Comparative geotechnical analysis of slope stabilization through conventional, soil and water bioengineering, and combined solutions

IF 3.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Marco Uzielli , Andrea Geppetti , Lorenzo Borselli , Stefano Renzi , Federico Preti
{"title":"Comparative geotechnical analysis of slope stabilization through conventional, soil and water bioengineering, and combined solutions","authors":"Marco Uzielli ,&nbsp;Andrea Geppetti ,&nbsp;Lorenzo Borselli ,&nbsp;Stefano Renzi ,&nbsp;Federico Preti","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoleng.2024.107487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The sustainable mitigation of hydrogeological hazard through the geotechnical stabilization of natural and artificial slopes is an ethical and technical goal of increasing global relevance. In this context, “gray” geotechnical stabilization solutions involving the use of inert materials, injections of cement mixtures and steel elements, have been prevalently used in the past decades and have thus come to define the present “conventional” approach. These solutions may meet engineering performance criteria but are unable to attain desirable sustainability standards. The practice of Soil and Water BioEngineering (SWBE) draws from ancient empirical experience and is rapidly gaining new momentum due to the increased focus on environmental protection and requalification. SWBE and can be effectively conducted through the design and implementation of nature-based solutions (NBS) by using living plants, alone or in combination with locally available materials, to improve the engineering performance of ecosystems while fostering an increase in their biodiversity and environmental value. The domain of applicability of NBS is limited to quasi-surficial instability phenomena, since the root systems which provide resistance to destabilizing forces are found mainly at shallow depths from ground surface. Moreover, biological and physical processes intervening in NBS result in the temporal variation of their mechanical resistance and engineering performance. “Combined” solutions involving the presence of – and synergy between - gray and green solutions may ensure the simultaneous attainment of safety and sustainability. This paper describes the conceptual standpoints and operational framework used for the comparative assessment of the engineering design performance of conventional, NBS, and combined solutions for a slope stabilization intervention on a site located near Florence, Italy. Stability is assessed quantitatively through limit equilibrium methods for multiple scenarios defined in terms of technological solutions, temporal stage, and level of engineering conservatism in design parameters. Temporal trends of the factors of safety against sliding are defined statistically and assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. The comparative analysis suggests that the combined solution provides the best option at the Montisoni site as it ensures sufficient short-terms, post-stabilization stability as well as increased stability overtime due to the improvement in the mechanical contribution of NBS components. The paper brings innovative contributions with respect to the equivalent geomechanical modeling of NBS and combined solutions in limit-equilibrium analyses and to the discussion of criteria to be considered in the assignment of design values in stability analyses.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":11490,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Engineering","volume":"212 ","pages":"Article 107487"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857424003124","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The sustainable mitigation of hydrogeological hazard through the geotechnical stabilization of natural and artificial slopes is an ethical and technical goal of increasing global relevance. In this context, “gray” geotechnical stabilization solutions involving the use of inert materials, injections of cement mixtures and steel elements, have been prevalently used in the past decades and have thus come to define the present “conventional” approach. These solutions may meet engineering performance criteria but are unable to attain desirable sustainability standards. The practice of Soil and Water BioEngineering (SWBE) draws from ancient empirical experience and is rapidly gaining new momentum due to the increased focus on environmental protection and requalification. SWBE and can be effectively conducted through the design and implementation of nature-based solutions (NBS) by using living plants, alone or in combination with locally available materials, to improve the engineering performance of ecosystems while fostering an increase in their biodiversity and environmental value. The domain of applicability of NBS is limited to quasi-surficial instability phenomena, since the root systems which provide resistance to destabilizing forces are found mainly at shallow depths from ground surface. Moreover, biological and physical processes intervening in NBS result in the temporal variation of their mechanical resistance and engineering performance. “Combined” solutions involving the presence of – and synergy between - gray and green solutions may ensure the simultaneous attainment of safety and sustainability. This paper describes the conceptual standpoints and operational framework used for the comparative assessment of the engineering design performance of conventional, NBS, and combined solutions for a slope stabilization intervention on a site located near Florence, Italy. Stability is assessed quantitatively through limit equilibrium methods for multiple scenarios defined in terms of technological solutions, temporal stage, and level of engineering conservatism in design parameters. Temporal trends of the factors of safety against sliding are defined statistically and assessed qualitatively and quantitatively. The comparative analysis suggests that the combined solution provides the best option at the Montisoni site as it ensures sufficient short-terms, post-stabilization stability as well as increased stability overtime due to the improvement in the mechanical contribution of NBS components. The paper brings innovative contributions with respect to the equivalent geomechanical modeling of NBS and combined solutions in limit-equilibrium analyses and to the discussion of criteria to be considered in the assignment of design values in stability analyses.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ecological Engineering
Ecological Engineering 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
293
审稿时长
57 days
期刊介绍: Ecological engineering has been defined as the design of ecosystems for the mutual benefit of humans and nature. The journal is meant for ecologists who, because of their research interests or occupation, are involved in designing, monitoring, or restoring ecosystems, and can serve as a bridge between ecologists and engineers. Specific topics covered in the journal include: habitat reconstruction; ecotechnology; synthetic ecology; bioengineering; restoration ecology; ecology conservation; ecosystem rehabilitation; stream and river restoration; reclamation ecology; non-renewable resource conservation. Descriptions of specific applications of ecological engineering are acceptable only when situated within context of adding novelty to current research and emphasizing ecosystem restoration. We do not accept purely descriptive reports on ecosystem structures (such as vegetation surveys), purely physical assessment of materials that can be used for ecological restoration, small-model studies carried out in the laboratory or greenhouse with artificial (waste)water or crop studies, or case studies on conventional wastewater treatment and eutrophication that do not offer an ecosystem restoration approach within the paper.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信