International Journal of Sustainable Transportation

ISSN: 1556-8318 (Print) 1556-8334 (Online) Journal homepage: http://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, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2017.1302023

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

Accepted author version posted online: 16

Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 48

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujst20

Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 23 April 2017, At: 00:45
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Preventive maintenance of road pavement with microsurfacing – An economic and

sustainable strategy

Diogo Simões,a Ana Almeida-Costa,a Agostinho Bentaa,b

a
Civil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-

193 Aveiro, Portugal

b
RISCO, Civil Engineering Department, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de

Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal

Corresponding author email: diogosimoes.eng@gmail.com

To ensure a good quality level of road pavements, it is essential to perform preventive

maintenance before they are irreparably damaged. Treatments for preventive maintenance are a

solution that is recognized but still in the acceptance phase; effective models covering different

combinations of techniques and intervention times and assessing economic and environmental

benefits are lacking. The present study aimed to respond to the abovementioned, using

microsurfacing as the subject of analysis. Several structures and different interventions were

evaluated, conducting an economic analysis over their lifecycles and an environmental study

evaluation using emission factors. The most advantageous solution included the maximum

possible number of treatments of preventive maintenance with microsurfacing applied

consecutively. This scenario ensure economic and environmental benefits. Additionally, it

became clear that it is economically advantageous to design pavements for longer lifetimes.

1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Keywords

road preventive maintenance; microsurfacing treatment; economic analysis; environmental

analysis; life cycle analysis; sustainability

2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction

The road network has an important role in the development of any country. The growth of road

networks has triggered concerns regarding sustainable development, which implies a balance

between economic, social, and environmental aspects (Araújo, 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 (AppaRoa, Kumar, Amar & Ryntathiang, 2013;

Araújo, Oliveira & Silva, 2014; Benta, Duarte, Almeida-Costa, Cordeiro & Pereira, 2015; Silva,

Oliveira, Ferreira & Pereira, 2010). The life cycle analysis of road pavements have been

increasingly applied to quantify the impacts, from the extraction of materials to the end of life.

According the life cycle assessment model performed by Santos, Ferreira & Flintsch (2015) the

phases of materials and use of road pavements are the most contributory of the environmental

impact. These authors conclude 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 mixtures and preventive treatments (Santos, Flintsch &

Ferreira, 2017). These concerns result in an incentive to apply road rehabilitation solutions. The

selection of most appropriate techniques 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 decision systems have been created, such as a maintenance unit model

based on data obtained from a programme of long-term pavement performance (Abo-Hashema &

Sharaf, 2009). On the other hand, the authorities will wait less time before proceeding to the

3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 (Araújo, Oliveira & Silva, 2014).

To avoid these procedures, what emerges as a potential solution 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 pavements, 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 about of 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 specifically 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 characteristics, including safety and comfort during the lifecycle of the

pavement, without significantly changing its structural support capacity (Geiger, 2005).

According to Jackson (2001), the principal advantages of a preventive maintenance programme

when compared with other strategies are greater satisfaction of road users. These satisfaction are

related to less exposure to interruptions during the repair; greater and deeper knowledge about

4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the pavements, including their performance history, actual conditions, and expected

performance; a successful and documented improvement of road conditions, safety, and comfort;

an increase of road traffic safety by improving the surface conditions, with less

ravelling/weathering, less rutting, and an increase of roughness; strategies and improved

techniques, materials and equipment with good quality; and economic benefit 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 treatments for preventive maintenance would

ensure a good performance 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 interruptions 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 minimum 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 to apply a treatment that surely retards

the evolution of distress in the pavement and restores the surface quality. Right road implies to

apply the treatment to the length of road that really needs this kind of intervention. Right

moment involves to apply the treatment at the correct moment, based on a management system

5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

that evaluates its real conditions and its rate of deterioration (ISSA, 2010). Also, in accordance

with (Ding, Sunb & Chenc, 2013), the application of a preventive strategy with the right

planning leads to greater benefits than the regular application of maintenance treatments. For this

purpose, it is necessary to create programmes of preventive maintenance, where the preventive

treatments to be applied are previously correctly established, considering, for example, the ideal

moment for these applications and the associated costs. Several studies with combinations of

different techniques of preventive maintenance and times are required for the conception of these

programmes in order to achieve the best ratio of cost-effectiveness (Lamptey, Labi & Li, 2008).

To prove the added value of implementation of these solutions, it is necessary to have some

effective models for the treatment of road pavements which involve a cost analysis of the

lifecycle, as well as, a timetable and budget for the preventive treatments, are required (Labi,

Lapmtey & Kong, 2007).

In order to reduce the lack of effective models by creating effective models, the objective of the

present study was to carry out economic and 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 solutions are most beneficial in

economic and environmental terms. On the subject of the economic evaluation, the first aspect

considered 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

6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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. Regarding 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 environmental analysis during the lifecycle 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 & Akin (2006), the most frequently applied treatments for

preventive maintenance are crack sealing, application of a thin layer of hot mix asphalt, chip

sealing, correction of drainage conditions, and microsurfacing. 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 this study,

microsurfacing is selected as the treatment for preventive maintenance; choice made based on

numerous and positive literature reference that were found. According Hicks, Seeds & Peshkin

(2000), is the treatment for preventive maintenance that can treat more types of damage, being

appropriate for all traffic levels and in rural and urban areas and effective in all weather

conditions (TRB, 2000; TRB, 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 &

7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Kim, 2012). According to Bae & Stoffels (2007), its application proved to be the strategy with

the best ratio of cost-effectiveness 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, Lapmtey & Kong, 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 tyre 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,

Distin & Osborne 2004). Specifically 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, Lee & Kim, 2012), and the technique is safer for

the workers (Ducasse, Distin & Osborne 2004). The application of microsurfacing is a treatment

with lower cost in comparison to conventional repaving. According the study performed by Ji,

Nantung, Tompkins & Harris (2013), if microsurfacing can provide more than 1.6 years of life to

the pavement, so 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 demanding

(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

8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 important 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.

At this point, since it is not a broad knowledge what is a microsurfacing, becomes very important

to point some references on the subject, such as Raza (1994), Kucharek, Davidson, Moore &

Linton (2010), Broughton, Lee & Kim (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 intention 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

reconstruction in almost all of the analyses. In order to guarantee the coherency of this study, a

9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

maximum of four Treatments for Preventive Maintenance using Microsurfacing (TPMMs) and

two structural reinforcements applied continuously was 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 & Hicks (2003) (see Fig.

1), 75% of the lifetime was considered as the intervention 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, Nantung,

Tompkins & Harris, 2013). According to the graph of Galehouse, Moulthrop & Hicks (2003),

50% of the lifetime of the pavement was selected as the intervention time, which corresponds 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, Mokwa & Akin,

2006; Giustozzi, Flintsch & Crispino, 2011; Hicks, Seeds & Peshkin, 2000; Labi, Hwee,

Lamptey & Nunoo, 2006; Wade, DeSombre & Peshkin, 2001) were analysed and it was decided

to use a period of five years, as a conservative value instead an average, in order to increase the

reliability of the results obtained.

2.2.2. Design

In order to make it possible to compare the different interventions applied to the pavements,

based on the initial structure, it was necessary to design the pavements with several different

10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

design lifetimes. Since the application of microsurfacing and surface treatments, in general,

presupposes that pavement has at least a reasonable structural condition, the structure was

defined according specific characteristics that lead to a lifetime sufficiently 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 influence in the selection and effectiveness of

preventive maintenance treatments, as well as, the condition of existing pavement and

environmental characteristics (Mamlouk & Zaniewski, 1997); it is very important for the

operational 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,

Ferreira & Flintsch, 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 (see Fig. 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

theoretical prediction of the pavement conditions at the intervention time that was defined. For

this purpose it was necessary to make an interaction study, to set the stiffness modulus of

pavement layers, and, using the Bisar software, to obtain the capacity to withstand approximately

25% of the standard load axis first defined for the pavement. All of this process was carried out

11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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.

2.2.3. Intervention programme

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 (see Fig. 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 lifetime and the effective lifetime; that

are, the duration of each activity was designed or programmed and the duration that these

activities would add, effectively, to the lifetime of pavement, respectively. This indication was

necessary because not all the activities were applied at the end of the lifetime. As mentioned

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 programming for each

scenario is presented in the Appendix.

12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 Analysis (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 Equivalent

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) during the lifetime of intervention/treatment, the traffic load, and the lifetime of the

intervention/treatment (Morian, 2011).

Assuming the degradation curve shown in Fig. 1, it was decided to use the LCCA, NPV, and

Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost (EUAC) methods (Walls & Smith, 1998). The NPV is intended

to convert gains and losses that occur at different times into a common measurement unit, using

the equation shown below.

N  1 
NPV  Initial Cost  RehabCostk  
 1  i   k 
n
k 1

(1)

The “Rehab Cost” corresponds to the cost of intervention or treatment, ‘’n’’ corresponds to the

year of intervention, and “I” corresponds to the actualization rate (Walls & Smith, 1998), which

refers to the monetization capacity and economic inflation (Jawad & Ozbay, 2006). According to

Walls & Smith (1998), the actualization rate should be considered to be between 3 and 5%, it

was considered the lower value.

13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The EUAC (see Equation 2) represents the NPV of all the costs and benefits as they occur

uniformly during the study period (Walls & Smith, 1998); that is, the costs are converted into an

annual uniform cost during the analysis period (Morian, 2011). The “nf” corresponds to the total

lifetime.

 i 1  i n 
EUAC  NPV  
 1  i  1
n

(2)

2.2.5. Environmental analysis

Each product has a lifecycle that starts with its design, followed by the extraction of resources,

production, use or consumption, and other activities related to the end of its lifecycle, such as

recycling and waste treatment. All of these processes carry consequences for the environment

due to energy consumption and emissions of pollutant gases. The gases that contribute to the

greenhouse effect provoke climatic variations. The principal pollutant gases resulting from road

construction are nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4). Since the

contributions of these gases are different, their impacts on the greenhouse effect are expressed as

the CO2 equivalent (CO2e). It is considered that the impacts of NO2 and CH4 on the greenhouse

effect are 310 and 21, respectively; that is, 1 kg of N2O is equivalent to the emission of 310 kg of

CO2 and 1 kg of CH4 is equivalent to the emission of 21 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere (Chappat

& Bilal, 2003).

In this study, the environmental analysis was carried out by determining the CO2e and the energy

consumption of all the activities, materials, and equipment involved in each case.

14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3. Calculation

3.1. Practical development of economic analysis

This economic analysis evaluated the impact of this preventive maintenance strategy on agency

costs. However, it is important to mention that although the socio-economic costs comprise

agency cost, user costs and safety cost (Hawzheen, 2011). However this economic analysis. For

the practical development of the economic analysis it was necessary to establish, based on

unitary prices, the costs, including the material and necessary procedures, of the bituminous

mixtures and the removal, milling, and scarification of pavement and bituminous emulsion to the

bonding between layers. In this way it was possible to determine the cost of each type of

intervention for each type of situation analysed. It should be pointed out that a density of 2.3 t/m3

was considered for the bituminous mixtures and the costs of Table 4 refer to the same

geographical area.

Several studies were analysed regarding the cost of microsurfacing (Chan, Lane &

Kazmierowski, 2010; Cuelho, Mokwa & Akin, 2006; Labi, Hwee, Lamptey & Nunoo, 2006;

Wade, DeSombre & Peshkin, 2001). The cost obtained is about 1.65€; however, for consistency

with the regional cost of the other material, 1.30€ was established as the microsurfacing cost.

3.2. Practical development of environmental analysis

Since greenhouse gas emissions are the primary and most commonly externality included in the

cost benefit analysis (TMR, 2011), in this study was calculated the environmental impact of each

15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

analysed situation. For this purpose it was necessary to establish the emissions of CO2e (kg/t) and

energy consumption (MJ/t) of the materials, activities, and equipment used in the different

interventions. These values were obtained based on the literature, according to Tables 5 and 6.

Once the emissions and energy consumption had been fixed, these values were calculated for

each construction/intervention, considering the materials, activities, and equipment involved.

The fraction of each component of the bituminous mixtures as well as the microsurfacing was

established in order to determine the quantity (kg) of each component for a tonne. Based on this

value, from the density and thickness, it was possible to determine the quantity of tonnes of each

element per square metre. The procedure for microsurfacing was an exception: a rate was applied

to find the number of tonnes per square metre of each component.

These values were multiplied by the emissions and energy consumption, listed in Table 5, giving

the total emissions and energy consumption for each construction/intervention. With regard to

the equipment, the abovementioned procedure was not necessary because the values are already

presented per square metre. It should be mentioned that all the material transport costs were

established for a distance of 20 km.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Economic analysis

It was decided to perform the comparisons based on the different situations using EUAC, since

this is the only measure that can be related to the longevity of pavement.

16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Based on the cost of each intervention/treatment, the necessary calculations were done, leading

to the results shown in Table 7. By this analysis it was possible to conclude that the most

economical situations are 3.C, 3.D, and 2.D, and the least economical situations are 1.B, 1.A, and

2.B, in the presented order. The most economically advantageous situations were the ones that

did not involve any reconstruction.

It is important to note that the cheaper situations only required TPMMs. After the three cheapest

situations, the following two included one reconstruction and TPMMs. The three least

economical situations included at least two reconstructions, making them more expensive, and it

is important to highlight that none of these situations used TPMMs (see Table 7).

It was verified that there are position changes (see Table 7) when the cost in euros per kilometre

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 Fig. 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 lifetime 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 analysed situations, a pavement with 20 km of length was considered

17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

hypothetically. In this way, the total costs (in NPV) of construction and maintenance treatments

are illustrated.

Figure 5 compares the different sets of constructions/interventions (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 lifecycle, respectively). From the analysis of Fig. 5, it was

clear that for the pavement with 20 km of extension (3.7 m in width), situation 1 was the most

expensive, while situation 3 was the least expensive. Regarding each initial structure of

pavement, construction/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 situation 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 initial structure of pavement, were always

found to be the most expensive because they exclusively used structural reinforcement and

reconstructions, without involving any TPMM. With the exponential lines of graph of Fig. 4 it is

possible to verify that the difference between cost and net present value decreases from situation

1 to situation 3, being clear the advantage of designing pavements for longer lifetimes.

As verified for the EUAC, the most economical situation 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.

18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4.2. Environmental analysis

Regarding the CO2e emissions, the situations that were demonstrated 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 reconstruction), 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 most beneficial, especially situation

3.C., because it only included TPMMs.

In order to facilitate the visualization of the results of emissions and energy consumption of the

different analysed situations, as mentioned above, a pavement with 20 km of length (3.7 m in

width) was considered.

Figures 6 and 7 compare the different sets of constructions/interventions (A, B, C, D) and group

them according to the initial structures of the pavements (where 1, 2, and 3 mean design lifetimes

of 10, 15, and 20 years of lifecycle, respectively). Figures 6 and 7 refer to CO2e emissions and

energy consumption, respectively. Since the order of CO2e emissions and energy consumption

was the same (see the results in Table 8), their graphical representation, unsurprisingly, presented

similar behaviour. For both analyses it could be concluded that situation 1 (for a lifetime of 10

years) was less beneficial than situation 3. Situation 1, due to its short lifetime, requires more

interventions to achieve to life-horizon. Generally, constructions/interventions C and D were

more advantageous than A and B, which did not involve TPMMs.

As mentioned above, the most beneficial situation was 3.C. (which only included TPMMs) and

the least beneficial one was 1.A (which included structural reinforcements and reconstructions).

19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The difference in CO2e emissions between these two situations was 5,032,474 kg, which

corresponds to the emissions of 48 km of pavement in situation 3.C. The difference in energy

consumption between these two situations was 57,109,056 MJ, which corresponds to the energy

expended on 43 km of pavement in situation 3.C.

5. Conclusions

The main objective of the present study was to perform an economic and environmental

comparison between different situations established to achieve a lifecycle of 40 years for road

pavements; basically creating an effective model that cover different combinations of techniques

and intervention times and assessing their benefits. Even without an eco-efficiency method to

establish the relation between the economic and environmental analyses, it was possible to draw

some logical conclusions. The situations that were shown to be more advantageous were, for all

the analyses, those that did not involve reconstruction and included the maximum possible

number of TPMMs consecutively (specifically four), while the least advantageous were those did

not involve TPMMs and needed reconstruction, because the TPMMs are less costly and more

environmentally friendly interventions in contrast to reconstruction. Nevertheless, the

combination of TPMMs and structural reinforcement showed some benefits. In this way, the

more beneficial situations always included TPMMs and the best situation, in any analysis, was

one that used only TPMMs to achieve the life-horizon (40 years). These results confirmed that

TPMM is an economic and environmentally sustainable treatment that, in the future, will

indirectly provide economic benefits related to the lower environmental impact (AppaRoa,

Kumar, Amar & Ryntathiang, 2013).

20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

It was verified that with the increase in initial investment there were decreases in cost, CO2e

emissions, and energy consumption. A lower initial investment would allow greater profitability

of costs during the lifecycle (due to the actualization rate), but the application of a more durable

initial pavement could make it possible to reduce the number of necessary interventions and

avoid deeper strategies of rehabilitation until it reaches the life-horizon.

The present study presented some limitations that should be 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 lifecycles 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 structural 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 discrepancies in the literature, due to variations

inherent in them (e.g. traffic volume, type of material used, and construction practices) (Cuelho,

Mokwa & Akin, 2006). In the present study, whenever 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 projected 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

standardization of values used in the studies regarding prices, emissions, and energy

21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 presented by microsurfacing are mostly derived from wrong

applications or formulations, and therefore further research and practice of this technique may

overcome these disadvantages.

The preventive maintenance programs have several advantages, 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.

22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References

Abo-Hashema, M.A. & Sharaf, E.A. (2009). Development of maintenance decision model for

flexible pavements. International Journal of Pavement 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.

Araújo, 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 concrete. 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.

23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Chan, S., Lane, B. & Kazmierowski, T. (2010). Pavement preservation: A solution for

sustainability. In proceedings of Annual Meeting of TRB, Washington, USA.

Chappat, M. & Bilal, J. (2003). The Environmental Road of the Future: Life Cycle Analysis,

Colas, Paris, France.

Cuelho, E., Mokwa, R. & Akin, M. (2006). Preventive maintenance treatments 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 preventive 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. In 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,

European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.

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.

24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 analysis of preventive

maintenance treatments on road pavements. In proceedings 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. In proceedings of 2nd

International Symposium on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Pavements and

Technological Control, No. 01-128, Auburm, USA.

25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Jawad, D. & Ozbay, K. (2006). The discount rate in life cycle analysis of transportation projects.

In proceedings of Annual Meeting of TRB, Washington, USA.

Ji, Y., Nantung, T., Tompkins, B. & Harris, D. (2013). Evaluation for microsurfacing as

pavement preservation treatment. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 25 (4), 540-

547.

Johnson, A. (2000). Best Practices Handbook on Asphalt Pavement Maintenance (Report No.

2000-04). Minneapolis a, USA: Minnesota Technology Transfer (T2) Center / LTAP

Program Center for Transportation Studies.

Kazmierowski, T.J., Bradbury, A., Hajek, J. & Jones, G. (1993). Effectiveness of high

performance thin surfacings in a wet-freeze environment. In 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. Victoria, 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. In 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.

26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Lamptey, G., Labi, S. & Li, Z. (2008). Decision support for optimal scheduling of highway

pavement preventive maintenance within resurfacing cycle. Decision Support Systems, 46,

376-387.

Mamlouk, M.S. & Zaniewski, J.P. (1997). Pavement preventive maintenance: description,

effectiveness, and treatments. In proceedings of the Symposium on Flexible Pavement

Rehabilitation and Maintenance. São 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 Recycling, 116, 15-31.

Santos, J., Ferreira, A. & Flintsch, G. (2015). A life cycle assessment model for pavement

management: road pavement construction and management in Portugal. International

Journal of Pavement Engineering, 4 (16), 315-336.

27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

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 preventive maintenance:

eco-efficient strategy. In proceedings of ISSA Annual Meeting, Maui, Hawaii.

TRB (Transportation Research Board) (2000). A synthesis of highway practice (Report No. 284).

National Cooperative Highway Research NCHRP Program. Washington DC, USA:

Transportation Research Board.

TRB (Transportation Research Board) (2004). Optimal timing of pavement preventive

maintenance treatment applications (Report No. 523). National Cooperative Highway

Research NCHRP Program. Washington DC, USA: Transportation Research Board.

TMR (Transport and Main Roads) (2011). Cost-benefit Analysis manual – Theoretical guide.

State of Queensland – Department of Transport and Main Roads. Queensland, Australia.

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.

28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Watson, D. & Jared, D. (1998). Georgia department of transportation's experience with

microsurfacing. Journal of the Transportation Research Record, 1616 (1), 42-46.

29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1: Comparison between treatments for preventive maintenance (Hicks, Seeds & Peshkin, 2000).

Distress Treatments

Microsurfacing Crack sealing Fog seal Slurry Cape seal Chip seal Thin layer of hot mix

asphalt

Roughness (not associated with x x x

stability)

Roughness (associated with x

stability)

Rutting x x

Fatigue cracking (low severity) x x x x x x

Longitudinal and transverse x x x x x x

cracking

Bitumen exudation x x

30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Ravelling/weathering x x x x x x

31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2: Design data of pavements.

Pavement service temperature Pavement design speed AADT/Lane

27 ºC 50 km/h 600

32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3: Parameters of pavement layers.

Courses E γ

Subgrade 100 0.35

Granular sub-base 217 0.30

Bituminous macadam 4133 0.35

Bituminous concrete 4015 0.35

33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4: Intervention costs (including material and procedures).

Activity Cost

AC20 Base 35/50 (EN 13108-1, 2006) 30.60 (€/t)

AC14 Surf 35/40 (EN 13108-1, 2006) 34.10 (€/t)

Treatment for preventive maintenance with microsurfacing 1.30 (€/m2)

Bituminous emulsion 0.26 (€/m2)

Pavement removal, milling, and scarification 5.00 (€/m2)

34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5: Emissions of CO2e and energy consumption considered for activities and

materials.

Activity/Material Emission of CO2e (kg/t) Energy consumption (MJ/t)

Bitumen (Eurobitume, 2011) 285.00 4,900.00

Aggregates (IVL, 2001) 10.00 40.00

Hydrated lime (Chappat & Bilal, 2003) 245.00 1,244.00

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

Bituminous emulsion (Eurobitume, 2011) 221.00 3,490

Removal of pavement for recycling (IVL, 2001) 0.80 12

Cement (IVL, 2001) 1,080.00 5,900

Water (IVL, 2001) 0.30 10

Additive (Cerea, 2010) 1,837.00 71,710

Emulsifier (Giustozzi, Flintsch & Crispino, 2011) 600.00 63,250

35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 6: Emissions of CO2e and energy consumption considered for activities and materials.

Equipment Emission of CO2e (kg/m2) Energy consumption (MJ/m2)

Tanker vehicles for application of emulsion (Giustozzi, Flintsch & 0.036 0.491

Crispino, 2011)

Equipment for removal, milling, and scarification of pavement (Giustozzi, 0.120 1.544

Flintsch & Crispino, 2011)

Equipment for application of microsurfacing (Giustozzi, Flintsch & 0.030 0.424

Crispino, 2011)

36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 7: Costs in euros per kilometre, NPV, and EUAC in ascending order.

Situation Cost (€/km) Situation NPV (€/km) Situation EUAC (€/year) per km

Route with 3.7 m of width Route with 3.7 m of width

Route with 3.7 m of width

3.C. 83,213 3.C. 75,600 3.C. 3,271

3.D. 101,639 3.D. 84,343 3.D. 3,537

2.D. 105,746 2.D. 87,987 2.D. 3,807

3.B. 146,446 1.C. 100,406 1.C. 4,344

1.C. 150,072 2.C. 102,190 2.C. 4,421

2.C. 150,479 3.B. 109,636 3.A. 4,648

3.A. 169,608 3.A. 110,815 3.B. 4,743

1.D. 176,194 1.D. 121,831 1.D. 5,271

37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2.A. 191,512 2.A. 132,474 2.A. 5,731

2.B. 215,932 2.B. 143,418 2.B. 6,205

1.A. 261,590 1.A. 165,580 1.A. 6,945

1.B. 280,164 1.B. 183,827 1.B. 7,953

38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 8: CO2e emissions (kg/km) and energy consumption (MJ/km), in ascending order.

Situation Emission of CO2e (kg/km) per kilometre of route with Situation Energy consumption (MJ/km) per kilometre of

a width of 3.7 m route with a width 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

3.B. 195,471 3.B. 2,352,904

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

39
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2.B. 275,317 2.B. 3,317,420

1.B. 347,171 1.B. 4,186,439

1.A. 356,199 1.A. 4,194,320

40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Appendix

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

(years) time (years) time (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

41
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
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

42
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
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

43
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
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

44
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 1: Relation between the pavement condition and its lifetime (Broughton, Lee & Kim, 2012).

45
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 2: Initial structures of pavements.

46
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

47
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 3: Summary of interventions for design lifetimes of 10, 15 and 20 years.

48
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 4: Total costs (€/km) and NPV.

49
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 5: NPV for a pavement of 20 km, grouped according to the initial structure.

50
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 6: Emissions for a pavement of 20 km, grouped according to the initial structure.

51
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 7: Energy consumption for a pavement of 20 km, grouped according to the initial structure.

52
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT