Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is a tool that can be used to identify the environmental impact of a product or process. This paper compares three replacement options for an aging portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement with the use of an LCA process-based protocol. The options are to remove and replace the aging pavement with PCC pavement; remove the aging pavement and replace it with hot-mix asphalt (HMA) pavement; and crack and seat the existing pavement and then place an HMA overlay. Each option investigated includes a detailed construction and rehabilitation schedule and is analyzed over 50 years. The results show that materials production (e.g., cement, asphalt, PCC, and HMA) dominates the energy use, emissions, and impacts for all three options. In general, HMA production tends to cause the HMA option to have the highest energy use, whereas cement production tends to cause the PCC option to have the highest global warming potential (GWP). The crack, seat, and overlay option was the lowest energy user, had the lowest GWP, and produced the least emissions in more categories measured than the other two options. This may become a strong argument for expansion of the crack, seat, and overlay method of rehabilitation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HansenM. A., MahoneyJ. P., JacksonN. C., HunterC., PierceL. M., and TurkiyyahG.Assessment of the I-5 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement in King County. Report WA-RD 682.1. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, 2007.
2.
Scientific Applications International Corporation.Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Practice.Systems Analysis Branch, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2006.
3.
HendricksonC. T., HorvathA., JoshiS., KlausnerM., LaveL. B., and McMichaelF. C.Comparing Two Life Cycle Assessment Approaches: A Process Model- Vs. Economic Input–Output-Based Assessment. Proc. IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 1997, pp. 176–181.
Washington State DOT Pavement Guide, Vol. 1. Pavement Policy. Environmental and Engineering Programs Division, HQ Materials Laboratory—Pavements Division, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, 2009.
6.
HalilC., MathewsR., KotaT., GopalakrishnanK., and CoreeB. J.Rehabilitation of Concrete Pavements Utilizing Rubblization and Crack and Seat Methods. IHRB Project TR-473. Iowa Highway Research Board, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, 2005.
7.
StubstandR., DarterM., RaoC., PyleT., and WalidT.Report on the Effectiveness of Diamond Grinding Concrete Pavements in California.California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, 2005.
8.
User's Guide for the Final NONROAD2005 Model.Report EPA420-R-05-013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 2005.
9.
Regulatory Announcement: Summary of EPA's Proposed Program for Low Emission Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 2003. http://www.epa.gov/nonroad-diesel/420f03008.pdf. Accessed Apr. 21, 2009.
10.
Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) Model.Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., and University of Chicago, Center for Transportation Research, 1999.
11.
MarceauM. L., NisbetM. A., and VanGeemM. G.Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement Concrete.Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Ill., 2007.
12.
StrippleH.Life Cycle Inventory of Asphalt Pavements.IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd., Stockholm, Sweden, 2000.
HeijungsR., and SuhS.The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment: Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science.Springer, Secaucus, N.J., 2002.
17.
BareJ. C., NorrisG. A., PenningtonD. W., and McKoneT.TRACI: The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 6, No. 3-4, 2003, pp. 49–78.
18.
HuangY., BirdR., and BellM.A Comparative Study of the Emissions by Road Maintenance Works and the Disrupted Traffic Using Life Cycle Assessment and Micro-Simulation. Transportation Research, Part D, Vol. 14, 2009, pp. 197–204.
19.
LeeE. B., LeeH., and IbbsC. W.Productivity Aspects of Urban Freeway Rehabilitation with Accelerated Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering Management, Vol. 133, No. 10, 2007, pp. 798–806.
20.
HorvathA., PaccaS., MasanetE., and CanapaR.Pavement Life-Cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental and Economic Effects.Consortium on Green Design and Manufacturing, University of California, Berkeley, 2007.
SchussmanB., PradhanM., and MarciniakS.NEPA Review and Impacts on Climate Change. Presented at 4th Annual National Environmental Policy Act SuperConference, San Francisco, Calif., 2008.
24.
GregoireC. O., KulongoskiT. R., NapolitanoJ., RichardsonB., and SchwarzeneggerA.Western Regional Climate Action Initiative.Governor's Agreement Establishing the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, 2007. http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/component/remository/func-startdown/12. Accessed Oct. 29, 2009.
