AllBack2Pave Sustainability assessment of the AllBack2Pave ...€¦ · Toward a sustainable 100% recycling of reclaimed asphalt in road pavements Deliverable No D5.3 Sustainability

CEDR Transnational Road Research Programme

Call 2012: Recycling: Road construction in a post-fossil

fuel society

funded by Denmark, Finland, Germany,

Ireland, Netherlands and Norway

AllBack2Pave

Sustainability assessment of the

AllBack2Pave technologies

Deliverable No D5.3

November 2015

CEDR Call 2012: Recycling: Road construction in a post-fossil fuel society

i

CEDR Call2012:

Recycling: Road construction in a post-fossil fuel society

ALLBACK2PAVE

Toward a sustainable 100% recycling of reclaimed

asphalt in road pavements

Deliverable No D5.3

Sustainability assessment of the AllBack2Pave

technologies

Due date of deliverable: 31.07.2015

Actual submission date: 26.11.2015

Start date of project: 01.11.2013 End date of project: 30.09.2015

Authors of this deliverable:

Davide Lo Presti, University Of Nottingham, UK

Giacomo D’Angelo, University Of Nottingham, UK

Reviewers:

Tony Parry, University Of Nottingham, UK


ii

Executive summary

The previous reports provided 1) a state of the art review of existing sustainability assessment

tools of the impact of road pavement infrastructures (D5.1); 2) Evaluation of the environmental

and economic impact of the defined technologies taking into account the European level of the

project and adapted to real case studies (D5.2). This report will focus on analysing exisiting

tools and methodologies to allow decision making on what is a sustainable practice in asphalt

road pavements. The methodology will be then used to decide whether using the AB2P asphalt

mixes within the current European road maintainance practices are a more sustainable

solution. This will be carried out in two sections:

Review European LCA freely available tools that could be used for sustainability

performance of European road pavements,

Review the criteria in GreenPave and BE2ST and decide if they are the most relevant to

our exercise and eventually adapt those identified as suitable to the European and/or local

context and carry out a sustainability rating of the identified case studies.

On this basis reccomendations were drawn out, to integrating the various aspect of

sustainability measurements and provide suggestions for their future use within a possible

“CEDR sustainability rating system”.


iii

Table of contents

Executive summary ..................................................................................................... ii Table of contents ........................................................................................................ iii List of abbreviations .................................................................................................... iv 1 Review and comparison of freely available tools for Pavement LCA ................... 1

1.1 asPECT 4.0 ................................................................................................... 3 1.2 ECORCE M ................................................................................................... 4

1.3 CARBON ROAD MAP ................................................................................... 5

2 Evaluation of existing sustainability assessment methods for road pavement ..... 8

2.1 Sustainability assessment with GreenPave ................................................... 8 2.1.1 The Methodology .................................................................................... 8

2.1.2 The tool ................................................................................................. 10 2.1.3 GreenPave rating of the AB2P case studies ......................................... 10

2.2 Sustainability assessment with BE2ST-in-Highways™ ................................ 14 2.2.1 The Methodology .................................................................................. 14 2.2.2 The tool ................................................................................................. 17

2.2.3 BE2ST rating of the AB2P case studies ................................................ 19 3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 28

3.1 Review of freely available CF/LCA tools developed in EU .......................... 28

3.2 Review and adaptation to the EU context of the existing sustainability assessment methodologies ................................................................................... 29

3.2.1 GreenPave rating Limitations and Benefits ........................................... 29 3.3 Recommendations for CEDR Sustainability Assessment methodology ...... 30

4 Acknowledgment ................................................................................................ 32 5 References ......................................................................................................... 33 List of Tables ............................................................................................................ 46 List of Figures ........................................................................................................... 47 Annex A - GREEN PAVE guidelines ........................................................................ 48 Annex B - LCCA results for inlays of AB2P wearing courses ................................... 54

Net Present Value of the alternatives .................................................................... 54 Annex C - LCA results with ECORCE M .................................................................. 55


iv

List of abbreviations

AHP Analytical Hierarchical Process

AB2P AllBack2Pave

asPECT asphalt Pavement Embodied Carbon Tool

BE2ST-in-Highways Building Environmentally and Economically Sustainable

Transportation-Infrastructure-Highways

CF Carbon-Footprinting

ECORCE M ECO-comparator applied to Road Construction and Maintenance

GHG Green House Gases

GreenLITES Green Leadership In Transportation Environmental Sustainability

FHWA Federal HighWay Administration

INVEST Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool

LCA LifeCycle Assessment

LCC LifeCycle Costing

LCCA LifeCycle Cost Analisys

LCI LifeCycle Inventory

LCiA LifeCycle Impact Assessment

PaLATE Pavement Life-cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental and

Economic Effects

RA Reclaimed Asphalt


1

1 Review and comparison of freely available tools for

Pavement LCA

In this section, we will try comparing the results of environmental impact assessment exercise,

similarly to what has been done with the AB2P technologies in D5.2, by using other road

pavement specific tools rather than asPECT (Wayman, Schiavi-Mellor, & Cordell, 2014). This

will be done to allow engineers of Road Authorities having an idea of which could be the more

effective EU tool, amongst those built in the last 4-5 years as outcomes of different projects:

asPECT, ECORCE M and CARBON ROAD MAP. More general, complex professional LCA

tools can be used to assess/compare the environmental impact of road pavement technologies

to be used in road pavements: BEES (NIST, 2010), GaBi (PE International, 2014) and SimaPro

(SimaPro Ltd, 2014), these allow higher flexibility and possibly a more detailed estimation, but

are not cost-free and need professional expertise. Therefore, in order to optimise efforts and

resources on CEDR, here only LCA tools specifically created for road pavements are

investigated. These tools are freely obtained from the internet and have the common

characteristics of being:

Based on process LCA

User-friendly and in any case accompanied by a user manual

Able to perform at least a cradle-to-laid carbon footprinting of road pavement

technologies

Furthermore some of them also allow to:

Perform a full pavement LCA, not only provide the carbon footprint

Perform a cradle-to-grave analysis (up to end of life)

Use references and databases developed in EU countries

Figure 1: Proposed Life cycle stages of CF/LCA tool for road pavements

components. Use phase not included as in asPECT and ECORCE M.

PRODUCT

Resources acquisition

(to the plant)

Asphalt mixes Manufacturing (at the plant)

CONSTRUCTION

Asphalt mixes Installation (at the site)

USE

(design life)

Interaction with Environment (albedo, etc..)

Interaction with Users (fuel consumption)

minor Road Managers operations

(patching, etc)

END-OF-LIFE (design life)

Excavation and Stockpiling


2

These tools have been already described in D5.1, but here there will be a comparison more

focused on the user experience. Furthermore a CF exercise will be performed with all the tools,

similarly to what was done in D5.2, where CF was performed by using asPECT 4.0 for each

case study and design alternative. In this section, also ECORCE M (Jullien & Dauvergne,

ECORCE M, 2014) and CARBON ROADMAP (CEREAL, 2014) will be used. A final

comparison of the CF results will allow drawing some guidelines for the final user.

An important remark is that asPECT and ECORCE M are designed to perform CF/LCA

considering a reduced lifecycle for road pavement which includes a cradle-to-laid + end-of-life

scenario (Figure 1). These tools allow obtaining a much more detailed CF/LCA of new

designed road pavement components, such as new asphalt mixtures, and a more accurate

final outputs (e.g. KgCO2/t of mix). However, this type of analysis can’t be considered a

comprehensive road pavement CF/LCA because it does not allow taking in consideration the

Use phase, which is a fundamental phase of the road pavement life cycle.

Furthermore, in order to use LCA/CF tools for decision-making, these must be more related to

asset management rather than road pavement technologies. In other words, the CF of the

pavement components (e.g. asphalt mixes) should be a mere input and the overall

methodology should focus mainly on dealing with data such as road geometry, maintenance

strategies, traffic, pavement conditions and statistical parameters to account for data changing

over the analysis period.

Figure 2: Proposed Life cycle stages of CF/LCA tool for maintenance of

existing road pavement (e.g. CARBON ROAD MAP)

PRODUCT

pavement components manufacturing and

installation (e.g. kgCO2/t)

USE (analysis period)

Interaction with Users (fuel consumption)

Interaction with Environment (albedo, etc..)

Road Managers operations

(inlays, rehabilitation, etc.)

Pavement components dismantling and end-of-

life

END-OF-LIFE

?


3

For this reason, in the report D5.2, a separate spreadsheet was needed to extend the CF

calculation by including the maintenance strategies over the 60 years analysis period. An ideal

tool for environmental asset management should overcome these limitations by providing a

methodology for decision-making which has a different lifecycle stages than the one

considered in the other two tools, so to allow accounting for the CF of maintenance of existing

road pavement. This is a more complex analysis than that related to its pavement components,

furthermore the standard on Sustainability of Construction Works EN 15804:2012, reports that

the Use phase of LCA incorporates the maintenance, repair, replacement “…including

provision and transport of all materials, products and related energy and water use, as well as

waste processing up to the end-of-waste state or disposal of final residues during this part of

the use stage”. From this it can be interpreted that the USE phase is equal to the analysis

period and should include pavement layers dismantling, replacement and also stockpiling, so

that the END-OF-LIFE phase, as intended for pavement components asphalt mixtures (Figure

2) occurs only when the whole road pavement is dismantled or changes functionality.

CARBON ROADMAP is a tool created within the CEREAL project (CEREAL 2014) and

espouses this philosophy with the additional idea of being able to be used to account for CF

of maintenance of existing road pavement at European level.

1.1 asPECT 4.0

asPECT is in our opinion the most flexible and customisable free tool for road pavement

components CF (Figure 1). Its main benefits come from its extreme flexibility: it allows inserting

and/or changing almost all inputs, from the energy and resources consumed at the plant to the

constants related to the grid electricity, fuels, transport, etc. and this increases the reliability of

the results. asPECT allows implementing new design of the mixtures in the plant and

understanding CF in each operations. Although requiring very detailed inputs, it also allows

higher level of customisation of CF.

Table 1: Calculated total tonnes CO2e footprints (and percentage of variation

with respect to the Baseline) over 60 years for the all case studies with asPECT

Case study South

Europe: Italy

Central

Europe:

Germany

North Europe:

England

Baseline 2361 - 953 - 649 -

SMA IT-RA30add 2356 -0.2% 741 -22.3% 573 -11.7%

SMA IT-RA60add 2295 -2.8% 614 -35.5% 555 -14.5%

SMA IT-RA90add 2236 -5.3% 492 -48.4% 539 -17.0%

SMA D-RA30 2595 9.9% 822 -13.7% 656 1.1%

SMA D-RA60 2410 2.1% 670 -29.7% 598 -7.9%

SMA D-RA60add 2512 6.4% 697 -26.8% 628 -3.2%


4

At the same time this has the drawback of considerably increasing the complexity of the

analysis over similar tools, especially for new users. However other parts of the tool are not as

detailed as those above discussed. In particular for the part concerning the laying and

compaction on site, it would be more rigorous to import the specific CO2e value from other

sources, instead of using the default value. Furthermore this tool does not carry out a complete

LCA analysis but is limited to the carbon footprint, and does not take into account the Use

phase. Despite its complexity and some limitations, asPECT comes with a very well explained

manual so that it was possible to understand, replicate all the calculations and double check

all the outputs. In addition, results obtained from this software (Table 1), and widely discussed

in D5.2, were comparable with several similar studies in literature.

1.2 ECORCE M

ECO-comparator applied to Road Construction and Maintenance (ECORCE M) is a full

process, customisable road pavement LCA tool (Figure 1) based on a database populated with

data coming from researches conducted in France. The main inputs concern pavement

volumetric data, transport distances and modes, and mixtures recipes (Figure 3). All the other

data included in the database, are average data obtained from current manufacturing and

maintenance operations in France and the tool does not allow modifying them. On one hand

this makes the tool really easy to use for non-expert users, even without a manual. On the

other hand, not having a quick access to the database’s references makes it more difficult to

fully understand results obtained; for the same reason, it is not possible to change CO2e values

of the mixture components or to add some specific element such as fibers, adhesive

enhancers, emulsifiers, thickeners, fluxing agents, etc.

Therefore, ECORCE M is very much user-friendly and it possibly needs the addition of a

universal/open features allowing higher level of customisation to expert users. However

despite these limitations, the tool provides benefits such as including the analysis of the

earthworks and soil treatments, it can be used for comparison between maintenance

operations and above all it carries out a full process LCA analysis, not restricted only to CF. In

order to have a comparison with the other tools, Table 2 show only the results CO2 emissions

for all case studies (Baselines and AB2P mixtures).

From Table 2 it can be noticed that, even though absolute values obtained from ECORCE M

are lower than asPECT’s ones, the trend line and ratios between scenarios are very close to

each other, especially for the German and English case studies. ECORCE M shows always

lower absolute values of CO2, however it has to be highlighted that we were not able to input

additives and fibers present in the mixes, so that results from the two software can’t be fully

compared. In conclusion ECORCE M doesn’t allow great level of customisation, but it is very

much user-friendly, provides comparable CF results to asPECT and it is the only freely

available tool (over those analysed) that allows performing a full process LCA of road

pavement in both scenarios: new construction and management of existing assets.


5

Figure 3: ECORCE M. Sequencing diagram summarising the needed inputs


with respect to the Baseline) over 60 years for the all case studies with

ECORCE M

Case study South Europe:

Italy

Central

Europe:

Germany

North Europe:

England

Baseline 1492 - 739 - 502 -

SMA IT-RA30add 1400 -6.1% 552 -25.4% 418 -16.6%

SMA IT-RA60add 1310 -12.2% 448 -39.4% 391 -22.0%

SMA IT-RA90add 1250 -16.2% 356 -51.8% 375 -25.3%

SMA D-RA30 1638 9.8% 632 -14.5% 501 -0.1%

SMA D-RA60 1509 1.2% 525 -29.0% 462 -8.0%

SMA D-RA60add 1509 1.2% 525 -29.0% 462 -8.0%

1.3 CARBON ROAD MAP

CARBON ROAD MAP allows estimation of the CF of maintenance operations of existing road

pavement at European level (Figure 2). Its database is filled with information acquired from

West-European Countries (Netherlands, Denmark and United Kingdom); however the


6

software allows using an “expert mode” with which it is possible to customise the database

through Excel. Its strength lies in the few amount of data required that makes it a user-friendly

tool, especially for inputs concerning maintenance strategies. Furthermore, as explained

before, this tool is the only one that includes the possibility of considering the entire life cycle

analysis period (e.g. 60 years), including maintenance strategies and traffic change. The

outputs, also in form of graphs, allow comparing the total amount of CO2 obtained by

considering different maintenance strategies in different countries. Despite the concept and

architecture of the tool are remarkable, unfortunately the tool is not recommendable because

the copy received from the authors of the CEREAL project, is not free from bugs and this

makes the software not stable and therefore not recommendable.

Furthermore, the tool shows also many limitations and drawbacks:

the User manual is not exhaustive,

Users can’t change the specific CO2e inventory values, It is not possible to define

precise length of the road sections (1 km and multiples). Users should access the

database to enter CO2e values of customised pavement components and these that

would need to be calculated separately (for instance using asPECT).

Figure 4: CARBON RAOD MAP summary of inputs from the results screenshot

For these reasons, in order to carry out the analysis, as performed with the other two tools, we

needed to first modify the database by entering in the expert mode and introducing the

kgCO2e/t values of each asphalt mixture as calculated with asPECT. The software then

requires details of Project definition (case study details and analysis period), construction data

(pavement structure, design life and traffic data), maintenance strategies and road dimensions.


7

We created one file for each alternative and ran the software to obtain the summary of the total

CO2 emissions, also grouped per type of maintenance intervention.

Results obtained were not satisfactory as shown in Table 3. In fact, it can be noticed that the

total tonnes of CO2e are of one order of magnitude bigger and also the proportions of CO2e

values between operations are really different from those obtained from asPECT and

ECORCE M; in particular Use of equipment and Production materials looks over-proportioned

relative to the Transport. As a result, CARBON ROAD MAP needs to be labelled as very

promising tool, but under development. Its use is still not recommended due to several

software bugs and above all, results not comparable with those obtained in this project with

other tools but also with researches in literature.


with respect to the Baseline) over 60 years for the all case studies with Carbon

Road Map

Case study South Europe: Italy Central Europe:

Germany

North Europe:

England

Baseline 1206654 - 191764 - 404942 -

AC16 30%RA+add 1206643 -0.001% 191621 -0.074% 404856 -0.021%

AC16 60%RA+add 1206561 -0.008% 191534 -0.120% 404836 -0.026%

AC16 90%RA+add 1206481 -0.014% 191453 -0.162% 404817 -0.031%

SMA8S 30%RA 1206968 0.026% 191677 -0.045% 404950 0.002%

SMA8S 60%RA 1206716 0.005% 191571 -0.100% 404884 -0.014%

SMA8S 90%RA+add 1206854 0.017% 191590 -0.091% 404919 -0.006%


8

2 Evaluation of existing sustainability assessment

methods for road pavement

In this section we will explore two selected road pavement sustainability assessment systems:

GreenPave and BE2ST. We will review the structures of the tools, the methodologies, adapt

and apply them to our case study and finally highlight benefits and limitations to provide a

critical overview that has the ambition to form a base for the development of a sustainability

assessment methodology for EU road authorities.

2.1 Sustainability assessment with GreenPave

GreenPave is a simplified rating system that evaluates the sustainability of pavement in new

construction and rehabilitation projects. It has been developed from the Ontario Ministry of

Transportation, and is used state-wide since 2014 (MTO, 2014). The purpose of GreenPave

is to recognize sustainability features in pavement design and construction and it can be

applied at both “Design Stage”, to evaluate the “greenness” of design alternatives and at “As-

Constructed Stage”, to encourage “green” practices at the construction stage by evaluating

constructed pavements and contractor performance.

2.1.1 The Methodology The concept of GreenPave is based on the LEED certification program for buildings and other

systems such as University of Washington’s Greenroads, the New York State DOT GreenLites

Project Design Certification Program, and Alberta’s Green Guide for Road. In order to score a

project in Greenpave an engineer of the road authority should use the GreenPave tool by

providing specific characteristics of the project that would need to be scored based on specific

goals (MTO, 2014) indicated in the guidelines and grouped in four categories. Once all

available categories are evaluated against the project, the sum of the obtained points for each

category are then used to score the project overall with Gold, Silver and Bronze system. After

the rating, each alternative should be provided with result of a Life Cycle Cost calculation and

the best choice is up to the judgment of the analyst.

The strategies defined in Greenpave are linked to four categories and 14 subcategories that

are defined as practical ways to increase pavement sustainability (Lane, Lee, Bennett, & Chan,

2014). Here are the main points to highlight for each category (Table 17 and Annex A):

Pavement Technology category is intended to encourage the design of pavements that have

long service lives, provide alternative means of drainage, mitigate noise from tire-pavement

interaction, and reduce the impact of urban heat island effect.

The Materials and Resources category aims to minimize the environmental impacts related to

the disposal of raw materials and waste. In order to reduce waste GreenPave encourages the

use of recycled materials, preservation of the existing pavement structure, the use of local

materials, and material and workmanship quality.


9

The Energy and Atmosphere category aims to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG)

and other air pollutants that contribute to the effects of climate change.

The Innovation & Design Process category merits innovations and ideas not covered in the

sub-categories and awards unique innovations or exceptional consideration of other social

aspects of the project related to pavement design and construction.

Figure 5: GreenPave rating methodology (MTO, 2014)


10

2.1.2 The tool Projects are evaluated using the GreenPave Rating Guidelines (freely available in pdf and

summarised in Table 17 (Annex A) and the GreenPave Rating Worksheet (freely available in

MS Excel Format). The GreenPave Rating Worksheet consists of a summary sheet as well as

a score sheet for up to eight sustainable design options to be compared. Each option will be

scored based on the 4 categories previously listed and the final rating will be: GOLD > 15

points, SILVER 12 to <15 point, BRONZE 9 to <12 points. The methodology then requires for

you to input the result of a LCCA and the best option will be then chosen based on engineering

judgment of the analyst.

2.1.3 GreenPave rating of the AB2P case studies

In this section a sustainability assessment exercise of an intervention consisting in an inlay of

the wearing courses for the selected European case studies is shown. Considering the

possibilities of the GreenPave system and scenarios available, only the South EU and Central

EU case studies have been considered. The exercise assesses the sustainability of performing

an inlay of the wearing course by comparing the standard asphalt mixes (Baselines for Italy

and Germany) with the respective alternatives developed within this project. Explanations of

the credits attributed to each design alternatives are reported in Table 4; Annex B shows the

LCCA for this specific rating exercise, while are of the rating are summarised in Figure 6 and

Figure 7. Furthermore, the following assumptions/decision have been made to carry out the

assessment:

Pavement technologies

The technologies used are Stone Mastic Asphalt and Dense graded Hot Mix Asphalt

Concrete for wearing course

Based on the maintenance strategies provided, all the considered case studies have

road pavements that cannot be considered perpetual

Material & Resources

The considered intervention is the replacement of wearing course (30/40 mm)

Only the Italian case study has 100% of local materials (aggregates distances below

100km).

Construction quality can’t be included at design stage

For both case studies the originally pavement structure (510mm for Italy, 458mm for

Germany) is basically undisturbed by replacing 30/40 mm of wearing course

Energy & Atmosphere

2 points have been assigned for Reduced energy consumption and GHG with 60% of

RA. An additional point is assigned for innovation in design

3 points have been assigned for Reduced energy consumption and GHG with 90% of

RA. Two additional points are assigned for innovation in design and exemplary

process.

Pavement smoothness and Pollution reduction cannot be included at design stage,

only after the construction stage


11

Innovation & Design process

1 point is assigned to all the AB2P technologies as innovative design for “Incorporating

Sustainability into the Decision-Making process” with Value Engineering

1 additional point is assigned as innovation in design for “Incorporating over 40% RA”.

1 point is assigned to all the AB2P technologies as exemplary process for “Perform

LCA and LCCA to assess project for environmental and economic effects”

1 additional point is assigned as exemplary process for “Incorporating over 80% RA”.

Table 4: Adaptation of the GreenPave rating guidelines to our case studies

DESIGN

Quality categories

Explanations based on GREENPAVE guidelines

(MTO, 2014)

Pavement Technologies

PT-1: Long-Life Pavements Perpetual pavement

PT-2: Permeable Pavements -

PT-3: Noise Mitigation SMA mixes

PT-4: Cool Pavements -

Materials and Resources

MR-1: Recycled content SURFACE ASPHALT LAYERS

0-40% RA

MR-1: Recycled content

(CONSTRUCTION)

SURFACE LAYERS

Recycling in Asphalt plant

MR-2: Undisturbed Pavement Structure

Maintaining more than 80% of the existing pavement structure during rehabilitation (2 points)

MR-3: Local Materials 50 – 79% within 100km (1 point)

> 80% within 100 km (2 points)

MR-4: Construction quality

(CONSTRUCTION) Not Applicable

Energy and Atmosphere

EA-1: Reduced energy consumption

SURFACE LAYERS

Use of Warm Mix Asphalt Technology, Asphalt layer with 5-15% RA, (1 point)

Asphalt layer with 16-40% RA by mass (2 points)


(CONSTRUCTION)

Not Applicable


12

EA-2: GHG emissions reduction

SURFACE LAYERS




(CONSTRUCTION)

Not Applicable

EA-3: Pavement Smoothness


EA-3: Pollution reduction


Innovation & design process

I-1: Reduced energy consumption

Points are awarded for incorporating innovative techniques and technologies in design

1 innovation (1 point): Incorporating Sustainability into the Decision-Making process with Value Engineering

2 innovations (2 points): Incorporating over 40% RA

I-2: GHG emission reduction

Exemplary process is the improvement of a conventional process or exceptional consideration for other social aspects not directly related to the design of the pavement.

1 Exemplary process (1 point): Perform LCA and LCCA to assess project for environmental and economic impact

2 Exemplary processes (2 points): Incorporating over 80% RA

As a result, The GreenPave system adapted for the inlay of the wearing course in the

considered case study provided a “NOT CERTIFIED” rating for all the baseline scenarios, while

all the AB2P mixes obtained a rating ranging from GOLD to SILVER. GOLD rating was

obtained for all the design alternatives in the South EU case study, while a SILVER rating was

obtained in the Central EU when using less then 30% RA. This difference is explainable due

to the transport distances over 100 km for the virgin aggregates which affects the points

attributed to the “Local material” category. In fact, in the Central EU case study the RA stockpile

is within 100 km while the aggregate quarry is far more distant (>200 km) (D5.2).

From these results road engineers have a clearer picture of a more sustainable choice and

can arrive to a decision through a relatively simple exercise, which allows taking into account

environmental impact, best practices and costs of an intervention.


13

Figure 6: GreenPave rating for one wearing course inlay in the South EU case

study- Italy

Figure 7: GreenPave rating for one wearing course inlay in the South EU case

study- Italy


14

2.2 Sustainability assessment with BE2ST-in-Highways™

BE2ST-in-Highways (Building Environmentally and Economically Sustainable Transportation-

Infrastructure-Highways) was developed by the Recycled Materials Research Institute as a

sustainability rating tool with the objective of quantifying the impact of using recycled materials

in construction (Lee, et al., 2011). The BE2ST system is intended for use during the process

of planning and designing highway construction projects to achieve certain sustainability goals.

This evaluation is carried out in quantitative terms, and to do so the design alternatives of the

pavement must be compared to a conventional pavement design. In other words, the

quantification of the benefits is performed by assessing the degree of compliance to a certain

set of goals that a particular pavement design achieves relative to a baseline pavement design

scenario.

Figure 8 – BE2ST sustainability Rating system (Lee, et al., 2013).

2.2.1 The Methodology The BE2ST sustainability rating system was therefore built in four phases:

1. Identification of sustainability criteria and target values

An overall picture of sustainable highway construction consists of two general components:

the criteria and the target value of each criterion. To build this big picture, the authors of BE2ST

methodology brought together the stakeholders in the project to gain a clear vision of the

sustainability system that is expected to emerge from the project process. Criteria selection

was based on whether or not standardized measurement is available. Among many candidates

of criteria suggested through literature reviews, the stakeholder group selected nine criteria as

judgment indicators. After criteria selection, the next step was to make decisions about the

target value of each criterion that are projected numbers, which the system is ultimately trying

to achieve.

Table 5 depicts a summary of the developed criteria and their target values, which also defines

the boundary of the system that allows expansion in the future as new technologies (e.g., new

performance indicators, information technologies, etc) become available (Wisconsin, 2014).

Mandatory Screening

Layer

Regulatory/Social

Indicator

Project Specific

Indicator

Judgment

Layer

Environmental

Indicator

Economic

Indicator Bronze

(50%)

Silver

(75%)

Gold

(90%)

1st Layer 2nd Layer

Rating


15

2. Identification of weighting criterias

Once criteria selection is completed, a decision on how much weighting should be assigned to

each criterion is required. In this rating system, three different weighting categories were

considered: (1) equally assigned weighting; (2) weighting assigned by consensus of a

stakeholder group; and (3) project specific weighting assignment. Weighting values for both

the second and third situations can be obtained using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP)

method (Saaty, The Analytical Hierarchy Process, 1980). The metrics are each weighted on a

0 to 1 scale to represent their degree of achievement towards the chosen weighting criteria.

Table 5: BE2ST-in-HighwaysTM Sustainability Criteria and Target Value (Wisconsin, 2014)

Major Criteria

Subcriteria Target (1 credit each)

Mandatory Screening

Social Requirements Including Regulation & Local Ordinances

Satisfied or unsatisfied

Judgment

Greenhouse Gas Emission 10% reduction

20% reduction

Energy Use 10% reduction

20% reduction

Waste Reduction (Including Ex situ Materials)

10% reduction

20% reduction

Waste Reduction (Recycling In situ Materials)

Utilize in situ waste for 10% volume of the structure

20%

Water Consumption

5% reduction of water consumption

10% reduction

Social Carbon Cost Saving Greater than $12,344/km

Greater than $24,688/km

Life Cycle Cost

5% reduction by recycling

10% reduction by recycling

Traffic Noise

1 point for HMA

Additional 1 point for adapting ideas to reduce noise

Hazardous Waste

10% less hazardous waste

20% less hazardous waste


16

3. Sustainability performance assessment

The assessment system consists of two layers: a preliminary mandatory screening layer and

a judgment layer (Figure 8). The mandatory screening is used to assess whether regulations,

local ordinances and project specific requirements are satisfied. Without being screened

through these mandated processes, no project can be further evaluated with judgment

indicators. The screening phase is followed by the estimation of the service life of the

competing designs using pavement design procedures. Once the service life of each

alternative is obtained and pavement rehabilitation strategies over the analysis period are

identified, then the methodology includes a judgment layer. The judgment layer consists in

assessing the quantitative discrepancies between the sustainability performance over the

analysis period of a typical conventional design concept and an alternative design concept.

Sustainability performance in this case is evaluated calculating the previously mentioned nine

metrics related to environmental and economic assessments (Table 5). Therefore, life cycle

assessment, life cycle cost analysis, calculations of recycled material contents, in situ recycling

rates, and evaluations of traffic noise are conducted and their results compared with the

reference design.

4. Credits assignment and Rating system

Once each of the nine sustainability metrics is calculated for the reference scenario and the

design alternatives, the methodology includes a normalization of the assessed performance.

These ratios are then compared to the previously explained target values for each metric and

1 to 2 credits are assigned when a target is achieved. The chosen weighting criteria are then

applied and a final score is then obtained for each designed alternative and expressed in

percentages of the maximum score of 18. Based on the calculated ratio, a certain level of

label can be awarded to the project: BRONZE > 50%, SILVER > 75% and GOLD > 90%,

Figure 9: BE2ST-in-HighwaysTM scorecard and AMEOBA (Wisconsin, 2014)


17

The other important feature of this rating system is that this assessment system provides the

Multidirectional Optimum Ecotope-Based Algorithm (AMOEBA) approach that is a strategic

decision support tool. The AMOEBA allows a visual quantitative comparison between the

target values of criteria and present values and provides the decision makers with a useful

snapshot to identify areas in which they should invest more time and effort. In fact, “The more

the AMOEBA initiates a perfect circle within the equilibrium band, the more the project tends

towards sustainability” (Bell & Morse, 1999). Based on the shape of the AMOEBA describing

the status of progress, planners and designers can spend more time and effort to initiate a

perfect circle.

Figure 10 – Extending the AMOEBA Over Time (Bell & Morse, 1999)

2.2.2 The tool Projects are evaluated using the BE2ST software that comes together with a detailed manual

(Wisconsin, 2014) and are all freely available for use and customisation. The software is an

Excel Worskheet with built-in macros that allows user-friendly input of data, calculation of

scores and link to the other tools to perform the required analysis. The tool is basically a

framework that uses other freely available sources, all developed in several projects in the

USA, and allows predicting the sustainability performances of a design alternative when

compared with the reference solution. In order to obtain a final scoring, several input data

would need to be provided as a pre-requisite and for the calculation of the sustainability metrics

as follows:

Pre-requisite:

In an actual application, the whole procedure starts from the screening phase. If the

alternatives are considered to conform to all project and local policy requirements then

stakeholders would insert “Project information and weighting methods” through a user-friendly

window on the opening screenshot (Figure 11) that will guide the user throughout the rating

procedure. It has to be highlighted that the software allows customising the weighting criteria

using the analytical hierarchy process. After this initial stage then the rating procedure of the

tool is clearly explained in Figure 11 and drives the user to provide inputs for the other two

stages “Service life estimation” and “Performance indicators” to obtain the final score. The

methodology is based on a comparative analysis; therefore inputs are always needed for a

reference design and only one alternative scenario.

Time / effort


18

Figure 11: BE2ST-in-HighwaysTM software screenshot (Wisconsin, 2014)

Before calculating the sustainability performance of each metric, the BE2ST framework

recognises that maintenance and rehabilitation strategies for a certain case study are of

primary importance, therefore the system requires at first an estimation of the road pavement

“service life” to decide how often rehabilitation activities should be scheduled. Judgment for

major rehabilitation period is based on a change in road roughness using the pavement

performance analysis software M-E PDG (NCHRP, 2006). Another pre-requisite is the

implementation of the best practices for “Storm Water Management”. The effectiveness of

these practices is assessed through an analysis tool for life cycle cost and capacity of storm

water volume control developed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, which

translates the best practices in six metrics repreingsen life cycle cost of the interventions and

capacity of storm water volume control.

Sustainability Performance:

Sustainability performance of the alternatives is assessed by comparing the values of each of

the nine metrics defined at the judgment level (Table 5). In order to obtain them the BE2ST tool

uses built-in macros which in a couple of cases allows to input data directly (Social Costs and

Recycling Ratio) but usually are linked to outputs of trusted external methodologies/tools all

developed from several projects in different parts of the USA, specifically:

Life Cycle Assessment (4 metrics): Environmental impact of a certain design alternative

and maintenance strategy is judged on the outputs of the PaLATE software (RMRC,

2004) which provides outputs for both initial construction and lifecycle maintenance

with 11 impact categories/indicators, however in the BE2ST methodology only four are

considered: Energy [MJ], Water Consumption [kg], Global Warming Potential CO2 [Mg],

RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated [kg]

Life Cycle Cost Analysis (1 metric): In order to compute the life cycle cost of highway

constructions, RealCost version 2.5 (FHWA, 2004) was selected as a main LCCA


19

platform of the assessment system and the alternatives are compared based on the

Present Net Values including both user and agency costs.

Traffic noise (1 metric): In order to simulate traffic noise during the operation of a

selected highway, TNM-LookUp tables (FHWA, 2004) will be used as a traffic noise

modelling tool. Based on these guidelines, maintaining the noise below 67 dBA has

been decided as a prerequisite to get credits in this criterion.

Social Carbon Costs (1 metric): The purpose of the SCC saving point is to allow an

agency (e.g., Wisconsin DOT) to incorporate the social benefits of reducing global

warming potential into cost-benefit analyses of sustainable construction efforts. When

the amount of SCC savings is equivalent to the average annual salary of Americans,

the project can obtain full credits (2 points). If the amount of SCC saving is equivalent

to 50% of the average annual salary of Americans, 1 point will be granted to the project.

SCC savings are calculated as follows:

SCC savings =

Recycling ratio (2 metrics): Users need to input the quantity of total material and

recycled material for the evaluation of the construction in this criterion. This will allow

obtaining results for two metrics: Waste Reduction (Including Ex situ Materials), Waste

Reduction (Including in situ Materials)

Once all the values of sustainability metrics are calculated, BE2ST-in-Highways automatically

normalizes the calculated performance values of each criterion. The final score is expressed

as a ratio of the sum of normalized performance value to the reference value and visualized

with an AMOEBA. Based on the calculated ratio, labels from GOLD to BRONZE can be

awarded to the project (Figure 9).

2.2.3 BE2ST rating of the AB2P case studies The structure of BE2ST-in-Highways allows a comparative analysis of single intervention but

also considering the maintenance strategy with multiple operations over the analysis period.

In this section, therefore two sustainability assessment exercises are conducted for the

following:

A single intervention consisting in an inlay of the wearing courses for the selected

European case studies (as performed with GreenPave)

The whole lifecycle maintenance strategy for each case study.

In both cases, the exercise consists in comparing the sustainability performance of the

standard asphalt mixes (baselines) with the AB2P asphalt mixes developed within this project.

In order to carry out the assessment, the following assumptions/decisions have been made to

adapt the BE2ST rating system to the EU context:

UnitSCC$design)] ativeGWP(Alterndesign) ntional[GWP(Conve


20

PRE-REQUISITE:

Service life and maintenance strategies are those reported in the case studies (D5.2).

For this exercise then no pavement design/performance analysis program was used

Weighting options To simplify the exercise at this stage, weighting factors have been

considered to be the “same value“ for all the indicators

Storm water management best practices: Without any specific information the storm

water management best practices have been considered the same for all the scenarios

and design alternatives.

SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE

As stated earlier, the BE2ST rating is based on nine sustainability indicators obtained by

methodologies and tools developed in the USA. In this section it is shown how we obtained

the values for these indicators by using previously obtained results and available tools

developed in the EU context.

LCA (4 indicators)

Within the BE2ST rating framework, in this section the user should perform a LCA with

PALATE, an Excel-based tool for life-cycle assessment of environmental and economic

effects of pavements and roads (Horvath, 2007). This tool was developed at the University of

California, Berkeley and also nowadays it is a reference in the USA. This tool provides Life

Cycle Impact assessment of pavements with several impact categories, but, as stated

previously, BE2ST rating considers only four of them. In order to repeat this exercise in the

European context, we needed to perform a wider analysis than the carbon foot printing

exercise shown in D5.2, for this reason ECORCE M (IFSTTAR, 2014) was used.

Table 6: Example of LCA inputs for the adapted BE2ST-in-Highways rating

South EU

case study MIXTURE

Energy

[MJ]

Water

[kg]

CF

[ton

CO2e]

Chronic

Ecotoxicity

[kg]

WC inlay

(design life 5

years)

AC16 1.063.058 98 77.618 7.028.750

AC16

30%RA+add 970.011 108 72.881 6.694.649

Life-cycle

maintenance

strategies

(60 years

analysis period)

AC16 20.444.834 1.895 1.492.057 135.700.837

AC16

30%RA+add 18.645.916 2.069 1.400.468 129.241.552


21

The tool is presented in D5.1 and in Section 1 of this report, while obtained results are in

Annex C. Table 6 presents the adaptation of the BE2ST methodology with the results obtained

with ECORCE M that provides Energy [MJ], Water Consumption [kg], Global Warming

Potential [tons CO2e], but it doesn’t have the indicator RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated

[kg]. This latter indicator uses the hazardous materials, defined by the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA, 2003), to weight how much an alternative strategy in material

consumption can potentially reduce the adverse impacts on human health when compared

with the conventional material consumption. Based on this description and after an interview

to the developers of ECORCE M, the indicator “Chronic Ecotoxicity”, measured in kg

equivalent of Dichlorobenzene (kg DCBe), was selected as the indicator able to replace the

PalaTE’s Hazardous Waste Generated.

In a practical exercise, We would need to create one spreadsheet to compare the two design

alternatives (e.g. AC16 and AC16-RA30) and use the data from the LCA performed with

ECORCE M (IFSTTAR, 2014). An example of the inputs for the “total emission” is shown in

Table 4.

LCCA (1 indicator)

The total Net Present Value, including only User cost, is considered to compare the economic

benefits of the design alternatives. Table 7 reports the values used in our comparison.

Table 7: Example of LCCA inputs for the adapted BE2ST-in-Highways rating

South EU

case study MIXTURE

Total NPV

[1000€]

WC inlay

(design life 5 years)

AC16 13.12

AC16 30%RA+add 11.43

Life-cycle

maintenance

strategies

(60 years analysis

period)

AC16 135.38

AC16 30%RA+add 120.25

Traffic noise (1 indicator).

As explained before, within the BE2ST-in Highway has been decided as a prerequisite to get

credits in this criterion when the surface allows having noise emissions below 67 dBA. Credits

are then provided based on the capacity of the asphalt technology to reduce noise as in Table

8.


22

Table 8: Average Comparative Noise Levels of Different Surface Types and BE2ST credits (RMRC, 2004)

Pavement Surface Type dB(A) BE2ST Credits

Open Graded Friction Courses (OGFC) -4 2

Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) -2

Dense-graded Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) 0 1

Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) +3 0

Social Carbon Cost (1 indicator): the social cost of carbon per unit of CO2eq was provided

from a 2014 report of the Department of Energy & Climate Change of the United Kingdom

(DEEC-UK, 2014). This report shows that after 2030 SCC will have a huge increase up to 70£

in 2035. Average annual salary for the selected European countries was sourced from the

database “average annual wages” of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD, 2014).

Table 9: Selected average annual salaries and social carbon costs

Average annual salary per person

(OECD, 2014).

Italy Germany UK

28730€

(34744$)

36514€

(43872$)

32936£

(41659$)

Unit SCC ($/t) 2015

(DEEC-UK, 2014)

4.48£/t CO2e (3.20€; 3.54$)

Unit SCC ($/t) 2035

(DEEC-UK, 2014)

70£/t CO2e (50€; 55$)

Recycling Ratio (1 indicator). For each alternative the total recycled amount was considered

equal to 30%, 60% and 90% and for the used technologies. The total volume of the material

replaced with the inlay procedure was calculated for each case study according to the details

in D5.2:

South EU (IT) = 9.00m * 0.03m * 1000m = 285m3 total material

Central EU (D) = 11.80m * 0.03m * 1000m = 354m3 total material

North EU (UK) = 11.00m * 0.04m * 1000m = 440m3 total material


23

BE2ST-in-HighwaysTM RATING (adapted to EU):

Here follows the EU adapted BE2ST sustainability assessment of using the AB2P technologies in place of the current practices in the South Europe case study and Central Europe case study. The exercise was performed for the 60 years analysis period as well as for the wearing course inlay operation only. The rating was performed with the assumptions that each factor had the same weighting (11.11%). South Europe case study (Italy)

60 years maintenance plan of the

selected road pavement section

Volume = 285 m3

SCC = 50€

Average salary = 34,744€

Figure 12: SE case study: EU-adapted BE2ST-in-HighwaysTM rating

Table 10: SE case study: BEST rating of AC16 30%RAadd vs Baseline SE

UNDER RATED

Energy [MJ]

Water [kg]

GWP [tCO2e]

EcoToxicity [kg]

LCC (1000

€)

ExSitu Recycle

InSitu Recycle

SCC (€) Noise

AC16 0%RA 20444834 1895 1492058 135700837.2 135.38 0 0 74602877 HMA

AC16 30%RA add

18645916 2069 1400468 129241552.8 120.25 85.5 0 70023407 HMA Total

Performance 8.80% -9.18% 6.14% 4.76% 11.18% 30.00% 0.00% 4579469 HMA

score 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2.00 1 6.00

weighting 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 1.00

weighted score 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.11% 22.22% 0.00% 22.22% 11.11% 33%

33.33% 50.00% 61.11%

Reference: AC16 0%RA

AC16 with 30%RA + add



Silver >75%

Bronze > 50%

0

0.5

1

1.5

2Energy

Water

GW

EcoToxicity

LCC (1000 €)ExSitu

Recycle

InSituRecycle

SCC (€)

Noise

AC16 with 30%RA +add

Gold>90%


24


BRONZE Energy

[MJ] Water

[kg] GWP

[tCO2e] EcoToxicity

[kg]

LCC (1000

€)

ExSitu Recycle

InSitu Recycle

SCC (€) Noise

AC16 0%RA

20444834 1895 1492058 135700837.2 135.38 - - 74602877 HMA

AC16 60%RA + add

17276091 2316 1310477 122902946.1 102.58 171 0 65523864 HMA Total

Performance 15.50% -

22.27% 12.17% 9.43% 24.23% 60.00% 0.00% 9079013 HMA

score 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 2.00 1 9.00

weighting 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 1.00

weighted score 11.11% 0.00% 11.11% 0.00% 22.22% 22.22% 0.00% 22.22% 11.11% 50 %


BRONZE Energy

[MJ] Water

[kg] GWP

[tCO2e] EcoToxicity

[kg]

LCC (1000

€)

ExSitu Recycle

InSitu Recycle

SCC (€) Noise

AC16 0%RA

20444834 1895 1492058 135700837 135.38 0 0 74602877 HMA

AC16 90%RA + add

16346022 2578 1249704 119587598 88.86 256.5 0 62485184 HMA Total

Performance 20.05% -

36.08% 16.24% 11.87% 34.36% 90.00% 0.00% 12117693 HMA

score 2 0 1 1 2 2 0 2.00 1 11

weighting 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 1

weighted score 22.22% 0.00% 11.11% 11.11% 22.22% 22.22% 0.00% 22.22% 11.11% 61.1%

0

0.5

1

1.5

2Energy

Water

GW

EcoToxicity

LCC (1000 €)

ExSituRecycle

InSituRecycle

SCC (€)

Noise


0

0.5

1

1.5

2Energy

Water

GW

EcoToxicity

LCC (1000 €)

ExSituRecycle

InSituRecycle

SCC (€)

Noise



25

Central Europe case study (Germany)

60 years maintenance plan of the

selected road pavement section

Volume = 354 m3

SCC = 50€

Average salary = 36.514€

Figure 13: CE case study: EU-adapted BE2ST-in-HighwaysTM rating

Table 13: CE case study: BEST rating of SMA8S 30%RA vs Baseline CE

BRONZE Energy

[MJ] Water

[kg] GW

[tCO2e] EcoToxicity

[kg]

LCC (1000

€)

ExSitu Recycle

InSitu Recycle

SCC (€) Noise

SMA8S 0%RA 10461604 5234 739280 73722560 219.66 0 0 36964021 HMA

SMA8S with 30%RA 8842280 4289 632243 6.58E+07 157.24 106.2 0 31612153 HMA Total

Performance 15.48% 18.04% 14.48% 10.75% 28.42% 30.00% 0.00% 5351869 HMA

score 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 2.00 1 11.0

weighting 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 1.00

weighetd score 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 22.22% 22.22% 0.00% 22.22% 11.11% 61.1%

61.11% 83.33% 83.33%

Reference: AC16 0%RA

SMA8S with 30%RA

SMA8S with 60%RA

SMA8S with 60%RA+add

0

0.5

1

1.5

2Energy

Water

GW

EcoToxicity

LCC (1000 €)

ExSituRecycle

InSituRecycle

SCC (€)

Noise

SMA8S with 30%RA

Gold>90%

Silver>75%

Bronce>50%

SMA8S 0%RA


26


SILVER Energy

[MJ] Water

[kg] GW

[tCO2e] EcoToxicity

[kg]

LCC (1000

€)

ExSitu Recycle

InSitu Recycle

SCC (€) Noise

SMA8S 0%RA 10461604 5234 739280 73722560 219.66 - - 36964021 HMA

SMA8S with 60%RA 7257196 3411 524777 5.83E+07 121.67 212.4 0 26238813 HMA Total

Performance 30.63% 34.83% 29.02% 20.93% 44.61% 60.00% 0.00% 10725208 HMA

score 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2.00 1 15.00

weighting 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 1.00

weighetd score 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 0.00% 22.22% 11.11% 83.3 %


SILVER Energy*

[MJ] Water*

[kg] GW*

[tCO2e]

EcoToxicity*

[kg]

LCC (1000

€)

ExSitu Recycle

InSitu Recycle

SCC (€) Noise

SMA8S 0%RA 10461604 5234 739280 73722560 219.66 - - 36964021 HMA

SMA8S with 60%RAadd 7257196 3411 524777 5.83E+07 139.37 212.4 0 26238813 HMA Total

Performance 30.63% 34.83% 29.02% 20.93% 36.55% 60.00% 0.00% 10725208 HMA

score 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2.00 1 15

weighting 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 11.11% 1

weighetd score 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 22.22% 0.00% 22.22% 11.11% 83.3%

*these results do not take into account the addition of the additive

0

0.5

1

1.5

2Energy

Water

GW

EcoToxicity

LCC (1000 €)

ExSituRecycle

InSituRecycle

SCC (€)

Noise

SMA8S with 60%RA

0

0.5

1

1.5

2Energy

Water

GW

EcoToxicity

LCC (1000 €)

ExSituRecycle

InSituRecycle

SCC (€)

Noise

SMA8S with 60%RA+add


27

The results above are obtained from performing a sustainability assessment with the EU-

adapted BE2ST-in-HighwaysTM rating system for both the considered case studies. The

assessment can be carried out by using the software available from the authors of the rating

system (Wisconsin, 2014), however it was found easier to carry out the exercise by building a

specific spread sheet which is available on request.

As a result, for the 60-years maintenance plan of the SE case study, it is possible to notice

how using the AB2P technologies actually allow having overall a more sustainable choice. The

economic savings due to the reduction of carbon emissions (SCC) seem to be the main reason

to prefer the technology with 30%RA, while by using the technologies with 60%RA and

90%RA, it is recorded a reduction of energy consumption, CO2 emission and economic cost

over the entire lifecycle. It is important to highlight how in this case study, increasing the

amount of RA causes a slight increase in water consumption. The reason is not clear to the

authors.

The results of 60-year maintenance plan CE case study, show similar trends to the previous

one, but here the comparison with the baselines provide a much higher level of achieved

sustainability then in the SE case study. In fact, the asphalt mix with 30%RA achieves a Bronze

rating, while those with 60% RA arrive to a Silver rating. It is important to remember that this

rating is a comparative analysis; therefore the achieved level of sustainability is always relative

to a certain reference that in our case is the current practice. Although the increase is more

significant, the carbon savings and lifecycle costs are the first reason of an increased

sustainability of the design alternatives.


28

3 Conclusions

When the reclaimed asphalt mixes have the same durability as the reference mixes,

maximising the amount of RA in wearing courses seems to be a sustainable solution for a

single intervention but also when a life-cycle approach is considered. This deliverable was

aimed at providing this answer, but the authors recognise that the most significant achievement

is possibly providing road engineers in CEDR members with an overview of existing tools and

methodology for evaluating sustainability of road pavement design alternatives. In fact, results

show that through relatively simple exercises, a road manager can have a clearer picture of

what a more sustainable choice is. This is carried out with a holistic approach that considers a

life-cycle approach, the environmental impact, best practices and the costs connected with an

intervention.

The results will possibly serve as a basis to develop a sustainability assessment methodology

tailored to CEDR members. With this in mind, the following paragraphs include conclusions

and recommendations that could be a useful reference for further studies.

3.1 Review of freely available CF/LCA tools developed in EU

All tools used for CF/LCA analysis within the AB2P project were presented. Each tool has its

own benefits and limitations, however results obtained for specific AB2P case studies were

very different as illustrated in Table 16. It can be quickly noticed that, even if the trend line is

the same as regards the comparison of mixtures within the same tool, results coming from

Carbon Road Map are over-estimated compared to the other tools. In particular, as noticed in

Figure 7.4, the use of equipment is characterised by the highest values and this leads to the

suspicion that there was some mistake in the tool database. On the other hand, results

obtained from asPECT and ECORCE M are similar and they lead to the same considerations

and recommendations. The only issue of using ECORCE M in the analysed case studies is

restricted to the limitation of specifying the incorporation of fibres and additives within asphalt

mixtures. Although from results obtained with asPECT emissions due to fibres account for less

than 1% of that total emissions.

Table 16: Calculated total tonnes CO2e footprints over 60 years for the German

(CE) case study with all the LCA tools analysed

Tool asPECT ECORCE M Carbon Road

Map

Baseline CE-D 953 739 191764

AC16 30%RA+add 741 552 191621

AC16 60%RA+add 614 448 191534

AC16 90%RA+add 492 356 191453

SMA8S 30%RA 822 632 191677

SMA8S 60%RA 670 525 191571

SMA8S 90%RA+add 697 525 191590


29

It can be concluded that, assuming that Carbon Road Map can be labelled as under-

development, in particular in the Use of Equipment part, both ECORCE M and asPECT

provided reliable results; however, if the first one is sensibly easier to use, only the second one

allows to insert all the input data useful for the AB2P project and provide the environmental

impact based on several environmental impact indicators, rather than only global warming

potential.

3.2 Review and adaptation to the EU context of the existing

sustainability assessment methodologies

3.2.1 GreenPave rating Limitations and Benefits With all the data collected for each case study and the results of the analysis performed

previously (LCCA), the GreenPave system allows a quick and easy to follow sustainability

assessment of the considered technologies. GreenPave can be used as a decision-making

tool by EU road authorities, however this methodology presents some limitations that will be

explained below together with highlighting the benefits:

BENEFITS

Allows a quick and user-friendly semi-quantitative comparison of pavement technologies,

based on good practices, environmental impact and economic cost.

It allows considering reduction of the environmental impact without performing a LCA. In

fact, carbon footprint and energy consumption hotspots are already identified (reducing

transport distances by using local materials, using site equipment with alternative fuels

and maximising use of recycled materials and on-site recycling techniques, etc.) and an

arbitrary point system allows rewarding good practices.

Within the limit of a single intervention, it allows consideration of different maintenance

operations of the whole pavement.

Methodology is ready to be adapted and used in the EU.

LIMITATIONS

GreenPave system is limited to a single intervention and as it is, doesn’t allow comparing

different intervention in one maintenance strategy over the lifecycle of the infrastructure.

As it is, even in the framework of a single intervention, the system doesn’t allow specifically

assigning credits to a technology with increased durability.

Explicit considerations about Environmental and economic impact due to durability of the

asphalt mixes are not included.

Environmental impact Hotspots due to transport distances are limited to aggregate

transport only, however distance between plant and site should be limited as well.

The categories include some operations that can be verified only after construction. This

affects the overall rating at the design stage.

The point distribution is based on best practices, expertise and engineering judgment,

however a less subjective, more analytical assignment of points would be desirable.


30

3.2.1.1 BE2ST rating Limitations and Benefits

This methodology might need slightly more time to be digested, but it represents a very

powerful, still simple tool to allow road engineers to support decision making with more

comprehensive evidence of what a sustainable choice is in road pavement design. Here below,

also for this methodology, the benefits and limitations are indicated:

BENEFITS

Allows quantitative comparison of pavement technologies, based on all three weak

sustainability indicators such environmental impact, economic cost and social inclusion

(refers to D5.1 for a background)

The methodology is flexible to be used for several types of interventions, considering

different maintenance operations and also the entire life-cycle.

Being a comparative/quantitative methodology, this is based on targets and weighting and

it is customizable to the EU context.

LIMITATIONS

It allows performing only a 1 vs 1 assessment. However, as in this report, if the

reference is fixed, then results can be compared.

Users will need to perform both LCCA and LCA to obtain the necessary data

Indicators are adapted to the USA context and to the existing tools (i.e. PALATE, etc.).

An adaptation to the EU context is needed. For this exercise a tool was tailored and it

is available upon on request

3.3 Recommendations for CEDR Sustainability Assessment

methodology

Sustainability rating systems are currently being used by several states in USA and are

recommended by FHWA. This study adapted existing tools to the EU context, but a wider effort

is needed to develop a CEDR sustainability assessment methodology. In this regard, the

following bullet points are a summary of the main characteristics that the CEDR methodology

should have:

The sustainability assessment methodology should;

o be a comparative analysis based on improving current design practices, so

allowing a relative measure of sustainability performance

o be user-friendly and freely available to CEDR members

o be tailored to be used at least at design stage

o have a preliminary layer allowing pavement performance analysis and

assessing life-cycle maintenance and rehabilitation strategies for a certain case

study.

The Sustainability Assessment exercise should;

o incorporate CF/LCA and LCCA

o allow incorporating innovative pavement technologies


31

o include and suggest best practices to be updated at EU level through survey of

CEDR members but also considering already existing metrics developed within

existing Sustainability Rating systems.

o allow performing a rating tailored at EU/local level through surveys with

stakeholders to define sustainability metrics for road pavements and deciding the

weighting of each metric

o consider the important findings of existing tools/methodologies to swap to more

quantitative-based sustainability assessment of road pavements.

Furthermore the methodology should be provided with best practices to improve

sustainability of its realization. For instance a country-specific map/GIS to have

information on the location of quarries, asphalt plants, refineries, etc., so that

depending on the case study it would be straight-forward providing indications to

reduce emissions due to transport distances.

A summary of the forecasted advised methodology for a sustainable decision related to new

design, maintenance and rehabilitation of EU road pavements is indicated in the figure below.

Figure 14: Forecast CEDR sustainability Assessment methodology

1 - Preliminary layer - Pavement design - Pavement performance - Life-cycle M&R strategies

2 - Sustainability Assessment: - Based on EU metrics - Sustainability Performance (EU

tools for LCA, LCCA, etc.) - Sustainability rating

Sustainable?

Yes

Current practice Design alternatives

RESULT: Sustainable design alternative

+ Realization best practices (i.e. transport distances)


32

4 Acknowledgment

The research presented in this report was carried out as part of the CEDR Transnational Road research Programme Call 2012. The funding for the research is provided by the national road administrations of Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands and Norway.


33

5 References

AASHTO. (2010). GreenDOT. Retrieved October 2, 2014, from http://144.171.11.40/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2621

Adams, W. (2006). The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development

in the Twenty-first Century, Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting. Gland, Switzerland: The World Conservation Union.

Amirkhanian, S. (1993). Utilization of Scrap Tires in Flexible Pavements - Review of Existing

Technology. In H. F. Waller (Ed.), ASTM STP 1193 (pp. 233-250). Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.

ANAS. (2010). Capitolato speciale d’appalto – Norme Tecniche, , Italy. Azienda Nazionale

Autonoma delle Strade (ANAS). ANAS. (2015, July). Highway Maintainance group reposnsible, Carlo Piraino. Palermo. Apul, D. (2011). University of Toledo: BenReMod. Retrieved October 2, 2014, from

http://www.eng.utoledo.edu/civil/newweb/sustainability/Sustainability%20Tools.htm Athena Institute. (2006). A Life Cycle Perspective on Concrete and Asphalt Roadways:

Embodied Primary Energy and Global Warming Potential. Ottawa, ON: Cement Association of Canada.

Athena Institute. (2014). Impact Estimator for Highways. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from

http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/impact-estimator-for-highways/ Atkinson, K. (1997). Highway maintenance handbook. . Thomas Telford. xii, 562 p. :. Australian Green Infrastructure Council. (2013). Australian Green Infrastructure Council IS

rating scheme . Retrieved October 09, 2014, from http://www.agic.net.au/ISratingscheme1.htm

Bachmann, T. M. (2013). Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: drawing on the

NEEDS project’s total cost and multi-criteria decision analysis ranking methods. International Journal of Life Cycle Assesment, 18, 1698-1709.

Bare, J. (2011). TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other

environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 13, 687-696.

Barrella, E. M., Amekudzi, A. A., & Meyer, M. D. (2013). Evaluating Sustainability

Approaches of Transportation Agencies Through a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,and Threats Framework. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board , No. 2357, 41-49.

BASt. (2015, July). Section S3 – Asphalt Pavements - Federal Highway Research Institute

(BASt) responsible, Oliver Ripke.


34

Bell, S., & Morse, S. ( 1999). Sustainability Indicator: Measuring the Immeasurable? London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Bevan, T., Reid, L., Davis, A., Neuman, T., Penney, K., Seskin, S., et al. (2012, October). Invest V1.0. Retrieved October 08, 2014, from https://www.sustainablehighways.org/INVEST_1.0_Compendium_Web.pdf

Bosch, M., Kemperman, M., & Raes, S. (2012). Sustainable Procurement and International

Financial Institutions. Discussion paper presented at the Seminar on Sustainable Public Procurement and Multilateral Development Banks at the Royal Netherlands Embassy in Washington DC. Washington, DC: Royal Netherlands Embassy in Washington DC.

Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, methods, applications.

Winnipeg, Manitoba: International Institute for Sustainable Development. Brodie, S., Ingles, A., Colville, Z., Amekudzi, A., Peters, R., & Sisiopikou, V. (2013). Review

of Sustainability Rating Systems for Transportation and Neighborhood-Level Developments. Green Streets, Highways, and Development 2013 (pp. 337-354). Austin, TX: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Bryce, J. (2014). Applying Pavement Life Cycle Assessment Results to Enhance Sustainable

Pavement Management Decision Making. Blacksburg, VA, USA: Virginia Tech. Bryce, J. (2014a). Applying Pavement Life Cycle Assessment Results to Enhance

Sustainable Pavement Management Decision Making. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech. Bryce, J., Flintsch, G., Katicha, S., & Diefenderfer, B. (2012). Developing a Network-Level

Structural Capacity Index for Asphalt Pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 139(2), 123-129.

Bryce, J., Flintsch, G., Katicha, S., & Diefenderfer, B. (2013). Enhancing Network-Level

Decision Making Through the Use of a Structural Capacity Index. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2366(1), 64-70.

Bryce, J., Katicha, S., Flintsch, G., Sivaneswaran, N., & Santos, J. (2014). Probablistic

Lifecycle Assessment as a Network-Level Evaluation Tool for the Use and Maintenance Phases of Pavements. Washington, DC: 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.

Bryceson, D. F., Bradbury, A., & Bradbury, T. (2008). Roads to Poverty Reduction? Exploring

Rural Roads’ Impact on Mobility in Africa and Asia. Development Policy Review, 26(4), 459-482.

Butt, A. A., Mirzadeha, I., Tollerb, S., & Birgissona, B. (2014). Life cycle assessment

framework for asphalt pavements: methods to calculate and allocate energy of binder and additives. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 15(3-4), 290-302.

Campbell-Lendrum, E., & Feris, J. (2008). Trialling Ceequal on a London Railway

Embankment. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability, 161(1), 71-76.


35

CBO. (2007). Trends in Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure, 1956 to 2004. Washington: United States Congressional Budget Office.

Ceequal. (2008, December). Ceequal Scheme Description and Assessment Process Handbook. Retrieved October 07, 2014, from http://www.ceequal.co.uk/pdf/handbook.pdf

Ceequal. (2013). Ceequal Version 5.1 Assessment Manual for Projects. London: Ceequal

Ltd. CEREAL. (2014). CEREAL project. Retrieved August 2015, from http://cereal.dk/ Chan, P. C. (2010). Quantifying Pavement Sustainability for Ontario Highways: MS Thesis.

Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo. Chatti, K., & Zaabar, I. (2012). Estimating the Effects of Pavement Condition on Vehicle

Operating Costs. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.

Chinowskya, P. S., Priceb, J. C., & Neumannb, J. E. (2013). Assessment of climate change

adaptation costs for the U.S. road network. Global Environmental Change, 23(4), 764-773.

Clevenger, C. M., Ozbek, M. E., & Simpson, S. (2013). Review of Sustainability Rating

Systems used for Infrastructure Projects. 49th ASC Annual International Conference Proceedings. San Luis Obispo: Associated Schools of Construction.

Dauvergne, M., Jullien, A., Proust, C., Tamagny, P., Ventura, A., Coelho, C., et al. (2014).

ECORCE M User's Manual. Nantes, FR: French Institute of Science and Technology for Transport Development and Networks (IFSTTAR).

Dauvergne, M., Jullien, A., Ventura, A., Boussafir, Y., Tamagny, P., Paslaru, B. M., et al.

(2014). ECORCE M Reference Manual. Nantes, FR: French Institute of Science and Technology for Transport Development and Networks (IFSTTAR).

Davis, S., Caldeira, K., & Matthews, D. (2010). Future CO2 Emissions and Climate Change

from Existing Energy Infrastructure. Science, 329, 1330-1333. DBIS. (2013). UK Construction: An economic analysis of the sector . London: Department for

Business Innovation and Skills. DEEC-UK. (2014). Updated short-term traded carbon values used formodelling purposes.

Department of Energy & climate change, UK. Demich, G. (2010). A Greenscale for Continuous Improvement: Sustainability in Highway

Design (1 ed.). Denver: Lochner, Inc. Direct-MAT. (2011). Direct-MAT: Dismantling and Recycling Techniques for road Materials.

Retrieved from http://www.direct-mat.eu/ ECMT. (2004). European Conference of Ministers of Transportation: Assessment and

Decision Making for Sustainable Transport. Paris: OECD Publications Service.


36

Eisenman, A. A. (2012). Sustainable Streets and Highways: An Analysis of Green Roads Rating Systems: Masters Thesis. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.

Eldin, N., & Piekarski, J. (1993). Scrap Tires: Management and Economics. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 119(6), 1217-1232.

EN 15804:2012. (2012). EN 15804:2012 - Sustainability of construction works. Assessment

of environmental performance of buildings. Calculation method. EN15804. (2014). BS EN 15804:2012+A1:2013. BSI Standards Publication. ERANET. (2012, September). Tool assessment for CEREAL: Evaluation of existing CO2

tools for roads. European Commission. (2006). Communication from the Commission to the Council and the

European Parliament on the review of the Sustainable Development Strategy - A platform for action. Brussels: Council of the European Union.

FHWA. (1998). Life Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design Demonstration Project 115 –

Participant Handbook. FHWA. FHWA. (1998). Life-Cycle Cost Analysisin Pavement Design - In Search of Better Investment

Decisions. FHWA. FHWA. (2004). Realcost version 2.1: User Manual. Washington, DC: Federal Highway

Administration: Office of Asset Management. FHWA. (2004). RealCost Version 2.5. FHWA. (2004). TNM Version 2.5 Look-Up Tables. FHWA. (2011). Transportation Planning for Sustainability Guidebook. Washington, DC: US

Department of Transportation. FHWA. (2014). Invest User Guide. Retrieved October 08, 2014, from

https://www.sustainablehighways.org/120/learn.html FHWA. (2014). INVEST v1.0. Retrieved October 08, 2014, from

https://www.sustainablehighways.org/ Fiksel, J. (2006). Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach . Sustainability:

Science, Practice, & Policy , 2(2), 14-21. Flintsch, G., & Bryce, J. (2014). Sustainable Pavement Management. In K. Gopalakrishnan,

W. J. Steyn, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Climate Change, Energy, Sustainability and Pavements (pp. 373-392). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.

Giustozzi, F., Crisino, M., & Flintsch, G. (2012). Multi-attribute Life Cycle Assessment of

Preventive Maintenance Treatments on Road Pavements for Achieving Environmental Sustainability. International Journal of Lifecycle Assessment, 17, 409-419.


37

Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J., & Van Zelm, R. (2009, January 6). ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level; First edition Report I: Characterisation. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://www.lcia-recipe.net

(2011). GreenHouse Gas protocol: Product Life Cycle Accounting and Reporting Standard.

World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Gudmundsson, H., Harmer, C., Hewitt, A., & Jensen, A. V. (2013). Sustainability Definitions

for NRAs - Framework Part 1. Kongens Lyngby: Technical University of Denmark. Guinee, J. B., & Heijungs, R. (2011). Life Cycle Sustainability Analysis. Journal of Industrial

Ecology, 15(5), 656-658. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., & Cheshire, D. (2006). Defining and Identifying

Environmental Limits for Sustainable Development . Nottingham, UK: Centre for Environmental Management, School of Geography, University of Nottingham .

Hans-Jörg Althaus, C. B. (2007). Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods .

Dübendorf: Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Harvey, J., Kendall, A., Lee, I.-S., Santero, N., Van Dam, T., & Wang, T. (2010). Pavement

life cycle assessment workshop: discussion summary and guidelines (Technical Memorandum: UCPRC-TM-2010-03). Davis, CA, USA: University of California Pavement Research Centre.

Harvey, J., Kendall, A., Santero, N., & Wang, T. (2014). Use of Life Cycle Assessment for

asphalt pavement at the network and project levels. In Kim (Ed.). 2, pp. 1797-1806. Raleigh, NC, USA: Taylor & Francis Group, London.

Hayat, J., Atkins, S., Housley, A., & Potter, R. (2007). Review of research relating to

sustainable development for the railway. London, UK: Rail Safety and Standards Board.

Highfield, C. (2011). Sustainable Pavement Construction: Developing a methodology for integrating environmental impact into the decision making process. Blacksburg, VA, USA: Masters Thesis Submitted to the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Hirschberg, S., Bauer, C., Burgherr, P., Dones, R., Simons, A., Schenler, W., et al. (2008). Final set of sustainability criteria and indicators for assessment of electricity supply options. Zurich: Paul Scherrer Institut.

HM Treasury. (2013). Investing in Britain’s future. London: Her Majesties Treasury

Department.

Horvat, A. (2007). Pavement Life-cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental and Economic

Effects.

Horvath, A. (2003). Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Assessment of Using Recycled

Materials for Asphalt Pavements. Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center.


38

Horvath, A. (2004). A Life-Cycle Analysis Model and Decision-Support Tool for Selecting

Recycled Versus Virgin Materials for Highway Applications. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley.

Horvath, A. (2007). University of California Consortium on Green Design and Manufacturing.

Retrieved August 29, 2014, from http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~horvath/palate.html

HTMA. (2014). Highways Term Maintenance Association. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from

http://www.htma.info/utilities/download.BDCF6267-88D0-495B-BEA70E65E87E07D6.html

Huang, Y., Bird, R., & Heidrich, O. (2009). Development of a life cycle assessment tool for

construction and maintenance of asphalt pavements. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17, 283-296.

Huang, Y., Hakim, B., & Zammataro, S. (2013). Measuring the carbon footprint of road

construction using CHANGER. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 14(590-600).

Huang, Y., Spray, A., & Parry, T. (2013). Sensitivity analysis of methodological choices in

road pavement LCA. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 93-101.

Hudson, Haas, & Uddin. (1997). Infrastructure management: integrating design, construction,

maintenance, rehabilitation, and renovation. New York: McGraw Hill.

Huijbregts, M. A., Verones, F., Azevedo, L. B., Chaudhary, A., Cosme, N., Fantke, P., et al.

(2013). LC Impact Version 0.1. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://www.lc-impact.eu/downloads/documents/Overall_report_Batch_1_FINAL.pdf

Humbert, S., Schryver, A. D., Bengoa, X., Margni, M., & Jolliet, O. (2012). IMPACT 2002+:

User Guide. Lausanne, Switzerland: Quantis.

IFSTTAR. (2014). ECO-comparison Road Construction and Maintenance. Retrieved August

29, 2014, from http://ecorcem.ifsttar.fr/

Illinois Department of Transportation. (2012, January 31). Illinois - Livable and Sustainable

Transportation. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://www.eastsidehighway.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/I-LAST-Version-2-DRAFT.pdf

IPCC. (2007). Chapter 2: changes in atmospheric constituents and radiative forcing. In S.

Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. Averyt, et al. (Eds.), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Fourth assessment report, climate change: the physical science basis (p. 996). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.

IRF. (2014). International Road Federation: Changer. Retrieved September 30, 2014, from

http://www.irfghg.org/


39

ISI. (2012). ENVISION Version 2.0: A Rating System for Sustainable Infrastructure. Washington: Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure.

ISI. (2014). The Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure: Envision™ Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System. Retrieved October 07, 2014, from http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/rating/

(2006). ISO 14040:2006, Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles

and framework. ISO.

(2006). ISO 14044:2006, Environmental management – Life cycle assessment –

Requirements and guidelines. ISO.

ISO. (2006). Environmental Management: Life cycle assessment -- Principles and

framework. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

ISO. (2013). ISO/TS 14067:2013 - Greenhouse gases -- Carbon footprint of products --

Requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication. ISO.

Johansson, R. (2011). Evaluation of experiences from using CEEQUAL in infrastructure

projects. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University.

Jones, D., Lee, C., & Harvey, J. (2005). Economic Implications of Selection of Long-Life

versus Conventional Caltrans Rehabilitation Strategies for High-Volume Highways. Davis, CA: University of California Pavement Research Center.

Jullien, A., & Dauvergne, M. (2014). ECORCE M. IFSTTAR.

Jullien, A., Dauvergne, M., & Cerezo, V. (2014). Environmental Assessment of Road

Construction and Maintenance Policies Using LCA. Transportation Research Part D, 29, 56-65.

Keeney, R. (2007). Developing Objectives and Attributes. In W. Edwards, R. Miles, & D. von

Winterfeldt (Eds.), Advances in Decision Analysis (pp. 104-129). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Klöpffer, W. (2008). Life cycle sustainability assessment of products. International Journal of

Life Cycle Assessment, 13(2), 89-95.

Knaap, T., & Oosterhaven, J. (2011). Measuring the welfare effects of infrastructure: A

simple spatial equilibrium evaluation of Dutch railway proposals. Research in Transportation Economics, 31, 19-28.

Kucukvar, M., Noori, M., Egilmez, G., & Tatari, O. (2014). Stochastic Decision Modeling for

Sustainable Pavement Designs. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 19(6), 1185-1199.

Lane, B., Lee, S., Bennett, B., & Chan, S. (2014). GreenPave Reference Guide: Version 2.0.

Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s Materials Engineering and Research Office.


40

Laurent, A., Olsen, S., & Hauschild, M. (2012). Limitations of Carbon Footprinting as Indicator of Environmental Sustainability. Environmental Science and Technology, 46, 4100-4108.

Leclère, D., Havlík, P., Fuss, S., Schmid, E., Mosnier, A., Walsh, B., et al. (2014). Climate change induced transformations of agricultural systems: insights from a global model. Environmental Research Letters, 9, 1-14.

Lee, J. C., Edil, T. B., Benson, C. H., & Tinjum, J. M. (2011). Evaluation of Variables

Affecting Sustainable Highway Design With BE2ST-in-Highways. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2233, 178-186.

Lee, J., Edil, T. B., Benson, C. H., & Tinjum, J. M. (2013). Building Environmentally and

Economically Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure: Green Highway Rating System. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(12), A4013006.

Lee, J., Edil, T., Benson, C., & Tinjum, J. (2013). Building Environmentally and Economically

Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure: Green Highway Rating System. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(12).

Lenzen, M. (2008). Errors in Conventional and Input-Output–based Life-Cycle Inventories.

Journal of Industrial Ecology, 127-148.

Lenzen, M. (2008). Errors in Conventional and Input-Output–based Life-Cycle Inventories.

Journal of Industrial Ecology, 127-148.

Mandapaka, V., Basheer, I., Sahasi, K., Ullidtz, P., Harvey, J. T., & Sivaneswaran, N. (2012).

Mechanistic-Empirical and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Optimizing Flexible Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, 138, 652-633.

Mansfield, T. J., & Hartell, A. M. (2012). Institutionalizing Sustainability at the Level of State

Departments of Transportation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2271, 9-18.

Massai, L. (2011). The Kyoto Protocol in the EU: European Community and Member States

under International and European Law (First Ed. ed.). The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press.

McVoy, G. R., Nelson, D. A., Krekeler, P., Kolb, E., & Gritsavage, J. S. (2010). oving towards

Sustainability: New York State Department of Transportation's GreenLITES Story. Green Streets and Highways 2010 (pp. 461-479). Denver: American Sosciety of Civil Engineers.

Mineral Products Association. (2014). Climate change & energy data . Retrieved November

2014 , from Mineral Products Association: http://www.mineralproducts.org/sustainability/climate-change-data.html

Mostafa, M., & El-Gohary, M. (2014). Stakeholder Sensitive Social Welfare-Oriented Benefit

Analysis for Sustainable Infrastructure Project Development. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(9), 1-12.


41

MTO. (2014). GreenPave guidelines. Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Material

Engineering and Research Office. OTM. MTU. (2011). PE-2: Project Emission Estimator. Houghton, Michigan: Michigan Technical

University.

Muench, S. (2010). Roadway Construction Sustainability Impacts: Review of Life-Cycle

Assessments. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2151, 36-45.

Muench, S. T., & Anderson, J. L. (2009). Greenroads: A sustainability performance metric for

roadway design and construction. Seattle: University of Washington.

Muench, S. T., Anderson, J., & Bevan, T. (2010). Greenroads: A Sustainability Rating

System for Roadways. Journal of Pavement Research Technology, 3(5), 270-279.

Muench, S., & Anderson, J. (2009). Final Technical Report on Greenroads: A sustainability

performance metric for roadway design and construction. Report No. TNW 2009-13/WA-RD 725.1. Seattle: University of Washington.

Muench, S., Anderson, J., Hatfield, J., Koester, J., & Söderlund, M. e. (2011). Greenroads

Manual v1.5. Seattle: University of Washington.

NASTC. (2014). North American Sustainable Transportation Council. Retrieved October 09,

2014, from http://www.transportationcouncil.org/about-stars

NCHRP. (2006). Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New & Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. NIST. (2010). The National Institute for Standards and Technology Engineering Laboratory:

BEES Software. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from http://www.nist.gov/el/economics/BEESSoftware.cfm

Noshadravan, A., Wildnauer, M., Gregory, J., & Kirchain, R. (2013). Comparative pavement

life cycle assessment with parameter uncertainty. Transportation Research Part D, 25, 131-138.

NYDOT. (2014). New York Department of Transportation: GreenLITES. Retrieved October

08, 2014, from https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/greenlites

O’Flaherty C, B. A. (2002). Highways : the location, design, construction and maintenance

(4th ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

OECD. (2003). OECD Environmental Indicators: Development Measurement and Use. Paris:

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

OECD. (2014). Average annual wages. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development.

PE International. (2014). GaBi Software. Retrieved August 29, 2014, from http://www.gabi-

software.com/uk-ireland/index/


42

Rangaraju, P. R., Amirkhanian, S., & Guven, Z. (2008). Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavement Type Selection. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of Transportation.

RCRA. (2003). Recource Conservation and Recovery Act. US environment agency.

Re-Road. (2012). Re-Road: End of Life Strategies of Asphalt Pavements. From http://re-

road.fehrl.org/

Retzlaff, R. C. (2009). The Use of LEED in Planning and Development Regulation: An

Exploratory Analysis. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(1), 67-77.

RMRC. (2012). Recycled Materials Resource Center. Retrieved November 14, 2014, from

http://rmrc.wisc.edu/be2st-in-highways/

RMRC, R. M. (2004). Pavement Life-cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental and

Economic Effects.

Royal Roads University. (2014). Royal Roads University Sustainability Resources. Retrieved

October 08, 2014, from http://sustainability.royalroads.ca/transportation-0

Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process (1 ed.). New York, NY, U.S.A.: McGraw-Hill

International.

Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill International

Book Company.

Sala, S., Farioli, F., & Zamagni, A. (2013). Life cycle sustainability assessment in the context

of sustainability science progress (part 2). International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1686-1697.

Santero, N. (2009). Pavements and the Environment: A Life‐Cycle Assessment Approach,

dissertation, 2009. Berkeley, CA: University of California.

Santero, N., Loijos, A., Akbarian, M., & Ochsendorf, J. (2011). Methods, Impacts and

Oppurtunities in the Concrete Pavement Lifecycle. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Santero, N., Masanet, E., & Horvath, A. (2010). Life Cycle Assessment of Pavements: A

Critical Review of Existing Literature and Research, SN3119a. Skokie, Il: Portland Cement Association.

Santero, N., Masanet, E., & Horvath, A. (2011). Life-cycle assessment of pavements. Part I:

Critical review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 801-809.

Santos, J., Bryce, J., Flintsch, G., Ferreira, A., & Diefenderfer, B. (2014). A life cycle

assessment of in-place recycling and conventional pavement construction and maintenance practices. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, In Press.

Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W. A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S. R., Dakos, V., et al.

(2009). Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature, 461(3), 53-59.


43

SimaPro Ltd. (2014). SimaPro 8: Sustainability Life Cycle Assessment Carbon Footprinting.

Retrieved August 29, 2014, from http://www.simapro.co.uk/

Sleeswijk, A. W., Oers, L. F., Guinée, J. B., Struijs, J., & Huijbregts, M. A. (2008).

Normalisation in product life cycle assessment: An LCA of the global and European economic systems in the year 2000. Science of The Total Environment, 390(1), 227-240.

Smartrail Consortium. (2014). SmartRail LCA-LCC Tool. Retrieved August 29, 2014, from

http://smartrail.fehrl.org/index.php?m=40

Smeets, E., & Weterings, R. (1999). Environmental Indicators: Typology and Review.

Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

Spray, A. (2014). Global Warming Potential Assessment. Methodology and Road

Pavements. University of Nottingham.

Spriensma, R., Gurp, C. v., & Larsen, M. R. (2014). CEREAL: Final Report and User Guide.

The Netherlands: ERA-NET ROAD.

Stripple, H. (2001). Life cycle assessment of road: a pilot study for inventory analysis.

Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Research Institute (IVL) report B 1210 E, 2nd revised ed.

Suh, S., Lenzen, M., Treloar, G., Hondo, H., Horvath, A., Huppes, G., et al. (2004). System

Boundary Selection in Life-Cycle Inventories Using Hybrid Approaches. Environmental Science and Technology, 38(3), 657-664.

Suh, S., Lenzen, M., Treloar, G., Hondo, H., Horvath, A., Huppes, G., et al. (2004). System

Boundary Selection in Life-Cycle Inventories Using Hybrid Approaches. Environmental Science and Technology, 657-664.

Summers, C. J. (2010). The idiots’ guide to highway maintenance. Retrieved July 2015, from

www.highwaysmaintenance.com

Sustainable Rail Programme. (2013). Sustainable Development Self-Assessment Tool.

Retrieved August 29, 2014, from http://sustainablerailprogramme.rssb.co.uk/home.aspx

Thomassen, M., Dalgaard, R., Heijungs, R., & Boer, I. d. (2008). Attributional and

Consequential LCA of Milk Production. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13(4), 339-349.

Tillman, A.-M. (20). Significance of Decision Making for LCA methodology. Environemental

Impact Assessment Review, 20(4), 113-123.

TL AG-StB 09. (2009). Technische Lieferbedingungen für Asphaltgranulat. Köln: FGSV

Verlag GmbH.


44

TL Asphalt-StB 07. (2013). Technische Lieferbedingunen für Asphaltmischgut für den Bau von Verkehrsflächenbefestigungen. Köln: FGSV Verlag GmbH.

TL Bitumen-StB 07. (2007). Technische Lieferbedingungen für Straßenbaubitumen und gebrauchsfertige Polymermodifizierte Bitumen. Köln: FGSV Verlag GmbH.

TL Gestein-StB 04. (2004). Technische Lieferbedingungen für Gesteinskörnungen im

Straßenbau . Köln: FGSV Verlag GmbH.

UCPRC. (2010). Pavement Life Cycle Assessment Workshop. Davis, CA: University of

California Pavement Research Center.

UK Department of Transport. (2014). UK Government: Biggest upgrade to roads in a

generation. Retrieved December 8, 2014, from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/biggest-upgrade-to-roads-in-a-generation

UNECE. (2014). United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; Climate Change and

Sustainable Transport. Retrieved August 27, 2014, from http://www.unece.org/trans/theme_global_warm.html

VanZerr, M., Connolly, S., & Sowerby, C. (2012). Best Practices in Sustainability Rating

Systems. Linköping, Sweden: The Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI).

Vardakoulias, O. (2013, April). Discounting and time preferences. the new economics

foundation - www.neweconomics.org.

VDOT. (2011, July). Virginia Department of Transportation. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from

http://www.virginiadot.org/business/resources/Materials/bu-mat-LLCA.pdf

Ven, M. F., Sluer, B. W., Jenkins, K. J., & Beemt, C. M. (2012). New developments with half-

warm foamed bitumen asphalt mixtures for sustainable and durable pavement solutions. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 13(4), 713-730.

Ventura, A., Monéron, P., & Jullien, A. (2008). Environmental Impact of a Binding Course

Pavement Section, with Asphalt Recycled at Varying Rates. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 9(1), 319-338.

VICROADS. (2010). Sustainability and Climate Change Strategy 2010-2015. Melbourne:

Roads Corporation of Victoria.

Wang, T. (2013). Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emmissions and Energy Consumption Using

Pavement Maintenance and Rehabilitation: Refinement and Application of a Life Cycle Assessment Approach. Davis, CA: University of California, Davis.

Wardenaar, T., Ruijven, T. v., Beltran, A. M., Vad, K., Guinée, J., & Heijungs, R. (2012).

Differences between LCA for analysis and LCA for policy: a case study on the consequences of allocation choices in bio-energy policies. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17, 1059-1067.

Wayman M, L. D. (2014). EARN D5. CEDR.


45

Wayman, M., Schiavi-Mellor, I., & Cordell, B. (2014). Protocol for the calculation of whole life cycle greenhouse gas emissions generated by asphalt. Berks, UK: Transport Research Laboratory.

Wayman, M., Schiavi-Mellor, I., & Cordell, B. (2014). Protocol for the calculation of whole life

cycle greenhouse gas emissions generated by asphalt. TRL Limited.

WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Weidema, B. (2003). Market Information in Life Cycle Assessment. København: Danish

Environmental Protection Agency.

Weiland, C., & Muench, S. (2010). Lifecycle Assessment of Portland Cement Concrete

Interstate Highway Rehabilitation and Replacement. Seattle, WA, USA: Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington.

West, R., Musselman, N. T., Skolnik, J., & Brooks, M. (2013). A Review of the Alabama

Department of Transpotation's Policies and Procedures for Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavement Type Selection. Auburn, AL: Alabama Department of Transportation.

Wisconsin, U. o. (2014). BE2ST in Highway system manual.

Zamagni, A. (2012). Life cycle sustainability assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle

Assessment, 17, 373-376.

Zhang, Z., Liu, X., & Yang, S. (2009). A Note on the 1-9 Scale and Index Scale In AHP. In Y.

Shi, S. Wang, Y. Peng, J. Li, & Y. Zeng (Eds.), Cutting-Edge Research Topics on Multiple Criteria Decision Making (pp. 630-634). Berlin: Springer.

ZTV Asphalt-StB 07. (2007). Zusätzliche Technische Vertragsbedingungen und Richtlinien

für den Bau von Verkehrsflächenbefestigungen aus Asphalt Forschungsgesellschaft für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen. Köln: FGSV Verlag GmbH.


46

List of Tables

Table 1: Calculated total tonnes CO2e footprints (and percentage of variation with respect to the Baseline) over 60 years for the all case studies with asPECT ............................ 3

Table 2: Calculated total tonnes CO2e footprints (and percentage of variation with respect to the Baseline) over 60 years for the all case studies with ECORCE M ................... 5

Table 3: Calculated total tonnes CO2e footprints (and percentage of variation with respect to the Baseline) over 60 years for the all case studies with Carbon Road Map ............ 7

Table 4: Adaptation of the GreenPave rating guidelines to our case studies ....................... 11 Table 5: BE2ST-in-HighwaysTM Sustainability Criteria and Target Value (Wisconsin, 2014) . 15 Table 6: Example of LCA inputs for the adapted BE2ST-in-Highways rating ........................ 20 Table 7: Example of LCCA inputs for the adapted BE2ST-in-Highways rating ..................... 21 Table 8: Average Comparative Noise Levels of Different Surface Types and BE2ST credits

(RMRC, 2004) ....................................................................................................... 22 Table 9: Selected average annual salaries and social carbon costs .................................... 22 Table 10: SE case study: BEST rating of AC16 30%RAadd vs Baseline SE ....................... 23 Table 11: SE case study: BEST rating of AC16 60%RAadd vs Baseline SE ....................... 24 Table 12: SE case study: BEST rating of AC16 60%RAadd vs Baseline SE ....................... 24 Table 13: CE case study: BEST rating of SMA8S 30%RA vs Baseline CE .......................... 25 Table 14: CE case study: BEST rating of SMA8S 60%RA vs Baseline CE .......................... 26 Table 15: CE case study: BEST rating of SMA8S 60%RA vs Baseline CE .......................... 26 Table 16: Calculated total tonnes CO2e footprints over 60 years for the German (CE) case

study with all the LCA tools analysed ..................................................................... 28 Table 17: GreenPave system with credit point distribution (MTO, 2014) .............................. 48


47

List of Figures

Figure 1: Proposed Life cycle stages of CF/LCA tool for road pavements components. Use phase not included as in asPECT and ECORCE M. ................................................ 1

Figure 2: Proposed Life cycle stages of CF/LCA tool for maintenance of existing road pavement (e.g. CARBON ROAD MAP) .................................................................... 2

Figure 3: ECORCE M. Sequencing diagram summarising the needed inputs ........................ 5 Figure 4: CARBON RAOD MAP summary of inputs from the results screenshot ................... 6 Figure 5: GreenPave rating methodology (MTO, 2014) ......................................................... 9 Figure 6: GreenPave rating for one wearing course inlay in the South EU case study- Italy 13 Figure 7: GreenPave rating for one wearing course inlay in the South EU case study- Italy 13 Figure 8 – BE2ST sustainability Rating system (Lee, et al., 2013). ...................................... 14 Figure 9: BE2ST-in-HighwaysTM scorecard and AMEOBA (Wisconsin, 2014) ...................... 16 Figure 10 – Extending the AMOEBA Over Time (Bell & Morse, 1999) ................................. 17 Figure 11: BE2ST-in-HighwaysTM software screenshot (Wisconsin, 2014) ........................... 18 Figure 12: SE case study: EU-adapted BE2ST-in-HighwaysTM rating ................................... 23 Figure 13: CE case study: EU-adapted BE2ST-in-HighwaysTM rating ................................... 25 Figure 14: Forecast CEDR sustainability Assessment methodology .................................... 31 Figure 15: SE case study – life-cycle cost of the design alternatives ................................... 54 Figure 16: CE case study – life-cycle cost of the design alternatives ................................... 54


48

Annex A - GREEN PAVE guidelines

Table 17: GreenPave system with credit point distribution (MTO, 2014) DESIGN

Quality categories points explanation

Pavement Technologies 9

PT-1: Long-Life Pavements

3

Composite pavement, Perpetual pavement of deep

strength pavement (2 points)

Rigid pavement (3 points)

PT-2: Permeable Pavements

2 Use in Roadside drainage (ie. shoulders) (1 point)

Parking areas (2 points)

PT-3: Noise Mitigation 2

SURFACE ASPHALT LAYERS

SuperPave mixes (1 point);

SMA mixes, Open Graded Friction Courses (2 points)

SURFACE CONCRETE LAYERS

With Longitudinal tining or diamond grinding (1 point)

PT-4: Cool Pavements 2


Open Graded Friction Courses, Porous asphalt (1 point)


Conventional concrete pavement or White cement

pavement (2 points)

Materials and Resources 11

MR-1: Recycled content 5


5-15% RA (1 point)

16-20% RA (2 points)



Extra 1 point for at least 1% of Crumb Rubber by mass


10-15% SCM, by mass of the total (1 point)

16-25% SCM, by mass of the total (2 point)


49

GRANULAR LAYERS

10%-29% Recycled material by mass (1 point)


At least 50% Recycled material by mass (4 points)


(CONSTRUCTION)

SURFACE LAYERS

Hot in-place recycling, Cold-In-place recycling, Cold-In-place recycling with expanded asphalt mix (5 points)


Use of slurry or treated wash water (extra 1 point)

GRANULAR LAYERS

In place Processing (5 point)


2

Preservation treatments including HMA overlay, chip seals, slurry seals and microsurfacing. (1 point);

Maintaining at least 80% of the existing pavement structure during rehabilitation or reconstruction (2 points)

Concrete overlay (2 points)

MR-3: Local Materials 2 50 – 79% within 100km (1 point)

> 80% within 100 Km (2 points)


(CONSTRUCTION)

2

After construction the Contract Administrator (CA) and

Quality Assurance Officer (QAO) evaluates each layer

of pavement and could award points for construction

quality, based on their judgment and expertise: 1 point if

meets criteria and 2 if exceeds them. Construction

Quality Assessment criteria may include:

- Material quality (such as test results)

- Workmanship

- Any deficiencies and repair

- Appearance

- Drainage condition

- Pavement smoothness

Energy and Atmosphere 8


3 SURFACE LAYERS

Use of Warm Mix Asphalt Technology, Asphalt layer with 5-15% RA, Concrete layer with 16-25% SCM by mass


50

(1 point)


GRANULAR LAYERS




(CONSTRUCTION)

SURFACE LAYERS

Hot in-place recycling (2 points)

Cold-In-place recycling, Cold-In-place recycling with expanded asphalt mix (3 points)

GRANULAR LAYERS


In-place Processing with expanded asphalt mix (3 points)


3

SURFACE LAYERS

Use of Warm Mix Asphalt Technology, Asphalt layer with 5-15% RA, Concrete layer with 16-25% SCM by mass (1 point)


GRANULAR LAYERS




(CONSTRUCTION)

SURFACE LAYERS

Hot in-place recycling (2 points)

Cold-In-place recycling, Cold-In-place recycling with expanded asphalt mix (3 points)

GRANULAR LAYERS


In-place Processing with expanded asphalt mix (3 points)


(CONSTRUCTION)

1

ASPHALT

If the laid asphalt surface has and Initial International

Roughness Index (IRI) < 0.65 m/km, it is considered a

smooth pavement (1 point)


51

CONCRETE

Concrete surface (1 point)


(CONSTRUCTION) 1

Use of at least 50% of equipment with Diesel Engine (1

point) or at least 25% of equipment using alternative fuel

engine (1 point)

Innovation & design process (4)

4


2

Points are awarded for incorporating innovative

techniques and technologies in design or construction

that are not addressed in other categories of the rating

system. 1 innovation (1 point), 2 innovations (2 points)

amongst:

• 2 layer concrete pavements incorporating recycled materials in the bottom layer to increase recycling components

• Photocatalytic Cement Pavement, a self-cleaning and pollution reducing concrete.

• Rapid construction technology to reduce traffic disruption and user delay costs

• Scheduling of work to enable pavement construction in good ambient temperature

• Incorporating Sustainability into the Decision-Making process with Value Engineering

• Any materials or methods proven to conserve energy or reduce GHG emissions but not identified in the current GreenPave Rating System.

• On-site materials that are reused within the project or reserved for recycling purposes rather than disposal

• Paving in echelon

I-2: Exemplary process 2

Exemplary process is the improvement of a conventional

process or exceptional consideration for other social

aspects that are not directly related to the design of the

pavement. 1 Exemplary process (1 point), 2 Exemplary

process (2 points) amongst:

• Notify general public about the sustainable roadway design

• Perform LCA and LCCA to assess project for environmental and economic effects

• Context Sensitive Solutions

• Use of concrete from Eco-Certified Concrete Plant


52

DESIGN

Quality categories

IT

0%

IT

30a

%

IT

60a

%

IT

90a

%

D

30%

D

60%

D

60a

%

GREENPAVE guidelines

(MTO, 2014)

Pavement Technologies

Max 4

PT-1: Long-Life Pavements

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Perpetual pavement

PT-2: Permeable Pavements

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

PT-3: Noise Mitigation 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 SMA mix

PT-4: Cool Pavements

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Materials and Resources

Max 11


0 5 4 5 5 5 5 SURFACE ASPHALT LAYERS

0-40% RA


(CONSTRUCTION)

SURFACE LAYERS

Recycling in Asphalt plant


2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Maintaining more than 80% of the existing pavement structure during rehabilitation (2 points)

MR-3: Local Materials 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

50 – 79% within 100km (1 point)

> 80% within 100 Km (2

points)


(CONSTRUCTION)

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 NOT Applicable

Energy and Atmosphere

Max 8


3 3 3 3 3 3 3

SURFACE LAYERS




(CONSTRUCTION)

NOT Applicable


3 3 3 3 3 3 3

SURFACE LAYERS


Asphalt layer with 16-40% RA by


53

mass (2 points)


(CONSTRUCTION)

NOT Applicable


(CONSTRUCTION)



(CONSTRUCTION)


Innovation & design process (4)

Max 4


Points are awarded for

incorporating innovative

techniques and technologies in

design

1 innovation (1 point),

2 innovations (2 points)

I-2: GHG emission reduction

Exemplary process is the

improvement of a conventional

process or exceptional

consideration for other social

aspects that are not directly related

to the design of the pavement.

1 Exemplary process (1 point),

2 Exemplary processes (2 points)


54

Annex B - LCCA results for inlays of AB2P wearing courses

Net Present Value of the alternatives

For our calculations the following assumptions were made:

1 single intervention consisting on an inlay of wearing course with the several

technologies considered.

Analysis period = Design lives: SE-IT = 5 years ; CE-D = 16 years

NPV calculated with a Deterministic approach (fix discount rate)

Discount rates as in Vardakoulias (2013) as follows:

o South Europe (Italy) = 5%

o Central Europe (Germany) = 3%

Figure 15: SE case study – life-cycle cost of the design alternatives

Figure 16: CE case study – life-cycle cost of the design alternatives

AC16 0%RAAC16

30%RA+addAC16

60%RA+addAC16

90%RA+add

Net Present Value (5%) € 13.12 € 11.43 € 9.75 € 8.44

€ 0.00

€ 2.00

€ 4.00

€ 6.00

€ 8.00

€ 10.00

€ 12.00

€ 14.00

Co

st (€

10

00

)

SMA8S 0%RASMA 8S30%RA

SMA 8S60%RA

SMA 8S60%RA + add

Net Present Value (3%) € 26.76 € 22.03 € 17.28 € 18.59

€ 0.00

€ 5.00

€ 10.00

€ 15.00

€ 20.00

€ 25.00

€ 30.00

Co

st (€

10

00

)


55

Annex C - LCA results with ECORCE M

Here reported an example of the results from ECORCE M that were used within the one of the case studies presented in the report. Results are expressed in terms of the four impact categories used by BE2ST system. Other results are not reported here, but can be provided if requested.

SE – Italy : AC16 0%RA (Baseline IT)


56


57


58

Documents

AllBack2Pave Sustainability assessment of the AllBack2Pave ...€¦ · Toward a sustainable 100% recycling of reclaimed asphalt in road pavements Deliverable No D5.3 Sustainability