Life Cycle Cost Analysis Comparison of Hot Mix Asphalt and Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement: A Case Study

Waqas Rafiq, Muhammad Ali Musarat, Muhammad Altaf, Madzlan Napiah, Muslich Hartadi Sutanto, Wesam Salah Alaloul, Muhammad Faisal Javed and Amir Mosavi
Additional contact information
Waqas Rafiq: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Tronoh 32610, Malaysia
Muhammad Ali Musarat: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Tronoh 32610, Malaysia
Muhammad Altaf: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Tronoh 32610, Malaysia
Madzlan Napiah: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Tronoh 32610, Malaysia
Muslich Hartadi Sutanto: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Tronoh 32610, Malaysia
Wesam Salah Alaloul: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Bandar Seri Iskandar, Tronoh 32610, Malaysia
Muhammad Faisal Javed: Department of Civil Engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad Abbottabad Campus, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 22060, Pakistan
Amir Mosavi: Faculty of Civil Engineering, Technische Universität Dresden, 01069 Dresden, Germany

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 8, 1-14

Abstract: In the construction and maintenance of asphalt pavement, reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is being widely used as a cheaper alternative to the conventional hot mix asphalt (HMA). HMA incorporated with a high RAP content (e.g., 40%), which is the most commonly used, may have prominent adverse effects on life cycle, performance properties, and related costs. Thus, before utilizing RAP, it is essential to investigate whether it is still economical to use under the local climate by taking into consideration the life cycle performance. Therefore, for this paper, a case study was conducted using 20% RAP, assessed in terms of materials related to cost analysis. The results of the analysis showed that, from the total life cycle costing measurement, a total of 14% cost reduction was reported using RAP as compared to conventional materials. Moreover, the two materials (conventional HMA and RAP) are manufactured in different types of manufacturing plants. Thus, in analyzing the cost difference between the two chosen manufacturing plants for virgin materials and RAP, a total of 57% cost reduction was observed for a RAP manufacturing plant. Besides this, no cost difference was observed in the rest of the phases, such as manpower, materials transportation, and construction activities, as the same procedures and types of machinery are used. Furthermore, assessing the carbon dioxide impact and cost, the transportation and machinery emissions were considered, while the plant’s operation emission was omitted due to the unavailability of the data.

Keywords: life cycle cost analysis (LCCA); recycling; CO 2; reclaimed asphalt pavement; life cycle performance; mobility; sustainable development; infrastructures; sustainable materials; asphalt (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4411/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/8/4411/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:8:p:4411-:d:536717

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().