Transportation Geotechnics: Sustainability Principles...

SARCI

Transportation Geotechnics:

Sustainability Principles, Case Studies

and Lessons Learned

Anand J. Puppala, Ph.D., PE

Associate Dean (Research) - College of Engineering

Director, Sustainable and Resilient Civil Infrastructure (SARCI) Center &

NSF IUCRC Site: CICI_UTA

Chair, TRB Soil Mechanics Section (AFS00)

The University of Texas at Arlington (UTA) – anand@uta.edu

www.uta.edu/sarci

International Symposium on Systematic Approaches to Environmental Sustainability in Transportation

Fairbanks, Alaska, Aug 4, 2015

SARCI

• Introductory Comments

• Sustainability in Geotechnical and Pavement

Engineering

• Innovations Toward Sustainability: Case Studies

& Lessons Learned

• Novel Material, Material Reuse, Geosynthetics

• Sustainability Assessments

• Concluding Remarks

SARCI

Social

Communication

Economic Life Cycle Cost Studies

Environment

Climate Friendly

Sustainability is defined as a requirement of our generation to manage

the resource base such that the average quality of life that we

ensure ourselves can potentially be shared by all

future generations. ...

SARCI

• To Understand Sustainability

• Engg background with focus on ‘environment’

• Science background

• Economics

• Social Skills - Communication

• Civil Engineer Training – Does it prepare?

SARCI

Conventional Design - little attention to energy, materials inputs, or waste

disposal

Basu, University of Waterloo

SARCI

Green Design - Design for the Environment (DFE)

Basu, University of Waterloo

SARCI

• Sustainability - “Global concept enacted locally”

• Meeting Today’s demands without compromising

Future needs

• Some fields in civil engineering – sustainability parts

easily distinguishable (e.g. Water Infrastructure)

• Other areas – Challenging

• Geotechnical and Pavement Engineering – Mixed bag!

SARCI

Sustainability in Geotechnical engineering Misra and Basu (2011)

Sustainability

Aspects for

subgrade

SARCI

• Most of the sustainable solutions

comes from material recycle &

reuse and material waste

reengineering

Source: Waste Management

“Green” – Recycle & Reuse

versus

“Traditional” Services (Landfilling

and others)

SARCI

• Waste Materials – Reuse/Recycle

• Coal Combustion Products

• Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) and Recycled

Concrete Pavement Aggregates

• Glass, Fibers and Composts

• Construction Wastes

• Pavement/Foundation Alternatives

• Ground Improvement

SARCI

Coal Combustion: Products

By-products resulting from the combustion of pulverized coal

in thermal power plants – Fly Ash and Bottom Ash Materials

(Source: Nath et al. CSIR)

SARCI

Coal Combustion: Production & Issues

• In US - 131 Million Tons/annum

• In EU – Around 120+ Million Tons

• In India and China – More than 300

Million Tons

• Several Issues

• Landfilling

• Ground Water Contamination

• Bulk Storage Spills

• TVA Kingston Fossil Plant

SARCI

Coal Combustion Bi-Products: Applications

• Cement/Concrete – Mix Design

• Flowable Fills

• Fill Material in Embankments

• Soil Modification/Stabilization

• Pavement Layers

• Mineral Filler in Asphalt

• Geopolymers

• Others Ashes – Bottom Ash,

• LKD, CKD, Slags

SARCI

Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) and Recycled

Concrete Aggregates (RCP)

RAP Stock Pile RCP Aggregates

• Pavement rehabilitation

• Milling or crushing of existing pavement

SARCI

RAP and RCP: Production

RCP Aggregates

• 45 million tons of RAP produced every year in US

• 123 million tons of RCP waste per year (FHWA, 2004)

• Most demolished concrete comes from structures and

pavements

• Aging highways increasing demolition of concrete

SARCI

• Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)

• Base and sub-base materials

• Retaining wall backfill

• Foundation Course

• Pipe Bedding

• Stabilization techniques

In-situ process (Full Depth Reclamation)

Off-site process

RAP and RCP: Applications

SARCI

Reuse of RAP in Infrastructure Projects: Puppala et al. (2011)

Grain size distributions of recycled materials Compressibility behavior of recycled materials

SARCI

Sectional view of north and southbound showing CQF and RAP as pavement bases (State

Highway 360, Arlington, Texas)

Construction and Instrumentation of Test Sections with RAP :

Puppala et al. (2011)

SARCI

Field Monitoring Studies with RAP: Puppala et al. (2011)

SARCI

Glass and Composts

• Fine Recycled Glass

• Medium Recycled Glass

• Coarse Recycled Glass

• Daily Manure Compost

• Bio-Solids Compost

Dairy Manure

Compost

Recycled Crushed Glass

Bio-Solids Compost

SARCI

Glass and Composts: Applications

Filterpave parking lot: Emersleben and Meyer (2012)

Sub-base with Recycled Glass

Waste: Arulrajah et al. (2013)

Compost Treatment of Pavement

Shoulders

SARCI

Application of Compost in Slope Stability

Grapevine Dam Joe Pool Lake Dam

SARCI

Application of Compost in Slope Stability

Total Station

Slope Indicator

Moisture sensor

SARCI

• Geotechnical and Pavement Projects can play

a major role in turning waste to Sustainable

solutions

• Case Studies – Novel Materials, Reuse,

Geosynthetics, and Others

• Lessons Learned – Help Future Sustainability

Issues in Future Similar Projects

SARCI

Study 1: Pilot Implementation using GeoFoam

Site Location: US 67 bridge over SH 174, Johnson

County, Cleburne, Texas

SARCI

Study 1: Pilot Implementation using GeoFoam

More than 16 in. of settlement

had been experienced on the

embankment since its construction

Several treatment methods were

attempted to be used but not

proven to be effective

US67 Bridge over SH174

SARCI

Study 1: Pilot Implementation using GeoFoam

Embankment Construction

with EPS Geofoam Instrumentation with Inclinometers

& Pressure Cells

PC #1 PC #2

PC #3 PC #4

SARCI

Study 1: Pilot Implementation using GeoFoam

Settlement observed

was less than 1.5

inches over 3 years

Geofoam provided a sustainable engineering solution to different

problems at US 67 bridge

SARCI

Study 2: Integrated Pipeline Project (IPL)

Cedar Creek

Richland

Chambers Lake Palestine

Aerial view of IPL Pipeline (source: TRWD)

Water Pipeline 2.74 m (9 ft) diameter, 150 mile length

SARCI

Study 2: Integrated Pipeline Project (IPL)

Geological Formations

• All the Formations (6) have high plasticity clayey soils extended to a

depth of 1.5 m (5 ft) to 6.1 m (20 ft)

SARCI

Study 2: Integrated Pipeline Project (IPL)

• Two scenarios were considered in the analyses

Excavated soil will be used as bedding material and haunch layers

Imported soil from nearby quarry will be used as bedding material

and haunch layers

• Section details assumed for analyses:

Length : 30.5 m (100 ft)

Diameter of Pipe: 2.1 m (7 ft)

Bedding thickness : 180 mm (7 in.)

Haunch thickness : 1070 mm (42 in.)

Backfill Layer

Pipeline

Bedding Layer

Haunch

Layer

3.7 m (12 ft)

4.6 m

(15 ft)

SARCI

Study 2: Integrated Pipeline Project (IPL)

• High plasticity clays to Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM)

• CLSM is mostly known as flowable fill until American Concrete Institute

Committee 229 – documented its name as Controlled Low Strength Material,

2005

Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM)

• CLSM Mix design – Cement, Water, Native soil

4% - Type I Portland Mansfield location, Texas

SARCI

Study 2: Integrated Pipeline Project (IPL)

Pouring of CLSM Completed Trench

SARCI

Study 2: Integrated Pipeline Project (IPL)

1. SASW Bar with geophones

2. Data Logger

3. Connecting Wires

4. Hammer

1

2

3

4

Stiffness Measurements

SARCI

Study 2: Integrated Pipeline Project (IPL)

Day 1

Day 3

Day 7

Day 14

Day 28

Kriging analysis Maps for stiffness values in MPa

SARCI

Study 2: Integrated Pipeline Project (IPL)

• Cost benefits and potential carbon footprint analyses were made in

this project for reusing the excavated clayey soils

Sustainability Impacts from Reuse of Excavated Soil (Chittoori et al. 2012)

SARCI

Study 2: Integrated Pipeline Project (IPL)

Analysis Results:

• First Scenario: the total cost of the excavated material being used as

pipeline zone material

Material cost -$12.6 per m; carbon foot print – 0.01 metric ton per m

• Second Scenario: the total cost of using material from quarries

Material cost -$81.7 per m; carbon foot print – 0.08 metric ton per m

Study 3. Reduction of Select Soil

Materials

Typically 30% to 40% < gravel

using geosynthetics EG : Based on design methods in FHWA

2008 Geosynthetics manual

Subgrade Strength < 30 kPa

Ref: Barry Christopher

and Dave Suits, LVR, 2015

Roadway

Reconstruction

Project in Oxford,

England

To remove 8000 t of waste would require

40 truck loads.

10 miles haul distance (site to disposal)

would produce > 1.2 t CO2.

The reduced volume of waste material

saved the import of 800 t of bituminous

fill material, saving ~ 4 t CO2

Total savings ≈ 5.2 t CO2

Ref: Barry Christopher

and Dave Suits, LVR, 2015

Summary of Swedish Study

reported by Wallbaum, Busser, Itten,

Frischknecht

Study completed for the European Association of Geosynthetics Manufacturers

– Applications studied • Geotextile filter layer

• Road foundation reinforcement

• Drainage

• Reinforced wall

– General Conclusions • Geosynthetics contribute to lower climate change

impacts

• Geosynthetics lead to lower environmental impacts

Ref: Barry Christopher

and Dave Suits, LVR, 2015

Improved Sustainability – With

Geosynthetics Cost & Carbon Footprint Case Studies of Geosynthetic Systems vs. Alternate Civil Engineering Systems (after Corney et al., 2009).

Project/

Description

Geosynthetic &

Alternate Approach

Cost2

$1000

CO2

Savings

(tonnes)

Environmental

Bund

GRS 25 19.2

Gabion Wall 629 143

Road

Embankment

Reinforced Embankment 633 314

Unreinforced Embankment 1410 454

Roadway

Widening

Geocomposite Drain 171 43.0

Hollow Concrete Block Drain 174 154

Paved Road

Reconstruction

Geocomposite Drain & Steel

Mesh Reinforcement

NA4 --

> Excavation & Thicker

Pavement

NA 5.2

Slope Failure

Repair

Reinforced Soil Block with

Counterfort Drainage

<Time

& cost

0.2

Contiguous Bored Pile Wall NA 8.9

(t)

Ref: Barry Christopher

and Dave Suits, LVR, 2015

SARCI

Newest Site

SARCI

CICI_UTA Site: Geocomposites

• NSF IUCRC Site – CICI_UTA Approved in April, 2015

• Only Geotech Oriented IUCRC Site in the USA

• CICI_UTA Center focuses on the “Use of composite products in pavement and geo-infrastructure” Geosynthetics, Biopolymers, Geopolymers

Brings out sustainable components in the research

Focuses on life cycle cost, energy savings and carbon calculations

Annual memberships and Partial NSF funds support Research Projects

Seven members

Note: IUCRC – Industry University Cooperative Research Center

SARCI

Sustainability Rating

Systems/Measurements

• Sustainability Rating Systems

Green Roads – Project Requirements

Ratings for Sustainability (Materials – 23 points)

• ASCE Envision & FHWA and Local Rating Systems

Materials Related Aspects - Low

• Sustainable Measurements

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Studies – Most Common

Approach

Carbon Calculators and Energy Costs

SARCI

Life Cycle Assessment

• Life cycle assessment or analysis (LCA) is a

tool to determine and evaluate the

environmental impacts of a product, process,

or a service including those effects associated

with processes upstream in the supply chain

• LCA includes an accounting of the raw material

production, manufacturing, distribution, use

and disposal including all the intervening

transportation steps involved

Basu, University of Waterloo

SARCI Wh

y a

ca

rbo

n c

alc

ula

tor?

46

Ms. Marine Lesne (France)’s Presentation at Paris, 2013:

• Climate change is seen as a key issue by most of the local

authorities and also private companies

• Capability to evaluate with specific method is now mandatory and

will be potential differentiation in tenders

• No carbon calculator tool at European or International level for Deep

Foundation and Ground Improvement Works exists

need for a specific development

EFFC / DFI Objectives

• Provide all EFFC members with a Carbon calculator for Deep

Foundation and Ground Improvement Works, allowing for absolute

calculation and projects comparisons

• The tool should be simple, open, though comprehensive,

methodologically sound and usable by all

46

EFFC-DFI Carbon Calculator

SARCI 47

EFFC-DFI Carbon Calculator

Wh

ich

meth

odo

logy?

The methodology is compatible with the following standards :

• GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting

Standard

• Bilan Carbone

• PAS 2050

• ISO 14067

2. Carbon calculation

Standards / methods

1. Carbon calculation

methods / tools

Standardised EFFC-DFI

Carbon Calculator &

Methodology

3. Carbon Emission

Factors databases

Slide from Ms. Marine Lesne (France) Presentation:

SARCI

• Sustainability is no longer a buzz word!

• Infrastructure Projects and Rating Systems

• Transportation Geotechnics Field – Offers Many

Sustainability Opportunities

• Several Areas Identified

• Sustainability Assessment Tools

• Carbon Calculators

• Life Cycle Cost Analysis & Energy Savings

• Agencies/Owners/Contractors/Practitioners

SARCI

Field Monitoring can be scary…

• Unexpected Visitors….

49

SARCI

SARCI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SARCI

Thank You Jenny Liu & ISSAEST,

Basu, Barry & Dave

NSF IUCRC – CICI_UTA