Life Cycle Cost Analysis and Life Cycle Assessment for Road Pavement Materials and Reconstruction Technologies

With limited funding and a desire to reduce environmental impact, there is a lot of pressure on road Authorities to develop decision making policy to manage better, build and maintain the road network sustainability. One of the solutions is to use various life cycle analyses. Numerous tools are available for different analyses, but they usually evaluate the construction from one perspective (economical, environmental, or social). Therefore, it was decided to develop a tool, which combines economic (Life Cycle Cost Analysis) and environmental (Life Cycle Assessment) analyses. The given study presents the methodology of the self-developed calculation program, which compare full-depth road constructions. Paper also shows shortcomings when calculation does not include all life cycle processes. In this study, five different road pavement constructions and reconstruction plans were compared. The difference between these pavements was in the layer thickness, recycled asphalt content in asphalt layers and the use of cement or fly ash in the road base layers. The results showed that the full depth reclamation technology in comparison to the full-depth removal and replacement reduce emissions by 60% and costs by 50%.

[1]  Jian-Shiuh Chen,et al.  Field evaluation of porous asphalt course for life-cycle cost analysis , 2019, Construction and Building Materials.

[2]  S. Amirkhanian,et al.  Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of recycled solid waste materials in highway pavement: A review , 2019, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[3]  Zhigang Zhang,et al.  A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) and Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Pavement: A Case Study in China , 2019, Advances in Civil Engineering.

[4]  V. Haritonovs,et al.  Life cycle cost analysis of BBTM and traditional asphalt concretes in Latvia , 2019, Engineering for Rural Development.

[5]  Hao Wang,et al.  Life cycle assessment of asphalt pavement recycling for greenhouse gas emission with temporal aspect , 2018 .

[6]  W. Gard,et al.  Improving the raveling resistance of porous asphalt with kraft lignin modified bitumen , 2017 .

[7]  L. Thives,et al.  Rutting performance of bituminous mixtures composed with red mud , 2017 .

[8]  Biagio Ciuffo,et al.  Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from passenger cars in Europe Laboratory versus real-world emissions , 2017 .

[9]  Halil Ceylan,et al.  Evaluation of pavement life cycle cost analysis: Review and analysis , 2016 .

[10]  Eric Masanet,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of pavements. Part I: Critical review , 2011 .

[11]  Nicholas Santero,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of Pavements: A Critical Review of Existing Literature and Research , 2010 .

[12]  Khaled Z. Ramadan,et al.  Utilization of white cement bypass dust as filler in asphalt concrete mixtures , 2009 .

[13]  H.J.Jani,et al.  Social Impact Assessment of Road Infrastructure Projects , 2018 .

[14]  Gerardo W Flintsch,et al.  Pavement life cycle assessment: A comparison of American and european tools , 2017 .

[15]  Adelino Ferreira,et al.  Environmental and economic assessment of pavement construction and management practices for enhancing pavement sustainability , 2017 .

[16]  A. Lagerkvist,et al.  Fly ash as a road construction material , 2012 .

[17]  Robert Karlsson,et al.  Optimization of thin asphalt layers, OPTHINAL. Final report , 2011 .

[18]  M Wendel,et al.  Optimization of thin asphalt layers , 2011 .