TRADITION AND INNOVATION - 60 YEARS OF CIVIL ENGINEERING HIGHER EDUCAT! IN TRANSILVANIA AK \ \ Proceedings of the WN We\ C60 INTERNATIONAL ei CONFERENCE / \) N ) Ny Ni NIN NYi Ww SITATEA TEHNICA UNIVER CLUJ-NAPOCA This volume contains the extended abstracts of the papers presented at the anniversary conference titled: “Tradition and Innovation-60 Years of Civil Engineering Higher Education in Transilvania™ (hxtp: (c60.r0) held in Cluj-Napoca on 7-9 November 2013. The conference has been organized by the Faculty of Civil Engineering from Technical University of Cluj-Napoca Romania. The conference has attracted participants from various national and international universities and organizations whose attendance and valuable contributions to the conference sessions had made this event both productive and interesting. In the companion CD-ROM are enclosed the full length papers presented at the conference grouped in the following sections: Structural mechanics; Soil mechanics and foundations; Reinforced concrete structures; Steel structures; Buildings; Roads, bridges and railways; Construction technologies and management; Building services: Architecture and engineering graphics; Challenges in teaching civilengineering. ‘The editorial board of the conference would like to express their thanks to all the researchers and practitioners who presented lectures at the conference, and for preparing papers for this volume of the conference proceedings, without whom this event would not have been possible. The editors are very grateful also to the Members of the International Scientific Committee for their help in reviewing and selecting the papers published in this book. EDITURA U.T.PRESS ste Observatorua 34 | ‘0778 Chi. topoce | ee es cs | | www.uteluj-rofeditura ISBN 978-973-662-903-7C60 International Conference, 7-9 November 2013, Cluj-Napoca, ROMANIA Tradition and Innovation - 60 Years of Civil Engineering Higher Education in Transilvania ‘COx-Footprint of Slope Stabilisation Methods — TECCO® System (Mesh) vs. Shoterete Susanne Kytaa!, Armin Roduner”, Marius Bucur’, Gecrge Cotbesc:3, Dorin Vasile Moldovan’, Radu Vasile Cot’, Lavinia Elena Muntean* ‘ Ghiversiey of Applied Sctences, Repperswil Switerland *Geobruga AG Geohaxard Solutions, Aachstrasse Il, Ramansitor. Siteriand Frechnical University of Clut-Nacoed, Clay, Romania - “University of Agricultural Sciance anc Veterinary Medicine, Caj-Nopoca, Ch, Romania Summary: In fimes of increasing concern for the environment, the CO:-footprini metiod is widely accepted ta evaluate the use of greenhouse emitng praduetion processes fora given product, Ths allows for comparisons beowven products land mokes environmental friendly choices of a product more transparent to decision makers. In the field of slope “Habilscton, the high tonite ste! wire mesh TECCO® in combizanian with soil or rock nailing is he site ofthe art in inary countries, Compared to shoterete, load transfer capacity is equal or higher. The open mosh lezves enough space {for plants 19 grow through the stem, Recent COs fooiprind evauation toking ina account prodhtion and transport of ‘the matertal of an equivalera slope stabilisation measure shows that the TECCO® system has a very low CO;footprint. The methods used for assessing the inact were, the level of earbun diaxide emissions from burting of fossil fuels as well as all other emissions which contribute to climate change. These other emissions have been recorded and weighted according to their specific contribution ta give ari overall index, “Giobal Warming Powential” (GIP). Compared to shoterete the COrfootprint of the mevk solution is 4 ~ 5 times lower" One reason for the good result isthe high COs- cmitting level of concrete in general. Furtiermore, iets material weight and also transport costs for the saame stablising fect of the product or the slope also accourt for a heiter CO; balance ofthe mesh solution. Keywords: CO, footrint: slope stabilicarion: shoterete high tensile steel wire mesh: nalts 1. The Tecea®? high-tonsile slope stabilization system ‘The use of wire meshes and wire rope nets for flexible slope stabilisation bas stood ibe test in many eaves and frequently offers an alternative to solid concrete of shororate constructions. The open structure of meshes and nets cables the entire surface to he grassed aver. Most often used for sloze stabilsstion are wite meshes with a tensile strengjh of ea. 50 kNém, respective wires ftom ca. 500 N/mm. Taking into account an economic nail spacing however, those are often uneble to absorb the occurring forces and transfer them precisely to the nals. ‘The development of a wire mesh of hizh-leusile steel with a wive tensile strength of at least 1770 Nimm? offers an interesting possibility for efficient slope stabilisation which ean be dimensioned using adapted soil and rock static dimensioning models. TECCO® high-tensile steel wire mesh used as standard for slope stabilisation consists of @ 3mm thick high-tensle steel wire coated with aluminium-zinc for corrosion protection (GEOBRUGG SUPERCOATING®). 2, Method 2.4 Basic principle ‘The basie principle for this study is the method of Lift Cycle Assessment (LCA) which analyses the overall impact to the environment of a structure from the production of the raw materials to the disposal ofthe structure as described in ISO 12040:2006 and ISO 14044: 2006, In contrast to LCA, our analysis Focuses on emissions relevant for climate change, emissions characterized by their «Global Warming Potential» (according to Guinee etal. 2001). To indicate this focus we refer to our study as «COs - Footprints, 2.2 System definition The service life analysis will be limited to the manufacture of the building materials and their transport to dhe construction site. Constion, operation, mintenance, removal and disposal wl ot be ake int eonsdeatio see ‘igure 4), ‘This definition is based on the following considerations: + Studies published on life eycle assessment of structures are based on the assumption that the ereation of the structure will only make a relatively small contribution towards the pollution of the environment. Kasser (1998) and Geiger and Fleischer (1997) come to the conclusion that in the case of residential buildings, less than 1% of the cumulative energy demand of a building can be attributed to construction. The construction oF the structures considered here is not expected to result in (celatively) higher energy expenditure.[thas been assumed that in general, there will be no expenditure on operation and maintenance. ‘When the two structures are removed, itis mainly steel and conerete which will need to be dealt with. If these two waste materials are collected separately, then their processing and disposal will only result in very low energy consumption and thus only to a low level of emissions which might affect climate change. 2.3 Method for assessing impact ‘The emissions which might affect climate change have been shown by the level of carbon dioxide emissions from the ‘buming of fossil fuels (in kg of “CO; - fossit") on the one hand. On the other hand, all the emissions which contribute towards climate change have been recorded and weighted according to their specific contribution - relating to carbon dioxide as a reference variable - and added together to give an overall index. This overall index is known as the “Global Warming Potential” ("GWP" for short); the unit in which it is measured is kg CO2 equivalent. This method of assessment has been used as part of the Life Cycle Assessment in many studies and is internationally recognised (see Guinee et al. 2001 and Frischknecht etal 2003). 3. Results ‘The comparison of the total climate relevant emissions during the life cycle ofthe two structures clearly shows that the ‘TECCO* system accounts significantly ess for the greenhouse effect than the anchored shoterete cover. Ths isthe case for both «CO; - fossiln and the «Global Warming Potential (GWP)». The environmental impact of the TECCO® system is approx. 4 5 times smaller with both evaluation methods. The difference can be explained with the differences in the ‘used quantities of materials. Inthe structure executed with anchors and shoterete, approx. 14°700 kg of steel, 40°300 kg of cement and 564°000 kg of concrete are required. For the same slope with the TECCO® system, approx. 8°100 kg of steel and 237400 kg of cement are used. These differences have a big effect on the environmental impact due to both the production of the materials and also their transport to sit 4 Conclusion ‘On the base of these results, it can be concluded that the TECCO® system accounts less for the greenhouse effect than a ‘comparable slope stabilization system executed with anchored shotcrete. The difference between the two systems is significant as the here presented study shows. The environmental impact of the slope stabilization with a TECCO® system is approx. 4 ~ 5 times smaller than with shoterete. Since the difference between the two systems is quite big, a detailed analysis considering all the processes during the life eycle and a more detailed examination of the steel production and the transports would not lead to fundamentally new findings. This can be stated for the assumptions of life span, maintenance and repair. The result is robust here as well. 5. References Ecoinvent Center, Ecoinvent Database V2.0, hitp:/www.ecoinvent.ch, Editor. 2007: Dubendorf, CH. Frischknecht, R, Jungblut, N, Althaus, HI, Doka, G, Dones, R, Hischier, R, Hellweg, S, Humber, S, Margni, M, Nemecek, T, and ‘Spielmann, M, 2003, Implementation of Life Cyele Impact Assessment Methods. Final report ecoisvent 2000 No. 3. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dobendort Flum D , Ruegger R. Dimensioning of levible surface stabilisation ystems made from Mgh-tensile steel wire meshes in combination with nailing and anchoring in soll and rock. IX Intemational Symposium on Landslides, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 2004 Geiger B , Fleischer T. Stafliche und energetische LebenszyRlusanalysen von Wohngebduden. i: Gesamiheitliche Betrachtung von. Energiesystemen, VDI-1328. Disseldorf, 1997 (in German) Guinee JB , Gorrée M, Hefjungs R , Huppes G , Klein R , de Koning A, van Oers L , Wegener $ , A, Suh, S, Udo, de aes, HA, de Bruja, H, van Duin, R, Huijbrepts, MAJ, Lindeijer, E, Roorda, AAH and Weidema BP. Life cycle assessment; An ‘operational guide tothe ISO standrds; Characterisation and Normalisation Factors. Leiden, 2001 ‘Kasser U. Gobdiude gesamtenorgetisch beurtilt. Sonderdruck aus: Schwelzer Architekt, Nt. 13, 1998 (in German) Kyaia $ , CO; footprin of slope stabilisation methods, 2008 180 14040, 2006, Umwellmanagement - Okobilan - Grundsdize und Rahmenbedingungen. Ausgabe 2006-10 (in German) 180 14044, 2006, Unveltmanagement - Okobilan: - Anforderurgen und Anleinoxgen. Ausgabe 2006-11 (in German) Rieger, R; Flu, D., 2006, énforderungen an flecible Baschungsstabllsierungssysteme bel der Anwendung in Boden und Fels. ‘Technische Akademie Esslingen, Beitrag fir S, Kelloguium ,Bauen in Boden und Fels" (in German) 92C60 International Conference, 7-9 November 2013, Cluj-Napoca, ROMANIA, "Tradition and Innovation - 60 Years of Civil Engineering Higher Education in Transilvania” Slope Protection and Stabilisation on DN1C, km 113 George Corbescu', Marius Bucurl, Dorin-Vasile Moldovan, Radu Vasile Cot’, Lavinia-Elena Muntean? ' Geobrugg 4G Geohazard Solutions, Aachsirasse 11, Romanshorn, Switzerland r *The Technical University, Cly)-Napoea, Cl, Romania University of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Medicine, Cly-Nopoca, Cluj, Romania Abstract: Part ofthe investment " Design and building of DN IC Dej ~ Baia Mare" measures were required t0 provide overall stability and protection against surface failure in the case of a slope situated at km 113. The objective of this paper consists in presenting the solution chosen as early as the design stage and its implementation inthe field. Keywords: mesh, high tenste steel, nails, stabilisation. 1. Solutions under analysis ‘Consequent to the cut into the slope to expand the carriageway, it became necessary to implement other complementary ‘measures to provide stability to the produced slope. Two categories of solutions were investigated: stiff solutions, such as support walls or flexible solutions, such as the anchored steel wire mesh, The stiff solution required a large amount of cutting at the base of the slope to build the raft of the support wall. Moreover, the stability factor, which was very close to the limit, would have tuned into an under the unit ratio and the building time would have stretched over some weeks, Oppositely, the anchored steel wire mesh solution did not require a modification of the slope geometry, the building time would have been shortened and the visual and environmental impact would have been minimal. The cost ‘issue was another item to consider. ‘The financial analysis (cost-profi) also contributed to the decision of protecting and stabilising the slope with a tensile steel wire mesh system (R,> 1.770 Némm"), 2. The TECCO® slope protection system ‘The Teco (picture 1) for stabilising slopes and sides performs this operation, imespective of the nature ofthe soil and protects the steep slopes against rock or weathered or loose boulders or stone falling/breakouts, under the action of eral tr and wes ceadions For hs pups, ths slope te pect coved witha high ese sts we mes, er aving teen ened Fo eae eat an ih grand ate, the mesh fice wth fl oe ba ov sleling bas ee a eng enat upto thcnng momen has revo clei. ‘Through the anchor spike plates, the mesh presses the slope surface and prevents deformation, slippage or breakout. As Fae aaeern he eer Seeing ieee stem ssa Ten. cae ay aabis the ground by tensioning, nd ives provision agit fess parle pln tthe Po a aes sd m tines and ao aan oe fires among the ano: trs aa smi thickness of 1.50 m. An external active tensioning for the surface with an average force of 5 kN/mm*is also sugplied. 93. Adopted solution From a geological point of view, the slope in question consisted of marl clay powders, with a variable thickness of 2.20 1m 4.00 m, followed by yellowish grit stone, Considering the ground nature, Ischebeck TITAN 40/16 mm bars were chosen. Mited suesses brought bas, in the most unfavourable creumstances, to a load of up to 89% oftheir bearing pacity. As an overall stability was necessary, the anchor lengths were selected at 4m — 6 m. As the type of anchor bars and their lengths were determined, the superficial instabilities of the ground were analysed with the help of Ruvolum®, a software with predetermined physical and mechanical characteristics for the Tecco® mesh of G65/3 (where 65 mm is the diameter of the circle inscribed in the rhomboidal eyes of the mesh and 3 mm is the thickness of the mesh wire); the resulting mesh square being 2.50 m x 2.00 m (where 2.50 m represents the distance between the anchor bars horizontally, and 2.00 m is the distance along the vertical line). Implementation of solution on the ground Once the sohution was sclected, the surface was prepared for stabilisation (Picture 1) and anchors were put into place Cicture 2). The drilling technology was of self-drilling type with left inside core; the grout material was cement suspension. Picture 2: Nails building Picture 1: Preparation of surface for stabilization To prevent washing of fine material, under the protection, the Tecmat® erosion control mat was inserted. It has an imegular structure made of polypropylene extruded monofilaments. The Tecco® system was then mounted and tensioned. The mesh ends are knotted together to avoid their breakout in the marginal areas, The connections by clips at every mesh eye provide a strength that is at least equal to that of filed panels. When the slope is cut at an angle of 37°, ‘e-vegetation by seeding in an erosion control mat was opted for. Photo 3: Tecco® system in use 5. References Ruegger R., Fhum D. Slope stabilization with high-performance steel wire meshes in combination with nails and anchors. It Symposium, Eats Reinforcement, IS Kyushu, Fukuoka aps, 2001 orem E, Flum D. TECCO® high-ensile wire mesh & revegetation tem Assocton, ECA's 35th anal conference, Pilati, USA, 2009 rae —. Fan ee Rlceber R The dosing of eile surfece stabilization stems made from high-ensile wir mesh in combi Oo alee cra anchoring n sol an rock. Intemational Conference on Slpe Engineering Hong Kong, 203 ‘for slope stabilization. International Erosion Control