Life-Cycle Environmental Analysis
for Evaluation of Pavement
Rehabilitation Options
Stephen A. Cross, Warren H. Chesner, Henry G. Justus,
and Edward R. Kearney
Transportation engineers, planners, and policy makers are currently faced
with the need to incorporate sustainability issues such as energy use,
greenhouse gas emissions, and overall health impacts into the decision-
making process. Life-cycle environmental analysis (LCEA) is one of
the evolving tools available to assist in this effort. LCEA differs from
traditional environmental analysis in that LCEA takes a more compre-
hensive look, or global perspective, at the environmental and resource
burden of specific management decisions as opposed to traditional envi-
ronmental analysis, which tends to focus almost exclusively on specific
impacts at the activity or in the immediate geographic vicinity of the
activity. The results of a study are presented: the computer program
Pavement Life-Cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental and Economic
Effects (PaLATE) was used to compare the environmental burden of
employing cold in-place recycling with the environmental burden of
the conventional maintenance options of a 3-in. mill and fill and a 3-in.
hot-mix asphalt overlay. The results illustrate the potential of life-cycle
environmental models to assist transportation officials in developing
21st century transportation policy as well as the current limitations
associated with their use.
In the U.S. economy, transportation is second only to electricity
generation in terms of the volume and rate of growth of greenhouse
gas emissions. Transportation accounts for approximately one-third
of all U.S. end-use sector carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Each
year the U.S. transportation sector produces more CO2 emissions
than the entire economy of any other nation except China. Highway
vehicles (fuel consumption) are the primary source of these emissions,
accounting for over 70% of total greenhouse gas transportation
emissions (1). As a result, prior strategies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and energy use in the transportation sector have focused on
fuel consumption through vehicular energy efficiency improvements,
low-carbon fuel alternatives, increased operating efficiency of the
transportation system, and reduced travel.
More recently, and perhaps more relevant to the highway planning
and engineering community, it has been recognized that more efficient
S. A. Cross, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 207 Engineering South,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078. W. H. Chesner, H. G. Justus,
and E. R. Kearney, Chesner Engineering, P.C., 38 West Park Avenue, Suite 200,
Long Beach, NY 11561. Corresponding author: S. A. Cross, steve.cross@
okstate.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2227, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2011, pp. 43–52.
DOI: 10.3141/2227-05
43
highway operational strategies (construction, maintenance, and agency
operations) can assist in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The
development of more efficient highway operational strategies is
hampered by the lack of empirical information and methodologies
to assist planners in improving such strategies (2).
The results are presented of a New York State Department of
Transportation (New York State DOT) study that employed a life-
cycle environmental assessment model to provide information on
energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental emissions
associated with pavement rehabilitation maintenance options cur-
rently employed in New York State. Maintenance options considered
included cold in-place recycling (CIPR) with and without add-stone,
mill and fill, and a two-course hot-mix asphalt (HMA) overlay. The
results are examined of the analysis and the current limitations
associated with life-cycle environmental analysis (LCEA) to evaluate
highway construction and maintenance practices.
BACKGROUND
Environmental assessment methods have historically focused on
air emissions, wastewater discharges, and solid waste generated
in the immediate vicinity of the prescribed action. For example,
rehabilitation of an existing pavement can be expected to induce
air emissions associated with construction equipment operations,
fugitive dust emissions associated with pavement demolition activ-
ities, water emissions associated with dust control operations, and
solid waste generation due to the removal of the old pavement. The
environmental burden on air, water, and land resources resulting from
these emissions can then be projected through the use of environ-
mental models or direct calculations. In addition, it is a straightforward
process to calculate the energy consumed (fuel used) to implement
such a process. This approach is sometimes referred to as a process-
based environmental analysis, in which the major material and energy
inputs and outputs are identified and quantified, and the impacts from
the resulting environmental emissions are estimated.
LCEA provides a more comprehensive assessment of the envi-
ronmental burden resulting from a specific industrial activity. The
LCEA approach differs from traditional environmental analysis
in that the environmental impacts are not limited to the immediate
geographic vicinity where the activity is occurring. The development
and application of LCEA models are an outgrowth of the desire to
develop a more global perspective on the environmental and resource
burden imposed by specific industrial activities. LCEA is particularly
useful for policy makers who must address issues such as energy
44
use, greenhouse gas emissions, and overall health impacts induced
by specific policy decisions.
The LCEA model is based on the use of economic input–output
life-cycle assessment (EIO-LCA) models. The EIO-LCA method was
originally intended as a tool to estimate both direct and supply chain
economic effects for commodities by using average U.S. Department
of Commerce data (3). The objective is to provide a means to project
the effect of economic activities in one sector of the economy on
other sectors of the economy. The method is similarly applied to LCEA
by projecting the environmental burden imposed on secondary
sectors due to activity in a selected source sector of the economy.
For example, the use of asphalt cement in HMA paving induces an
environmental burden not only at the construction site where the
pavement is being constructed but also at the HMA plant where the
aggregate and asphalt cement are mixed. HMA production in turn
induces impacts at the crude oil refinery where the asphalt cement
used in the HMA is produced, at power-generating facilities where
power is generated to run the refinery, and in oil and gas extraction
operations that must pump, store, and transport the crude oil. All of
these environmental impacts result from the increased demand for
asphalt cement generated by the roadway construction project.
Similar supply chain impacts are induced because of the need for
aggregate materials in the HMA.
The EIO-LCA modeling approach was refined for use online by
researchers at the Green Design Institute of Carnegie Mellon Uni-
versity (4). Further adaptation of the EIO-LCA modeling approach
for highway construction and maintenance evaluations was undertaken
at the University of California, Berkeley, under FHWA sponsorship
(3). Work at Berkeley resulted in the development of the computer
program Pavement Life-Cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental
and Economic Effects (PaLATE) (5).
PaLATE is a hybrid model that uses the two aforementioned
analytical methods to characterize and quantify energy (fuel)
use, water use, emissions, and health risks. These models include
the process-based LCA (PB-LCA) and EIO-LCA. The EIO-LCA
method used by PaLATE is based on industrial sector data main-
tained at Carnegie Mellon University, which are available online
(4). An excellent description of the EIO-LCA method is presented
by Hendrickson et al. (6). In general, the EIO-LCA model works
as follows:
1. When a demand for a product (e.g., HMA) is initiated in any
one sector, the demand can generate demand in up to 500 economic
sectors (only a few will be measurably affected).
2. The demand is characterized monetarily (in dollars). For
example, if a contractor purchases $100 of HMA, the contractor can
induce demand defined in terms of dollars in petroleum refined,
power generation, pipeline transport, sand and gravel mining,
and so on.
3. Each dollar demand in a particular sector generates some
environmental burden (expressed in terms of resource use or pollution
emission). For example, in sand and gravel mining, each $100 spent
could result in the use of 10 gal of water, 20 kWh of power, 50 g of
particle emissions less than 10 microns, and so on.
4. In effect, each industrial sector has environmental burden
factors built into the EIO-LCA database that are defined in terms of,
for example, emissions per dollar of demand or water use per dollar
or energy use per dollar.
5. By summing the environmental burden across all economic
sectors associated with a specific activity, the total environmental
burden can be determined.
Transportation Research Record 2227
PaLATE was previously used by the Transportation Ministry in
Ontario, Canada, which undertook extensive modeling to assess the
energy and greenhouse gas emission benefits of using CIPR versus
alternative pavement rehabilitation options (7 ). Additional studies
were undertaken at the Recycled Materials Resource Center at the
University of New Hampshire, which presented comparisons of
CIPR and hot in-place recycling (8). Robinette and Epps (9) pre-
sented a detailed evaluation of the environmental burden factors in
PaLATE in a review of the benefits of flexible pavement recycling.
They found that environmental burden factors for asphalt cement were
different and considerably larger than those reported in two previous
studies (10, 11).
The EIO-LCA method of analysis for LCEA is a potentially
powerful tool that provides a much broader picture of overall envi-
ronmental and resource impacts than conventional environmental
assessment approaches do. The EIO-LCA method is, however, a
relatively recent development in environmental analysis, whose
application has accelerated over the past decade. As a result, to avoid
improper interpretation of results, numerous limitations need to be
recognized when EIO-LCA models such as PaLATE are used.
MODELING REHABILITATION OPTIONS
WITH PaLATE
To utilize PaLATE, a design pavement or model pavement is first
selected and different rehabilitation options (or pavement treatments)
are modeled to compare the environmental outputs of each option.
For this study, the modeled pavement was a two-lane, 24-ft-wide
pavement. The comparison was made on a centerline-mile basis for
the mainline pavement only.
In New York State, CIPR is one of a series of asphalt pavement
rehabilitation options designed to extend the service life of pavements.
The objective of the modeling presented here was to compare the
energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental emissions of CIPR,
mill and fill, and a two-course HMA overlay and to examine the
sensitivity of PaLATE to selected inputs, particularly asphalt cement
use. Four different treatment options were analyzed:
1. CIPR with 4-in. mill depth and 1.5-in. HMA overlay (CIPR-4),
2. CIPR with 4-in. mill depth incorporating 20% add-stone with
1.5-in. HMA overlay (CIPR-4-AS),
3. Mill and fill with 3-in. mill depth and 3-in. HMA overlay
placed in two equal lifts (MF-3), and
4. Two-course overlay consisting of a 3-in. HMA overlay placed
in two equal lifts (TCO).
Asphalt content, recycled asphalt pavement usage, and haul dis-
tances of materials are a few of the many input parameters required
by PaLATE. Pavement design data used as input into PaLATE were
as follows:
1. All HMA had 6.0% asphalt cement and contained 10% recycled
asphalt pavement with 6.0% asphalt cement;
2. CIPR-4-AS had 3.0% asphalt emulsion, based on dry mass of
the millings;
3. CIPR-4 had 2.5% asphalt emulsion, based on dry mass of
the millings; the reduced emulsion content provides the same
emulsion content for all CIPR when based on total mass of material
(millings + add-stone);
4. Asphalt emulsion had a residual asphalt content of 67%;
Cross, Chesner, Justus, and Kearney 45

5. The modeled pavements were located 25 mi from the HMA
plant;
6. The HMA plant was located 25 mi from the quarry, so the
aggregate haul distance from quarry to plant was 25 mi;
7. The haul distance from the refinery–asphalt terminal to the HMA
plant was 100 mi; and
8. The haul distance from the asphalt emulsion plant to the
modeled pavements was 100 mi.
PaLATE categorizes the highway construction process into
three operations:
ifications, will preferentially relieve specific functional distresses
(e.g., reflective cracking), and will extend the life of the pavement
for a given period. It is unlikely that such periods will be equal.
Comparative environmental analysis tends to imply equivalency,
but this interpretation may not necessarily be accurate. From a
structural perspective, TCO adds the most structure followed by CIPR
and MF-3. However, CIPR and MF are not generally considered
treatment options for structural distresses but for functional distress.
CIPR provides the thickest depth of treatment and removes the great-
est depth of existing pavement, both of which would be important
in treating functional distress.

• Material production,
• Material transportation, and
• Process (equipment).
Table 1 shows the three PaLATE highway construction operations
and the activities that fall under each operation. For each activity in
Table 1, PaLATE generates output data on 12 different environmental
parameters (5):
1. Energy consumption (MJ),
2. CO2 emissions (kg),
3. Water consumption (kg),
4. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions (kg),
5. Particle size less than 10 µm (PM10) emissions (kg),
6. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions (kg),
7. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions (kg),
8. Mercury (Hg) emissions (g),
9. Lead (Pb) emissions (g),
10. Resource Conservation Recovery Act hazardous waste gen-
erated (kg),
11. Human toxicity potential cancerous (g), and
12. Human toxicity potential noncancerous (kg).
TREATMENT EQUIVALENCIES
Comparative environmental analysis of preselected maintenance
treatment options is complicated by the fact that the respective options
are rarely equivalent. Each option will have specific structural ram-
EIO-LCA MODEL QUALIFICATIONS
The development of EIO-LCA models for LCEA as noted earlier
is a relatively new process. The databases currently available to
predict supply chain environmental impacts are in the early stages
of development and generally rely on simplifying assumptions and
aggregate or average resource use and pollutant release data associated
with broad industrial sectors to project environmental burdens.
Data available from many industrial sectors to project an accurate
environmental burden are currently limited. In some instances
available data may be outdated, incomplete, or nonspecific. As
reported by Robinette and Epps (9), absolute values predicted
by a highway construction model such as PaLATE can be highly
inaccurate. The approach at this stage of model development would
appear to be best suited for comparative analysis such as the one
presented here.
One of the more notable features in EIO-LCA models is the
assumption of proportionality in the translation of production from
one sector to the next and, hence, of proportionality in environmental
burden. What this assumption means is that a $1,000 economic demand
in one industrial sector will have 10 times the environmental burden
of a $100 demand. This linear assumption can introduce significant
error if the relationship between demand and environmental burden
is nonlinear. When this is the case, the readjustment or reallocation
of environmental burden factors is a necessary procedure. This par-
ticular feature was identified as an area of concern in projecting the
impacts associated with the use of asphalt cement in the construction
or rehabilitation process.

TABLE 1 Highway Construction Operations and Activities Defined in PaLATE

CIPR-4-AS CIPR-4 MF-3 TCO

Construction Operation Activity HMA CIPR HMA CIPR HMA Cold Milling HMA

Material production Virgin aggregates X X X X X

Material transportation
Processes (equipment)
Asphalt cement X X X X
Asphalt emulsion X X
RAP a in HMA mix X X X X
Run HMA plant X X X X
Cold milling X
Haul aggregates X X X X X
Haul asphalt cement X X X X
Haul asphalt emulsion X X
Haul HMA from plant to project X X X X
Haul cold millings to plant X X X X X
HMA paving X X X X
CIPR X X

a
RAP = recycled asphalt pavement.
46 Transportation Research Record 2227

Asphalt cement is a byproduct material in the petroleum refining
process. In this process, crude petroleum is separated into its various
fractions through a distillation process at the oil refinery. After sep-
aration, these fractions are further refined into other products, which
include asphalt cement, paraffin, gasoline, naphtha, lubricating oil,
kerosene, and diesel oil. Since asphalt cement is the base or heavy
constituent of crude petroleum, asphalt cement does not evaporate or
boil off during the distillation process. Asphalt cement is essentially
the heavy residue of the oil-refining process. Asphalt cement is
not the primary product or even a major secondary product. It is
a residue byproduct that would be generated whether a demand
existed for it or did not exist. As a result, the vast majority of the
energy and emissions in an oil refinery would occur with or without
a demand for the product. When such a condition exists, unless
special industrial-specific factors are incorporated into the EIO-LCA,
a linear assumption will be assumed that will result in a proportional
increase in petroleum refinery emissions with increases in asphalt
demand.
To examine the effect of asphalt cement–related environmental
burden estimates on the LCEA, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken
to examine asphalt cement assumptions on the comparative analysis
of the four rehabilitation options modeled in the study. The following
three scenarios were developed for the analysis:
1. The results of using a complete 100% asphalt cement environ-
mental burden as projected by PaLATE;
2. The results of using a 50% asphalt cement environmental
burden, which assumes that one-half of PaLATE’s projections are
appropriate; and
3. A 0% asphalt cement environmental burden, which assumes that
there is no life-cycle asphalt cement burden (this condition essentially
reverts to the PB-LCA model without the EIO-LCA component for
asphalt).
RESULTS
Table 2 presents PaLATE-generated energy demand and green-
house gas emissions for the four maintenance options evaluated
at 100%, 50%, and 0% asphalt demand. The results of the data
in Table 2 are shown graphically in Figures 1 through 5. Figure 1
shows the energy consumed for each treatment option expressed
in terms of megajoules per mile. Greenhouse gases included in
PaLATE are CO2, CO, and NOx. CO2 is by far the predominant
component, accounting for approximately 98% of greenhouse gas
emissions. (NOx and CO are also precursors for photochemical smog
production.) Total greenhouse gas emissions for material production,

TABLE 2 PaLATE Energy and Greenhouse Gas Outputs with Differing Bitumen Demands

Treatment

Emission or Environmental Effect CIPR-4-ASa CIPR-4a MF-3 TCO

Energy (MJ)
Material production
100% asphalt demand 3,387,941 3,020,074 3,404,972 3,336,275
50% asphalt demand 1,901,205 1,695,383 2,098,678 2,031,340
0% asphalt demand 414,470 370,692 792,383 726,405
Material transportation 98,986 79,847 201,065 142,272
Process (equipment) 91,031 91,031 13,182 13,182
CO2 (kg)
Material production
100% asphalt demand 182,400 160,100 185,700 166,700
50% asphalt demand 100,350 85,750 113,650 94,700
0% asphalt demand 18,300 11,400 41,600 22,700
Material transportation 7,400 5,970 15,030 10,630
Process (equipment) 6,830 6,830 990 990
CO (kg)
Material production
100% asphalt demand 716.9 643.0 692.4 637.9
50% asphalt demand 370.5 329.0 388.5 333.9
0% asphalt demand 24.1 15.0 84.5 30.0
Material transportation 32.9 26.5 66.7 47.2
Process (equipment) 45.1 45.1 7.8 7.8
NOx (kg)
Material production
100% asphalt demand 1,022.0 922.8 1,244.7 991.7
50% asphalt demand 565.7 509.1 844.3 591.3
0% asphalt demand 109.4 95.5 443.9 190.9
Material transportation 394.3 318.0 800.8 566.7
Process (equipment) 209.4 209.4 36.2 36.2

a
Includes 1.5-in. HMA overlay.
Cross, Chesner, Justus, and Kearney 47

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000
Energy (MJ/mile)

2,500,000 Process
Transportation
2,000,000 Production

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0
CIPR-4-AS

CIPR-4

MF-3

TCO

CIPR-4-AS

CIPR-4

MF-3

TCO

CIPR-4-AS

CIPR-4

MF-3

TCO
100% Asphalt Demand 50% Asphalt Demand 0% Asphalt Demand

FIGURE 1 Energy consumed by treatment (CIPR4-AS and CIPR4 include 1.5-in. HMA overlay).

250,000

200,000
Greenhouse Gas (kg/mile)

Process
150,000
Transportation
Production
100,000

50,000

0
CIPR-4-AS

CIPR-4

MF-3

TCO

CIPR-4-AS

CIPR-4

MF-3

TCO

CIPR-4-AS

CIPR-4

MF-3

TCO

100% Asphalt Demand 50% Asphalt Demand 0% Asphalt Demand

FIGURE 2 Total greenhouse gas emissions (CIPR4-AS and CIPR4 include 1.5-in. HMA overlay).
48 Transportation Research Record 2227

250,000

200,000
Greenhouse Gas (kg/mile)

Process
150,000
Transportation
Production
100,000

50,000

0
CIPR-4-AS

CIPR-4

MF-3

TCO

CIPR-4-AS

CIPR-4

MF-3

TCO

CIPR-4-AS

CIPR-4

MF-3

TCO
100% Asphalt Demand 50% Asphalt Demand 0% Asphalt Demand

FIGURE 3 Total CO 2 emissions (CIPR4-AS and CIPR4 include 1.5-in. HMA overlay).

900

800

700 Process
Carbon Monoxide (kg/mile)

Transportation
600
Production
500

400

300

200

100

0
CIPR-4-AS

CIPR-4

MF-3

TCO

CIPR-4-AS

CIPR-4

MF-3

TCO

CIPR-4-AS

CIPR-4

MF-3

TCO

100% Asphalt Demand 50% Asphalt Demand 0% Asphalt Demand

FIGURE 4 Total CO emissions (CIPR4-AS and CIPR4 include 1.5-in. HMA overlay).
Cross, Chesner, Justus, and Kearney
2,500
2,000
Nitrous Oxides (kg/mile) 1,500
1,000
500
0
CIPR-4-AS
CIPR-4
MF-3
TCO
CIPR-4-AS
100% Asphalt Demand
FIGURE 5 Total NO x emissions (CIPR4-AS and CIPR4 include 1.5-in. HMA overlay).
material transportation, and process operations expressed in terms
of kilograms released per mile are shown in Figure 2, and individ-
ual plots of the component parts of greenhouse gas are shown in
Figures 3 through 5.
The results of the PaLATE outputs for the remaining eight
environmental factors are shown in Table 3. A complete discus-
sion of each of these factors can be found in the final report by the
authors (12).
Examination of these data highlights the following:
• The absolute values of energy consumed and greenhouse gas
emissions projected by PaLATE decrease significantly with a
reduction in asphalt-related impacts and
• This finding suggests that asphalt-related life-cycle impacts
represent the overriding factor in the LCEA analysis as defined by
PaLATE. (This finding is discussed later.)
The comparative values of energy consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions between each of the individual treatments appear to
maintain their relative ranking. A closer examination reveals that the
differing asphalt burden assumptions affect the relative rankings
between each of the treatment options.
The total environmental burden and impact of reducing the envi-
ronmental burden of asphalt projected by PaLATE can be examined
by developing a relative ranking table for each environmental factor.
The table can then be used to assess the degree to which each respec-
tive maintenance option is affected by the magnitude of the asphalt
environmental burden.
Table 4 provides a ranking from 1 to 4 for each environmen-
tal parameter included in the PaLATE analysis (and shown in
Tables 2 and 3) for each treatment option. The lowest-ranked value
(e.g., 1) corresponds to the lowest environmental burden and the
49
Process
Transportation
Production
CIPR-4
MF-3
TCO
CIPR-4-AS
CIPR-4
MF-3
TCO
50% Asphalt Demand 0% Asphalt Demand
highest ranking (e.g., 4) to the greatest burden. The sum of the indi-
vidual rankings yields a total ranking score (Table 5). The sum
of the rankings by treatment for each effect provides an overall,
but not completely scientific, picture of the environmental impact
of each treatment option. This type of total ranking gives equal
weight to each environmental parameter, which is a simplifying
assumption.
The data in Tables 4 and 5 reveal the following:
• CIPR-4 generates the least environmental burden (lowest rank-
ing values) regardless of the asphalt cement–related burden. This
finding is due to CIPR-4’s lower asphalt content compared with the
other options.
• The addition of add-stone to CIPR-4 (CIPR-4-AS) removes the
distinct environmental advantage of CIPR as a maintenance option
over TCO.
• As the environmental burden associated with asphalt cement is
reduced, the CIPR options have the lowest environmental effect and
the environmental burden of TCO increases. The environmental
impact of MF-3 increases as the asphalt burden is reduced.
PaLATE attributes the major fraction (well over 90%) of the envi-
ronmental burden of HMA and emulsion mixes used in roadway
construction to the presence of asphalt cement. The data and figures
presented here reflect the fact that as the environmental burden attrib-
uted to asphalt cement use is reduced, there is a significant reduction
in overall resource use and environmental emissions.
Figure 6 shows the quantity of asphalt cement used by each main-
tenance option examined in the report by Cross et al. (12). The total
new asphalt cement shown below each bar is the sum of the asphalt
cement in the HMA overlays and residual asphalt in the asphalt
emulsion from the CIPR.
TABLE 3 Remaining PaLATE Outputs

Treatment

Emission or Environmental Effect CIPR-4-ASa CIPR-4a MF-3 TCO

Water Consumption (kg)

Material production
100% asphalt burden 1,248.3 1,121.2 1,107.6 1,107.6
50% asphalt burden 641.8 571.4 575.5 575.5
0% asphalt burden 35.30 21.66 43.30 43.30
Material transportation 16.85 13.59 23.11 24.22
Process (equipment) 8.85 8.85 1.28 1.28
PM10 (kg)

Material production
100% asphalt burden 411.7 298.2 469.7 451.7
50% asphalt burden 334.4 228.1 401.8 383.9
0% asphalt burden 257.0 158.0 333.9 316.0
Material transportation 77.9 63.0 158.2 112.5
Process (equipment) 14.90 14.90 2.60 2.57
SO2 (kg)
Material production
100% asphalt burden 18,874 18,790 36,823 36,806
50% asphalt burden 18,461 18,415 36,461 36,444
0% asphalt burden 18,047 18,040 36,098 36,081
Material transportation 23.70 19.08 48.00 34.00
Process (equipment) 13.80 13.80 2.39 2.39
Hg (g)
Material production
100% asphalt burden 5.15 4.67 4.57 4.52
50% asphalt burden 2.58 2.34 2.29 2.26
0% asphalt burden 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Material transportation 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.10
Process (equipment) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Pb (g)
Material production
100% asphalt burden 244.7 220.3 218.9 216.6
50% asphalt burden 125.0 111.8 113.9 111.50
0% asphalt burden 5.22 3.22 8.80 6.40
Material transportation 3.33 2.68 4.56 4.78
Process (equipment) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
RCRAb Hazardous Waste (kg)
Material production
100% asphalt burden 51,640 46,726 45,918 45,423
50% asphalt burden 25,972 23,458 23,396 22,901
0% asphalt burden 303 190 874 379
Material transportation 713 575 978 1,025
Process (equipment) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
HTP c Cancerous (g)
Material production
100% asphalt burden 374,530 365,272 730,545 730,545
50% asphalt burden 200,141 190,883 381,766 381,766
0% asphalt burden 25,751 16,493 32,986 32,986
Material transportation 2,122 1,712 4,310 3,050
Process (equipment) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
HTP c Noncancerous (kg)
Material production
100% asphalt burden 306,366 189,491 378,982 378,982
50% asphalt burden 306,294 189,419 378,838 378,838
0% asphalt burden 306,221 189,347 378,694 378,694
Material transportation 2,603 2,100 5,288 3,742
Process (equipment) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

a
Includes 1.5-in. HMA overlay.
b
RCRA = Resource Conservation Recovery Act.
c
HTP = human toxicity potential.
Cross, Chesner, Justus, and Kearney 51

TABLE 4 Relative Ranking of Asphalt Bitumen Burden Effects

Asphalt Burden (%)

CIPR-4-ASa CIPR-4a MF-3 TCO

Parameter 100 50 0 100 50 0 100 50 0 100 50 0

Energy 3 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 2 3 3
Water 4 4 2 3 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 4
CO2 3 3 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 2 2 3
NOx 3 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 2 3 3
PM10 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 3 3
SO2 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 3 3
CO 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 4 4 1 1 1
Hg 4 4 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 4
Pb 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2
RCRA waste 4 4 2 3 2 1 2 3 4 1 1 3
HTP-C 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 3 3
HTP-NC 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 3 3
Total 37 34 27 19 16 13 39 42 45 25 28 35

a
Includes 1.5-in. HMA overlay.

When the CIPR options are compared with the MF-3 and TCO
options, the data reveal that
• MF-3 and TCO options use the same quantity of asphalt cement
per mile of pavement (each option in the analysis uses two 1.5-in.
HMA overlays);
• CIPR-4-AS requires almost the same total amount of asphalt
(asphalt cement and residual asphalt from asphalt emulsion) as
MF-3 and TCO, 127.8 tons/mi to 128.3 tons/mile; and
• CIPR-4 uses the least amount of asphalt, approximately 9.0%,
9.0%, and 9.5% less than MF-3, TCO, and CIPR-4-AS, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are drawn:
• LCEA, including the use of models such as PaLATE, has
the potential to assist transportation officials when sustainabil-
ity issues such as energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and
overall health impacts are incorporated into the decision-making
process.
• The current database available to support life-cycle models that
use EIO-LCA procedures to support LCEA models does not have
sufficient accuracy to support absolute value projections of energy
consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, or environmental emissions
for highway maintenance planning.
• EIO-LCA models are better suited for relative comparisons
between available options.
• PaLATE, because of the lack of sufficient EIO-LCA data,
attributes well over 90% of the total environmental burden to the
presence of asphalt cement. This amount is likely an overestimate of
the actual environmental burden due to asphalt cement. The authors
supplied data at a 50% asphalt burden and the New York State DOT
suggested a 10% burden (12).
• From a life-cycle environmental perspective, CIPR-4 was
determined to be the best of the four treatment options analyzed.
• The TCO maintenance option was found to be similar to CIPR-4
if add-stone is included in the mix (CIPR-4-AS).

TABLE 5 Total Score and Rankings

Total Score Ranking ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Asphalt Burden (%) Asphalt Burden (%) The members of the research team gratefully acknowledge spon-
sorship of this project by the New York State Energy Research and
Treatment 100 50 0 100 50 0
Development Authority (NYSERDA) and the New York State DOT,
CIPR-4-AS a
37 34 27 3 3 2 under the direction of Joseph D. Tario of NYSERDA and Michael
CIPR-4a 19 16 13 1 1 1 A. Rossi of New York State DOT. They also acknowledge the help-
MF-3 39 42 45 4 4 4 ful input and technical support throughout the course of the project
TCO 25 28 35 2 2 3 provided by Thomas Kane, materials engineer, and Gary Frederick,
director of transportation research and development, of New York
a
Includes 1.5-in. HMA overlay. State DOT.
52 Transportation Research Record 2227

140

120

New Asphalt Cement (tons/mile)

100

80

60

40

20

0
CIPR-4-AS CIPR-4 MF-3 TCO

Asphalt From HMA Asphalt From EAC

FIGURE 6 Total asphalt consumed by each treatment (EAC ⴝ emulsified asphalt cement).

REFERENCES 7. Alkins, A., B. Lane, and T. J. Kazmierowski. Sustainable Pavements:

1. Green, D. L., and A. Schafer. Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
U.S. Transportation. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington,
Va., May 2003.
2. TRB Special Report 299: A Transportation Research Program for
Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change and Conserving Energy.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washing-
ton, D.C., 2009.
3. Horvath, A. A Life-Cycle Analysis Model and Decision-Support Tool for
Selecting Recycled Versus Virgin Materials for Highway Applications.
Final Report, Research Project No. 23. Recycled Materials Resource
Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, March 2004.
4. Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA): US 1997
Industry Benchmark Model. Green Design Institute, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, Pa., 2008. http://www.eiolca.net. Accessed
Jan. 1, 2010.
5. PaLATE User Manual: PaLATE, Pavement Life-Cycle Assessment
Tool for Environmental and Economic Effects. Consortium on Green
Design and Manufacturing, University of California, Berkeley, May 13,
2004.
6. Hendrickson, C. T., B. Lester, and H. S. Matthews. Environmental
Life Cycle Assessment of Goods and Services. Resources for the Future,
Baltimore, Md., 2006.
Environmental, Economic, and Social Benefits of In Situ Pavement
Recycling. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
portation Research Board, No. 2084, Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 100–103.
8. Gardner, K., and A. Carpenter. Pavement Life-cycle Assessment Tool
for Environmental and Economic Effects (PaLATE). Presented at Trans-
portation Research Board Conference, July 17–19, 2005, Charlotte, N.C.
9. Robinette, C., and J. Epps. Energy, Emissions, Material Conservation,
and Prices Associated with Construction, Rehabilitation, and Material
Alternatives for Flexible Pavement. In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2179, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010,
pp. 10 –22.
10. Epps, J. A., and F. N. Finn. Energy Requirements Associated with
Pavement Construction, Rehabilitation and Maintenance. Research
Report 214-19. Texas Transportation Institute, Austin, Aug. 1980.
11. Chappat, M., and J. Bilal. The Environmental Road of the Future: Life
Cycle Analysis. Colas Group, France, 2003.
12. Cross, S. A., E. R. Kearney, H. G. Justus, and W. H. Chesner. Cold
In-Place Recycling in New York: Final Summary Report, Attachment E,
Life Cycle Model. SPR Research Project C-06-21, New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority, Albany, June 2010.
The Pavement Management Section peer-reviewed this paper.