Road Materials and Pavement Design

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20

Climate change impacts on flexible pavement

design and rehabilitation practices

Katie E. Haslett , Jayne F. Knott , Anne M. K. Stoner , Jo E. Sias , Eshan V.

Dave , Jennifer M. Jacobs , Weiwei Mo & Katharine Hayhoe

To cite this article: Katie E. Haslett , Jayne F. Knott , Anne M. K. Stoner , Jo E. Sias , Eshan V.
Dave , Jennifer M. Jacobs , Weiwei Mo & Katharine Hayhoe (2021): Climate change impacts on
flexible pavement design and rehabilitation practices, Road Materials and Pavement Design, DOI:
10.1080/14680629.2021.1880468

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2021.1880468

Published online: 04 Feb 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 149

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trmp20
ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN
https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2021.1880468

Climate change impacts on flexible pavement design and

rehabilitation practices
Katie E. Haslett a , Jayne F. Knott b , Anne M. K. Stoner c , Jo E. Sias a , Eshan V. Dave a,
Jennifer M. Jacobs a , Weiwei Mo a and Katharine Hayhoe c

a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA; b JFK
Environmental Services LLC, Upton, MA, USA; c Climate Center, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Climate change poses a threat to the performance and resiliency of flexible Received 11 January 2021
pavement systems around the world and can lead to inadequate designs Accepted 19 January 2021
or shortened service life which, in turn, tax the already limited budgets of KEYWORDS
transportation agencies and increase user costs. This paper aims to pro- Climate change; pavement
vide a high-level overview of three common approaches (scenario-based, design; maintenance;
asset-based and hybrid) that can be used to incorporate climate change in rehabilitation; resiliency
pavement design and rehabilitation practices. Examples of each approach
for a flexible pavement system are presented along with a discussion of
their advantages and limitations. Additionally, select results from a pave-
ment life cycle assessment (LCA) case-study comparing the use of simulated
future climate projections instead of historical observed climate data is
included to demonstrate impacts on maintenance and rehabilitation bud-
geting and planning. Current knowledge gaps and research needs are
identified and discussed to promote future collaboration towards design-
ing and maintaining more resilient flexible pavements under a changing
climate.

Introduction
Climate is changing rapidly and affecting the performance of flexible pavements. In some regions,
the frequency of freeze-thaw cycles is changing and winter is becoming shorter, altering the distribu-
tion of pavement damage, and lowering durability of pavement materials (Daniel et al., 2017; Knott,
Sias, et al., 2019). In other regions, extreme heat is becoming more frequent and more intense (Jacobs
et al., 2018), reducing the temperature-dependent modulus of asphalt concrete (AC), which in turn
increases potential for rutting and fatigue cracking (e.g. Stoner et al., 2019). In coastal regions, sea level
is rising, increasing flood risk, erosion, storm-surge damage, groundwater levels, and the frequency of
nuisance flooding. Finally, several regions are experiencing increased frequency of heavy precipitation
and increasing flood risks (USGCRP, 2017). These changes can drive premature pavement failure when
surface water or groundwater moves into the unbound layers of the pavement structure (Elshaer et al.,
2017; Roshani, 2014).
All these trends are projected to continue, and many are expected to accelerate, as a result of heat-
trapping greenhouse gas emissions. Across the contiguous United States (U.S.), for example, average
annual temperatures over the next century are projected to increase from two to four times more

CONTACT Katie E. Haslett keh11@wildcats.unh.edu

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 K. E. HASLETT ET AL.

than what has been observed over the last century even if emissions are reduced (USGCRP, 2017).
The rate of sea-level rise (SLR) has already tripled over the last few decades compared to the last
century; over the next century it is projected to increase between factor of 1.5 and 10 (Sweet et al.,
2017).
Together, these changes have the potential to negatively impact the longevity and performance
of flexible pavements and will require adaptations to the material selection as well as maintenance
and construction approaches. Impacts from climate change on the safety, reliability and efficiency
of road transportation systems are a major concern for public agencies and users around the world.
As populations grow, the demand for travel will also increase. As efforts are made to maintain and
improve the mobility of people and goods via roadway systems, it is critical to consider the short- and
long-term impacts of climate change on pavement life. Under standard practice, increased costs of
maintaining roads due to climate impacts are estimated to be on the order of billions of dollars in
the U.S. alone (Underwood et al., 2017). It is therefore imperative that pavement design and manage-
ment systems incorporate climate projections to ensure they are achieving their intended lifespan and
reliability. Sound adaptation approaches are necessary to ensure that pavement designs and mainte-
nance approaches are resilient to a changing climate. The decision framework should also include a
life cycle assessment (LCA) and a life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) to ensure that economically and
environmentally sound planning and practice is implemented.
Pavement LCA and LCCA are common techniques used to evaluate both economic and environ-
mental impacts associated with different maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) techniques for short
and long-term pavement management. Typically, these assessments are conducted using historical
climate data to evaluate pavement performance and provide recommendations for budgeting and
planning purposes. However, the assumption of a stationary climate and use of historical data is
no longer appropriate for assessment of flexible pavements because the climate stressors affecting
performance are changing..
This paper introduces a set of techniques for incorporating climate change into flexible pavement
design and management practices and illustrates them through examples. First, a brief background
of how climate change has been integrated into flexible pavement design is presented along with
suggestions on improvements using pavement LCA and LCCA techniques with future climate pro-
jections. Next, three commonly used approaches for climate change adaptation in pavement design
and maintenance (scenario-based, asset-based and hybrid) are presented with the role of stake-
holder engagement emphasised in all approaches. Examples are provided along with discussion of
their respective limitations. A pavement LCA case-study comparing the use of future climate pro-
jections compared to historical observed data is included, reinforcing the need to improve current
flexible pavement design and M&R treatments. Lastly, a summary of current knowledge gaps and
research needs moving forward is discussed to promote future collaboration towards designing and
maintaining more resilient flexible pavements under a changing climate.

Background
Several organisations including, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the
World Meteorological Organization (WMO), have led efforts to research climate change impacts on
infrastructure systems and educate the public. In 2015, a technical brief was released by the Fed-
eral Highway Administration (FHWA) describing a need for more detailed evaluation of the impacts
of climate change on pavements (Muench & Van Dam, 2015). The integration of climate change into
pavement design has been growing based on works from various researchers (Mills et al., 2009; White
et al., 2010; Wistuba & Walther, 2013). Similarly, Bilodeau et al., 2013, investigated the ability to predict
pavement performance based on future climate scenarios.
In the last several years, researchers have further explored climate change impacts on asphalt pave-
ments. For example, changes in sea level, season durations, and extreme heat can reduce asphalt
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 3

modulus leading to an increase in fatigue cracking and permanent deformation in asphalt pavements
(Jacobs et al., 2018; Knott, Sias, et al., 2019; Stoner et al., 2019). A study by Knott, Sias, et al. (2019),
focused on the seasonal and long-term changes to pavement life caused by rising temperatures for
a case-study site in a coastal region of the northeastern U.S. Results from this study suggest that, a
‘7% to 32% increase in the asphalt-layer thickness’ is needed to protect the base and subgrade with
changes projected to occur out to late-mid-century. However, while most of these studies provide
general advice or projections, they fall short of recommending immediate changes in practice or a
framework, which may be used to incorporate future climate projections into the pavement manage-
ment process using an LCA and LCCA approach. To this effect, background on recent research using
LCA and LCCA as well as future climate projections is provided next.

Pavement life cycle assessment (LCA) and Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA)
While there has been substantial research on the development of LCA frameworks for pavements (Al-
Qadi et al., 2017; Gu & Tran, 2019; International Symposium on Pavement LCA, 2014; Pavement Life
Cycle Assessment Workshop, 2010; Ventura & Roche, 2012), there have been limited studies focused
on pavement LCA that incorporate both realistic traffic conditions and future climate projections.
One way to incorporate this information is through Mechanistic-Empirical (ME) pavement design
and performance models. ME models calculate pavement responses (stresses, strains and deforma-
tions) for limited cases (select combinations of vehicle loads, climatic conditions, material properties
etc.). These select responses are then related to pavement performance measures such as, pavement
roughness or extent of pavement distresses through field-calibrated relationships (e.g. AASHTO, 2008).
These models can be useful tools in predicting pavement life using future climate/environmental con-
ditions as inputs. Time series of future climate projections established for one or more greenhouse gas
concentration scenario(s) at site-specific scales (e.g. statistically downscaled station-based hourly cli-
mate projections from global climate models), can replace historical weather observations to examine
changes in the lifetime and performance of flexible pavements as well as the effectiveness of current
pavement design and maintenance practices (Haslett et al., 2019; Stoner et al., 2019).
Haslett et al. (2019) provides steps for building a climate change informed pavement LCA frame-
work that incorporates future climate projections. First, the project location, analysis period, and
system boundaries must be agreed upon by all stakeholders. Next, a data inventory is constructed to
collect information such as material properties and usages, traffic volumes and characteristics, pave-
ment structures, and climatic information to evaluate pavement performance and various M&R strate-
gies. A ME performance model (such as, AASHTOWare Pavement ME DesignTM software, AASHTOWare,
2015) can be used to develop pavement performance curves by simulating various combinations of
material selections, pavement cross sections, future climate projections, and M&R alternatives. Once
performance using pavement serviceability measures (e.g. International Roughness Index (IRI), Ride
Quality Index and Pavement Condition Index) is available for all simulations, this information can be
used to determine the timing of management actions and to inform the economic and environmental
impacts from the roadway’s use phase. Vehicle fuel consumption and carbon emission factors for dif-
ferent vehicle classes under various pavement performance conditions as well as driving conditions
(speeds, accelerations, and decelerations) should be determined. Haslett et al. (2019) used an innova-
tive combination of Google Maps R
, the U.S. EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) (EPA,
2014), the SHRP2 Naturalistic Driving Study (TRB, 2018), and MassDOT’s Transportation Data Manage-
ment System (MassDOT, 2018) to translate the pavement performance information into a use-phase
economic and environmental impact calculation. Lastly, a life cycle impact assessment is performed
to quantify economic and environmental impacts from both a user and agency perspective. Example
performance metrics include but are not limited to life cycle costs (LCC), Global Warming Potential
(GWP) and Cumulative Energy Demand (CED). These performance metrics can be used to inform more
sustainable decisions regarding material selection, pavement design, and M&R strategies.
4 K. E. HASLETT ET AL.

Future climate projections

Simulations generated by global climate models (GCMs) provide future projections of climatic output,
which can be used in the pavement design phase instead of historical climate observations. The pro-
jections cover a range of plausible greenhouse gas concentration scenarios that are used as input to
drive the GCM simulations (Hayhoe et al., 2017). Human choices are the primary source of uncertainty
in emissions projections; scientific uncertainty regarding the climate-system response to these emis-
sions is the second. When using future climate projections, these two sources of uncertainty can be
addressed by using, at a minimum, a higher and a lower greenhouse gas concentration scenario and
an ensemble, or collection, of GCMs. Because GCM output is too coarse for regional analyses, statistical
downscaling and/or regional climate modelling is typically used to translate and bias-correct the GCM
output to a spatial and/or temporal scale relevant to a transportation system and for use in pavement
design software.
To ensure pavement resilience in a changing climate, transportation agencies must incorporate
regional or local climate projections into pavement designs and maintenance plans. This can be
accomplished by using information that is either publicly available or developed in cooperation with
a climate scientist, depending on the scope of the project. In some instances, qualitative informa-
tion about general trends from national and international climate reports may suffice (e.g. IPCC,
2013; USGCRP, 2017, 2018). For other applications, publicly available GCM simulations or downscaled
datasets, can be used. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phases 5 and 6 (CMIP5 and CMIP6)
are collections of peer-reviewed and evaluated GCMs that can be used to obtain future climate projec-
tions. Projected variables such as daily precipitation and daily maximum and minimum temperatures
are available out to at least 2100. A summary of the available CMIP5 models and guidance on their use
can be found in Kotamarthi et al. (2016). CMIP6 models are still forthcoming at the time of writing. For
larger and/or more critical or specialised designs, asset- or location-specific projections and indicators
generated by a climate scientist or technical expert may be necessary.

Accounting for climate change in pavement design

There are three commonly used approaches to account for climate change in pavement design and
maintenance: scenario-based (top-down), asset-based (bottom-up), and hybrid (combined top-down
and bottom-up). Figure 1 provides a schematic diagram showing the three approaches to climate
change adaptation for flexible pavements.
Stakeholder engagement is an important first step in all three approaches. Stakeholders can
provide insight into the asset’s criticality, the desired lifespan of the asset, traffic/population projec-
tions, budgetary constraints, possible adaptation options (material and equipment availability), and
other concerns and constraints. The following sections briefly describe these approaches and their
respective advantages and limitations.

Scenario-based approach (top-down)

A scenario-based approach begins with choosing two or more future climate scenarios and is use-
ful in identifying potential future pavement-life reductions and promoting climate resiliency through
enhanced pavement design. Once stakeholders understand their asset’s sensitivity to the chosen cli-
mate scenarios, both in terms of the important climate variables and thresholds (or tipping points) for
action, scenario-based approaches can be used to determine adaptation pathways, a sequential series
of adaptation actions, and costs. There are many options available for pavement management. Con-
sideration of the performance, cost, and possible road-surface inundation of numerous, adaptation
pathways over the next 50–100 years using a scenario-based approach provides practitioners with
the ability to understand the trade-offs between various management strategies (Knott, Jacobs, et al.,
2019).
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 5

Figure 1. Process of top-down (scenario-based), bottom-up (asset-based) and hybrid (combined) approaches (modified from
Bhave et al., 2014).

An example of a scenario-based approach can be found in Stoner et al. (2019), which illustrates how
future climate projections can be used to simulate flexible pavement performance of typical interstate
and primary roads under future climate conditions. The study utilises the higher representative con-
centration pathway (RCP 8.5) and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory-Earth Systems Model
(GFDL-ESM2G) global climate model (Dunne et al., 2012, 2013). Climate projections at 24 sites across
the contiguous U.S. for three time periods (2001–2020, 2041–2060, 2081–2100), as well as a baseline
period (1981–2000), were used as the climatic input for AASHTOWare Pavement ME DesignTM soft-
ware. Four performance measures were simulated for an asphalt pavement of interstate (freeway)
functional classification: (1) Asphalt concrete layer (AC) permanent deformation, (2) total permanent
deformation, (3) AC top-down fatigue cracking, and (4) the International Roughness Index.
The interstate pavement was designed with a semi-infinite, location-specific subgrade material, an
18 inch (457 mm) aggregate base, 6 inch (152 mm) asphalt base course and 3 in. (76 mm) of asphalt
surface course. Traffic levels were set to be identical at all locations, with initial two-way annual average
daily truck traffic of 2,500 with an annual 1% increase over time.
Results for the interstate pavement performance for the three periods compared to the baseline
period are shown in Figure 2, along with the statistically downscaled projected temperature change
for the GFDL-ESM2G climate model for the RCP 8.5 future scenario at the end of the century at each
location. Results indicate reduced performance for all four performance measures at nearly all loca-
tions, increasing toward the end of the century. Pavement life also decreased at most sites (not shown),
with a reduction in pavement life of 8 years for the Boise, Idaho, site at the end of the century.
6 K. E. HASLETT ET AL.

Figure 2. Projected changes in four terminal distress values for interstate pavement structures for three 20-year periods under a
higher scenario (RCP 8.5) relative to 1981–2000(a) asphalt concrete permanent deformation, (b) total pavement permanent defor-
mation, (c) asphalt concrete top-down fatigue cracking, and (d) IRI. The bars denote the projected change in values and the red dots
show the projected change in daily maximum temperature between 1981–2000 and 2081–2100 (Stoner et al., 2019).

Figure 2 also shows that there is some correlation between the amount of permanent deformation
(rutting) and projected temperature change, highlighting the importance of incorporating future cli-
mate projections into material selection, design, and M&R strategy selection. This applies not only to
flexible pavements, but all infrastructure assets for which design is prescribed by surrounding climatic
conditions.
One of the major drawbacks of using a scenario-based approach is that the results or the selection
of pavement designs are dependent on the choice of climate scenario. Designs and/or M&R activities
may cease to be effective if the climate scenario selected for planning is deemed unlikely to happen,
especially if designing for a lower scenario (de Bruin et al., 2009; Kwadijk et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2009).
Designing for a higher scenario than what eventually happens will result in overdesign and higher
costs than what was necessary, however it would not impact the integrity and safety of the pavement
or asset.

Asset-based approach (bottom-up)

The asset-based approach assesses an asset’s sensitivity to changing climate conditions without first
choosing a greenhouse gas concentration scenario. In this case, possible combinations of climate
stressors that will affect a pavement’s performance (e.g. rising average temperatures or SLR-induced
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 7

Figure 3. A PCSC representing the ratio of the AC thickness with climate change to the AC thickness without climate change. The
green (minimum ratio) to red (maximum ratio) illustrates decreasing resiliency (Knott, Jacobs, et al., 2019).

groundwater level increases in coastal areas) can be used to understand the pavement’s sensitiv-
ity to plausible future climate or environmental conditions while designing for future traffic loads.
The approach is equally capable of considering potential changes over a pavement’s lifetime or how
pavement design impacts performance reliability (e.g. AC thickness) (Knott, Jacobs, et al., 2019). This
approach provides practitioners with increased knowledge of the pavement’s sensitivity to incremen-
tal environmental change untethered to climate scenarios and can be used to identify adaptation
options. The results of the asset-based approach can be summarised using a Pavement Climate Sen-
sitivity Catalog (PCSC). The PCSC illustrates the pavement sensitivity to many combinations of climate
parameters based on a chosen performance metric.
As an example, a PCSC for a coastal regional connector and evacuation route in the northeast U.S.
is shown in Figure 3. The climate parameters are temperature and groundwater rise. The performance
metric is the ratio of the AC thickness required to achieve at least 85% reliability with the specified
combination of temperature and groundwater rise to thickness required with no climate change. Four
pavement structures with increasing gravel base layer thicknesses are considered. Figure 3 shows that,
at this case-study site, increasing the granular base layer thickness from 406 mm to 508 mm does not
add resiliency with either groundwater or temperature rise. Increasing the granular base layer from
406 mm to 610 mm improves pavement resiliency to both temperature and groundwater rise. Increas-
ing the granular base course thickness to 711 mm continues to improve resiliency but perhaps not
enough to justify the added cost, pointing to a cost analysis as the natural next step. The PCSC provides
practitioners with actionable information, independent of climate scenarios, for various combinations
of plausible changes in climate parameters.
The key difference with the asset-based approach (as compared with the scenario-based approach)
is that climate scenarios are not initially chosen for pavement design but rather used only to iden-
tify the plausible range in future climate or environmental parameters (Brown et al., 2018; Taner
et al., 2017). In other words, the asset-based approach provides a more complete picture of the pave-
ment’s response to incremental environmental change, and the scenario-based approach provides
information on the timing of critical environmental change to inform design and M&R activities. Both
approaches provide useful information to decision makers and a combination of the two approaches
(hybrid approach) can provide the information needed for stepwise and flexible adaptation planning
that includes both design and M&R components.
8 K. E. HASLETT ET AL.

Figure 4. Hybrid-approach for incorporating climate change into pavement design and M&R activities (Knott, Jacobs, et al., 2019).

Hybrid approach
A hybrid approach (Figure 4) was proposed by Knott, Sias, et al. (2019, 2019) to incorporate cli-
mate change in the pavement design and M&R activities. Hybrid adaptation approaches have shown
promise by initially investigating an asset’s response to incremental environmental changes and
then predicting the timing of critical pavement impacts for budgeting and planning purposes. This
approach can improve practitioner and decision makers’ understanding of the asset’s climate vulner-
ability while developing adaptation and infrastructure improvement plans that minimise both costs
and risks.
The hybrid adaptation approach was demonstrated at a regional connector in coastal New Hamp-
shire in the northeastern U.S. (Knott, Jacobs, et al., 2019). After investigating the pavement’s response
to loading with incremental temperature and groundwater rise using a PCSC, thirteen adaptation
pathways were chosen for additional performance and cost analysis using three greenhouse gas con-
centration and sea-level rise (SLR) scenarios. In this case study, the adaptation pathways are a series of
adaptation actions including asphalt overlays and/or increasing the thickness of the granular base
course as rehabilitation alternatives to maintain 85% reliability of the pavement structure for the
period from 2020 to 2080 (Knott, Jacobs, et al., 2019).
The results demonstrated that, at this case-study site, the greenhouse gas concentration scenario
affected the cost of the adaptation pathway, but not the ranking of the pathways. The three most cost-
effective pathways (regardless of the greenhouse gas concentration scenarios) were: (1) specified AC
overlays only, (2) specified AC overlays with granular-base course thickness increase from 406 mm to
610 mm in year 2060, and (3) specified AC with granular-base course thickness increase from 406 to
711 mm in year 2060. This assumes no pre-existing pavement distresses. Pathways other than the most
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 9

Figure 5. Adaptation pathways map showing five adaptation pathways (P1, P3, P7, P11, and P12).

cost-effective ones may become efficient if premature pavement damage occurs due to unanticipated
environmental stresses or traffic loading increases (Knott, Jacobs, et al., 2019).
An adaptations pathway map (Figure 5) was then constructed with specified AC overlay thicknesses
(Figure 6) to guide practitioners in developing a stepwise and flexible adaptation plan with opportuni-
ties for re-evaluation (Knott, Jacobs, et al., 2019). The marker ‘X’ indicates when AC overlays should be
applied and bulls eyes symbol (⊕) indicates when a transfer to another pathway can occur, if necessary.
The road will be flooded with rising groundwater at this case-study site for all adaptation pathways
towards the end of the century (Knott, Jacobs, et al., 2019). Recommended AC overlay thicknesses for
two greenhouse gas concentration and SLR scenarios are presented in Figure 6.
An example adaptation plan is as follows: (1) Begin with P1 (Pathway 1 with 406 mm base) and RCP
4.5 and intermediate-low SLR. In 2020, apply 32 mm AC followed by 20 mm in 2030. (2) Re-evaluate
the pavement condition, traffic, and climate scenarios in 2040. In this example, assume the base has
been damaged by pre-existing distresses and the climate scenario has increased to RCP 8.5 and high
SLR. (3) Change the adaptation pathway from P1 to P7 and increase the granular base layer thickness
to 610 mm. Repave with 137 mm in 2040. (4) Apply a 16 mm AC overlay in 2050 and 28 mm in 2060,
re-evaluate. No overlays will be needed until 2080 if the pavement condition remains good (Knott,
Jacobs, et al., 2019).

Case study example: pavement LCA framework

All three approaches mentioned above can be incorporated into a pavement LCA framework. As an
example, the scenario-based approach of choosing two or more climate scenarios first to evaluate
pavement life and timing of M&R strategies is presented using a case-study. The case study builds upon
recent work by Haslett et al. (2019), which examined a 26-km stretch of interstate highway to develop
a pavement LCA framework that includes realistic traffic conditions. Future climate projections from
21 GCMs for RCP 8.5 (highest CMIP5 greenhouse gas concentration scenario) for a case-study location
near Boston Massachusetts were incorporated into the AASHTOWare Pavement ME DesignTM software
to evaluate pavement performance in terms of IRI. Comparing the results between using historical
and future climate input, in the context of pavement LCA framework, demonstrate that for this case-
study, projected future climate change will result in a decreased service life of the pavement structures
and corresponding increase in frequency and timing of M&R activities. Figure 7 shows the pavement
performance curves with respect to time for one pavement cross section using historical climate data
and future climate projections for two M&R strategies: (1) DNR: do nothing reconstruct, and (2) MO:
mill and overlay.
10 K. E. HASLETT ET AL.

Figure 6. Recommended AC overlay thicknesses: (a) RCP 4.5/Intermediate Low SLR, and (b) RCP 8.5/High SLR. The colours represent
the timing of the action, the star () represents the AC thickness after base-layer rehabilitation, and the numbers represent the AC
thickness (Modified from Knott, Jacobs, et al., 2019).

It can be observed that for the MO maintenance scenario (blue line) over the same analysis period
from 9/1/2020 to 10/1/2130, the frequency of maintenance activity increases when using future cli-
mate projections. MO operations are performed 6 times due to the shortened service life (steeper
pavement performance curve) compared to when using historical climate data, for which they are
performed only 4 times. A threshold IRI value was selected as 2.71 m/km to trigger M&R treatment. It
should be noted that researchers used a sufficiently long analysis period to make comparisons among
M&R treatment types that may have different structural contributions.
Figure 7 also demonstrates that using future climate projections has varying implications for agen-
cies depending on the type on M&R treatment. Examining the DNR (red dashed line) versus the MO
(blue line) scenarios, the timing of M&R is different when considering using historical or future cli-
mate input. Incorporating asset management principles and ensuring that the time value of money
is appropriately adopted (in terms of interest and inflation rates) is essential in the analysis as the
funds available at the present time are worth more than the identical sum in the future due to the
potential earning capacity. Failure to do this can lead to insufficient funding availability to maintain
or improve the current state of the road network system. Figure 8 provides an example of total net
present value (NPV) costs broken down by agency (in orange) and users (in green) for the two M&R
treatment alternatives (DNR and MO) assuming historical climate data compared to future climate
projections.
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 11

Figure 7. Example showing impacts of incorporating future climate projections versus use of historical climate data on pavement
performance, and corresponding maintenance and rehabilitation frequency.

Figure 8. Total net present value (NPV) cost comparison using historical or future projected climate data.

The consequence of using historical climate data versus future climate projections is different from
an agency or user perspective. By assuming a changing future climate, the NPV cost for agencies
increases due to the increase in maintenance activities required over the same analysis period. The
average increase in NPV when using future climate projections compared to historical climate data
with respect to the most economical M&R strategy (in this case MO), was 29.7% for the DNR alterna-
tive. Meanwhile, the user (operational) cost decreases by approximately 2% when using future climate
projections over the same analysis period. It is hypothesised that this slight decrease can be attributed
to IRI deteriorating faster (steeper performance curve) and being replaced more often (i.e. restored to
12 K. E. HASLETT ET AL.

smoother surface more often) compared to the historical climate analysis scenario, resulting in less
fuel consumption costs. It should be kept in mind that these results will be case specific and will
depend substantially on factors such as roadway location, traffic, material choices, pavement design
and maintenance and rehabilitation options.
There are direct implications for agencies to be able to accurately predict when maintenance will be
required and when funding for those projects should be allocated. Most State Departments of Trans-
portations develop a 10-year and or a 20-year plan for maintenance and investments. Using an LCA
pavement framework to assess various pavement design and M&R alternatives with respect to future
climate projections will help agencies make planning and budgeting decisions to maintain resilient
pavement infrastructure.

Knowledge gaps/Research needs

With greater understanding of the threats climate change poses for flexible pavement systems, it
becomes even more crucial to close the gap among all stakeholders to ensure the safe, reliable and
resilient design and maintenance of roadway infrastructure. The FHWA technical brief on Climate
Change Adaptation for Pavements (2015) highlighted both short- and long-term adaptation needs.
The report emphasised the need to calibrate empirical models used to predict pavement perfor-
mance (i.e. ride quality, rutting, fatigue cracking etc.), which are currently based on historical data
to reflect how pavement designs and materials are changing under a changing climate. While sev-
eral researchers have shown that ME pavement performance and design models can be used to
incorporate changing environmental conditions in pavement design and maintenance practices, col-
laboration among climate scientists and civil engineers is critical to continue to bridge this gap. For
example, climate scientists can inform the scale and nature of inherent uncertainties in GCM and
downscaling techniques to pavement engineers, while civil engineers may be able to provide bet-
ter insight to climate scientists in terms of temporal and spatial scales of climate information needed
to ensure their applicability for infrastructure resiliency planning.
Another gap exists in pavement management systems (PMS) and the monitoring and reporting of
data. Climate data should be routinely recorded and integrated into PMS. While MAP-21 and the FAST
Act made significant progress in this area by requiring all states to record pavement performance
using similar metrics, there is still a need to incorporate annual summary statistics into pavement
management system reports to identify trends in climate parameters and how these are expected to
impact pavement performance. This type of information will help decision makers proactively adjust
pavement design and material selection to increase pavement resiliency and avoid the high costs of
premature pavement failure.
Depending on the level of analysis (project or network level), the different approaches presented
in this paper can be used to account for climate change in pavement design and M&R planning. For
example, the hybrid approach could be used for a network level project, whereas a scenario-based
approach may be optimal for a project level analysis. There is a need to provide practitioners with
clear guidelines and standard practices at these two levels to ensure routine use of climate change
informed pavement designs.
Short-term research needs include assessment of costs and benefits associated with making cur-
rent design and maintenance practices more flexible, robust and resilient. Long-term research needs
include developing a methodology for updating climatic/environmental inputs used in flexible pave-
ment designs based on updated climatic trends and downscaled climate projections. Material specifi-
cations and design criteria also need to be updated to include climate change. In order to accomplish
this goal, further work is needed to investigate the effectiveness of different M&R treatments and
their anticipated service life under future climate conditions. Finally, new materials and M&R treat-
ments should be evaluated for carbon emissions to ensure that the carbon footprint of transportation
systems is decreasing.
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 13

Summary
Climate is changing at a rate that is unprecedented in human history, and the trends are projected
to accelerate. Numerous studies have shown that projected changes will reduce flexible pavement
performance and lifetime due to the weakening of existing pavement materials under increasing tem-
peratures and diminished base layer strength from water inundation and soil saturation. While many
organisations have begun to plan for climate change by identifying vulnerable transportation assets
and including climate change in the planning process, one important unknown is how to modify cur-
rent design practices in anticipation of increasing temperatures, precipitation and sea-level impacts
on pavement infrastructure.
There is a critical need to include accurate and reliable short- and long-term climate information in
pavement design and M&R planning. This paper provides a high-level overview of current approaches
used to account for climate change in flexible pavement design. Three approaches (scenario-based,
asset-based and hybrid) used to account for climate change in pavement design and M&R were pre-
sented. Examples of climate impacts on flexible pavement performance across the U.S. were included
along with a case study example of how to incorporate future climate projections into a pavement
LCA framework.
While uncertainties exist in the future climate projections and the extent of climate change, it has
been shown that flexible pavement systems are at risk. It is essential to engage stakeholders early and
throughout the process to identify the critical environmental parameters and tipping points for the
asset(s) of interest, the relevant timeframe, and budgetary constraints. Extensive further research is
needed to incorporate stepwise, flexible and cost-effective adaptation plans into pavement design
and pavement management systems to prevent the high costs of premature pavement failure. Iden-
tification of knowledge gaps and research needs moving forward are key to ensure the reliability and
capacity of the pavement infrastructure within the transportation network.

ORCID
Katie E. Haslett http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3494-1066
Jayne F. Knott http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3663-107X
Anne M. K. Stoner http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8162-2714
Jo E. Sias http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5284-0392
Eshan V. Dave http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9788-2246
Jennifer M. Jacobs http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3824-6439
Weiwei Mo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1893-0797
Katharine Hayhoe http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3625-1402

References
AASHTO. (2008). Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG). A manual of practice. Interim Edition.
AASHTOWare. (2015). Pavement ME design; Version 2.3. AASHTOW.
Al-Qadi, I., Ozer, H., & Harvey, J. (2017). Pavement LCA Symposium 2017. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
http://lcasymposium.ict.illinois.edu/proceedings/
Bhave, A. G., Mishra, A., & Raghuwanshi, N. S. (2014). A combined bottom-up and top- down approach for assessment of
climate change adaptation options. Journal of Hydrology, 518, 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.08.039
Bilodeau, J.-P., Dore, G., Thiam, P. M., & Drolet, F. P. (2013, September 22–25). Long-term performance of flexible pavement
structures in a changing climate. Proceedings, 2013 annual conference of the transportation association of Canada:
Better - faster – safer, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Brown, C., Ghile, Y., Laverty, M., & Li, K. (2018). Decision scaling: Linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with climate
projections in the water sector. Water Resources Research, 48. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011212
Daniel, J. S., Jacobs, J. M., Miller, H., Stoner, A., Crowley, J., Khalkhalia, M., & Thomas, A. (2017). Climate change: potential
impacts on frost–thaw conditions and seasonal load restriction timing for low-volume roadways, Road Materials and
Pavement Design.
de Bruin, K., Dellink, R. B., Ruijs, A., Bolwidt, L., van Buuren, A., Graveland, J., de Groot, R. S., Kuikman, P. J., Rein-
hard, S., Roetter, R. P., Tassone, V. C., Verhagen, A., & van Ierland, E. C. (2009). Adapting to climate change in The
14 K. E. HASLETT ET AL.

Netherlands: An inventory of climate adaptation options and ranking of alternatives. Climatic Change, 95(1-2), 23–45.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9576-4
Dunne, J. P., John, J. G., Adcroft, A. J., Griffies, S. M., Hallberg, R. W., Shevliakova, E., Stouffer, R. J., Cooke, W., Dunne, K.
A., Harrison, M. J., Krasting, J. P., Malyshev, S. L., Milly, P. C. D., Phillipps, P. J., Sentman, L. T., Samuels, B. L., Spelman,
M. J., Winton, M., Wittenberg, A. T., & Zadeh, N. (2012). GFDL’s ESM2 global coupled climate–carbon earth system
models. Part I: Physical formulation and baseline simulation characteristics. Journal of Climate, 25(19), 6646–6665.
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00560.1
Dunne, J. P., John, J. G., Shevliakova, E., Stouffer, R. J., Krasting, J. P., Malyshev, S. L., Milly, P. C. D., Sentman, L. T., Adcroft, A.
J., Cooke, W., Dunne, K. A., Griffies, S. M., Hallberg, R. W., Harrison, M. J., Levy, H., Wittenberg, A. T., Phillips, P. J., & Zadeh,
N. (2013). GFDL’s ESM2 global coupled climate–carbon earth system models. Part II: Carbon system formulation and
baseline simulation characteristics. Journal of Climate, 26(7), 2247–2267. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00150.1
Elshaer, M., Ghayoomi, M., & Daniel, J. S. (2017). Impact of subsurface water on the structural performance of inundated
flexible pavements. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2017.
1366767
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2014). Motor Vehicles Emissions Simulator (MOVES), MOVES2014a ed. EPA.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2015). Climate change adaptation for pavements.FHWA-HIF-15-015.
Gu, F., & Tran, N. (2019, May). Best practices for determining life cycle costs of asphalt pavements. National Center for Asphalt
Technology. http://eng.auburn.edu/research/centers/ncat/files/technical-reports/rep19-03.pdf
Haslett, K. E., Dave, E. V., & Mo, W. (2019). Realistic traffic condition informed life cycle assessment: Interstate 495
maintenance and rehabilitation case study. Sustainability, 11(12), 3245. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123245
Hayhoe, K., Edmonds, J., Kopp, R. E., LeGrande, A. N., Sanderson, B. M., Wehner, M. F., & Wuebbles, D. J. (2017). Climate
models, scenarios, and projections. In D. J. Wuebbles, D. W. Fahey, K. A. Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, & T. K.
Maycock (Eds.), Climate science special report: Fourth national climate assessment, volume I (pp. 133–160). U.S. Global
Change Research Program. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0WH2N54.
International Symposium on Pavement LCA 2014. (2014). University of California, Davis, CA, USA. http://www.ucprc.
ucdavis.edu/P-LCA2014/Papers.aspx
IPCC. (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment
report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, 1535.
Jacobs, J. M., Culp, M., Cattaneo, L., Chinowsky, P., Choate, A., DesRoches, S., Douglass, S., & Miller, R. (2018). Transportation.
In D. R. Reidmiller, C. W. Avery, D. R. Easterling, K. E. Kunkel, K. L. M. Lewis, T. K. Maycock, & B. C. Stewart (Eds.), Impacts,
risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment (Vol. II, pp. 479–511). U.S. Government
Publishing Office. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH12
Knott, J., Jacobs, J., Sias, J., Kirshen, P., & Dave, E. (2019). A framework for Introducing climate-change adaptation in
pavement management. Sustainability, 2019(11), Article 4382. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164382
Knott, J., Sias, J., Dave, E., & Jacobs, J. (2019). Seasonal and long-term changes to pavement life caused by rising
temperatures from climate change. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119844249
Kotamarthi, R., Mearns, L., Hayhoe, K., Castro, C. L., & Wuebbles, D. (2016). Use of climate information for decision-making
and impacts research: State of our understanding. Prepared for the department of defense, strategic environmental
research and development program. 55.
Kwadijk, J. C. J., Haasnoot, M., Mulder, J. P. M., Hoogvliet, M. M. C., Jeuken, A. B. M., van der Krogt, R. A. A., van Oostrom, N.
G. C., Schelfhout, H. A., van Velzen, E. H., van Waveren, H., & de Wit, M. J. M. (2010). Using adaptation tipping points to
prepare for climate change and sea level rise: A case study in the Netherlands. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
Change, 1(5), 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.64
MassDOT. Transportation Data Management System (MS2). (2018). http://mhd.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc = Mhd
&mod =
Mills, B., Tighe, S., Andrey, J., Smith, J. T., & Huen, K. (2009). Climate change implications for flexible pavement design and
performance in Southern Canada. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 135(10). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
947X(2009)135:10(773)
Muench, S., & Van Dam, T. (2015). Climate change adaptation for pavements. DTFH61-10- D-00042. Applied Pavement
Technology, Inc.
Pavement Life Cycle Assessment Workshop. (2010). University of California: Davis, CA, USA, May 2010. http://www.ucprc.
ucdavis.edu/p-lca/presentations.html
Roshani, A. (2014). Road infrastructure vulnerability to groundwater table variation due to Sea level rise [Master’s thesis].
Queensland University of Technology. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/74509/
Smith, J. B., Vogel, J. M., & Cromwell, J. E. (2009). An architecture for government action on adaptation to climate change.
An editorial comment. Climatic Change, 95(1-2), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9623-1
Stoner, A., Daniel, J., Jacobs, J., Hayhoe, K., & Scott-Fleming, I. (2019). Quantifying the impact of climate change on flexible
pavement performance and lifetime in the United States. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2673(1), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118821877
 ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN 15

Sweet, W., Kopp, R., Weaver, C., Obeysekera, J., Horton, R., Robert Thieler, E., & Zervas, C. (2017). Global and regional sea
level rise scenarios for the United States.
Taner, MÜ, Ray, P., & Brown, C. (2017). Robustness-based evaluation of hydropower infrastructure design under climate
change. Climate Risk Management, 18, 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2017.08.002
Transportation Research Board (TRB). (2018). InSight data access website—SHRP2 naturalistic driving study. https://
insight.shrp2nds.us/
Underwood, B. S., Guido, Z., Gudipudi, P., & Feinberg, Y. (2017). Increased costs to US pavement infrastructure from future
temperature rise. Nature Climate Change, 7(10), 704–707. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3390
USGCRP. (2017). Climate science special report: fourth national climate assessment, Volume I, 470.
USGCRP. (2018). Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: Fourth national climate assessment, Volume II [Rei-
dmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global
Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.
Ventura, A., & Roche, C. D. L. (2012). International symposium on life cycle assessment and construction—civil engineering
and buildings. RILEM Publications SARL. ISBN 978-2-35158-127-8.
White, P., Golden, J. S., Biligiri, K. P., & Kaloush, K. (2010). Modeling climate change impacts of pavement production and
construction. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(11), 776–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.12.007
Wistuba, M. P., & Walther, A. (2013). Consideration of climate change in the mechanistic pavement design. Road Materials
and Pavement Design, 14(Sup. 1), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2013.774759