A Comparative Environmental Assessment of Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies: Full-Depth Reclamation Vs. Mill and Fill

EasyChair Preprint 11298

Abstract

This study provides a comprehensive comparative environmental assessment of two pavement rehabilitation strategies: Full-Depth Reclamation (FDR) and Mill and Fill (M&F). The analysis includes two FDR treatments, each containing bitumen emulsion in combination with a distinct hydraulic binder (active filler). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology principles were applied to quantitatively assess advantages and disadvantages associated with these techniques. The system boundaries considered in the assessment cover the base layer rehabilitation process of a pavement road after its service life. The comparative analysis is based on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and energy consumption. Results indicate that FDR significantly outperforms M&F, with a 51% reduction in GHG emissions and a substantial 64% decrease in energy consumption. In FDR solution, the absence of the heating process at the asphalt plant is essential for achieving this performance since it constitutes 53% of GHG emissions in the M&F solution. Sustainable material choices may also improve the environmental impact of the FDR opting for a stabilized material with bitumen emulsion and low clinker binder. This may lead to even more substantial reductions compared to M&F.

Keyphrases: Full Depth Reclamation, Greenhouse gas emissions, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Mill and Fill, Pavement rehabilitation, Sustainability

@booklet{EasyChair:11298,
  author    = {Jessica Souza and Alan Ezaoui and Mustapha Masdan},
  title     = {A Comparative Environmental Assessment of Pavement Rehabilitation Strategies: Full-Depth Reclamation Vs. Mill and Fill},
  howpublished = {EasyChair Preprint 11298},
  year      = {EasyChair, 2023}}