Journal Pre-proof

Environmental analysis of concrete deep foundations: Influence of prefabrication,

concrete strength, and design codes

Ester Pujadas-Gispert, David Sanjuan-Delmás, Albert de la Fuente, S.P.G. (Faas)

Moonen, Alejandro Josa

PII: S0959-6526(19)33621-2
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118751
Reference: JCLP 118751

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 29 May 2019

Revised Date: 28 August 2019
Accepted Date: 5 October 2019

Please cite this article as: Pujadas-Gispert E, Sanjuan-Delmás D, de la Fuente A, Moonen SPG(F),
Josa A, Environmental analysis of concrete deep foundations: Influence of prefabrication, concrete
strength, and design codes, Journal of Cleaner Production (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2019.118751.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

 1 Environmental Analysis of Concrete Deep Foundations: Influence of
2 Prefabrication, Concrete Strength, and Design Codes

3 Ester Pujadas-Gisperta, David Sanjuan-Delmásb, Albert de la Fuentec, S.P.G. (Faas)

4 Moonena, Alejandro Josac
a
5 Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e),
6 Eindhoven, Netherlands
b
7 Envoc Research Group, Green Chemistry and Technology, Ghent University, Coupure
8 Links 653, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
c
9 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (DECA), School of Civil
10 Engineering (Escola de Camins), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC),
11 Barcelona, Spain
12
13 Abstract
14 There is great potential to reduce the environmental impact of the building sector, which
15 is now an area of immense importance, through the optimisation of construction
16 materials and components. This study assesses both the design and the construction of
17 Concrete Deep Foundations (CDFs), which are widely used in construction, from an
18 environmental perspective considering the following variables: (i) grade of
19 prefabrication, i.e., fully cast in situ, partly prefabricated, and fully prefabricated; (ii)
20 compressive strength of cast-in-situ concrete; and (iii) building design codes, i.e.,
21 current Spanish codes (EHE-08 and CTE), Eurocode with the Spanish annexes, and
22 Eurocode with the United Kingdom annexes. In addition, the results of Dynamic Load
23 Tests (DLTs) and the economic cost of several CDFs are evaluated. Geotechnical and
24 structural designs of CDFs are carried out along with their life-cycle assessment. Some
25 of the main findings include: (i) partially and fully prefabricated CDFs and conducting
26 DLTs reduced the environmental impact in most categories (by up to 44% for global
27 warming emissions) compared to the fully cast-in-situ CDFs, although they were 12–
28 37% more expensive; (ii) changing the compressive strength of the concrete (in piles
29 and cap) in fully cast-in-situ CDFs from 25 to 35 MPa reduced the environmental
30 impact by up to 14–17% in all categories and economic costs by up to 12%; and, (iii)
31 CDFs with bored piles resulted in the lowest environmental burden when designed with
32 Eurocode and UK annexes (11–31% less impact), as did CDFs with driven piles
33 designed with current Spanish codes (11–18% less impact). The study variables and
34 sensitivity analysis showed a significant effect on the results and should be considered
35 in future construction, research, and building codes.
36

37

38 Keywords: LCA, pile, EHE-08, Eurocode, CTE, economic.

39 Word count: 8,000.

1
40 1. Introduction

41 1.1. Background

42 The building and construction sector must decarbonize by 2050 (IPCC, 2018) to meet

43 the targets of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (EC, 2018). The sector accounts

44 for nearly 40% of total energy-related CO2 emissions and 36% of final energy use

45 worldwide (GABC, 2018). In addition, both population growth (UN, 2019) and the

46 increasing purchasing power of emerging economies and new companies will

47 foreseeably produce a 50% increase in energy demand by 2060 (IEA, 2017).

48 It is commonly expected that the operational phase of a building (e.g., cooling,

49 heating ventilation, lighting, appliances) will govern the life-cycle impact (UNEP,

50 2009). Nonetheless, several studies have highlighted the growing importance of

51 embodied impacts (e.g., extraction and processing of raw materials, manufacturing of

52 products, construction and demolition) (Bionova Ltd, 2018; de Klijn-Chevalerias and

53 Javed, 2017), which are sometimes not correlated with the operational impacts (Hoxha

54 et al., 2017).

55 Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tried and tested technique to examine sustainable

56 outcomes for buildings (Ingrao et al., 2018). However, it is important to minimize its

57 calculation-related uncertainties and to provide reliable benchmarks for assessing

58 buildings (Hoxha et al., 2017; König and De Cristofaro, 2012). The foundation, which

59 is the structural element of the building that transfers the loads to the ground, is rarely

60 environmentally assessed despite the impact of its materials that can be significant

61 (Estokova et al., 2017; Sandanayake et al., 2016a).

62 Foundations can be broadly classified into either shallow or deep foundations.

63 Shallow foundations transfer loads near the surface of the ground (Fig. 1a), while deep

64 foundations (Fig. 1b) transfer the load onto a deeper and more resistant soil layer (Fig.

2
65 1b) (Tomlinson and Woodward, 2014). Deep foundations have a greater environmental

66 impact compared to shallow foundations mainly due to their larger use of materials

67 (Ay-Eldeen and Negm, 2015; Bonamente and Cotana, 2015). The optimization of deep

68 foundations in terms of the environment can reduce the impact of buildings and

69 constructions, thereby contributing to slowing down global warming.

70

71

72 Fig. 1. Simplified layouts of (a) shallow and (b) deep foundations.

73

74 1.2. Concrete deep foundations

75 There are several types of deep foundations (e.g., piles, caissons, drilled shafts) made

76 of different materials (e.g., reinforced concrete (RC), timber, steel) and techniques (e.g.,

77 prefabricated, prestressed). Two common types of concrete deep foundations (CDFs)

78 are precast driven piles and cast-in-situ bored piles. Driven piles are prefabricated in a

79 factory (typically subject to high-quality standards) and subsequently installed on site.

80 Conversely, bored piles are built directly into the previously excavated ground, which

81 hinders visual inspections of previously installed piles, leading in some cases to

82 unexpected economic (Brown, 2005) and environmental costs.

3
83 Piles normally work in group by means of a pile cap (Fig. 2), a raft or a beam that

84 distributes the load of the building into them and, in turn, to the ground. Pile caps are

85 normally built on site (cast in situ), even if the piles are precast, because of the difficulty

86 of fitting a prefabricated cap onto piles that can deviate from its exact position (EN

87 1992-1-1, 2004). Semi-precast pile caps, built partly in a factory and finished on site,

88 can withstand higher loads and are quicker to install on site (Chan and Poh, 2000).

89

90 Fig. 2. Geometry and parameter definitions for concrete thick three-pile caps: strut (s);
91 tie (t); distance from the external face of the pile to the edge of the cap (b); axial
92 building load (N); distance between piles (e); pile-cap depth (h); and, angle at which
93 pile caps spread the axial force from the superstructure through the piles (α) and pillar
94 side (a).

95 The design of a CDF involves both a geotechnical and a structural design. In Europe,

96 Eurocode 7 (EN 1997-1, 2004) regulates the geotechnical design, while Eurocode 2 (EN

97 1992-1-1, 2004) governs the concrete structural design. Moreover, the Eurocode

98 national annexes, which adapt the Eurocode to each country, are mandatory.

99 Nonetheless, the Eurocode and its annexes are not yet compulsory in Spain and instead

4
100 the Technical Building Code (CTE-SE-C, 2008) and the EHE-08 Structural Concrete

101 Code (EHE-08, 2008) are applicable.

102 The geotechnical design of piles can be conducted using diverse methodologies. In

103 Spain and the UK, among other countries, piles are designed based on ground

104 parameters (EN 1997-1, 2004), and load tests are sometimes used to verify these pile

105 resistances. This is partly explained by tradition, ground conditions, and economic

106 costs. In addition, Dynamic Load Tests (DLTs) are frequently carried out on driven

107 piles to assume a better pile resistance on calculations (Raison and Egan, 2016) and, in

108 consequence, to design shorter and thinner piles.

109 1.3. Environmental assessment of concrete deep foundations

110 Materials are the major contributors to the GHG emissions of CDFs (Sandanayake et

111 al., 2017; Zhang and Wang, 2016) followed by equipment usage and transportation,

112 with piles and a raft (Sandanayake et al., 2016a, 2016b) and with only piles (Luo et al.,

113 2019). However, it is the piles that account for most GHG emissions in the construction

114 of a CDF (Ay-Eldeen and Negm, 2015).

115 Several factors, among which the selection of the type of CDF, can reduce the

116 economic cost of a CDF. Giri and Reddy, (2014) indicated that caissons could reduce

117 environmental damage by 60% and economic costs in comparison with pipe piles.

118 Yeung (2015) indicated that high-strength prestressed concrete piles can approximately

119 halve both GHG emissions and economic cost compared to steel H-piles. Misra and

120 Basu (2011) demonstrated that driven piles had a better environmental performance in

121 sandy soils than drilled shafts, although their environmental performance in clayey soils

122 depended on the design load. Focusing on the same topic, Luo et al. (2019) showed that

123 driven piles accounted for higher GHG emissions compared to bored piles. It also

5
124 highlighted that materials and transport were points to be optimized for driven piles,

125 while the installation of bored piles needed optimization. In addition, the use of more

126 sustainable materials (concrete with fly-ash or blast furnace slag) in both types

127 decreased around 3-7% of the total GHG emissions. Finally, Lee and Basu (2016, 2018)

128 evaluated several design methods in driven piles and drilled shafts and concluded that

129 decisions made during the design process can potentially imply substantial and long-

130 term environmental impacts.

131 However, the environmental impacts associated with using other concrete compressive

132 strengths (compatible with the structural and durability requirements) and by

133 conducting DLTs have yet to be investigated in depth. In addition, both an economic

134 and an environmental based-optimization approach is required to obtain practical

135 conclusions (Luo et al., 2019) and to ease its implementation in the industry (Pujadas,

136 E., de Llorens, J.I., Moonen, 2013; Pujadas-Gispert, 2016). In a previous study on

137 concrete shallow foundations (Pujadas-Gispert et al., 2018), the combination of the

138 variables related to prefabrication, type, and design codes showed reductions of 40–60%

139 for all impact indicators. They have therefore been included here, although type and

140 prefabrication have been addressed together (i.e. precast driven piles).

141 1.4. Objectives

142 The main goal of this research is to analyse CDFs from an environmental perspective,

143 considering the variables of level of prefabrication (cast-in-situ or precast), concrete

144 compressive strength (25, 30, 35 MPa), and the building design code in use (EHE-08

145 and CTE, Eurocode with Spanish annexes and Eurocode with the United Kingdom

146 annexes). In addition, a sensitivity analysis was performed, to evaluate the influence of

6
147 using DLTs on the results of CDFs with driven piles, and an economic study was

148 conducted to assess the foundations designed with Spanish regulations.

149 The specific objectives are (1) to conduct a structural analysis of equivalent structural

150 alternatives, in order to determine the required amounts of concrete and reinforcing

151 steel; (2) to calculate, analyse, and compare the environmental impacts using LCA and

152 the economic costs of alternatives; and, (3) to assess the influence of the variables and

153 the sensitivity analysis of the environmental burdens (and economic cost) of CDFs and,

154 by doing so, to define specific design conclusions and recommendations.

155

156 2. Materials and methods

157 2.1. Selection of alternatives

158 Building loads tend to be lower than other construction loads (e.g., bridges).
159 Therefore, buildings’ pile caps tend to be composed of few piles. This study considers a
160 three pile cap because that design is a minimum arrangement for 3D stability. In
161 addition, the method considered for installing bored piles was the continuous flight
162 auger (CFA), which is a common cost-effective method in sufficiently uniform soil
163 conditions that are sufficiently homogeneous (Brown, 2005). Finally, thick (or deep)
164 pile caps were designed, which are preferable in practice to slender caps (CPH, 2014).
165 The study variables and the abbreviations of the alternatives are listed in Table 1.

166 Table 1. Abbreviations used in the study for CDFs.

Variables Abbreviations
1 Pile type Bored pile (B), Driven pile (D)

2 Pile concrete compressive
strength
3 Pile cap type
4 Pile cap concrete compressive
strength
5 Building design code
25, 30, 35 MPa (Cast in situ); 40 MPa (Precast)
Cast in situ (I) (concrete is poured on site), Precast (P)
(concrete is poured in a specialised facility)
25, 30, 35 MPa (Cast in situ); 40 MPa (Precast)
EHE-08 and CTE (ES), Eurocode with Spanish annexes (SP),
Eurocode with United Kingdom annexes (UK)

7
 6 Performance of DLTs Yes (*), No ( )

167 Example: D40/I25/SP*—Concrete deep foundation composed of 3 Driven piles (with concrete of
168 compressive strength of 40 MPa) and a cast-In-situ concrete cap (with concrete of 25 MPa), designed in
169 accordance with Eurocode with SPanish national annexes and conducting DLTs.

170 2.2. Case study

171 The case study is a concrete modular housing building located in the Barcelona area

172 (Spain). The vertical load to the CDF is 2,300 kN (N in Fig. 2), and the bending

173 moments are 6 kNm and 15 kNm around axis X and axis Y, respectively (all these

174 values are unfactored). The dimensions of the square-shaped pillar that transmits the

175 loads to the CDF are 0.45 × 0.45 m (a in Fig. 2).

176 The soil (Table 2) is composed of an upper stratum of 15 m of soft clay placed over a

177 stratum of compacted sand. Because this research is aimed at obtaining general results

178 regarding the environmental and economic impacts of CDFs, certain elements that are

179 highly dependent on each case study, such as the presence of water, seismicity, negative

180 skin friction, and chemical action, were omitted from the scope of the study.

181 Table 2. Parameters and characteristics of the case study soil.

Ground stratum Parameter Abbreviation Value Unit

Soft clay Undrained shear strength cu 15 kN/m2

Weight density γn 17 kN/m3
Compacted sand Angle of shearing resistance ϕ' 39 º
Weight density γn 18 kN/m3
182

183 2.3. Functional unit

184 The Functional Unit (FU) considered in this analysis is a CDF consisting of an RC

185 thick pile cap and three RC piles with different levels of prefabrication and concrete

186 compressive strengths, designed using different building design codes; furthermore,

8
187 DLTs were also conducted on driven piles. All the alternatives were designed for a

188 service life of 50 years.

189 2.4. System boundaries

190 In Fig. 3, the LCA phases and elements considered in each stage are shown. Life-

191 cycle phases run from the extraction of materials until the completion of on-site

192 construction. Moreover, each phase includes the impact of transportation. Nonetheless,

193 the vibration and pumping of concrete were not considered, as a preliminary analysis

194 showed no significant environmental impacts. The use phase was excluded, because

195 well-designed foundations require neither maintenance nor repairs. Similarly,

196 decommissioning was excluded, because foundations are usually left installed at the

197 end of their life, implying an absence of any significant impacts.

198
199 Fig. 3. Life-cycle diagram and system boundaries of the construction of a CDF.

200 2.5. Data sources

201 Several data sources were consulted to calculate the environmental burdens of CDFs,

202 all of these considering a proper degree of uncertainty, so that possible contingencies of

203 the nature of each source and their elements can be covered. The amounts of resources

204 were retrieved from the Construction Technology Institute of Catalonia (ITeC, 2019).

205 Nonetheless, whenever certain items were not found from those sources, the

9
206 information was requested from the manufacturers. Keller Cimentaciones (Keller

207 Cimentaciones, 2017) provided the diesel for building the piles and performing the

208 DLTs and estimating the average distances to transport piling machines. In addition,

209 concrete dosages were provided by the Spanish National Association of Ready-Mixed

210 Concrete Manufacturers (ANEFHOP, 2019). LCA processes were retrieved from the

211 Ecoinvent v.3.0.3.0 database (Swiss centre for life cycle inventories, 2013). The

212 transport distances and their sources are summarised in Table 3. Further information

213 can be found in Supplementary Material 1.

214 Table 3. Transport distances used for calculation.

Transportation
Distances
Item Retrieved from
(km)
From To

Concrete plant
Cement Place of production 75
Precast concrete plant
Concrete plant
Aggregates Place of production 40
Precast concrete plant
(Pujadas-Gispert et
Steel Construction site al., 2018; Sanjuan-
Place of production 130
reinforcement Precast concrete plant Delmás et al.,
2015)
30
Concrete Place of production Construction site

Soil Construction site Landfill sites 30

Waste management
Waste Construction site 30
facility
Additives Place of production Concrete plant (Mendoza et al.,
100
Precast concrete plant 2012)
Piling Previous Facilitated by
Construction site 500
machine construction site companies
Precast concrete (The Concrete
Precast units Construction site 150
plant Centre, 2009)
215

216 Most data for the economic assessment were retrieved from ITeC (2018), although

217 some specific costs that were not found there were provided by manufacturers

218 (transport of piling and driving machines and DLTs).

10
219 2.6. Quantitative models

220 The quantitative models for assessing the cradle-to-gate environmental impact (per

221 category) and economic cost of the FU (i.e., CDF) are shown below.

222 2.6.1. Quantitative model for environmental impact category calculation

223 =∑ ∑ (1)

224 where, EI is the environmental impact category (e.g., global warming, cumulative

225 energy demand) of the FU; is the characterization factor of impact category per unit

226 of environmental intervention (e.g., material, transport, consumption from equipment

227 usage); qij is the quantity of environmental intervention in an FU phase; i is

228 environmental intervention; n is the total number of environmental interventions; j is

229 the phase of the life cycle (e.g., raw material extraction, production); and, m is the total

230 number of phases in the life cycle (see section 2.4).

231 2.6.2. Quantitative model for economic cost calculation

×
232 =∑ (2)

233 where, C is the economic cost of the FU; is the current unit cost of item I; qi is the

234 quantity of item i in the FU over time t; r1 is the discount rate per unit of time t for item i

235 of the FU; t1 is time for item i of the FU (t=0, as we consider from raw material

236 extraction to construction); i is an item in the FU; and, n is total number of items in the

237 FU.

238 2.7. Geotechnical design

239 Several best practices from UK and Spain were followed for the geotechnical design

240 of study alternatives. First, the distance between piles (e in Fig. 2) was considered to be

241 three times the pile’s diameter and were embedded a minimum of six diameters in the

11
242 firm soil to guarantee an optimal transfer of the building’s loads to the ground (CTE-

243 DB-SE-C, 2008). In addition, the geotechnical values for the base and shaft pile

244 resistances were set at 20,000 kN/m2 and 120 kN/m2, respectively (CTE-DB-SE-C,

245 2008). Furthermore, pile resistances were calculated by factoring strengths and actions

246 when they were designed with ES and SP, whereas a global safety factor was used

247 instead with CTE to guarantee structural reliability (BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013,

248 2004; EN 1997-1, 2004; Gepp et al., 2014; UNE-EN 1997-1, 2016). Finally, the

249 foundation had 60 piles and it was considered that 5 DLTs were conducted which meets

250 both usual Spanish and English practice (ACHE, 2004; Raison and Egan, 2016).

251 2.8. Structural design

252 CDFs are made of concrete and steel. The compression strengths selected for cast-in-

253 situ concrete were 25, 30, and 35 MPa; 40 MPa was selected for precast concrete. These

254 strengths are representative on an international scale, although some are more common

255 than others depending on locations. The steel used for reinforcement was B-500-S, and

256 partial factors for concrete (1.5) and steel reinforcement (1.15) were selected according

257 to EHE-08 (2011), and EN 1992-1-1 (2004). Moreover, the surrounding environment

258 was classified as XC2 (wet, rarely dry; corrosion induced by carbonation) by EC-2 and

259 IIa (high humidity; corrosion of different origin than chlorides) by EHE-08, which

260 conditions the width of the concrete covers and hence the durability of the concrete

261 structures.

262 The codes used to calculate the amounts of concrete and steel reinforcement in the

263 CDFs are listed in Table 4. In addition, the structural approach used to calculate pile

264 caps was the strut-and-tie approach (ACHE, 2003; Goodchild et al., 2014) proposed by

265 (Ritter, 1899), with the tension elements provided by reinforcement (t in Fig. 2) and the

266 concrete acting as struts (s in Fig. 2). This approach is commonly used according to

12
267 (Miguel-Tortola et al., 2018) and suitable (EHE-08, 2011; Miguel et al., 2007; Souza et

268 al., 2009) for designing thick pile caps, although Eurocode (EC-2, 2004) states that

269 flexural-based methods are also applicable.

270 Table 4. Building actions, geotechnical, and structural design codes.

Design ES SP UK
(BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 2002)
Actions (CTE-DB-SE-AE, 2009) (UNE-EN 1991-1-1:2019, 2019) (NA to BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005,
2004)

(BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013, 2004)

Geotechnical (CTE-DB-SE-C, 2008) (UNE-EN 1997-1, 2016) (NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1997-
1:2004+A1:2013, 2007)

(BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014, 2004)

Structural (EHE-08, 2011) (UNE-EN 1992-1-1:2013/A1:2015, 2015) (NA+A2:2014 BS EN 1992-1-
1:2004+A1:2014 UK, 2005)

271 Terminology: EHE-08 and CTE (ES); Eurocode with Spanish annexes (SP); Eurocode
272 with United Kingdom annexes (UK).
273 Bored piles tend to be reinforced only in the uppermost meters when there are no

274 lateral forces or seismicity. Herein, 6 m has been considered for this length, according

275 to (NTE, 1977; Raison and Egan, 2016). Conversely, driven piles are reinforced over

276 their entire length, and have an extra (stirrup) reinforcement at the top and bottom 500

277 mm and 200 mm, respectively, according to BS EN 12794:2005 (2005) and UNE-EN

278 12794:2006+A1:2008 (2008). This is because driven piles must resist extra stresses

279 during handling and driving. Moreover, all piles, bored or driven, were reinforced

280 according to the minimum amounts of steel required for each code.

281 2.9. Life-cycle assessment

282 An LCA was used to determine the environmental impacts. This method is well

283 established in scientific literature and has been standardised through global documents

284 (ISO 14040:2006, 2006; ISO 14044:2006, 2006). The software SimaPro 8.4.0.0 (PRé

285 Consultants, 2017) was used to implement the LCA, along with the calculation method

286 ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint, Hierarchist version (Huijbregts et al., 2016).

13
287 The impact categories under consideration were selected on the basis of the product

288 specifications and construction product standards (EN 15804:2012+A1:2013, 2013)

289 and the authors’ expertise: Global Warming (GW, kg CO2eq), Ozone Depletion (OD, kg

290 CFC-11eq), Terrestrial Acidification (TA, kg SO2eq), Freshwater Eutrophication (FE, kg

291 Peq), Photochemical Oxidant Formation (POF, kg NMVOC), Mineral Depletion (MD,

292 kg Feeq), Fossil Depletion (FD, kg oileq), and Cumulative Energy Demand (CED, MJ).

293

294 3. Results and discussion

295 3.1. Preliminary remarks

296 An important element to consider when addressing the environmental and economic

297 impacts of CDFs is the angle (α in Fig. 2) at which the pile cap spreads the axial force

298 (N in Fig. 2) from the superstructure through the piles, which determines the depth of

299 the pile cap (h in Fig. 2). This angle is typically 45º (Jones, 2013), but might range from

300 21.8º to 45º (UK), and from 26.6º to 63.4º (ES and SP). In a preliminary analysis, that

301 angle (α in Fig. 2) (40º, 45º, 50º) and the smallest angle that the concrete strut could

302 withstand were considered, as well as the angular constraints. CDFs with the shallowest

303 angles (i.e., smaller cap depths) showed better environmental results in most impact

304 categories, because they had smaller concrete volumes. Nevertheless, these alternatives

305 showed higher impacts in the highly steel-dependent categories (FE and MD), because

306 they had more steel (the decrease in the depth of the CDF was compensated with more

307 steel reinforcement).

308 Similarly, bored and driven piles were calculated with the smallest possible cross

309 sections to save concrete in the piles and cap. Driven piles resulted in smaller cross

310 sections than bored piles as the concrete for driven piles was more resistant.

14
311 Nevertheless, driven piles with sides smaller than 235 mm were not considered to

312 prevent the pile from breaking in this type of soil (in accordance with standard

313 practice).

314 Regarding the economic comparison, it only takes into account the CDFs designed

315 with ES and SP as they use the same sources (ITeC, 2019). Costs for UK CDFs were

316 also calculated, but were not included in this paper, as difficulties over establishing a

317 comparison between CDFs were observed when retrieving data from different

318 databases, especially as each database makes its own assumptions.

319 3.2. Environmental performance of CDFs according to study variables

320 3.2.1. Prefabrication

321 The main characteristics of piles and caps considered for the CDFs alternatives are

322 shown in Supplementary Material 2.

323 Concrete and steel play an important role in the environmental burden of CDFs. They

324 contributed up to 75–95% in most impact categories. In this regard, concrete and steel

325 accounted for 80–90% of the GW emissions in all CDFs.

326 Figure 4 compares the GW emissions of CDFs with bored and driven (precast) piles,

327 with a cast-in-situ cap and calculated with SP. In CDFs with driven piles, concrete

328 showed lower impact percentages (around 20% less) than CDFs with bored piles,

329 because they required less concrete. Conversely, higher percentages were found in steel

330 (approximately 20% more) because they are all length reinforced, in contrast to bored

331 piles, which have only the uppermost meters reinforced (according to study load

332 combination). In addition, precast products require transportation to the site and

333 installation (piling, pile cutting, excavation, and precast installation), each of which

334 account for up to 8% of the GW emissions.

15
 100%

90%

80%
Relative impact (GW)

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
B25/I25/SP B25/P40/SP D40/I25/SP D40/P40/SP
Concrete Deep Foundations
Concrete Blinding Steel reinforcement
Piling Pile cutting Excavation
Precast installation Transport of waste Transport of piling machine
Transport of soil Precast transport
335
336 Fig. 4. Relative GW emissions of the construction of CDFs designed with SP.
337 Terminology: Bored pile (B); Driven pile (D); Concrete compressive strengths: 25, 40
338 MPa; Cast in situ (I); Precast (P); Eurocode with Spanish annexes (SP); Global
339 Warming (GW).
340

341 The results show that the piles are of greater importance to the environmental

342 performance of CDFs than the pile caps, because the piles contain more concrete.

343 Driven piles can significantly reduce these materials compared to bored piles, because

344 they are more resistant for the same section, as higher concrete strengths are used. In

345 addition, the codes assume that driven piles can withstand higher loads than bored

346 piles, because they are produced in a factory under rigorous quality-control protocols

347 and uncertainties are reduced.

348 The use of a smaller cross section of piles also leads to smaller caps, because the size

349 of the piles conditions the width of the cap. It must be emphasised, however, that when

350 the pile cross section is smaller, either the depth of the cap or the compressive strength

16
351 of concrete in the strut should be increased (s in Fig. 2) to withstand compressive

352 forces.

353 Nevertheless, it should be remembered that prefabricated concrete has a greater

354 environmental burden for the same volume of concrete. In this study, prefabricated

355 concrete (40 MPa) accounted for 30–40% more GW emissions compared to cast-in-situ

356 concrete (25 MPa). This discrepancy is because prefabricated concrete tends to be of

357 higher strength, which requires larger amounts of cement or the use of cements with

358 higher strength. Cement is the component with higher environmental impacts in the

359 mixture although it is in a small proportion. Cement accounted for 75–80% of GW

360 emissions of the concrete (including transport of concrete components). Furthermore,

361 transport and on-site assembly of precast products resulted in additional burdens.

362 Figure 5 compares the environmental impacts of CDFs and bored and driven piles

363 designed with SP. For the sake of simplicity, the environmental categories of OD

364 ( GW) and TA, POF, FD ( CED) are not shown. CDFs were designed by applying

365 the minimum amounts of concrete and reinforcement that are specified in each code.

366 CDFs with driven piles accounted for smaller values in most categories (up to 15%),

367 although they obtained higher results in the FE and MD categories (19–33%), because

368 they contained more steel. In addition, the environmental impact of CDFs with a

369 precast cap was up to 7% higher than CDFs with a cast-in-situ cap. This difference is

370 because the extra strength of prefabricated concrete was not fully used in some cases,

371 as codes limit the minimum depth of the cap. Furthermore, the slight reduction in depth

372 was compensated with additional steel bar reinforcements, which has a higher burden

373 by volume than concrete.

17
 100%

90%

80%
Relative impact

70%

60%

50%

40%
GW FE MD CED
Impact categories
B25/I25/SP D40/I25/SP B25/P40/SP D40/P40/SP
374
375 Fig. 5. Relative impact of CDFs designed with SP, with a cast-in-situ or precast cap and
376 with bored piles or driven piles. Terminology: Bored pile (B); Driven pile (D);
377 Concrete compressive strength: 25, 40 MPa; Cast in situ (I); Precast (P); Eurocode
378 with Spanish annexes (SP); Global Warming (GW); Freshwater Eutrophication (FE);
379 Mineral Depletion (MD); Cumulative Energy Demand (CED).
380 CDFs tend to be oversized in reality. For instance, companies and designers try to

381 standardise products and solutions to save money in the design. They normally prefer to

382 invest this money in oversizing construction and enhancing safety. Furthermore,

383 construction on site can sometimes be unpredictable in terms of the amount of resources

384 and waste. For example, concrete leakage (particularly during construction) is likely

385 when bored piles are built in highly permeable ground (e.g., sand, silt, low plasticity

386 soils). It would also be interesting to account for all the unforeseen events during

387 construction (which can be relevant), though they are specific to each building project

388 and some are difficult to quantify. Obviously, these unforeseen events must be predicted

389 and avoided as much as possible.

390 3.2.2. Concrete compressive strength

18
391 Figure 7 presents the results obtained when concrete of different compressive

392 strengths (25 MPa, 30 MPa, and 35 MPa) were tested for bored piles and cast-in-situ

393 caps designed with SP. The results of the OD, TA, POF, and FD impact categories are

394 not shown, as they showed a similar trend to CED. Changing the compressive strength

395 of concrete in bored piles from 25 to 35 MPa reduced the environmental impacts of

396 CDFs from 18 to 24%. The amounts of concrete and steel decreased considerably,

397 which completely counteracted the higher environmental burdens associated with higher

398 concrete strengths. As can be seen, this difference is more important between bored

399 piles with concrete strengths of 25 MPa and 30 MPa, than between those with 30 MPa

400 and 35 MPa. Conversely, no significant difference in the environmental burdens (up to

401 7% more) was found between CDFs with caps of different concrete strengths. There are

402 several possible explanations for this result. First, the cap has a low impact on the

403 environmental burdens of the CDF, as it accounts for a small part of it. In addition,

404 structural design codes fix the minimum depth of the cap, impeding its environmental

405 optimisation in some cases. Similar results were obtained for CDFs designed with SP

406 and UK.

19
 100%

90%

80%
Relative impact

70%

60%

50%

40%
GW FE MD CED
Impact categories
B25/I25/SP B30/I25/SP B35/I25/SP B25/I30/SP B30/I30/SP
B35/I30/SP B25/I35/SP B30/I35/SP B35/I35/SP
407
408 Fig. 6. Relative impact of CDFs with bored piles, a cast-in-situ cap and different
409 concrete compressive strengths designed with SP. Terminology: Bored pile (B);
410 Concrete compressive strength: 25, 30, and 35 MPa; Cast in situ (I); Eurocode with
411 Spanish annexes (SP); Global Warming (GW); Freshwater Eutrophication (FE);
412 Mineral Depletion (MD); Cumulative Energy Demand (CED).
413

414 3.2.3. Codes

415 This section compares the environmental impacts of CDFs with bored and driven

416 piles using the ES, the SP, and the UK annexes. CDFs were designed with the

417 minimum allowed amounts of steel and concrete, to establish a fair comparison

418 between these codes. In addition, the compressive concrete strength for cast-in-situ

419 piles and caps was set up at 30 MPa. There is no case of CDF with driven piles and a

420 cast-in-situ cap with a concrete strength of 25 MPa for the UK in this study, as the

421 concrete struts could not withstand the compression loads.

422 CDFs with bored piles designed with the UK codes resulted in 11–31% lower impacts

423 compared to those calculated with ES, because less concrete was used and because ES

20
424 and SP include an upper limit for the compressive strength of concrete piles. This limit

425 is particularly restrictive for bored piles, because of the uncertainties linked to their

426 construction process. In this sense, ES is even more restrictive than SP (CTE-DB-SE,

427 2009; Gepp et al., 2014; UNE-EN 1997-1, 2016). In addition, a smaller concrete pile

428 cross section requires less steel to comply with the codes, because the amounts of steel

429 are dependent on the pile cross section (a larger area indicates more steel); it is also

430 easier to fulfil the minimum distances between steel reinforcing bars specified in the

431 codes. In this regard, UK reinforces piles the most (for cast-in-situ and driven piles) for

432 the same pile section, whereas ES reinforces them the least.

433 CDFs with driven piles designed with ES yielded the lowest impacts: FE (18% SP;

434 30% UK), MD (22% SP; and 38% UK), and other categories (7–12% SP, 11–18%

435 UK). A result that is explained by the minimum amounts of steel specified in ES that

436 are lower than the other regulations for the same pile cross section.

437 A higher design value for the concrete compressive strength of the cap struts is

438 specified in ES for pile caps (s in Fig. 2), which permits a shallower pile cap depth (h in

439 Fig. 2), with a subsequent increase in steel reinforcement. Conversely, ES sets a larger

440 distance from the external face of the pile to the edge of the cap (b in Fig. 2) in which

441 larger amounts of concrete and steel are specified, in comparison with SP and UK.

21
 100%

90%

80%
Relative impact

70%

60%

50%

40% Bored Driven Bored Driven Bored Driven Bored Driven

DrivenGWbored FE MD CED
Impact categories
B30/I30/ES B30/I30/SP B30/I30/UK D40/I30/ES D40/I30/SP D40/I30/UK
442
443 Fig. 7. Relative impact of CDFs designed with ES, SP and UK with bored and driven
444 piles and a cast-in-situ cap (30 MPa). Terminology: Bored pile (B); Driven pile (D);
445 Concrete compressive strength (30),(40) MPa; Cast in situ (I); EHE-08 and CTE (ES);
446 Eurocode with Spanish annexes (SP); Eurocode with United Kingdom annexes (UK);
447 Global Warming (GW); Freshwater Eutrophication (FE); Mineral Depletion (MD);
448 Cumulative Energy Demand (CED).
449

450 3.3. Sensitivity analysis in relation to DLT applications

451 It is fairly common to carry out DLTs when it is expected that their economic benefit

452 will be higher than their cost. In this study, DLTs were considered, to validate the

453 geotechnical calculations. Figure 8 compares the environmental impacts of CDFs with

454 driven piles and a cast-in-situ cap (30 MPa) in relation to whether DLTs are conducted.

455 For the sake of simplicity, the impact categories of OD, TA, POF, and FD are not

456 depicted because they had a similar trend to CED.

457 Conducting DLTs on driven piles reduced the environmental impacts of CDFs: 9–

458 14% ES, 11–13% SP, and 4–5% UK. On the one hand, the piles under study were

459 designed with the smallest permissible cross-section in the codes (see section 3.1). As

22
460 the pile cross-section was fixed, DLTs reduced the length of the driven piles,

461 decreasing the amounts of both concrete and steel and, hence, the environmental

462 impact. Nevertheless, those reductions were different, depending on the code due to the

463 specific structural response model accepted in each of them. In that sense, UK allows

464 less reduction on these amounts compared to ES and SP. Moreover, the amounts on the

465 caps remained unaltered, as the dimensions depended on the pile cross-sections (that

466 remained unchanged). On the other hand, DLTs had a minor impact on the

467 environmental performance of CDFs (around 1-2%). Therefore, the optimisation of the

468 quantities of concrete and steel completely counteracted the environmental impact of

469 the DLTs.

100%

90%

80%

70%
Relative impact

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
ES SP
GW UK ES SP
FE UK ES SP
MD UK ES SP
CED UK
FE MD CED
GW
Impact categories
D40/I30/ES D40/I30/ES* D40/I30/SP D40/I30/SP* D40/I30/UK D40/I30/UK*
470

471 Fig. 8. Relative impact of CDFs with driven piles and a cast-in-situ cap with and
472 without DLTs. Terminology: Driven pile (D); Concrete compressive strength: 30, 40
473 MPa; Cast in situ (I); EHE-08 and CTE (ES); Eurocode with Spanish annexes (SP);
474 Eurocode with United Kingdom annexes (UK); Dynamic Load Tests (*); Global
475 Warming (GW); Freshwater Eutrophication (FE); Mineral Depletion (MD);
476 Cumulative Energy Demand (CED).
477

23
478

479 3.4. Environmental and economic discussion of several relevant alternatives

480 Table 5 shows the environmental and economic costs of several representative CDFs

481 designed with the current Spanish codes (ES) and the Eurocode with Spanish Annexes

482 (SP).

483 A CDF with bored piles and a cast-in-situ pile cap (with concrete 25 MPa) is a

484 conventional solution in Spain. The results show that this conventional solution could

485 be optimised by changing the strength of the concrete in the piles and cap from 25 MPa

486 to 35 MPa. In this way, the environmental results could be diminished by 14–17% in all

487 categories and economic costs by 11% (SP) and 12% (ES).

488 Using driving piles (conducting DLTs and a cast-in-situ cap) resulted in 27% (SP) and

489 44% (ES) lower impacts compared to the fully cast-in-situ CDF (bored piles and a cast-

490 in-situ cap). Even the fully prefabricated CDF (driven piles conducting DLTs and a

491 precast cap) resulted in 24% (SP) and 40% (ES) lower impacts in most categories than

492 the fully cast-in-situ CDF, although the percentages in the FE and MD categories were

493 lower. Furthermore, the prefabrication of part (driven piles conducting DLTs and a

494 cast-in-situ cap) or all of the CDF (driven piles conducting DLTs, a precast cap and

495 DLTs) was more expensive than building it entirely in situ: by up to 33% (SP), 12%

496 (ES); and 37% (SP), 24% (ES), respectively.

497 Moreover, conducting DLTs on driven piles ultimately reduced the environmental

498 impacts of CDFs by 13–16% in all categories and reduced their costs by 12% (SP), and

499 6% (ES).

500 The economic costs were mostly retrieved from a Spanish construction reference

501 database (ITeC, 2019). Nevertheless, economic costs are highly influenced by the

502 factors of each building project (units, construction company, location, etc.). In

24
503 addition, driven piles are a common solution when there are large loads, aggressive or

504 weak soils, etc. In this respect, there are several circumstances that can make them a

505 cost-effective solution, but they are beyond the scope of this study. For example, the

506 use of wider piles can reduce the costs of the CDF because the number of piles is

507 reduced (e.g., from four to three) and the cap and the length of the piles become smaller

508 (it is more expensive to increase the length of the pile than to select a wider pile).

509

510 Table 5. Relative impact of several relevant CDFs from the study.

D40/P40/ES*
D40/P40/SP*

D40/I25/ES*
D40/I25/SP*

B25/P40/ES
B25/P40/SP

B25/I25/ES

B35/I35/ES
B25/I25/SP

B25/I35/SP
Categories

GW 80% 81% 59% 61% 82% 94% 80% 52% 56% 100%
OD 80% 80% 62% 65% 83% 92% 77% 56% 61% 100%
TA 79% 80% 69% 73% 83% 92% 78% 60% 66% 100%
FE 78% 81% 84% 90% 81% 93% 78% 67% 75% 100%
POF 81% 82% 69% 74% 84% 93% 79% 60% 68% 100%
MD 73% 78% 93% 100% 76% 88% 74% 70% 80% 94%
FD 80% 81% 67% 70% 83% 93% 78% 58% 63% 100%
CED 80% 81% 68% 71% 83% 93% 78% 58% 64% 100%
COST 73% 73% 97% 100% 77% 79% 70% 89% 98% 85%
511 Terminology: Bored pile (B); Driven pile (D); Concrete compressive strength: 25, 35,
512 40 MPa; Cast in situ (I); Precast (P); EHE-08 and CTE (ES); Eurocode with Spanish
513 annexes (SP); Dynamic Load Tests (*); Global Warming (GW); Ozone Depletion (OD);
514 Terrestrial Acidification (TA); Freshwater Eutrophication (FE); Photochemical
515 Oxidant Formation (POF); Mineral Depletion (MD); Fossil Depletion (FD);
516 Cumulative Energy Demand (CED); Economic Cost (COST). Percentages are
517 calculated in each impact category in relation to the case with the highest impact, set at
518 100%. Cell colours reflect these percentages.
519

520 4. Conclusions

521 An assessment has been presented, from an environmental (and economic)

522 perspective, of the construction of Concrete Deep Foundations (CDFs) composed of

523 three piles and a thick pile cap, according to a number of variables. These include the

25
524 level of prefabrication, the compressive strength of concrete, the building design code,

525 and conducting or not DLTs. Some of the main conclusions of the study are

526 summarised below.

527 o Steel and concrete accounted for 75–95% of the impact in most environmental

528 categories and 80–90% of GWP emissions. A result that underlines the

529 importance of optimizing the impact of these materials when designing CDFs.

530 o Driven piles are preferred over bored piles from an environmental perspective,

531 because they require less concrete and therefore have a lower impact despite

532 using a larger amount of steel. However, this was not the case for the impact

533 categories of MD and FE, for which steel has a strong influence, meaning a

534 better performance for bored piles.

535 o The prefabrication of pile caps is not recommended for the conditions

536 considered in this study, because they account for up to 7% more impact, as the

537 reduction in concrete does not compensate for the higher burdens of

538 prefabrication (cement, transportation, installation, etc.)

539 o Changing the compressive strength of concrete in bored piles from 25 to 35

540 MPa is recommended, as impacts are reduced from 18 to 24% in the CDF for all

541 categories; however, it is not recommended in only pile caps, as the impact of

542 CDFs increases by up to 7%.

543 o The Eurocode with United Kingdom annexes is preferable from an

544 environmental perspective when designing CDFs with bored piles; its impacts

545 are 11–31% lower in most categories compared to the EHE-08 and CTE, while

546 these codes perform better for driven piles with 11–18% less impact in most

547 categories compared to the former. It must be highlighted that these CDFs were

26
548 designed with the minimum amounts of concrete and steel reinforcement

549 specified by the codes, in order to ensure fair comparisons between each one.

550 o Concrete compressive strength of 35 MPa (in piles and cap) is preferred to build

551 fully cast-in-situ CDFs as it reduces the environmental impact from 14% to 17%

552 and economic costs by up to 12% in comparison with 25 MPa (ES and SP).

553 o The partial or full prefabrication of CDFs and conducting DLTs have been

554 shown to reduce the environmental impact of CDFs in most categories (by up to

555 44% in GW) compared to those built entirely on site. Nevertheless, the

556 prefabrication of CDFs resulted in 12–37% more costs (ES and SP).

557 o Conducting DLTs on driven piles reduced the environmental impact of CDFs

558 between 13% and 16% in all categories and costs by up to 12% in this case

559 study (ES and SP).

560 The study variables have shown a significant effect on the environmental results. It is

561 therefore recommended to consider them in future constructions and codes.

562 Nonetheless, the findings in this study are restricted to the case study selected and

563 might be subject to other factors that depend on each case and can be difficult to

564 quantify. Moreover, further research might investigate CDFs and other RC structures

565 considering additional study variables and using recycled aggregates, other types of

566 reinforcement, biomaterials, and optimised cements to improve their environmental

567 burdens.

568 Acknowledgments

569 The authors are grateful for the help and support of Prof. Arch. Josep Ignasi de Llorens,
570 Ing. José María Díaz, Ing. José Ángel Alonso, Antonia Navarro, Xavier Reverter, Ing.
571 José Estaire, Ing. Chris Raison, Ing. César Bartolomé, Dr. Ing. José María Vaquero,
572 Ing. Theo Salet, Ing. S.N.M. (Simon) Wijte, Ing. Rijk Blok, Ing. Omar Diallo, Arch.
573 Marc Sanabra, Dr. G. P. Hammond, Arch. Ramon Badell, Marina Mañas, Dr. Anna
27
574 Petit-Boix, Antony Ross Price, and Dr Esther Sanyé-Mengual. They thank the
575 following companies and associations: Keller Cimentaciones, Spanish National
576 Association of Ready-Mixed-Concrete Manufacturers (ANEFHOP), Hanson Hispania
577 S.A., Hormiconsa, Studies and Experimentation Centre of Public Works (CEDEX),
578 Spanish Institute for Cement and its Applications (IECA), Construction Technology
579 Institute of Catalonia (ITeC), Wineva (Arch. Ramon Sastre), and Computers and
580 Structures, Inc. (SAP2000). They also wish to express their gratitude to the Spanish
581 Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness for economic support through
582 project SAES (BIA2016-78742-C2-1-R).

583

584 References

585 A. Misra and D. Basu, 2011. Sustainability metrics for pile foundations. Indian
586 Geotech. J. 41, 108–120.
587 ACHE, 2004. Recomendaciones para el proyecto, ejecución y montaje de elementos
588 prefabricados. Madrid.
589 ACHE, 2003. Método de bielas y tirantes. Monografía. Comisión 1. Grupo de trabajo
590 1/3.
591 ANEFHOP, 2019. http://www.anefhop.com/ (accessed 7.24.19).
592 Ay-Eldeen, M.K., Negm, A.M., 2015. Global Warming Potential impact due to pile
593 foundation construction using life cycle assessment. EJGE. 20, 4413–4421.
594 Bionova Ltd, 2018. The embodied carbon review. Embodied carbon reduction in 100+
595 regulations & rating systems globally.
596 Bonamente, E., Cotana, F., 2015. Carbon and energy footprints of prefabricated
597 industrial buildings: A systematic life cycle assessment analysis. Energies 8,
598 12685–12701. https://doi.org/10.3390/en81112333
599 Brown, D.A., 2005. Practical considerations in the selection and use of continuous flight
600 auger and drilled displacement piles, in: Advances in designing and testing deep
601 foundations. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 251–261.
602 https://doi.org/10.1061/40772(170)4
603 BS EN 12794:2005, 2005. Precast concrete products. Foundation piles. British
604 Standards Institution. London.
605 BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 2002. Eurocode 1. Basis of structural design. British
606 Standards Institution. London.
607 BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014, 2004. Eurocode 2 : Design of concrete structures -
608 part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. British Standards Institution.
609 London.

28
610 BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013, 2004. BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013 Eurocode 7.
611 Geotechnical design. General rules. British Standards Institution. London.
612 Chan, T.K., Poh, C.K., 2000. Behaviour of precast reinforced concrete pile caps. Constr.
613 Build. Mater. 14, 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(00)00006-4
614 CPH, 2014. Guía de aplicación de la Instrucción de Hormigón Estructural. (EHE-08).
615 Edificación. Madrid.
616 CTE-DB-SE-AE, 2009. Basic Document. Building actions. Spanish Technical Building
617 Code. Madrid.
618 CTE-DB-SE-C, 2008. Basic Document. Structural safety. Foundations. Spanish
619 Technical Building Code. Madrid.
620 CTE-DB-SE, 2009. Basic Document. Structural Safety. Spanish Technical Building
621 Code. Madrid.
622 de Klijn-Chevalerias, M., Javed, S., 2017. The Dutch approach for assessing and
623 reducing environmental impacts of building materials. Build. Environ. 111, 147–
624 159. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2016.11.003
625 EHE-08, 2011. Spanish Structural Concrete Code. Ministry of Development. Madrid.
626 EN 15804:2012+A1:2013, 2013. Sustainability of construction works. Environmental
627 product declarations. Core rules for the product category of construction products.
628 European Committee for Standardisation. Brussels.
629 EN 1992-1-1, 2004. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules
630 and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardisation. Brussels.
631 EN 1997-1, 2004. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - Part 1: General rules. European
632 Committee for Standardisation. Brussels.
633 Estokova, A., Vilcekova, S., Porhincak, M., 2017. Analyzing embodied energy, Global
634 Warming and Acidification Potentials of materials in residential buildings.
635 Procedia Eng. 180, 1675–1683.
636 https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.330
637 EC, 2018. EU climate action. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/citizens/eu_en (accessed
638 7.13.19).
639 Fujita, Y., Matsumoto, H., Siong, H.C., 2009. Assessment of CO2 emissions and
640 resource sustainability for housing construction in Malaysia. Int. J. Low-Carbon
641 Technol. 4, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/ctp002
642 GABC, 2018. Global Status Report: Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient
643 buildings and construction sector.
644 Gepp, J.E., de Santayana Carrillo, F.P., Martínez, Á.P., 2014. Bases del Anejo Nacional
645 Español del Eurocódigo EC-7 (proyecto geotécnico). Hormigón y Acero 65, 47–
646 62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0439-5689(14)50006-X
647 Goodchild, C.H. (Charles H.., Morrison, J., Vollum, R.L., 2014. Strut-and-tie Models:
648 how to design concrete members using strut-and-tie models in accordance with
29
649 Eurocode 2. The Concrete Centre. London.
650 Hoxha, E., Habert, G., Lasvaux, S., Chevalier, J., Le Roy, R., 2017. Influence of
651 construction material uncertainties on residential building LCA reliability. J.
652 Clean. Prod. 144, 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.12.068
653 Huijbregts, M.A.., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira,
654 M.D.M., Hollander, A., Zijp, M., van Zelm, R., 2016. ReCiPe 2016. A harmonized
655 life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Report I:
656 Characterization.
657 IEA, 2018. World Energy Statistics and Balances 2018, OECD/IEA.
658 IEA, 2017. Energy technology perspectives 2017. Catalysing Energy Technology
659 Transformations.
660 Ingrao, C., Messineo, A., Beltramo, R., Yigitcanlar, T., Ioppolo, G., 2018. How can life
661 cycle thinking support sustainability of buildings? Investigating life cycle
662 assessment applications for energy efficiency and environmental performance. J.
663 Clean. Prod. 201, 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.080
664 IPCC, 2018. Global Warming of 1.5 oC.
665 ISO 14040:2006, 2006. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles
666 and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneve.
667 ISO 14044:2006, 2006. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment -
668 Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization.
669 Geneve.
670 ITeC, 2019. MetaBase. Construction Technology Institute of Catalonia.
671 https://metabase.itec.cat/vide/ca/bedec
672 Jones, R., 2013. Technical guidance note (Level 2, No. 8): Designing a pile-cap - Issue
673 12 - The Institution of structural engineers. Struct. Eng. 91.
674 Keller Cimentaciones, 2017. https://www.keller-cimentaciones.com/ (accessed 5.13.19).
675 König, H., De Cristofaro, M.L., 2012. Benchmarks for life cycle costs and life cycle
676 assessment of residential buildings. Build. Res. Inf. 40, 558–580.
677 https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.702017
678 Luo, W., Sandanayake, M., Zhang, G., 2019. Direct and indirect carbon emissions in
679 foundation construction – Two case studies of driven precast and cast-in-situ piles.
680 J. Clean. Prod. 211, 1517–1526. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.11.244
681 Mendoza, J.-M.F., Oliver-Solà, J., Gabarrell, X., Rieradevall, J., Josa, A., 2012.
682 Planning strategies for promoting environmentally suitable pedestrian pavements
683 in cities. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 17, 442–450.
684 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRD.2012.05.008
685 Miguel-Tortola, L., Pallarés, L., Miguel, P.F., 2018. Punching shear failure in three-pile
686 caps: Influence of the shear span-depth ratio and secondary reinforcement. Eng.
687 Struct. 155, 127–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2017.10.077

30
688 Miguel, M.G., Takeya, T., Giongo, J.S., 2007. Structural behaviour of three-pile caps
689 subjected to axial compressive loading. Mater. Struct. 41, 85–98.
690 https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9221-5
691 NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013, 2007. UK National Annex to Eurocode
692 7. Geotechnical Design. General Rules. British Standards Institution. London.
693 NA+A2:2014 BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014 UK, 2005. UK National Annex to
694 Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures. General Rules and Rules for Buildings.
695 British Standards Institution. London.
696 NA to BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 2004. UK National Annex for Eurocode. Basis of
697 Structural Design. British Standards Institution. London.
698 NTE, 1977. Spanish Technological Building Standards. Madrid.
699 Ondova, M., Estokova, A., 2016. Environmental impact assessment of building
700 foundation in masonry family houses related to the total used building materials.
701 Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 35, 1113–1120. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.12307
702 PRé Consultants, 2017. SimaPro 8.0.4. https://www.pre-sustainability.com (accessed
703 8.23.19).
704 Pujadas-Gispert, E., Sanjuan-Delmás, D., Josa, A., 2018. Environmental analysis of
705 building shallow foundations: The influence of prefabrication, typology, and
706 structural design codes. J. Clean. Prod. 186.
707 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.105
708 Pujadas, E., de Llorens, J.I., Moonen, S.P.G., 2013. Prefabricated foundations for 3D
709 modular housing, in: 39th World Congress on Housing Science: Changing Needs,
710 Adaptive Buildings, Smart Cities (IAHS). Milan.
711 Pujadas Gispert, E., 2016. Prefabricated foundations for housing applied to room
712 modules. Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya.
713 Raison, C. and, Egan, D., 2016. United Kindom practice, in: SSMGE - ETC 3
714 International Symposium on Design of Piles in Europe. pp. 134–144.
715 Ritter, W., 1899. Die bauweise hennebique (Hennebiques construction method).
716 Schweizerische bauzeitung 33, 59–61.
717 Sandanayake, M., Zhang, G., Setunge, S., 2016a. Environmental emissions at
718 foundation construction stage of buildings – Two case studies. Build. Environ. 95,
719 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.09.002
720 Sandanayake, M., Zhang, G., Setunge, S., Li, C.-Q., Fang, J., 2016b. Models and
721 method for estimation and comparison of direct emissions in building construction
722 in Australia and a case study. Energy Build. 126, 128–138.
723 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.05.007
724 Sandanayake, M., Zhang, G., Setunge, S., Luo, W., Li, C.-Q., 2017. Estimation and
725 comparison of environmental emissions and impacts at foundation and structure
726 construction stages of a building – A case study. J. Clean. Prod. 151, 319–329.
727 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.041

31
728 Sanjuan-Delmás, D., Hernando-Canovas, E., Pujadas, P., de la Fuente, A., Gabarrell,
729 X., Rieradevall, J., Josa, A., 2015. Environmental and geometric optimisation of
730 cylindrical drinking water storage tanks. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1612–1624.
731 https://doi.org/http://10.0.3.239/s11367-015-0963-y
732 Sartori, I., Hestnes, A.G., 2007. Energy use in the life cycle of conventional and low-
733 energy buildings: A review article. Energy Build. 39, 249–257.
734 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.07.001
735 Souza, R., Kuchma, D., Park, J., Bittencourt, T., 2009. Adaptable strut-and-tie model
736 for design and verification of four-pile caps. ACI Struct. J. 106, 142–150.
737 https://doi.org/10.14359/56352
738 Swiss centre for life cycle inventories, 2013. Ecoinvent database v 3.0.3.0.
739 https://www.ecoinvent.org/
740 The Concrete Centre, 2009. Sustainability Performance Report. 1st Report. Surrey.
741 Tomlinson, M.J., Woodward, J., 2014. Pile design and construction practice, sixth. ed.
742 CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton.
743 UN, 2019. World Population Prospects 2019 Highlights. New York.
744 UNE-EN 12794:2006+A1:2008, 2008. Precast concrete products. Foundation piles.
745 AENOR. Madrid.
746 UNE-EN 1991-1-1:2019, 2019. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General
747 actions - Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings. AENOR. Madrid.
748 UNE-EN 1992-1-1:2013/A1:2015, 2015. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures -
749 Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. AENOR. Madrid.
750 UNE-EN 1997-1, 2016. Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design - Part 1: General rules.
751 AENOR. Madrid.
752 UNEP, 2009. Common carbon metric for measuring energy use and reporting
753 greenhouse gas emissions from building operations.
754 http://kms.energyefficiencycentre.org/sites/default/files/UNEP SBCI_Common
755 Carbon Metric.pdf (accessed 6.1.19).
756 Zhang, X., Wang, F., 2016. Assessment of embodied carbon emissions for building
757 construction in China: Comparative case studies using alternative methods. Energy
758 Build. 130, 330–340.

759

32
The prefabrication of Concrete deep foundations (CDFs) reduces environmental impact
and increases the economic cost
Increasing the compressive strength of concrete reduces environmental impact and cost
Conducting Dynamic Load Tests on driven piles reduces environmental impact and cost
CDFs with bored piles are environmentally better designed with Eurocode with UK
annexes
CDFs with driven piles are environmentally better designed with current Spanish codes