A life cycle assessment of in-place recycling and conventional pavement construction and maintenance practices

Santos, João; Bryce, James; Flintsch, Gerardo W.; Ferreira, Adelino; Diefenderfer, Brian K.

doi:10.1080/15732479.2014.945095

Cited by 93 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering all the lifecycle (30 years) the advantages of the application of CIR are less relevant and the whole advantage decreases to 9% of reduction of impacts because of the major time considered: the improvement due to CIR technology is diluted over time (in the whole lifecycle). In literature (Santos et al, 2015) it is reported that, comparing the in-place recycling activity against a traditional reconstruction activity, a reduction of 75% is expected to be achieved exclusively due to the materials phase if the CIR is undertaken.…”

Section: Ggpmentioning

confidence: 98%

Comparative life cycle assessment of asphalt pavements using reclaimed asphalt, warm mix technology and cold in-place recycling

Giani

Dotelli

Brandini

et al. 2015

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

219

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Ggpmentioning

confidence: 98%

Comparative life cycle assessment of asphalt pavements using reclaimed asphalt, warm mix technology and cold in-place recycling

Giani

Dotelli

Brandini

et al. 2015

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

219

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For instance, in some inventory datasets it is not clear whether or not the environmental burdens related to the production of the energy sources required to power some of the background processes connected to the foreground processes are included in the inventory datasets. This is a relevant issue, as Santos et al (13) have demonstrated that the inclusion of the environmental impacts associated with the production of the energy sources required by a single process in the LCA can notably affect the final results depending on the impact category under study. Thus, any exclusion of relevant individual processes or activity types should be justified through explicitly stated cut-off criteria.…”

Section: System Boundaries and Allocation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, the EOL was not taken into account because of its negligible contribution to the environmental life cycle impacts (<1%) (22). For further information on the definition of the phases mentioned above, the reader is referred to Santos et al (13).…”

Section: System Boundaries and General Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The set of pavement-specific LCA tools includes ROAD-RES (2), PaLATE V2.2 (3), UK asphalt pavement LCA model (4), ROADEO (5), CMS RIPT (6), PE-2 (7), CFET (8), ECORCE-M (9), DuboCalc (10), CO2NSTRUCT (11), VTTI/UC asphalt pavement LCA model (12,13), and Athena Impact Estimator for Highways (14). Commercial LCA tools, such as SimaPro (15) and GaBi (16), despite being not specifically designed for pavement-specific LCA, have been used for that purpose (17,18) since they are quite complete in terms of the elementary flows inventoried and unit processes taken into account, some of which are particularly applicable to the pavement domain (e.g., raw materials and equipment fuel combustion).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Life-Cycle Assessment Tools for Road Pavement Infrastructure

Santos¹,

Thyagarajan

Keijzer

et al. 2017

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation R

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Road pavements have considerable environmental burdens associated with their initial construction, maintenance, and usage, which has led the pavement stakeholder community to congregate efforts to better understand and mitigate these negative effects. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a versatile methodology to quantify the effect of decisions regarding the selection of resources and processes. However, there is a considerable variety of tools for conducting pavement LCA. The objective of this paper is to provide the pavement stakeholder community with insights on the potential differences in the life cycle impact assessment results of a pavement by applying American and European LCA tools, namely PaLATE V2.2, VTTI/UC asphalt pavement LCA model, GaBi, DuboCalc, and ECORCE-M, to a Spanish pavement reconstruction project. Construction and maintenance life cycle stages were considered in the comparison.Based on the impact assessment methods adopted by the different tools, the following indicators and impact categories were analyzed: energy consumption, climate change, acidification, eutrophication, and photochemical ozone creation. The results of the case study showed that it is of crucial importance to develop (1) a standardized framework for performing a road pavement LCA that can be adapted to various tools and (2) local databases of materials and processes that follow national and international standards.

show abstract

“…Furthermore in the literature, other solutions have been mentioned as having the potential to improve pavement sustainability. They include (but are not limited to): (1) in-place pavement recycling (Thenoux et al, 2007;Robinette and Epps, 2010;Santos et al, 2015a); (2) pavement preservation strategies and preventive treatments (Giustozzi et al, 2012); (3) longlasting pavements (Lee et al, 2011;Sakhaeifar et al, 2013); (4) reclaimed asphalt shingles (RAS) materials (Illinois Interchange, 2012); (5) wearing course with very-high RAP content (Zaumanis and Mallick 2015;Lo Presti et al, 2016;Pires et al, 2017); (6) industrial wastes and byproducts (Birgisdóttir et al, 2006;Carpenter et al, 2007;Carpenter and Gardner, 2009;Huang et al, 2009;Lee et al, 2010;Sayagh et al, 2010;Mladenovič et al, 2015), etc.…”

Section: Sustainable Asphalt Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

SUP&R DSS: A sustainability-based decision support system for road pavements

Santos

Bressi

Cerezo³

et al. 2019

Journal of Cleaner Production

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As pavement community members head into the future, the increasing social pressure towards the incorporation of sustainable principles into their work urge them (1) to come up with new materials and practices that reduce the negative impacts of their activities in the surroundings and (2) to develop methodologies and tools to encourage sustainable decision-making. To this end, this paper presents the development of a life cycle, performance-based, sustainability decision support system (DSS) for helping decision-makers (DMs)/stakeholders to prioritize alternative technologies for transportation systems with the ultimate objective of fostering sustainability in transportation projects. The framework relies on a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method to rank the sustainability of alternatives based on their life cycle sustainability performances and the relative priorities with respect to each environmental, economic and social criterion. The applicability of the proposed DSS is illustrated by means of a case study that aims to identify the most sustainable asphalt mixture amongst several promising options ranging from low to hot temperature asphalt for wearing courses of flexible road pavements. The sustainability assessment applies life cycle-based approaches to quantify the values of a set of indicators purposely and methodologically selected to capture the cause-effect link between the general concepts of the three Wellbeing dimensions of sustainability, i.e., environmental, economic and social, and the infrastructure construction and maintenance practice. The results show that a foamed WMA mixture with a RAP content of 50% is the most sustainable among the competing alternatives. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis conducted to investigate the influence of indicators weights and parameters of the MCDA method on the stability of the ranking showed that its first position in the ranking remained unaffected.

show abstract

A life cycle assessment of in-place recycling and conventional pavement construction and maintenance practices

Cited by 93 publications

References 22 publications

Comparative life cycle assessment of asphalt pavements using reclaimed asphalt, warm mix technology and cold in-place recycling

Comparative life cycle assessment of asphalt pavements using reclaimed asphalt, warm mix technology and cold in-place recycling

Comparison of Life-Cycle Assessment Tools for Road Pavement Infrastructure

SUP&R DSS: A sustainability-based decision support system for road pavements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About