International Journal of Construction Education and

Research

ISSN: 1557-8771 (Print) 1550-3984 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uice20

Life Cycle Analysis for Sustainable Development: A

Case Study of Parking Lot Pavements

Scott Glick Ph.D , Scott Shuler Ph.D & Angela Acree Guggemos Ph.D

To cite this article: Scott Glick Ph.D , Scott Shuler Ph.D & Angela Acree Guggemos Ph.D
(2013) Life Cycle Analysis for Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Parking Lot
Pavements, International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 9:3, 226-236, DOI:
10.1080/15578771.2012.714443

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2012.714443

Published online: 10 May 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 290

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uice20
International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 9:226–236, 2013
Copyright # Associated Schools of Construction
ISSN: 1557-8771 print=1550-3984 online
DOI: 10.1080/15578771.2012.714443

Life Cycle Analysis for Sustainable Development:

A Case Study of Parking Lot Pavements

SCOTT GLICK, PH.D, SCOTT SHULER, PH.D, AND

ANGELA ACREE GUGGEMOS, PH.D
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

The use of porous pavement allows water to drain into an aggregate storage layer
beneath the pavement for temporary storage as it percolates into the aquifer below.
When using this system in a parking lot application, the need for curb and gutter to
channel the stormwater into a nearby retention basin is eliminated, as is the retention
basin itself. An initial analysis of the porous system appears to solve some of the
environmental issues related to stormwater runoff and aquifer recharge. However,
these systems have not been evaluated using both life-cycle cost and life-cycle assess-
ment to fully understand the costs and environmental implications of choosing one
system over another. A case study was used to compare the two asphalt systems
in a large parking lot application. The results show that the conventional asphalt sys-
tem is both more cost effective and environmentally benign. The emissions area
identified as having the greatest CO2 impact is the manufacturing=mining and
extraction of aggregates making it an area that could be targeted for increased
efficiencies and emission reductions.

Keywords assessment, life-cycle, life-cycle cost, porous asphalt

Introduction
Developing the built environment is no longer a linear process where an idea
proceeds from inception, to paper, and into the construction phase with the majority
of decisions based on first cost. In today’s market part of the initial feasibility analy-
sis of the project may include life cycle analysis as well as the use of a green scoring
tool. It is in the conceptual and design phases where critical decisions are made that
impact not only the economic feasibility and life-cycle cost (LCC), but environmen-
tal impacts and life-cycle assessment (LCA), as well. Awareness of embodied energy
and carbon footprint is increasing. Therefore, development-driven environmental
impacts need to be better understood using a rational and systematic process.
Life-cycle analysis tools ensure that information used in decision making is replic-
able, inclusive, and as accurate as possible given current knowledge levels. While
LCC is widely used in construction and many other industries the use of LCA is still
relatively underused in the construction industry. The additional information
provided by an LCA can be used by designers and decision makers as they review
multiple design scenarios. The consideration of both financial and environmental

Address correspondence to Scott Glick, Colorado State University, 1584 Campus Deliv-
ery, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1584, USA. E-mail: scott.glick@colostate.edu

226
Life Cycle Analysis for Sustainable Development 227

impacts may also help in determining which goals of a specific green scoring tool are
most beneficial to achieve.
The construction of parking lots for large commercial retail projects is one area
that exemplifies the need to consider both LCC and LCA estimates on the choice of
major parking system components. The development of porous asphalt pavements
may require less physical space for parking and recharge of the aquifer compared
with conventional pavement systems that typically require additional land for a
retention pond (catch basin). A porous pavement allows water to drain all the
way through the pavement structure into an aggregate storage layer (retention)
and finally infiltrates the subgrade soil beneath. Porous asphalt pavements have been
utilized as a means to manage storm-water since the 1970s (Adams, 2003). These
pavements reduce impervious areas, recharge groundwater, improve water quality
and eliminate the need for retention basins. Porous asphalt pavement consists of
hot mix asphalt (HMA) concrete in which an aggregate gradation is created to
reduce the fine aggregate fraction as shown in Table 1. This reduction in the fine
aggregate component significantly increases the volume of interconnected air voids
in the mixture which increases permeability. Although the weight of asphalt binder
in the mixture is approximately equal to a conventional mixture as shown in Table 1,
the percentage of the void structure filled with asphalt (VFA) is significantly less at
33% compared with 72.2% for the conventional paving mixture.
This reduction in the fine aggregate fraction produces a paving mixture that is
significantly more pervious than conventional hot mix asphalt. This porous structure
creates a pavement that allows surface water to flow through the pavement instead
of draining off the surface into retention basins. The layer beneath the asphalt sur-
face is composed of relatively large one or two sized aggregate with 2.5 to 1.5 inch
maximum size. This aggregate layer must be clean material with few fine particles
to maximize the void space in the layer. A 40% void content is desirable. The
aggregate layer is usually between 18 and 36 inches thick, depending on storm-water
storage requirements, frost penetration, and grading requirements. A layer of

Table 1. Typical material characteristics of porous and conventional HMA (NAPA,

2008; Shuler, 2011)

Passing, %

U.S. Standard sieve Porous Conventional

12.5 100 100

3=8 95 90
No. 4 35 65
No. 8 15 50
No. 16 10 37
No. 30 2 25
No. 200 0 6.6
AC, % 5.75 5.58
VTM, % 20.0 4.0
VMA, % 30.0 14.4
VFA, % 33.0 72.5
228 S. Glick et al.

non-woven geotextile filter fabric separates the stone bed from the underlying soil,
preventing the movement of fine soil particles into the aggregate layer thereby reduc-
ing the void content and consequently, effectiveness of the aggregate layer to store
water. As storm water enters the aggregate layer it is filtered as it travels across
the aggregate surfaces and eventually exfiltrates from the aggregate layer into the
subgrade soil beneath and finally the groundwater (Shirke & Shuler, 2009).
Although the environmental advantages of porous pavements are usually not
disputed (Brown, 2003), the difference in cost between porous and conventional
asphalt concrete can be a factor when owners decide which product to utilize. The
use of costs as the traditional decision making metric does not provide any infor-
mation with regards to the estimated environmental impacts of the materials and sys-
tems being considered. The environmental benefits associated with porous asphalt
pavements are typically associated with storm-water management. Additional bene-
fits may include: reduced land area for retention structures, reduced capacity
storm-water discharge systems, increased development density, reduced commute
times resulting from higher density development, and less urban sprawl.
A case study of both conventional asphalt and porous asphalt systems was per-
formed for a large shopping center parking lot. The lot has 2,500 spaces, each space
averaging 325 square feet for a total paved area of 18.7 acres. Both the LCA and
LCC methodologies were used. LCA estimates the total environmental impacts
for each phase of the life cycle: manufacturing=mining, construction, use=mainte-
nance, and end-of-life. LCC estimates the total cost of ownership of the parking
lot over its expected life cycle.

Background
Asphalt pavement in the United States covered an estimated 3,950,000 miles of road
in 2000, not including parking and other uses (Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
nd). Asphalt studies focus on a wide range of topics: rutting (Brown & Haddock,
1997; Kandhal et al., 1999), aggregates (Taha et al., 2002; Zhu & Nodes, 2000),
and porosity (U.S. EPA, 1999; Legret & Colandini, 1999). Most of the studies are
broad-based and focus on the attributes of what constitutes a good asphalt mix
design relative to performance. The specialized area of LCC narrows the field of
existing literature substantially. Hicks and Epps (nd), and Hicks, Lundy and Epps
(1999) discussed the LCC of asphalt rubber paving materials. The rationale for using
LCC was based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) publication
FHWA-S-98-079, 98, which recommends LCC as a decision support tool in
pavement design (FHWA, 1998).
A report to the Indiana Department of Transportation (IDOT) concerning the
use of LCC in pavement design found that the tool was good for design comparisons
but did not identify a specific asphalt mix that stood out in all installation applica-
tions (Lampty et al., 2005). A preliminary study of LCC of reflective asphalt pave-
ments included conventional hot asphalt paved streets, higher reflectivity streets, and
parking lots. The preliminary LCC finding indicated that the low bid (first costs)
philosophy predominated as contractors were not held accountable for their work
over the expected life cycle of the project (Ting, Koomey, & Pomerantz, 2001). In
an effort to optimize current LCC models and onsite inspections, a proposed
‘‘Inspection Validation Model’’ was created that used the inspection process as a
way to measure predicted failures (Bakker & van Noortwijk, nd). The LCC of
Life Cycle Analysis for Sustainable Development 229

porous asphalt was addressed in the California Stormwater Best Management

Practices Handbook on New Development and Re-development (HD20) and states
that porous pavements can be as much as 25% cheaper when all construction and
drainage costs are considered given that porous pavement itself is more expensive
(2003). The only asphalt pavement study found using LCA focused on the topic
of using industrial byproducts in road and earth construction (Mroueh et al.,
2001). No studies were found using LCA for parking lot applications.

Methodology
To obtain a full understanding of the financial and environmental impacts associa-
ted with the use of conventional and porous asphalt paving systems the estimated
impacts from all the life-cycle phases must be estimated. The life-cycle phases for
paving systems are manufacturing=mining, construction, use, maintenance, and
end-of-life. Given the site-specific needs of porous pavement cleaning, the mainte-
nance costs for this process were not included in this study. The land cost for the
retention pond was not used due to project-specific cost structures based on
location and market. The impact of this limitation on the study is an understate-
ment of the LCC and LCA numbers; this does not impact the findings of this case
study as the maintenance and land cost information for both scenarios was
withheld. These numbers would be needed in each analysis of a specific project
to provide an equal assessment of each type of system. In addition the land cost
specific to each project would need to be included for the cost of any additional
land needed for a retention pond. The LCA and LCC methodologies are the
appropriate methodologies to obtain the total life-cycle impacts of both systems
and were applied to both paving systems.

Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA)

LCA estimates the environmental impacts from a product, process, or system by
identifying all possible pollution sources and loading the sources with the appropri-
ate pollutants. There are three main steps in this process: 1) the inventory analysis,
2) the impact analysis, and 3) the improvement analysis (Ciambrone, 1997). There
are three accepted LCA methodologies: traditional, economic input-output
(EIO-LCA), and a hybrid approach. The traditional method uses process diagrams
as a description (boundary) of the system being studied. To increase the study
boundary the EIO-LCA method was created. This method extends the boundary
to include the entire U.S. economy drawing on data from the U.S. Department
of Commerce’s commodity-by-commodity input-output matrix. The matrix data
is augmented by various resource use, wastes, and emission factors which allows
all the indirect supply chain effects to be included in the impact assessment
(Hendrickson et al., 1998; Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute
(CMUGDI), 2012).
The hybrid method was used for this case study and combines the two previously
discussed methods based on the level of aggregation of the data sources. EIO-LCA
was used for the manufacturing=mining, use, and maintenance phases. EIO-LCA
data for the construction and end-of-life phases are too aggregated to use so
traditional process diagrams were created for these phases.
230 S. Glick et al.

Life-Cycle Cost (LCC)

LCC is superior to first costs since it considers all costs over a product’s life cycle.
The total cost of ownership for a system is determined over the system’s useful life
(ATSM, 1999). After all the cost components for a product, process, or system are
identified, estimated, and the costs are assigned to the appropriate period of
expenditure, they are adjusted for the time value of money to the base year (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 2003). The cost data for both pavement systems were
obtained from local sources in the greater Denver, Colorado Front Range area.
These costs were used to determine the net present value (NPV) for each system.
The State of Colorado Department of Transportation discount rate calculation pro-
cess was used to determine the most frequent discount rate used in all 50 states, 4%
(CDOT-2009-2).

Results
The wide-ranging question to be answered is: which asphalt pavement type, conven-
tional or porous, results in fewer impacts on the environment while balancing system
costs? Which system has a lower LCC? Parking structures were considered because
this is the most common and most practical use of porous pavements. The average
parking space of 325 square feet was used which includes the area for parking plus
circulation areas and end-of-aisle areas (Litman, 2008). Construction of the two
pavements is somewhat different. A porous pavement has the thick recharge aggre-
gate layer, excavation costs for this layer, filter fabric, and the specialized asphalt
surface. However, conventional asphalt parking areas have a land requirement for
the retention basin, excavating the retention basins, inlet and outlet structures,
and systems for conveying the water around the pavement to the gutter system.
The analysis in this article considers two equivalent structural designs for a typi-
cal parking lot over subgrade soils classified as A3 by the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) method (AASHTO, 1991).
The conventional asphalt pavement consists of 4 inches of hot mix asphalt over 6
inches of crushed stone base (ABC) over the prepared subgrade soil. For the conven-
tional pavement, the analysis includes excavating the retention basins, inlet and out-
let structures, and systems for conveying the water around the pavement to the
gutter system. The porous asphalt pavement consists of 4 inches of porous HMA
over a 36 inch crushed stone recharge bed. The estimated costs paid to the producer
of these materials are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Costs of material for conventional and porous asphalt systems

Total Thickness, Volume, Mass, Conventional, Porous,

Variable area sf in CYD tons $ $

HMA 812,500 4 10,030 19,635 785,417 1,079,948

ABC 812,500 6 15,046 22,343 335,156,
Recharge Bed 812,500 36 90,277 134,062 3,083,438
Filter Fabric 812,500 135,417
$1,120,573 $4,298,802
Life Cycle Analysis for Sustainable Development 231

Figure 1. Conventional parking lot with retention facility, construction phase.

Process Diagrams
Process diagrams were created for the construction phase of both pavement systems.
Figure 1 shows the construction phase for the conventional parking system and the
associated retention facility. The process diagrams for the end-of-life phase are
shown in Figure 2; they are the same for both pavement systems.
Figure 3 shows the construction phase of the porous pavement system which
uses no retention facility but has a retention layer build into the below ground design
of the parking lot system. Figure 2, shown for the end-of-life phase, is the same as the
conventional pavement system (Figure 2).

Conventional Asphalt Results

The data values in Table 3 are based on the hybrid method of LCA, except for the
construction phase which is process based, thereby limiting the detail to total CO2
emissions. Global Warming Potential expressed as Metric Tons of CO2 Equivalent
(MTCO2E) is the standard unit of measure for environmental impacts based on
greenhouse gasses.
Table 3 indicates the conventional asphalt system contributes an estimated 2,810
MTCO2E to the environment during all phases of the estimated 20-year life includ-
ing the retention facility.

Figure 2. Conventional and porous pavement parking lot end-of-life phase.

232 S. Glick et al.

Figure 3. Porous parking lot, construction phase.

The LCC used a conventional asphalt system life of 20 years and assumed a 4%
discount rate and a 3% inflation rate per annum. Maintenance was projected to be
performed as follows; all input dollars are 2012: each crack sealing ($1,600) and each
patching ($10,000) being performed in years 4, 11, and 18. Striping ($1,000 each
time) was done in years 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20. A 2-inch mill and overlay
was placed in years 7 and 14 with a cost of $648,873 for each overlay. The initial
installed cost of the lot was $1,528,749. The NPV of this system is $2,843,637.

Porous Asphalt Results

The data values in Table 4 are based on the hybrid method of LCA. Global Warm-
ing Potential MTCO2E is the standard unit of measure for environmental impacts
based on greenhouse gasses.
Table 4 indicates the porous asphalt system contributes an estimated 6,876
MTCO2E to the environment during all phases of the estimated 20-year life. The

Table 3. Estimated greenhouse gas emissions for each phase of conventional asphalt

GWP CO2 CH4 N 2O CFCs

Variable MTCO2E MTCO2E MTCO2E MTCO2E MTCO2E

Manufacturing 1,453 1,252 187 9 7

Construction 169
Use N=A
Maintenance 1,147 874 164 8 6
End-of-life 41
Total 2,810 2,126 351 17 13
Life Cycle Analysis for Sustainable Development 233

Table 4. Estimated greenhouse gas emissions for each phase of porous asphalt

GWP CH4 CFCs

Variable MTCO2E CO2MTCO2E MTCO2E N2O MTCO2E MTCO2E

Manufacturing 5,272 4,778 436 40 24

Construction 794
Use N=A
Maintenance 769 601 114 5 4
End-of-life 41
Total 6,876 5,379 550 45 28

impact of the retention facility needed with the conventional system is included in the
porous systems 36 inch retention (base) layer.
The LCC used a porous asphalt system life of 20 years and assumed 4% discount
rate and inflation on future work at 3% annually. The maintenance was projected to
be performed as follows; all input dollars are 2012: each crack sealing ($1,600) in
years 4, 8, 14 and 18, and each patching ($10,000) in years 8 and 16. Striping
($1,000 each time) was performed in years 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 20. A 2-inch
mill and overlay was installed in year 10 at a cost of $747,049. The initial installed
cost of the lot was $5,656,318. The NPV of this system is $6,363,977.

Discussion
The use of a conventional asphalt paving system in this initial study is clearly the
better system choice for parking lot applications from both the LCC (Table 5)
and LCA (Table 6) perspectives.
The NPV LCC for the porous system is almost three times higher than the con-
ventional system. The first cost differences for the porous system are 3.7 times great-
er than the conventional system; a number similar to Cahill’s factor of four in favor
of the asphalt product (2003). Depending on the site soil conditions these impacts
could offset the higher impacts seen here for the porous system. Conventional pave-
ment systems having retention basins requiring more excavation then the porous sys-
tem may expect comparable to higher emission outputs. Those having smaller
excavation requirements may expect comparable or lower emission results similar
to those shown here.
The materials as well as the construction excavation and soil replacement with
aggregate in the retention layer in the porous parking lot system are the largest con-
tributors to global warming potential (Table 6). The maintenance of the conven-
tional parking lot system is also significant.

Table 5. First cost and net present values for both pavement systems

System type Initial cost Net present value

Conventional $1,528,749 $2,130,770

Porous $5,656,318 $6,363,977
234 S. Glick et al.

Table 6. Life cycle assessment results for both pavement systems

Variable Conventional GWP MTCO2E Porous GWP MTCO2E

Manufacture=Mining 1,453 5,292

Construction 169 794
Use N=A N=A
Maintenance 1147 769
End-of-Life 41 41
Total 2810 6876

Other significant factors in the emissions calculations for both systems are the
choice of equipment and its level of fuel efficiency during operation. The impact
of equipment choice affects all phases, specifically the material mining phase. In both
systems, the manufacturing=mining phase is the dominant GWP emission source. In
the conventional system, the GWP for the construction phase is 12% of the mining
phase. However, the emissions from the construction phase for the porous pavement
are 15% of the mining phase. This is a function of the quantities of aggregate needed
for the retention layer in the porous system. In either case the emissions are a func-
tion of volume and fuel economy of the mining equipment used in the mining pro-
cess. The high quantities of emissions in both pavement systems may indicate there
are efficiencies that could be attained in the manufacturing=mining phase that could
be identified by an improvement analysis of that industry. In addition the total
estimated emissions for the porous pavement are only 2.5 times higher than for
the conventional system. This may indicate that improvements in the man-
ufacturing=mining industry could change the LCA outcome and overall pavement
system choice recommendation.
Other factors that were not studied are the environmental and cost impacts asso-
ciated with recharging the aquifer versus sending the runoff downstream through the
storm sewer and the impacts of building with increased densities. The increase in
building density and the affect this may have on the trip miles per day in the region
and the reduction of urban sprawl may far outweigh the LCC and LCA impacts of
the porous system studied here. The use of LCA in the construction conceptual and
design processes is an opportunity to look at one more set of data in the decision
making process.

Conclusion
The use of LCC and LCA can help owners, project designers, and construction man-
agers understand more about project system choices earlier in the project design pro-
cess. Both LCC and LCA can be performed in the conceptual design phase and the
information from these types of analyses when combined with the overall project
goals will help create a project that considers many competing goals. In this case
study, the conventional asphalt system appeared to be the better choice based on
both LCC and LCA analysis. With an NPV nearly four times higher for the porous
pavement system, it may be difficult to justify its use. However, the LCA indicates
that improvement in the mining and extraction processes may help lower both the
emissions and costs making porous pavements more acceptable in terms of budget
Life Cycle Analysis for Sustainable Development 235

and environmental impact. However, as additional information regarding aquifer

recharge, urban sprawl, and point source pollution are better understood and
included in the initial project analysis, the results for other projects may be different.
The inclusion of land cost for a retention pond and geographically and climatically
dictated porous pavement cleaning protocols will increase the accuracy of the results
of both LCC and LCA analyses.

Future Research
There are several opportunities for future research in the area of porous pavement
use. With increased environmental concerns, it is important to fully understand
the effects of the materials and methods chosen or mandated for construction pro-
jects. Additional case studies, where data is available on varied sizes of retention
ponds and related infrastructure requirements, would provide a wider range of com-
parisons. The data is limited, and in some cases nonexistent, on the environmental
benefits of recharging the aquifers and the value that has relative to environmental
impact reductions due to water availability and quality issues. There is also opport-
unity for new retention system designs in porous pavement systems that may store
more water using less materials resulting in less manufacturing=mining emissions.

References
Adams, M. C. (2003). Porous asphalt pavement with recharge beds 20 years and still working.
Stormwater The Journal for Surface Water Quality Professionals, May-June.
American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM). (1999). E917-99 Standard practice for
measuring life-cycle cost of buildings and building systems. Philadelphia, PA, USA.
American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO) M-145-91.
(2008). Classification of soils and soil-aggregate mixtures for highway construction
purposes. Retrieved April 24, 2012 from http://dot.state.nm.us/TTCP/2012/Soil/
M-145.pdf
Bakker, J. D. & van Noortwijk, J. M. (nd). Inspection validation model for life-cycle analysis.
Retrieved April 24, 2012 from http://hkv.webregio8.nl/documenten/InspectionValida-
tionmodel_JvN.pdf.
Brown, D. (2003). Thinking green with porous asphalt. Hot Mix Asphalt Technology,
May-June, 14–17.
Brown, E. R. & Haddock, J. E. (1997). Method to ensure stone-on-stone contact in stone
matrix asphalt paving mixtures. Transportation Research Record, 1583, 11–18.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (nd). Table 1.4: Public road and street mileage in the
United States by type of surface Retrieved April 24, 2012 from http://www.bts.gov/
publications/national_transportation_statistics/2002/html/table_01_04.html.
Cahill, T. H., Adams, M., & Marm, C. (2003). Porous asphalt: The right choice for porous
pavements. Hot Mix Asphalt Technology, September-October.
Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute (CMUGDI). (2012). Economic
input-output life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA), US 1997 industry benchmark model.
Retrieved April 6, 2012 from http://www.eiolca.net
California Stormwater BMP Handbook. (2003). New development and redevelopment.
Retrieved March 8, 2012 from http://www.cabmphandbooks.com
CDOT_2009_2. (2009). Colorado Department of Transportation’s current procedure for life
cycle cost analysis and discount rate calculations. Retrieved March 6, 2012 from
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/research/pdfs/2009/lcca2009.pdf
Ciambrone, D. F. (1997). Environmental life cycle analysis. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers.
236 S. Glick et al.

FHWA. (1998). Life-cycle cost analysis in pavement design. Retrieved March 26, 2012 from
http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FHWA/013017.pdf
Hendrickson, C., Horvath, A., Joshi, S., & Lave, L. B. (1998). Economic input-output models
for environmental life cycle analysis. Environmental Science and Technology, 32,
184A–191A.
Hicks, R. G. & Epps, J. A. (nd). Life cycle costs for asphalt-rubber paving materials. Retrieved
April 3, 2012 from http://www.asphaltrubber.org/ari/Cost/Life_Cycle_Cost_Analysis_
of_Matreials.pdf
Hicks, R. G., Lundy, J. R., & Epps, J. A. (1999). Life cycle costs for asphalt-rubber paving
materials. Final Report to Rubber Pavements Association, vols. I=II, June.
Kandhal, P., Prithvi, S., Mallick, R., & Mallick, B. (1999). Evaluation of asphalt pavement
analyzer for HMA mix design. NCAT Report No.99–4. Retrieved March 5, 2012
from http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/7000/7900/7931/rep99-4.pdf
Lampty, G., Ahmad, M., Labi, S., & Sinha, K. (2005). Life cycle cost analysis for INDOT
pavement design procedures. Retrieved February 17, 2012 from http://docs.lib.
purdue.edu/jtrp/138
Legret, M., & Colandini, V. (1999). Effects of a porous pavement with reservoir structure on
runoff water: Water quality and fate of heavy metals. Water and Science Technology,
39(2), 111–117.
Litman, T. (2008). Parking management strategies, evaluation and planning. Victoria, BC:
Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Mroueh, U. M., Eskola, P., & Laine-Ylijoki, J. (2001). Life-cycle impacts of the use of indus-
trial waste by-products in road and earth construction. Waste Management, 21, 271–277.
National Asphalt Pavement Association. (2008). Porous asphalt pavements for stormwater
management design: Construction and maintenance guide. (Revised November 2008),
IS131.
Shirke, N. A. & Shuler, S. (2009). Cleaning porous pavements using a reverse flush process.
Journal of Transportation Engineering, 135(11), 82–89.
Shuler, S. (2011). Use of waste tires in HMA on Colorado highways. Interim report, Colorado
Department of Transportation, CDOT-DTD-R-2011-x, Study No. 34.24.
Taha, R., Al-Harthy, K., & Al-Zubeidi, M. (2002). Cement stabilization of reclaimed asphalt
pavement aggregate for road bases and sub-bases. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineer-
ing, May=June, 239–245.
Ting, M., Koomey, J., & Pomerantz, M. (2001). Preliminary evaluation of the lifecycle costs
and market barriers of reflective pavements. Retrieved April 18, 2012 from http://
enduse.lbl.gov/Projects/pavements.html
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2003). Guide to computing and reporting the life cycle cost
of environmental management projects. Retrieved January 14, 2012 from http://
www.em.doe.gov/pdfs/LLCA_Guide_NIST-IR6968.pdf
U.S. EPA. (1999). Storm water technology fact sheet: Porous pavement. Retrieved February 14,
2012 from http://yosemite.epa.gov/wqter.owrccatalog.nsf/065ca07e299b464685256ce5.
Zhu, H. & Nodes, J. E. (2000). Contact based analysis of asphalt pavement with the effect of
aggregate angularity. Mechanics of Materials, 32, 193–202.