Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.

v1

Life Cycle Assessment of Hot Mix Asphalt Production with Reclaimed

Asphalt Pavement in Washington State

Milad Zokaei Ashtiani

University of Washington

Abstract
This study is an attempt to create a framework, using best available inventory data, to perform
lifecycle assessment (LCA) on asphalt pavement production. In particular, the use of reclaimed
asphalt pavement (RAP) as an end-of-life product of deteriorated pavements is under
consideration. Following ISO 14000 series standards, the framework constitutes of the four major
LCA steps in defining goal and scope, lifecycle inventory analysis, environmental impact
assessment, and results interpretation. Three different scenarios in which varying portions of RAP
are incorporated into hot mix asphalt production are to be compared. The system boundary of this
study is limited to the construction and rehabilitation phases and ignores the vehicular use phase.
It was found under this study that since high RAP mixtures require more frequent and aggressive
maintenance activities, the overall footprint of asphalt pavements constructed with higher RAP
contents is also higher. This would necessitate more efficient design procedures and protocols for
mixtures produced with high RAP contents to compensate for their lack of long-term performance.
1. Introduction
Asphalt pavements contribute to the majority of road surfaces worldwide. Three main
components of this composite material are crushed aggregates, asphalt binder, and air. Apart from
air, the other two elements are not readily available and must undergo several processes before
being laid down on a road. These processes in short consist of material extraction and
manipulation, preparation of hot mix asphalt (HMA), construction procedures, maintenance, and
disposal or recycling of the out of service product. In addition, transportation of materials is
required during many stages.
A variety of raw materials as well as construction techniques and design specifications make
the comprehension of the best practices in terms of cost effectiveness and impacts on environment
difficult (Mukherjee & Dylla, 2017). In particular, the use of recycled asphalt pavements (RAP)
has become a favorable practice among the road agencies and constructors since it is believed to
satisfy what is best known as a sustainable design. Being the most recycled material by weight in
the U.S. adds to the importance of understanding how these valuable materials should be utilized
efficiently.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) is believed to be a powerful method to differentiate alternatives
in terms of their impacts, chiefly on the environment (Chester & Horvath, 2009a)(Santero,
Masanet, & Horvath, 2011a) (Balaguera, Carvajal, Albertí, & Palmer, 2018). As described in the
International Organization of Standardization (ISO) 14040 and 14044, a complete LCA study
includes the i) definition of goal and scope, ii) inventory analysis, iii) impact assessment, and iv)
result interpretation.
Several studies have been carried out utilizing the perspective specified in the ISO standard to
evaluate and compare different applications in the pavement industry. However, there seems not
to be a coherent and unanimously agreed procedure to adapt. It can be also realized from the fact

© 2020 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

that there has not been developed a product category classification (PCR) to treat asphalt
pavements yet (Mukherjee & Dylla, 2017). Previous studies, thus, emphasized either on a case by
case basis evaluation of paving projects (Jullien, Monèron, Quaranta, & Gaillard, 2006)(Weiland
& Muench, 2010) (Giani, Dotelli, Brandini, & Zampori, 2015) (Anthonissen, Braet, & Van den
bergh, 2015) (Polat & Bektas, 2015) (Farina, Zanetti, Santagata, & Blengini, 2016), or reviewed
the existing literature to give more insight into what is done and what need to be done (Santero,
Masanet, & Horvath, 2011a)(Santero, Masanet, & Horvath, 2011b) (Balaguera, Carvajal, Albertí,
& Palmer, 2018). For the purpose of this project, an imaginary pavement design will be proposed
first and an LCA would be conducted to compare alternatives through certain environmental
impact categories.
The following sections explain in detail how these four major steps are broken down for this
project which attempts on comparing three scenarios to use RAP in producing, constructing,
maintaining, and demolishing hot mix asphalt.
2. Goal and Scope
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) report, which is prepared based ISO 14040 and
14044) is used in this study as a framework to perform LCA (Harvey, et al., 2015). The intended
audience of this research project are mainly students at the ME515 course presented by Professor
Joyce Cooper. The result of this study could also be helpful to decision/policy makers within the
asphalt industry.
Three asphalt mixture alternatives will be compared in this study. Hot mix asphalt designs that
contain 0%, 20%, and 40% RAP are considered for comparison. In addition, life cycle inventory
analysis for each individual alternative will be developed which is thought to be useful in
interpreting results and to bring an insight into existing literature on the subject. The majority of
studies done on this subject utilized attributional (process-based) LCA method and so will this
study. Details on the impact categories will be followed in subsequent sections; however, this study
would investigate two broad categories of energy consumption and emissions to the environment.
A unique asphalt surface layer design is chosen for this project totaling 10” of asphalt mixture
in three lifts: two base course layers 3” in thickness, and one surface course 4” in thickness.
Although many of the past studies assumed the addition of RAP has no effect on the longevity of
asphalt pavement, in this study this assumption is released. The reality is, addition of RAP into
asphalt mixtures jeopardize and alleviates the service life of the pavement. As a result, maintenance
and rehabilitation operations are required in shorter time intervals to keep the road surface in good
conditions.
Another essential difference in the alternatives considered is the inputs of materials to produce
asphalt mixtures. Addition of RAP decreases the need for virgin materials and as a consequence
mitigate a great portion of the energy consumption and also emissions released to the environment.
However, it should be noted that RAP needs to be processed, screened, and stockpiled at asphalt
plants. Moreover, the time and temperature required to gain sufficient workability for mixtures
containing higher percentages of RAP could be a game changer.
2.1. Functional Unit
To scale the inputs and outputs in every stage of an LCA, a functional unit is needed to define
the system under evaluation. A functional unit defines the system in terms of magnitude, duration
of service, and the expected quality. There is a discrepancy in the literature on what should be

2
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

chosen as a functional unit for running LCA on pavements. (Balaguera, Carvajal, Albertí, &
Palmer, 2018) provides a list of existing studies confining different aspects of LCA characteristics
for researches carried out on pavements. It appears that a good amount of studies used a unit of
distance (kilometer, meter, mile), or area (square meter, square yard), or volume (cubic meter,
cubic yard) as the functional unit.
In this study, a definition of ‘a lane-kilometer of asphalt pavement constructed in 2015 which
maintain its durability and smoothness during a service life of 50 years’ turns out to be the most
appropriate. The location of interest is at Seattle, Washington, with a traffic loading of about 3.5
million equivalent single axle load (ESAL) (Weiland & Muench, 2010). It is worth noting that to
keep the pavement in the desirable quality, a series of maintenance and rehabilitation are required.
Preliminary assumptions for rehabilitation practices include milling and filling of the top 2” of the
asphalt pavement. The only difference between alternatives in this respect is the time intervals in
which the maintenance practices needs to be done: respectively for 0%, 20%, and 40% RAP
mixtures, milling and filling will be done in 15, 13, and 10 years after construction.
2.2. System Boundaries
Figure 1 schematically summarizes the system boundaries determined to achieve the objectives
in this study. Since the goal of this study is to compare three alternatives mentioned earlier, several
practices are in common when constructing a road. Such shared characteristics are subgrade
stabilization, effect of construction and traffic delay, noise pollution, rolling resistance, albedo
effects, lighting, and heat island effect. Furthermore, this study focuses on the construction and
maintenance of pavement section of the road and ignores the impacts coming from the use phase,
i.e. vehicles’ fuel consumption.
There are many unit processes associated with the product system shown in Figure 1 (adopted
in part from (Huang, Bird, & Heidrich, 2009)). Life cycle of each raw material including extraction
and processing, electricity and fuel consumption at each stage, asphalt mixture preparation which
involves heating up aggregates and liquid asphalt, construction equipment emissions, and several
transportations to/from facilities. Cut-off criteria is defined so as to eliminate processes that
consume less than 10% of the total required materials weight. Also, the manufacturing of
equipment is not considered which comply with the goal and scope. Table 1 is a summary of the
results from a limited list of literature reviews done so far for this study including functional units,
analysis periods, and impact categories selected.
2.3. Allocation Procedures
When dealing with a co-product resulted from recycling of asphalt pavements (i.e. RAP), the
allocation of credits to whom take advantage of this seemingly free material should be specified.
Double counting could become an issue if allocation is not considered correctly. To properly
account for allocation issues with RAP, and to answer the question that who owns this material
and alleviation in emissions that it brings about, an open-loop approach would be taken. In that, it
is assumed that the RAP is available through the [local] asphalt plant as a raw material. To close
the loop, a unit processes must be considered for removal/demolition, processing, and stockpiling
RAP after the service life of the pavement section has reached. Although it is hard to track back
the owner of project after full service life (50 years), the emissions associated with RAP
preparation would be taken into account in this case.
2.4. Impact Categories, Data Requirements, Interpretation, and Critical Review

3
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

To evaluate and understand the magnitude and significance of the potential environmental
impacts, environmental flows should be translated into certain categories. Classification and
characterization of impacts would fall into total energy consumption, global warming potential
(GWP), acidification, photochemical ozone formation effects on human health and ecosystem, and
particulate matter formation The majority of input data would be extracted from Greenhouse
Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model (GREET), United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) AP-42, and EPA NONROAD Model 2008a. Depending
on the response time, data from local resources such as aggregate providers or asphalt plant
facilities will be collected as primary data. Other online resources will be added subsequently as
this project moves forward.
The final part of this report would include an interpretation of results based on a sensitivity
analysis of inputs, data quality requirements stated in ISO 14044, and the application of proposed
case study in practice. The methodology explained by (Cooper & Kahn, 2012)Cooper and Kahn
(2012) to assess the data quality based on seven categories. Categories are selected based on ISO
14044 recommendations as: 1) reliability and reproducibility, 2) flow data completeness, 3)
temporal coverage, 4) geographical coverage, 5) technological coverage, 6) uncertainty, and 7)
precision. Each category is then evaluated to satisfy the requirements of having a score of A or B,
with A being the higher quality data.
Table 1 – A short list of literatures with functional unit definitions and impact categories

4
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

Crude Oil Extraction Aggregate Blasting

and Refining and Quarrying
Material
T T
Extraction /
Asphalt Binder/ Aggregate Crushing Acquisition /
Asphalt Emulsion / Sieving Preparation

T Asphalt T
Mixing Plant
Fuel
Emissions
Electricity T
Wastes
Equipment Paving/ Construction
Compaction (Rolling)

Milling / Spraying / Paving / Maintenance

Compaction

Milling / Excavation / RAP

End-of-life
Demolition Stockpiling
T

Figure 1 – System boundaries and system products illustration

5
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

Since this project is intended for learning purposes, the factuality of analysis remains
questionable. However, this study attempts at its best to follow the standardized procedure to
conduct an LCA. As described in the goal and scope definition, the intended audience of this study
will be the students attending the LCA course presented as ME515 in winter 2018. Nevertheless,
a critical review of the validity and applicability of results, effect of assumptions and limitations
on results, transparency and documentation of data used, and the extent of which data collection
procedure satisfies the goal and scope of this study will be discussed.
3. Inventory Analysis
The intention of this study was set to compare three different asphalt mixture designs to be used
as road surface in a specific route, i.e. along the Interstate-5 in Seattle. These asphalt mixes having
different amounts of recycled asphalt pavement are about to be designed with the same thicknesses,
and thus same volumes of final product. Reasoning behind this selection is to stick with the
definition of functional unit described earlier. However, addition of RAP shortens the life of
pavement by endangering its durability. As a result, to end up having a same pavement quality
over the lifetime (or equivalently the analysis period) several rehabilitation procedures must be
followed to maintain the quality of product.
Figure 2 schematically shows the pavement profile assumed to withstand the traffic condition
for this specific location. An assumption has been made that the roadbed is readily available for
pavement construction practices. Hence, three lifts of asphalt mixtures will be paved; two 3” and
one 4” thick. Rehabilitation is also assumed to include milling of the surface for 2” and paving
back an overlay on top of it. Between each lift of asphalt, a layer of emulsified asphalt will be
applied to bond each layer to the other.

2" (overlay)
4"

3"
Tack Coat (Emulsified
Asphalt)

3"

Figure 2 – Proposed pavement profile

3.1. Reference Flows
In order to reach the functional unit of this project, several processes are involved within the
system boundary defined earlier. In general, these processes are divided into material production,
material transportation, and construction practices. Asphalt mixtures consist mainly of stone
particles (aka aggregates) and liquid asphalt binder (aka bitumen). Emulsified asphalt binder is
used as a tack coat bonding two layers of asphalt mixture together. Transportation phase includes
the use of mostly diesel combusting vehicles and considers only the use phase of these vehicles,
not the whole life cycle. Construction phase (both initial and subsequent rehabilitations) also

6
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

involves a number of equipment such as paver, roller, material transfer vehicle (MTV), loader, and
excavator. Again, this study eliminates the full life cycle analysis of equipment and only considers
the use phase.
A final density of 150 lb/ft3 is presumed as the basis to calculate the material requirements.
Asphalt binder, sand and gravel stone, and crushed coarse aggregates are assumed to comprise
respectively 5.5, 44.5, and 50 percent of the total mass for the designated mixtures. Three
alternatives under study contain 0, 20, and 40 percent RAP, assuming that RAP has asphalt binder
content of 5.5% and it consists more of finer aggregate structure. As a result, when using RAP in
a mixture, it compensates for 60% of the sand and gravel and 40% of crushed stone. It is also worth
noting that when RAP is introduced into an asphalt mixture, a higher temperature would be
required to maintain appropriate workability during construction. This is in part due to the fact that
asphalt binder from RAP is oxidized while was in service. A higher temperature is thus help
achieving a certain viscosity in asphalt plant.
On the side of transportation, all the materials are assumed to be carried with a conventional
diesel consuming heavy-duty truck running an average speed of 45 miles per hour, each having a
capacity of 20 tons. There are four major distances need to be considered for material
transportation: i) 50 miles from asphalt plant to construction site, ii) 20 miles from aggregate
production site to asphalt plant, iii) 50 miles from project location to dump site (for RAP disposal),
and iv) 60 miles from asphalt refinery (located in Tacoma, WA) to asphalt plant. All the distances
have been chosen based on the local industries around the Seattle area.
For the construction phase, seven types of vehicles were used as paver (175), material transfer
vehicle (300), breakdown roller (175), finish roller (100), excavator (175), loader (175), and HMA
milling machine (750), with the numbers in parentheses showing the horsepower. Balancing the
production of asphalt (300 tons/hour) with the construction procedure for this specific pavement
design will yield to the operation hours required for each piece of equipment to build the road.
Tables 2 and 3 are a summary of reference flows required to satisfy the functional unit in this
hypothetical project. It should be noted at this point that, the units of measure for reference flows
are stated in US format while they will be converted to SI in subsequent sections when solving the
inventory problem. The reason is mainly due to the fact that the project is being constructed inside
the US, but as the data is chiefly available worldwide with international unit, it has been decided
to convert all units to metric within the inventory matrix.
Intervention (environmental) matrix is designed to accomplish the impacts associated with
releases of emissions to the environment. Based on the impact categories decided to be studied in
this project, 10 flows of emissions been taken into account; namely, sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matters
(PM10 and PM2.5), oxides of sulfur (SOx), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and carbon dioxide
(CO2).
3.2. Unit Processes
As explained in the reference flows, a number of unit processes involve in accomplishing the
goal of this project. Away from the unit processes of construction and material transportation
phases which are fairly straight-forward to identify based on the reference flow measurements and
estimations, three major processes need more attention. Production of bitumen by refining crude
oil, extraction and processing of aggregates, and producing hot mix asphalt in a plant. Other
processes consist of electricity generation and production of fuels both for electricity and

7
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

transportation purposes. Process flow charts for bitumen, crushed aggregate, and a batch mix
asphalt plant are included in Appendix 8.1 to 8.3., respectively. This study will use other resources
life cycle analysis results to evaluate the technology usage and emission generation of these
processes. Therefore, a detailed description of each unit process is omitted mainly due to the time
restrictions to conclude this project.
3.3. Data Collection and Assumptions
A total of 28 unit processes have been defined to achieve the functional unit of building 1 lane-
km of pavement. In places where data resources lacked transparency or missed data measures, an
attempt has been made to stick with only one resource so as to be consistent. Unit processes have
been chosen with an aim to overcome multifunctionality and cut-off in processes. For example,
electricity generation utilizes a mix of fuels as input and thus the life cycle of each fuel must be
considered in a separate unit process. Or as another example, construction practices involve several
stages that use different equipment which call for individually independent unit processes. Data
for each category of unit processes were gathered from same sources as a rule of thumb for
omitting discrepancies. As a result, four distinct categories were determined to describe unit
processes as follows.
3.3.1. Material Production
As discussed under previous section, asphalt mixtures consist of aggregates and bitumen. Three
sources of information were used to collect data for each type of material. For bitumen (and also
emulsion), data were collected from three sources (Weiland, 2008)(Eurobitume, 2012) (Lin, 2012).
In assessing their data, feedstock energy was not considered as part of the life cycle since it has
been shown in other studies that this might lead to unrealistic impact of bitumen on the life cycle
of the whole pavement life cycle (Weiland & Muench, 2010). A limitation, however, is that most
of the data are gathered in Europe and an assumption has been made that the input energy
requirements will remain the same in the location under study. Although an electricity mix has
been chosen to represent the state of Washington, other fuels types are directly in use as part of
refinery facilities.
Life cycle inputs and outputs for aggregate production have been collected mainly from two
recourses (PCA, 2007) (Lin, 2012). A local mining site was assumed to produce and process
crushed stones, sand, and gravel. Finer aggregate sizes require more energy and emit more
emissions in turn. For this reason, coarse aggregate particles assumed to follow the life cycle for
crushed stone, and fine aggregates were assumed to stay closer to the life cycle of sand and gravel.
Releases to the environment for aggregate and bitumen production lacked an estimation of nitrous
oxide and oxides of sulfur other than sulfur dioxide. Also, particulate matters were aggregated into
only PM10.
Production of hot mix asphalt in a batch plant also requires remarkable energy and releases
emissions mostly to the air. A comprehensive study of more than three hundred asphalt mix plants
provides a reliable source for the use of this study (RTI International, 2004). Emission factors were
selected based on the assumptions made on the type of plant and fabrics appropriate for this study.
In spite of the completeness of this data source and its transparency, the data is somewhat outdated.
However, the asphalt mixing technology has not been developed significantly since the date of
that study. Asphalt plant was assumed to consume only electricity and natural gas to provide heat
and other appliances. Emission factors relating to releases to the air missed data for oxides of sulfur
other than sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide.

8
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

Table 2 – Reference flows for the construction and end of life stage

Alternatives
Phase Material/Energy/Functions Unit (US) 0% 20% 40%
RAP RAP RAP
Mixing Temperature Fahrenheit 310.00 320.00 330.00
Total Breakdown Rolling Operation hours 6.00 8.40 10.80
Total Finisher Rolling Operation hours 3.00
Total Paver Operation hours 11.20
Number of Paver per lift item 1.00
Number of Breakdown Roller per lift item 1.00 1.00 1 or 2
Number of Finish Roller per lift item 1.00
Additional Energy Use (c=0.92
kJ/tonne - 5111.15 10217.15
kJ/kg.K)
Breakdown Roller Passes (per lift) number 2.00 3.00 4.00
Construction

Finisher Roller Passes (per lift) number 1.00 1.00 1.00

Crushed Coarse Stone ton 1980.00 1679.04 1378.08
Sand and Gravel Stone ton 1762.20 1310.76 859.32
Asphalt Binder ton 217.80 178.20 138.60
RAP ton 0.00 792.00 1584.00
RAP Asphalt ton 0.00 39.60 79.20
Hot mix asphalt ton 3960.00
Emulsified Asphalt Binder ton 28.04
Asphalt Transport ton-mile 198000.00
Sand and Gravel Transport ton-mile 35244.0 26215.2 17186.4
Crushed Coarse Stone Transport ton-mile 39600.0 33580.8 27561.6
Shipping asphalt by truck ton-mile 13068.0 10692.0 8316.0
Shipping emulsified asphalt by truck ton-mile 1682.26
Asphalt Milling (900 ton/hr) hours 4.4
Demolition

Backhoe Loader Operation hours 33

Excavator Operation hours 33
RAP Transport ton-mile 198000

9
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

Table 3 – Reference flows for the maintenance stage

Alternatives
Phase Material/Energy/Functions Unit (US) 0% 20% 40%
RAP RAP RAP
Number of Rehabilitations - 2 3 4
Mixing Temperature Fahrenheit 310.00
Total Breaker Operation hours 1.20
Total Finisher Operation hours 1.00
Total Paver Operation hours 2.40
Milling Operation hours 1.00
Backhoe Loader Operation hours 6.60
Excavator Operation hours 6.60
Number of Finisher Roller item 1.00
Number of Paver item 1.00
Number of Trucks Trips
item 39.60
(Demolishing)
Number of Trucks Trips (New
item 39.60
Maintenance

Asphalt)
Number of Excavator (Milling) item 1.00
Number of Finisher Passes number 1.00
Number of Breaker roller number 2.00
Number of Breaker Passes number 1.00
Demolished Asphalt ton 792.00
Crushed Coarse Stone ton 396.00
Sand and Gravel ton 352.44
Emulsified Asphalt Binder ton 18.69
Asphalt Binder ton 43.56
New HMA ton 792.00
Transport Demolished Asphalt ton-mile 39600.00
Sand and Gravel Transport ton-mile 7048.80
Crushed Coarse Stone Transport ton-mile 7920.00
Asphalt Transport (FULL) ton-mile 39600.00
Asphalt Binder Transport by Truck ton-mile 2613.60
Emulsified Asphalt Transport by
ton-mile 1121.51
Truck

A variety of different asphalt mixtures with properties not necessarily close to the case in this
project can arise some issues when comparing alternatives considered here (i.e. addition of 20%
and 40% RAP). An adjustment has therefore been made for asphalt mixtures with RAP using the
first law of thermodynamics. By knowing the amount of asphalt mixture used for each alternative,
and also using specific heat capacity of 0.92 kJ/kg.K for asphalt mixtures, the additional energy
per tons of each mix can be calculated by multiplying heat capacity to the difference in mixing
temperature. As an example, for 20% RAP mixture, it was assumed that mixing temperature would
be 320ºF (in opposed to 310º for virgin mixture).

10
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

3.3.2. Material Transportation

Since local resources are assumed to provide raw materials, transportation of goods will be
done only by trucks. A conventional heavy-duty diesel truck from GREET 2015 data base can be
a representative of the capacity required for construction purposes. A version of GREET prepared
by Professor Cooper (as shown with GREET JSC) was used as a reference for freight
transportation vehicles. A breakdown of distances and quantity of material transferred has been
tabulated in Tables 2 and 3.
3.3.3. Initial Construction, Rehabilitation, and End of Life Demolition
Construction equipment explained in section 3.1. are needed to construct (paving and rolling),
rehabilitate (milling, paving, rolling), and demolish (milling) the asphalt pavements. Information
on fuel consumptions and efficiencies were gathered originally from NONROAD (2008).
However, since NONROAD software encountered some malfunctions due to incompatibility with
recent operation systems, data for construction equipment were extracted from elsewhere (Lin,
2012). All equipment was chosen so as to use diesel as fuel. In evaluating the environmental
impacts, no data was found on releases of SOx and N2O for all non-road vehicles. The effect of
construction on noise pollution, traffic delay costs, vehicle idling, and transportation of equipment
to construction site was considered out of the scope of this study.
3.3.4. Fuel and Electricity
Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) region best represents the electricity mix
exist in Washington state. GREET JCS 2015 was used to assess the point of use electricity
generation input/output as well as for fuel production. A list of fuels considered in this study are
i) conventional and LS diesel at fueling station, ii) diesel for construction equipment, iii) natural
gas as a stationary fuel, iv) natural gas for electricity generation, v) residual oil at the point of use,
and vi) coal to power plant. A flow for non-fossil fuel contribution to electricity was also
considered in the intervention matrix. An attributional LCA is intended for use in this study while
at the same time rehabilitation practices are planned in the future. To simplify the calculations and
avoid extrapolating electricity mix data to future years, only the electricity mix for 2015 was
considered.
3.4. Data Quality, Validation, and Allocation
Assessment of data quality was carried out based on the seven categories described previously.
Although the data quality could be inadequate for a comprehensive analysis of actual design and/or
decision making, accomplishing the goal and scope of this study appears reasonable following the
evaluation listed in Table 4. Data validation for this project was neglected as for the majority of
unit processes a secondary source has been used instead of running the full life cycle. Validation
has been performed and discussed in the sources wherever referred. For instance, through bitumen
and hot mix asphalt production a mass balance equilibrium was conducted in the original source.
Furthermore, the allocation procedure has been discussed prior to this section which attempted on
dividing multifunctional unit processes into sub-processes and how data for each individual
process was collected.
3.5. Inventory Problem Solution
A computational approach described in Heijungs & Suh (2002) been followed to solve the
inventory problem. In that, two separate matrices concerning a technology matrix (A) and an
environmental matrix (B) would form the skeleton of an inventory problem. Each row in either
11
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

matrices describes a reference flow and each column is associated with a unit process. A sign
convention is to specify energy and material inputs with a negative value, and outputs (releases)
to the environment with a positive number. To reach into the functional unit defined for this study,
first the technology matrix should be multiplied by a scaling vector (s) to indicate how different
unit processes contribute to the inventory problem. Showing mathematically, As=f. A detailed
table of technology and environmental matrices are included in Appendix 8.4. Appendix 8.5. also
summarizes the resultant scaling vectors.
Solution of an inventory problem, however, requires calculation of the impacts to the
environment. An inventory vector (g) is defined in a same way as the functional unit vector. Instead
of considering flows in a technology matrix, an inventory vector is built upon how environmental
flows of each unit process aggregate into each other. Multiplying the environmental matrix by the
scaling vector yields the inventory vector to mathematically satisfy the relation Bs=g. The
approach to which this problem can be solved relies on the non-singularity of A matrix. Since the
skeleton of the technology matrix in this study was structured to use hollow processes and
allocation using sub-processes, a square A resulted in an invertible matrix. As a result; s=A-1f, and
consequently g=BA-1f would be soluble.
Table 4 – Data quality evaluation following Cooper and Kahn (2012)

Data Quality Category

Reliability and

Technological
reproducibilit

Geographical
completeness

Uncertainty
Flow data

Temporal

Precision
coverage

coverage

coverage
Unit Process Source
y

(Lin, 2012),
(Eurobitume, 2012),
(Weiland,
Bitumen 2008)(Weiland, Life
Production (no cycle assessment of B B B B A B A
feedstock) portland cement
concrete interstate
highway rehabilitation
and replacement, 2008)
(PCA, 2007), (Lin,
Aggregate
Production
2012), (AP 42, 2004), B B B B A B A
(EPA, 2000)
(RTI International,
HMA
Production
2004), (Gillespie, 2012), A A B B A A B
(Stripple, 2001)
Construction NONROAD 2008, (Lin,
Equipment 2012), (Weiland, 2008)
A B A A A B B

Transportation None (Estimation) B B A A A B B

Energy
Generation
B A A A B B B
GREET 2015 (JSC)
Electricity at
POU
A B A A B B B

12
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

3.5.1. Inventory Results

Table 5 summarizes the results of the inventory analysis for this study. The inventory vector
for each alternative is compiled with the appropriate number of rehabilitation practices required to
fulfill the functional unit. Two major contributors to the environment are the energy consumption
from natural resources and the subsequent releases to the environment. Results indicate that
although the use of higher RAP contents alleviates the service life of pavement (or equivalently
requires more maintenance stages), the overall energy consumption could be up to 30% lower. The
same is also true for each and every emission contributor. With an example of CO2 to be as high
as two times for the all virgin asphalt mixture compared to the mix with 40% RAP. However, a
caveat is in order for policy makers as user costs and impacts on traffic is not considered for this
study. More maintenance and rehabilitation operations translate into more road closures which in
turn imposes both economic and environmental costs.
Considering the whole life-cycle of the three alternatives under study in this project, Figure 3
reveals interesting observations. This chart shows how maintenance and rehabilitation of existing
roads can become a game changer in ranking alternatives in terms of energy use. Besides
rehabilitation, HMA production, material transport, and bitumen production contribute to more
than 85% of the total energy use for all alternatives. This suggests the importance of considering
the maintenance phase of road surface operation in conducting an LCA. Furthermore, as will be
discussed later, devising some strategies to perform maintenance operation more efficiently has
the ability to change the analysis results remarkably.
Table 5 – Inventory problem solution

Item Unit 0% RAP 20% RAP 40% RAP Rehabilitation

Total Energy kJ -4.29E+09 -4.86E+09 -5.43E+09 -6.57E+08
Non-Fossil Energy kJ -8.17E+07 -9.03E+07 -9.89E+07 -1.26E+07
Fossil Fuels kJ -4.03E+09 -4.58E+09 -5.12E+09 -6.18E+08
Coal kJ -2.20E+08 -2.42E+08 -2.64E+08 -3.53E+07
Natural Gas kJ -2.36E+09 -2.69E+09 -3.01E+09 -3.50E+08
Petroleum kJ -1.45E+09 -1.65E+09 -1.85E+09 -2.33E+08
SO2 g 2.71E+05 2.93E+05 3.15E+05 4.51E+04
VOC g 1.44E+05 1.57E+05 1.71E+05 2.36E+04
CO g 1.43E+06 1.63E+06 1.82E+06 2.17E+05
NOx g 5.15E+05 5.78E+05 6.41E+05 8.80E+04
PM10 g 2.52E+05 3.00E+05 3.48E+05 5.55E+04
PM2.5 g 3.44E+04 4.01E+04 4.58E+04 5.51E+03
SOx g 5.11E+04 5.78E+04 6.45E+04 7.77E+03
CH4 g 7.23E+05 8.13E+05 9.03E+05 1.11E+05
N2O g 2.43E+03 2.74E+03 3.05E+03 3.65E+02
CO2 g 2.20E+08 2.50E+08 2.79E+08 3.43E+07

13
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

4. Impact Assessment
Now that the intervention matrix is obtained, it is time to further investigate the effect of each
environmental flow on the proposed categories. Following what discussed previously as the goal
and scope, this study will investigate how each alternative would affect the environment in terms
of a number of impact categories. Impacts are generally classified as having either midpoint or
endpoint effects. At the midpoint level, recourse and emissions related impacts form the basis of
analysis. The extent of which midpoint categories would spread their influence at lower levels are
translated into endpoint categories. The mathematical procedure to achieve midpoint and endpoint
contributors involves choosing some characterization factors. The following section describes in
more details how inventory results are characterized into the categories of interest in this study.
4.1. Characterization
Environmental flows associated with each alternative under study should be translated into
more sensible metrics that are concerned with specific environmental phenomenon. A good
example is climate change where a combination of emissions contribute in part to its occurrence.
Characterization factors are then defined to quantitatively translate emissions and resource
extractions to a number of environmental impacts. These factors are obtained from complex
models which explanation is out of the scope of this study. There are a number of references that
provide these factors, among which ReCiPe is one of the most referred resources. 18 midpoint
indicators and 3 endpoint indicators are explained in ReCiPe (Huijbregts, et al., 2016).
Midpoint categories selected for this project are climate change (CO2eq), acidification (SO2eq),
photochemical ozone formation (effects on human health and ecosystem, NOxeq), and particulate
matter formation (PM2.5). All three endpoint categories of human health (disability adjusted life
years or DALY), terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems (species.year) are also considered. The
terms stated in parenthesis show the basis each environmental flow is converted to. An
individualistic perspective has been adopted wherever that matters. The latest characterization
factors were captured from ReCiPe 2016 to assess impacts.
As expected, alternatives having more RAP content had the highest impact on the categories
under consideration both at midpoint and endpoint levels. As Figures 4 and 5 also suggest, effects
are more severe in terms of impacts on climate change (CO2eq) and human health (DALY).
Influence on freshwater ecosystem is minimal compared to the rest. However, without a basis for
comparison, any conclusion on the significance of each impact category in an overall perspective
cannot be made meaningfully. Normalization is a technique to explore in more depth how
significant these numbers could be interpreted in a much wider scope.
4.2. Normalization
An understanding of how significant the impact assessment results can be in a larger scale
(regionally, globally, etc.), normalization attempts on sketching a relation between the emissions
produced at the level of this study and a much larger perspective. In other words, although Figure
4 previously showed that the quantity of CO2eq is highest compared to other emissions, without
knowing the extent of each emissions in a regional scale, drawing a comparison does not seem
rational. Hence, since this study was conducted within the Washington state region, some
information from reliable data sources will be required for the sake of comparison. The U.S. energy
information administration (eia) gathers valuable data on the energy consumption and some of the
emissions throughout the country. Reviewing their available databases, information on total energy

14
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

use and production per each source of raw material was found. On the emissions side, CO2
appeared to be the only chemical having a well-documented source of information.

100.00% Coal to power plant

0.54% 0.32%
0.82% 1.63% 1.45%
1.84% 1.55%
1.80%
1.66%
2.06%
Residual Oil, at POU
2.28%
2.56% 3.76%
90.00% 4.58% Natural gas as a stationary fuel
5.61%
6.32%
Diesel for nonroad engines
9.07%
80.00% HMA Milling
12.57%
11.67%
Loader
12.49%
70.00% Excavator

13.54% Finish Rolling, Roller 1

60.00% 22.16% Breakdown rolling, Roller 1

Material Transfer Vehicle 1

24.53%
50.00% HMA Paving, Paver 1

27.53% Crushed Stone Production

40.00% Sand and Gravel Production

Bitumen Emulsion Production (no feedstock)

30.00% Conventional and LS Diesel, at fueling station

48.44%
Natural gas for electricity generation

20.00% 40.60% Electricity at POU

30.67% Bitumen Production (no feedstock)

10.00% Truck Transportation

HMA Production

0.00% Rehabilitation
0% RAP 20% RAP 40% RAP

Figure 3 – Life-cycle energy consumption breakdown for each alternative

15
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

State of Washington open data platform also provides valuable information on more detailed
emissions throughout the statewide industries under operation. No precise data was existed,
however, on their record except for some emissions information for a number of the major facilities
within the state. After examining the data from both sources, it has been realized that the CO2
emissions obtained from Washington dataset differs from what eia reports by a factor of four.
Since no more reliable dataset was found up to date, a simplistic approach has been followed to
make corrections to the state emissions records. In that, all the other emissions were multiplied by
a factor of four with the assumption of identical linear correlation among all emissions as for CO2.
Furthermore, the project described in this study is specific to only one lane-mile of pavement
construction. There are approximately more than 100,000 lane-miles of road exist in the state of
Washington. Based on previous studies, annual statewide hot mix asphalt production falls
somewhere near 3.5 million tons. As another estimation, this amount of hot mix asphalt can be
translated into nearly 2000 lane-miles of pavement annually constructed with a structure identical
to the proposed design in the present research. Multiplying emissions by 2000, then ballparks the
amount of emissions produced yearly due to asphalt pavement construction. The ratio of these
values to the total statewide emissions are calculated and shown via Figure 6. It is also worth
mentioning that in these calculations no rehabilitation was assumed to take place as the data were
available only for 2015.
A surprising immediate observation from Figure 6 is that despite CO2 is produced by more than
two orders of magnitude over other emissions (see Table 5), it is not the biggest contributor in a
regional scale. Interestingly, particulate matter produced during the initial construction of all
alternatives contribute to more than 1.5% of the total amounts produced annually by major
industries within the state. Other noticeable contributor to the total statewide quantities is the
natural gas. The reason behind this happening could be that HMA plants consume natural gas as
their main source to heat up aggregates and bitumen.
5. Interpretation
The last step in conducting an LCA is where data are aggregated, categorized, and are ready for
interpretation. Up to this point, results showed that how different alternatives can be sorted out
based on some basic measures such as total energy use and their impact on the environment. A
conclusion can be made based on the results obtained from inventory analysis and impact
assessment. However, the sources of difference have not been recognized in details. This section,
therefore, tries to shed more light on the significant issues around each alternative so as to explain
which operations during the life cycle of each product dominate the effects on energy and
emissions output. Thus, within the subsections that will follow, first the unit processes involved in
this project are grouped into certain categories based on their similarities (e.g. transportation,
materials production, etc.). A sensitivity of analysis to fluctuations in input values associated with
major processes is discussed afterwards. This will help specifying the areas in which improvement
in data quality and accuracy is required. Finally, a short discussion on how the results of this study
differ from or agree to prior researches carried out through the literature will wrap up the present
report.

16
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

1.00E+09

1.00E+08

1.00E+07

1.00E+06
Emissions (grams)

1.00E+05
0% RAP
1.00E+04 20% RAP

1.00E+03 40% RAP

1.00E+02

1.00E+01

1.00E+00
g CO2eq g SO2eq g NOxeq g Noxeq g PM2.5eq
(Human) (Ecosystem)
Figure 4 – Midpoint impact assessment

1.00E-09

1.00E-08

1.00E-07
DALY or Species.Year

1.00E-06

1.00E-05
0% RAP
1.00E-04 20% RAP

1.00E-03 40% RAP

1.00E-02

1.00E-01

1.00E+00
Human Health Terrestrial Freshwater
Ecosystems Ecosystems
Figure 5 – Endpoint impact assessment
17
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

0% RAP 20% RAP 40% RAP

CO2

N2O

CH4

SOx

PM

NOx

CO

VOC

SO2

Petroleum

Natural Gas

Coal

Fossil Fuels

Total Energy

0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00%

Percent of State Wide per Year

Figure 6 – Statewide normalization results

5.1. Contribution Analysis
As mentioned earlier, unit processes defined to fall within the system boundary of this study
can be grouped into six major processes. These are defined as i) materials production, ii) material
transportation, iii) fuel consumption and electricity generation, iv) end of life demolition, v) initial
construction operations, and vi) maintenance and rehabilitation during the analysis period of 50
years. One of the main points of emphasis is the energy consumption. Figure 7 illustrates a
breakdown of energy consumption contributed to each group of operation/process. This chart

18
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

explains how material production and lifetime maintenance of roads take up the majority of total
energy consumed during the life cycle.
This further suggests that as more RAP is added to asphalt mixtures, maintenance and
rehabilitation of pavements become predominant in the amount of energy used to keep road
surfaces perform similarly well. Another interesting observation from Figure 7 is that if
considering only the first year construction of each alternative, addition of RAP to mixtures lessens
the total energy consumption. As a result, one can contend that enhancements in rehabilitation
practices can significantly influence how different alternatives are ranked within the total energy
use perspective.
Other than energy consumption, it is worthy of mention that how different impact categories
contribute to the process groups considered earlier. Figure 8 is one way of allocating each impact
category to unit processes for the 0% RAP alternative, excluding the rehabilitation process.
Appendix 8.6. includes a same chart for other two alternatives but the general trend stays almost
the same. As can be seen from this chart, materials production again contributes to almost half of
all the impacts characterized in this project. Climate change associated with the amount of CO2eq,
however, acts quite differently where transportation and fuel/electricity generation together
contribute to more than half of the impacts. This could be in part due to the fact that truck
transportation has one of the lowest fuel efficiencies among other processes (which also produces
high levels of carbon containing emissions). The same interpretation is also true for the fuel
consumption especially at the asphalt plant where natural gas is used as one of the primary sources
of heat generation.

-6.00E+09

-5.00E+09

-4.00E+09 Rehabilitation
Initial Construction
Energy (kJ)

-3.00E+09 End of Life

Fuel and Electricity
-2.00E+09 Transportation
Materials Production
-1.00E+09

0.00E+00
0% RAP 20% RAP 40% RAP

Figure 7 – Energy consumption contribution to groups of unit processes

19
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

0% RAP
100%
90%
80% Fuel and Electricity
70%
60% End of Life
50%
40% Initial Construction
30%
20% Transportation
10%
0% Materials Production

Figure 8 – Impact categories contributed to each group of unit processes for the first stage
construction of 0% RAP alternative
5.1. Sensitivity Analysis
The previous subsection described how different categorized unit processes contribute to the
impacts of interest to this study. Although they are advantageous in specifying which unit
processes have the most significant impact in relation to the overall performance of each product,
they are unable to show how improving the efficiency of each process can lead to overall better
performance of systems as a whole. To this aim, based on the impact of interest which is more
critical in an area or a region, decisions can be made to modify and remedy deficiencies associated
with certain processes.
Four types of sensitivity analysis are performed to investigate their influence to four impact
categories of energy consumption, global warming potential (climate change), acidification, and
particulate matter formation. As indicated upon prior sections, three groups of processes (namely
materials production, transportation, and rehabilitation) turned out to have the most noticeable
influence on the final outcomes. For this reason, the performance of system products were
evaluated based on the assumption that each of the can be ameliorated by 20%. To elaborate, truck
fuel efficiencies can be improved to produce 20% less emissions and consume 20% less energy
inputs. HMA and bitumen production can also be amended in a way to consume/produce less
energy/emissions. Lastly, a 20% reduction in rehabilitation effort required during the whole life
cycle of each alternative was assumed.
Figure 9 represents the sensitivity analysis results based on each area of enhancement. For all
impacts under consideration, more efficient rehabilitation practices rises with the instruction of
more RAP into mixtures, which makes sense since rehabilitation was shown to be the major
20
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

contributors to all impact categories. In terms of total energy consumption, higher HMA
production efficiency contributes the most with an increase in their effectivity when more RAP is
added. In view of the effects on climate change, higher efficiencies in each process would lead to
almost similar reduction in CO2eq emissions. Increasing bitumen production efficiency has the
most remarkable impression on acidification. Apparently, higher bitumen production efficiency
would impact asphalt mixtures made without RAP as more bitumen is used in products made with
only virgin materials. Regarding the particulate matter formation, HMA production again can be
viewed as the most significant contributor. Therefore, if for instance an agency concerns more with
the particulate matter formation, asphalt plants can be regarded as an essential distributor.
5.2. Data Evaluation
Section 5.3. discussed some aspects of data quality collected to run LCA in this project. They
were categorized based on an A-B evaluation method where A denoted the case where certain
criteria have been met, and B where the opposite is true. Based on what was brought up in previous
subsections, major contributors to outputs were identified to be HMA production, bitumen
production, transportation, and fuel consumption/electricity generation. Since the rehabilitation
process within itself contains no additional base process, a data quality cannot be explained
independently for maintenance practices. It is worthwhile now to explore in more details how these
major contributors can be qualified as reliable, consistent, and complete sources of data.
5.2.1. HMA Production
Data collected for HMA production consists more of “A” quality. Although the data were
somewhat outdated, it was based on a comprehensive study of approximately 400 asphalt plants.
Since the results were obtained originally from one source (RTI International, 2004), it can be
argued that the consistency requirement is met. Being part of the EIA agency, the source of data
could also be considered as reliable due to the fact that statistical analysis were performed on their
databases. The only deficiency could be related to the inclusion of RAP in their database. Average
emission factors have been used to estimate environmental flows in this study where mixtures with
and without RAP were aggregated. The data also lacked completeness as N2O and SOx emissions
were not included. This could be a reason why HMA production showed less sensitivity to
acidification.
5.2.1. Bitumen Production
Data for bitumen production were gathered from a European source which within itself included
mostly of “B” quality. One can be skeptical of the geographical coverage more than any other
quality category since the bitumen used in this project was assumed to be produced locally near
Seattle. The advantage of using one source of data, however, can ascertain to some extent that the
data is consistently gathered. One major shortage can be related to environmental flows of PM2.5
formation, N2O, and SOx emissions. As a result, particulate matter formation appeared to be less
sensitive to the improvements in bitumen production efficiency. Moreover, SOx emissions seem
to be included in SO2 since acidification is still sensitive to bitumen production efficiency.

21
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

Total Energy
-12.00%
Percent Change

-10.00%
-8.00%
0% RAP
-6.00%
-4.00% 20% RAP
-2.00%
40% RAP
0.00%
20% More Truck 20% More HMA 20% More Bitumen 20% Less
Efficiency Production Efficiency Production Efficiency Rehabilitation

GWP
-12.00%
Percent Change

-10.00%
-8.00%
0% RAP
-6.00%
-4.00% 20% RAP
-2.00%
40% RAP
0.00%
20% More Truck 20% More HMA 20% More Bitumen 20% Less
Efficiency Production Efficiency Production Efficiency Rehabilitation

Acidification
-12.00%
Percent Change

-10.00%
-8.00%
0% RAP
-6.00%
-4.00% 20% RAP
-2.00%
40% RAP
0.00%
20% More Truck 20% More HMA 20% More Bitumen 20% Less
Efficiency Production Efficiency Production Efficiency Rehabilitation

Particulate Matter
-12.00%
Percent Change

-10.00%
-8.00%
0% RAP
-6.00%
-4.00% 20% RAP
-2.00%
40% RAP
0.00%
20% More Truck 20% More HMA 20% More Bitumen 20% Less
Efficiency Production Efficiency Production Efficiency Rehabilitation

Figure 9 – Sensitivity analysis results based on four different impact categories of energy
consumption, climate change, acidification, and particulate matter formation

22
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

5.2.2. Transportation
The first thing to note about transportation is that hauling distances are specific to the locations
assumed for this project. However, these distances were within a reasonable range for asphalt
paving operations and would not differ enormously from site to site. The environmental flows for
transportation category, which basically includes fuel consumption and emissions associated with
it for a specific type of truck, were extracted from GREET database. The consistency of data is
hence subject to a consistent trend and can be thought as being satisfied. Although data quality
analysis showed more data having a “B” score, the energy consumption and emissions obtained
from GREET seem to be fairly complete except for the evaluation of SO2 releases. To fix this lack
of data, an assumption has been made on the equality of SOx and SO2 emissions. However, as
conferred from the sensitivity analysis discussed earlier, improving transportation efficiency did
not contribute significantly to the acidification. More details on RAP transportation efficiency can
be found in Ashtiani and Muench (2020).
5.2.3. Electricity and Energy Generation
GREET has been used as the primary source of information on the electricity grid and emissions
related to energy generation. Since almost every LCA requires data from electricity grid, data in
this category seems to be the most reliable. Having the grid grouped into WECC regional
electricity is however poses some constraints on the use of data. The state of Washington relies
greatly on hydropower for electricity generation, while the same is not true for other states within
the region. Same as for transportation data collected from GREET, SO2 releases are not captured
as part of the environmental flows. Other than that, GREET seems to provide consistent and
complete information on other interventions. A sensitivity analysis was not performed for how
enhancing electricity generation efficiency might affect each impact category. The reasoning
behind this decision is that it is way more difficult to make short-term adjustments to how
electricity grid distributes power and utilizes different sources of energy which is beyond the scope
of a unique project.
5.3. Relation to Other Studies
Although existing literature seems to have a consistent definition over the functional and
functional unit of a piece of road, one challenge in making valid comparisons is the differences in
the structural design of road surfaces. This study assumed a 10-inch thick asphalt pavement built
in three lifts. It was assumed that (based on experience) this design would last for the analysis
period of 50 years. Although having different perspectives into the design details and longevity of
pavements, the order of magnitude of the resultant energy consumption and emissions should not
differ vastly. No studies to date have addressed the exact problem brought up in this project;
compare LCA for alternatives having varying amounts of RAP. The only published paper by Jillien
et al. (2006) attempted on comparing pavement layers made with different rates of reclaimed
asphalt. They have only gone over the emissions in terms of VOC, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH), and odors and concluded that using RAP might increase these emissions.
The study done by Stripple (2001) is one of the most comprehensive researches on LCA for
pavements. The final results for energy consumption and environmental interventions were by one
order of magnitude higher for that study. One reason could be due to the fact that soil subbase
layers construction also considered in that study. Zaoata and Gambastese (2005) contended that
48% of energy consumption comes from asphalt mixing and drying of aggregates which is quite
higher than what was found in this study (between 40 to 43% depending on RAP content). They

23
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

further alleged that bitumen production contributes to 40% of the total energy which is by far
different than 19 to 13% found in this study.
Giani et al. (2015) used a same functional unit as for this project and yielded almost similar
results. The order of magnitude for CO2eq emissions and energy consumption fell in a same range
as presented herein. Their results further suggest that extraction and production of virgin materials
had up to 40% contribution to CO2eq. That study also incorporated the use of RAP in asphalt
mixtures and recommended savings of up to 15% for energy use and emission where RAP is
substituted for virgin materials. However, their method included in-place recycling of RAP.
Weiland and Muench (2010) have also performed an LCA comparing three different paving
alternatives and found that materials production contributes to around half of the total energy and
global warming potential. The energy consumption in that study agrees closely to what was found
in the present project; however, the CO2eq emissions are by two order of magnitudes different.
This may call for further investigation into their model since the total energy consumptions and
global warming potential are closely correlated.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Recycled asphalt pavements are well known to be the most recycled materials by weight in the
U.S. However, using RAP as a substitute for virgin materials endangers the quality of final product
which in turn calls for more treatment and preservation practices during its lifetime. This project
evaluated the LCA of three major alternatives having no RAP, 20% RAP, and 40% RAP for a
typical asphalt pavement project in Seattle area. Results of this study showed that impacts
associated with using high RAP contents from energy use and emissions releases perspectives are
more severe than a mixture made with just virgin materials.
The main contributor to reach this conclusion is the rehabilitation practices required to keep the
pavement in acceptable conditions. The other main contributor to all the impact categories is the
material production operation, more specifically hot mix asphalt production at plants and bitumen
production from crude oil. Based on several assumptions on the extent of pavement works
throughout the state of Washington, it was estimated that particulate matter formation contributes
to around 1.5% of total PM emitted by major industries on a yearly basis. Improvements in HMA
production has been found to have the most remarkable influence on the final results in terms of
energy use and emission.
This study, however, eliminated the use phase of pavements which imposes user costs both
from a delay due to traffic point of view and impacts of surface roughness on vehicles’ fuel
consumption. Both of which would worsen the situation for high RAP content mixtures. On the
other hand, the landfilling and processing of RAP was not quite accounted for in this project which
might have added some more value to RAP, or equivalently would have decreased the energy
consumption/environmental emissions for those mixtures. Although RAP mixtures having more
overall energy consumption seemed to be disadvantageous based on the results of this study, there
might be more insight into benefits of putting back them into service life which was neglected or
ignored. In other words, the extra amount of energy consumption may in fact worth the
expenditures (or equally emissions).
To make RAP mixtures win this race, some recommendations could be made on how their use
in asphalt mixtures can be amended since rehabilitation turned out to be the main reason those
mixtures have lost the competition. One practice is to use closed-loop recycling approach by
implementing hot in-place or cold in-place recycling of asphalt mixtures. In this practice, asphalt

24
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

pavement surface is milled out and goes directly to some equipment that heat up the removed RAP
right in place. After it has been heated up, adequate amount of virgin materials will be added to
meet the mix design requirements. After achieving the proper requirements, they are repaved on
the surface and then compacted using some rollers. This practice basically eliminates the
processing and transportation of RAP to and from site.
As another suggestion, a softer bitumen is widely believed to compensate for the adverse effects
of the aged bitumen coming from out of service RAP. Softer bitumen is less viscous and will help
achieving an overall less oxidized blends of aged and virgin bitumen. As a consequence, the
number of rehabilitation practices for high RAP contents could become just as the same as all
virgin asphalt mixtures. This will greatly widens the service life of mixtures made with RAP. The
downside of this approach is primarily related to the additional costs incurred to the contractors.
A softer grade of asphalt binder usually costs more than what is required for all virgin mixtures.
In terms of energy use and emissions, however, no significant changes are expected to occur for
different grades of bitumen.
7. References
Anthonissen, J., Braet, J., & Van den bergh, W. (2015). Life cycle assessment of bituminous
pavements produced at various temperatures in the Belgium context. Transportation
Research Part D, 41, 306-317.
AP 42. (2004). Introduction to construction and aggregate processing. In Compilation of air
emission factors (p. Section 11.19). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Balaguera, A., Carvajal, G. I., Albertí, J., & Palmer, P. F. (2018). Life cycle assessment of road
construction alternative materials: A literature review. Resources, Conservation &
Recycling, 132, 37-48.
Chester, M. V., & Horvath, A. (2009a). Environmental assessment of passenger transportation
should include infrastructure and supply chains. Environmental Research Letters, 4(2),
1-8.
Cooper, J. S., & Kahn, E. (2012). Commentary on issues in data quality analysis in life cycle
assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(4), 499-503.
EPA. (2000). Hot mix asphalt plants emission assessment report. Emissions Monitoring and
Analysis Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle
Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Eurobitume. (2012). Life cycle inventory: Bitumen. Brussels, Belgium: European Bitumen
Association.
Farina, A., Zanetti, M. C., Santagata, E., & Blengini, G. A. (2016). Life cycle assessment
applied to bituminous mixtures containing recycled materials: Crumb rubber and
reclaimed asphalt pavement. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 117, 204-212.
Giani, M. I., Dotelli, G., Brandini, N., & Zampori, L. (2015). Comparative life cycle assessment
of asphalt pavements using reclaimed asphalt, warm mix technology and cold in-place
recycling. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 104, 224-238.
Gillespie, I. (2012). Quantifying the energy used in an asphalt coating plant. Department of
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. University of Strathclyde.
GREET. (2015). The greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in transportation
model . Retrieved February 2018, from Argonne National Laboratory:
https://greet.es.anl.gov

25
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

Harvey, J. T., Meijer, J., Ozer, H., Al-Qadi, I. L., Saboori, A., & Kendall, A. (2015). Pavement
life-cycle assessment framework. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S.
Department of Transportation. Washington, D.C.: FHWA.
Heijungs, R., & Suh, S. (2002). The computational structure of life cycle assessment (Vol. 11).
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
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.
Huijbregts, M. A., Steinmann, Z. J., Elshout, P. M., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M., . . . Zelm,
R. (2016, December 12). ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment
method at midpoint and endpoint level. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
22(2), 138-147.
IARC. (2013). Bitumens and bitumen emissions, and some n- and s-heterocyclic polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (Vol. 103). Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on
Cancer.
Jullien, A., Monèron, P., Quaranta, G., & Gaillard, D. (2006). Air emissions from pavement
layers composed of varying rates of reclaimed asphalt. Resources, Conservation &
Recycling, 47, 356-374.
Lin, Y.-Y. (2012). Eco-decision making for pavement construction projects. Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
Mukherjee, A., & Dylla, H. (2017). Challenges to using environmental product declarations in
communicating life-cycle assessment results. Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, 2639, 84-92.
NONROAD. (2008). NONROAD model (nonroad engines, equipment, and vehicles). Retrieved
February 2018, from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/moves/nonroad-model-nonroad-engines-equipment-and-vehicles
PCA. (2007). Life cycle inventory of portland cement concrete. Sokie, IL: Portland Cement
Association.
Polat, M. O., & Bektas, N. (2015). Life cycle assessment of asphalt pavement product. Journal
of Sustainable Environment Resource, 25(5), 275-281.
RTI International. (2004). Emission factor documentation for AP-42; Section 11.1: Hot mix
asphalt plants. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Measurement
Center. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Santero, N. J., Masanet, E., & Horvath, A. (2011a). Life-cycle assessment of pavements part I:
Critical review. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 55, 801-809.
Santero, N. J., Masanet, E., & Horvath, A. (2011b). Life-cycle assessment of pavements part
II: Filling the research gaps. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 55, 810-818.
Stripple, H. (2001). Life cycle assessment of road: A pilot study for inventory analysis.
Gothenburg, Sweden: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute.
Weiland, C. D. (2008). Life cycle assessment of portland cement concrete interstate highway
rehabilitation and replacement. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
Weiland, C. D., & Muench, S. T. (2010). Life-cycle assessment of reconstruction options for
interstate highway pavement in Seattle, Washington. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2170, 18-27.

26
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

Zapata, P., & Gambatese, J. A. (2005, March 1). Energy consumption of asphalt and reinforced
concrete pavement materials and construction. Journal of Infrastructure Systems , 11,
9-20.
Zokaei Ashtiani, M., & Muench, S. (2020). Network-Level Life Cycle Assessment of
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in Washington State. International Symposium on
Pavement. Roadway, and Bridge Life Cycle Assessment. Sacramento, CA: Taylor &
Francis. doi:10.1201/9781003092278-25

Appendix

27
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

7.1. Bitumen Production Flow Chart

(IARC, 2013)

7.2. Crushed Aggregate Production Flow Chart

28
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

(AP 42, 2004)

29
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

7.3. Batch Mix Asphalt Plant Flow Diagram

(RTI International, 2004)

30
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

7.4. Scaling Vectors Summary

31
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 18 December 2020 doi:10.20944/preprints202012.0442.v1

7.5. 20% RAP and 40% RAP Impact Contributions

20% RAP
100%

90% Fuel and Electricity

80%
End of Life
70%

60% Initial Construction

50%
Transportation
40%

30% Materials Production

20%

10%

0%
Energy g CO2eq g SO2eq g NOxeq g NOxeq g PM2.5eq

40% RAP
100%

90% Fuel and Electricity

80%
End of Life
70%

60% Initial Construction

50%
Transportation
40%

30% Materials Production

20%

10%

0%
Energy g CO2eq g SO2eq g NOxeq g NOxeq g PM2.5eq

32