{"id":17857,"date":"2024-02-12T09:55:03","date_gmt":"2024-02-12T09:55:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/?page_id=17857"},"modified":"2024-02-13T15:35:04","modified_gmt":"2024-02-13T15:35:04","slug":"bored-piling-system","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/?page_id=17857","title":{"rendered":"Bored piling system"},"content":{"rendered":"

System: Bored piles | Subsystem \/ Component – Piling Concrete<\/h1>\n

My system focused on the bored piling system, particularly bearing piles, for bridge foundations. Concrete’s composition and complexity, including additives and replacement materials, are outlined. Selecting the appropriate mix is crucial, considering factors like project scope, soil conditions, and resource availability. Constraints, such as steel density and environmental concerns, impact material selection. Time for strength development, workability, and sustainability are also key considerations, often requiring trade-offs for optimal solutions.<\/p>\n

Goal and scope of the study<\/h1>\n

Goas of the LCA analysis was to introduce a quantitative framework for evaluating the environmental sustainability of different concrete mix designs for piling systems. It focuses on comparing the environmental impact of three concrete mix options: conventional piling, piling without groundwater, and piling with stabilizing fluids. The study’s scope includes the initial life cycle phases, production processes, transportation, and on-site construction of bored piles. Unlike traditional approaches, it also incorporates the use phase, maintenance, and repairs, assuming potential deterioration requiring intervention. The functional unit is 1 m\u00b3 of concrete, reflecting the quantity needed for casting bored piles with a defined service life and mechanical load.<\/p>\n

Regarding the scope of the LCA, the system boundaries are presented in Figure 1.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"scopeofthelca\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure <\/strong>1<\/strong>.<\/strong> Scope of the LCA.<\/p>\n

Design alternatives and concrete design mixtures<\/h1>\n

The three concrete mix designs undergoing LCA are summarized in Table 1<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Figure 2<\/strong> shows a sketch of the bored pile considered in the study.<\/p>\n

\"boredpilofmy-system\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 2.<\/strong> The bored pile of our system<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table 1.<\/strong> The three design options of the study<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Design option<\/td>\nPiling Material<\/td>\nDimension (Area x Depth)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Option 1 \u2013 Conventional without water<\/td>\nReady Mix 1<\/td>\nDiameter: 0.90 mDepth: 25.0 m<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Option 2 \u2013 conventional with water<\/td>\nReady Mix 2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Option 3 \u2013 With stabilizing fluid<\/td>\nReady Mix 3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

In this study the data were collected associated with the energy consumption for fabrication and processing (MJ\/t), CO2<\/sub>, NOx<\/sub>, SO2<\/sub> (kg\/m3<\/sup>) and presented in Table 2<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Table 2.<\/strong> Material content of each concrete mix design the main substances emitted to air (in kg) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
DesignOption<\/td>\nMaterial<\/td>\nQuantity [kg\/m\u00b3]<\/td>\nEnergy<\/td>\nCO2 <\/sub><\/td>\nNOx<\/sub><\/td>\nSO2<\/sub><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\nCement II\/A<\/td>\n330<\/td>\n3.192<\/td>\n0.586<\/td>\n0.00157<\/td>\n0.00012<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\nFly ash<\/td>\n35<\/td>\n0.833<\/td>\n0.95<\/td>\n0.0019775<\/td>\n0.00454<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\nAggregates<\/td>\n1720<\/td>\n0,018457<\/td>\n0.0000728<\/td>\n0.000597<\/td>\n0.0000467<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\nAdmixtures<\/td>\n9.4<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n0.720<\/td>\n0.0018<\/td>\n0.0036<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nCement III\/A<\/td>\n365<\/td>\n1.587<\/td>\n0.222<\/td>\n0.00051<\/td>\n0.00051<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nFly ash<\/td>\n35<\/td>\n0.833<\/td>\n0.95<\/td>\n0.0019775<\/td>\n0.00454<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nAggregates<\/td>\n1642<\/td>\n0,018457<\/td>\n0.0000728<\/td>\n0.000597<\/td>\n0.0000467<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nAdmixtures<\/td>\n8.2<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n0.720<\/td>\n0.0018<\/td>\n0.0036<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nCement I<\/td>\n200<\/td>\n4.094<\/td>\n0.810<\/td>\n0.002<\/td>\n0.0006<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nGGBFS Blast furnace slag<\/td>\n200<\/td>\n1.58<\/td>\n0.849<\/td>\n0.00010015<\/td>\n0.000341<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nAggregates<\/td>\n1751<\/td>\n0,018457<\/td>\n0.0000728<\/td>\n0.000597<\/td>\n0.0000467<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nAdmixtures<\/td>\n4.40<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n0.720<\/td>\n0.0018<\/td>\n0.0036<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00a0Life cycle timeline<\/h1>\n

System lifespan with interventions<\/h2>\n

In the Figure 3 – Figure 5<\/strong> are visualized the system lifespan with interventions for the three concrete design mixes investigated.<\/p>\n

\"lifespanrm1\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 3.<\/strong> System lifespan with interventions for the Ready mix 1 concrete design mix<\/p>\n

\"lifespanrm2\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 4.<\/strong> System lifespan with interventions for the Ready mix 2 concrete design mix<\/p>\n

\"lifespanrm3\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 5.<\/strong> \u00a0System lifespan with interventions for the Ready mix 3 concrete design mix<\/p>\n

\u00a0Life Cycle Inventory and Analysis<\/h1>\n

The characterization of each category comparatively displays impacts associated with each mix design and are shown in Figure 6 – Figure 9. The comparison of the of the three concrete mix designs in terms of energy consumption, CO2<\/sub>, NOx<\/sub>, SO2<\/sub> emissions reveals significant differences.<\/p>\n

Ready Mix 1 exhibits high energy consumption, while Ready Mix 2 displays the lowest. However, Ready Mix 2 has favorable CO2 emissions due to its low Portland cement content. Ready Mix 3 shows the highest CO2 emissions but falls in between the others for energy consumption. Regarding NOx emissions, Ready Mix 3 has the highest impact, followed by Ready Mix 2 and then Ready Mix 1 with the lowest. Ready Mix 2 also exhibits the highest SO2 emissions, while Ready Mix 1 has the lowest, and Ready Mix 3 falls in between.<\/p>\n

\"energy-consumption-for-the-three-concrete-mix-designs\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 6.<\/strong> Energy consumption for the three concrete mix designs<\/p>\n

\"co2-emissions-for-the-three-concrete-mix-designs\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 7.<\/strong> CO2<\/sub> emissions for the three concrete mix designs<\/p>\n

\"nox-emissions-for-the-three-concrete-mix-designs\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 8.<\/strong> NOx<\/sub> emissions for the three concrete mix designs<\/p>\n

\"so2-emissions-for-the-three-concrete-mix-designs\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 9.<\/strong> SO2<\/sub> emissions for the three concrete mix designs<\/p>\n

MCDM \u2013 Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)<\/h1>\n

Pairwise Comparisons<\/h2>\n

This section employs Saaty’s 1-9 scale to prioritize CO2<\/sub> emissions and energy consumption over NOx<\/sub> and SO2<\/sub> emissions. Table 3 outlines the priority levels for pairwise comparisons. Energy and CO2<\/sub> emissions receive higher importance (30% and 50%, respectively), while NOx<\/sub> and SO2 <\/sub>are assigned lower priority (10% each). By integrating these priorities into the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Figure 10 ranks concrete design mixes. Surprisingly, Ready Mix 1 emerges as the top choice, contradicting expectations based solely on production processes.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Table 3.<\/strong> Level of priority in the study for the pairwise comparison<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Energy<\/td>\nCO2<\/sub><\/td>\nNOx<\/sub><\/td>\nSO2<\/sub><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
30%<\/td>\n50%<\/td>\n10%<\/td>\n10%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"ranking-of-the-design-options\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Figure 10.<\/strong> Ranking of the design options<\/p>\n

References<\/h1>\n

[1]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 G. Habert, J. B. d\u2019Espinose De Lacaillerie, und N. Roussel, \u201eAn environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends\u201c, J. Clean. Prod., Bd. 19, Nr. 11, S. 1229\u20131238, Juli 2011, doi: 10.1016\/j.jclepro.2011.03.012.<\/p>\n

[2]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 A. Josa, A. Aguado, A. Heino, E. Byars, und A. Cardim, \u201eComparative analysis of available life cycle inventories of cement in the EU\u201c, Cem. Concr. Res., Bd. 34, Nr. 8, S. 1313\u20131320, Aug. 2004, doi: 10.1016\/j.cemconres.2003.12.020.<\/p>\n

[3]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 A. Josa, A. Aguado, A. Cardim, und E. Byars, \u201eComparative analysis of the life cycle impact assessment of available cement inventories in the EU\u201c, Cem. Concr. Res., Bd. 37, Nr. 5, S. 781\u2013788, Mai 2007, doi: 10.1016\/j.cemconres.2007.02.004.<\/p>\n

[4]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 P. Van Den Heede und N. De Belie, \u201eEnvironmental impact and life cycle assessment (LCA) of traditional and \u2018green\u2019 concretes: Literature review and theoretical calculations\u201c, Cem. Concr. Compos., Bd. 34, Nr. 4, S. 431\u2013442, Apr. 2012, doi: 10.1016\/j.cemconcomp.2012.01.004.<\/p>\n

[5]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 J. Sjunnesson, \u201eLife Cycle Assessment of Concrete\u201c, 2005.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

System: Bored piles | Subsystem \/ Component – Piling Concrete My system focused on the bored piling system, particularly bearing piles, for bridge foundations. Concrete’s composition and complexity, including additives and replacement materials, are outlined.Continue reading<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":192,"featured_media":0,"parent":15979,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-17857","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/17857","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/192"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17857"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/17857\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18776,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/17857\/revisions\/18776"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/15979"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/141.23.68.248\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17857"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}