Implementation of Integrated Life Cycle Design Principles in Ground Improvement and Piling Methods—A Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Project | Analyzed/Proposed Solutions | Source | Description of Methods |
---|---|---|---|
Building construction project with problematic ground conditions |
| [8] | Jet Grouting: A method involving the disruption of in situ soil using a high-speed fluid jet from a slender nozzle on a monitor. In this process, the disrupted soil mixes with an injected fluid, usually a cement slurry, forming a blend that eventually hardens. Depending on the injection method and the number of fluids used, jet grouting is categorized into three main systems: mono-fluid, bi-fluid, and tri-fluid [9,10]. VR: A method involving the penetration of a vibroflot to the designated depth, aided by water jetting from the nose cone. Once the target depth is reached, the water jetting is reduced, and the vibroflot is gradually withdrawn, ensuring adequate compaction at each depth. This process forms a compacted ground zone around the insertion point, with the optional addition of site-sourced sand to fill any resulting depression. The extraction rate is adjusted according to site conditions to achieve the desired densification for the project [11]. DSM: This method involves inserting a mixing tool, into the soil. Cement slurry flows from nozzles on the tool, thoroughly mixing with the soil to create a homogenous blend. The slurry composition is tailored to achieve the desired soil properties. Additionally, a dry version of this method is feasible (without water) [12]. |
High-rise building |
| [13] | |
Large residential and commercial complex |
| [13] | |
Residential multi-family building with an underground garage |
| [14] | |
Iron ore storage facility |
| [15] |
- Materials—all processes related to the production of materials needed in the construction process;
- Transport—the transport of, e.g., materials to the construction site (freight), equipment (mobilization), and workers (transportation);
- Energy—related to the energy used on a construction site, e.g., fuel for construction equipment, operation of construction facilities, etc.;
- Waste.
- Economic aspects (cost-effective, performance);
- Environmental aspects;
- Social aspects and requirements depending on the project location (noise, vibrations, material availability, and trained personnel).
2. Materials and Methods
- Topic: “ground improvement” OR “soil improvement” OR “DSM” OR “jet grouting” OR “piling” OR “piles”;
- Year published: 2013–2023;
- Web of Science Categories: Engineering, Civil.
- Environment—“LCA” OR “life cycle assessment” OR “carbon footprint” OR “environmental impact”, “sustainability”;
- Noise—“noise”;
- Vibration—“vibration”;
- Time-efficient—“time analysis” OR “construction time” OR “effective” OR “time efficient”;
- Cost-effective—“LCC” OR “life cycle cost” OR “cost analysis” OR “cost” OR “cost-effective”.
- i, j = 1, 2, …, n;
- n × n—matrix dimension.
- s—scaling factor.
3. Results
3.1. Main Research Areas on Ground Improvement and Piling Solutions: Keywords Co-Occurrence Analysis
3.2. Sustainable Development Criteria
3.2.1. Environmental
- There are limited comparative studies; the literature to date mainly focuses on the analysis of individual materials used in the ground improvement process;
- Insufficient/partial LCA analysis;
- The literature currently focuses primarily on the carbon footprint; most analyses concentrate on greenhouse gas emissions as the main indicator of environmental impact; however, a more holistic approach that also takes into account other aspects, such as water consumption, which is missing.
3.2.2. Noise
- Pile driving with diesel hammers—100–120 dB;
- Vibration loading of piles by vibration loaders and vibrohammering of piles with vibrohammers—80–100 dB.
3.2.3. Vibration
- Buildings in sound construction—4 m;
- Buildings in poor condition—7 m;
- Buildings in very poor condition—15 m;
- Visibly damaged buildings—30 m.
3.2.4. Economic
3.2.5. Summary
3.3. DEMATEL Analysis
- New technologies based on the use of eco-friendly materials (2): This factor has the highest “C + R” value, indicating its significant prominence. This suggests that integrating eco-friendly materials into new technologies is a key driver for sustainability in ground improvement methods.
- Lack of standards/guidelines for new technologies (10): This also has a high “C + R” value, implying that it is a prominent issue that affects many other factors. The “C − R” value being close to zero indicates that it is a central issue that influences others as much as it is influenced by them.
- Strong position of well-known technologies (9): Although this has a negative “C − R” value, indicating that it is more of an effect than a cause. Its high “C + R” value signifies that it is an important factor to consider. The industry’s preference for established technologies can hinder the adoption of newer, more sustainable options.
- Reluctance to adopt new and lesser-known technologies (6): With a “C − R” value of zero, this factor stands exactly at the threshold between cause and effect, showing that it is a critical pivot point in the system. This indicates that the geoengineering sector’s hesitancy to adopt new technologies is as much a result of other factors as it is a contributing factor to the system.
- Insufficiently detailed analyses considering multiple aspects (11): Despite a low “C + R” value, the “C − R” value is highly negative, suggesting that this is predominantly an effect of other factors, but it is a significant one that shows the need for more comprehensive sustainability analyses.
- Difficulties in comparing technologies with each other (12): This has the most negative “C − R” value, making it the strongest effect factor. It underscores the challenge in evaluating different technologies against each other, which is a significant barrier to the adoption of sustainable methods.
- Potential cost savings through the implementation of sustainable technologies (7): This factor has one of the lower “C + R” values, suggesting that while cost savings are recognized, they might not be the primary motivator or the most pressing concern within the system.
- Insufficiently detailed analyses considering multiple aspects (11): Despite its importance for sustainability, this factor has a lower “C + R” value in the analysis, indicating that it is not perceived as a leading influence in the current landscape of the industry.
- Socioeconomic trends (16): With a “C + R” value on the lower end of the spectrum, socioeconomic trends are seen as having less immediate influence on the decision-making processes within the sector, according to the DEMATEL analysis.
- Lack of unified databases on emissions (8): With a “C + R” value indicating its prominence, this factor reflects the need for a centralized repository of information on emissions related to ground improvement technologies. The relatively low “C − R” value suggests that it is slightly more of a cause than an effect within the system. The absence of such a database is likely impeding the ability of stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding the environmental impact of different technologies. By establishing unified databases, practitioners could more easily comply with regulations, compare the sustainability of various methods, and identify areas for improvement.
- A large number of potential technologies available for utilization (1): This factor has a moderate “C + R” value and a “C − R” value suggesting that it is predominantly a cause within the system. It indicates that while there is a wealth of potential technologies that can be utilized, this abundance itself may be causing confusion or paralysis in decision-making. This could be due to the challenges of adequately comparing and assessing the wide array of options, potentially leading to decision fatigue or a preference for sticking with familiar technologies.
- Lack of comprehensive tools for assessing the sustainability of solutions (3): This factor has a relatively low “C + R” value, but its “C − R” value is almost neutral, hinting that it is both influenced by and influencing other factors almost equally. It points to a gap in the methodological framework used to evaluate the sustainability of ground improvement solutions. Without comprehensive tools, the assessment of such solutions may not fully capture their lifecycle impacts, leading to suboptimal decision-making that does not favor the most sustainable options.
- Legislative changes (5): It is a strong cause in the system (“C − R” value is high). Legislative changes are typically external drivers that can force significant shifts in industry practices. For example, the “Fit for 55” package in the EU aims to align policies with the goal of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030. Such legislative changes can catalyze the adoption of sustainable technologies by creating a regulatory environment that necessitates or incentivizes their implementation. The analysis implies that keeping abreast of, and complying with, legislative changes is a major driver for the industry to move towards sustainable practices.
4. Summary and Discussion
- Evaluation/characterization of individual technologies in terms of sustainability criteria (mainly, relatively new technologies);
- Development of tools that would support the technology selection process regarding sustainability criteria.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
7 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
8 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
14 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
15 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
16 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
References
- Amarakoon, G.G.N.N. Development of Sustainable Ground Improvement Methods Using Biochemical Techniques. Ph.D. Thesis, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 6707-1:2017; Buildings and Civil Engineering Works—Vocabulary—Part 1: General Terms. ISO (International Organization for Standardization): Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
- Hoffmann, M.; Żarkiewicz, K.; Zieliński, A.; Skibicki, S.; Marchewka, Ł. Foundation Piles—A New Feature for Concrete 3d Printers. Materials 2021, 14, 2545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- PrEN 1997-3:202x; Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design—Part 3: Geotechnical Structures. European Standard: Brussels, Belgium, 2021.
- Mitchell, J.M.; Jardine, F.M. A Guide to Ground Treatment; CIRIA: London, UK, 2002; ISBN 0860175731. [Google Scholar]
- Chu, J.; Varaksin, S.; Klotz, U.; Mengé, P. Construction Processes. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4), Alexandria, Egypt, 5–9 October 2009; pp. 3006–3135. [Google Scholar]
- Topolnicki, M. Ground Improvement Instead of Piling—Effective Design Solutions for Heavily Loaded Structures. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Deep Foundations and Ground Improvement, Rome, Italy, 5–8 June 2018; pp. 1128–1137. [Google Scholar]
- Aydinli, S.; Bağriaçik, B.; Oral, E.L. Comparison of Construction Costs of Piled Raft Foundations and Jet GroutingSystems. In Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, İzmir, Turkey, 12–14 September 2018; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Njock, P.G.A.; Chen, J.; Modoni, G.; Arulrajah, A.; Kim, Y.H. A Review of Jet Grouting Practice and Development. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dybeł, P.; Wałach, D.; Jaskowska-Lemańska, J. Technical Note: Example of the Application of Jet Grouting to the Neutralisation of Geotechnical Hazard in Shaft Structures. Studia Geotech. Mech. 2015, 37, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balfour Beatty. Vibro Compaction. Available online: https://www.balfourbeatty.com/ (accessed on 31 August 2023). (In Polish).
- Keller Polska. Soil Mixing-Ground Improvement by Soil Mixing Method. Available online: https://www.keller.com.pl/czym-sie-zajmujemy/technologie/kolumny-dsm (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Topolnicki, M.; Chang, H.N. Ground Improvement, an Alternative to Pile Foundations. In Proceedings of the 17th African Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Cape Town, South Africa, 7–9 October 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Polańska, B.; Rainer, J. Rigid Inclusion Ground Improvements as an Alternative to Pile Foundation. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 869, 052080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sondermann, W. Ground Improvement as Alternative to Piling—Effective Design Solutions for Heavily Loaded Structures. In Latest Thoughts on Ground Improvement Techniques; Shehata, H., Poulos, H., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- SOILMEC Spa. Jet Grouting. Available online: https://www.soilmec.com/en/ (accessed on 31 August 2023).
- Gomes Correia, A.; Winter, M.G.; Puppala, A.J. A Review of Sustainable Approaches in Transport Infrastructure Geotechnics. Transp. Geotech. 2016, 7, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onyelowe, K.C.; Ebid, A.M.; Mahdi, H.A.; Baldovino, J.A. Selecting the Safety and Cost Optimized Geo-Stabilization Technique for Soft Clay Slopes. Civ. Eng. J. 2023, 9, 453–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wałach, D. Economic and Environmental Assessment of New Generation Concretes. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 960, 042013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tayler, H. A Short Guide to reusing Foundations. J. Struct. Eng. 2020, 98, 20–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valenta, J.; Vanícek, I. Reuse of Foundation. Construction on Brownfields 155–160. Available online: http://www.udrzitelnavystavba.cz/WP1_papers/17_Valenta.pdf (accessed on 24 November 2023).
- Dos Santos, P.H.; Neves, S.M.; Sant’Anna, D.O.; de Oliveira, C.H.; Carvalho, H.D. The Analytic Hierarchy Process Supporting Decision Making for Sustainable Development: An Overview of Applications. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ziemba, P. Application Framework of Multi-Criteria Methods in Sustainability Assessment. Energies 2022, 15, 9201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czajkowska, A. The Role of Sustainable Construction in Sustainable Development. MATEC Web. Conf. 2018, 174, 01027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobotka, A.; Sagan, J.; Gicala, M. Sustainability of Construction Processes—Requirements, Criteria, Evaluation Concep. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 471, 112051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wałach, D.; Sagan, J.; Gicala, M. Assessment of Material Solutions of Multi-Level Garage Structure within Integrated Life Cycle Design Process. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 245, 072027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- COM/2019/640 Final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—The European Green Deal. Brussels. 2019. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640 (accessed on 24 November 2023).
- European Council. Council of the European Union. Fit for 55 Package. Available online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/fit-for-55-the-eu-plan-for-a-green-transition/ (accessed on 14 April 2023).
- European Commission Buying Green! A Handbook on Green Public Procurement 3rd Edition. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/Buying-Green-Handbook-3rd-Edition.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2023).
- Główny Urząd Statystyczny; Urząd Statystyczny w Białymstoku. Green Economy Indicators for Poland. 2022. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/srodowisko-energia/srodowisko/wskazniki-zielonej-gospodarki-w-polsce-2022,10,3.html (accessed on 6 June 2023). (In Polish)
- Nicholson, P.G. Chapter 2—Ground Improvement Techniques and Applications. In Soil Improvement and Ground Modification Methods; Nicholson, P.G., Ed.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Boston, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 9–17. ISBN 978-0-12-408076-8. [Google Scholar]
- Pons, O.; Casanovas-Rubio, M.M.; Armengou, J.; de la Fuente, A. Sustainability-Driven Decision-Making Model: Case Study of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Foundation Piles. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2021, 147, 04021116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VOSviewer—Visualizing Scientific Landscapes. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/ (accessed on 24 April 2023).
- van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Visualizing Bibliometric Networks. In Measuring Scholarly Impact; Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., Wolfram, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 285–320. ISBN 19103778_13. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, W.; Yu, S.; Shen, Z.; Wang, M.; Cheng, G.; Yang, T.; Yuan, Q. Knowledge Mapping with CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and SciMAT on Intelligent Connected Vehicles: Road Safety Issue. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Si, S.-L.; You, X.-Y.; Liu, H.-C.; Zhang, P. DEMATEL Technique: A Systematic Review of the State-of-the-Art Literature on Methodologies and Applications. Math. Probl. Eng. 2018, 2018, 3696457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajput, S.; Singh, S.P. Connecting Circular Economy and Industry 4.0. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 49, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.S.; Tzeng, G.H.; Yeih, W.; Wang, Y.J.; Yang, S.C. Revised DEMATEL: Resolving the Infeasibility of DEMATEL. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 6746–6757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.-W.; Kuo, T.-C.; Chen, S.-H.; Hu, A.H. Using DEMATEL to Develop a Carbon Management Model of Supplier Selection in Green Supply Chain Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 56, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations Environment Programme. 2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction Towards a Zero-Emissions, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Available online: https://globalabc.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/GABC_Buildings-GSR-2021_BOOK.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2023).
- Sadjadi, M.; Nikooee, E.; Habibagahi, G. Biological Treatment of Swelling Soils Using Microbial Calcite Precipitation. In Unsaturated Soils: Research & Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 917–922. [Google Scholar]
- Pop, I.; Wan-Wendner, L.; Vits, W. Optimized Structural Design of Concrete Pile Plug in Steel Pipe Piles. Struct. J. 2022, 119, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pooni, J.; Robert, D.; Giustozzi, F.; Setunge, S.; Xie, Y.M.; Xia, J. Novel Use of Calcium Sulfoaluminate (CSA) Cement for Treating Problematic Soils. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 260, 120433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subramanian, S.; Tee, W.Z.; Moon, J.; Ku, T. Sustainable Use of OPC-CSA Blend for Artificial Cementation of Sand: A Dosage Optimization Study. Geomech. Eng. 2022, 31, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chu, J. Solutions to Sustainability in Construction: Some Examples. Procedia Eng. 2016, 145, 1127–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naeimi, M.; Haddad, A. Investigation on the Environmental Impact of Soil Improvement Techniques: Comparison of Cement Grouting and Biocement. In Proceedings of the GeoShanghai 2018 International Conference: Geoenvironment and Geohazard; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 483–490. [Google Scholar]
- Bačić, M.; Marčić, D.; Peršun, T. Application of Industrial Waste Materials in Sustainable Ground Improvement. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Road and Rail Infrastructure CETRA, Spilt Dalmatia, Croatia, 28–30 April 2014; University of Zagreb: Spilt Dalmatia, Croatia, 2014; pp. 609–615. [Google Scholar]
- Bhavita Chowdary, V.; Ramanamurty, V.; Pillai, R.J. Experimental Evaluation of Strength and Durability Characteristics of Geopolymer Stabilised Soft Soil for Deep Mixing Applications. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2021, 6, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaczmarczyk, G. Application of Fluidized Bed Furnance Bottom Ash in Civil Engineering—A Review. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1203, 032013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bağrıaçık, B.; Mahmutluoğlu, B. Conducting Large-Scale Model Experiments on Xanthan Gum Treated Clay as an Eco-Friendly Approach to Soil Improvement. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2023, 27, 1480–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burrows, V.K.; Watson, E. Advancing Net Zero Whole Life Carbon Offsetting Residual Emissions from the Building and Construction Sector. Available online: https://worldgbc.org/advancing-net-zero/advancing-net-zero-whole-life-carbon/ (accessed on 12 April 2022).
- Hamdy, D.B. A Sustainable Approach for Improving the Behavior of Collapsible Soil Using Marble Dust. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2022, 7, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Albuquerque, P.J.R.; León-Mogrovejo, D.R. A Laboratory Investigation on a Mechanical Behavior of Sandy and Clayey Soils with Kraft Paper Fiber. Transp. Infrastruct. Geotech. 2021, 8, 12–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmutluoglu, B.; Bagriacik, B. Sustainable Implementation of Glass Manufacturing Waste and Geogrids in the Improvement of Fine-Grained Soils. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2021, 25, 1295–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mochida, Y.; Olabamiji, O.J.; Kasahara, K. Study on Development of Soil Improvement Pile Method Using Recycled Soil. Int. J. GEOMATE 2021, 20, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basack, S.; Goswami, G.; Khabbaz, H.; Karakouzian, M.; Baruah, P.; Kalita, N. A Comparative Study on Soil Stabilization Relevant to Transport Infrastructure Using Bagasse Ash and Stone Dust and Cost Effectiveness. Civ. Eng. J. 2021, 7, 1947–1963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pradhan, B.; Tiwari, S.K. FEM Analysis of Granular Pile Made with Alternate Materials. Transp. Infrastruct. Geotech. 2022, 10, 1284–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sobotka, A.; Radziejowska, A.; Czaja, J. Tasks and Problems in the Buildings Demolition Works: A Case Study. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2015, 61, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahmak, A.; Abdallah, M.; Jarah, B.; Arab, M.G. Environmental Performance of Alkali-Activated Binders for Ground Improvement. Transp. Geotech. 2021, 31, 100631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanafi, M.; Ekinci, A.; Aydin, E. Engineering and Microstructural Properties of Alluvium Clay Stabilized with Portland Cement and Coal Bottom Ash for Sustainable Future. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2022, 26, 5049–5066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russell, A.R.; Chapman, M.; Teh, S.H.; Wiedmann, T. Cost and Embodied Carbon Reductions in Cutter Soil Mix Walls through Fibre Reinforcement. Geosynth. Int. 2017, 24, 280–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, N. Sustainability in Geotechnical Construction. Available online: https://www.keller-africa.co.za/news/sustainability-geotechnical-construction (accessed on 12 June 2023).
- Fan-Ren, L.Y.U.; Hong-Cai, S.; Wen, Z. A Contrastive Analysis of Carbon Emissions in Different Solutions to Battered Piles. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth. Environ. Sci. 2021, 634, 012007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, M.; Basu, D. Environmental Impacts of Drilled Shafts and Driven Piles in Sand. In Proceedings of the IFCEE 2018, Orlando, FL, USA, 5–10 March 2018; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2018; pp. 643–652. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.J.; dan Zheng, Y. Using LCA to Research Carbon Footprint for Precast Concrete Piles during the Building Construction Stage: A China Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chernyuk, V.; Semenyuk, S.; Yuskovich, V. Effective Low-Noise Technologies for the Production of Pile Works in Construction. In Proceedings of the MATEC Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences, Sibiu, Romania, 2–4 June 2021; Volume 350. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 Relating to the Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02002L0049-20210729 (accessed on 14 June 2023).
- Jiang, Q.; Wang, X.; Yu, M.; Tang, M.; Zhang, H.; Wu, J. Theoretical Study of Vibro-Acoustics of Fluid-Pile-Soil Coupled System and Experimental Research of Noise Reduction of Small-Scale Pile Driving. Ocean Eng. 2022, 252, 110997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, Y.; Kim, D.-C.; Kim, S.-S.; Nam, M.S.; Kim, T.-H. Implementation of Noise-Free and Vibration-Free PHC Screw Piles on the Basis of Full-Scale Tests. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 960–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Komazawa, T.; Harada, O.; Inazumi, K. Installation of Steel Pipe Piles and Steel Pipe Sheet Pile for Bridge Foundation Using Vibratory Inner-Excavation Method (NB SYSTEM). In Geotechnics for Sustainable Infrastructure Development. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Duc Long, P., Dung, N., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; Volume 62, pp. 451–458. [Google Scholar]
- Zingoni, A. Advances in Engineering Materials, Structures and Systems: Innovations, Mechanics and Applications. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation (SEMC 2019), Cape Town, South Africa, 2–4 September 2019; CRC Press LLC: Cape Town, South Africa, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Colaço, A.; Alves Costa, P.; Mont’Alverne Parente, C.; Silva Cardoso, A. Ground-Borne Noise and Vibrations in Buildings Induced by Pile Driving: An Integrated Approach. Appl. Acoust. 2021, 179, 108059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahl, P.H.; Dall’osto, D.R.; Laughlin, J. Measurements of Pile Driving Noise from Control Piles and Noise-Reduced Piles at the Vashon Island Ferry Dock. Available online: https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/Env-Noise-MonRpt-VashonControlNoiseReducedPiles.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2023).
- Beach, V. Pile Driving Noise Measurements at Atlantic Fleet Naval Installations: 28 May 2013–28 April 2016; HDR: Virginia Beach, VA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bellmann, M.A.; May, A.; Wendt, T.; Gerlach, S.; Remmers, P.; Brinkmann, J. Underwater Noise Duringthe Impulse Pile-Driving Procedure: Influencing Factors on Pile-Driving Noiseand Technical Possibilities to Comply with Noise Mitigation Values; Institute of Technical and Applied Physics (itap) GmbH: Oldenburg, Germany; German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB): Berlin, Germany, 2020.
- Juretzek, C.; Schmidt, B.; Boethling, M. Turning Scientific Knowledge into Regulation: Effective Measures for Noise Mitigation of Pile Driving. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagenknecht, F. Assessment of Noise Mitigation Measures during Pile Driving of Larger Offshore Wind Foundations. EGU J. Ren. En. Rev. 2021, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, D.; Lee, W.S.; Hong, J.K. Characteristics of Construction Machinery Noise and Vibration. Trans. Korean Soc. Noise Vib. Eng. 2005, 15, 645–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Svinkin, M.R. Forensic Engineering of Construction Vibrations. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Forensic. Eng. 2013, 166, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grizi, A.; Athanasopoulos-Zekkos, A.; Woods, R.D. H-Pile Driving Induced Vibrations: Reduced-Scale Laboratory Testing and Numerical Analysis. In IFCEE 2018; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2018; pp. 165–175. [Google Scholar]
- Vytiniotis, A.; Casey, B.; Sykora, D.W. Lateral Soil Movements Due to Pile Driving: A Case Study in Soft Clays. In IFCEE 2018; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Liang, Y.; Feng, Q.; Fu, M.; Wu, B.; Lu, J.; Tang, G. Prediction and Monitoring of the Construction Vibration Effect on an Adjacent Old Long Span Double-Convex Arch Bridge. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2022, 26, 2183–2201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.N.; Markides, B.D. Vibration Associated with Construction of DCIS Enlarged-Base Piles. In Proceedings of the First Southern African Geotechnical Conference, Sun City, South Africa, 5–6 May 2016; pp. 53–58. [Google Scholar]
- Musir, A.A.; Ghani, A.N.A. A Study of Pile Driving Effects on Nearby Building. Int. J. Geomate 2014, 6, 806–810. [Google Scholar]
- Cleary, J.C.; Gillis, A.S.; Steward, E.J. A Case Study of Ground Vibrations Due to Pile Driving in Mobile, Alabama. In Forensic Engineering 2015; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2015; pp. 132–142. ISBN 9780784479711. [Google Scholar]
- Wojtowicz, A.; Michałek, J.; Ubysz, A. Range of Dynamic Impact of Geotechnical Works on Reinforced Concrete Structures. E3S Web Conf. 2019, 97, 03026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vavrina, L.; Windeln, D. Example of a Low Vibration Deep Foundation with Precast Driven Piles. Bautechnik 2017, 94, 661–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.J.; Lee, K.H.; Jamin, J.C.; Mission, J.L.C. Stochastic Cost Optimization of Ground Improvement with Prefabricated Vertical Drains and Surcharge Preloading. Geomech. Eng. 2014, 7, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abu-Farsakh, M.Y.; Haque, M.N.; Tavera, E.; Zhang, Z. Evaluation of Pile Setup from Osterberg Cell Load Tests and Its Cost–Benefit Analysis. Transp. Res. Rec. 2017, 2656, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, W.; Tang, H.; Juang, C.H.; Martin, J.R.; Wang, L. Optimization-Based Design of Stabilizing Piles. In Proceedings of the GeoShanghai 2018 International Conference: Geoenvironment and Geohazard; Farid, A., Chen, H., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 45–53. [Google Scholar]
- Hernández-Montes, E.; Alameda-Hernández, P.; Gil-Martín, L.M. Strength Design Criterion for Asymmetrically Reinforced RC Circular Cross-Sections in Bending. Comput. Concr. 2013, 11, 571–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sales, M.M.; Lima, B.S.; Almeida, S.R.M.; Farias, M.M. Automatic Optimization of Piled Raft Design Based on Branch and Bound Method. Struct. Des. Tall Special Build. 2015, 24, 351–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mozakka, I.; Zeynalian, M.; Hashemi, M. A Feasibility Study on Construction Methods of High Voltage Transmission Towers’ Foundations. Archiv. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2021, 21, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lateef, H.H.; Burhan, A.M. Time-Cost-Quality Trade-off Model for Optimal Pile Type Selection Using Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm. Civ. Eng. J. 2019, 5, 2461–2471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mata, P.; Silva, P.F.; Pinho, F.F.S. Risk Management of Bored Piling Construction on Sandy Soils with Real-Time Cost Control. Infrastructures 2021, 6, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mekdash, H.; Jaber, L.; Temsah, Y.; Sadek, M. Reinforcement of Concrete Shoring Systems by Prestressing. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2022, 2022, 2383781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amornfa, K.; Quang, H.T.; Tuan, T.V.; Amornfa, K.; Quang, H.T.; Tuan, T.V. 3D Numerical Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation for Ho Chi Minh City Subsoil Conditions. Geomech. Eng. 2022, 29, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, W.; Li, C.; Zhan, H.; Zhang, H.; Chen, W. Probabilistic Multi-Objective Optimization for Landslide Reinforcement with Stabilizing Piles in Zigui Basin of Three Gorges Reservoir Region, China. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2020, 34, 807–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hazirbaba, K.; Mughieda, O. A Comparative Study of Targeted Ground Improvement Alternatives during Site Reclamation. Jordan J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 13, 180–196. [Google Scholar]
- Puppala, A.J.; Pedarla, A. Innovative Ground Improvement Techniques for Expansive Soils. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2017, 2, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yap, J.B.H.; Lam, C.G.Y.; Skitmore, M.; Talebian, N. Barriers To The Adoption Of New Safety Technologies In Construction: A Developing Country Context. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2022, 28, 120–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, T.; Praveen, A. Regulating Natural Resource Consumption in the Construction Sector Using Emergy Model. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1114, 012033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atradius, N.V. Industry Trends Construction Credit Risk Outlook Clouded by High Levels of Uncertainty. Available online: www.atradius.com (accessed on 2 January 2024).
- Mowafy, N.; El Zayat, M.; Marzouk, M. Parametric BIM-Based Life Cycle Assessment Framework for Optimal Sustainable Design. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 75, 106898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilani, G.; Hosseini, S.M.A.; Pons-Valladares, O.; de la Fuente, A. An Enhanced Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach Oriented to Sustainability Analysis of Building Facades: A Case Study of Barcelona. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 54, 104630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhyan, P.; Shrivastava, B.; Kumar, N. Allocating Weightage to Sustainability Criteria’s for Performance Assessment of Group Housing Developments: Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 65, 105684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Criterion | Number of Publications | Pile | Ground Improvement | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Environment | Materials | 81 | Carbon footprint for CFA piles [7], prestressed pipe pile [63], precast concrete piles [65], different pile investment (no indication of technology) [62], LCA for driven piles and drilled shafts [64] | Carbon footprint for VR [7], DSM [7], CSM wall [61], different investment (no indication of technology) [62], granular pile [57] |
Transport | Carbon footprint for CFA piles [7] prestressed pipe pile [63], precast concrete piles [65], different pile investments (no indication of technology) [62] | Carbon footprint for VR [7], DSM [7], different investments (no indication of technology) [62] | ||
Energy | Carbon footprint for CFA piles [7], prestressed pipe pile [63], precast concrete piles [65], LCA for driven piles and drilled shafts [64] | Carbon footprint for VR [7], DSM [7], different investments (no indication of technology) [62] | ||
Waste | Carbon footprint for CFA piles [7] | Carbon footprint for VR [7], DSM [7] | ||
Noise | 54 | Pile driving with diesel hammers—100–120 dB [66]; vibration loading of piles by vibration loaders and vibrohammering of piles with vibrohammers—80–100 dB [66]; earth auger ≈80 dB [78] | – | |
Vibration | 233 | The most-frequent vibration frequencies for driving sheet piles—25–30 Hz [86]; Franki pile driver—25–30 Hz [86]; prefabricated pile driver—more diverse [86] | The most-frequent vibration frequencies for pulse substrate compaction technology—5–25 Hz [86] | |
Time-efficient/Cost-effective | 581/355 | Reinforced concrete piles [96], post-tensioned piles [96], piled raft foundation [97] | Excavation and replacement [99], DSM [99], jet grouting [99], vibrocompaction [99], deep dynamic compaction [99] |
Id. | Name | Description |
---|---|---|
1 | A large number of potential technologies available for utilization | The contemporary geotechnical sector encompasses an extensive spectrum of technologies, from a variety of foundation piles to an array of ground improvement methods. The significant proportion of these technologies offer the capability of interchangeable application, thereby affording considerable versatility in addressing a broad range of geotechnical engineering challenges [7]. |
2 | New technologies based on the use of eco-friendly materials | New technologies in geotechnical engineering are increasingly incorporating eco-friendly materials [100]. Studies in this field are focusing on developing alternatives to traditional cement, exploring the use of waste and recycled materials or reinforcement modifications. |
3 | Lack of comprehensive tools for assessing the sustainability of solutions | There is a notable lack of comprehensive and effective tools for assessing the sustainability aspects of geotechnical solutions, which hinders a holistic assessment. |
4 | Focus mainly on materials used in technologies | The analyses predominantly center around the materials employed in geotechnical methods, with considerations for aspects like transportation and energy consumption infrequently integrated into the assessments. |
5 | Legislative changes | New legal regulations (e.g., the European Green Deal and the Fit for 55 package) require participants in the construction process to align their activities with environmental requirements and adhere to emerging guidelines and strategies shaping technical standards. |
6 | Reluctance to adopt new and lesser-known technologies | The construction industry continues to exhibit a notably low acceptance rate for the adoption of new technologies [101]. |
7 | Potential cost savings through the implementation of sustainable technologies | Potential cost savings can be achieved, for instance, by enhancing operational efficiency and integrating recycled materials. |
8 | Lack of unified databases on emissions | Creating a comprehensive database pertaining to emissions stands as a pivotal necessity in the realm of construction project optimization, facilitating precise computations [63]. This solution proves essential for informed decision-making and ensuring accuracy in the assessment. |
9 | Strong position of well-known technologies | Well-established technologies currently hold a dominant position in the industry, largely due to their proven track record, familiarity, and widespread acceptance. |
10 | Lack of standards/guidelines for new technologies | Some technologies lack established normative guidelines, and in some cases, they are still in the process of being developed (e.g., prEN 1997-3:202x). |
11 | Insufficiently detailed analyses considering multiple aspects | A recurring pattern in research is the frequent concentration on singular aspects, such as the carbon footprint or specific life cycle phases, while comprehensive analyses covering all sustainable development criteria are seldom conducted. |
12 | Difficulties in comparing technologies with each other | The complete characterization of none of the investigated technologies in terms of the analyzed integrated design criteria has been undertaken, introducing challenges in conducting a comprehensive comparative assessment between them. |
13 | Concern for the health and well-being of workers and individuals near investments | Widespread complaints about inconveniences related to geotechnical work [66] underscore the significance of technologies that are free from disruptive noise and vibrations. |
14 | Reduction of negative impact on the natural environment | The role of the environmental aspect is gaining increasing importance. Particularly, the issue of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming has become a priority area of concern. Existing statistics unequivocally indicate that the construction sector is responsible for approximately 40% of total greenhouse gas emissions. |
15 | Reduction of resource and energy consumption | Emphasis is placed on reducing resource and energy consumption in geotechnical methods, aiming for more efficient and sustainable practices. Available reports indicate that the construction industry consumes more resources than any other industrial sector, underscoring its responsibility in this regard [102]. |
16 | Socioeconomic trends | In the face of widespread concern about climate change and the need to reduce emissions, there is increasing pressure on construction companies to mitigate their environmental impact. Simultaneously, solutions that are financially advantageous are being sought [103]. |
Factor | C | R | C + R | C − R | Role |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1.38 | 0.00 | 1.38 | 1.38 | Cause |
2 | 1.51 | 0.94 | 2.45 | 0.57 | Cause |
3 | 0.59 | 0.57 | 1.16 | 0.03 | Cause |
4 | 0.96 | 0.17 | 1.13 | 0.78 | Cause |
5 | 0.83 | 0.00 | 0.83 | 0.83 | Cause |
6 | 0.83 | 0.84 | 1.67 | 0.00 | Effect |
7 | 0.19 | 0.57 | 0.76 | −0.37 | Effect |
8 | 0.84 | 0.72 | 1.56 | 0.12 | Cause |
9 | 0.63 | 1.01 | 1.64 | −0.38 | Effect |
10 | 0.85 | 0.83 | 1.67 | 0.02 | Cause |
11 | 0.15 | 1.04 | 1.19 | −0.89 | Effect |
12 | 0.00 | 1.28 | 1.28 | −1.28 | Effect |
13 | 0.00 | 0.71 | 0.71 | −0.71 | Effect |
14 | 0.65 | 0.54 | 1.19 | 0.11 | Cause |
15 | 0.56 | 0.62 | 1.18 | −0.05 | Effect |
16 | 0.39 | 0.56 | 0.95 | −0.16 | Effect |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mach, A.; Wałach, D. Implementation of Integrated Life Cycle Design Principles in Ground Improvement and Piling Methods—A Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 659. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020659
Mach A, Wałach D. Implementation of Integrated Life Cycle Design Principles in Ground Improvement and Piling Methods—A Review. Sustainability. 2024; 16(2):659. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020659
Chicago/Turabian StyleMach, Aleksandra, and Daniel Wałach. 2024. "Implementation of Integrated Life Cycle Design Principles in Ground Improvement and Piling Methods—A Review" Sustainability 16, no. 2: 659. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020659
APA StyleMach, A., & Wałach, D. (2024). Implementation of Integrated Life Cycle Design Principles in Ground Improvement and Piling Methods—A Review. Sustainability, 16(2), 659. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020659