4.7 Article

Life cycle assessment on using recycled materials for rehabilitating asphalt pavements

Journal

RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING
Volume 52, Issue 3, Pages 545-556

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.07.001

Keywords

asphalt rubber; recycled hot mix asphalt; glassphalt; life cycle assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This research performed life cycle inventory using proposed recycled material formulas and service records and incorporating the database provided by Eco-indicator 99 in order to study the eco-burden presented by using recycled materials to rehabilitate asphalt pavements. Three recycled materials (recycled hot mix asphalt, asphalt rubber, and Glassphalt) and the traditional hot-mixed asphalt are compared. Assuming that the thickness of the asphalt is 5 cm and the service life is 6 years, the eco-burden presented by the traditional hot-mixed asphalt is 3.45 kPt. per lane-kilometer. Using recycled hot mixed asphalt can reduce the eco-burden by 23% under the same conditions. Using asphalt rubber increases the eco-burden by 16%, while the eco-burden remains essentially the same (reduced by less than 1%) using Glassphalt. Taking into account the difference in service life between different materials, this research also uses a 40-year time span to evaluate the eco-burden for each material. The results show that the traditional hot mixed asphalt has an eco-burden of 23.03 kPt. for that time span. Both recycled hot mixed asphalt and asphalt rubber can reduce the eco-burden by 23% in the same period. On the contrary, Glassphalt increases the eco-burden by 19%. This research also identified the sources of the eco-burden for these asphalts. The results show that a large percentage of the eco-burden comes from two sources, the asphalt binder used (39-48%) and the heat sources required to process these paving materials (42-50%). This suggests that the most effective way to lower the eco-burden may be to reduce the heat requirement during the manufacturing process. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available