A Comparison of the Carbon Consumption of Continuous Flight Auger, Auger Displacement (CHD) and Precast Driven Displacement Piles in Cohesive Ground Conditions.

Historically foundations have rarely considered the carbon consumption associated with construction. However, with the advent of the European Federation of Foundation Contractors’ Carbon calculator, championed by the Federation of Piling Specialists in the UK, there is now a reliable benchmarking technique available to compare and understand this aspect of the process better. This paper will present a comparison of three methods in the same cohesive ground conditions in relation to their relative carbon consumption. Continuous flight auger (CFA), Displacement auger (CHD) and Driven precast displacement will be drawn together to illustrate the relative consumption of each method. To assist with comparison two analysis methods will be discussion, firstly the methods will be normalised in relation to load. Whilst secondly, they will be normalised against cost to society. The implications of the two efficiency techniques; carbon/load and carbon/cost will be discussed. It will be concluded that displacement auger (CHD) is the most efficient piling method in regard to carbon efficiency.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2025-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.37308/dfieffc251250202
Primary Topic
Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Comparison of the Carbon Consumption of Continuous Flight Auger, Auger Displacement (CHD) and Precast Driven Displacement Piles in Cohesive Ground Conditions.

Jon C. Ball
1 links
Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
article

A Comparison of the Carbon Consumption of Continuous Flight Auger, Auger Displacement (CHD) and Precast Driven Displacement Piles in Cohesive Ground Conditions.

Jon C. Ball
article en

Abstract

Historically foundations have rarely considered the carbon consumption associated with construction. However, with the advent of the European Federation of Foundation Contractors’ Carbon calculator, championed by the Federation of Piling Specialists in the UK, there is now a reliable benchmarking technique available to compare and understand this aspect of the process better. This paper will present a comparison of three methods in the same cohesive ground conditions in relation to their relative carbon consumption. Continuous flight auger (CFA), Displacement auger (CHD) and Driven precast displacement will be drawn together to illustrate the relative consumption of each method. To assist with comparison two analysis methods will be discussion, firstly the methods will be normalised in relation to load. Whilst secondly, they will be normalised against cost to society. The implications of the two efficiency techniques; carbon/load and carbon/cost will be discussed. It will be concluded that displacement auger (CHD) is the most efficient piling method in regard to carbon efficiency.

Openalex Percentile: Top 77%
Geotechnical Engineering and Soil Stabilization
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

A Comparison of the Carbon Consumption of Continuous Flight Auger, Auger Displacement (CHD) and Precast Driven Displacement Piles in Cohesive Ground Conditions. — Jon C. Ball · (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS