Environmental and Economic Optimization of a Conventional Concrete Building Foundation: Selecting the Best of 28 Alternatives by Applying the Pareto Front

Ester Pujadas-Gispert, Joost G. Vogtländer and S. P. G. (Faas) Moonen
Additional contact information
Ester Pujadas-Gispert: Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Joost G. Vogtländer: Department of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands
S. P. G. (Faas) Moonen: Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 3, 1-19

Abstract: This research optimizes the environmental impact of a conventional building foundation in Northern Europe while considering the economic cost. The foundation is composed of piles and ground beams. Calculations are performed following relevant building Eurocodes and using life cycle assessment methodology. Concrete and steel accounted for the majority of the environmental impact of foundation alternatives; in particular, steel on piles has a significant influence. Selecting small sections of precast piles or low-reinforcement vibro-piles instead of continuous-flight auger piles can reduce the environmental impacts and economic costs of a foundation by 55% and 40%, respectively. However, using precast beams rather than building them on site can increase the global warming potential (GWP) by up to 10%. Increasing the concrete strength in vibro-piles can reduce the eco-costs, ReCiPe indicator, and cumulated energy demand (CED) by up to 30%; the GWP by 25%; and the economic costs by up to 15%. Designing three piles instead of four piles per beam reduces the eco-costs and ReCiPe by 20–30%, the GWP by 15–20%, the CED by 15–25%, and the costs by 12%. A Pareto analysis was used to select the best foundation alternatives in terms of the combination of costs and eco-burdens, which are those with vibro-piles with higher concrete strengths (low reinforcement), cast in situ or prefabricated beams and four piles per beam.

Keywords: ground beam; LCA; prefabrication; vibro-pile; eurocode; precast prestressed concrete pile; continuous flight auger pile; eco-costs; life cycle assessment; economic (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1496/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1496/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1496-:d:490806

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().