Abstract
The construction industry has been greatly developed in the past few decades, especially in the extensive use of underground space. The increasing amount of waste (e.g., soil, sludge, and rock) generated in the underground construction constitutes an important part of construction and demolition waste (CDW), but the related problems are rarely addressed in an independent quantitative study. In order to facilitate recycling of underground construction waste (UCW), quantitative methods for predicting UCW are proposed based on mass conservation in this study. Through on-site investigation and literature review, the source characteristics of UCW and corresponding recycling potential are firstly analyzed. Secondly, the corresponding quantitative method is proposed for predicting each type of UCW according to the principle of mass conservation. Finally, the proposed quantitative methods are applied in two real underground infrastructure projects to verify the accuracy. The results show that the accuracy of quantitative methods for predicting shield sludge and engineering soil is 82.03–95.79% and 94.49% respectively. The quantitative methods for predicting the amount of UCW proposed in this study is effective. In both cases, underground construction produced a large amount of construction waste with great recycling potential. UCW can theoretically reach 100% recycling, and full reuse and recycling of UCW will bring huge benefits and be conducive to the sustainable development of the construction industry.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Bellopede R, Brusco F, Oreste P, Pepino M (2011) Main aspects of tunnel muck recycling. Am J Environ Sci 7:338–347. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajessp.2011.338.347
Cochran KM, Townsend TG (2010) Estimating construction and demolition debris generation using a materials flow analysis approach. Waste Manag 30:2247–2254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.008
De Guzmán BA, Villoria Sáez P, Del Río MM, García Navarro J (2012) Methodology for quantification of waste generated in Spanish railway construction works. Waste Manag 32:920–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.01.007
De Magalhães RF, Danilevicz ÂDMF, Saurin TA (2017) Reducing construction waste: a study of urban infrastructure projects. Waste Manag 67:265–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.05.025
Diana M, Ángel V, Daniel C, Miguel A. C, Aitor C. R (2015) Sustainability in construction works: reuse of sludge from tunnel boring in lime mortars. Appl Clay Sci 114: 402–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2015.05.019
European Commission (2016) Construction and demolition waste management report. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/mixed_waste.htm#links (accessed 13 Jan. 2021)
Griffiths JS, Radford T (2012) An introduction to earthworks in Europe. Geological Society, London, Engineering Geology Special Publications 26:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1144/EGSP26.1
Guerra BC, Bakchan A, Leite F, Faust KM (2019) BIM-based automated construction waste estimation algorithms: the case of concrete and drywall waste streams. Waste Manag 87:825–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.03.010
Haas M, Galler R, Scibile L, Benedikt M (2020) Waste or valuable resource – a critical European review on re-using and managing tunnel excavation material. Resour Conserv Recycl 162:105048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105048
He X, Xu Y, Shen S, Zhou A (2020) Geological environment problems during metro shield tunnelling in Shenzhen. China Arab J Geosci 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-5071-z
Kalbe U, Berger W, Eckardt J, Simon F (2008) Evaluation of leaching and extraction procedures for soil and waste. Waste Manag 28:1027–1038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.03.008
Kirthika SK, Singh SK, Chourasia A (2020) Alternative fine aggregates in production of sustainable concrete- a review. J Clean Prod 268:122089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122089
Lee JY, Moon SH, Yi MJ, Yun ST (2008) Groundwater contamination with petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents and high pH: implications for multiple sources. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 41:35–47. https://doi.org/10.1144/1470-9236/07-021
Li Y, Pan Q, Cleall PJ, Chen Y, Ke H (2013) Stability analysis of slurry trenches in similar layered soils. J Geotech Geoenviron 139:2104–2109. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000958
Lu W, Yuan H, Li J, Hao JJL, Mi X, Ding Z (2011) An empirical investigation of construction and demolition waste generation rates in Shenzhen city, South China. Waste Manag 31:680–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.12.004
Luo W, Sandanayake M, Zhang G (2019) Direct and indirect carbon emissions in foundation construction – two case studies of driven precast and cast-in-situ piles. J Clean Prod 211:1517–1526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.244
Magnusson S, Lundberg K, Svedberg B, Knutsson S (2015) Sustainable management of excavated soil and rock in urban areas – a literature review. J Clean Prod 93:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.010
Magnusson S, Johansson M, Frosth S, Lundberg K (2019) Coordinating soil and rock material in urban construction – scenario analysis of material flows and greenhouse gas emissions. J Clean Prod 241:118236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118236
Martínez Lage I, Martínez Abella F, Herrero CV, Ordóñez JLP (2010) Estimation of the annual production and composition of C&D Debris in Galicia (Spain). Waste Manag 30:636–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.016
Masudi AF, Che Hassan CR, Mahmood NZ, Mokhtar SN, Sulaiman NM (2010) Quantification methods for construction waste generation at construction sites: a review. Adv Mater Res 163-167:4564–4569. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.163-167.4564
Maués LMF, Nascimento BDMO, Lu W, Xue F (2020) Estimating construction waste generation in residential buildings: a fuzzy set theory approach in the Brazilian Amazon. J Clean Prod 265:121779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121779
Rana A, Kalla P, Verma HK, Mohnot JK (2016) Recycling of dimensional stone waste in concrete: a review. J Clean Prod 135:312–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.126
Riviera PP, Bellopede R, Marini P, Bassani M (2014) Performance-based re-use of tunnel muck as granular material for subgrade and sub-base formation in road construction. Tunn Undergr Sp Tech 40:160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.10.002
Seiji H, Hiroki T, Yuichi M (2007) Where will large amounts of materials accumulated within the economy go?--a material flow analysis of construction minerals for Japan. Waste Manag 27:1725–1738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2006.10.009
Shang C, Zhu Y, Zhang Z (2013) A glance at the world. Waste Manag 33:489–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.12.019
The **nhua News Agency (2016) Special major landslide accident investigation report of “12·20” in muck receiving field of Guangming New District, Shenzhen. Guangdong, **nhuanet http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2016-07/15/c_1119227686.htm (accessed 02/09/2020)
Wang Q, Chen L, Hu R, Ren Z, He Y, Liu D, Zhou Z (2020) An empirical study on waste generation rates at different stages of construction projects in China. Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy 38:433–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X19886635
Weng C, Lin D, Chiang P (2003) Utilization of sludge as brick materials. Adv Environ Res 7:679–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1093-0191(02)00037-0
Wu Z, Yu ATW, Shen L, Liu G (2014) Quantifying construction and demolition waste: an analytical review. Waste Manag 34:1683–1692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.05.010
Yu C, Zhou A, Chen J, Arulrajah A, Horpibulsuk S (2020) Analysis of a tunnel failure caused by leakage of the shield tail seal system. Underground space (Bei**g) 5:105–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.11.003
Yuan L, Lu W, Xue F (2021) Estimation of construction waste composition based on bulk density: a big data-probability (BD-P) model. J Environ Manag 292:112822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112822
Zhang N, Duan H, Sun P, Li J, Zuo J, Mao R, Liu G, Niu Y (2020a) Characterizing the generation and environmental impacts of subway-related excavated soil and rock in China. J Clean Prod 248:119242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119242
Zhang N, Zhang H, Schiller G, Feng H, Gao X, Li E, Li X (2020b) Unraveling the GWP mitigation potential from recycling subway-related excavated soil and rock in China via life cycle assessment. Integr Environ Asses 17:639–650. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4376
Zhao W, Leeftink RB, Rotter VS (2010) Evaluation of the economic feasibility for the recycling of construction and demolition waste in China—the case of Chongqing. Resour Conserv Recycl 54:377–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.09.003
Funding
This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program, “Precise management control in construction and demolition waste and engineering demonstration” [grant number 2018YFC0706000].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Rui Chen designed the paper framework and wrote the manuscript. Lanxin Li maintained research data and wrote the manuscript. Kai Yang conducted a research and investigation process. Fumin Ren contributed to funding acquisition. Chenggang **, Yang Lin, and Hai Zheng provided technical and editorial assistance.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Philippe Garrigues
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, R., Li, L., Yang, K. et al. Quantitative methods for predicting underground construction waste considering reuse and recycling. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 3394–3405 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15858-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15858-3