Evaluation Framework for Cost-Effective and Sustain-

able Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategies of Flexi-

ble Pavements

Abstract. The objective of this study was to investigate the economic viability and assess the
sustainability of various pavement maintenance and rehabilitation strategies of flexible pave-
ment. The major research scopes included formulation of maintenance strategies based on the
Pavement Condition Index, assessment of cost-effectiveness through Life Cycle Cost Analysis
(LCCA), and estimation of environmental impact through Green House Gas (GHG) emissions.
At first, a flexible pavement section was designed with an analysis period of 18 years with three
alternative strategies that include standalone and a combination of patching, and mill and overlay.
Next, LCCA was estimated and it was found that patching at every 5 years interval, and mill and
overlay at every 10 years interval offer the most cost-effective solution. Furthermore, a Life Cy-
cle Assessment (LCA) was carried out at various stages of construction. The findings revealed
that mill and overlay had the minimum GHG emission followed by the alternative that combines
patching and mill and overlay. Overall, it was envisaged that the methodological framework de-
veloped in this study would help road agencies, policymakers, and other stakeholders to devise
rational alternative strategies and then decide the cost-effective and sustainable solutions for flex-
ible pavements.

Keywords: Flexible Pavement, Life Cycle Cost Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment,
Maintenance and Rehabilitation

1 Introduction

The development of a nation largely depends on its infrastructure. India is said to have
the second-largest road network in the world with 6,215,797 km, among them only
2.2% are of National Highways that carry 40% of all traffic [1]. It is estimated that the
freight traffic will increase from 40% to 80% on National Highways and Expressways
in the next decade [1]. However, the lack of fundig is one of the major issues for devel-
oping nations like India, especially for infrastructure development projects such as road
construction. Thus, it is very critical to optimally allocate the resources by identifying
potential alternative strategies and analyzing them prior to the ro ad construction and
maintenance.

A sustainable pavement is one that meets engineering goals while having a minimal
negative impact on future prospects for the economy, society, human health, and the
environment. In fact, economy, environment, and social standards are three major in-
dicators to understand the sustainable traits of pavement infrastructure. Therefore, it is
important to check the viability of various alternative strategies in terms of environ-
mental, economic, and performance standpoints during the construction and mainte-
nance stages. As a tool for quantification, Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) method-
ology is mostly used for the economic evaluation of pavement construction. On the
2

other hand, the tool employed to estimate the environmental consequences of pavement
construction is termed as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).

In literature, numerous researcher efforts were conducted on LCCA and LCA of

pavements to assess the economic and environmental viability. For example, a research
study conducted by Aggarwal et al. [2] highlighted the development of a Pavement
Management System (PMS) for the Indian National Highway network. This PMS pro-
vided important guidelines to the engineers, road agencies, and policymakers for allo-
cating funds that ensure consistent and cost-effective decisions akin to the maintenance
of highway networks. Another study conducted by Albuquerque et al. [3] revealed that
around 14% of the world's Green House Gas (GHG) emissions are attributed to the
transportation sector wherein roads account for 72% of those emissions through con-
struction, rehabilitation, maintenance, service, and consumption. Furthermore, a wealth
of literature can be found that quantified the environmental impacts of road construc-
tion, rehabilitation and maintenance strategies through theoretical and case studies in
various countries. For instance, a study conducted by Sreedhar et al. [4] investigated
the impact of carbon footprints due to highway construction materials in India. This
study developed a mathematical framework to estimate the total amount of GHG emis-
sions in terms of total kgCO2 equivalent for the construction of new flexible pavement.
Another study led by Choi [5] developed a strategy for reducing CO2 emissions from
the maintenance and rehabilitation of highway pavement by synergizing long-term
pavement performance and CO2 emissions. In order to determine the long-term viabil-
ity of the pavement systems, Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and Life Cycle Environmental
Cost (LCEC) are analyzed concurrently. For example, a research study led by Kumar
and Sharma [1] compared the economic and environmental costs through LCC and
LCEC between rigid pavement and perpetual flexible pavement. It was found that the
initial cost of perpetual flexible pavement is 5% less than rigid pavement, and the total
maintenance cost over 50 years period was approximately 32% lesser than rigid pave-
ment. Several studies carried out by Nautiyal and Sharma [6-7] found the factors that
contribute to pavement sustainability. These factors included but were not limited to
alternative pavement designs and materials, condition-based planning and scheduling,
factor of prioritizing roads for new construction and existing road maintenance, recy-
cling in raw material consumption, processing in the pavement layer, and many more.

A study conducted by Ashok and Ashwini [8] estimated the total cost of concrete
and bituminous pavement with maintenance and rehabilitation strategy using LCCA
methodology. Several other studies [9-12] investigated the LCA methodologies on
pavement materials used during the construction, placement, and maintenance stages.
In summary, the research framework for evaluating LCCA or LCA exclusively on a
new pavement construction can be found in the literature. However, very limited stud-
ies [1, 5, 8] can be found that focused on LCCA or LCA for maintenance and rehabili-
tation. In fact, the few research studies [5, 8] which dealt with LCCA and LCA concur-
rently did not cover the entire life cycle of the pavement system. It is important to in-
clude both LCCA and LCA of pavement over the analysis period for majorly two rea-
sons: (a) to identify the most cost-effective alternative and (b) to determine the most
 3

environmentally viable strategy. With this background, the objective of this study was
to investigate the economic viability and assess the sustainability of various p avement
maintenance and rehabilitation strategies of flexible pavements. This study encom-
passed the assessment of the total cost of structure and evaluation of the environmental
impact of the pavement system over a timeline starting from the construction o f new
pavement to maintenance and rehabilitation with the help of LCCA and LCA method-
ology. The scopes of this study included Fig.1:
• Determine the cost of asphalt pavement by using the LCCA approach for newly con-
structed pavement systems,
• Devise various maintenance and rehabilitation strategies and assess the cost-effec-
tive alternatives during the analysis period,
• Estimate carbon footprint using LCA methodology and understand the various fac-
tors that contribute to the emission during the construction of flexible pavement.

Fig. 1. Research Framework

2 Background

This section explains the key concepts pertinent to the various terminologies used to
calculate the cost at different stages and associated carbon footprints with highway con-
struction.

2.1 Agency Cost

The initial design and subsequent rehabilitation plan have a direct influence on the con-
struction quantities and costs. Thus, the determination of construction quantities/unit
prices form the first step towards the estimation of agency cost. The costs items in-
cluded in agency costs are construction costs, future routine, preliminary engineering,
preventive maintenance, and rehabilitation cost.

2.2 Discount Rate

The discount rate refers to the rate of change of the true value of money over time. It is
used to calculate the present value of money of the project.
4

2.3 Net Present Value (NPV)

It is the discounted monetary value of expected net benefits. NPV can be estimated
using Equation (1) reported in the literature [13]:
1
𝑁𝑃𝑉 = 𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 + ∑𝑅𝑒ℎ𝑎𝑏 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 × [ ] (1)
(1+𝑖)𝑛

Where: NPV = Net Present Value, Rehab Cost = Rehabilitation cost, i = Discount rate,
n = Number of years.

2.4 LCCA
The goal of Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is to determine the total cost of a project
by estimating the initial cost and then discounting it to future costs along with mainte-
nance and rehabilitation costs. The major two components of LCCA include “Agency
Cost” and “Road User Cost”. Agency cost deals with the cost associated with construc-
tion, maintenance and rehabilitation costs whereas the road user costs include vehicle
operating costs, and user delay costs [14-16].

2.5 Green House Gas (GHG)

The gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as Greenhouse Gases (GHG). Due
to these gases, entrapped heat increases in the atmosphere which consequently leads to
a gradual increase in temperatures over time. The major Greenhouse Gases are Carbon
dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases.

2.6 Global Warming Potential (GWP)

The heat trapped by any GHG in the atmosphere is known as the Global Warming
Potential (GWP). The function of GWP is to convert all GHG into CO2e.

2.7 CO2 Equivalent

It serves as a metric unit of comparison for the global warming potential of various
GHG emissions (GWP). CO2 is considered as a reference gas to determine the emis-
sions from all GHG. The carbon emissions during the construction of pavement can be
computed using the following Equation [17]:

𝐾𝑔𝐶𝑂2 𝑒 = (𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑘𝑔) × (𝐺𝑊𝑃 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠) (2)

2.8 Carbon Footprint

Carbon footprint calculates the overall GHG emissions directly attributable to a specific
individual, group, activity, event, or product. The entire amount of Greenhouse Gases
 5

(such as CO2, CH4, and N2 O) produced due to construction, maintenance, and rehabil-
itation operations is known as carbon footprint.

2.9 LCA
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a methodological framework for evaluating the per-
formance of a road project from cradle to grave including the material production stage,
material movement stage, construction stage, maintenance, and rehabilitation stages.
LCA is mainly used to detect the environmental and social impacts of pavement con-
struction. LCA consists of four main stages [18]: goal and scope definition, inventory
analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation.

3 Research Methodology

The major aim of this study was to estimate the cost and greenhouse gas emissions in
terms of kgCO2 equivalent of new road construction and during its maintenance and
rehabilitation time. The following steps are adopted in this research work:

• Conduct flexible pavement Design;

• Estimate the cost and kgCO2eq of new pavement construction;
• Determine the Pavement Condition Index to select the alternatives for maintenance
and rehabilitation activities; and
• Determine cost and kg CO2eq of maintenance and rehabilitation alternatives

3.1 Pavement Design

A flexible pavement road section of length 1 km and width 3.75 m was considered in
this study. The design of this pavement was carried out as per the Mechanistic-Empir-
ical Pavement Design Guidelines: IRC 37-2018 [19] in India by considering the Effec-
tive CBR of soil subgrade: 5% and design traffic: 50 MSA. The total design period was
considered to be 18 years. It is noteworthy that 18 years of design period was considered
to project the traffic up to 50 MSA. Since this study considered a uniform rate of
maintenance and rehabilitation strategies over the entire analysis period, a different de-
sign period would not have any impact on the overall estimation of cost and emission.
The designed pavement section consists of soil subgrade, Granular Subbase (GSB),
Wet Mix Macadam (WMM), Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM), and Bituminous
Concrete (BC) layers. The design thicknesses of these layers for GSB, WMM, DBM,
and BC were 200 mm, 250 mm, 140 mm, and 50 mm, respectively.

3.2 Pavement Condition Index

To evaluate the pavement conditions of the highway, the Korea Institute of Construc-
tion Technology [5] developed the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) as shown in Equa-
tion (3). Based on the PCI value calculated from Equation (3), the standard maintenance
6

and rehabilitation technique can be adopted. Various PCI levels and associated mainte-
nance work are summarized in Table 1.
1
𝑃𝐶𝐼 = (3)
(0.33+0.003×𝑋𝐶 +0.004×𝑋𝑅 +0.0183×𝑋𝐼𝑅𝐼 )2

Where: XC = % of Cracking Area, XR = Rut Depth, IRI = International Roughness Index

Table 1. PCI level and Preventive work

PCI Levels Condition Preventive Work
9.18-6.0 Very Good No maintenance
6.0-5.5 Good Patching
5.5-4.0 Fair Mill and Overlay
4.0-0.0 Poor Rehabilitation

3.3 Maintenance and Rehabilitation

Based on PCI values, three alternatives were considered in this study. They are:

• Alternative A: patching work was applied at an interval of every five years over the
entire analysis period
• Alternative B: mill and overlay work was applied at an interval of every 10 years
• Alternative C: patching was applied at an interval of every five years, and mill and
overlay were considered after 10 years of patchwork

For each alternative, the PCI was calculated using Equation (3). The input for PCI
estimation such as the percentage of Cracking Area, Rut Depth, and International
Roughness Index (IRI) was adopted from the study conducted by Choi [5]. It is im-
portant to note that these inputs can also be easily obtained by pavement condition sur-
vey over the analysis period. Since this study attempted to provide a complete frame-
work for estimating LCCA and LCA, the database obtained from the literature was
considered to exemplify the research methodology. Three aforementioned alternatives
in conjunction with the appropriate timeframe were evaluated based on pavement con-
dition and presented in Fig. 2. In this study, patching work was considered as a minor
maintenance work whereas mill and overlay was considered as major rehabilitation
work.

(a) Alternative A (b) Alternative B (c) Alternative C

Fig. 2. Change in PCI for: (a) Alternative A, (b) Alternative B, and (c) Alternative C.
 7

3.4 Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) indicates the total cost of new pavement construc-
tion, and maintenance and rehabilitation over the analysis period by accounting for the
initial cost and discounting the future cost. In this study, LCCA was estimated in two
stages: (i) construction and (ii) maintenance and rehabilitation. Here, the concept of Net
Present Value (NPV) was implemented to evaluate the time worth of money using a
discount rate. The framework of LCCA is presented in Fig. 3:

Fig. 3. LCCA Framework

3.5 Life Cycle Assessment

It is a technique for assessing the environmental impacts of various project life cycle
activities related to pavement construction, maintenance and rehabilitation. In this ex-
ercise, GHG emissions were calculated in terms of kgCO2 eq at all stages such as the
material production stage, material transportation stage, construction stage, user stage,
and maintenance and rehabilitation stage. The general framework for LCA is presented
in Fig. 4:

Fig. 4. LCA Framework

4 Results and Discussions

As discussed earlier, the analysis period for estimating LCCA and LCA was considered
to be 18 years. In this timeline, the analysis was conducted in two phases: (i) during
new construction, and (ii) maintenance and rehabilitation of pavement. Three mainte-
nance and rehabilitation strategies: A, B, and C were considered with appropriate time-
lines, and analyses were carried out to arrive at the most cost-effective and environ-
mental-friendly alternatives during the analysis period.
8

4.1 LCCA
The initial construction cost of flexible pavement was calculated using the schedule
rate as per the MoRTH [23] guidelines and maintenance and rehabilitation cost was
calculated as per the research study conducted by Choi [5] as summarized in Tables 2
and 3. The cost of three alternatives: A, B, and C were calculated based on surface area
and resurfacing depth. It is worth noting that the cost for patching work (20% of total
area of 3750 m2), and mill and overlay (total area of 3750 m2 ) were calculated based on
the unit cost of patching, and milling and overlay as per Table 3. All the details of costs
due to maintenance and rehabilitation alternatives [5] were summarized in Table 4. Ad-
ditionally, the discount and inflation rate were assumed to be 12% and 5%, respectively
as per the recent database [8, 17].

Table 2. Cost of new flexible pavement

Layers Cost/cum (Rs) Thick (mm) Width (m) Total Cost (Rs)
BC 7500 50 3.75 1406250
DBM 6190 140 3.75 3249750
WMM 1786 250 3.75 1674375
GSB 1930 200 3.75 1447500
Prime Coat 14 1 coat 3.75 52500
Tack Coat 9 2coat 3.75 67500
Initial Cost 7897875

Table 3. Unit Maintenance and Rehabilitation cost.

Alternatives volume AD Asphalt AP MC ELC UMC
m2 m3 kg/m3 (Ton) (Rs/Ton) RS Rs Rs
Patching
50 m2 2.5 2250 5.625 5036 28327.5 87625 115952.5
Mill & Over-
lay
2000 m2 200 2250 450 5036 2266200 378995 2645195

Where: AD = Asphalt Density, AP = Asphalt Price, MC = Material Cost, ELC =

Equipment and Labor cost, UMC = Unit maintenance cost.

Table 4. Cost of different alternatives

Inflated Cost at Total Cost per

Alternatives Year Initial Cost
5% per annum km
A: Patching (20% of
total area) 5 1739288 2330812.3
9102232.6
10 1739288 2974772.7
15 1739288 3796647.6
B: Mill & Overlay (to-
10 4959741 8482840.2 8482840.2
tal area)
5 1739288 2330812.3 13157304.9
 9

C: Patching at 5 th yr,
Mill& Overlay at 15 th 10826492.6
yr 15 4959741

Once the total cost incurred during initial construction and for maintenance alternatives
was estimated, it was possible to determine which alternative would provide the best eco-
nomic viability. However, the construction and maintenance strategies were initiated at
different times. Hence, it was necessary to implement the concept of NPV in order to
determine the cost at the same timeline. A summary of NPV for each alternative is
presented in Table 5. As observed, Alternative C offers the best cost-effectiveness
among all due to its higher Net Present Value. When the other Alternatives: A and B
were compared with respect to Alternative C, it can be noticed that the NPV of Alter-
native C stands around 5% higher than Alternative A and approximately 7% higher
than Alternative B.

Table 5. Calculations of NPV along with Alternatives

Cost of Cost of Cost of
1 NPV of NPV of NPV of
Sr.No Year (( ) Alterna- Alterna- Alterna-
1+𝑖) 𝑛 ‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’
tive ‘A’ tive ‘B’ tive ‘C’
1 2000 1 7897875 7897875 7897875 7897875 7897875 7897875
2 2001 0.89 0 0 0
3 2002 0.80 0 0 0
4 2003 0.71 0 0 0
5 2004 0.64 0 0 0
6 2005 0.57 2669299 1514632 0 2669299 1514632
7 2006 0.51 0 0 0
8 2007 0.45 0 0 0
9 2008 0.40 0 0 0
10 2009 0.36 0 0 0
11 2010 0.32 3814333 1228113 10876924 3502078 0
12 2011 0.29 0 0 0
13 2012 0.26 0 0 0
14 2013 0.23 0 0 0
15 2014 0.20 0 0 0
16 2015 0.18 5450546 995794 0 15542737 2839600
17 2016 0.16 0 0 0
18 2017 0.15 0 0 0
Total NPV 11636414 11399953 12252107

4.2 LCA
Life Cycle Assessment is a methodology for calculating the environmental impacts of
any product from its cradle to grave. GHG emissions majorly include four sequential
stages: (i) material production, (ii) material movement, (iii) construction, and (iv)
maintenance and rehabilitation. It is important to note that the GHG emission in the
10

first three stages remains common since it involved only the construction of new pave-
ment. However, the GHG emissions are distinct during maintenance and rehabilitation
for three alternative strategies. At first, the volume of materials needed in the produc-
tion stage was estimated based on the dimensions of the pavement section and then
expressed in terms of “mass” as summarized in Table 6.
As observed in Table 6, the total aggregate used in the production stage summed up
to 1,098,855 kg for all the layers. Furthermore, the quantity of total bitumen used in
DBM and BC layers during the production stage was 33,659.5 kg. Once the quantity of
aggregate and bitumen were estimated, the associated GHG emission can be easily
computed by multiplying the emission factor with the quantity. The emission factor
considered for coarse aggregate, fine aggregate, and bitumen were 0.0028, 0.0025, and
0.0426, respectively [10]. In summary, the total GHG emission for aggregates and bi-
tumen were found to be 3,076 and 1,434 kgCO2eq, respectively; totaling to 4510
kgCO2eq in the production stage.

Table 6. Materials details in production stage

Vol-
Layers Items Density Fraction ume Total
kg/m3 m3 kg
Earthwork 1442 1 1875 2703750
Coarse aggregate 1602 0.9 1009260
GSB 700
Fine aggregate 1650 0.1 115500
Coarse aggregate 1602 0.8 1121400
WMM 875
Fine aggregate 1650 0.2 288750
Coarse aggregate 1602 0.6 504630
DBM Bitumen 1020 0.045 525 24097
Fine aggregate 1650 0.355 307519
Coarse aggregate 1602 0.8 240300
BC Fine aggregate 1650 0.15 187.5 46406.25
Bitumen 1020 0.05 9562.5

In the sequence of construction, the next step involved the movement of materials
from the source of production to the site of construction. The GHG emission associated
with this movement were calculated based on the distance adopted from the research
study by Hatmoko et al. [24]. It is important to note that the distance from the source
can be easily obtained prior to the evaluation of any alternatives. Since this study only
focused on providing a research framework for evaluating the maintenance and reha-
bilitation strategies, the distance assumed from the literature has no significant impli-
cation on the outcomes of the study. The prime goal of this task included exemplifying
the methodical sequence that can be adopted by the road agencies to compare and con-
trast the most cost-effective and environmentally friendly maintenance and rehabilita-
tion strategies. With this background, the GHG emission associated with the movement
of materials were estimated from the pavement system and summarized in Table 7.
 11

Table 7. GHG emissions in material movement stage

Volume PC DFS TD TE
Materials FC (lit)
(m3) (m3) (km) (km) (kgCO2eq)
Coarse aggregate 1,652 4 100 82,600 23,623.6 62,838.77
Fine aggregate 390 4 25 4,875 13,94.25 3,708.71
Bitumen (lit) 25,200 13,200 150 572.73 163.8 435.7
Total CO2 emissions 66,983

Where: PC = Plant Capacity, DFS = Distance from Source, TD = Total Distance, FC =

Fuel Consumption = TD ×0.286, diesel consumptions: 0.286 lit/km, TE = Total emis-
sions = FC × 2.66, Diesel emission factor: 2.66 kgCO2eq/lit. [24].

As observed in Table 7, the transportation of coarse aggregate constitutes the maxi-

mum (around 93% of total emission) share in the total GHG emission, followed by fine
aggregates (approximately 5%) and bitumen (approximately 2%). Though the partial
contribution of each material can differ based on the distance from the source, the trans-
portation of coarse aggregate is expected to contribute the maximum GHG emission
due to its higher volume incurred during the construction. In addition, it is important to
observe the difference in GHG emission between the production and during the move-
ment of materials. In this case, the GHG emission during material transportation was
significantly higher than the emission incurred at the production stage of materials.
More specifically, the GHG ratio of transportation to production was around 15 times.
This observation corroborated with the findings from the literature [4] as well. In sum-
mary, the total GHG emission obtained during the transportation of materials was found
to be 66,983 kgCO2 eq. In the sequence of pavement construction, the next activity in-
volves the construction. For each of these tasks, the associated GHG emissions were
determined and presented in Table 8. As observed, the production of Hot Mix Asphalt
constituted the highest share (~56%) in the total GHG emission during the construction,
followed by the reduction of biomass (~43%). Although the scale of contribution from
these two activities may differ depending upon the site condition, these activities would
remain as the largest two contributors in the new construction of flexible pavement
system.
For this exercise, the assumptions were considered to compute the emission in the
construction stage and presented in next:
• For land clearance and reduction of biomass, 20% of the area was taken.
• And for the excavation operation, the loose material was taken 1.2 times of actual
volume.
• Also, the material proportion was taken as follows [23]:
o GSB (Grade V): Density 2185 kg/m3, coarse aggregate 90%, fine aggregate -
10%
o WMM: Density 2260 kg/m3, coarse aggregate 50%, fine aggregate 30%, Stone
dust 20%
o DBM (Grade II): Density 2450 kg/m3 , 4.5% bitumen, 95.5% aggregate
o For BC it was assumed bitumen 5%, remaining aggregate.
 12

Table 8. Emissions in Construction Stage

EF TE
Activities Quantity Unit
KgCO2eq/unit (kgCO2eq)
Clearance for road construction 6.56 360 m3 2,362
CO2 emissions due to permanent reduction of bio-
1,540 360 m3 5,54,400
mass
Excavation with excavator 0.539 2,880.0 m3 1,552
Construction of road sub-base 1.14 8,194 ton 9,341
Rolling of layers (3 times) - for one layer (Sub-
0.102 3,750 m2 383
Base)
Prime coat 0.0205 3,750 m2 77
Construction of road base course (unbound) at the
1.14 4,097 tonne 4,671
road site
Rolling of layers - for one layer (Base) (3times) 0.102 3,750 m2 383
Tack coat 0.0205 3,750 m2 77
Production of hot mix asphalt 78.6 9,225 tonne 7,25,085
Paving of asphalt layers, for one asphalt layer 0.0965 3,750 m2 362
Rolling of asphalt layers, for one layer 0.13 3,750 m2 488
Total kgCO2eq 12,99,179

Where: EF = Emission Factor in kgCO2eq/unit [20], TE = Total Emission in kgCO2 eq

GHG emission for newly constructed pavement is the summation of GHG emission
during (i) the production of materials, (ii) the transportation of materials, and (iii) con-
struction activities. Thus, the total GHG emission sums up to 1,370,672 kgCO2eq. As
it can be understood, the majority of GHG emission was incurred during the construc-
tion stage which was approximately 95% of total GHG emission. Sin ce the major ob-
jective of this study was to evaluate three maintenance and rehabilitation strategies, an
attempt was put forward to estimate GHG emissions during various activities pertinent
to the maintenance and rehabilitation work. These three alternatives involve standalone
and combination of two maintenance and rehabilitation work: (a) mill and overlay, and
(b) Patching. Next, the GHG emission that occurred during these two maintenance and
rehabilitation works were adopted from the literature [5], and then the estimation was
carried out on the pavement section considered in this study. The emissions due to patch
work, and mill and overlay work for the area of 50 m 2 and 2000 m2 were 6756 and 597.2
kgCO2eq, respectively [5]. It can be noticed that the GHG emission during “Mill and
Overlay” was significantly higher than “Patching” works due to the drastic change in
scale and volume of work involved in these two activities.
It is important to recall that each of the three alternative strategies involved either a
standalone or a combination of patching, and mill and overlay. Alternative A involves
patching work thrice whereas Alternative B consisted of one-time activity of mill and
overlay. In Alternative C, the first activity includes patching entailed by mill and over-
lay, each activity once. Next, the total GHG emission of three alternatives were esti-
mated and summarized in Table 9. The emissions calculated for patching work was
20% of the total area (3.75 m × 1000 m = 3750 m2). In case of mill and overlay, the
total surface areas of the pavement sections were considered.
 13

Table 9. Emissions in maintenance and rehabilitation stage

Unit Unit Emis- Emission
Emission
Alterna- Emission sion (Mill (Mill and TE
PF MOF (Patching
tives (Patching and Overlay
750 m2)
Overlay (kgCO2eq)
50 m2) 2000 m 2) 3750 m 2)
A 3 - 597.72 - 26897 - 26897
B - 1 - 6756 - 12667 12667
C 1 1 597.72 6756 8965 12667 21632

As observed, the total GHG emission for Alternative A, B, and C were 26898, 12668,
and 21634 kgCO2eq, respectively. Thus, Alternative B leads to the least environmental
impact in terms of GHG emissions. Furthermore, Alternative C showed a superior car-
bon footprint than Alternative A. Quantitively, Alternatives C and A offer ed 1.7 and
2.1 times more emission when compared with Alternative B. As the GHG emissions at
production, transportation of materials, and construction remained the same for all three
alternatives, the emission during maintenance and rehabilitation activities played a de-
ciding role in evaluating the best alternative in terms of environmental impacts. Hence,
it can be concluded that “mill and overlay” was found to be a better maintenance and
rehabilitation strategy than regular patching and a combination of patching, and mill
and overlay.
In summary, Alternative C was found to be the most cost-effective, followed by
Alternative A. On the hand, Alternative B exhibited better env ironmental traits, fol-
lowed by Alternative C. It was difficult to differentiate the next better alternative since
each one of the two alternatives scored higher in opposite domains. For such cases,
another screening criteria can be applied wherein a priority-based rating system can be
formulated to further differentiate these alternatives. In simple words, the framework
adopted to evaluate the cost-effective and sustainable alternatives for maintenance and
rehabilitation was rational and sensitive and helped decide the appropriate strategies for
flexible pavement system.
Where: PF = Patching frequency, MOF = Milling and Overlay frequency, TE = Total
Emission

5 Summary and Conclusions

The objective of this study was to investigate the economic viability and assess the
sustainability of various pavement maintenance and rehabilitation strategies of flexible
pavement. The significant contribution of the study was that it estimated the cost and
emission for a newly constructed pavement associated with its maintenance and reha-
bilitation strategies over the entire analysis period. The major findings of the study can
be summarized as follows:
• Methodological Framework: A methodological framework was devised to calculate
the cost of newly constructed flexible pavement in the context of Net Present Values
for three alternative strategies. Furthermore, the environmental impacts of activities
pertaining to maintenance and rehabilitation were assessed through carbon footprint
14

analysis. This framework was found to be simple and it helped provide a rational esti-
mation of cost and environmental impacts concurrently.

• Life Cycle Cost Analysis: Three alternatives were selected based on PCI-based cri-
terion and the cost of each one was estimated in the analysis period of 18 years. The
Net Present Value of pavement in conjunction with maintenance strategies were eval-
uated using an appropriate discounting rate. It was found that Alternative C: patching,
and mill and overlay were more economically viable than the others alternatives.

• Life Cycle Assessment: The environmental impact of three maintenance strategies

were examined in terms of GHG emissions at various stages of pavement construction.
These stages included the production of materials at the source, transportation of mate-
rials to the site, construction work, and activities during maintenance and rehabilitation.
It was found that GHG emission during maintenance and rehabilitation activities plays
a deciding role in differentiating the alternative strategies. Further analyses revealed
that Alternative B offers the least GHG emission than other alternatives. Hence, Alter-
native B: “mill and overlay” was found to be the most cost-effective and sustainable
strategies in the analysis period.

Future studies are certainly needed to improve the methodological framework by

including user cost and social factors in longer analysis period. A complete case study
with various alternative strategies wherein real-time data can be collected would also
bolster the findings of the study. Overall, it was envisioned that the methodological
framework developed in this study would help road agencies, policymakers, and other
stakeholders to devise rational alternative strategies and then decide the cost-effective
and sustainable solution for flexible pavements.

References

1. Kumar, R., & Sharma, S. (2022, October). Perpetual Flexible Pavement vs. Rigid Pavement:
An Economic and Environmental Cost Comparison.
2. Aggarwal, S., Jain, S. S., & Parida, M. (2004, October). Development of pavement manage-
ment system for Indian national highway network.
3. Albuquerque, F. D., Maraqa, M. A., Chowdhury, R., Mauga, T., & Alzard, M. (2020).
Greenhouse gas emissions associated with road transport projects: current status, bench-
marking, and assessment tools. Transportation Research Procedia, 48, 2018-2030.
4. Sreedhar, S., Jichkar, P., & Biligiri, K. P. (2016). Investigation of carbon footprints of high-
way construction materials in India. Transportation Research Procedia, 17, 291 -300.
5. Choi, J. H. (2019). Strategy for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from maintenance and
rehabilitation of highway pavement. Journal of cleaner production, 209, 88 -100.
6. Nautiyal, A., & Sharma, S. (2021). Condition Based Maintenance Planning of low volume
rural roads using GIS. Journal of Cleaner Production, 312, 127649.
7. Nautiyal, A., & Sharma, S. (2022). Methods and factors of prioritizing roads for mainte-
nance: a review for sustainable flexible pavement maintenance program. Innovative Infra-
structure Solutions, 7(3), 1-15.
 15

8. Ashok, S. P., & Ashwini, P. (2017). Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Flexible Pavements and
Rigid Pavements in Urban Areas. International Journal of Innovative Science and Research
Technology, 2(6), 48-54.
9. Huang, Y. (2007). Life cycle assessment of use of recycled materials in asphalt pavements
(Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University).
10. 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.
11. Hanson, C. S., Noland, R. B., & Cavale, K. R. (2012). Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions
of materials used in road construction. Transportation research record, 2287(1), 174 -181.
12. Barandica, J. M., Fernández-Sánchez, G., Berzosa, Á., Delgado, J. A., & Acosta, F. J.
(2013). Applying life cycle thinking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from road projects.
Journal of cleaner production, 57, 79-91.
13. Papagiannakis, A. T., & Masad, E. A. (2008). Pavement design and materials. John Wiley
& Sons.
14. FHWA, 1998. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design – In search of Better Invest-
ment Decisions, Federal Highway Administration. U.S.Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC.
15. Heravi, G., & Esmaeeli, A. N. (2014). Fuzzy multicriteria decision -making approach for
pavement project evaluation using life-cycle cost/performance analysis. Journal of Infra-
structure Systems, 20(2), 04014002.
16. Li, Z., & Madanu, S. (2009). Highway project level life-cycle benefit/cost analysis under
certainty, risk, and uncertainty: methodology with case study. Journal of Transportation En-
gineering, 135(8), 516-526.
17. Krishna, S. R., & Kumar, N. S. (2020). A case on maintenance of bituminous concrete pave-
ment considering life cycle cost analysis and carbon footprint estimation. International Jour-
nal of Construction Management, 1-9.
18. International Organization for Standardization. (2006). Environmental management: life cy-
cle assessment; Principles and Framework. ISO.
19. IRC:37-2018, Guidelines for the Design of Flexible pavements, Indian roads congress, New
Delhi, India, www.irc.nic.in, 2018.
20. Stripple, H. (2001). Life cycle assessment of road. A pilot study for inventory analysis.
21. Ramachandra, T. V. (2009). Emissions from India's transport sector: statewise synthesis.
Atmospheric Environment, 43(34), 5510-5517.
22. Kandhal, P. S. (2016). Bituminous road construction in India. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
23. MoRTH, “Bharatmala Pariyojana,” 2017. New Delhi.
24. Hatmoko, J. U. D., Hidayat, A., Setiawati, A., & Prasetyo, S. C. A. (2018). Measuring Car-
bon Footprint of Flexible Pavement Construction Project in Indonesia. In E3S Web of Con-
ferences, 31, 07001. EDP Sciences.