Eco-efficiency assessment of long-life asphalt pavement technologies

被引:9
作者
Chen, Wang [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Yuan, Xian-Xun [3 ]
机构
[1] Changan Univ, Key Lab Special Reg Highway Engn, Minist Educ, Midsouth Erhuan Rd, Xian 710064, Shaanxi, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Waterloo, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, 200 Univ Ave, West Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
[3] Toronto Metropolitan Univ, Dept Civil Engn, 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada
关键词
Eco-efficiency assessment; Long-life asphalt pavement; Life-cycle assessment; Life-cycle cost; Greenhouse gas; Relative quadrant matrix; CYCLE ASSESSMENT; ENERGY-CONSUMPTION; SENSITIVITY; DESIGN; LCA; INFRASTRUCTURE; SUSTAINABILITY; CONSTRUCTION; OPTIMIZATION; INDUSTRY;
D O I
10.1016/j.trd.2023.103874
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This paper presents a comprehensive eco-efficiency assessment for six promising long-life asphalt pavement (LLAP) designs as a structural system, including the full-depth (FD), thick asphalt layer (TAL), inverted (Ive), enhanced semi-rigid base (Esemi), composite (CP) and traditional semi-rigid base (Tsemi) asphalt pavement. Results showed that under the baseline design scenario, the Ive, ESemi and CP perform best in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, total embodied energy (TEE), and life-cycle cost (LCC), respectively. In most cases of the scenario and uncertainty analyses, ESemi and Ive were the most eco-efficient solutions, although CP may dominate ESemi for a longer design life, whereas the other three designs were dominated by one or more of the abovementioned designs. Among all life-cycle activities, the raw material phase was proved to be the most critical source of GHG (54.2-79.4 %), TEE (41.8-54.9 %), and LCC (72.0-72.9 %), under the system boundary of cradle-to-grave (excluding operation phase). Striking a balance between the thickness of cement-based and asphalt structural layers is the key to achieving sustainable pavement.
引用
收藏
页数:20
相关论文
共 87 条
[1]   Life cycle cost comparison of highways with perpetual and conventional pavements [J].
Amini, Amir A. ;
Mashayekhi, Mehdi ;
Ziari, Hassan ;
Nobakht, Shams .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING, 2012, 13 (06) :553-568
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1993, AASHTO GUIDE DESIGN
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2002, PERPETUAL PAVEMENTS
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2006, Environmental Management: Life Cycle Assessment Requirements and Guidelines
[5]   A methodological review on self-healing asphalt pavements [J].
Anupam, B. R. ;
Sahoo, Umesh Chandra ;
Chandrappa, Anush K. .
CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS, 2022, 321
[6]   Putting sustainability theory into roadway design practice: Implementation of LCA and LCCA analysis for pavement type selection in real world decision making [J].
Batouli, Mostafa ;
Bienvenu, Michael ;
Mostafavi, Ali .
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART D-TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT, 2017, 52 :289-302
[7]   Life Cycle Thinking- Informed Approach to Support Pavement Design Decision Making [J].
Bhat, Chaitanya G. ;
Mukherjee, Amlan .
JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING PART B-PAVEMENTS, 2020, 146 (04)
[8]   Sensitivity of Life-Cycle Assessment Outcomes to Parameter Uncertainty: Implications for Material Procurement Decision-Making [J].
Bhat, Chaitanya G. ;
Mukherjee, Amlan .
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, 2019, 2673 (03) :106-114
[9]   A comparative life cycle assessment study with uncertainty analysis of cement treated base (CTB) pavement layers containing recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) materials [J].
Bressi, Sara ;
Primavera, Michele ;
Santos, Joao .
RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2022, 180
[10]   Comparative life cycle assessment of warm mix technologies in asphalt rubber pavements with uncertainty analysis [J].
Cao, Ruijun ;
Leng, Zhen ;
Yu, Huayuang ;
Hsu, Shu-Chien .
RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2019, 147 :137-144