0 Голоса «за»0 Голоса «против»

Просмотров: 074 стр.CT-30GB

Mar 24, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

CT-30GB

© All Rights Reserved

Просмотров: 0

CT-30GB

© All Rights Reserved

- lecture 4
- C.C Road Estimates Example
- Bulking of Sand
- FQP for Civil Work
- Igeo Soil Intro
- Earth Work Data Corrected Kollam
- NB-CPD SG02 04 010 - Aggregates.pdf
- Study of Corrosion of Reinforced Steel Bars in Recycled Aggregate Concrete With Fly Ash
- Project Proposal
- Planetary Reform
- 09 Chapter 2
- Hansen1986_Article_RecycledAggregatesAndRecycledA.pdf
- Mini Projects for CIVIL Students in TRICHY -Dreamweb Techno Solution
- Civil Engineering Workshops and Projects TRICHY - Dreamweb Techno Solutions
- COURSE for CIVIL Students in TRICHY - Dreamweb Techno Solutions
- Inplant TrainingWORKSHOP for Civil Engineering Students in TRICHY-Dreamweb Techno Solutions
- Final Year Projects for CIVIL Students in TRICHY-Dreamweb Techno Solutions
- Inplant Training-WORKSHOP for Civil Engineering Students in TRICHY-Dreamweb Techno Solutions
- COURSE for CIVIL Students in TRICHY - Dreamweb Techno Solutions
- Soils Lab Script

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 74

TECHNIQUE

T 30

C I M B TO N English version

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

and economic comparison

TREATED SOIL AGGREGATES

PLACEMENT IMPACT PLACEMENT IMPACT

4 8

3 7

35 50

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

10 Binder Equivalent

proportion distance

20 (%) (km)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

J. ABDO - CIMBTON

140

2 1 5 6

BINDER IMPACT DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT AGGREGATES EXTRACTION

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT TO BE TREATED IMPACT AND PRODUCTION IMPACT

COMPARATIVE STUDY IN ROAD ENGINEERING

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

and economic comparison

This document was written by Joseph ABDO, road manager - CIMBTON,

French cement association, and approved by the following Working Group:

David CUINET LAFARGE CIMENTS

Frdric DIDIER HOLCIM CIMENTS

Patrick DUBOIS CIMENTS CALCIA

Antoine GARRIDO CIMENTS CALCIA

Jean-Chrisrophe REDON LAFARGE CIMENTS

2

Foreword

To build roads, motorways, airport areas or any other area development for industrial,

commercial or logistical use, prior design and building of a specific road transport

platform of minimum bearing capacity is necessary, allowing construction of the actual

pavement structure.

Building the specific platform, which relates to road earthworks, consists in carrying out

levelling works (cuttings and embankments) and building a structural layer referred to as

capping layer .

Cutting, embankment and capping layer works may be performed using one of the two

following techniques:

materials from gravel pits or quarries,

The technique of in situ Soil treatment with hydraulic binders, which consists in

adding value to natural soils (existing on the construction site) by mixing them with

hydraulic binder and water.

These two techniques have advantages and drawbacks, both at economic and

environmental level.

The technique of unbound granular materials, that uses granular materials whose

extraction and production have low economic and environmental impact, may be

hindered by the impact generated by:

- transport of aggregates (a heavy bulk product), when the distance between the

quarry and the construction site exceeds a certain threshold.

- transport of surplus soil between the construction site and the tip.

The technique of in situ Soil treatment with hydraulic binders requires the use of a

hydraulic binder whose production has a non-negligible economic and environmental

impact. However, this binder is used in low proportion and the quantities produced and

transported are small compared to the quantities of unbound granular materials.

Therefore, depending on the context of each project (distance between quarry and

construction site, construction site and tip, binder proportion, distance between binder

plant and construction site), one of these two techniques may prove to be economically

and/or environmentally more valuable.

Unbound granular materials provides a graphical method that helps determine and

compare economic or environmental indicators (Energy and CO2).

3

It has a dual advantage:

- it allows users to choose the values of parameters at each stage of the study,

depending on the local data of their projects,

progression, which of the two techniques, Soil Treatment or Unbound granular

materials, is most appropriate, economically and/or environmentally.

It takes into account the production impact (binder, aggregates), transport impact (binder,

aggregates, surplus soil) and materials placement impact (Treated soil, Unbound granular

materials).

It does not take into account some factors which would have given advantage to Treated

soil technique : the cost of tipping, the cost to rehabilitate local road networks which

would be damaged by the traffic generated by the construction site (materials transport)

and the social cost, related to this traffic (risks of accidents, disturbances,).

In this document you will find a series of diagrams that may be photocopied, as often as

needed, for users to carry out specific studies.

The Economic diagram is adapted from the abacus published in appendix 4 of the

technical guide Soil treatment with lime and hydraulic binders (GTS SETRA/LCPC

2000). The Environmental diagrams (Energy and CO2) were made using the same

method but are previously unpublished.

We feel sure that the methodology that we have elaborated will help you efficiently make

the choices you need for your road earthworks projects.

Joseph ABDO

Road manager - CIMBTON

4

Contents

1.1 - The 3 comparative graphs 8

1.1.1 - Economic comparison graph 8

1.1.2 - Environmental - Energy Indicator Comparison Graph 8

1.1.3 - Environmental - CO2 Indicator Comparison Graph 9

1.2 - Division into 2 comparison zones 9

1.2.1 - Zone 1 10

1.2.2 - Zone 2 11

1.3 - Study of Zone 1 Soil treatment 12

1.3.1 - Quadrant 1 12

1.3.2 - Quadrant 2 13

1.3.3 - Quadrant 3 15

1.3.4 - Quadrant 4 16

1.4 - Study of Zone 2 Unbound granular materials 17

1.4.1 - Quadrant 5 17

1.4.2 - Quadrant 6 18

1.4.3 - Quadrant 7 19

1.4.4 - Quadrant 8 20

1.5 - Conclusion 21

2 - Economic comparison 23

2.1 - Study of Zone 1 Soil treatment 24

2.1.1 - Quadrant 1 24

2.1.2 - Quadrant 2 25

2.1.3 - Quadrant 3 26

2.1.4 - Quadrant 4 27

2.2 - Study of Zone 2 Unbound granular materials 28

2.2.1 - Quadrant 5 28

2.2.2 - Quadrant 6 29

2.2.3 - Quadrant 7 30

2.2.4 - Quadrant 8 31

2.3 - Conclusion 32

5

3 - Environmental comparison Energy Indicator 37

3.1 - Study of Zone 1 Soil treatment 38

3.1.1 - Quadrant 1 38

3.1.2 - Quadrant 2 39

3.1.2.1 - Transport Energy 40

3.1.2.2 - Total Energy (production + transport) 41

3.1.3 - Quadrant 3 41

3.1.4 - Quadrant 4 43

3.2 - Study of Zone 2 Unbound granular materials 44

3.2.1 - Quadrant 5 44

3.2.2 - Quadrant 6 45

3.2.3 - Quadrant 7 46

3.2.4 - Quadrant 8 47

3.3 - Conclusion 48

4.1 - Study of Zone 1 Soil treatment 54

4.1.1 - Quadrant 1 54

4.1.2 - Quadrant 2 55

4.1.2.1 - Transport CO2 impact 56

4.1.2.2 - Total CO2 impact (production + transport) 57

4.1.3 - Quadrant 3 57

4.1.4 - Quadrant 4 59

4.2 - Study of Zone 2 Unbound granular materials 60

4.2.1 - Quadrant 5 60

4.2.2 - Quadrant 6 62

4.2.3 - Quadrant 7 63

4.2.4 - Quadrant 8 64

4.3 - Conclusion 65

5 - General conclusion 71

6

Chapter

1 Fundamental principles

of the graphic

comparison method

1.1.1 Economic comparison graph

1.1.2 Environmental - Energy Indicator Comparison Graph

1.1.3 Environmental - CO2 Indicator Comparison Graph

1.2.1 Zone 1

1.2.2 Zone 2

1.3.1 - Quadrant 1

1.3.2 - Quadrant 2

1.3.3 - Quadrant 3

1.3.4 - Quadrant 4

1.4.1 - Quadrant 5

1.4.2 - Quadrant 6

1.4.3 - Quadrant 7

1.4.4 - Quadrant 8

1.5 - Conclusion

7

Chapitre 1 Fundamental principles of the graphic comparison method

1.1.1 - Economic Comparison Graph

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

TREATED SOIL PLACEMENT COST

ECONOMIC COMPARISON AGGREGATES PLACEMENT COST

(/m3) (/m3)

4 Total cost (/m2)

8 Unbound granular materials 8 /m3

total cost (/m3)

6

4

2

44 44 44 0

14 /m3 40 40 40

12

10 36 36 36

8

6 32 32 32

4

2 28 28 28

0

24 24 24 7

20 20 20

3 16 16 16

12 12 12

8 8 8

Binder cost Materials transport and

Production + Transport 4 Treated soil (cm)

4 Aggregates (cm) 4 aggregates production cost

3

(/m3 of soil)

0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 (/m )

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

10 Binder Equivalent 4

Proportion distance

(%) (km) 52

20 8

48

30 12

44

40 16

40

50 20

36

60 24

32

70 0,15 28

28

80 32

24

90 36

0,20

20

100 40

16

110 44

0,25 12

120 48

8

130 0,30 52

2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4 4

140 56

J. ABDO - CIMBTON

150 140130 120 110 100 90 80 /t t/m3 0,35 6

2 1 0,40 0,45 0,50 /m3.km 0 /m3

Materials

BINDER COST

Binder quantity

DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT 5 transport cost EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTION

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (/t) (/m3)

(kg/m3 of soil) TO BE TREATED (t/m3) COST (/m3.km) OF AGGREGATES COST (/m3)

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON - ENERGY INDICATOR

TREATED SOIL Total Unbound granular AGGREGATES PLACEMENT

PLACEMENT ENERGY (Mj/m3)

Total 4 Energy

8 materials total Energy ENERGY (Mj/m3) 50

40

Energy

treated soil (Mj/m2) (Mj/m3) 30

20

20 30 (Mj/m3) 10

10 0

0 1000 1000 1000

3 7

500 500 500

Treated soil (cm) Aggregates (cm)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 1000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Materials transport and aggregates

Binder energy 10 Binder Equivalent 100 production total Energy

Production + Transport proportion distance (Mj/m3)

(Mj/m3 of soil) (%) (km) 200

20

30 300

1,8

2,0 400

40 2,2

2,4

50 2,6 500

2,8

3,0

60 3,2 600

2 3,4

70 3,6 700

3,8

4,0

80 800

550

90 900 500

450

100 1000 400

350

10000 110 1100 300

0 100 200 250

9000 120 1200 50 150

130 1300

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6

3000 2000 1000 1 1,4 5 6

J. ABDO - CIMBTON

140 1400

Binder quantity Materials

(kg/m3 of soil) transport

energy

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT (Mj/m3) AGGREGATES PRODUCTION

BINDER ENERGY (Mj/t) TO BE TREATED (t/m3) ENERGY (Mj/m3.km) ENERGY (Mj/m3)

8

1.1.3 - Environmental / CO2 Indicator Comparison Graph

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENT COMPARISON - CO2 INDICATOR AGGREGATES PLACEMENT

OF TREATED SOIL CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)

10,0 Treated soil Total CO2 Unbound granular

7,5 (kg CO2 eq./m3) materials total CO2 impact

5,0 Total CO2 impact impact

2,5 (kg CO2 eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m2) (kg CO2 eq./m3)

0

120

4 120

8 120 1,1

1,0

0,9

110 110 110 0,8

100 100 100

90 90 90

80 80 80

70 70 70

3 7

60 60 60

50 50 50

40 40 40

30 30 30

Binder CO2 impact aggregates production

Production + transport 10 10 10 CO2 impact

Treated soil (cm) Aggregates (cm)

(kg CO2 eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m3)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Binder Equivalent

10 proportion distance 2,5

20 (%) (km) 5

30 7,5

0,05

40 10

50 0,075 12,5

60 15

2 0,10

70 17,5

80 20

0,125

90 22,5

100 25

0,15

1200 110 27,5

1,4 t/m3

1000 130 0,20 32,5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

140 1,6 0,225

1

J. ABDO - CIMBTON

900 0,25 0,30 5 6

1,8

150 0,275

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 2,4 2,2 2,0

BINDER CO2 IMPACT quantity DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT CO2 CO2 impact AGGREGATES PRODUCTION

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (kg CO2 eq./t) (kg CO2 eq./m3) CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)

(kg/m3 TO BE TREATED (t/m3) IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3.km)

of soil)

Each of the 3 graphs presented in this document is divided into 2 zones (Zone 1 in green on the

left and Zone 2 in red on the right), where each zone represents a specific technique and is itself

divided into 4 quadrants.

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

TREATED SOIL AGGREGATES

PLACEMENT IMPACT PLACEMENT IMPACT

4 8

3 7

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

10 Binder Equivalent

proportion distance

20 (%) (km)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

J. ABDO - CIMBTON

140

2 1 5 6

BINDER IMPACT DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT AGGREGATES EXTRACTION

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT TO BE TREATED IMPACT AND PRODUCTION IMPACT

9

Chapitre 1 Fundamental principles of the graphic comparison method

1.2.1 - Zone 1

It covers the left half of the graphs and relates to the in situ Treatment technique of materials.

TREATED SOIL

PLACEMENT IMPACT

4

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 Binder

proportion

20 (%)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

2 1

BINDER IMPACT DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT TO BE TREATED

In this zone, the specific and main parameter is the binder that needs to be produced, transported

to the construction site where the placement process (spreading in small quantities in the order

of 30 kg/m2, mixing, spraying, levelling, compaction, curing) is carried through.

This enables to obtain a material treated for use in embankments (impact evaluated per m3 of

treated soil) or in capping layers (impact evaluated per m2 of treated soil).

In Zone 1, it is thus obvious that the comparison study should start with binder proportioning.

10

1.2.2 - Zone 2

It covers the right half of the graphs and relates to the technique of Unbound granular materials.

AGGREGATES

PLACEMENT IMPACT

8

Aggregates (cm)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Equivalent

distance

(km)

J. ABDO - CIMBTON

5 6

MATERIALS TRANSPORT AGGREGATES EXTRACTION

IMPACT AND PRODUCTION IMPACT

In this zone, the main parameter is the equivalent distance, or quarry-site distance + site-tip

distance. Indeed the Unbound granular materials technique requires, in addition to extraction,

production and placement (levelling, spraying, compaction) of aggregates, the transport of

heavy material for use in significant thickness for embankments and in large quantities (on the

basis of one ton per m2) for a capping layer, and especially tipping of surplus soil.

In Zone 2, it is thus obvious that the comparison study should start with the equivalent distance.

11

Chapitre 1 Fundamental principles of the graphic comparison method

This zone is divided into 4 quadrants numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4. Here are the main characteristics

of each of these quadrants.

1.3.1 - Quadrant 1

It helps calculate the quantity of binder required per m3 of soil to reach the performances required

for the material treated, within the scope of the project under study.

In this quadrant we see a family of straight lines (going through the origin) that represent various

dry densities, corresponding to a wide range of materials that can be found in nature (figure 1).

Thus, for a given project, when the dry density of the soil and the binder proportioning are known,

we simply draw a descending vertical line going from the binder proportion digit to the

intersection with the straight line of the dry density chosen: the binder quantity per m3 of soil

necessary for Soil treatment can then be read directly on the vertical axis of this Quadrant.

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 Binder

proportion

20 (%)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1

Binder quantity DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL

(kg/m3 of soil)

TO BE TREATED (t/m3)

12

If, for a given project, the nature of the material to be treated is known but not its dry density,

refer to the indicative values of the table 1.

Silt 1,6 - 1,8

Clay 1,7 - 1,8

Sand 1,4 - 1,9

Homeometric sand 1,4 - 1,6

Graduated sand 1,6 - 1,9

Granular soil 1,8 - 2,2

Table 1: dry density of different types of materials

1.3.2 - Quadrant 2

Once the binder quantity per m3 of soil has been determined by Quadrant 1, Quadrant 2 helps

calculate its economic or environmental impact (Energy or CO2).

In this Quadrant, we can see straight lines (going through the origin) which, depending on the

graph used, will be either of economic or environmental nature (Energy or CO2).

Each of these straight lines has an impact value that takes into account production and transport

of binder between the plant and the construction site (figure 2).

So, for a given project, when the total impact (production + transport) per ton of binder is known,

we simply prolong horizontally the straight line of Quadrant 1 to the intersection with the straight

line corresponding to the chosen impact: the impact of the binder per m3 of treated soil can then

be read directly on the other axis of Quadrant 2.

Binder impact 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2

(Production + transport) 10

(for 1 m3 of soil)

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

2

BINDER IMPACT

Binder quantity

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (kg/m3 of soil) Figure 2: Soil treatment zone

Binder impact quadrant

13

Chapitre 1 Fundamental principles of the graphic comparison method

If the impact per ton of binder is not known or if the user wishes to accurately determine this

impact, considering the local data at hand, the user may refer to the diagram of figure 3.

When the transport distance between the cement plant and the construction site is known, as well

as the transport impact in /t.km and the production impact per ton of binder, this diagram helps

determine, successively, the transport impact and the total impact (production + transport). This

last impact is then transferred on Quadrant 2, which will allow deducing the impact of the binder

per m3 of treated soil.

BINDER IMPACT (TRANSPORT + PRODUCTION)

impact

(/t)

distance Production + transport

(km) (/t)

14

1.3.3 - Quadrant 3

In this Quadrant, we see parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to

the impact of the placement equipment (spreader, mixer, sprinkler, compactor, grader).

These straight lines were drawn to include the combined impacts of Quadrants 2 and 3: they are

thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to the values of their

impacts (figure 4).

As the impact value of the binder per m3 of treated soil has been determined by Quadrant 2, we

simply prolong vertically and upward the straight line obtained, to the intersection with the

straight line that represents the impact of the placement equipment: the total combined impact

per m3 of treated soil can then be read directly on the other axis of Quadrant 3.

It is this value that will be considered to compare the impact of the Soil treatment technique and

the impact of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in embankments.

TREATED SOIL

PLACEMENT IMPACT Treated soil

total impact

0 (/m3)

Binder impact 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Production + transport

(/m3)

Figure 4: Soil treatment zone Placement impact quadrant

15

Chapitre 1 Fundamental principles of the graphic comparison method

1.3.4 - Quadrant 4

Using a simple geometrical construction (Thales theorem), this quadrant enables to go from the

impact per m3 of treated soil to the impact per m2 of treated soil (figure 5).

It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the impact of the Soil treatment

technique and the impact of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in capping layers.

4

Treated soil Treated soil

total impact total impact

(/m3) (/m2)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Binder

proportion

(%)

16

1.4 - Study of Zone 2 Unbound granular materials

This zone is divided into 4 quadrants numbered 5, 6, 7 and 8. Here are the main characteristics

of each of these quadrants.

1.4.1 - Quadrant 5

- Unbound Granular materials, from the quarry to the construction site,

- Surplus soil (whose volume is supposed, in this document, equivalent to the volume of

unbound granular material), from the construction site to the tip.

The straight lines of this Quadrant go through the origin and represent the economic or

environmental impacts (Energy or CO2) of the various transport modes used.

For a given project, knowing the distance between quarry and site as well as the distance

between site and tip, we define an equivalent transport distance, i.e. the addition of quarry-site

distance and site-tip distance. Once this equivalent distance is determined, and knowing the

transport impact per m3.km, we use this Quadrant to read off the transport impact per m3 of

materials, as indicated by the figure 6.

Equivalent

distance

(km)

5

Materials

MATERIALS TRANSPORT transport

impact

IMPACT (/m3.km) (/m3)

17

Chapitre 1 Fundamental principles of the graphic comparison method

1.4.2 - Quadrant 6

In this Quadrant we see several parallel straight lines, corresponding to the impacts of various

types of Unbound granular materials (rolled aggregate, crushed aggregate, hard rock, soft

rock).

These straight lines were drawn to include the combined impacts of Quadrants 5 and 6: they are

thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to the values of their

impacts (figure 7).

As the value of the transport impact has been determined by Quadrant 5 and as the extraction

and production impacts are known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 6 enables to

assess:

- the tipping impact for a m3 of surplus soil,

- the extraction, production and transport impact for a m3 of aggregates.

and aggregates production

(/m3)

0

6

0

Materials

AGGREGATES EXTRACTION

transport AND PRODUCTION IMPACT (/m3)

impact

(/m3)

Figure 7: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of aggregates extraction and production impact

18

1.4.3 - Quadrant 7

In this Quadrant are parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to the

impact of the placement equipment (grader, sprinkler, compactor).

These straight lines were drawn to include the combined impacts of Quadrants 5, 6 and 7: they

are thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to the values of their

impacts (figure 8).

As the impacts of extraction, production and transport have been determined by Quadrant 6, and

as the placement impact is known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 7 enables to

evaluate the total combined impacts of tipping per m3 of surplus soil, and extraction, production,

transport and placement impacts per m3 of aggregates.

It is this value that will be considered to compare the impact of the unbound granular materials

technique and that of Soil treatment, for use in embankments.

AGGREGATES

PLACEMENT IMPACT (/m3)

Unbound granular

materials total impact

(/m3)

0

0

Impact of materials transport

and aggregates production

(/m3)

19

Chapitre 1 Fundamental principles of the graphic comparison method

1.4.4 - Quadrant 8

Using a simple geometrical construction (Thales theorem), this quadrant enables to go from the

impact per m3 of granular base layer to the impact per m2 of granular base layer (figure 9).

It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the impact of the unbound granular

materials technique and that of Soil treatment, for use in capping layers.

8

Unbound granular Unbound granular

materials total impact materials total impact

(/m2) (/m3)

Aggregates (cm)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Figure 9: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of total impact (/m3 et /m2)

20

1.5 - Conclusion

By applying this method on the 4 Quadrants of Zone 1 and on the 4 Quadrants of Zone 2 we can

compare the impacts of the Soil treatment technique and the impacts of the Unbound granular

materials technique.

For use in embankments, the comparison is made per m3 of material (figure 10).

PLACEMENT IMPACT PLACEMENT IMPACT

Treated soil Total impact Unbound granular materials

total impact (/m3)

4 (/m2)

8 total impact (/m3)

3 7

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

For use in capping layers, the comparison is made per m2 of material (figure 11).

total impact (/m3) 4 (/m2) 8 total impact (/m3)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

21

22

Chapter

2 Economic

comparison

2.1 - Study of Zone 1 Soil treatment

2.1.1 - Quadrant 1

2.1.2 - Quadrant 2

2.1.3 - Quadrant 3

2.1.4 - Quadrant 4

2.2.1 - Quadrant 5

2.2.2 - Quadrant 6

2.2.3 - Quadrant 7

2.2.4 - Quadrant 8

2.3 - Conclusion

23

Chapitre 2 Economic comparison

This zone is divided into 4 quadrants numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4. Here are the main characteristics

of each of these quadrants.

2.1.1 - Quadrant 1

It helps calculate the quantity of binder required per m3 of soil to reach the performances required

for the material treated, within the scope of the project under study.

In this quadrant is a family of straight lines (going through the origin) that represent various dry

densities, corresponding to a wide range of materials that can be found in nature (figure 12).

Thus, for a given project, when the dry density of the soil and the binder proportion are known,

we simply draw a descending vertical line going from the binder proportion digit to the

intersection with the straight line of the dry density chosen: the binder quantity per m3 of soil

necessary for Soil treatment can then be read directly on the vertical axis of this Quadrant.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

10 Binder

Proportion

20 (%)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

t/m3

1

Binder quantity

DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL

(kg/m3 of soil) TO BE TREATED (t/m3)

24

If, for a given project, the nature of the material to be treated is known but not its dry density,

refer to the indicative values of the table 2.

Silt 1,6 - 1,8

Clay 1,7 - 1,8

Sand 1,4 - 1,9

Homeometric sand 1,4 - 1,6

Graduated sand 1,6 - 1,9

Granular soil 1,8 - 2,2

Table 2: dry density of different types of materials

2.1.2 - Quadrant 2

Once the binder quantity per m3 of soil has been determined by Quadrant 1, Quadrant 2 helps

calculate its economic impact.

In this Quadrant, we can see straight lines (going through the origin) which represent the total

cost (production and transport) for a ton of binder (figure 13).

So, for a given project, when the total cost (production + transport) per ton of binder is known,

we simply prolong horizontally the straight line of Quadrant 1 to the intersection with the straight

line of chosen cost: the binder cost per m3 of treated soil can then be read directly on the other

axis of Quadrant 2.

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2

Binder cost

Production + Transport 10

(/m3 of soil)

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150 140130 120 110 100 90 80 /t

2

BINDER COST

Binder quantity

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (/t) (kg/m3 of soil)

25

Chapitre 2 Economic comparison

2.1.3 - Quadrant 3

In this Quadrant, we see parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to

the cost of the placement equipment (spreader, mixer, sprinkler, compactor, grader).

These straight lines were drawn to include the combined costs of Quadrants 2 and 3: they are

thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own values

(figure 14).

As the cost of the binder per m3 of treated soil has been determined by Quadrant 2, we simply

prolong vertically and upward the straight line obtained, to the intersection with the straight line

that represents the cost of the placement equipment: the total combined cost per m3 of treated

soil can then be read directly on the other axis of Quadrant 3.

It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the cost of the Soil treatment technique

and the cost of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in embankments.

(/m3)

Treated soil total cost (/m3)

44

14 /m 3

40

12

10 36

8

6 32

4

2 28

0

24

20

3 16

12

8

Binder cost

Production + Transport 4

(/m3 of soil)

0

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2

26

2.1.4 - Quadrant 4

Using a simple geometrical construction (Thales theorem), this quadrant enables to go from the

cost per m3 of treated soil to the cost per m2 of treated soil (figure 15).

It is this value that will be considered to compare the cost of the Soil treatment technique and the

cost of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in capping layers.

total cost (/m3) total cost (/m2)

44 44

40 40

36 36

32 32

28 28

24 24

20 20

16 16

12 12

8 8

0 90 80 70 60 50 4035 30 20 10

Figure 15: Soil treatment zone Quadrant of total cost (/m3 et /m2)

27

Chapitre 2 Economic comparison

This zone is divided into 4 quadrants numbered 5, 6, 7 and 8. Here are the main characteristics

of each of these quadrants.

2.2.1 - Quadrant 5

- Unbound Granular materials, from the quarry to the construction site,

- Surplus soil (whose volume is supposed, in this document, equivalent to that of unbound

granular materials), from the construction site to the tip.

The straight lines of this Quadrant go through the origin and represent the costs (expressed in

/m3.km) of the various transport modes used.

For a given project, knowing the distance between quarry and worksite as well as the distance

between site and tip, we define an equivalent transport distance, i.e. the addition of quarry-site

distance and site-tip distance. Once this equivalent distance is determined, and knowing the

transport cost per m3.km, we use this Quadrant to read off the transport cost per m3 of materials,

as indicated by the figure 16.

Equivalent 4

distance

(km) 8

12

16

20

24

0,15 28

32

36

0,20

40

44

0,25

48

0,30 52

56

0,35

3

0,40 0,45 0,50 /m .km

Materials

MATERIALS TRANSPORT 5 transport cost

(/m3)

COST (/m3.km)

Figure 16: Unbound granular materials zone Materials transport cost quadrant

28

2.2.2 - Quadrant 6

In this Quadrant we see several parallel straight lines, corresponding to the costs of various types

of Unbound granular materials (rolled aggregate, crushed aggregate, hard rock, soft rock)

expressed in /m3 (figure 17).

These straight lines were drawn to include the combined costs of Quadrants 5 and 6: they are thus

tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own values.

aggregates production cost

3

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 (/m )

4

52

8

48

12

44

16

40

20

36

24

32

28

28

32

24

36

20

40

16

44

12

48

8

52

4

56

6

0 /m3

Materials

transport cost EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTION

(/m3)

OF AGGREGATES COST (/m3)

Figure 17: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of aggregates extraction and production cost

As the transport cost has been determined at Quadrant 5 and as the extraction and production

costs are known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 6 enables to calculate the

cumulated total cost for tipping per m3 of surplus soil and total cost of extraction, production and

transport per m3 of aggregates.

29

Chapitre 2 Economic comparison

2.2.3 - Quadrant 7

In this Quadrant are parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to the costs

of placement equipment (grader, sprinkler, compactor).

These straight lines were drawn to include the combined costs of Quadrants 5, 6 and 7: they are thus

tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own values (figure 18).

As the cost of extraction, production and transport has been determined at Quadrant 6, and as the

placement cost is known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 7 enables to evaluate the

combined total cost for tipping per m3 of surplus soil and total cost of extraction, production, transport

and placement per m3 of aggregates.

It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the cost of the unbound granular materials

technique and that of Soil treatment, for use in embankments.

(/m3)

Unbound granular materials 8 /m3

total cost (/m3)

6

4

2

44 0

40

36

32

28

24 7

20

16

12

8

Materials transport and

4 aggregates production cost

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 (/m3)

Figure 18: Unbound granular materials zone Aggregates placement cost quadrant

30

2.2.4 - Quadrant 8

Using a simple geometrical construction (Thales theorem), this quadrant enables to go from the

cost per m3 of granular base layer to the cost per m2 of granular base layer.

It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the cost of the unbound granular

materials technique and that of Soil treatment, for use in capping layers (figure 19).

total cost (/m2) total cost (/m3)

44 44

40 40

36 36

32 32

28 28

24 24

20 20

16 16

12 12

8 8

4 Aggregates (cm) 4

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Figure 19: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of total cost (/m3 et /m2)

31

Chapitre 2 Economic comparison

2.3 - Conclusion

By applying this method on the 4 Quadrants of Zone 1 and on the 4 Quadrants of Zone 2 we can

compare the costs of the Soil treatment technique and the costs of the unbound granular materials

technique.

For use in embankments, the comparison is made per m3 of material (figure 20).

(/m3) (/m3)

4 Total cost (/m2)

8 Unbound granular materials 8 /m3

total cost (/m3)

6

4

2

44 44 44 0

14 /m3 40 40 40

12

10 36 36 36

8

6 32 32 32

4

2 28 28 28

0

24 24 24 7

20 20 20

3 16 16 16

12 12 12

8 8 8

Binder cost Materials transport and

Production + Transport 4 Treated soil (cm)

4 Aggregates (cm) 4 aggregates production cost

(/m3 of soil) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 (/m3)

0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2

For use in capping layers the comparison is made per m2 of material (figure 21).

4 Total cost (/m2)

8 Unbound granular materials

total cost (/m3)

44 44 44

40 40 40

36 36 36

32 32 32

28 28 28

24 24 24

20 20 20

16 16 16

12 12 12

8 8 8

4 Aggregates (cm) 4

0 90 80 70 60 50 4035 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

32

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

TREATED SOIL PLACEMENT COST

ECONOMIC COMPARISON AGGREGATES PLACEMENT COST

(/m3) (/m3)

4 8 Unbound granular materials 8 /m3

Treated soil total cost (/m3) Total cost (/m2) total cost (/m3)

6

4

2

44 44 44 0

3

14 /m 40 40 40

12

10 36 36 36

8

6 32 32 32

4

2 28 28 28

0

24 24 24 7

20 20 20

3 16 16 16

12 12 12

8 8 8

Binder cost Materials transport and

Production + Transport 4 Treated soil (cm)

4 Aggregates (cm) 4 aggregates production cost

(/m3 of soil) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 (/m3)

0 90 80 70 60 50 4035 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

33

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

10 Binder Equivalent 4

Proportion distance

(%) (km) 52

20 8

48

30 12

44

40 16

40

50 20

36

60 24

32

70 0,15 28

28

80 32

24

90 36

0,20

20

100 40

16

110 44

0,25 12

120 48

8

130 0,30 52

2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4 4

140 56

150 140130 120 110 100 90 80 /t t/m3 0,35 6

2 1 0,40 0,45 0,50 /m3.km 0 /m3

Materials

BINDER COST DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT 5 transport cost EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTION

Binder quantity (/m3)

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (/t) (kg/m3 of soil) TO BE TREATED (t/m3) COST (/m3.km) OF AGGREGATES COST (/m3)

J. ABDO - CIMBTON

Chapitre 2 Economic comparison

between the Soil treatment technique and the Unbound

granular materials technique, you can simply photocopy

the unmarked graph on page 35, add data specific to

your study and read the result you need on the graph.

34

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

TREATED SOIL PLACEMENT COST

ECONOMIC COMPARISON AGGREGATES PLACEMENT COST

(/m3) (/m3)

4 8 Unbound granular materials 8 /m3

Treated soil total cost (/m3) Total cost (/m2) total cost (/m3)

6

4

2

44 44 44 0

3

14 /m 40 40 40

12

10 36 36 36

8

6 32 32 32

4

2 28 28 28

0

24 24 24 7

20 20 20

3 16 16 16

12 12 12

8 8 8

Binder cost Materials transport and

Production + Transport 4 Treated soil (cm)

4 Aggregates (cm) 4 aggregates production cost

3

(/m3 of soil) 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 (/m )

0 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

35

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

10 Binder Equivalent 4

Proportion distance

(%) (km) 52

20 8

48

30 12

44

40 16

40

50 20

36

60 24

32

70 0,15 28

28

80 32

24

90 36

0,20

20

100 40

16

110 44

0,25 12

120 48

8

130 0,30 52

2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4 4

140 56

150 140130 120 110 100 90 80 /t t/m3 0,35 6

2 1 0,40 0,45 0,50 /m3.km 0 /m3

Materials

BINDER COST DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT 5 transport cost EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTION

Binder quantity (/m3)

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (/t) (kg/m3 of soil) TO BE TREATED (t/m3) COST (/m3.km) OF AGGREGATES COST (/m3)

J. ABDO - CIMBTON

36

Chapter

3 Environmental

comparison

Energy Indicator

3.1.1 - Quadrant 1

3.1.2 - Quadrant 2

3.1.2.1 - Transport Energy

3.1.2.2 - Total Energy (production + transport)

3.1.3 - Quadrant 3

3.1.4 - Quadrant 4

3.2.1 - Quadrant 5

3.2.2 - Quadrant 6

3.2.3 - Quadrant 7

3.2.4 - Quadrant 8

3.3 - Conclusion

37

Chapitre 3 Environmental comparison Energy Indicator

This zone is divided into 4 quadrants numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4. Here are the main characteristics

of each of these quadrants.

3.1.1 - Quadrant 1

It helps calculate the quantity of binder required per m3 of soil to reach the performances required

for the material treated, within the scope of the project under study.

In this quadrant is a family of straight lines (going through the origin) that represent various dry

densities, corresponding to a wide range of materials that can be found in nature (figure 22).

Thus, for a given project, when the dry density of the soil and the binder proportion are known,

we simply draw a descending vertical line going from the binder proportion digit to the

intersection with the straight line of the dry density chosen: the binder quantity per m3 of soil

necessary for Soil treatment can then be read directly on the vertical axis of this Quadrant.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 Binder

proportion

(%)

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

1 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4

140

Binder quantity

(kg/m3 of soil) DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL

TO BE TREATED (t/m3)

38

If, for a given project, the nature of the material to be treated is known but not its dry density,

refer to the indicative values of the table 3.

Silt 1,6 - 1,8

Clay 1,7 - 1,8

Sand 1,4 - 1,9

Homeometric sand 1,4 - 1,6

Graduated sand 1,6 - 1,9

Granular soil 1,8 - 2,2

Table 3: dry density of different types of materials

3.1.2 - Quadrant 2

Once the binder quantity per m3 of soil has been determined by Quadrant 1, Quadrant 2 helps

calculate its Energy impact.

In this Quadrant, we can see straight lines (going through the origin) which represent the Energy

impact (production + transport) for a ton of binder (figure 23).

So, for a given project, when the total Energy (production + transport) per ton of binder is known,

we simply prolong horizontally the straight line of Quadrant 1 to the intersection with the straight

line corresponding to the chosen Energy: the Energy of the binder per m3 of treated soil can then

be read directly on the other axis of Quadrant 2.

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

Binder energy 10

Production + Transport

(Mj/m3 of soil) 20

30

40

50

60

2

70

80

90

100

10000 110

9000 120

130

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000

140

Binder quantity

3

(kg/m of soil)

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT

BINDER ENERGY (Mj/t)

39

Chapitre 3 Environmental comparison Energy Indicator

If the total energy per ton of binder is not known or if the user wishes to accurately determine this

energy with the local data at hand, he may refer to the diagram of figure 24.

(Mj/t.km) energy (Mj/t)

(Mj/t) 1625

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000

0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5

800

0,7

700

0,6

600

0,5

500

400

300

200

100

Transport 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 Binder energy

distance 250 1800 Production + transport

(km) (Mj/t)

When the transport distance between the cement plant and the construction site is known, as well

as the transport energy of binder in Mj/t.km and the production energy for a ton of binder, this

diagram helps determine, successively, the transport energy and the total energy.

The total energy is then transferred on Quadrant 2, which will allow deducing the energy of the

binder per m3 of treated soil.

When the binder transport energy in Mj/t.km is not known, the user is able to calculate it using

the following formula: moyen de la formule suivante :

F (Energy, D) =

Truck load capacity x 100

With:

Consumption per 100 km

16-ton truck: 29 litres of fuel

29-ton truck: 36 litres of fuel

40-ton truck: 40 litres of fuel

Truck load capacity

16-ton truck: 8-ton load capacity

29-ton truck: 16-ton load capacity

40-ton truck: 20-ton load capacity

Coefficient 35: this is the quantity of energy (in Mj) released by the combustion of a litre of fuel

Coefficient 100: for 100 km

40

3.1.2.2 - Binder production Energy

When the production energy per ton of binder is not known, we can use the values given as an

indication in the table 4.

Energy consumption

Binder

(Mj/t binder)

CEM I 5 930*

CEM II 4 395*

Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 70% Slag 2 636*

Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 50% Slag 3 459*

Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 30% Slag 4 282*

Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 30% Limestone 3 856*

Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 30% Fly Ash 3 887*

Quicklime 4 301**

* Source: ATILH ** Source: Union des Producteurs de Chaux

Table 4: Binder production Energy

To obtain the right production energy per ton of a given product, we invite you to contact directly

the binders producer.

3.1.3 - Quadrant 3

In this Quadrant we see parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to

the energies consumed by the placement equipment (spreader, mixer, sprinkler, compactor,

grader).

These straight lines were drawn to include the combined energies of Quadrants 2 and 3: they are

thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own values

(figure 25).

As the energy value of the binder per m3 of treated soil has been determined by Quadrant 2, we

simply prolong vertically and upward the straight line obtained, to the intersection with the

straight line that represents the energy of the placement equipment: the total combined energy

per m3 of treated soil can then be read directly on the other axis of Quadrant 3.

It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the total Energy of the Soil treatment

technique and the total Energy of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in

embankments.

41

Chapitre 3 Environmental comparison Energy Indicator

PLACEMENT ENERGY (Mj/m3) Energy

treated soil

20 30 (Mj/m3)

10

0 1000

900

800

700

600

3

500

400

300

200

100

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

Binder energy

Production + Transport

(Mj/m3 of soil)

If the energy of the placement equipment is not known, we can use the following calculation

method:

E Mj = 35 L Litre

With:

E: energy consumed for the placement of a m3 of treated soil (Mj)

Coefficient 35: calorific value of a litre of fuel

L fuel consumption of all equipment used for placement of treated soil (for 1 m3). L values are

given in the table 5.

L Soil

0,7 Silty/sandy soil

0,8 Clay soil

0,9 Gravelly soil

1,0 Packed and difficult soil

> 1,0 Bouldery soil

Table 5: fuel consumption of all equipment used for placement treated Soil, according to soil nature

42

3.1.4 - Quadrant 4

Using a simple geometrical construction (Thales theorem), this quadrant enables to go from the

Energy per m3 of treated soil to the Energy per m2 of treated soil (figure 26).

Total 4 Total

Energy Energy

treated soil treated soil

(Mj/m3) (Mj/m2)

1000 1000

900 900

800 800

700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

Treated soil (cm) 35

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Figure 26: Soil treatment zone Quadrant of total Energy (/m3 et /m2)

It is this value that will be considered to compare the total Energy of the Soil treatment technique

and the Energy of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in capping layers.

43

Chapitre 3 Environmental comparison Energy Indicator

This zone is divided into 4 quadrants numbered 5, 6, 7 and 8. Here are the main characteristics

of each of these quadrants.

3.2.1 - Quadrant 5

- Unbound Granular materials, from the quarry to the construction site,

- Surplus soil (whose volume is supposed, in this document, equivalent to that of unbound

granular materials), from the construction site to the tip.

The straight lines of this Quadrant go through the origin and represent the energies (expressed

in Mj/m3.km) of the various transport modes used (figure 27).

For a given project, knowing the distance between quarry and worksite as well as the distance

between site and tip, we define an equivalent transport distance, i.e. the addition of quarry-site

distance and site-tip distance. Once this equivalent distance is determined, and knowing the

transport energy per m3.km, we use this Quadrant to read off the transport energy per m3 of

materials, as indicated by the red line on the graph below.

Equivalent 100

distance

(km) 200

300

1,8

2,0 400

2,2

2,4

2,6 500

2,8

3,0

3,2 600

3,4

3,6 700

3,8

4,0

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

5 1400

Materials

transport

energy

MATERIALS TRANSPORT (Mj/m3)

ENERGY (Mj/m3.km)

Figure 27: Unbound granular materials zone Materials transport Energy quadrant

44

When the transport energy per m3.km is not known, the user is able to calculate it using the

following formula:

F (Energy, D) =

Truck load capacity x 100

With:

Consumption per 100 km

16-ton truck: 29 litres of fuel

29-ton truck: 36 litres of fuel

40-ton truck: 40 litres of fuel

16-ton truck: 8-ton load capacity

29-ton truck: 16-ton load capacity

40-ton truck: 20-ton load capacity

Coefficient 35: this is the quantity of energy (in megajoules - Mj) released by the combustion of

a litre of fuel

3.2.2 - Quadrant 6

In this Quadrant we see several parallel straight lines, corresponding to the energies of various

types of Unbound granular materials (rolled aggregate, crushed aggregate, hard rock, soft

rock).

These straight lines were drawn to include the combined energies of Quadrants 5 and 6: they are

thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own values

(figure 28).

As the transport energy has been determined at Quadrant 5 and as the extraction and production

energies are known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 6 enables to calculate the

combined energy of materials transport, of extraction and production of aggregates.

45

Chapitre 3 Environmental comparison Energy Indicator

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0 Materials transport and aggregates

100 production total Energy

(Mj/m3)

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

550

900 500

450

1000 400

350

1100 300

0 100 200 250

1200 50 150

1300

6

1400

Materials

transport

energy

(Mj/m3) AGGREGATES PRODUCTION

ENERGY (Mj/m3)

Figure 28: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of aggregates extraction and production Energy

3.2.3 - Quadrant 7

In this Quadrant are parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to the

energies of placement equipment (grader, sprinkler, compactor).

These straight lines were drawn to include the combined energies of Quadrants 5, 6 and 7: they

are thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own values

(figure 29).

As the energy of extraction, production and transport has been determined at Quadrant 6, and

as the placement energy is known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 7 enables to

evaluate the combined total energy of materials transport, of extraction, production and

placement of aggregates.

It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the total energy of the unbound

granular materials technique and that of the Soil treatment technique, for use in embankments.

46

Unbound granular AGGREGATES PLACEMENT

50

materials total Energy ENERGY (Mj/m3) 40

(Mj/m3) 30

20

10

0

1000

900

800

700

600

7

500

400

300

200

100

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0 Materials transport and aggregates

production total Energy

(Mj/m3)

Figure 29: Unbound granular materials zone Aggregates placement Energy quadrant

3.2.4 - Quadrant 8

Using a simple geometrical construction (Thales theorem), this quadrant enables to go from the

Energy per m3 of treated soil to the Energy per m2 of treated soil (figure 30). It is this value that

will be considered to compare the total Energy of the Soil treatment technique and the Energy of

the unbound granular materials technique, for use in capping layers.

materials total Energy

8 materials total Energy

(Mj/m2) (Mj/m3)

1000 1000

900 900

800 800

700 700

600 600

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

Aggregates (cm)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Figure 30: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of total Energy (/m3 et /m2)

47

Chapitre 3 Environmental comparison Energy Indicator

3.3 - Conclusion

By applying this method on the 4 Quadrants of Zone 1 and on the 4 Quadrants of Zone 2 we can

compare the energie of the Soil treatment technique and the energie of the unbound granular

materials technique.

For use in embankments, the comparison is made per m3 of material (figure 31).

PLACEMENT ENERGY (Mj/m3)

Total 4 Energy

8 materials total Energy ENERGY (Mj/m3) 50

40

Energy

treated soil (Mj/m2) (Mj/m3) 30

20

20 30 (Mj/m3) 10

10 0

0 1000 1000 1000

3 7

500 500

500

400 400 400

Treated soil (cm) Aggregates (cm)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 Materials transport and aggregates

Binder energy production total Energy

Production + Transport (Mj/m3)

(Mj/m3 of soil)

For use in capping layers, the comparison is made per m2 of material (figure 32).

Total 4 Energy

8 materials total Energy

Energy

treated soil (Mj/m2) (Mj/m3)

(Mj/m3)

1000 1000 1000

Treated soil (cm) 35 Aggregates (cm)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

48

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON - ENERGY INDICATOR

TREATED SOIL Total Total Unbound granular AGGREGATES PLACEMENT

4 8 50

PLACEMENT ENERGY (Mj/m3) Energy Energy materials total Energy ENERGY (Mj/m3) 40

treated soil (Mj/m2) (Mj/m3) 30

20

20 30 (Mj/m3) 10

10 0

0 1000 1000 1000

3 7

500 500 500

400 400 400

Treated soil (cm) 35 Aggregates (cm)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Materials transport and aggregates

49

Binder energy 10 Binder Equivalent 100 production total Energy

Production + Transport proportion distance (Mj/m3)

(Mj/m3 of soil) (%) (km) 200

20

30 300

1,8

2,0 400

40 2,2

2,4

50 2,6 500

2,8

3,0

60 3,2 600

2 3,4

70 3,6 700

3,8

4,0

80 800

550

90 900 500

450

100 1000 400

350

10000 110 1100 300

0 100 200 250

9000 120 1200 50 150

130 1300

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6

1 1,4 5 6

140 1400

Binder quantity Materials

3

(kg/m of soil) transport

energy

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT (Mj/m3) AGGREGATES PRODUCTION

BINDER ENERGY (Mj/t) TO BE TREATED (t/m3) ENERGY (Mj/m3.km) ENERGY (Mj/m3)

J. ABDO - CIMBTON

Chapitre 3 Environmental comparison Energy Indicator

Energy indicator between the Soil treatment

technique and the Unbound granular materials

technique, you can simply photocopy the unmarked

graph on page 52, add data specific to your study and

read the result you need on the graph.

50

Diagram of evaluation of binder Energy (production + transport)

(Mj/t.km) energy (Mj/t)

(Mj/t) 1625

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000

0,8 0,9 1,0 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5

800

0,7

700

0,6

51

600

0,5

500

400

300

200

100

Transport 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 Binder energy

distance 250 1800 Production + transport

(km) (Mj/t)

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON - ENERGY INDICATOR

TREATED SOIL Total Unbound granular AGGREGATES PLACEMENT

PLACEMENT ENERGY (Mj/m3)

Total 4 Energy

8 materials total Energy ENERGY (Mj/m3) 50

40

Energy

treated soil (Mj/m2) (Mj/m3) 30

20

20 30 (Mj/m3) 10

10 0

0 1000 1000 1000

900 900 900

800 800 800

700 700 700

600 600 600

3 7

500 500 500

400 400 400

300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

Treated soil (cm) Aggregates (cm)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

52

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Materials transport and aggregates

Binder energy 10 Binder Equivalent 100 production total Energy

Production + Transport proportion distance (Mj/m3)

(Mj/m3 of soil) (%) (km) 200

20

30 300

1,8

2,0 400

40 2,2

2,4

50 2,6 500

2,8

3,0

60 3,2 600

2 3,4

70 3,6 700

3,8

4,0

80 800

550

90 900 500

450

100 1000 400

350

10000 110 1100 300

0 100 200 250

9000 120 1200 50 150

130 1300

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6

3000 2000 1000 1 1,4 5 6

J. ABDO - CIMBTON

140 1400

Binder quantity Materials

(kg/m3 of soil) transport

energy

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT (Mj/m3) AGGREGATES PRODUCTION

BINDER ENERGY (Mj/t) TO BE TREATED (t/m3) ENERGY (Mj/m3.km) ENERGY (Mj/m3)

Chapter

4 Environmental

comparison -

CO2 Indicator

4.1.1 - Quadrant 1

4.1.2 - Quadrant 2

4.1.2.1 - Transport CO impact

4.1.2.2 - Total CO impact (production + transport)

4.1.3 - Quadrant 3

4.1.4 - Quadrant 4

4.2.1 - Quadrant 5

4.2.2 - Quadrant 6

4.2.3 - Quadrant 7

4.2.4 - Quadrant 8

4.3 - Conclusion

53

Chapitre 4 Environmental comparison - CO2 Indicator

of each of these quadrants.

4.1.1 - Quadrant 1

for the material treated, within the scope of the project under study.

In this quadrant is a family of straight lines (going through the origin) that represent various dry

densities, corresponding to a wide range of materials that can be found in nature (figure 33).

Thus, for a given project, when the dry density of the soil and the binder proportion are known,

we simply draw a descending vertical line going from the binder proportion digit to the

intersection with the straight line of the dry density chosen: the binder quantity per m3 of soil

necessary for Soil treatment can then be read directly on the vertical axis of this Quadrant.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Binder

10 proportion

20 (%)

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

1,4 t/m3

130

140 1,6

1 1,8

150

2,4 2,2 2,0

Binder

quantity DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL

(kg/m3 TO BE TREATED (t/m3)

of soil)

54

If, for a given project, the nature of the material to be treated is known but not its dry density,

refer to the indicative values of the table 6.

Materials Dry density

Silt 1,6 - 1,8

Clay 1,7 - 1,8

Sand 1,4 - 1,9

Homeometric sand 1,4 - 1,6

Graduated sand 1,6 - 1,9

Granular soil 1,8 - 2,2

Table 6: dry density of different types of materials

4.1.2 - Quadrant 2

Once the binder quantity per m3 of soil has been determined by Quadrant 1, Quadrant 2 helps

calculate its CO2 impact.

In this Quadrant, we can see straight lines (going through the origin) which represent the CO2

impact (expressed in kg CO2 equivalent) of the various types of binders (figure 34).

So, for a given project, when the total CO2 impact (production + transport) per ton of binder is

known, we simply prolong horizontally the straight line of Quadrant 1 to the intersection with the

straight line corresponding to the chosen impact: the CO2 impact of binder per m3 of treated soil

can then be read directly on the other axis of Quadrant 2.

Binder CO2 impact 10

Production + transport

(kg CO2 eq./m3) 20

30

40

50

60

2

70

80

90

100

1200 110

1100 120

1000 130

140

900

600 500 400 300 200 100

Binder

BINDER CO2 IMPACT quantity

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (kg CO2 eq./t) (kg/m3

of soil)

55

Chapitre 4 Environmental comparison - CO2 Indicator

If the total CO2 impact per ton of binder is not known or if the user wishes to accurately determine

this impact with the local data at hand, he may refer to the diagram of figure 35.

(kg CO2 q./t.km) Binder transport (kg CO2 q./t)

CO2 impact

0,10 (kg CO2 q./t) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

0,09

80

0,08

0,07 70

0,06

60

0,05

50

0,04

40

30

20

10

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Transport distance (km) 250 315

Binder CO2 impact, Production + transport

(CO2 q./t)

Ce When the transport distance between the cement plant and the construction site is known, as well

as the transport CO2 impact in t.km and the CO2 impact for production of a ton of binder, this diagram

help determine, successively, the transport CO2 impact and the total production + transport CO2

impact.

The total CO2 impact is then transferred on Quadrant 2, which will allow deducing the CO2 impact

per m3 of treated soil.

When the transport CO2 impact in t.km is not known, the user is able to calculate it using the

following formula:

F (CO2, D) =

Truck load capacity x 100

With:

Consumption per 100 km

16-ton truck: 29 litres of fuel

29-ton truck: 36 litres of fuel

40-ton truck: 40 litres of fuel

Truck load capacity

16-ton truck: 8-ton load capacity

29-ton truck: 16-ton load capacity

40-ton truck: 20-ton load capacity

Coefficient 2.5: his is the quantity of CO2 equivalent (in kg) released by the combustion of a litre

of fuel

Coefficient 100: for 100 km

56

4.1.2.2 - Binder production CO2 impact

When the CO2 impact per ton of binder is not known, we can use the values given as an indication

in the table 7.

CO2 impact

Binder

(kg CO2 eq./t binder)

CEM I 868*

CEM II 650*

Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 70% Slag 294*

Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 50% Slag 459*

Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 30% Slag 625*

Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 30% Limestone 614*

Hydraulic Road Binder HRB 30% Fly Ash 613*

Quicklime 1 059**

* Source: ATILH ** Source: Union des Producteurs de Chaux

To obtain the right CO2 impact per ton of a given product, we invite you to contact directly the

binders producer.

4.1.3 - Quadrant 3

In this Quadrant we see parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to

the CO2 impacts of placement equipment (spreader, mixer, sprinkler, compactor, grader).

These straight lines were drawn to include the combined CO2 impacts of Quadrants 2 and 3: they

are thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own values

(figure 36).

As the CO2 impact value of the binder per m3 of treated soil has been determined by Quadrant

2, we simply prolong vertically and upward the straight line obtained, to the intersection with the

straight line that represents the CO2 impact of placement equipment: the total combined impact

per m3 of treated soil can then be read directly on the other axis of Quadrant 3.

It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the total CO2 impact of the Soil

treatment technique and the total CO2 impact of the unbound granular materials technique, for

use in embankments.

57

Chapitre 4 Environmental comparison - CO2 Indicator

OF TREATED SOIL

10,0 (kg CO2 eq./m3) Treated soil

7,5 Total CO2 impact

5,0

2,5 (kg CO2 eq./m3)

0

120

110

100

90

80

70

3 60

50

40

30

20

Binder CO2 impact

Production + transport 10

(kg CO2 eq./m3)

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Figure 36: Soil treatment zone Placement CO2 impact quadrant

If the CO2 impact of placement equipment is not known, we can use the following calculation

method:

With:

CO2 Impact: quantity of CO2 equivalent for placement of a m3 of treated soil (kg CO2 equivalent)

Coefficient 2.5: quantity of CO2 equivalent released by the combustion of a litre of fuel

L: fuel consumption of all equipment used for placement of treated soil (for 1 m3). L values are

given in the table 8.

L Soil

0,7 Silty/sandy soil

0,8 Clay soil

0,9 Gravelly soil

1,0 Packed and difficult soil

> 1,0 Bouldery soil

Table 8: fuel consumption of all equipment used for treated Soil, according to soil nature

58

4.1.4 - Quadrant 4

Using a simple geometrical construction (Thales theorem), this quadrant enables to go from the

CO2 impact per m3 of treated soil to the CO2 impact per m2 of treated soil (figure 37).

Total CO2 impact Total CO2 impact

(kg CO2 eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m2)

120

4 120

110 110

100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

90 80 70 60 50 40 35 30 20 10

Figure 37: Soil treatment zone Quadrant of total CO2 impact (/m3 et /m2)

It is this value that will be considered to compare the total CO2 impact of the Soil treatment

technique and the total CO2 impact of the unbound granular materials technique, for use in

capping layers.

59

Chapitre 4 Environmental comparison - CO2 Indicator

of each of these quadrants.

4.2.1 - Quadrant 5

- Unbound Granular materials, from the quarry to the construction site,

- Surplus soil (whose volume is supposed, in this document, equivalent to that of unbound

granular materials), from the construction site to the tip.

The straight lines of this Quadrant go through the origin and represent the CO2 impact (expressed

in kg CO2 equivalent) of the various transport modes used (figure 38).

For a given project, knowing the distance between quarry and worksite as well as the distance

between site and tip, we define an equivalent transport distance, i.e. the addition of quarry-site

distance and site-tip distance. Once this equivalent distance is determined, and knowing the

transport impact per m3.km, we use this Quadrant to read off the transport CO2 impact per m3 of

materials, as indicated by the red line on the graph below.

Equivalent

distance 2,5

(km) 5

7,5

0,05

10

0,075 12,5

15

0,10 17,5

20

0,125

22,5

25

0,15

27,5

0,175 30

0,20 32,5

0,225

0,25 0,30 5

0,275

Materials transport

MATERIALS TRANSPORT CO2 CO2 impact

(kg CO2 eq./m3)

IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3.km)

Figure 38: Unbound granular materials zone Materials transport CO2 impact quadrant

60

When the transport CO2 impact per m3.km is not known, the user is able to calculate it using the

following formula:

F (CO2, D) =

Truck load capacity x 100

With:

Consumption per 100 km

16-ton truck: 29 litres of fuel

29-ton truck: 36 litres of fuel

40-ton truck: 40 litres of fuel

16-ton truck: 8-ton load capacity

29-ton truck: 16-ton load capacity

40-ton truck: 20-ton load capacity

Coefficient 2.5: this is the quantity of CO2 equivalent (in kg) released by the combustion of a litre

of fuel

61

Chapitre 4 Environmental comparison - CO2 Indicator

4.2.2 - Quadrant 6

In this Quadrant we see several parallel straight lines, corresponding to the CO2 impacts of

various types of Unbound granular materials (rolled aggregate, crushed aggregate, hard rock, soft

rock).

These straight lines were drawn to include the combined CO2 impacts of Quadrants 5 and 6: they

are thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own values

(figure 39).

aggregates production

CO2 impact

(kg CO2 eq./m3)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

2,5

5

7,5

10

12,5

15

17,5

20

22,5

25

27,5

30

Materials transport

CO2 impact AGGREGATES PRODUCTION

(kg CO2 eq./m3) CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)

Figure 39: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of aggregates extraction and production CO2 impact

As the transport CO2 impact has been determined at Quadrant 5 and as the extraction and

production CO2 impacts are known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 6 enables

to calculate the combined CO2 impact of materials transport and of extraction and production of

aggregates.

62

4.2.3 - Quadrant 7

In this Quadrant are parallel straight lines that correspond to different hypothesis relating to the

CO2 impacts of placement equipment (grader, sprinkler, compactor).

These straight lines were drawn to include the combined CO2 impacts of Quadrants 5, 6 and 7:

they are thus tilted by an angle of 45 and have ordinates at the origin equivalent to their own

values (figure 40).

As the CO2 impact of extraction, production and transport has been determined at Quadrant 6,

and as the placement CO2 impact is known locally within the scope of this project, Quadrant 7

enables to evaluate the combined total CO2 impact for materials transport and for extraction,

production, transport and placement of aggregates.

It is this value that will be considered in order to compare the total CO2 impact of the Unbound

granular materials technique and total CO2 impact of the Soil treatment technique, for use in

embankments.

AGGREGATES PLACEMENT

Unbound granular CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)

materials total CO2 impact

(kg CO2 eq./m3)

120 1,1

1,0

0,9

110 0,8

100

90

80

70

7

60

50

40

30

aggregates production

10 CO2 impact

(kg CO2 eq./m3)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Figure 40: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of aggregates placement CO2 impact

63

Chapitre 4 Environmental comparison - CO2 Indicator

4.2.4 - Quadrant 8

Using a simple geometrical construction (Thales theorem), this quadrant enables to go from the

CO2 impact per m3 of unbound granular materials to the CO2 impact per m2 of unbound granular

materials (figure 41).

It is this value that will be considered to compare the total CO2 impact of the unbound granular

materials technique and the total CO2 impact of the Soil treatment technique, for use in capping

layers.

materials total CO2 impact materials total CO2 impact

(kg CO2 eq./m2) (kg CO2 eq./m3)

120

8 120

110 110

100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

Aggregates (cm)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Figure 41: Unbound granular materials zone Quadrant of total CO2 impact (/m3 et /m2)

64

4.3 - Conclusion

By applying this method on the 4 Quadrants of Zone 1 and on the 4 Quadrants of Zone 2 we can

compare the CO2 impacts of the Soil treatment technique and the CO2 impacts of the unbound

granular materials technique.

For use in embankments, the comparison is made per m3 of material (figure 42).

AGGREGATES PLACEMENT

OF TREATED SOIL Total CO2 impact impact materials total CO2 impact

10,0 (kg CO2 eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m2) (kg CO2 eq./m3) CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)

7,5 (kg CO2 eq./m3)

5,0

2,5

0

120

4 120

8 120 1,1

1,0

0,9

110 110 110 0,8

100 100 100

90 90 90

80 80 80

70 70 70

3 7

60 60 60

50 50 50

40 40 40

30 30 30

Binder CO2 impact aggregates production

Production + transport 10 10 10 CO2 impact

Treated soil (cm) Aggregates (cm)

(kg CO2 eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m3)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

For use in capping layers, the comparison is made per m2 of material (figure 43).

Total CO2 impact impact materials total CO2 impact

(kg CO2 eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m2) (kg CO2 eq./m3)

120

4 120

8 120

90 90 90

80 80 80

70 70 70

60 60 60

50 50 50

40 40 40

30 30 30

20 20 20

Aggregates (cm)

90 80 70 60 50 40 35 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Figure 43: environmental comparison diagram (CO2 impact) Capping layers case

65

PLACEMENT CO2 IMPACT

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

ENVIRONMENT COMPARISON - CO2 INDICATOR AGGREGATES PLACEMENT

OF TREATED SOIL CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)

10,0 Treated soil Total CO2 Unbound granular

7,5 (kg CO eq./m3)

2 materials total CO2 impact

Total CO2 impact impact

5,0

2,5 (kg CO2 eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m2) (kg CO2 eq./m3)

0

120

4 120

8 120 1,1

1,0

0,9

110 110 110 0,8

100 100 100

90 90 90

80 80 80

70 70 70

3 7

60 60 60

50 50 50

40 40 40

30 30 30

20 20 20 Materials transport and

Binder CO2 impact aggregates production

Production + transport 10 10 10 CO2 impact

Treated soil (cm) Aggregates (cm)

(kg CO eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m3)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

66

2 90 80 70 60 50 40 35 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Binder Equivalent

10 proportion distance 2,5

20 (%) (km) 5

30 7,5

0,05

40 10

50 0,075 12,5

60 15

2 0,10

70 17,5

80 20

0,125

90 22,5

100 25

0,15

1200 110 27,5

1100 120 0,175 30

1,4 t/m3

1000 130 0,20 32,5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

140 1,6 0,225

1

J. ABDO - CIMBTON

900 0,25 0,30 5 6

1,8

150 0,275

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 2,4 2,2 2,0

Binder Materials transport

BINDER CO2 IMPACT quantity DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT CO2 CO2 impact AGGREGATES PRODUCTION

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (kg CO2 eq./t) (kg CO2 eq./m3) CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)

(kg/m3 TO BE TREATED (t/m3) IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3.km)

of soil)

To make your own studies on Environment comparison

CO2 indicator between the Soil treatment technique

and the Unbound granular materials technique, you can

simply photocopy the unmarked graph on page 69, add

data specific to your study and read the result you need

on the graph.

67

Diagram of evaluation of binder CO2 impact (production + transport)

BINDER TRANSPORT CO2 IMPACT BINDER PRODUCTION CO2 IMPACT

(kg CO2 q./t.km) Binder transport (kg CO2 q./t)

CO2 impact

0,10 (kg CO2 q./t) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

0,09

80

0,08

0,07 70

68

0,06

60

Environmental comparison - CO2 Indicator

0,05

50

0,04

40

30

20

10

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Transport distance (km) 250 315

Binder CO impact, Production + transport

2

(CO2 q./t)

4Chapitre

PLACEMENT CO2 IMPACT

SOIL TREATMENT VS UNBOUND GRANULAR MATERIALS

AGGREGATES PLACEMENT

OF TREATED SOIL ENVIRONMENT COMPARISON - CO2 INDICATOR

10,0 Treated soil Total CO2 Unbound granular CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)

7,5 (kg CO2 eq./m3)

5,0 Total CO2 impact impact materials total CO2 impact

2,5 (kg CO2 eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m2) (kg CO2 eq./m3)

0

120

4 120

8 120 1,1

1,0

0,9

110 110 110 0,8

100 100 100

90 90 90

80 80 80

70 70 70

3 7

60 60 60

50 50 50

40 40 40

30 30 30

Binder CO2 impact aggregates production

Production + transport 10 Treated soil (cm) 10 10 CO2 impact

Aggregates (cm)

(kg CO2 eq./m3) (kg CO2 eq./m3)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

69

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Binder Equivalent

10 proportion distance 2,5

20 (%) (km) 5

30 7,5

0,05

40 10

50 0,075 12,5

60 15

2 0,10

70 17,5

80 20

0,125

90 22,5

100 25

0,15

1200 110 27,5

1,4 t/m3

1000 130 0,20 32,5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

140 1,6 0,225

900 1 0,25 0,30

1,8 5 6

150 0,275

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 2,4 2,2 2,0

BINDER CO2 IMPACT quantity DRY DENSITY OF MATERIAL MATERIALS TRANSPORT CO2 CO2 impact AGGREGATES PRODUCTION

(kg/m3 (kg CO2 eq./m3)

PRODUCTION + TRANSPORT (kg CO2 eq./t) TO BE TREATED (t/m3) CO2 IMPACT (kg CO2 eq./m3)

J. ABDO - CIMBTON

of soil)

70

Chapter

5 General

conclusion

This study aims to offer a simple visual method that will help users make decisions as regards the

choice of construction techniques, in the field of road earthworks.

It concerns the three impacts or indicators which are nowadays considered as most important:

Economic, Energy and CO2.

To supplement this study, other impacts or indicators may be studied in the future: water, natural

resources, waste materials, acidification, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, human toxicity

71

Pictures credit

Romualda Holak, Cimbton, X

All rights reserved

Layout

Dorothe Picard

Published by

lot Trsor

RCS Paris B 408 745 149

November 2009

- lecture 4Загружено:Emil Buan
- C.C Road Estimates ExampleЗагружено:Maniteja Reddy Tatipally
- Bulking of SandЗагружено:Tauseef
- FQP for Civil WorkЗагружено:Manoj Shah
- Igeo Soil IntroЗагружено:asunitaursa
- Earth Work Data Corrected KollamЗагружено:Vishnu Das
- NB-CPD SG02 04 010 - Aggregates.pdfЗагружено:ntemou
- Study of Corrosion of Reinforced Steel Bars in Recycled Aggregate Concrete With Fly AshЗагружено:International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- Project ProposalЗагружено:Sadia Sharmin Nilima
- Planetary ReformЗагружено:Reni Sentana-Ries
- 09 Chapter 2Загружено:John Shane
- Hansen1986_Article_RecycledAggregatesAndRecycledA.pdfЗагружено:Ameya Kulkarni
- Mini Projects for CIVIL Students in TRICHY -Dreamweb Techno SolutionЗагружено:ranjith
- Civil Engineering Workshops and Projects TRICHY - Dreamweb Techno SolutionsЗагружено:ranjith
- COURSE for CIVIL Students in TRICHY - Dreamweb Techno SolutionsЗагружено:ranjith
- Inplant TrainingWORKSHOP for Civil Engineering Students in TRICHY-Dreamweb Techno SolutionsЗагружено:ranjith
- Final Year Projects for CIVIL Students in TRICHY-Dreamweb Techno SolutionsЗагружено:ranjith
- Inplant Training-WORKSHOP for Civil Engineering Students in TRICHY-Dreamweb Techno SolutionsЗагружено:ranjith
- COURSE for CIVIL Students in TRICHY - Dreamweb Techno SolutionsЗагружено:ranjith
- Soils Lab ScriptЗагружено:Aidan Rajkumar
- architecturalЗагружено:Karl Attard
- S(157-164)Загружено:Ammar A. Ali
- document_2_QlMJ_13032016Загружено:hgbh
- 22.Agricultural ScienceЗагружено:Kshitij Dhiman
- Yellow BookЗагружено:Nay Win Shein
- hjЗагружено:jasimabd
- Infiltration Rate Evaluation davao cityЗагружено:Clesent Charvy Cabuyao
- Sachin, Steps for Concrete Mix DesignЗагружено:Sachin Dhiman
- 9 Standards and Specs_1Загружено:Mutundisavakadzi G-spot Locator
- Tut Sheets 431Загружено:Samarth Garg

- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 41.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- 22Загружено:mojgfd
- Print_ Structural Steel Superintendent - IndustrialЗагружено:mojgfd
- FatorЗагружено:mojgfd
- Guide to Design Criteria for Bolts and Riveted JointsЗагружено:Homero Silva
- Transition From Construction to CommissioningЗагружено:mojgfd
- Chevron Bracing Details - SteelwiseЗагружено:Eugene Afable
- INTORDЗагружено:mojgfd
- DirectЗагружено:mojgfd
- Pages From IicЗагружено:Hetnry Hothell Rhy
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 24.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- secret-law-of-attraction-napoleon-hill-27.mp3.txtЗагружено:mojgfd
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 29.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 30.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 33.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 34.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 38.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 39.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 09.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 16.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 14.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 10.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 06.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- secret-law-of-attraction-napoleon-hill-03.mp3.txtЗагружено:mojgfd
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 04.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- Secret Law of Attraction Napoleon Hill 03.Mp3Загружено:mojgfd
- Elizabeth Laird - The House on the HillЗагружено:Iskra
- Little WomenЗагружено:mojgfd

- BAJA Final Scores Virtuals 2020Загружено:Team ZEPHYRA
- photostory rubricЗагружено:api-289334063
- PULSAR_200_NS_200_AS.pdfЗагружено:Indradeepta Roy
- A2CM0102Загружено:hnic0522
- 6Загружено:Yeison Salcedo
- Updated Health Bulletin Volume 2 Issue 10Загружено:ABAli
- SolidWorks Essentials (2013)Загружено:viiio777
- Ch17 Metal FormingЗагружено:Saman Brookhim
- Cyliani Hermes Revealed (Hermes Devoile)Загружено:travellerfellow
- AP Slide download.pptЗагружено:Nguyen Hoa
- Marketing TitliЗагружено:Anshul Agrawal
- [Tony T. N. Hung] Understanding English GrammarЗагружено:Jaydeep Banerjee
- RO, Effluent, Sewage Treatment Plant ManufacturerЗагружено:Praveen
- Final Na Sir Ryan the BUZZERЗагружено:Ryan Negad
- SATHYAM-Jan10 EditionЗагружено:rasihavini
- Flat Veneer Panels Specs and Details.pdfЗагружено:Ivan Tanasković
- Bizhub c10 User ManualЗагружено:Mario Bertoluci
- Blackpoint AS.MST6M181VS-LE1 .pdfЗагружено:dreamyson1983
- Data Communication Computer Network TutorialЗагружено:chandrasekar
- DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology , Vol. 24, No.1, JanuaryЗагружено:Nicole Martin
- 9789241501965_module6_engЗагружено:mega surya
- Cg 077 Full GuidelineЗагружено:Muhammad Ismail
- NS1000Загружено:Denny Irawan
- Challenges and Perceptions Towards Use of Social Media in Higher Education in Zimbabwe (1)Загружено:Ahmad Sina Sabawoon
- Runway OrientationЗагружено:Abdulkareem Adeyinka
- AnswersЗагружено:elarabel abellare
- St. Pat's School HandbookЗагружено:stpatsparish
- portfolio artifact entry form - ostp standard 6Загружено:api-253007574
- Lark Freebird 50.3 Users ManualЗагружено:Ivan Bene
- Coagulants KimalЗагружено:Kimal Wasalathilake

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.