International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

ISSN: 1556-8318 (Print) 1556-8334 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujst20

Preventive maintenance of road pavement with

microsurfacing—an economic and sustainable
strategy

Diogo Simões, Ana Almeida-Costa & Agostinho Benta

To cite this article: Diogo Simões, Ana Almeida-Costa & Agostinho Benta (2017) Preventive
maintenance of road pavement with microsurfacing—an economic and sustainable
strategy, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 11:9, 670-680, DOI:
10.1080/15568318.2017.1302023

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1302023

Published online: 25 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 740

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 15 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujst20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION
2017, VOL. 11, NO. 9, 670–680
https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2017.1302023

Preventive maintenance of road pavement with microsurfacing—an economic

and sustainable strategy
~esa, Ana Almeida-Costa
Diogo Simo a
, and Agostinho Benta a,b

a
Civil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal; bRISCO, Civil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

To ensure a good quality level of road pavements, it is essential to perform preventive maintenance before Received 20 May 2016
they are irreparably damaged. Treatments for preventive maintenance are a solution that is recognized but Revised 28 February 2017
still in the acceptance phase; effective models covering different combinations of techniques and Accepted 28 February 2017
intervention times and assessing economic and environmental benefits are lacking. The present study KEYWORDS
aimed to respond to the abovementioned issues, using microsurfacing as the subject of analysis. Several Economic analysis;
structures and different interventions were evaluated, conducting an economic analysis over their life environmental analysis; life
cycles and an environmental study evaluation using emission factors. The most advantageous solution cycle analysis; microsurfacing
included the maximum possible number of treatments of preventive maintenance with microsurfacing treatment; road preventive
applied consecutively. This scenario ensures economic and environmental benefits. Additionally, it maintenance; sustainability
became clear that it is economically advantageous to design pavements for longer lifetimes.

1. Introduction
The road network has an important role in the development of
any country. The growth of road networks has triggered con-
cerns regarding sustainable development, which implies a bal-
ance between economic, social, and environmental aspects
(Ara ujo, Oliveira, & Silva, 2014). Several researchers have been
developing studies to find technologies that make it possible to
reduce the environmental impact of the road materials (Appa-
Roa, Kumar, Amar, & Ryntathiang, 2013; Ara ujo et al., 2014;
Benta, Duarte, Almeida-Costa, Cordeiro, & Pereira, 2015; Silva,
Oliveira, Ferreira, & Pereira, 2010). The life cycle analysis of
road pavements has been increasingly applied to quantify the
impacts, from the extraction of materials to the end of life.
According to the life cycle assessment model performed by
Santos, Ferreira, and Flintsch (2015), the phases of materials
and use of road pavements are the most contributory factors of
the environmental impact. These authors believe that this type
of tools can be useful to helping in the pavements management
decisions, however indicated that life cycle cost model should
be incorporated. Recently, using a life cycle costing-life cycle
assessment model, several sustainable and environmental
friendly options were evaluated, such as hot in-plant recycled
mixtures, warm mix asphalt, cold central plant recycled mix-
tures, and preventive treatments (Santos, Flintsch, & Ferreira,
2017). These concerns result in an incentive to apply road reha-
bilitation solutions. The selection of most appropriate techni-
ques for each specific case, based on technical, economic, and
environmental conditions, is also essential. In order to help the
selection of maintenance and rehabilitation techniques, deci-
sion systems have been created, such as a maintenance unit
model based on data obtained from a program of long-term
pavement performance (Abo-Hashema & Sharaf, 2009). On
the other hand, the authorities will wait less time before
proceeding to the rehabilitation of roads, since delaying the
intervention means higher cost, a waste of time, and especially
interruptions in the ordinary course of economic and social
activities (Jackson, 2001). Furthermore, construction activities
and periods of maintenance and renovation operations have
very significant environmental impacts (Ara ujo et al., 2014).
To avoid these procedures, what emerges as a potential solu-
tion is preventive maintenance that aims to apply a series of
low-cost preventive treatments whose main objective is to
increase the lifetime of pavements. It has been demonstrated
that this solution is capable of improving the quality of pave-
ments, ensuring the greatest satisfaction of clients and at the
same time assuring economic benefit to the road management
entities. In the USA, it is estimated that each dollar spent on
this solution will mean a saving of about six dollars in the
future (Jackson, 2001). According to Giustozzi, Flintsch, &
Crispino (2011), this solution is proven to be more eco-efficient
than the major rehabilitation and reconstruction approach,
having lower energy consumption and, consequently, lower
pollutant emissions.
To put it simply, the preventive maintenance of pavements
corresponds to a strategic plan of treatments, established specif-
ically for a road system, that is intended to achieve a good cost–
benefit ratio and whose main objective is to preserve the road
system, improving or at least maintaining its functional charac-
teristics, including safety and comfort during the life cycle of
the pavement, without significantly changing its structural

CONTACT Diogo Sim~

oes diogosimoes.eng@gmail.com Civil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitario de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro,
Portugal.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

support capacity (Geiger, 2005). According to Jackson (2001),
the principal advantage of a preventive maintenance program
when compared with other strategies is the greater satisfaction
of road users. This satisfaction is related to less exposure to
interruptions during the repair; greater and deeper knowledge
about the pavements, including their performance history,
actual conditions, and expected performance; a successful and
documented improvement of road conditions, safety, and com-
fort; an increase of road traffic safety by improving the surface
conditions, with less raveling/weathering, less rutting, and an
increase of roughness; strategies and improved techniques,
materials and equipment with good quality; and economic ben-
efit with a reduction in costs. However, the implementation of
these solutions of preventive maintenance has gone through
some difficulties, mainly due to the longstanding philosophy
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” (Jackson, 2001) or in other words:
“Roads won’t be repaired until damaged” (Ding, Sunb, &
Chenc, 2013). In accordance with this mentality, the repair of
road pavements happens when the damage to the road becomes
non-recoverable.
It is almost intuitive that the regular application of treat-
ments for preventive maintenance would ensure a good perfor-
mance of the pavement, keeping the performance of pavement
constant; however, it would mean a low cost–benefit ratio. On
the other hand, these types of treatments are applied with
reduced frequency, which would reduce the costs and interrup-
tions on the traffic routes but also would lead to pavements
without the needed quality, increase the operation costs, and
trigger discontentment among road users. It is essential to
reach a balance between the best performance with the mini-
mum cost and the minimum inconvenience to road users
(Lamptey, Labi, & Li, 2008). To achieve this objective, it
becomes crucial to apply “the right treatment, on the right
road, at the right time.” Right treatment means applying a
treatment that surely retards the evolution of distress in the
pavement and restoring the surface quality. Right road implies
applying the treatment to the length of road that really needs
this kind of intervention. Right moment involves applying the
treatment at the correct moment, based on a management sys-
tem that evaluates its real conditions and its rate of deteriora-
tion (ISSA, 2010). Also, in accordance with Ding et al. (2013),
the application of a preventive strategy with the right planning
leads to greater benefits than the regular application of mainte-
nance treatments. For this purpose, it is necessary to create pro-
grams of preventive maintenance, where the preventive
treatments to be applied are previously correctly established,
considering, for example, the ideal moment for these applica-
tions and the associated costs. Several studies with combina-
tions of different techniques of preventive maintenance and
times are required for the conception of these programs in
order to achieve the best ratio of cost-effectiveness (Lamptey
et al., 2008).
To prove the added value of implementation of these solu-
tions, it is necessary to have some effective models for the treat-
ment of road pavements that involve a cost analysis of the life
cycle; in addition, a timetable and budget for the preventive
treatments are required (Labi, Lapmtey, & Kong, 2007).
In order to reduce the lack of effective models, the objective
of the present study was to carry out economic and
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 671
environmental comparisons between three types of solutions:
structural reinforcement (overlaying), reconstruction, and
treatment of preventive maintenance with microsurfacing for
pavements with design lifetimes of 10, 15, and 20 years.
Through this comparison, the authors aim to know which solu-
tions are most beneficial in economic and environmental terms.
On the subject of the economic evaluation, the first aspect con-
sidered was the description of the costs inherent in the initial
structure of the pavement and their interventions. The final
comparisons were made based on these values. Secondly, the
costs are presented and justified, and the necessary conversions
are made in order to guarantee the standardization of data. It
should be noted that the values used in this study were adjusted
to the values currently used in practice in Portugal, even when
the reference values used were from another country. Regard-
ing the environmental analysis, it should be noted that this
evaluation was not a full assessment considering all the factors
described in the ISO standards, but only a simple environmen-
tal analysis during the life cycle of pavements.
2. Materials and methodology
This section essentially presents and characterizes the adopted
methodology, with specific reference to microsurfacing as a
treatment for preventive maintenance.
2.1. Materials
According to Cuelho, Mokwa, and Akin (2006), the most fre-
quently applied treatments for preventive maintenance are
crack sealing, application of a thin layer of hot mix asphalt,
chip sealing, correction of drainage conditions, and microsur-
facing. The choice of solution varies in accordance with the
characteristics of the pavement, weather conditions, and cost.
This choice is never made as the first choice, depending on
pavement characteristics. In the present study, microsurfacing
was selected as the treatment for preventive maintenance,
choice made based on numerous and positive literature referen-
ces that were found. According to Hicks et al. (2000), microsur-
facing is the treatment for preventive maintenance that can
treat more types of damage, being appropriate for all traffic lev-
els and in rural and urban areas and effective in all weather
conditions (TRB, 2000, 2004). It is the treatment that gives the
best ratio of effectiveness, cost, environmental impact, and
number of types of damage that can be fixed (Broughton, Lee,
& Kim, 2012). According to Bae and Stoffels (2007), its applica-
tion proved to be the strategy with the best ratio of cost-effec-
tiveness for the treatment of cracks. Several studies have
demonstrated that it is a solution that is effective for rectifying
rutting (Labi, Hwee, Lamptey, & Nunoo, 2006; Labi et al., 2007;
TRB, 2000). This technique presents numerous advantages that
increase the comfort level of road users and their satisfaction,
namely the creation of a surface with a lower level of tire noise
when compared with other techniques (Ducasse, Distin, &
Osborne, 2004); in the same context, this technique promotes a
soft surface but with an appropriate friction level (Watson &
Jared, 1998); in addition, this work does not need the prior
installation of a construction site, as it involves just a short
interruption of road traffic (Ducasse et al., 2004). Specifically,
672 e ET AL.
D. SIMOES
Table 1. Comparison between treatments for preventive maintenance (Hicks, Seeds & Peshkin, 2000).
Distress Microsurfacing Crack sealing
Roughness (not associated with stability) x x
Roughness (associated with stability)
Rutting x x
Fatigue cracking (low severity) x x
Longitudinal and transverse cracking x x
Bitumen exudation x x
Ravelling/weathering x x
with regard to its application, this presents advantages when
compared with other treatments: at environmental level, since
it is cold-applied, there are no significant pollutant emissions
(Broughton et al., 2012), and the technique is safer for the
workers (Ducasse et al., 2004). The application of microsurfac-
ing is a treatment with lower cost in comparison to conven-
tional repaving. According to the study performed by Ji,
Nantung, Tompkins, and Harris (2013), if microsurfacing can
provide more than 1.6 years of life to the pavement, it is cost-
effective. When this solution is compared with the application
of thin layers of hot mix asphalt, it is proven to have the best
ratio of cost-effectiveness and environmental impact
(Takamura, Lok, & Wittlinger, 2001).
However, microsurfacing also has disadvantages: it is not
appropriate to treat structural distress of pavements or deep
cracks (TRB, 2000); the selection of materials is very demand-
ing (Johnson, 2000); the microsurfacing only works correctly if
the components have been well mixed (Kazmierowski,
Bradbury, Hajek, & Jones, 1993); specific equipment with a
high cost is required to perform the microsurfacing (Wade,
DeSombre, & Peshkin, 2001); and the success of this method
depends largely on constructor experience, varying according
to the application conditions (TRB, 2000).
However, the advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages
and, as mentioned above, in the present study, microsurfacing
was selected as the subject of analysis because it is a preventive
maintenance treatment that is able to treat the widest range of
distress, as can be seen in Table 1.
Furthermore, with regard to the preventive maintenance
treatment that was selected, namely microsurfacing, it is impor-
tant to indicate the pavement layers that were considered:
AC14 Surf 35/50 as the surface course, AC20 Reg 35/50 as the
intermediate course, and AC20 Base 35/50 as the base course.
Although microsurfacing is widely known, it is important to
point some references on the subject, such as Raza (1994),
Kucharek, Davidson, Moore, and Linton (2010), Broughton
et al. (2012), among others.
2.2. Methodology
2.2.1. Comparative analysis
Regarding the comparative analysis, according to Walls &
Smith (1998), the analysis period should be at least 35 years,
and thus a time horizon of 40 years was defined with the inten-
tion of limiting the lifetime of pavements in order to make it
possible to compare them. The analysis period was sufficiently
broad to integrate at least one structural reinforcement and one
Treatments
Thin layer of hot
Fog seal Slurry Cape seal Chip seal mix asphalt
x
x
x x x x
x x x x
x x x x
reconstruction in almost all the analyses. In order to guarantee
the coherency of this study, a maximum of four Treatments for
Preventive Maintenance using Microsurfacing (TPMMs) and
two structural reinforcements applied continuously were
defined.
Then, it was necessary to state the intervention time for each
intervention. With regard to the structural reinforcement,
based on the graph of Galehouse, Moulthrop, and Hicks (2003)
(Figure 1), 75% of the lifetime was considered as the interven-
tion time, because at around this age, the pavement begins to
lose its ability to provide a reasonable and necessary quality of
service. Reconstruction, which is the type of intervention used
as a last resort, was performed only when the pavement lifetime
ended. Finally, with regard to the TPMM, it is known that this
type of intervention should be done when the pavement surface
still presents a good quality (Ji et al., 2013). According to the
graph of Galehouse et al. (2003), 50% of the lifetime of the
pavement was selected as the intervention time, which corre-
sponds to a pavement condition classified between good and
excellent.
Furthermore, with regard to the extension of the lifetime
of the pavement with TPMM, there is a huge divergence of
values. So, the times described in several studies (Cuelho
et al., 2006; Giustozzi et al., 2011; Hicks et al., 2000; Labi
et al., 2006; Wade et al., 2001) were analyzed, and it was
decided to use a period of 5 years, as a conservative value
instead of an average, in order to increase the reliability of
the results obtained.
Figure 1. Relation between the pavement condition and its lifetime (Broughton,
Lee, & Kim, 2012).

2.2.2. Design
In order to make it possible to compare the different interven-
tions applied to the pavements, based on the initial structure, it
was necessary to design the pavements with several different
design lifetimes. Since the application of microsurfacing and sur-
face treatments, in general, presupposes that pavement has at
least a reasonable structural condition, the structure was defined
according to specific characteristics that lead to a lifetime suffi-
ciently long, ensuring the applicability of this analysis, i.e., the
typology of materials/courses adopted was the most common for
the construction of road pavement with medium/high traffic,
where this type of analysis is more effective. The level of traffic
has an impact on the selection and effectiveness of preventive
maintenance treatments, as well as, the condition of existing
pavement and environmental characteristics (Mamlouk &
Zaniewski, 1997); this parameter is very important for the opera-
tional pavement management systems that can evaluate the cost-
effective strategies and preventive maintenance programs (Walls
& Smith, 1998) and, in addition, previous studies have found
that the traffic level has influence on environmental impact of
road pavements (Santos et al., 2015). As indicated, for this
design, it was decided to use a typical structure constituted by an
aggregate base course (granular sub-base—GsB), a base course
(bituminous macadam), an intermediate course (bituminous
macadam—MB), and a surface course (bituminous concrete),
considering 10, 15, and 20 years as the lifetimes (Figure 2 above).
The principal data used in this study are presented in
Tables 2 and 3.
The design of pavements was done using the Shell Method
and Bisar software for the stress-strain analyses. For the design
of structural reinforcement, it was necessary to carry out a the-
oretical prediction of the pavement conditions at the interven-
tion time that was defined. For this purpose, it was necessary to
make an interaction study, to set the stiffness modulus of pave-
ment layers, and, using the Bisar software, to obtain the capac-
ity to withstand approximately 25% of the standard load axis
first defined for the pavement. All these processes were carried
out based on the formulation of the Shell Method for fatigue or
permanent deformation, whichever is the more conditioning
for the pavement performance. After the intervention time had
been obtained using the stiffness modules, the reinforcement
layer was determined according to the duration that had been
established, using the Shell Method and Bisar software.
Figure 2. Initial structures of pavements.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 673
Table 2. Design data of pavements.
Pavement service temperature Pavement design speed AADT/lane
27
C 50 km/h 600
2.2.3. Intervention program
In order to simplify the understanding of different analyses that
were made, the initial structures of pavement will be referred to
as 1, 2, and 3 for the pavements with design lifetimes of 10, 15,
and 20 years, respectively. The different interventions will be
referred to alphabetically: “A” corresponds to the application of
structural reinforcement combined with reconstruction, “B” to
reconstruction, “C” to the maximum possible number of
TPMMs combined with reconstruction when necessary, and
“D” to a mixture of different interventions (Figure 3). It is
important to point out that the reconstruction of pavement
only included the bituminous layers.
In this analysis, two lifetimes were defined: the expected life-
time and the effective lifetime which are, the duration of each
activity was designed or programmed and the duration that
these activities would add, effectively, to the lifetime of pave-
ment, respectively. This indication was necessary because not
all the activities were applied at the end of the lifetime. As men-
tioned above, the structural reinforcement is applied at 75% of
the lifetime, and the remaining quality of the pavement was
considered in the design of reinforcement. The specific pro-
gramming for each scenario is presented in the Appendix.
2.2.4. Economic analysis
There are several methods of cost–benefit analysis, of which the
most recognized and frequently used are Life-Cycle Cost Anal-
ysis (LCCA), the Equivalent Annual Cost, Cost-Effectiveness
Analysis, and the Longevity Cost Index. LCCA involves factors
like the interest rate, inflation, analysis period, unitary cost of
intervention/treatment, and the pavement lifetime. The Equiva-
lent Annual Cost only takes into account the unitary cost of
intervention/treatment and the pavement lifetime. Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis is based on the pavement performance
curve. The Longevity Cost Index considers the unitary cost of
the intervention/treatment, the Net Present Value (NPV) dur-
ing the lifetime of intervention/treatment, the traffic load, and
the lifetime of the intervention/treatment (Morian, 2011).
674 e ET AL.
D. SIMOES

Table 3. Parameters of pavement layers. (1998), the actualization rate should be considered between 3%
Courses E g
and 5%. The lower value was considered.
The EUAC (Equation (2)) represents the NPV of all the
Subgrade 100 0.35 costs and benefits as they occur uniformly during the study
Granular sub-base 217 0.30
Bituminous macadam 4133 0.35 period (Walls & Smith, 1998); that is, the costs are converted
Bituminous concrete 4015 0.35 into an annual uniform cost during the analysis period
(Morian, 2011). The “nf” corresponds to the total lifetime.
 
Assuming the degradation curve shown in Figure 1, it was i ð1 C i Þn
decided to use the LCCA, NPV, and Equivalent Uniform EUAC D NPV (2)
ð1 C i Þn ¡ 1
Annual Cost (EUAC) methods (Walls & Smith, 1998). The
NPV is intended to convert gains and losses that occur at dif-
ferent times into a common measurement unit, using the equa-
tion shown below. 2.2.5. Environmental analysis
Each product has a life cycle that starts with its design, followed
by the extraction of resources, production, use or consumption,
P
N 
1

and other activities related to the end of its life cycle, such as
NPV D Initial Cost C Rehab Costk (1)
kD1 ð1 C iÞn £k recycling and waste treatment. All these processes carry conse-
quences for the environment due to energy consumption and
emissions of pollutant gases. The gases that contribute to the
The “Rehab Cost” corresponds to the cost of intervention or greenhouse effect provoke climatic variations. The principal
treatment, “n”’ corresponds to the year of intervention, and “I” pollutant gases resulting from road construction are nitrous
corresponds to the actualization rate (Walls & Smith, 1998), oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4). Since
which refers to the monetization capacity and economic infla- the contributions of these gases are different, their impacts on
tion (Jawad & Ozbay, 2006). According to Walls & Smith the greenhouse effect are expressed as the CO2 equivalent

Figure 3. Summary of interventions for design lifetimes of 10, 15, and 20 years.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 675

(CO2e). It is considered that the impacts of NO2 and CH4 on Table 5. Emissions of CO2e and energy consumption considered for activities and
the greenhouse effect are 310 and 21, respectively; that is, 1 kg materials.
of N2O is equivalent to the emission of 310 kg of CO2 and 1 kg Energy
of CH4 is equivalent to the emission of 21 kg of CO2 into the Emission of consumption
Activity/material CO2e (kg/t) (MJ/t)
atmosphere (Chappat & Bilal, 2003).
In this study, the environmental analysis was carried out by Bitumen (Eurobitume, 2011) 285.00 4900.00
determining the CO2e and the energy consumption of all the Aggregates (IVL, 2001) 10.00 40.00
Hydrated lime (Chappat & Bilal, 2003) 245.00 1244.00
activities, materials, and equipment involved in each case. Production of bituminous mixtures (IVL, 2001) 22.00 275
Application of bituminous mixtures (IVL, 2001) 0.60 9
Transportation of materials (km/t) (IVL, 2001) 0.06 0,9
3. Calculation Bituminous emulsion (Eurobitume, 2011) 221.00 3490
Removal of pavement for recycling (IVL, 2001) 0.80 12
3.1. Practical development of economic analysis Cement (IVL, 2001) 1080.00 5900
Water (IVL, 2001) 0.30 10
This economic analysis evaluated the impact of this preventive Additive (Cerea, 2010) 1837.00 71,710
maintenance strategy on agency costs. However, it is important Emulsifier (Giustozzi, Flintsch, & Crispino, 2011) 600.00 63,250
to mention that the socioeconomic costs comprise agency cost,
user costs, and safety cost (Hawzheen, 2011). For the practical
determine the quantity of tons of each element per square
development of economic analysis, it was necessary to establish,
meter. The procedure for microsurfacing was an exception: a
based on unitary prices, the costs, including the material and
rate was applied to find the number of tons per square meter of
necessary procedures, of the bituminous mixtures and the
each component.
removal, milling, and scarification of pavement and bituminous
These values were multiplied by the emissions and energy
emulsion to the bonding between layers. In this way, it was pos-
consumption, listed in Table 5, giving the total emissions and
sible to determine the cost of each type of intervention for each
energy consumption for each construction/intervention. With
type of situation analyzed. It should be pointed out that a den-
regard to the equipment, the abovementioned procedure was
sity of 2.3 t/m3 was considered for the bituminous mixtures,
not necessary because the values are already presented per
and the costs of Table 4 refer to the same geographical area.
square meter. It should be mentioned that all the material
Several studies were analyzed regarding the cost of micro-
transport costs were established for a distance of 20 km.
surfacing (Chan, Lane, & Kazmierowski, 2010; Cuelho et al.,
2006; Labi et al., 2006; Wade et al., 2001). The cost obtained is
about 1.65€; however, for consistency with the regional cost of 4. Results and discussion
the other material, 1.30€ was established as the microsurfacing
cost. 4.1. Economic analysis
It was decided to perform the comparisons based on the differ-
3.2. Practical development of environmental analysis ent situations using EUAC, since this is the only measure that
can be related to the longevity of pavement.
Since greenhouse gas emissions are the primary and most com- Based on the cost of each intervention/treatment, the neces-
mon externality included in the cost benefit analysis (TMR, sary calculations were done, leading to the results shown in
2011), in this study was calculated the environmental impact of Table 7. By this analysis, it was possible to conclude that the
each analyzed situation. For this purpose, it was necessary to most economical situations are 3.C, 3.D, and 2.D, and the least
establish the emissions of CO2e (kg/t) and energy consumption economical situations are 1.B, 1.A, and 2.B, in the presented
(MJ/t) of the materials, activities, and equipment used in the order. The most economically advantageous situations were the
different interventions. These values were collected from the lit- ones that did not involve any reconstruction.
erature, according to Tables 5 and 6. It is important to note that the cheaper situations only
Once the emissions and energy consumption had been fixed, required TPMMs. After the three cheapest situations, the fol-
these values were calculated for each construction/intervention, lowing two included one reconstruction and TPMMs. The
considering the materials, activities, and equipment involved. three least economical situations included at least two
The fraction of each component of the bituminous mixtures as
well as the microsurfacing was established in order to deter-
mine the quantity (kg) of each component for a ton. Based on Table 6. Emissions of CO2e and energy consumption considered for activities and
this value, from the density and thickness, it was possible to materials.
Energy
Table 4. Intervention costs (including material and procedures). Emission of consumption
Equipment CO2e (kg/m2) (MJ/m2)
Activity Cost
Tanker vehicles for application of emulsion 0.036 0.491
AC20 Base 35/50 (EN 13108-1, 2006) 30.60 (€/t) (Giustozzi, Flintsch, & Crispino, 2011)
AC14 Surf 35/40 (EN 13108-1, 2006) 34.10 (€/t) Equipment for removal, milling, and scarification 0.120 1.544
Treatment for preventive maintenance 1.30 (€/m2) of pavement (Giustozzi, Flintsch, & Crispino,
with microsurfacing 2011)
Bituminous emulsion 0.26 (€/m2) Equipment for application of microsurfacing 0.030 0.424
Pavement removal, milling, and scarification 5.00 (€/m2) (Giustozzi, Flintsch, & Crispino, 2011)
676 e ET AL.
D. SIMOES

Table 7. Costs in euros per kilometre, NPV, and EUAC in ascending order.

Cost (€/km) Route NPV (€/km) Route EUAC (€/year) per km Route
Situation with 3.7 m of width Situation with 3.7 m of width Situation with 3.7 m of width

3.C. 83,213 3.C. 75,600 3.C. 3271

3.D. 101,639 3.D. 84,343 3.D. 3537
2.D. 105,746 2.D. 87,987 2.D. 3807
3.B. 146,446 1.C. 100,406 1.C. 4344
1.C. 150,072 2.C. 102,190 2.C. 4421
2.C. 150,479 3.B. 109,636 3.A. 4648
3.A. 169,608 3.A. 110,815 3.B. 4743
1.D. 176,194 1.D. 121,831 1.D. 5271
2.A. 191,512 2.A. 132,474 2.A. 5731
2.B. 215,932 2.B. 143,418 2.B. 6205
1.A. 261,590 1.A. 165,580 1.A. 6945
1.B. 280,164 1.B. 183,827 1.B. 7953

reconstructions, making them more expensive, and it is impor-
tant to highlight that none of these situations used TPMMs
(Table 7).
It was verified that there are position changes (Table 7) when
the cost in euros per kilometer is used instead of NPV and
EUAC. However, the three most and least economical situations
remained the same. This demonstrates that the actualization rate
can change the final costs of constructions/interventions. Thus,
NPV was compared to the cost of the different situations using
the graph shown in Figure 4. In both cases, as the initial lifetime
of pavements increases, the costs come down. In addition, the
benefit that comes from the actualization rate (the difference
between the cost and the NPV) should be higher when the life-
time of the initial structure is smaller, but even so the initial
structures of pavements with a design lifetime of 10 years were,
in most cases, more expensive than the others.
In order to facilitate the visualization and understating
of the obtained results regarding the costs of the different
analyzed situations, a pavement with 20 km of length was
considered hypothetically. In this way, the total costs (in
NPV) of construction and maintenance treatments are
illustrated.
Figure 5 compares the different sets of constructions/inter-
ventions (A, B, C, and D, as mentioned above), grouped
according to the initial structure of pavement (where 1, 2, and
3 mean design lifetimes of 10, 15, and 20 years of life cycle,
respectively). From the analysis of Figure 5, it was clear that for
the pavement with 20 km of extension (3.7 m in width), situa-
tion 1 was the most expensive, while situation 3 was the least
expensive. Regarding each initial structure of pavement, con-
struction/intervention C was among the most economical,
especially for situations 1 and 3. With regard to situation 2,
construction/intervention D was even more beneficial, since it
did not require any reconstruction. Thus, it is clear that the sit-
uation that included the maximum possible number of TPMMs
was the most advantageous, even when those treatments were
combined with structural reinforcements or reconstructions.
The constructions/interventions A and B, regardless of the ini-
tial structure of pavement, were always found to be the most
expensive because they exclusively used structural reinforce-
ment and reconstructions, without involving any TPMM. With
the exponential lines of graph of Figure 4, it is possible to verify
that the difference between cost and NPV decreases from situa-
tion 1 to situation 3, being clear the advantage of longer life-
times in pavements design.
As verified by EUAC methods, the most economical situa-
tion was 3.C. and the most expensive was 1.B. The difference
in cost between these two situations was 2,164,535 €, which
corresponds to 29 km of pavement in the most economical
situation.
4.2. Environmental analysis
Regarding the CO2e emissions, the situations that were demon-
strated to be the most beneficial were 3.C., 2.D., and 3.D. (only
including TPMMs and structural reinforcement), and the least
beneficial were 1.A., 1.B., and 2.B. (all including reconstruc-
tion), in the presented order. The same thing happened with
regard to the energy consumption, as can be seen in Table 8.
The situations that did not involve any reconstruction were the

Figure 4. Total costs (€/km) and NPV. Figure 5. NPV for a pavement of 20 km, grouped according to the initial structure.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 677

Table 8. CO2e emissions (kg/km) and energy consumption (MJ/km), in ascending

order.
Emission of CO2e Energy consumption
(kg/km) per kilometre (MJ/km) per kilometre
of route with a width of route with a width
Situation of 3.7 m Situation of 3.7 m

3.C. 104,575 3.C. 1,338,867

2.D. 143,943 2.D. 1,770,287
3.D. 153,668 3.D. 1,832,307
1.C. 180,684 1.C. 2,259,464
2.C. 186,231 2.C. 2,304,145 Figure 7. Energy consumption for a pavement of 20 km, grouped according to the
3.B. 195,471 3.B. 2,352,904 initial structure.
1.D. 231,962 3.A. 2,795,794
3.A. 236,911 1.D. 2,801,203
2.A. 273,985 2.A. 3,213,191 5. Conclusions
2.B. 275,317 2.B. 3,317,420
1.B. 347,171 1.B. 4,186,439 The main objective of the present study was to perform an eco-
1.A. 356,199 1.A. 4,194,320
nomic and environmental comparison between different situa-
tions established to achieve a life cycle of 40 years for road
pavements, basically creating an effective model that covers dif-
most beneficial, especially situation 3.C., because it only
ferent combinations of techniques and intervention times and
included TPMMs.
assessing their benefits. Even without an eco-efficiency method
In order to facilitate the visualization of the results of emis-
to establish the relation between the economic and environ-
sions and energy consumption of the different analyzed situa-
mental analyses, it was possible to draw some logical conclu-
tions, as mentioned above, a pavement with 20 km of length
sions. The situations that were shown to be more advantageous
(3.7 m in width) was considered.
were, for all the analyses, those that did not involve reconstruc-
Figures 6 and 7 compare the different sets of construc-
tion and included the maximum possible number of TPMMs
tions/interventions (A, B, C, D) and group them according
consecutively (specifically four), while the least advantageous
to the initial structures of the pavements (where 1, 2, and 3
were those that did not involve TPMMs and needed recon-
mean design lifetimes of 10, 15, and 20 years of life cycle,
struction, because the TPMMs are less costly and more
respectively). Figures 6 and 7 refer to CO2e emissions and
environmentally friendly interventions in contrast to recon-
energy consumption, respectively. Since the order of CO2e
struction. Nevertheless, the combination of TPMMs and struc-
emissions and energy consumption was the same (the
tural reinforcement showed some benefits. In this way, the
results in Table 8), their graphical representation, unsurpris-
more beneficial situations always included TPMMs, and the
ingly, presented similar behavior. For both analyses, it could
best situation, in any analysis, was the one that used only
be concluded that situation 1 (for a lifetime of 10 years)
TPMMs to achieve the life-horizon (40 years). These results
was less beneficial than situation 3. Situation 1, due to its
confirmed that TPMM is an economic and environmentally
short lifetime, requires more interventions to achieve to
sustainable treatment that, in the future, will indirectly provide
life-horizon. Generally, constructions/interventions C and D
economic benefits related to the lower environmental impact
were more advantageous than A and B, which did not
(AppaRoa et al., 2013).
involve TPMMs.
It was verified that with the increase in the initial invest-
As mentioned above, the most beneficial situation was 3.C.
ment, there were decreases in cost, CO2e emissions, and energy
(which only included TPMMs) and the least beneficial one was
consumption. A lower initial investment would allow greater
1.A (which included structural reinforcements and reconstruc-
profitability of costs during the life cycle (due to the actuali-
tions). The difference in CO2e emissions between these two sit-
zation rate), but the application of a more durable initial pave-
uations was 5,032,474 kg, which corresponds to the emissions
ment could make it possible to reduce the number of necessary
of 48 km of pavement in situation 3.C. The difference in energy
interventions and avoid deeper strategies of rehabilitation until
consumption between these two situations was 57,109,056 MJ,
it reaches the life-horizon.
which corresponds to the energy expended on 43 km of pave-
The present study presented some limitations that should be
ment in situation 3.C.
noted during the interpretation of the results. Initially, the lack
of practical case studies, which would allow the investigation of
the pavement conditions of different situations over their life
cycles and the description of these data, made it impossible to
predict the degradation curves based on real data. Thus, it was
not possible to differentiate superficial degradation from struc-
tural degradation. A standard curve was considered in all the
cases, in order to allow this study to be carried out. Moreover,
the lifetime of a treatment and its unitary cost present huge dis-
crepancies in the literature, due to variations inherent in them
(e.g. traffic volume, type of material used, and construction
Figure 6. Emissions for a pavement of 20 km, grouped according to the initial practices) (Cuelho et al., 2006). In the present study, whenever
structure.
678 e ET AL.
D. SIMOES
possible, these values were harmonized and, when selected
from a limit, the more conservative value was considered.
The road pavements projected for short time periods
showed higher environmental impacts than pavements pro-
jected for long time periods. The same happens regarding the
economic part. Thus, it becomes clear that it is desirable to
carry out the initial designs of pavements for long time periods.
It is clearly necessary to expand the information about the
preventive treatments, especially regarding the “right time” at
which to apply the treatments. On the other hand, the stan-
dardization of values used in the studies regarding prices, emis-
sions, and energy consumption is essential, as is improving
their description, in order to allow the replication of the studies
and the performance of literature reviews and comparisons
between several techniques. Finally, the few disadvantages pre-
sented by microsurfacing are mostly derived from wrong appli-
cations or formulations, and therefore further research and
practice of this technique may overcome these disadvantages.
The preventive maintenance programs have several advan-
tages, but their application still requires a change of mentality
and caution with regard to the monitoring and programming,
in order to correctly select the time of intervention.
ORCID
Ana Almeida-Costa http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0084-8648
Agostinho Benta http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6731-3894
References
Abo-Hashema, M. A., & Sharaf, E. A. (2009). Development of maintenance
decision model for flexible pavements. International Journal of Pave-
ment Engineering, 3(10), 173–187.
AppaRoa, G., Kumar, R., Amar, D. D., & Ryntathiang, T. L. (2013). Green
road approach for the sustainable development in India. European
Journal of Sustainable Development, 2(2), 165–176.
Ara
ujo, J., Oliveira, J., & Silva, H. (2014). The importance of the use phase
on the LCA of environmentally friendly solutions for asphalt road
pavements. Transport Research Part D, 32, 97–110.
Bae, A., & Stoffels, S. M. (2007). Economic effects of microsurfacing on
thermally cracked pavements. Journal of Civil Engineering, 12(3), 177–
185.
Benta, A., Duarte, C., Almeida-Costa, A., Cordeiro, T., & Pereira, R.
(2015). Design and performance of a warm high-modulus asphalt con-
crete. Journal of Cleaner Production, 95, 55–65.
Broughton, B., Lee, S., & Kim, Y. (2012). 30 Years of microsurfacing: A
review. ISRN Civil Engineering, 2012, 1–7.
Cerea, P. (2010). Preventive maintenance treatments on road pavements:
Multi-approach life-cycle assessment (master’s thesis). Milano, Italy:
Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction
Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of Milano.
Chan, S., Lane, B., & Kazmierowski, T. (2010). Pavement preservation: A
solution for sustainability. Proceedings of Annual Meeting of TRB,
Washington, USA.
Chappat, M., & Bilal, J. (2003). The environmental road of the future: Life
cycle analysis. Paris, France: Colas.
Cuelho, E., Mokwa, R., & Akin, M. (2006). Preventive maintenance treat-
ments of flexible pavements: A synthesis of highway practice (Report No.
FHWA/MT-06-009/8117-26). Bozeman, USA: The State of Montana
Department of Transportation.
Ding, T., Sunb, L., & Chenc, Z. (2013). Optimal strategy of pavement pre-
ventive maintenance considering life-cycle cost analysis. Procedia –
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 96, 1679–1685.
Ducasse, K., Distin, T., & Osborne, L. (2004). The use of microsurfacing as
a cost effective remedial action for surface rutting. Proceedings of 8th
Conference on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa (CAPSA), Sun
City, South Africa.
EN 13108-1. (2006). Bituminous mixtures – Material specifications – Part
1: Asphalt concrete. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
Eurobitume. (2011). Life cycle inventory: Bitumen. Brussels, Belgium:
Eurobitume.
Galehouse, L., Moulthrop, J. S., & Hicks, G. (2003). Principles of pavement
preservation: Definitions, benefits, issues, and barriers. TR News, 228, 4–9.
Geiger, D. R. (2005). Pavement preservation definitions (reference no.
HIAM-20). Washington DC, USA: Federal Highway Administration.
Giustozzi, F., Flintsch, G. W., & Crispino, M. (2011). Environmental analy-
sis of preventive maintenance treatments on road pavements. Proceed-
ings of 8th International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets,
Santiago, Chile.
Hawzheen, K. (2011). Road design for future maintenance-life-cycle cost
analyses for road barriers (PhD thesis). Stockholm, Sweden: KTC
Architecture and the Built Environment.
Hicks, R. G., Seeds, S. B., & Peshkin, D. G. (2000). Selecting a preventive
maintenance treatment for flexible pavements. Washington, USA:
Foundation for Pavement Preservation.
ISSA (International Slurry Surfacing Association). (2010). Recommended
performance guideline for microsurfacing (report No. A143). Annapolis,
USA: International Slurry Surfacing Association.
IVL (Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd). (2001). Life cycle
assessment of road: A pilot study for inventory analysis (Report No. B
1210 E). Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Environmental Research
Institute.
Jackson, D. J. (2001). Pavement preventive maintenance guidelines. Pro-
ceedings of 2nd International Symposium on Maintenance and Reha-
bilitation of Pavements and Technological Control, No. 01-128,
Auburm, USA.
Jawad, D., & Ozbay, K. (2006). The discount rate in life cycle analysis of
transportation projects. Proceedings of Annual Meeting of TRB, Wash-
ington, USA.
Ji, Y., Nantung, T., Tompkins, B., & Harris, D. (2013). Evaluation for
microsurfacing as pavement preservation treatment. Journal of Materi-
als in Civil Engineering, 25(4), 540–547.
Johnson, A. (2000). Best practices handbook on asphalt pavement mainte-
nance (report No. 2000-04). Minneapolis a, USA: Minnesota Technol-
ogy Transfer (T2) Center/LTAP Program Center for Transportation
Studies.
Kazmierowski, T. J., Bradbury, A., Hajek, J., & Jones, G. (1993). Effective-
ness of high performance thin surfacings in a wet-freeze environment.
Proceedings of 72nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington, USA.
Kucharek, A. S., Davidson, J. K., Moore, T., Linton, P. (2010). Performance
review of micro surfacing and slurry seal application in Canada. Victo-
ria, Canada: Canadian Technical Asphalt Association.
Labi, S., Hwee, K. S., Lamptey, G., & Nunoo, C. (2006). Long-term benefits
of microsurfacing applications in Indiana – methodology and case study.
Proceedings of 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington, USA.
Labi, S., Lapmtey, G., & Kong, S. (2007). Effectiveness of microsurfacing
treatments. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 133(5), 298–307.
Lamptey, G., Labi, S., & Li, Z. (2008). Decision support for optimal sched-
uling of highway pavement preventive maintenance within resurfacing
cycle. Decision Support Systems, 46, 376–387.
Mamlouk, M. S., & Zaniewski, J. P. (1997). Pavement preventive mainte-
nance: Description, effectiveness, and treatments. Proceedings of the
Symposium on Flexible Pavement Rehabilitation and Maintenance.
S~ao Diego, California.
Morian, D. A. (2011). Cost benefit analysis of including microsurfacing in
pavement treatment strategies & cycle maintenance (Report No.
FHWA-PA-2011-001-080503). Pennsylvania, USA: Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation.
Raza, H. (1994). Surface rehabilitation techniques: Design, construction and
performance of micro-surfacing, instructor’s guide. (Report No. FHWA-
SA-94-072). Washington DC, USA: Federal Highway Administration.

Santos, J., Flintsch, G., & Ferreira, A. (2017). Environmental and economic
assessment of pavement construction and management practices for
enhancing pavement sustainability. Resources Conservation and Recy-
cling, 116, 15–31.
Santos, J., Ferreira, A., & Flintsch, G. (2015). A life cycle assessment model
for pavement management: Road pavement construction and manage-
ment in Portugal. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 4
(16), 315–336.
Silva, H., Oliveira, J., Ferreira, C., & Pereira, P. (2010). Assessment of the
performance of warm mix asphalts in road pavements. International
Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, 3, 119–127.
Takamura, K., Lok, K. P., & Wittlinger, R. (2001). Microsurfacing for pre-
ventive maintenance: Eco-efficient strategy. Proceedings of ISSA Annual
Meeting, Maui, Hawaii.
TRB (Transportation Research Board). (2000). A synthesis of highway prac-
tice (Report No. 284). National Cooperative Highway Research NCHRP
Program. Washington DC, USA: Transportation Research Board.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION 679
TRB (Transportation Research Board). (2004). Optimal timing of pavement
preventive maintenance treatment applications (Report No. 523).
National Cooperative Highway Research NCHRP Program. Washing-
ton DC, USA: Transportation Research Board.
TMR (Transport and Main Roads). (2011). Cost-benefit Analysis manual –
theoretical guide. Queensland, Australia: State of Queensland – Depart-
ment of Transport and Main Roads.
Wade, M., DeSombre, R. I., & Peshkin, D. G. (2001). High volume/high
speed asphalt roadway preventive maintenance surface treatments
(Report No. SD99-09). South Dakota, USA: South Dakota Department
of Transportation.
Walls, J. III., & Smith, M. R. (1998). Life-cycle cost analysis in pavement
design – Interim Technical Bulletin (Report No. FHWA-SA-98-079).
Washington DC, USA: Federal Highway Administration.
Watson, D., & Jared, D. (1998). Georgia department of transportation’s
experience with microsurfacing. Journal of the Transportation Research
Record, 1616(1), 42–46.
680 e ET AL.
D. SIMOES

Appendix

Intervention time Expected duration of Effective duration of Total of life-time

Activity (years) lifetime (years) lifetime (years) (years)

1.A Initial pavement 0 10 7.5 42.5

1st structural reinforcement 7.5 5 3.75
2nd structural reinforcement 11.25 5 5
1st reconstruction 16.25 10 7.5
3rd structural reinforcement 23.75 5 3.75
4th structural reinforcement 27.5 5 5
2nd reconstruction 32.5 10 10
1.B Initial pavement 0 10 10 40
1st reconstruction 10 10 10
2nd reconstruction 20 10 10
3rd reconstruction 30 10 10
1.C Initial pavement 0 10 10 40
1st TPMM 5 5 5
2nd TPMM 10 5 5
3rd TPMM 15 5 5
4th TPMM 20 5 5
Reconstruction 30 10 10
1.D Initial pavement 0 10 7.5 40
1st structural reinforcement 7.5 5 5
1st TPMM 10 5 5
2nd TPMM 15 5 5
Reconstruction 22.5 10 7.5
2nd structural reinforcement 30 5 5
3rd TPMM 32.5 5 5
2.A Initial pavement 0 15 11.25 40
1st structural reinforcement 11.25 5 3.75
2nd structural reinforcement 15 5 5
Reconstruction 20 15 11.25
3rd structural reinforcement 31.25 5 3.75
4th structural reinforcement 35 5 5
2.B Initial pavement 0 15 15 40
1st reconstruction 15 15 15
2nd reconstruction 30 10 10
2.C Initial pavement 0 15 15 40
1st TPMM 7.5 5 5
2nd TPMM 12.5 5 5
3rd TPMM 17.5 5 5
Reconstruction 30 10 10
2.D Initial pavement 0 15 11.25 40
1st structural reinforcement 11.25 5 3.75
2nd structural reinforcement 15 5 5
1st TPMM 17.5 5 5
2nd TPMM 22.5 5 5
3rd TPMM 27.5 5 5
4th TPMM 32.5 5 5
3.A Initial pavement 0 20 15 42.5
1st structural reinforcement 15 10 7.5
2nd structural reinforcement 22.5 10 10
Reconstruction 32.5 10 10
3.B Initial pavement 0 20 20 40
Reconstruction 20 20 20
3.C Initial pavement 0 20 20 40
1st TPMM 10 5 5
2nd TPMM 15 5 5
3rd TPMM 20 5 5
4th TPMM 25 5 5
3.D Initial pavement 0 20 15 42.5
1st structural reinforcement 15 10 7.5
2nd structural reinforcement 22.5 10 10
1st TPMM 27.5 5 5
2nd TPMM 32.5 5 5