Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Apr 2;13(1):5377.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-31859-3.

Engineering-geological study of relationships between soil and rock workability, type and volume of excavated materials, and earthwork costs (six case studies)

Marian Marschalko  1 , Dariusz Popielarczyk  2 , Simona Matuskova  3 , Dominik Niemiec  1 , David Neuman  1 , Veronika Glacova  1
Affiliations

Engineering-geological study of relationships between soil and rock workability, type and volume of excavated materials, and earthwork costs (six case studies)

Marian Marschalko et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

The engineering-geological study deals with the study of significance and relationship of soil and rock workability (factor representing the engineering-geological structure of rock massif) and the remaining earthwork parameters influencing the cost of construction work, such as excavation type and its technology, and excavated cubic volume. The comparative tool was the cost of earthwork as it reflects the real value of the given parameters during the implementation of earthwork. Soil and rock workability is the most important parameter of rock massif engineering-geological structure during any earthwork. The investor pays the contractor for earthwork based on workability classes which have their accounting value expressed as a volume unit of earthwork per particular project. The research results arise from a comparison of 6 sewer system construction project case studies in the north-east of the Czech Republic. The research shows that the most important factor during the implementation of earthwork is the specific engineering-geological structure (52%), which reflects in the parameter of soil and rock workability classes, using which all earthwork is priced. The second most important factor (33%) is the type of excavation and its technology. The least important is the excavated cubic volume (15%), which means the overall cubic volume of earthwork. The results were obtained within three evaluation approaches, where the comparison unit was one cubic meter of excavated volume during earthwork.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Simplified scheme of the research goals.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Location of case studies in the geological map (a) locality 1, (b) localities 2 and 3, (c) locality 4, (d) locality 5, (e) locality 6. Schematic figures made by the authors using CorelDRAW Graphic Suite 2019 software www.coreldraw.com.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Engineering-geological sections of the case studies (a) locality 1, (b) locality 2, (c) locality 3, (d) locality 4, (e) locality 5, (f) locality 6. Schematic figures made by the authors using CorelDRAW Graphic Suite 2019 software www.coreldraw.com.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Classification table of soil and rock workability classes.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Graphs of the workability class prices (1–7) and a summarized graph; (a) workability class 1; (b) workability class 2; (c) workability class 3; (d) workability class 4; (e) workability class 5; (f) workability class 6; (g) workability class 7; (h) minimum, maximum and average price of each workability class.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Graphs of the different types of excavations and technologies used; (a) shielded trench; (b) shielded pit; (c) unshielded pit; (d) road trench; (e) unshielded trench; (f) minimum, maximum and average price of each excavation type and technology.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Graphs of assessed excavated cubic volumes; (a) excavated cubic volume below 100 m3; (b) excavated cubic volume 100–1000 m3; (c) excavated cubic volume 1000–5000 m3; (d) excavated cubic volume over 5000 m3; (e) maximum, minimum and average price of excavated cubic volumes.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Graphs of the influence of the different earthwork factors on the price of 1 m3 earthwork (evaluation approach—study 1); (a) workability class factor; (b) type of excavation and its technology; (c) excavated cubic volume factor.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Graph comparing the excavated cubic volumes (m3) in the different case studies and the price (EUR) using the technology of unshielded trench (evaluation approach—study 2a) and shielded trench (evaluation approach—study 2b); (a) locality 1; (b) locality 2; (c) locality 3; (d) locality 4; (e) locality 5; (f) locality 6; (g) summary values for all the localities.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Graph of total prices for all case studies in dependence on workability classes and different layers, including their genesis; (a) the implemented option 2a—unshielded trench; (b) hypothetical option 2b—shielded trench.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Graphs of different earthwork factor influence on the price of excavations (study 2a—unshielded trench, the first column; study 2b—shielded trench, the second column), (a) workability class factor; (b) excavated cubic volume factor; (c) type of excavation and its technology.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Graph of study results with quantified levels of influence of the different factors on the price of earthwork (workability class, type of excavation and its technology, excavated cubic volume), (a) study 1; (b) study 2a; (c) study 2b.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Griffiths JS, Radford T. An introduction to earthworks in Europe. Geol. Soc. Lond. Eng. Geol. Spec. Publ. 2012;26(1):1–4.
    1. Gunn, D. A., Reeves, H. J., Chambers, J. E., Ghataora, G. S., Burrow, M. P. N., Weston, P., Lovell J.M., Nelder L., Ward D., Smith, R. T. (2008). New geophysical and geotechnical approaches to characterise under utilised earthworks. Adv. Transp. Geotech., 313–320. CRC Press.
    1. Herle V. Czech standards and specification for earthworks. Geol. Soc. Lond. Eng. Geol. Spec. Publ. 2012;26(1):61–65.
    1. Meurant G. Soil Mechanics of Earthworks, Foundations and Highway Engineering. Elsevier; 2013.
    1. Azahar, M. A., Mahadi, N. F. Z., Rusli, Q. N., Narendranathan, N., Lee, E. C. (2019, April). Use of geophysics for site investigations and earthworks assessments. in IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 512, No. 1, p. 012007). IOP Publishing.