TECHNICAL NOTE

Ref: INT / TN _DT_019 - Rev. 04, July 2022

CARBON FOOTPRINT OF DT PRODUCTS

INTRODUCTION

Maccaferri products made with the double-twisted (DT) wire mesh (Reno mattress® Plus, Gabions,
Green Terramesh®, etc.) in addition to constructive and installation aspects, results highly
“environmentally friendly” reducing impacts on climate change with a limited carbon footprint with
respect to other traditional solutions.
DT wire mesh products are mainly used for riverbank and scour protection, channel linings,
embankment stability, reinforced soil structures and gravity walls. They are filled with rock and/or soil
at the project site to form flexible, permeable, monolithic structures to promote rapid growth of natural
vegetation. The blending of these double twisted product structures into the environment is rapid and
pleasing. The voids in the rockfill become progressively filled with silt, promoting vegetation growth
which is essential to the preservation and maintenance of the ecological balance of the surrounding
environment.

Going beyond integration aspects, the present study demonstrates how the use of Reno mattress®
Plus, Gabions and Green Terramesh® is a solution that reduces the impact on climate change,
showing a lower carbon footprint than equivalent traditional engineering solutions. The calculation of
the carbon footprint was carried out using standard methodology and applied to real cases.

CARBON FOOTPRINT OF DT PRODUCTS

The object of the study was to define the carbon footprints of representative civil works made of
gabions, Reno mattresses, Green Terramesh and to compare them to traditional construction
techniques.
The process to obtain the results can be summarized in the following operations:

1- Scope and methodology definition

2- Identification of the functional units
3- Process mapping and data gathering
4- Carbon footprint calculation: results

Each activity is presented in the following paragraphs.

1 – Scope and methodology definition

The growing concern about climate change and its negative effects on the environment and on global
economies is forcing leading organizations around the world to identify solutions which prove to have
a low impact in terms of GHG (Green House Gases emissions). The methodology that was chosen to
calculate the carbon footprint of the DT products, is the “GHG Protocol Product Life Cycle
Accounting and Reporting Standard”, by World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business
Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).
The gases that are considered in the Protocol are the ones indicated in the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and in the Kyoto Protocol.
In the present analysis all the activities that were detected are related to the release of CO2, therefore
the GHG of reference for the calculation was CO2. GHG removal was not considered even if DT
products allow a fast regeneration of vegetation in the areas interested by the works, thus contributing
to an effective carbon sequestration (see TN-DT-018).
2 – Identification of the functional units

The analysis was carried out for three representative DT “functional units”:

1. a bank protection made of Reno mattresses®

2. a gravity wall made of gabions
3. a reinforced soil structure made of Green Terramesh® Light

All the DT products covered by this study are made of steel wire coated with Galmac® (a Zn-Al5%
alloy) and Polimac® when required for durability issues. The single units are filled with rocks that can
be sourced:
- from quarries
- locally (i.e. at the jobsite proximity)

RIPRAP vs. RENO MATTRESS

The river protection work for functional unit 1 refers to the Tenore river, an affluent of the Olona
river in the Province of Varese. The work is part of a major project for the construction of the
motorway ‘Pedemontana Lombarda’. This specific work consists in the coverage of a surface of 5,400
m2 with Reno mattresses®. The single industrial unit is a 0.3 m thick mattress, therefore the total
volume of stones that was needed is 1,620 m3. The mattress has: mesh size 6x8, wire diameters
2.2/3.2 mm, Galmac® and Polimac® coating. The mattresses were filled in with local river stones with
an apparent unit weight of about 1,650-1,700 kg/m3.
The analysis was carried out also considering the transportation of the stones from a quarry; for the
evaluation of emissions related to the quarrying of limestone, the study was extended to principal
stone suppliers and the Emission Factor (EF) used is 12.937 kgCO2/ton (Ecoinvent, IPCC 2001 [7]).

The traditional solution that was considered is a revetment made of large stones (riprap) with a
thickness of 1 meter (normally the ratio between the layer thickness with and without Reno
mattresses is 1:3). This equals to a stone total volume of 5,400 m3 that corresponds to a volume of
5,670 m3 that must be transported from a quarry (5% loss is considered). The quarry that could
provide the large stones was considered at a distance of about 100 km (Figure 1).

Reno mattresses lining Riprap

Figure 1: river protection works comparison: Reno mattress and riprap bank linings

Officine Maccaferri S.p.A. Global Headquarters Page 2

Via JF Kennedy 10, 40069 Zola Predosa (BO) - Italy
www.maccaferri.com
CONCRETE WALL vs. GABION WALL

The gravity wall for the functional unit 2 is 10 m long and 8 m high. The wall foundation is 4.5 m wide
with a transversal area of 22.5 m2 so that the total Gabion wall volume to be filled in is 225 m3. The
single industrial unit is a 2x1x1 Gabion: mesh size 8x10, wire diameters 2.7/3.7 mm, Galmac® and
Polimac® coating. The gabion has a specific weight of 9.5 kg/m3 and is filled in with stones with an
apparent unit weight of 1,750 kg/m3, therefore the total weight of stones needed to fill in all the
gabions of the wall is about 415 tons of stones (5% loss is considered).
The analysis was carried out considering the transportation of the stones from:
- a quarry less than 100 km away from the job site
- a distant quarry
For the evaluation of emissions related to the quarrying of the limestone in this instance the EF
considered was 3.00 kgCO2eq/ton [5].

The traditional solution is a concrete wall, Rck 45 class, with an equivalent section of 18.9 m2 and no
reinforcement steel (the shape allows the concrete wall to work only in compression). This means a
volume of 189 m3 and a total weight of 465 tons of Rck 45 concrete. The ready-mix concrete plant was
considered at a distance of about 50 km from the job site (Figure 2).

Concrete wall Gabion wall

Figure 2: gravity walls comparison: concrete and gabion walls

RCC WALL vs. GREEN TERRAMESH

The reinforced soil structure for the functional unit 3 is a retaining wall 50 m long and 3 m high. The
single unit considered is Green Terramesh® Light 3x3x0.7: mesh size 8x10, wire diameter 2.2/3.2
mm, Galmac® and Polimac® coating. It has a specific weight of 3.40 kg/m2 and it is filled with a
structural sandy soil having an apparent unit weight of 1800 kg/m3, therefore the total weight needed
for the structural filling is about 765 t (5% loss is considered).
The analysis was carried out considering the transportation of the structural soil from a 20 km away
quarry for which the value of the specific carbon footprint has been extracted from the relevant EPD
[6].
For the transport of the Green Terramesh® Light units from the factory to the construction site 1500
km were conservatively keep in count for a 28 t truck payload, considering the distribution of
Maccaferri production facilities in Europe.

The traditional solution is a reinforced concrete wall, class Rck 45, with an equivalent section of 3.75
m2. This means a volume of 187.50 m3 and a total weight of 461.25 t. The ready-mix concrete plant
considered for the study is at 20 km from the work site.

Officine Maccaferri S.p.A. Global Headquarters Page 3

Via JF Kennedy 10, 40069 Zola Predosa (BO) - Italy
www.maccaferri.com
 Figure 3: retaining walls comparison: concrete and Green Terramesh® walls

3 – Process mapping and data gathering

The production process has been divided in the macro phases described in Figure 4 as per GHG.

Figure 4: Process map

The first three phases are included and certificated in the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) of
each product. The certificate provides a KgCO2eq value corresponding to the manufacture of one
kilogram of product; these values are reported in table 1.
Looking downstream, civil works are supposed to be the same in the comparison of the two solutions
(this is a conservative choice, as the construction of a concrete wall implies longer and more difficult
work). The same can be said for maintenance and decommissioning, which are not considered in this
study.

Table 1: Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) of Maccaferri products

Global Warming Potential
Product EPD Certificate
(GWP - 100 years) [KgCO2eq / Kgproduct]

Gabion S-P-01465 0.906

Reno Mattress® S-P-01466 0.999

Green Terramesh® S-P-01468 1.080

Officine Maccaferri S.p.A. Global Headquarters Page 4

Via JF Kennedy 10, 40069 Zola Predosa (BO) - Italy
www.maccaferri.com
4 – Carbon footprint calculation: results

Production of steel, as already introduced above, has been considered in the emissions shown in the
EPDs.
Transport emissions are calculated based on the Eco TransIT web tool in compliance with EN 16258
[4].
All steel is transported to a single production factory where the drawing and coating process take
place. These phases have been calculated with the use of primary data from a Maccaferri facility.
Process scope 1 and 2 emissions according to GHG Protocol have been allocated to different coating
type based on single process type and input material mass balances. Resulting emission factors are
calculated in kgCO2eq/kg of semi-finished product of the two categories: Galmac and Polimac®. A
simplified approach is therefore introduced, because no specific EF is calculated for each wire
diameter per type of wire.
The results are emission factors in kgCO2eq related to each solution (gravity walls, with gabions and
with Terramesh units, and riverbank revetment) and they are displayed below (Figures 5, 6 and 7),
with corresponding tables (Tables 2, 3 and 4).

The total kilograms of CO2eq were divided by the total surface of the works to obtain a generic unit of
measure, kgCO2eq/m2, to be used every time the carbon footprint of a mattress revetment, a gabion
wall or a reinforced soil structure needs to be computed.
The surfaces that were considered are:
- Riverbank lining: 5,400 m2
- Gabion wall: 80 m2
- Green Terramesh® wall: 150 m2.

Officine Maccaferri S.p.A. Global Headquarters Page 5

Via JF Kennedy 10, 40069 Zola Predosa (BO) - Italy
www.maccaferri.com
 4.1 - RIPRAP vs. RENO MATTRESS

The river protection work using Reno mattresses® produces emissions of 13.9 kgCO2/m2, which is
less than half produced by the traditional solution (29.9 kgCO2/m2). Also, using locally available
stones, which can happen frequently when utilizing Reno mattresses® in river works, lead to
emissions that are even lower: 4.6 kgCO2/m2 (about 85% less emissions of the traditional solution).

Figure 5: CO2 for the construction of a BANK PROTECTION: riprap vs. Reno mattresses®

Table 1: Comparison table for Ban Protection

Total Carbon Material Material Specific Carbon
Transport Transport on
Footprint Input Input on the Footprint
[kgCO2-eq] the total [%]
[kgCO2-eq] [kgCO2-eq] total [%] [kgCO2-eq/m2]

Rip-Rap 161664.7 124699.7 77.1 36965.0 22.9 29.9

Reno mattress®
with stones from 74849.4 62750.9 83.8 12098.5 16.2 13.9
quarry
Reno mattress®
with stones from 25062.1 24263.3 96.8 798.8 3.2 4.6
local river

Officine Maccaferri S.p.A. Global Headquarters Page 6

Via JF Kennedy 10, 40069 Zola Predosa (BO) - Italy
www.maccaferri.com
 4.2 - CONCRETE WALL vs. GABION WALL

For the gravity wall, the use of gabions produces an emission of 81.1 kgCO2/m2, which is
approximately 8 times smaller than that of a traditional solution produces (665 kgCO2/m2).
Using stones from a closer quarry decreases the carbon footprint of the Maccaferri solution to 50.5
kgCO2/m2, which lead to a reduction of the emissions of nearly 40% compared with the previous
alternative (distant quarry).

Figure 6: CO2 emissions for the construction of a GRAVITY WALL: concrete wall vs. Gabion walls

Table 2: Comparison table for Gravity Wall

Total Carbon Material Material Specific Carbon
Transport Transport on
Footprint Input Input on the Footprint
[kgCO2-eq] the total [%]
[kgCO2-eq] [kgCO2-eq] total [%] [kgCO2-eq/m2]

Concrete Wall 53227.0 52399.9 98.4 827.1 1.6 665.3

Maccaferri Gabions
with stones from a 6484.4 3012.7 46.5 3471.7 53.5 81.1
distant quarry
Maccaferri Gabions
with stones from 4043.9 3012.7 74.5 1031.2 25.5 50.5
quarry (100km)

Officine Maccaferri S.p.A. Global Headquarters Page 7

Via JF Kennedy 10, 40069 Zola Predosa (BO) - Italy
www.maccaferri.com
 4.3 - RCC WALL vs. GREEN TERRAMESH

For the retaining wall solution, the use of Green Terramesh® Light units produces 62.6 kgCO2/m2
that is approximately 82% less emissions than what a traditional solution produces (350.2 kgCO2/m2).

Figure 7: CO2 emissions for the construction of a RETAINING WALL: RCC wall vs. Green Terramesh®

Table 3: Comparison table for Retaining Wall

Total Carbon Material Material Specific Carbon
Transport Transport on
Footprint Input Input on the Footprint
[kgCO2-eq] the total [%]
[kgCO2-eq] [kgCO2-eq] total [%] [kgCO2-eq/m2]

Reinforced
52528.0 51984.0 99.0 544.0 1.0 350.2
Concrete Wall

Green Terramesh®
9395.9 3953.4 42.1 5442.6 57.9 62.6
Light

Officine Maccaferri S.p.A. Global Headquarters Page 8

Via JF Kennedy 10, 40069 Zola Predosa (BO) - Italy
www.maccaferri.com
CONCLUSIONS

In a scenario where the climate change is a threatening reality, the Maccaferri solutions, apart from
the considerations on their easier installation aspects, are resulting extremely environmentally friendly
by reducing impacts on climate change with a limited carbon footprint when compared to other
traditional alternatives, as per the numerical results shown in this document.

The limited carbon footprints of Gabion, Reno mattress® and Green Terramesh® solutions highlight
that these products are the best environmentally friendly solutions applicable in the field of civil works.
All considerations about using or not stones from a place nearby the jobsite highlight the high effect of
transports on the evaluation of the carbon footprint, but more importantly the choice of the right
source of materials. For instance, for the gabion gravity wall, using a closer quarry instead of a further
one has an impact of about 70%, i.e. the transport emissions are 70% smaller than using a distant
quarry.

In this document the evaluations are made without taking into account the CO2 absorption from a
vegetated wall or slope, where over the time the CO2 emitted by production of the product will be
absorbed by the biomass onto it. For more detailed info about CO2 sequestration please refer to
“TN_DT_018 Carbon Sequestration”.

In conclusion this study shows clearly how Maccaferri DT solutions have a considerably less GHG
emissions and carbon footprint compared to traditional options: they allow for saving up to 85% of
the emissions compared to the traditional solution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] https://www.environdec.com/Detail/?Epd=14912
[2] https://www.environdec.com/Detail/?Epd=14911
[3] https://www.environdec.com/Detail/?Epd=14914
[4] https://www.ecotransit.org/en/emissioncalculator/
[5] https://oneclicklcaapp.com/ Product: “Limestone production, crushed, washed” EPD number: “d94c595e-
6e09-369b-ba57-fa0c7e8a39da” (2019); Ecoinvent 3.6; in compliance with EN15804+A1, EN15804+A2.
[6] https://oneclicklcaapp.com/ Product: “Wet sand” EPD number: “EPDITALY0088” (2020); Ecoinvent; in
compliance with EN15804+A1; verified as per ISO 14025.
[7] IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T., Y. Ding, D.J.
Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
[8] Frischknecht, R.; Stucki, M.; Büsser, S.; Itten, R. (2012). Comparative life cycle assessment of geosynthetics
versus conventional construction materials. Ground Engineering, vol. 45, no 10,pp. 24–28.

Officine Maccaferri S.p.A. Global Headquarters Page 9

Via JF Kennedy 10, 40069 Zola Predosa (BO) - Italy
www.maccaferri.com
APPENDIX A: INTERMODAL TRANSPORT OF DT PRODUCTS

In some circumstances the considered transport methodology of the DT products (i.e. by truck for a
maximum distance of 1500 km) cannot be used, for example when it is necessary to carry out part of
the route by ship.
When this becomes necessary, it is possible to use the same tool used for the calculation of truck
transport (https://www.ecotransit.org/en/emissioncalculator/) to evaluate the emissions due to an
intermodal transport (which can include trucks, trains and ships).

Following an example with reference to the DT functional unit 3 of Par. 2 and Par. 4.3: RCC WALL vs.
GREEN TERRAMESH.

For the transport of the Green Terramesh® Light units from the factory to the construction site 1500
km were conservatively keep in count for a 28 t truck payload, considering the distribution of
Maccaferri production facilities in Europe and transport emissions were calculated based on the Eco
TransIT web tool in compliance with EN 16258 [4].

In this case for the transport of the Green Terramesh® Light units it is considered to reach the city of
Merredin (Australia) from the Maccaferri plant located in Tangerang (Indonesia).
The transport method considered is by truck from Tangerang to the port of Jakarta, by ship to the
Perth’s harbor and again by truck till the city of Merredin.
The truck considered is always a 28 t truck payload.

These are the results of the selected intermodal method of transport:

From the results can be clearly noticed that the GHG emissions, in terms of kgCO2-eq, are almost the
same for the transport carried out by truck and the one by ship, even if the distance covered by truck
is about one tenth of that covered by ship.

Officine Maccaferri S.p.A. Global Headquarters Page 10

Via JF Kennedy 10, 40069 Zola Predosa (BO) - Italy
www.maccaferri.com
 The total amount of 5442,6 kgCO2-eq considered for the transport in Par 4.3 includes the transport of
DT products (3400 kgCO2-eq) and the transport of the structural fill (2042,6 kgCO2-eq) [6].

Therefore, to have new total amount of GHG emissions considered for the transport the value of the
DT products transport should be substituted with the one calculated using the intermodal transport
method, resulting in: 1260 + 2042,6 = 3302,6 kgCO2-eq.

Consequently, for the retaining wall solution, the use of Green Terramesh® Light units produces 48.4
kgCO2/m2 that is approximately 86% less emissions than what a traditional solution produces (350.2
kgCO2/m2).

Figure 1: CO2 emissions for the construction of a RETAINING WALL: RCC wall vs. Green Terramesh®

Table 1: Comparison table for Retaining Wall

Total Carbon Material Material Specific Carbon
Transport Transport on
Footprint Input Input on the Footprint
[kgCO2-eq] the total [%]
[kgCO2-eq] [kgCO2-eq] total [%] [kgCO2-eq/m2]

Reinforced
52528.0 51984.0 99.0 544.0 1.0 350.2
Concrete Wall

Green Terramesh®
7255.9 3953.4 54.5 3302.6 45.5 48.4
Light

In this example, even better results are achieved in terms of GHG emissions than that reported in Par.
4.3 since the transport of materials affects approximately 50% of the total emissions for the Green
Terramesh® Light solution.

Officine Maccaferri S.p.A. Global Headquarters Page 11

Via JF Kennedy 10, 40069 Zola Predosa (BO) - Italy
www.maccaferri.com