-Pérez I. Evaluating the environmental performance of the high speed rail project in the Basque Country, Spain. Research in Transportation Economics . 2017;62:44–56. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2017.02.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.GB 50458-2008. Code for Design of Straddle Monorail Transit . Beijing, China: China Building Industry Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hwang K., Chung J.-D., Lee K., Tak J., Suh I.-S. Feasibility analysis on ground-level stations and wireless power transfer technology applications for monorail system. International Journal of Railway . 2014;7(3):71–79. doi: 10.7782/ijr.2014.7.3.071. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.He X. Application and prospect of straddle monorail transit system in China. Urban Rail Transit . 2015;1(1):26–34. doi: 10.1007/s40864-015-0006-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.ISO 14040 International Standard. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework . Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chester M. V. Life-Cycle Environmental Inventory of Passenger Transportation in the United States . Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley; 2008. Ph.D. Dissertation. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Chester M. V., Horvath A. Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains. Environmental Research Letters . 2009;4:237–266. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chester M. V., Horvath A. Life-cycle assessment of high-speed rail: the case of California. Environmental Research Letters . 2010;136:123–129. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chester M., Horvath A. High-speed rail with emerging automobiles and aircraft can reduce environmental impacts in California’s future. Environmental Research Letters . 2012;7(3) doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034012.034022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Banar M., Özdemir A. An evaluation of railway passenger transport in Turkey using life cycle assessment and life cycle cost methods. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment . 2015;41:88–105. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2015.09.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Del Pero F., Delogu M., Pierini M., Bonaffini D. Life Cycle Assessment of a heavy metro train. Journal of Cleaner Production . 2015;87:787–799. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yue Y., Wang T., Liang S., et al. Life cycle assessment of high speed rail in China. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment . 2015;41:367–376. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2015.10.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hanson C. S., Noland R. B., Porter C. D. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with materials used in commuter rail lines. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation . 2015;10(5):475–484. doi: 10.1080/15568318.2014.985859. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Andrade C. E. S. d., D’Agosto M. d. A. Energy use and carbon dioxide emissions assessment in the lifecycle of passenger rail systems: the case of the Rio de Janeiro Metro. Journal of Cleaner Production . 2016;126:526–536. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.094. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jones H., Moura F., Domingos T. Life cycle assessment of high-speed rail: a case study in Portugal. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment . 2016;22(3):410–422. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1177-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lederer J., Ott C., Brunner P. H., Ossberger M. The life cycle energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions of high-capacity urban transport systems: a case study from Vienna’s subway line U2. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation . 2014;10(2):120–130. doi: 10.1080/15568318.2013.869704. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bueno G., Hoyos D., Capellán-Pérez I. Evaluating the environmental performance of the high speed rail project in the Basque Country, Spain. Research in Transportation Economics . 2017;62:44–56. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2017.02.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Saxe S., Miller E., Guthrie P. The net greenhouse gas impact of the Sheppard Subway Line. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment . 2017;51:261–275. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2017.01.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Li Y., He Q., Luo X., Zhang Y., Dong L. Calculation of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of urban rail transit systems: a case study of Shanghai Metro. Resources, Conservation and Recycling . 2018;128:451–457. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.03.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shinde A. M., Dikshit A. K., Singh R. K., Campana P. E. Life cycle analysis based comprehensive environmental performance evaluation of Mumbai Suburban Railway, India. Journal of Cleaner Production . 2018;188:989–1003. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Al-Thawadi F. E., Al-Ghamdi S. G. Evaluation of sustainable urban mobility using comparative environmental life cycle assessment: a case study of Qatar. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives . 2019;1 doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2019.100003.100003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Bilgili L., Kuzu S. L., Çetinkaya A. Y., Kumar P. Evaluation of railway versus highway emissions using LCA approach between the two cities of Middle Anatolia. Sustainable Cities and Society . 2019;49 doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101635.101635 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kaewunruen S., Sresakoolchai J., Peng J. Life cycle cost, energy and carbon assessments of beijing-shanghai high-speed railway. Sustainability . 2019;12(1):p. 206. doi: 10.3390/su12010206. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cheng S., Lin J., Xu W., Yang D., Liu J., Li H. Carbon, water, land and material footprints of China’s high-speed railway construction. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment . 2020;82 doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102314.102314 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.de Bortoli A., Bouhaya L., Feraille A. A life cycle model for high-speed rail infrastructure: environmental inventories and assessment of the Tours-Bordeaux railway in France. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment . 2020;25(4):814–830. doi: 10.1007/s11367-019-01727-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Merchan A. L., Belboom S., Léonard A. Life cycle assessment of rail freight transport in Belgium. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy . 2020;22(5):1109–1131. doi: 10.1007/s10098-020-01853-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Liu M., Jia S., Li P., Liu X., Zhang Y. Predicting GHG emissions from subway lines in the planning stage on a city level. Journal of Cleaner Production . 2020;259 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120823.120823 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kortazar A., Bueno G., Hoyos D. Environmental balance of the high speed rail network in Spain: a Life Cycle Assessment approach. Research in Transportation Economics . 2021;90 doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101035.101035 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Chipindula J., Du H., Botlaguduru V. S. V., Choe D., Kommalapati R. R. Life Cycle Environmental Impact of a High-Speed Rail System in the Houston-Dallas I-45 Corridor . Berlin, Germany: Public Transport; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gulcimen S., Aydogan E. K., Uzal N. Life cycle sustainability assessment of a light rail transit system: integration of environmental, economic, and social impacts. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management . 2021;17(5):1070–1082. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4428. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.EN 15978:2011. Sustainability of Construction Works Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings - Calculation Method . Brussels, Belgium: European Committee for Standardization; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Chinese life cycle database (clcd) 2012. http://www.ghgprotocol.org/Third-Party-Databases/CLCD .
  • 36.Ministry of ecology and environment of the people’s republic of china. 2018. http://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/ydqhbh/wsqtkz/201812/t20181220_685481.shtml .
  • 37.JTG/T 3832-2018. Budgetary Norm of Highway Project . Beijing, China: Chinese standard; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.YNG/T B02-2011. Budget Norm of Maintenance and Strengthening of Highway Bridges . Yunnan, China: Chinese standard; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.JTGT_3833-2018. Expense Standard of Machine-Team of Highway Project . Beijing, China: Chinese standard; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Editorial Committee of the Yearbook of China Association of Metros. 2019 china urban rail transit almanac 2019 . Shanghai, China: Shanghai Bookstore Publishing House; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Najjar M., Figueiredo K., Palumbo M., Haddad A. Integration of bim and lca: evaluating the environmental impacts of building materials at an early stage of designing a typical office building. Journal of Building Engineering . 2017;14:115–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2017.10.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Cheng B., Li J., Tam V., Yang M., Chen D. A bim-lca approach for estimating the greenhouse gas emissions of large-scale public buildings: a case study. Sustainability . 2020;12(2):p. 685. doi: 10.3390/su12020685. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cheng B., Lu K., Li J., Chen H., Luo X., Shafique M. Comprehensive assessment of embodied environmental impacts of buildings using normalized environmental impact factors. Journal of Cleaner Production . 2022;334 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130083.130083 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon request.


Articles from Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES