Method for evaluating sustainability of waste tire reinforced retaining wall
By evaluating and weighting integration of waste tire reinforced retaining walls from three dimensions: environmental, economic and social dimensions, the problem of increasing difficulty in sustainability evaluation caused by the use of waste materials is solved, and the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the evaluation are improved.
Patent Information
- Application Number
- CN202411654121.8
- Authority / Receiving Office
- CN · China
- Patent Type
- Applications(China)
- Current Assignee / Owner
- Filing Date
- 2024-11-19
- Publication Date
- 2025-03-28
AI Technical Summary
The use of waste materials in retaining walls makes it more difficult to evaluate their sustainability, reducing the accuracy of the evaluation.
The retaining walls with used tires added from three dimensions: environmental benefits, economic benefits and social benefits, and the final sustainability score was obtained through standardized treatment and weighted integration.
It improves the accuracy of the sustainability evaluation of retaining walls, provides a more comprehensive economic benefit evaluation method, and enhances the comprehensiveness of the data referenced in the evaluation.
Smart Images
Figure CN119720329A_ABST
Abstract
Description
Technical Field
[0001] The present application relates to the field of sustainability evaluation of slope protection structures, and in particular to a sustainability evaluation method for a waste tire reinforced retaining wall. Background Art
[0002] As a commonly used slope protection structure, retaining wall will have a great impact on the surrounding environment during its construction and demolition.
[0003] With the development of green concepts, it is becoming more and more common to use some waste materials such as waste tires, recycled coarse aggregates, etc. as reinforcing materials to add to retaining walls. On the one hand, it recycles waste materials while extending the life of the retaining wall. On the other hand, it helps to reduce the manufacturing cost of the retaining wall.
[0004] However, the addition of waste materials makes the sustainability evaluation of retaining walls more difficult, resulting in a decrease in the accuracy of sustainability assessment of retaining walls in actual projects. Summary of the invention
[0005] In view of the shortcomings of the above-mentioned related technologies, this application provides a method for evaluating the sustainability of waste tire reinforced retaining walls. This application evaluates the retaining walls with waste tires added from three dimensions: environmental benefits, economic benefits, and social benefits. The evaluation results of the three are then standardized and weighted to form a final sustainability score, thereby improving the accuracy of the sustainability evaluation of the retaining wall.
[0006] The present application provides a method for evaluating the sustainability of a waste tire reinforced retaining wall using the following technical solution: A method for evaluating the sustainability of a waste tire reinforced retaining wall comprises the following steps: (1) The application of waste tire reinforced retaining walls is evaluated in three dimensions: environmental benefits, economic benefits, and social benefits; (2) The environmental benefit assessment includes defining the system boundary of the life cycle of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall and calculating the carbon emissions of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall within the system boundary; (3) The economic benefit assessment includes calculating the sum of traditional costs and carbon costs to obtain the total cost; (4) The social benefit assessment includes determining stakeholders and constructing a hierarchical model for the corresponding issues to conduct AHP hierarchical analysis, calculating the parameters of each social impact category and adding them up to obtain the social benefit coefficient; (5) The carbon emissions, total cost, and social benefit coefficient of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall were standardized, and then the combined weights were calculated using the analytic hierarchy process and entropy weight method, and finally the final sustainability score was calculated.
[0007] Preferably, in the environmental benefit assessment, the design decision stage, raw material production and transportation stage, construction stage, operation and maintenance stage, and recycling and disposal stage are divided, and the carbon emissions are calculated for each stage and summed up to obtain the carbon emissions of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall.
[0008] Preferably, the traditional costs include design decision stage costs, raw material production and transportation stage costs, construction stage costs, and recycling and disposal stage costs.
[0009] Preferably, the cost of the design decision stage includes land fees, project research and planning fees, cost consulting fees, temporary facilities and three connections and one leveling fees, and design fees.
[0010] Preferably, the raw material production and transportation stage costs include raw material costs and transportation costs, and the raw materials include sand fillers, concrete, crushed stones, Binger nets and waste tires.
[0011] Preferably, the construction phase cost includes the cost of various machines required for use during the construction process.
[0012] Preferably, the recycling and disposal stage costs include demolition costs, waste treatment costs and resource recovery costs.
[0013] Preferably, the carbon cost is quantified by the WTP theory including water eutrophication, respiratory organic matter, respiratory inorganic matter, water acidification, non-carcinogenic toxicity, land acidification, land occupation, carcinogenic toxicity, mineral resource exploitation, global warming, ionizing radiation, non-renewable energy, terrestrial ecotoxicity and water ecotoxicity.
[0014] Preferably, the stakeholders include workers, consumers, local communities, society and value chain participants.
[0015] Preferably, the social impact categories include social security, social equity, social economy, social welfare and human health.
[0016] In summary, the present application includes at least one of the following beneficial technical effects: 1. This application evaluates the retaining wall reinforced with waste tires from three dimensions: environmental benefit, economic benefit, and social benefit. The evaluation results of the three are then standardized and weighted to form a final sustainability score, thereby improving the accuracy of the sustainability evaluation of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall.
[0017] 2. This application measures environmental benefits by carbon emissions from waste tire reinforced retaining walls, and measures economic benefits by calculating the sum of traditional costs and carbon costs. It not only takes traditional costs into account, but also incorporates carbon costs into the assessment, providing a more comprehensive economic benefit assessment method that helps to maximize cost-effectiveness. It also measures social benefits through stakeholder-related data. Overall, it improves the comprehensiveness of reference data for sustainability assessment of tire reinforced retaining walls, and improves the accuracy of sustainability assessment of waste tire reinforced retaining walls. 3. This application improves the reliability of the weights of the reference factors of the final sustainability score and the accuracy of the sustainability evaluation of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall by standardizing the carbon emissions, total cost and social benefit coefficient of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall, and then calculates the combined weights through the hierarchical analysis method and the entropy weight method. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0018] Figure 1 It is a flow chart of the sustainability evaluation method of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall of the present application; Figure 2 It is a hierarchical model diagram of stakeholders and corresponding issues in this application; Figure 3 This is a parameter diagram corresponding to the stakeholder assessment results and social impact categories in this application. DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0019] The present application is further described in detail below in conjunction with examples. The following examples are only used to illustrate the present invention and should not be construed as limiting the scope of the present invention. In the following examples, if specific conditions are not specified, they are carried out according to normal conditions or conditions recommended by the manufacturer. The methods used are conventional methods known in the art unless otherwise specified, and the consumables and reagents used are commercially available unless otherwise specified. Unless otherwise specified, the professional and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as those familiar to those skilled in the art. In addition, any method or material similar or equivalent to the recorded content may also be applied to the present invention.
[0020] The embodiment of the present application provides a method for evaluating the sustainability of a waste tire reinforced retaining wall.
[0021] A method for evaluating the sustainability of waste tire reinforced retaining walls, the steps of which are as follows: First, an environmental benefit assessment was conducted. According to the international standard ISO14040 and the national standard GB / T24040, the system boundary of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall was defined as from design decision to recycling and disposal. It is specifically divided into five life cycle stages: design decision stage, raw material production and transportation stage, construction stage, operation and maintenance stage, and recycling and disposal stage. The carbon emissions of each stage were calculated as shown in Table 1 below.
[0022] Table 1:
[0023] The calculated carbon emission of waste tire reinforced retaining wall is 409.96tCO2eq.
[0024] Then, an economic benefit evaluation is conducted, which is divided into traditional costs and carbon costs. Traditional costs include costs in the design decision stage (see Table 2), costs in the raw material production and transportation stage (see Tables 3-4), costs in the construction stage (see Table 5), and costs in the recycling and disposal stage (see Table 6).
[0025] Table 2: Design decision stage costs
[0026] Table 3: Raw material costs
[0027] Table 4: Cost of raw material production and transportation (RMB)
[0028] Table 5: Construction Phase Costs
[0029] Table 6: Costs of recycling and disposal
[0030] The key environmental impact indicators of water eutrophication, respiratory organic matter, respiratory inorganic matter, water acidification, non-carcinogenic toxicity, land acidification, land occupation, carcinogenic toxicity, mineral resource exploitation, global warming, ionizing radiation, non-renewable energy, terrestrial ecotoxicity, and water ecotoxicity are quantified through the WTP theory, as shown in Table 7 below.
[0031] Table 7:
[0032] The net present value method is used to calculate traditional costs, carbon costs and total costs. The calculation formula is as follows: Total cost calculation:
[0033] PVLcc – total cost; PVtc – traditional cost; PVcc – carbon cost.
[0034] Traditional cost calculation:
[0035] Cd——cost of design decision stage; Cpt – cost of raw material production and transportation stage; Cc – cost of construction phase; T——the design service life of the reinforced earth retaining wall, which is 50 years in this embodiment; i——traditional cost discount rate, 11% is taken in this paper; Cend – recovery of disposal phase costs.
[0036] Carbon cost calculation:
[0037] T——the design service life of the reinforced earth retaining wall, which is 50 years in this embodiment; i——discount rate for carbon cost calculation, which is 3.5% in this paper; Cc——Carbon cost in year t.
[0038] The calculation results are shown in Table 8 below: Table 8:
[0039] The total cost is 71,949,337.13 yuan.
[0040] Then conduct social benefit assessment (SLCA evaluation), determine stakeholders and corresponding issues to build a hierarchical model, refer to Figure 1 . Conduct a questionnaire survey, and establish a judgment matrix based on the survey results to conduct AHP hierarchical analysis and calculations, as shown in Table 9-27 below.
[0041] Table 9: Judgment Matrix AB (Judgment of the importance weights among stakeholders)
[0042] Table 10: AHP hierarchical analysis results
[0043] Table 11: Calculation index of judgment matrix AB
[0044] CR<0.1, so the matrix satisfies the consistency test.
[0045] Table 12: Judgment Matrix B1-C
[0046] Table 13: AHP hierarchical analysis results
[0047] Table 14: Calculation indicators of judgment matrix B1-C
[0048] CR<0.1, so the matrix satisfies the consistency test.
[0049] Table 15: Judgment Matrix B2-C
[0050] Table 16: AHP hierarchical analysis results
[0051] Table 17: Calculation indicators of judgment matrix B2-C
[0052] CR<0.1, so the matrix satisfies the consistency test.
[0053] Table 18: Judgment Matrix B3-C
[0054] Table 19: Calculation indicators of judgment matrix B3-C
[0055] Table 20: Judgment Matrix B4-C
[0056] Table 21: AHP hierarchical analysis results
[0057] Table 22: Calculation indicators of judgment matrix B4-C
[0058] CR<0.1, so the matrix satisfies the consistency test.
[0059] Table 23: Judgment Matrix B5-C
[0060] Table 24: AHP hierarchical analysis results
[0061] Table 25: Calculation indicators of judgment matrix B5-C
[0062] CR<0.1, so the matrix satisfies the consistency test.
[0063] Table 26: Calculation of the total ranking of social impact levels of reinforced earth retaining walls
[0064] Table 27: Stakeholder Assessment Results
[0065] According to the results of stakeholder assessment and the social impact categories of social security, social equity, social economy, social welfare and human health, the parameters of each social impact category are calculated. Figure 2 The parameters of each social impact category are shown in Table 28 below: Table 28:
[0066] Adding the parameters of each social impact category, the social benefit coefficient is 0.255.
[0067] Finally, the carbon emissions, total cost and social benefit coefficient of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall were standardized, and the standardized formula was: Where P i , C(P i )、T(P i ) and MP1 are the original value, critical value, target value and standardized value of the corresponding indicators respectively. When standardizing the carbon emissions of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall, 90% of the carbon emissions of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall is taken as the ideal value, 110% is taken as the critical value, and the standardized value of the environmental benefit assessment is calculated to be 0.5; when standardizing the total cost, the total cost of the retaining wall without adding waste tires is 71906732.2 yuan as the ideal value, and the total cost of the retaining wall with the addition of waste tires increased to 20kg is 71973641.34 yuan as the critical value, and the standardized value of the economic benefit assessment is calculated to be 0.363; when standardizing the social benefit coefficient, the ideal value is 1, the critical value is 0.2, and the standardized value of the social benefit assessment is calculated to be 0.931. Then the state point becomes I= (0.5, 0.363, 0.931) in the unit space after standardization The process of determining the combined weight is as follows: (1) Analytical Hierarchy Process The comparative matrix of the economic, environmental and social impacts of waste tire reinforced soil retaining walls is as follows:
[0068] Table 29: AHP hierarchical analysis results
[0069] Table 30: Consistency test results
[0070] CR<0.1, so the matrix satisfies the consistency test.
[0071] Table 31:
[0072] (2) Entropy Weight Method Calculated by the entropy weight method, the three weights of environmental, economic and social benefits are shown in Table 32 below.
[0073] Table 32:
[0074] (3) Combination empowerment Subjective weights calculated by comprehensive analytic hierarchy process and objective weights calculated by entropy weight method , calculate the combined weight , the calculation process is as follows:
[0075]
[0076]
[0077] In summary, the combined weight vector of the waste tire reinforced soil retaining wall is shown in Table 33.
[0078] Table 33:
[0079] After weighting, the unit space state point becomes I'= (0.195, 0.125, 0.248) in the weighted space.
[0080] (3) Standardization of indicators Critical points in the evaluation system of the sustainability of reinforced earth retaining walls and target point They are respectively expressed as follows:
[0081]
[0082] The Euclidean distances of the state point I'=(0.195, 0.125, 0.248) from the critical point and the target point are:
[0083]
[0084] The comprehensive sustainability of the state point of the waste tire reinforced soil retaining wall can be expressed as:
[0085] That is, the final sustainability score is 0.536. Since 1≥LCSA≥0, when the LCSA value approaches 1, it means that the reinforced earth retaining wall has shown excellent sustainability in multiple dimensions. This may include the use of environmentally friendly materials, reducing energy consumption, reducing waste generation, improving resource utilization efficiency, optimizing structural design to extend service life, reducing maintenance costs, and promoting employment and improving the quality of life of residents at the social level. Such reinforced earth retaining walls not only meet current construction needs, but also make positive contributions to achieving sustainable development goals. On the contrary, when the LCSA value is close to 0, it indicates that the sustainability level of the reinforced earth retaining wall is obviously insufficient. Possible problems include environmentally unfriendly material selection, high energy consumption during construction, improper waste disposal, unreasonable structural design leading to frequent maintenance or premature scrapping, and lack of positive impact in the socio-economic dimension. In response to these situations, designers, constructors and managers need to deeply analyze the reasons and take effective measures to improve them in order to improve the overall sustainability level of reinforced earth retaining walls. In order to improve the LCSA value of reinforced earth retaining walls, we can start from the following dimensions: first, choose more environmentally friendly and renewable building materials; second, optimize the construction process to reduce energy consumption and waste generation; third, strengthen the structural design to improve the durability and stability of the retaining wall; fourth, consider the social functions of the retaining wall, such as combining greening, leisure and other functions to improve the quality of urban space; fifth, establish a complete maintenance management system to extend the service life of the retaining wall. Through the implementation of these measures, we can not only improve the sustainability level of reinforced earth retaining walls, but also contribute to the harmonious development of urban construction and environmental protection.
[0086] This specific embodiment is merely an explanation of the present application and is not a limitation of the present application. After reading this specification, those skilled in the art may make modifications to the present embodiment without any creative contribution as needed, but such modifications are protected by the patent law as long as they are within the scope of the claims of the present application.
Claims
1. A method for evaluating the sustainability of waste tire reinforced retaining walls, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: (1) The application of waste tire reinforced retaining walls is evaluated in three dimensions: environmental benefits, economic benefits, and social benefits; (2) The environmental benefit assessment includes defining the system boundary of the life cycle of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall and calculating the carbon emissions of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall within the system boundary; (3) The economic benefit assessment includes calculating the sum of traditional costs and carbon costs to obtain the total cost; (4) The social benefit assessment includes determining stakeholders and constructing a hierarchical model for the corresponding issues to conduct AHP hierarchical analysis, calculating the parameters of each social impact category and adding them up to obtain the social benefit coefficient; (5) The carbon emissions, total cost, and social benefit coefficient of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall were standardized, and then the combined weights were calculated using the analytic hierarchy process and entropy weight method, and finally the final sustainability score was calculated.
2. The method for evaluating the sustainability of a waste tire reinforced retaining wall according to claim 1, characterized in that: In the environmental benefit assessment, the design decision-making stage, raw material production and transportation stage, construction stage, operation and maintenance stage, and recycling and disposal stage are divided into the following stages. The carbon emissions of each stage are calculated and summed up to obtain the carbon emissions of the waste tire reinforced retaining wall.
3. The method for evaluating the sustainability of a waste tire reinforced retaining wall according to claim 1, characterized in that: The traditional costs include costs in the design decision-making stage, costs in the raw material production and transportation stage, costs in the construction stage, and costs in the recycling and disposal stage.
4. The method for evaluating the sustainability of a waste tire reinforced retaining wall according to claim 3 is characterized by: The costs in the design decision-making stage include land fees, project research and planning fees, cost consulting fees, temporary facilities and three connections and one leveling fees, and design fees.
5. The method for evaluating the sustainability of a waste tire reinforced retaining wall according to claim 3, characterized in that: The cost of the raw material production and transportation stage includes raw material costs and transportation costs, and the raw materials include sand fillers, concrete, crushed stones, Binger nets and waste tires.
6. The method for evaluating the sustainability of a waste tire reinforced retaining wall according to claim 3, characterized in that: The construction phase cost includes the cost of various machines required during the construction process.
7. The method for evaluating the sustainability of a waste tire reinforced retaining wall according to claim 3, characterized in that: The costs of the recycling and disposal stage include demolition costs, waste treatment costs and resource recovery costs.
8. The method for evaluating the sustainability of a waste tire reinforced retaining wall according to claim 1, characterized in that: The carbon cost is quantified through the WTP theory by including water eutrophication, respiratory organic matter, respiratory inorganic matter, water acidification, non-carcinogenic toxicity, terrestrial acidification, land occupation, carcinogenic toxicity, mineral resource exploitation, global warming, ionizing radiation, non-renewable energy, terrestrial ecotoxicity and water ecotoxicity.
9. The method for evaluating the sustainability of a waste tire reinforced retaining wall according to claim 1, characterized in that: Said stakeholders include workers, consumers, local communities, society and value chain actors.
10. The method for evaluating the sustainability of a waste tire reinforced retaining wall according to claim 1, characterized in that: The social impact categories include social security, social equity, social economy, social welfare and human health.