Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Wrap-Faced Retaining Walls: A Comprehensive Life-Cycle Evaluation in Bangladesh
Monir Hossain
Department of Civil Engineering, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand
Shoma Hore
Department of Chemistry, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Mushfika Ansary
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, USA
Arifuggaman Arif
Department of Civil Engineering, Huaiyin Institute of Technology, Huai’an, China
Afm Nurun Nabi
Midstream and Terminal Services, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Zamiul Ahmed
Department of Civil Engineering, East West University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Mosharof Al-Alim
Biological & Agricultural Engineering, Louisiana State University, LA, USA
Rubayet Bin Mostafiz
Biological & Agricultural Engineering, Louisiana State University, LA, USA
Ripon Hore
Independent Researcher, Baton Rouge, LA, United States
Mehedi A. Ansary
Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, Bangladesh
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/ce.v4i1.13013
Keywords: sustainable construction; bioengineering; life cycle analysis (LCA); CO2 emission; global warming potential (GWP); wrap-faced retaining wall
Abstract
In the field of geotechnical engineering, there's a growing emphasis on climate-friendly and sustainable approaches, leading to a heightened demand for solutions that integrate technical, ecological, and aesthetic considerations. In response, life cycle assessment (LCA) has become increasingly important as a method for assessing the environmental effects of geotechnical engineering projects. This paper focuses on a soil and water soil and water bioengineering construction project that utilizes geotextile to construct a wrap-faced retaining wall. The objective is to evaluate the wall's contribution to global warming potential (GWP) by evaluating its CO2 emissions. The results highlight the significant environmental advantages of soil and water soil and water bioengineering compared to conventional approaches, especially in terms of global warming potential (GWP). The selection of materials is crucial in determining this benefit, as wrap-faced walls exhibit significantly reduced carbon footprints in comparison to conventional alternatives such as reinforced concrete (RC) walls and mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. The carbon footprint of soil and water soil and water bioengineering constructions is estimated to be nine times lower than RC walls and three times lower than MSE walls, indicating a notable reduction in emissions associated with their construction and utilization. This comprehensive approach ensures a thorough examination of the environmental impact throughout the entire lifecycle of soil and water soil and water bioengineering projects, facilitating informed decision-making and sustainable practices in construction and bioengineering.
References
1.Von der Thannen M, Hoerbinger S, Muellebner C, Biber H, Rauch HP. Case study of a water soil and water bioengineering construction site in Austria. Ecological aspects and application of an environmental life cycle assessment model. Int J Energy Environ Eng. 2021; 12:599-609.
2.Goedkoop MJ. The Eco-indicator 99 a damage-oriented method for life cycle impact assessment methodology report. Pre-Consultants; 1999.
3.Paya-Zaforteza I, Yepes V, Hospitaler A, Gonzalez-Vidosa F. CO2-optimization of reinforced concrete frames by simulated annealing. Eng Struct. 2009; 31:1501-1508.
4.Yepes V, Gonzalez-Vidosa F, Alcala J, Villalba P. CO2-optimization design of reinforced concrete retaining walls based on a VNS-threshold acceptance strategy. J Comput Civ Eng. 2012; 26:378-386.
5.Slope Stabilization using nature-based engineering solution: A Case Study of Doi Inthanon Radar Station, Thailand. 2024.
6.de Melo DL, Kendall A, DeJong JT. Evaluation of life cycle assessment (LCA) use in geotechnical engineering. Environ Res Infrastruct Sustain. 2024; 4:012001.
7.Worrell E, Price L, Martin N, Hendriks C, Meida LO. Carbon dioxide emissions from the global cement industry. Annu Rev Energy Environ. 2001; 26:303-329.
8.Le Quéré C, et al. Global Carbon Project: the 2013 Global Carbon Budget (Version 2.3, issued June 2014). Environ Syst Sci Data Infrastruct Virtual Ecosyst (ESS-DIVE); Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States); 2013.
9.Tiwari P, Parikh J, Sharma V. Performance evaluation of cost-effective buildings—A cost, emissions and employment point of view. Build Environ. 1996; 31:75-90.
10.Itoh Y, Kitagawa T. Using CO2 emission quantities in bridge lifecycle analysis. Eng Struct. 2003; 25:565-577.
11.Sharma A, Saxena A, Sethi M, Shree V. Life cycle assessment of buildings: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2011; 15:871-875.
12.Parikh J, Panda M, Murthy S. CO2 emissions by income groups in urban and rural India. Indira Gandhi Inst Dev Res; 1993.
13.Gielen DJ. Building materials and CO2: Western European emission reduction strategies. ECN-C-97-065, Energy Research Center of the Netherlands; 1997.
14.Gartner E. Industrially interesting approaches to “low-CO2” cements. Cem Concr Res. 2004; 34:1489-1498.
15.Yang L, Zmeureanu R, Rivard H. Comparison of environmental impacts of two residential heating systems. Build Environ. 2008; 43:1072-1081.
16.European Commission. A Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low Carbon Economy in 2050. COM (2011) 112 Final; 2011.
17.European Commission. A Clean Planet for All. A European Strategic Long-Term Vision for a Prosperous, Modern, Competitive and Climate Neutral Economy. COM (2018) 773 Final; 2018.
18.European Commission. European Council Meeting (12 December 2019)—Conclusions. EUCO 29/19; 2019.
19.Ministry of the Environment and Energy. The Swedish Climate Policy Framework. Government Offices of Sweden; 2017.
20.Fossil Free Sweden. Roadmap for Fossil-Free Competitiveness: Construction and Civil Engineering Sector. Fossil Free Sweden; 2018.
21.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.
22.Pradhan S, Tiwari BR, Kumar S, Barai SV. Comparative LCA of recycled and natural aggregate concrete using Particle Packing Method and conventional method of design mix. J Clean Prod. 2019; 228:679-691.
23.CEN. EN 15978: 2011 11 - Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of environmental performance of buildings - Calculation method Planning & implementation of construction projects, Buildings, Other buildings. DIN EN 15978; 2011.
24.Vieira DR, Calmon JL, Coelho FZ. Life cycle assessment (LCA) applied to the manufacturing of common and ecological concrete: A review. Constr Build Mater. 2016; 124:656-666.
25.Inui T, Chau C, Soga K, Nicolson D. Embodied energy and gas emissions of retaining wall structures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 2011; 137:958-967.
26.Pons JJ, Penadés-Plà V, Yepes V, Martí JV. Life cycle assessment of earth-retaining walls: An environmental comparison. J Clean Prod. 2018; 192:411-420.
27.Damians IP, Bathurst RJ, Adroguer EG, Josa A, Lloret A. Environmental assessment of earth retaining wall structures. Environ Geotech. 2017; 4:415-431.
28.Shillaber CM, Mitchell JK, Dove JE. Energy and carbon assessment of ground improvement works. I: Definitions and background. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 2015; 142:04015083.
29.Shillaber CM, Mitchell JK, Dove JE. Energy and carbon assessment of ground improvement works. II: Working model and example. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 2015; 142:04015084.
30.Da Rocha CG, Passuello A, Consoli NC, Samaniego RAQ, Kanazawa NM. Life cycle assessment for soil stabilization dosages: A study for the Paraguayan Chaco. J Clean Prod. 2016; 139:309-318.
31.Forsythe P, Ding G. Greenhouse gas emissions from excavation on residential construction sites. Australas J Constr Econ Build. 2014; 14:1-10.
32.Misra A, Basu D. A quantitative sustainability indicator system for pile foundations. Proc GeoCongress 2012, Oakland, CA, USA, 25-29 March 2012, 4252-4261; 2012.
33.Giri RK, Reddy KR. LCA and sustainability assessment for selecting deep foundation system for high-rise buildings. Proc ICSI 2014: Creating Infrastructure for a Sustainable World, Long Beach, CA, USA, 6-8 November 2014, Crittenden J, Hendrickson C, Wallace B, Eds.; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 621-630; 2014.
34.Ay-Eldeen MK, Negm AM. Global warming potential impact due to pile foundation construction using life cycle assessment. Electron J Geotech Eng. 2015; 20:4413-4421.
35.ISO. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006 07 01. Vol. ISO 14040:2006; 2006.
36.ISO. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO 14040:2006; 2006.
37.ISO. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. ISO 14044; 2006.
38.European Committee for Standardization. Sustainability of Construction Works-Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings-Calculation Method. EN 15978:2011; 2011.
39.Hossain MZ, Hore R, Ansary MA. Model tests of reinforced soil retaining sand walls by shaking table test. Arab J Geosci. 2024; 17:166.
40.Hammond G, Jones C. Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) V2.0. University of Bath; 2011.
41.Catalonia Institute of Construction Technology. BEDEC PR/PCT ITEC materials database. http://www.itec.es/nouBedec.e/presentaciobedec.aspx; 2009.
42.Raja J, Dixon N, Fowmes G, Frost M, Assinder P. Obtaining reliable embodied carbon values for geosynthetics. Geosynth Int. 2015; 22:393-401.
43.Dixon N, Raja J, Fowmes G, Frost M. Sustainability aspects of using geotextiles. In Geotextiles. Woodhead Publishing; 2016. p. 577-596.
44.Sukontasukkul P. Methodology for calculating carbon dioxide emission in the production of ready-mixed concrete. In Proc 1st Int Conf Comput Technol Concr Struct [CTCS’09]; 2009.
45.De Almeida Bezerra JV, Mota TG, da Silva Andrade HM, de Andrade LP, Vigoderis RB. Comparative study of retaining walls aiming to optimize carbon footprint. Rev Ibero-Am Ciências Ambientais. 2020; 11:460-467.
46.Oliveira LS, Pacca SA, John VM. Variability in the life cycle of concrete block CO2 emissions and cumulative energy demand in the Brazilian Market. Construction and Building Materials. 2016 Jul 1; 114:588-94.
47.Berg RR, Samtani NC, Christopher BR. Design of mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes–Volume II. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration; 2009 Nov 1.
48.Spielmann M, Scholz R. Life cycle inventories of transport services: Background data for freight transport (10 pp). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2005 Jan; 10:85-94.