Quantifying the Service Life and Potential Environmental Benefits of Recycled Asphalt Pavements

In-service pavements require maintenance and rehabilitation (MandR) interventions to keep them in compliance with structural and functional standards. With the increased focus on the sustainability of our roadway systems, it has become important to document the cost and environmental impacts of different MandR strategies over the life cycle of the pavement to facilitate project selection decisions in the future. Asphalt pavement recycling, while cost-effective and environmentally friendly compared to other traditional MandR treatments, still faces some widespread implementation push-back, leading to policy enactments by the FHWA aimed at encouraging the use of recycling in road projects. Many agencies and contractors have cited the lack of project selection criteria, and uncertainty about long-term performance of these recycling alternatives as reasons impeding rapid implementation of these treatments in road projects. One of the gray areas of the FHWA's 2015 Recycled Material Policy in project selection was, until recently, the lack of guidelines or tools for the assessment of the environmental suitability of candidate MandR treatments. Today, it is almost impossible to evaluate the environmental suitability of various recycling-based end-of-service-life treatments because available databases do not have relevant information on the details of unit processes, construction equipment and activities, and use-stage roughness data. Development of future MandR plans throughout the service life of pavements rehabilitated with recycling-based treatments is somewhat limited as deterioration is not fully understood. Also, available modeling tools no not address all LCA phases, or in cases where they do, key life cycle phases including the MandR, and use phases are not well covered due to the lack of quantification highlighted earlier. To address the highlighted concerns, this dissertation developed a user-friendly comprehensive LCA tool that was further validated with a case study to quantify the service life (when the pavement has reached a critical threshold performance value) and potential environmental benefits of pavement recycling projects executed by the Virginia Department of Transportation over the past decade. The tool, pySuPave, includes an excel spreadsheet user-inputs interface, and database of economic flows for unit processes used in the production of pavement materials and subsequent construction of the pavement system, considering transportation of materials and construction machinery to plants and construction site. A python-based program was used to perform matrix-based computations to generate the environmental burdens from the available public LCA Ecoinvent database. A substantive part of the dissertation was dedicated to evaluating the performance of in-service pavements rehabilitated with cold recycling and full-depth reclamation treatments, focusing on developing pavement performance prediction models (PPPM) that goes on to improve modelling of the MandR and use stages in the pavement LCA and ultimately bridges the knowledge gap on how these treatments perform in the long term. This part of the dissertation was presented in two chapters; trends in pavement recycling and performance data collection, and development of PPPMs for recycled asphalt pavements. The first provides an update and examines the current state of pavement recycling techniques, highlighting trends in the various recycling methods, examining what is and is not working from the agency perspective, and assessing the progress made in the last decade through a web-based survey. The survey results did not indicate significant changes in the adoption of the asphalt pavement recycling concept in the last decade. However, recycling techniques, such as hot in-place recycling, are being used less and more agencies seem to be adopting lower temperature techniques such as cold in-place recycling, cold central plant recycling and full depth reclamation. Improvements in mix design methods were noticeable, as more agencies have adopted contemporary methods, such as the Superpave design. Among states, very few agencies collected performance data for completed asphalt pavement recycling projects. The second chapter on performance focused on developing individual and family-type PPPMs from the data collected from the states of Virginia and Colorado, respectively. While regression modeling forms the backbone of the approach used, the chapter also presents an approach to developing family-type models using functional data analysis to find groups of projects with similar deterioration trends. In the case of Colorado, cold in-place recycling (CIR) projects completed with an initial IRI between 71 and 91 in/mi are most likely to deteriorate at an average group rate of 1.37 in/mi/year. Similarly, full depth reclamation (FDR) projects will most likely deteriorate following an average group rate of 1.40 in/mi/yr, with an initial IRI between 52 and 70 in/mi. These projects will stay in service well over 30 years if a threshold IRI of 140 in/mi were used a failure criterion. For the individual roughness models developed for VDOT, the initial IRI values and the rate of change for the treatments analyzed were found to range between 48 and 85 in/mi and between 0.70 and 5.20 in/mi/year, respectively, depending on the recycling method and type of stabilization treatment. Finally, a context-based life cycle assessment case study was conducted to benchmark and compare the environmental impacts associated with rehabilitating a low-volume road with various recycled-based and equivalent conventional methods. Several impact indicators were assessed but only the global warming (GW) score and the single score index that combines all the environmental impact indicators into a single number using normalization and weighting factors were reported in this study for the sake of brevity. Four restorative maintenance projects including two CIR (4-in. HMA over a 5-in. CIR with foamed asphalt and emulsion stabilization), one cold central plant recycling (CCPR): 4-in. HMA over a 5-in. foamed asphalt CCPR (CCPR FA), and one non-recycling structural overlay (8-in. HMA over an existing pavement) were evaluated. In addition, the following reconstruction projects were assessed; two FDR (4-in. HMA over a 12-in. FDR with foamed asphalt with 1% cement additive, and a 4-in. HMA over 10.5-in. cement stabilized FDR), and a non-recycling reconstruction project (a new reconstruction project with 8-in. HMA over a 16-in. aggregate base and subbase). The functional unit was a two lane-mile length, 12 feet wide project with a traffic volume of 1000 vehicles (3% trucks) and the analysis was conducted for 50 years. The GW score and a few other impact indicators showed an increase in the observed results where cement is used as a main stabilizer or as an additive. Between the asphalt stabilized projects, the difference in impact scores is only seen when cement is used as an additive as highlighted in the case of foamed asphalt applications. Even for the low-volume road under study, the use stage contributes the largest share to global warming and is—among several factors—attributed to the initial surface roughness of completed projects. Thus, for state DOTs looking to reduce the environmental footprints for road infrastructure projects and achieve federal legislative goals, building smoother roads and taking steps to keep the annual deterioration rate low would be an important measure, in addition to pavement recycling. Comparing the projects based on the overall single score derived from weighting factors from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ranks the projects as follows (listed in order decreasing impacts per rehabilitation category); restorative maintenance projects: T. OVERLAY (non-recycling structural overlay—8 in. HMA over an existing pavement) - 1.06 pts, CCPR FA (4 in. HMA over a 5 in. cold central plant recycling with foamed asphalt) - 1.02 pts, CIR FA (4 in. HMA over a 5 in. cold in-place recycling with foamed asphalt) - 1.00 pts, CIR AE (4 in. HMA over a 5 in. cold in-place recycling with emulsion)- 0.86 pts; reconstruction projects: RECONS (a new reconstruction project—8 in. HMA over a 16 in. aggregate base and subbase) -1.42 pts, FDR FA+C (4 in. HMA over a 12 in. FDR with foamed asphalt with 1% cement additive) - 1.15 pts, FDR C (4 in. HMA over 10.5 in. cement stabilized FDR) - 1.02 pts.