Low-impact foundation systems: The Definitive Guide to Decarbonizing Substructures

Executive Summary

The construction industry is currently navigating a paradigm shift of historical magnitude. 

For over a century, the default solution to foundation engineering has been one of mass: pouring immense volumes of Portland cement-based concrete, reinforced with virgin steel, to create a rigid, heavy interface between the built environment and the ground.

While structurally effective, this approach is becoming increasingly untenable in a global regulatory environment targeting net-zero emissions. 

The “upfront” or embodied carbon—the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the extraction, manufacturing, transportation, and installation of building materials—now accounts for a significant portion of a building’s total carbon footprint. 

Research indicates that by the year 2050, almost half of the carbon footprint in new construction will stem exclusively from embodied carbon.1

This report presents an exhaustive technical analysis of low-impact foundation alternatives that minimize or essentially eliminate the use of traditional concrete and steel. 

By shifting the engineering philosophy from reliance on mass to reliance on geometry, friction, and material efficiency, builders and engineers can achieve comparable structural performance with a fraction of the environmental impact. 

The analysis covers displacement technologies like screw piles and pin foundations, aggregate systems like rubble trenches and gabions, and material innovations such as geopolymer concrete and alternative reinforcements like basalt fiber and bamboo. 

Through detailed technical examination, lifecycle cost comparisons, and regulatory strategies, this document serves as a roadmap for decarbonizing the substructure of the built environment.

1. The Carbon Imperative in Geotechnical Engineering

1.1 The Silent Crisis of Substructure

Historically, the sustainability narrative in architecture and engineering has focused on operational carbon—the energy consumed by heating, cooling, and lighting a building. 

However, as building envelopes have become tighter and energy grids have begun to decarbonize, the relative significance of embodied carbon has surged. 

Unlike operational carbon, which can be reduced over time through retrofits and grid improvements, embodied carbon is a “sunk cost.” 

Once the foundation is poured, those emissions are locked into the atmosphere for the lifespan of the structure.1

Foundations are particularly culpable in this equation. The production of Portland cement, the binding agent in concrete, is responsible for approximately 8% of global CO2 emissions—a figure that rivals the emissions of the entire global transport sector.2 

Furthermore, traditional strip footings and slab-on-grade foundations often require extensive excavation, which disrupts soil biodiversity, alters site hydrology, and necessitates the transport of heavy materials. 

The logic of “burying” thousands of tons of high-carbon material simply to support a lightweight timber frame is being challenged by lifecycle assessment (LCA) data, which shows that up to 50% of a residential building’s embodied carbon can be tied to its concrete foundation.3

1.2 The “Carbon Lock-In” Effect

The concept of “carbon lock-in” is critical to understanding the urgency of foundation design. 

Because foundations are the most permanent element of a structure—often surviving the building itself—decisions made at the geotechnical stage have multi-generational climate impacts. 

A traditional concrete basement essentially guarantees a high carbon baseline that no amount of solar panels or insulation can offset. 

Conversely, shifting to a low-impact system like screw piles or a permanent wood foundation can reduce the substructure’s carbon footprint by 50% to 80% immediately.1

1.3 Regulatory and Market Drivers

The push for low-impact foundations is not merely ethical; it is becoming regulatory. Jurisdictions globally are introducing caps on embodied carbon. 

In Canada, some municipal regulators have started to add limits to embodied carbon in new construction projects, explicitly targeting the heavy use of concrete in foundations.5 

Similarly, the London Energy Transformation Initiative (LETI) has set ambitious targets to halve embodied carbon benchmarks for residential buildings, pushing for limits as low as 500 kg CO2e/m².6 

These regulatory frameworks are forcing engineers to look beyond the standard concrete pour and evaluate foundation systems based on their carbon intensity per unit of load-bearing capacity.

2. Soil Mechanics and Foundation Physics

To successfully implement low-impact foundations, one must first understand the fundamental physics of how structures interact with the earth. 

The traditional reliance on concrete footings is based on the principle of “spread.” By widening the base of a wall or column with a concrete pad, the load is distributed over a larger area of soil to ensure the pressure does not exceed the soil’s bearing capacity.

2.1 The Fallacy of Mass

Traditional concrete foundations also rely on mass to resist uplift (wind/seismic) and overturning forces. 

The assumption has been that the heavier the foundation, the more stable the building. 

However, this reliance on mass is inefficient. Low-impact alternatives often employ different, more sophisticated geotechnical mechanisms:

• Displacement and Friction: Technologies like screw piles generate capacity through torque and end-bearing deep in the soil strata. Instead of sitting on the soil, they engage with it, using the friction along the pile shaft and the bearing capacity of the helix plates to support loads.8
• Interlocking Aggregate: Rubble trench foundations utilize the interlocking mechanics of compacted stone. By eliminating the pore water pressure that causes instability and frost heave, they create a static, stable base without the need for a rigid concrete beam to span soft spots.9
• Composite Action: Systems like Diamond Piers utilize the soil itself as part of the structure. By driving pins at opposing angles, they create a tension/compression couple that locks the foundation to a bulb of soil, effectively turning the ground into the footing.10

2.2 Soil Classification and Suitability

The success of any low-impact foundation depends heavily on accurate soil classification. Soils are broadly categorized into cohesive (clays, silts) and granular (sands, gravels).

• Granular Soils (Type C): These soils, including sands and gravels, are generally excellent for friction-based systems like screw piles and drainage-based systems like rubble trenches because they are free-draining and non-expansive.11
• Cohesive Soils (Type A/B): Clays can be problematic due to their potential for expansion and contraction (heave/shrink). However, deep displacement piles can bypass these active zones to reach stable strata below, a solution often superior to shallow concrete footings which can crack under differential settlement.12

Understanding these mechanics allows us to decouple “stability” from “mass,” opening the door to lightweight, high-performance foundation systems.

3. Displacement Technologies: Helical Piles and Screw Anchors

Among the most mature and verifiable low-impact technologies are helical piles (also known as screw piles). 

Originally patented in the 1830s for lighthouse construction, they have seen a massive resurgence due to their precision and minimal environmental footprint.

3.1 Mechanism of Action: The Torque Correlation

A helical pile consists of a high-strength steel shaft with one or more helical plates (flights) welded near the tip. 

The pile is rotated into the ground using a hydraulic torque motor. The genius of the system lies in its installation physics: the pile does not bore a hole; it screws into the soil, displacing it laterally and compressing it rather than removing it.14

The defining engineering characteristic of helical piles is the direct correlation between installation torque and load capacity.

$$Capacity = Torque \times K_t$$

Where $K_t$ is an empirical torque factor specific to the pile shaft size. This relationship allows installers to verify the bearing capacity of every single pile in real-time. 

 

If the required torque is not met, the pile is simply extended and driven deeper until dense soil is reached. 

This provides a level of Quality Assurance (QA) that concrete, which requires 28 days to cure and reach full strength, cannot match.8

3.2 Installation Process and Site Impact

The installation of screw piles is a rapid, dry, and vibration-free process.

1. Site Analysis: A geotechnical report identifies the depth of the bearing stratum.16
2. Equipment: Small excavators (3-5 tons) fitted with hydraulic drive heads are typically used. This allows installation in tight urban infill sites or sensitive landscapes where large concrete trucks cannot access.17
3. Driving: The pile is rotated into the ground. The operator monitors the differential pressure to calculate torque.
4. Termination: Once the target depth and torque are achieved, the pile is cut to the correct elevation, and a steel cap is bolted or welded on to accept the building load.14

Environmental Advantage: The most significant environmental benefit is the elimination of “spoil.” 

In traditional trenching, cubic meters of soil are dug up and often trucked to landfills, especially if the site is brownfield or contaminated. 

Screw piles generate zero spoil, eliminating the carbon cost of earthmoving and disposal.19

3.3 Comparative Carbon and Cost Analysis

Embodied Carbon: A lifecycle analysis suggests that screw piles can reduce embodied carbon by over 60% compared to traditional reinforced concrete foundations. 

This reduction comes from eliminating cement (the primary carbon driver) and significantly reducing transport logistics. 

A single truck can carry enough piles for an entire house, whereas concrete would require multiple mixer trucks.19

Cost Breakdown:

• Material: The unit cost of a steel pile is higher than the equivalent volume of concrete.
• Labor and Time: The installation speed changes the equation. A screw pile foundation for a residential addition can be installed in a single day, whereas concrete requires excavation, forming, pouring, and curing—a process taking weeks. When labor and time savings are factored in, screw piles often achieve cost parity or become cheaper, particularly on difficult sites with high water tables or poor soil.20

3.4 Limitations and Challenges

While versatile, screw piles are not a panacea.

• Refusal in Rock: They cannot be driven into bedrock or soil with large boulders (cobbles). Encountering obstructions can require expensive pre-drilling or relocation of piles.22
• Lateral Capacity: Slender shafts have limited resistance to lateral loads (wind shear). In such cases, battered piles (installed at an angle) or larger diameter shafts are required to resist overturning forces.15

4. Pin Pile Systems: The Diamond Pier Revolution

For lighter residential structures, decks, and porches, the “Diamond Pier” system represents a specific evolution of displacement technology that emphasizes biomimicry and ease of use.

4.1 Biomimicry in Design

The Diamond Pier system mimics the root structure of a tree. Rather than a single deep shaft, it utilizes a precast concrete head that sits at the surface. 

Four steel “bearing pins” are driven through the head at opposing angles into the undisturbed soil.

• Root Ball Effect: As the pins penetrate, they create a stable “root ball” of reinforced soil. The diverging angles of the pins lock the pier into the ground, resisting both uplift and settling forces.10
• Frost Heave Mechanics: Traditional footings resist frost heave by extending below the frost line. Diamond Piers resist heave through their geometry. As freezing soil expands, the angled pins create a lock; the soil is forced to cleave and flow around the pier head rather than lifting it. This allows the system to be effective even in severe frost zones without deep excavation.23

4.2 Installation and Efficiency

The installation is remarkably low-impact:

1. Surface Prep: A shallow divot is cleared for the concrete head.
2. Driving Pins: The steel pins are driven using a standard demolition hammer (electric jackhammer). No heavy excavators are required.
3. Completion: Once pins are driven, the system is instantly load-bearing.10

Project Timeline Impact: For a typical deck or porch, using Diamond Piers can save 2-3 days of schedule by eliminating the “dig-pour-wait” cycle of concrete sonotubes. 

Code officials can verify the footing simply by measuring the length of the pin with a tape measure down the tube, simplifying inspections.24

4.3 Regulatory and Load Limits

Diamond Piers are widely accepted under the International Residential Code (IRC) for “accessory structures” (decks, porches, gazebos).

• Load Chart: A DP-75 model (75lb head) with 63-inch pins in sand/gravel soil provides an equivalent bearing capacity to a 24-inch diameter, 5-foot deep concrete footing.10
• Constraint: They generally require soils with a minimum bearing capacity of 1500 psf. In very weak organic soils or peat, they may not achieve sufficient resistance. They are also typically restricted to non-habitable additions in some jurisdictions, though this is evolving with engineering support.23

5. Aggregate Foundations: Rubble Trenches and Gabions

Moving away from steel and technology, we find the oldest and perhaps most elegant low-impact solution: stone.

5.1 The Rubble Trench: Frank Lloyd Wright’s “Dry Wall Footing”

The rubble trench foundation is a paradox: it is ancient technology, used for millennia in the Middle East, yet it was popularized in modern Western architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright. 

Wright used it for his Usonian houses, observing that they were “perfectly static” with no signs of heaving.9

5.1.1 The Hydrology of Heave

The engineering principle relies on removing the water rather than the soil. Frost heave requires three elements: freezing temperatures, frost-susceptible soil, and water. 

A concrete footing addresses the first by digging deep. A rubble trench addresses the third by removing the water.

• French Drain Mechanism: The foundation is essentially a massive French drain. A trench is dug to the frost depth and filled with compacted, washed stone (1.5-inch diameter). A drain pipe at the bottom ensures that water never stands in the trench. Since dry stones cannot freeze and expand, the foundation remains stable even in deep winter.26

5.1.2 Construction Details

1. Excavation and Slope: The trench must be sloped (min 1/8″ per foot) to a daylight outlet or dry well. A flat trench is a bathtub that will cause failure.27
2. Lining: Filter fabric is non-negotiable. It prevents silt and fines from migrating into the stone voids, which would eventually clog the drainage.27
3. Grade Beam: A reinforced concrete beam (or sometimes a timber sill) sits on top of the rubble. This beam distributes the building load across the stones. Because the rubble is compacted, it has a bearing capacity often exceeding that of the native soil.27

5.1.3 Regulatory Strategy

Code compliance can be tricky as rubble trenches are not prescriptive in the IRC. They typically require approval as an “alternative method.” 

Providing stamped drawings from a structural engineer and citing historical precedents (like Wright’s work) are successful strategies for obtaining permits.28

5.2 Gabion Foundations: The Mesh-Confined Mass

Gabions—wire baskets filled with stone—offer a similar aggregate-based solution but with higher structural confinement.

• Haiti Case Study: Following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, “Gabion Houses” were developed to utilize the millions of tons of rubble. Wire baskets were filled with crushed debris to form load-bearing walls and foundations. This system proved seismically resilient; the wire mesh allows the foundation to deform and absorb energy without snapping like rigid concrete.29
• Mechanism: The wire mesh puts the stone in confinement, significantly increasing its compressive strength. Like the rubble trench, it is permeable, preventing the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall.31

5.3 Earthship Tire Foundations

A niche but notable mention is the “rammed earth tire” foundation used in Earthships. Tires are packed with earth using sledgehammers until they bulge, creating incredibly dense, massive rubber-encased bricks.

• Performance: These foundations are virtually indestructible and provide immense thermal mass. However, they are labor-intensive (one tire can take 30 minutes to pack) and difficult to permit outside of experimental zones without specific engineering variances.33

6. Permanent Wood Foundations (PWF)

Often overlooked, treated wood can serve as a highly effective foundation material with a significantly lower carbon footprint than concrete.

6.1 Building Science of PWF

A Permanent Wood Foundation (PWF) is essentially a below-grade stud wall sheathed with pressure-treated plywood. 

It sits on a gravel drainage pad rather than a concrete footing.

• Thermal Efficiency: Concrete is a thermal bridge, conducting cold from the ground into the home. A wood foundation, being a stud wall, can be insulated with fiberglass or mineral wool in the cavities, resulting in a basement that is warm, dry, and energy-efficient.34
• Material: The lumber and plywood must be treated to specific retention levels (e.g., 0.60 pcf of CCA or ACQ) which are higher than standard deck lumber. Fasteners must be stainless steel to resist corrosion.36

6.2 Code Acceptance and Durability

Unlike rubble trenches, PWFs are fully codified in the IRC and Canadian building codes (CSA S406).37 

Long-term studies by the US Forest Service have shown that properly installed systems have a service life comparable to the buildings they support. 

The key, as with rubble trenches, is drainage. 

The gravel base and rigorous waterproofing (often 6-mil polyethylene + bituthene) keep the wood dry.34

7. Material Innovations: Geopolymers and Alternative Reinforcement

For projects where a poured foundation is unavoidable (e.g., heavy commercial loads), the focus shifts from system replacement to material replacement.

7.1 Geopolymer Concrete: The Chemistry of Sustainability

Geopolymer concrete (GPC) represents a fundamental shift in chemistry. Traditional concrete cures through the hydration of calcium silicates in Portland cement. 

GPC cures through polymerization of aluminosilicates.

• Ingredients: It utilizes industrial byproducts rich in silica and alumina, such as fly ash (from coal plants) and blast furnace slag (from steel production). These are reacted with an alkaline activator (typically a mix of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate).39
• Carbon Impact: Because it eliminates Portland cement (which requires heating limestone to 1450°C), GPC can reduce carbon emissions by 70-90%. It essentially turns waste into rock.40
• Performance: GPC offers superior resistance to acid and sulfate attack, making it ideal for aggressive soil environments. It also has higher fire resistance and cures rapidly.41 However, the handling of high-pH alkaline activators requires safety protocols, and the supply chain is less established than OPC.42

7.2 Alternative Reinforcement: Bamboo and Basalt

Replacing the steel in concrete is the other half of the battle.

• Basalt Fiber Rebar (BFRP): Made from spun volcanic rock fibers, basalt rebar is 4x lighter than steel and has 2.5x the tensile strength. Crucially, it is non-corrosive. This means the concrete cover (the thickness of concrete over the rebar) can be reduced, as there is no risk of rust jacking (expansion of rusting steel cracking the concrete). This leads to thinner, lighter foundations.43
• Bamboo: Bamboo has a strength-to-weight ratio rivaling steel. The new ISO 22156:2021 standard provides the first international framework for structural design with bamboo, legitimizing it for engineers. The challenge is bonding; bamboo absorbs water from wet concrete, swelling and then shrinking, which breaks the bond. Thorough waterproofing and mechanical notching are required for it to function as reinforcement.45

8. Emerging Technologies: Mycelium and 3D Printing

The frontier of low-impact foundations lies in bio-fabrication.

8.1 3D Printed Mycelium Composites

Researchers are developing methods to 3D print foundation forms using mycelium (fungal root networks) grown on agricultural waste (cardboard, straw).

• Process: A substrate paste inoculated with mycelium is extruded into a shape. Over days, the mycelium colonizes the substrate, binding it into a dense, foam-like composite. While currently not strong enough for heavy load-bearing foundations, these materials are being tested as stay-in-place formwork that provides insulation and eventually composts into the soil.48
• Future Potential: The goal is “growable” architecture where the boundary between the building and the soil is biologically active and regenerative rather than inert and toxic.50

9. Comparative Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) and Economics

To make informed decisions, we must look at the data: cost and carbon.

9.1 Embodied Carbon Comparison

The following table synthesizes LCA data to compare the embodied carbon impact of various foundation systems relative to a standard reinforced concrete baseline.

 

Foundation Type	Primary Carbon Driver	Estimated Carbon Reduction	Notes
Concrete Strip Footing	Cement clinker production	Baseline (0%)	High mass, high transport emissions.
Timber Piles / PWF	Treatment chemicals	> 75%	Potential for net-negative carbon due to sequestration in wood.51
Screw Piles (Steel)	Steel manufacturing	40 – 60%	High recyclability; minimal transport; zero spoil removal.19
Rubble Trench	Aggregate transport	~80%	Depends on stone source distance; minimal cement use.28
Geopolymer Concrete	Activator production	70 – 80%	Utilizes waste streams; sensitive to activator sourcing.40

Trend Analysis: Timber-based systems offer the lowest carbon footprint, potentially acting as carbon sinks. 

However, for modern loads and longevity, Screw Piles offer the most balanced reduction, cutting emissions by half while providing verifiable structural capacity.

9.2 Economic Analysis: Installed Cost

The “sticker price” of materials often misleads builders. A true cost comparison must include excavation, labor, and time.

 

Foundation System	Material Cost	Labor Cost	Equipment & Time	Total Installed Cost Trend
Concrete	Low	High	Moderate (Excavator, Pump)	Baseline
Screw Piles	High	Low	Low (Mini-excavator, 1 day)	Comparable / Lower (on difficult sites) 21
Diamond Pier	Moderate	Very Low	None (Handheld, hours)	Lowest (for decks/porches) 53
Rubble Trench	Very Low	Moderate	Moderate (Excavator)	Low (if DIY labor is used)
ICF Foundation	High	Moderate	Low	+5-10% vs Concrete 54

Insight: In 2024/2025, as labor costs rise and availability of skilled trades falls, systems that reduce labor (like screw piles and Diamond Piers) are becoming economically superior to cheap-material/high-labor systems like concrete.

10. Regulatory Pathways and Implementation Strategies

10.1 Navigating the Permit Process

The primary barrier to adoption is often the local building official. To successfully permit low-impact foundations:

1. Leverage National Standards: Do not rely on local code familiarity. Submit copies of ICC-ES Evaluation Reports (e.g., ESR-1895 for Diamond Piers) or ISO Standards (ISO 22156 for Bamboo). These documents prove that the system has been tested to national safety standards.23
2. Engineer of Record: For systems like Rubble Trenches or Geopolymer Concrete, a stamped design from a local structural engineer is vital. The engineer takes the liability, which allows the code official to approve the “alternative method” with confidence.28
3. Pre-Application Meetings: Engage early. Explain the torque-correlation verification for screw piles as a superior Quality Control measure compared to concrete slump tests. Show the drainage calculations for rubble trenches.

10.2 Best Practice: The Hybrid Approach

The future of foundation engineering is likely hybrid.

• Example: A geopolymer concrete grade beam sitting on screw piles combines the spanning capability of concrete with the low-impact grounding of steel.
• Example: A PWF wall system sitting on a rubble trench footer combines the warmth of wood with the drainage of stone.

Conclusion

The foundation of a sustainable future does not need to be poured from concrete. The technologies to decarbonize the substructure exist today, ranging from the rediscovery of ancient techniques like the rubble trench to the high-precision engineering of helical piles.

For the practitioner, the choice of foundation is no longer a default to concrete but a nuanced decision based on soil mechanics, carbon accounting, and site logistics. 

Screw piles offer speed and precision; rubble trenches offer simplicity and hydrology management; geopolymer concrete offers a chemical pathway to sustainability. 

By adopting these methods, the construction industry can stop burying its carbon problem and start building on a truly sustainable footing.

(Note: All specific data points and claims in this report are supported by the referenced research snippets. Always consult with a licensed geotechnical or structural engineer for specific project designs.)

Works cited

1. Embodied carbon vs. operational carbon | One Click LCA, accessed January 15, 2026, https://oneclicklca.com/en/resources/articles/embodied-carbon-vs-operational-carbon
2. CO2 Emissions Helical Piers VS Concrete, accessed January 15, 2026, https://sbhelical.com/blog/co2-emissions-helical-pier-vs-concrete
3. Embodied Carbon – Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.holcimfoundation.org/embodied-carbon
4. Reducing Embodied Carbon in Buildings – RMI, accessed January 15, 2026, https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2021/08/Embodied_Carbon_full_report.pdf
5. Technical Paper – Comparing the Embodied Carbon of Foundation …, accessed January 15, 2026, https://menardcanada.ca/technical-paper-comparing-the-embodied-carbon-of-foundation-support-solutions/
6. Carbon benchmarking for sustainable building: five key takeaways – One Click LCA, accessed January 15, 2026, https://oneclicklca.com/en/resources/articles/carbon-benchmarking-for-sustainable-building-five-key-takeaways
7. Life cycle carbon assessment of a contemporary house in the UK built to zero carbon. – The University of Liverpool Repository, accessed January 15, 2026, https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3163616/1/CATE22_Venkatesh_and_Haniyeh_Full_paper_submission.pdf
8. How to Design Screw Piles According to Building Codes, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.winkelmann-construction.com/en/presse-center/posts/how-to-design-screw-foundations-according-to-building-standards
9. Rubble Trench Foundations | PDF | Drainage – Scribd, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/312666803/Rubble-Trench-Foundations
10. How It Works – Diamond Pier Foundations, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.diamondpiers.com/how-it-works
11. Soil Classification Outline – OSHA, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/Soil%20Classification%20Training%20Outline.pdf
12. Soil classification and building your new home – Plantation Homes, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.plantationhomes.com.au/home-builder-guide/soil-type-classification
13. The Home Builders Guide to Soil Types 2025 – Prime Building Projects, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.primeprojects.com.au/the-home-builders-guide-to-soil-types/
14. Understanding Screw Piles: A Complete Guide – The Ground Screw Centre, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.groundscrewcentre.co.uk/under-standing-ground-screw-piles
15. Basic Helical Screw Pile Design, Donald J. Clayton, P.E. – Geotech Engineering and Testing, accessed January 15, 2026, https://geotecheng.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/guidelines_helical_pile.pdf
16. Top Structural Mistakes to Avoid When Installing Screw Piles, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.pilingexperts.com.au/structural-mistakes-to-avoid-when-installing-screw-piles/
17. The Ultimate Guide to Screw Piling Construction: Benefits, Process, and Applications, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.pilingexperts.com.au/the-ultimate-guide-to-screw-piling-construction-benefits-process-and-applications/
18. Screw Pile Installation | Strength and Know-How – GoliathTech, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.goliathtechpiles.com/installation-en
19. Environmental Impact of Screw Piles vs. Concrete Foundations | RADIX, accessed January 15, 2026, https://radixgroup.co.uk/environmental-impact-of-screw-piles-vs-concrete-foundations/
20. Helical Piers Cost vs Concrete Footings | Pros, Cons & Cost – Outdoor Space Builders, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.osbct.com/helical-piers-cost-vs-concrete-footings
21. Cost of Screw Piles vs. Concrete Foundation for Home Extensions, accessed January 15, 2026, https://groundplug.co.uk/cost-of-screw-piles-vs-concrete-extensions/
22. Challenges in screw pile (helical pile) installation, accessed January 15, 2026, https://postechpiles.com/blogs/product/potential-challenges-when-installing-screw-piles/
23. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs) – Diamond Pier, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.diamondpiers.com/sites/default/files/2025-07/Diamond%20Pier%20FAQs.pdf
24. What Makes Diamond Piers Great? – Pro Deck Supply, accessed January 15, 2026, https://prodeckmn.com/blogs/understanding-materials-and-styles/what-makes-diamond-piers-great
25. Rubble trench foundation – Wikipedia, accessed January 15, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubble_trench_foundation
26. Rubble trench – Endeavour Centre, accessed January 15, 2026, https://endeavourcentre.org/resources-for-building-green/free-encyclopedia-of-sustainable-building-materials/foundations/rubble-trench/
27. What is a Rubble Trench Foundation?, accessed January 15, 2026, http://buildnaturally.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-is-rubble-trench-foundation.html
28. What is a Rubble Trench Foundation – Down to Earth Design, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.buildnaturally.com/post/rubbletrench
29. The Gabion House Approach – Inerteco, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.inerteco.com/documenti/The_Gabion_House_Approach_Inerteco.pdf
30. A Full Scale Rubble-House Construction and Testing Project Powered by Undergraduate Student Volunteer Workforce – Kennesaw State University, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.kennesaw.edu/spceet/research/rubble-house/publications-presentations/docs/asee-paper-rubble.pdf
31. Gabion Walls Design | C.E. Shepherd, accessed January 15, 2026, https://ceshepherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MGS-Design-Guide.pdf
32. Gabion Retaining Wall Design, accessed January 15, 2026, https://gabionsupply.com/retaining-walls/
33. Building with Natural and Repurposed Materials – Earthship Biotecture, accessed January 15, 2026, https://earthship.com/systems/garbage-management/
34. Permanent Wood Foundations – School of Professional Home Inspection, accessed January 15, 2026, https://schoolofprofessionalhomeinspection.com/lib/Permanent-Wood-Foundations-Design-and-Construction-Guide.pdf
35. Permanent Wood Foundations – Canadian Wood Council, accessed January 15, 2026, https://cwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Permanent-Wood-Foundations-CWC.pdf
36. Permanent Treated Wood Foundation – – Natural Spaces Domes, accessed January 15, 2026, https://naturalspacesdomes.com/dome-system/pricing-and-planning/ptwf/
37. Permanent Wood Foundations – Biewer Lumber, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.biewerlumber.com/products/pwf/
38. CSA S406 Permanent Wood Foundations | The Canadian Wood Council (CWC), accessed January 15, 2026, https://cwc.ca/articles/csa-s406-permanent-wood-foundations/
39. Geopolymer Solutions: Geopolymer Concrete and Fireproofing, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.geopolymertech.com/
40. What is Geopolymer Cement: How it Can Revolutionize the Construction Industry?, accessed January 15, 2026, https://noblealchem.com/what-is-geopolymer-cement-how-it-can-revolutionize-the-construction-industry/
41. Geopolymer Concrete in Construction: Applications, Benefits & Challenges – Dwello, accessed January 15, 2026, https://dwello.in/news/geopolymer-concrete-in-construction-applications-benefits-challenges
42. Roman Geopolymer Concrete Recipe : 4 Steps – Instructables, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.instructables.com/Roman-Geopolymer-Concrete-Recipe/
43. Basalt Rebar vs Steel: Cost, Durability, and Performance Comparison – Wellco Wholesale, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.wellcowholesale.com/blog/post/basalt-rebar-vs-steel-cost-durability-and-performance-comparison
44. Rebar – Basalt International, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.basaltintl.com/products/rebar
45. The use of a bamboo reinforced concrete foundation for a simple environmentally friendly house in Indonesia – ResearchGate, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377365683_The_use_of_a_bamboo_reinforced_concrete_foundation_for_a_simple_environmentally_friendly_house_in_Indonesia
46. NEW INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ON BAMBOO STRUCTURES FOR INBAR MEMBER STATES – ideass, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.ideassonline.org/public/pdf/INBARConstructionStandard-ENG.pdf
47. BAMBOO REINFORCED CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, accessed January 15, 2026, http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/bamboo1966/BambooReinforcedConcreteFeb1966.htm
48. Three-Dimensional Printing of Living Mycelium-Based Composites: Material Compositions, Workflows, and Ways to Mitigate Contamination – NIH, accessed January 15, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10296363/
49. 3D Printed Formwork for Mycelium Bound Composites – CumInCAD, accessed January 15, 2026, https://papers.cumincad.org/data/works/att/acadia22_356.pdf
50. 3D-Printed Mycelium Biocomposites: Method for 3D Printing and Growing Fungi-Based Composites – PMC – NIH, accessed January 15, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12038323/
51. accessed January 15, 2026, https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/AJCEB/article/view/4813/5245#:~:text=The%20findings%20indicate%20that%20the,types%20identified%20in%20the%20paper.
52. Foundations Emissions Assessment – Civil Assist, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.civilassist.nz/post/foundations-emissions-assessment
53. Diamond Piers Deck Foundations, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.thedecksupply.com/product/diamond-piers-deck-foundations/

How Much Does an ICF Foundation Cost in 2025? | Fox Blocks, accessed January 15, 2026, https://www.foxblocks.com/blog/icf-foundation-cost