Mechanistic-Empirical Simulations and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis to Determine the Cost and Performance Effectiveness of Asphalt Mixtures Containing Recycled Materials

Author(s):  
Erdem Coleri ◽  
Yuqi Zhang ◽  
Blaine M. Wruck

Use of reclaimed asphalt pavements (RAP) and recycled asphalt shingles (RAS) in asphalt paving, although considered as sustainable, is a practice that agencies are reluctant to employ because of the unpredictability of asphalt mixes containing recycled materials. The asphalt binder in RAP/RAS is aged and stiffened, which reduces ductility of the pavement. Consequentially, a pavement can exhibit unsatisfactory fatigue performance and have the potential for early cracking failure. Although methods exist to counteract the brittle behavior of pavements containing RAP/RAS (namely binder-grade bumping, binder-grade dumping and high binder content), they are not accounted for in mechanistic-empirical (ME) pavement design. Additionally, the cost benefits of using RAP/RAS in pavements are not easily calculated. For these reasons, characterization of fatigue performance for asphalt pavements containing RAP/RAS in ME design software needs to be accomplished and a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) framework for pavements containing RAP/RAS needs to be developed so that agencies can make informed decisions about RAP/RAS use in asphalt mixtures. In this study, laboratory test results for asphalt mixtures with different combinations of RAP/RAS contents, binder contents, and binder types were used to calculate ME pavement model coefficients to perform forward calculations to determine pavement performance. Using predicted performance from ME models, LCCAs were conducted to determine the cost benefits of using binder-grade bumping/dumping and high binder content in Oregon asphalt mixtures. These strategies are expected to increase RAP/RAS use in asphalt mixtures, reduce life-cycle costs, improve the cracking performance and encourage widespread use of RAP/RAS asphalt mixtures.

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 440-456
Author(s):  
Seyed Ehsan Zahed ◽  
Sirwan Shahooei ◽  
Ferika Farooghi ◽  
Mohsen Shahandashti ◽  
Siamak Ardekani

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to conduct life-cycle cost analysis of a short-haul underground freight transportation (UFT) system for the Dallas Fort Worth international airport. Design/methodology/approach The research approach includes: identifying the cost components of the proposed airport UFT system; estimating life-cycle cost (LCC) of system components using various methods; determining life-cycle cash flows; evaluating the reliability of the results using sensitivity analysis; and assessing the validity of the results using analogues cases. Findings Although the capital cost of constructing an airport UFT system seems to be the largest cost of such innovative projects, annual costs for running the system are more significant, taking a life-cycle perspective. System administrative cost, tunnel operation and maintenance, and tunnel construction cost are the principle cost components of the UFT system representing approximately 46, 24 and 19 percent of the total LCC, respectively. The shipping cost is estimated to be $4.14 per ton-mile. Although this cost is more than the cost of transporting cargos by trucks, the implementation of UFT systems could be financially justified considering their numerous benefits. Originality/value This paper, for the first time, helps capital planners understand the LCC of an airport UFT system with no or limited past experience, and to consider such innovative solutions to address airport congestion issues.


Author(s):  
Sumanth Kalluri ◽  
Pasi Lautala ◽  
Robert Handler

Freight transportation of goods and commodities is a necessity and is often a significant portion of the overall investment in industrial development, especially in the natural resource industry. The economic costs of developing infrastructure have long been factored into the project costs, but environmental or social impacts have received less attention. In addition, alternative transportation modes are rarely compared from both economic and environmental perspectives. This paper performs a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for truck-only, multimodal and rail transportation options to transport ore and concentrate. In this paper, LCA is performed in SimaPro for construction/manufacturing, operations, maintenance, and end of life phases to obtain the overall Global Warming Potential (GWP) in terms of kilogram equivalents of CO2 (kg CO2eq). After emissions from alternative options have been defined, the cost of each option can be investigated through Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) This paper also discusses the past work on LCCA and its application to transportation projects. The final part provides a methodology to convert the emission results from LCA for integration with the costs from LCCA.


2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kh. S. Karimov ◽  
M. Abid ◽  
S. I. Islomov ◽  
N. H. Karimova ◽  
M. W. Al-Grafi

ABSTRACT: In this paper life-cycle cost analysis of three biogas digesters is presented. Results show that the cost of biogas depends on the construction of digesters, sizes of methane tank and possibility of heating of the slurry. Biogas and natural gas costs calaculated are observed and found to be comparable. It is recommended that the biogas digesters can be constructed and installed, in principle, for every family and there is no need to built long gas pipe lines. ABSTRAK: Kertaskerja ini membentangkan analisis kos kitar hayat tiga pencerna biogas. Keputusan menunjukkan kos biogas bergantung kepada pembinaan pencerna, saiz tangki metana dan kemungkinan pemanasan buburan. Pengiraan kos biogas dan gas asli diambil kira dan ianya didapati setanding. Adalah disarankan pencerna biogas boleh dibina dan dipasang secara teorinya, bagi setiap keluarga tanpa memerlukan pembinaan paip gas yang panjang.


2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 1638-1647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iman Mirzadeh ◽  
Ali Azhar Butt ◽  
Susanna Toller ◽  
Björn Birgisson

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 158-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Morfonios A. Morfonios ◽  
◽  
D. Kaitelidou D. Kaitelidou ◽  
G. Filntisis G. Filntisis ◽  
G. Baltopoulos G. Baltopoulos ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document