Environmental and Economic Optimization of a Conventional Concrete Building Foundation: Selecting the Best of 28 Alternatives by Applying the Pareto Front
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Deep Foundations
- Precast prestressed concrete (PPC) piles are prefabricated piles that are prestressed and driven in the ground using a diesel or hydraulic hammer (Figure 1). The main advantage of PPC piles over conventional precast piles is that they are more resistant given the same pile cross-section. Therefore, PPC piles are slender and lighter, making them easier to lift and drive. Additionally, the effect of prestressing closes the cracks of concrete caused during handling and driving, which combined with high-quality concrete, extends the durability of the prestressed pile.
- Fundex piles are built by drilling a metallic tube with a tip on the ground (Figure 2). Then, the reinforcement cage is installed and concrete is poured inside the tube. Finally, the metal tube is removed, leaving the sacrificial drill point in the soil, and the pile head is cut to ensure a good connection with the upper structure.
- Continuous flight auger (CFA) piles are drilled and concreted in one continuous operation, reducing installation time compared to bored piles (Figure 3). The reinforcement cage is then placed in the upper meters of the pile when concrete is still wet.
- Vibro-piles are built by driving a metal tube closed at the end by a sacrificial plate (Figure 4). Then, the reinforcement cage is installed, and concrete is poured inside the tube. Finally, an outer ring vibrator is used to extract the tube from the soil, leaving the sacrificial plate in the soil.
1.3. Previous Literature
1.4. Objectives
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Selection of Equivalent Alternatives
2.2. Case Study
2.3. Functional Unit
2.4. System Boundaries
2.5. Quantitative Model for Environmental Impact Category Calculation
2.6. Structural Design of Ground Beams
2.7. Geotechnical and Structural Design of Piles
2.8. Life Cycle Assessment
2.9. Data Sources
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Structural Results
3.2. Environmental Results
3.2.1. Piles
3.2.2. Foundation Alternatives (Piles and Beams)
3.3. Economic Results of Foundation Alternatives
3.4. Environmental-Economic Results of Foundation Alternatives (Pareto Front)
4. Conclusions
- None of the study variables guarantees that a foundation is sustainable. However, a combination of selected variables can reduce the environmental impact by up to 55% and the economic costs by up to 40% compared to the worst study alternatives. Materials accounted for 85–95% of the impact of the foundation; therefore, the combination of variables must guarantee a reduction in the impact of materials, particularly of steel on piles.
- From an environmental perspective, it is recommended to use PPC piles with small cross-sections because the environmental impact of the foundation is significantly reduced by up to 45–55% in all environmental indicators. It is also recommended to use vibro-piles with low amounts of reinforcement because the environmental impact can be reduced by up to 40–45%. In contrast, it is not recommended to use CFA piles or highly reinforced vibro-piles in this type of foundation. In addition, the use of prefabricated beams instead of cast in situ beams increases the environmental impact of the foundation by up to 5% in terms of eco-costs, ReCiPe, and CED and up to 10% in GWP over 100 years. Moreover, increasing the compressive strength of concrete in vibro-piles is highly recommended because it reduces the environmental impact of the foundation. For instance, the increase in concrete strength from C20/25 to C40/50 reduces the eco-costs, ReCiPe, and CED by up to 30% and the GWP over 100 years by up to 25%. Finally, the design of four piles per beam instead of three piles per beam can reduce the eco-costs and ReCiPe impact by 20–30%, GWP over 100 years by 15–20%, and CED by 15–25% due to the reduction in steel reinforcing amounts.
- From an economic perspective, it is preferable to select foundations with vibro-piles with high concrete strengths and with four-pile beams either cast in situ or prefabricated. Conversely, it is not recommended to select CPI piles or precast piles with large cross-sections. Additionally, increasing the strength of concrete from C20 to C30 and from C30 to C40 can reduce the cost of the foundation between 7% and 12% and from C20 to C40 by up to 15%. Moreover, designing four piles instead of three can reduce the economic cost of the foundation by up to 12%.
- From an environmental and economic perspective (Pareto front), foundations should have low amounts of concrete and especially steel in the piles. Thus, it is recommended to use piles with reduced cross-sections, as their width also conditions the amount of materials in beams. However, reducing the pile cross-section may increase the amount of steel reinforcement in piles, and then the use of a higher concrete strength can moderate steel amounts. Vibro-piles with higher concrete strengths with cast in situ or prefabricated beams and four piles per beam are the most recommended alternatives from this perspective. Alternatives with CFA piles, Fundex piles, and PPC piles with large cross-sections and three piles per beam are the least recommended.
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Paris Agreement. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris_en (accessed on 17 January 2020).
- IEA. GlobalABC Roadmap for Buildings and Construction 2020–2050—Analysis. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/globalabc-roadmap-for-buildings-and-construction-2020-2050 (accessed on 17 January 2020).
- de Klijn-Chevalerias, M.; Javed, S. The Dutch approach for assessing and reducing environmental impacts of building materials. Build. Environ. 2017, 111, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demertzi, M.; Silvestre, J.; Garrido, M.; Correia, J.R.; Durão, V.; Proença, M. Life cycle assessment of alternative building floor rehabilitation systems. Structures 2020, 26, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingrao, C.; Messineo, A.; Beltramo, R.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Ioppolo, G. How can life cycle thinking support sustainability of buildings? Investigating life cycle assessment applications for energy efficiency and environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 201, 556–569. [Google Scholar]
- Hoxha, E.; Habert, G.; Lasvaux, S.; Chevalier, J.; Le Roy, R. Influence of construction material uncertainties on residential building LCA reliability. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 144, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, X.; Carlsson, C.; Kiilsgaard, R.; Bendz, D.; Kennedy, H. Life Cycle Assessment of Geotechnical Works in Building Construction: A Review and Recommendations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Emami, N.; Heinonen, J.; Marteinsson, B.; Säynäjoki, A.; Junnonen, J.-M.; Laine, J.; Junnila, S. A Life Cycle Assessment of Two Residential Buildings Using Two Different LCA Database-Software Combinations: Recognizing Uniformities and Inconsistencies. Buildings 2019, 9, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ondova, M.; Estokova, A. Environmental impact assessment of building foundation in masonry family houses related to the total used building materials. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2016, 35, 1113–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S. Environmental emissions at foundation construction stage of buildings—Two case studies. Build. Environ. 2016, 95, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomlinson, M.J.; Woodward, J. Pile Design and Construction Practice, 6th ed.; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; ISBN 9781466592636. [Google Scholar]
- Ay-Eldeen, M.K.; Negm, A.M. Global Warming Potential impact due to pile foundation construction using life cycle assessment. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 2015, 20, 4413–4421. [Google Scholar]
- Bonamente, E.; Cotana, F. Carbon and energy footprints of prefabricated industrial buildings: A systematic life cycle assessment analysis. Energies 2015, 8, 12685–12701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pujadas-Gispert, E.; Sanjuan-Delmás, D.; Josa, A. Environmental analysis of building shallow foundations: The influence of prefabrication, typology, and structural design codes. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 407–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Union. NEN-EN 206+NEN 8005:2017 Beton—Specificatie, Eigenschappen, Vervaardiging en Conformiteit + Nederlandse Invulling van NEN-EN 206; Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut: Delft, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, W.; Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G. Direct and indirect carbon emissions in foundation construction—Two case studies of driven precast and cast-in-situ piles. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1517–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pujadas-Gispert, E.; Sanjuan-Delmás, D.; de la Fuente, A.; Moonen, S.P.G.; Josa, A. Environmental analysis of concrete deep foundations: Influence of prefabrication, concrete strength, and design codes. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandanayake, M.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S.; Li, C.-Q.; Fang, J. Models and method for estimation and comparison of direct emissions in building construction in Australia and a case study. Energy Build. 2016, 126, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.; Wang, F. Assessment of embodied carbon emissions for building construction in China: Comparative case studies using alternative methods. Energy Build. 2016, 130, 330–340. [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]
- Lee, M.; Basu, D. Impacts of the Design Methods of Drilled Shafts in Sand on the Environment. In Proceedings of the Geo-Chicago 2016, Chicago, IL, USA, 14–18 August 2016; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2016; pp. 673–682. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.J.; Zheng, Y.D. 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]
- Pujadas, E.; de Llorens, J.I.; Moonen, S.P.G. Prefabricated Foundations for 3D Modular Housing. In Proceedings of the 39th World Congress on Housing Science: Changing Needs, Adaptive Buildings, Smart Cities (IAHS), Milan, Italy, 17–20 September 2013; ISBN 978-84-16724-93-2. [Google Scholar]
- Pujadas Gispert, E. Prefabricated Foundations for Housing Applied to Room Modules. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Vroom Funderingstechnieken. Available online: https://www.vroom.nl/ (accessed on 17 January 2020).
- European Union. NEN-EN 1990+A1+A1/C2:2019/NB:2019 Nationale Bijlage bij NEN-EN 1990+A1:2006+A1:2006/C2:2019 Eurocode: Grondslagen van het Constructief Ontwerp; Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut: Delft, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- European Union. NEN-EN 1991-1-1+C1+C11:2019/NB:2019 Nationale Bijlage bij NEN-EN 1991-1-1+C1+C11: Eurocode 1: Belastingen op Constructies—Deel 1-1: Algemene Belastingen—Volumieke Gewichten, Eigen Gewicht en Opgelegde Belastingen voor Gebouwen; Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut: Delft, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- European Union. NEN-EN 1992-1-1+C1:2011/NB:2016+A1:2020 Nationale Bijlage bij NEN-EN 1992-1-1+C2 Eurocode 2: Ontwerp en Berekening van Betonconstructies—Deel 1-1: Algemene Regels en Regels voor Gebouwen; Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut: Delft, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Technosoft. Balkroosters. Available online: https://www.technosoft.nl/rekensoftware/producten/balkroosters (accessed on 17 January 2020).
- Bouwbestel. Available online: https://www.bouwbestel.nl/ (accessed on 17 January 2020).
- European Union. NEN 9997-1+C2:2017 Geotechnisch Ontwerp van Constructies—Deel 1: Algemene Regels; Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut: Delft, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- European Union. NEN-EN 1536:2010+A1:2015 en Uitvoering van Bijzonder Geotechnisch werk—Boorpalen; Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut: Delft, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- NVN 6724:2001 Voorschriften Beton—In de Grond Gevormde Funderingselementen van Beton of Mortel; Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut: Delft, The Netherlands, 2001.
- ISO. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework; ISO 14040:2006; International Organization for Standardization: Geneve, Switzerland, 2006; Volume 1997. [Google Scholar]
- ISO. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO 14044:2006; International Organization for Standardization: Geneve, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- PRé SimaPro 9.2. Available online: https://pre-sustainability.com/ (accessed on 17 January 2020).
- Kägi, T.; Dinkel, F.; Frischknecht, R.; Humbert, S.; Lindberg, J.; De Mester, S.; Ponsioen, T.; Sala, S.; Schenker, U.W. Session “Midpoint, endpoint or single score for decision-making?”—SETAC Europe 25th Annual Meeting, May 5th, 2015. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sala, S.; Cerutti, A.K.; Pant, R. Development of a Weighting Approach for the Environmental Footprint; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018; ISBN 97892796804127. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 14008:2019—Monetary Valuation of Environmental Impacts and Related Environmental Aspects. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/43243.html (accessed on 17 January 2020).
- Hrabova, K.; Teply, B.; Vymazal, T. Sustainability assessment of concrete mixes. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Ostrava, Czech Republic, 25–27 November 2019; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Zula, T.; Kravanja, S. Optimization of the sustainability profit generated by the production of beams. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Technologies & Business Models for Circular Economy, Portorož, Slovenia, 5–7 September 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mebin, B.V. Available online: https://www.mebin.nl/nl (accessed on 17 January 2020).
- EcoQuaestor. Available online: https://www.ecoquaestor.nl/de-aanpak/ecokosten/ (accessed on 17 January 2020).
- Ecoinvent. Available online: https://www.ecoinvent.org/ (accessed on 17 January 2020).
- Idemat. Available online: https://www.ecocostsvalue.com/EVR/model/theory/5-data.html (accessed on 17 January 2020).
- Kellenberger, D.; Althaus, H.-J. Relevance of simplifications in LCA of building components. Build. Environ. 2009, 44, 818–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Concrete Centre. The Concrete Centre Sustainability Performance Report; 1st Report; Concrete Centre: Surrey, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- van Loon, R.R.L.; Pujadas-Gispert, E.; Moonen, S.P.G.; Blok, R. Environmental optimization of precast concrete beams using fibre reinforced polymers. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pareto Efficiency Definition. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pareto-efficiency.asp (accessed on 17 January 2021).
- Caldas, L.G.; Norford, L.K. Genetic Algorithms for Optimization of Building Envelopes and the Design and Control of HVAC Systems. J. Sol. Energy Eng. 2003, 125, 343–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostermeyer, Y.; Wallbaum, H.; Reuter, F. Multidimensional Pareto optimization as an approach for site-specific building refurbishment solutions applicable for life cycle sustainability assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1762–1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bernier, E.; Maréchal, F.; Samson, R. Life cycle optimization of energy-intensive processes using eco-costs. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2013, 18, 1747–1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- True Cost Economics Definition. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/truecosteconomics.asp (accessed on 17 January 2021).
Variables | Abbreviations | |
---|---|---|
1 | Number of foundation | 1–28 |
2 | Type of pile + diameter/side of the pile (mm) | Continuous flight auger pile (C), Vibro-pile (V), Fundex pile (F), Precast prestressed concrete pile (P) |
3 | Concrete strength | Cast in situ: C20/25 (20), C25/30 (25), C30/37 (30), C40/50 (40). Precast: 35/45 (35) |
4 | Beam | Cast in situ (I) (concrete is poured on site), Precast (P) (concrete is poured in a specialized facility) |
5 | Piles per beam | (3) and (4) |
6 | Width of the beam (mm) | Cast in situ (500, 550, 650) and Precast (300, 350, 400, 450) |
Element | Construction System | Loads |
---|---|---|
Ground floor | PS insulation floor | 3.6/2.55 kN/m2 |
First and second floors | Concrete floor | 5.7/2.55 kN/m2 |
Roof | Timber + tiles | 1.0/0.0 kN/m2 |
Facades | Timber frame construction + masonry | 2.5 kN/m2 |
Front facade | Sand-lime bricks + masonry | 4.3 kN/m2 |
Building wall | 2 × 120 mm sand-lime bricks construction | 4.5 kN/m2 |
Extension facade | Sand-lime bricks + masonry | 4.3 kN/m2 |
Roof extension | Concrete floor | 5.5/0.0 kN/m2 |
Item | Transportation | Distances (km) | Retrieved from | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
From | To | ||||
Cement | Place of production | Concrete plant Precast concrete plant | 75 | [14,17,46] | |
Aggregates | Place of production | Concrete plant Precast concrete plant | 40 | ||
Steel reinforcement | Place of production | Construction site Precast concrete plant | 130 | ||
Concrete | Place of production | Construction site | 30 | ||
Soil | Construction site | Landfill sites | 30 | ||
Waste | Construction site | Waste management facility | 30 | ||
Sawn timber | Place of production | Construction site | 50 | [46] | |
Additives | Place of production | Concrete plant Precast concrete plant | 100 | [14,17] | |
Precast units | Precast concrete plant | Construction site | 150 | [47] |
Foundation Alternative Code | Number | Piles | Concrete | Steel | Steel Reinforcement for Piles |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
u | m3 | kg | |||
1-C600-20/I3.650 | 1 | 32 | 169 | 4900 | 7Ø16 (3 m) + Ø25 (10 m) |
2-V305-20/I3.500 | 2 | 32 | 70 | 11,540 | 8Ø20 * |
3-V305-30/I3.500 | 3 | 32 | 70 | 9469 | 6Ø20 * |
4-V305-40/I3.500 | 4 | 32 | 70 | 6568 | 5Ø16 * |
5-V356-20/I3.500 | 5 | 32 | 81 | 6582 | 5Ø16 * |
6-V356-25/I3.500 | 6 | 32 | 81 | 5132 | 5Ø12 * |
7-F380-20/I3.500 | 7 | 32 | 83 | 7438 | 5Ø16 * |
8-F460-20/I3.550 | 8 | 32 | 106 | 7651 | 7Ø12 * |
9-P250-35/I4.500 | 9 | 41 | 66 | 2406 | 4Ø6.9 * |
10-P350-35/I3.500 | 10 | 32 | 92 | 3383 | 4Ø9.3 * |
11-V305-20/P3.400 | 11 | 32 | 65 | 11,468 | 8Ø20 * |
12-V305-30/P3.400 | 12 | 32 | 65 | 9397 | 6Ø20 * |
13-V305-40/P3.400 | 13 | 32 | 65 | 6497 | 5Ø16 * |
14-V356-20/P3.400 | 14 | 32 | 76 | 6510 | 5Ø16 * |
15-V356-25/P3.400 | 15 | 32 | 76 | 5060 | 5Ø12 * |
16-P350-35/P3.400 | 16 | 32 | 87 | 3311 | 4Ø9.3 * |
17-C500-20/I4.550 | 17 | 32 | 151 | 4622 | 5Ø16 (3 m) + Ø25 (10 m) |
18-V273-30/I4.500 | 18 | 41 | 70 | 10,765 | 6Ø20 * |
19-V273-40/I4.500 | 19 | 41 | 70 | 7048 | 5Ø16 * |
20-V305-20/I4.500 | 20 | 41 | 78 | 7911 | 6Ø16 * |
21-V305-30/I4.500 | 21 | 41 | 78 | 4727 | 4Ø12 * |
22-F380-20/I4.500 | 22 | 41 | 95 | 6460 | 5Ø12 * |
23-V273-30/P4.350 | 23 | 41 | 63 | 10,794 | 6Ø20 * |
24-V273-40/P4.350 | 24 | 41 | 63 | 7077 | 5Ø16 * |
25-V305-20/P4.350 | 25 | 41 | 71 | 7940 | 6Ø16 * |
26-V305-30/P4.350 | 26 | 41 | 71 | 4757 | 4Ø12 * |
27-F380-20/P4.450 | 27 | 41 | 93 | 6554 | 5Ø12 * |
28-P250-35/P4.300 | 28 | 41 | 64 | 2509 | 4Ø6.9 * |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pujadas-Gispert, E.; Vogtländer, J.G.; Moonen, S.P.G. Environmental and Economic Optimization of a Conventional Concrete Building Foundation: Selecting the Best of 28 Alternatives by Applying the Pareto Front. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1496. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031496
Pujadas-Gispert E, Vogtländer JG, Moonen SPG. Environmental and Economic Optimization of a Conventional Concrete Building Foundation: Selecting the Best of 28 Alternatives by Applying the Pareto Front. Sustainability. 2021; 13(3):1496. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031496
Chicago/Turabian StylePujadas-Gispert, Ester, Joost G. Vogtländer, and S. P. G. (Faas) Moonen. 2021. "Environmental and Economic Optimization of a Conventional Concrete Building Foundation: Selecting the Best of 28 Alternatives by Applying the Pareto Front" Sustainability 13, no. 3: 1496. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031496