Resources, Conservation & Recycling 161 (2020) 104953

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Quantification of embodied energy and carbon footprint of pervious T

concrete pavements through a methodical lifecycle assessment framework
Avishreshth Singh, Poornachandra Vaddy, Krishna Prapoorna Biligiri
⁎

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh 517506, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This study provided a systematic lifecycle assessment (LCA) methodology that was used to quantify the total
Lifecycle assessment embodied energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions involved in construction of a new pavement.
Pervious concrete pavements Furthermore, a comparative LCA was performed to adjudge the benefits offered by pervious concrete pavement
Total embodied energy (PCP) over Portland cement concrete pavement (PCCP) for different mixing procedures, and distinct base layers.
Greenhouse gas emissions
The system boundaries included the following phases of pavement LCA: raw material production, transportation,
Capital cost analysis
Resource conservation
and pavement construction. The total embodied energy and GHG emissions were quantified for a functional unit
of 1 km single lane road, 3.5 m wide, and 0.35 m thickness. The relative contribution of each component to
energy consumption and GHG emissions was estimated and the variability of LCA model parameters was un-
derstood using sensitivity analysis. The results dictated that the total embodied energy and GHG emissions in
PCP with aggregate base layer were reduced by up to 3% and 2.7%, respectively, compared to that of PCCP with
similar configuration. Further, a capital cost analysis was conducted due to non-availability of maintenance and
end-of-life data, which indicated that PCP is almost 1.21% costlier than PCCP for RMC mixing, and 4.13%
cheaper for in-situ mixing. The conceptual approach developed in this study provided a generalized methodical
framework that could be used to assess the environmental credibility of pavement systems for site-specific
conditions.

1. Introduction 2014). Thus, it becomes imperative to design novel roadway (pave-

The unprecedented shift of human fraternity from rural to urban
conglomerates has intensified over the last few decades. It is expected
that by 2050, more than 53% of the emerging regions and 83% of the
developed world will shift to urban establishments (Cohen, 2004). The
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs has revealed
that India is the largest hub of urban transformation in the twenty-first
century with real estate sector as being one of the major contributors to
urbanization (World economic forum, 2019). Building sector in India
consumes 40% energy, 20% water, and 20% land cover; while its oc-
cupants generate 30% of solid waste, and 20% of water effluents. Ad-
ditionally, 22% of India's annual carbon emissions are caused by the
construction sector (The construction sector in India and climate
change, 2019). Although the environmental impacts of building sector
are significant, they constitute about 20% of the total natural land
cover, whereas the pavement infrastructure encompasses 40% of the
urban fabric (White et al, 2010; Qin and Hiller, 2014). Of the total
carbon emissions generated annually in India, roads and vehicles to-
gether contribute to around 161 million metric tonnes (Sreedhar et al.,
ment) systems using innovative materials to develop sustainable in-
frastructure.
While energy consumption and emissions in transportation sector
are often related to burning of gasoline through vehicles, construction
and maintenance of pavements is also causative for substantial energy
consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is estimated that
by 2020, the demand for coarse aggregates and sand in construction
industry will be more than 2 billion tonnes and 1.4 billion tonnes, re-
spectively (Material consumption patterns in India, 2016). Raw mate-
rial extraction, processing, production, transportation, and handling are
energy-and-carbon-intensive processes. Amongst the various raw ma-
terials for cement and concrete, cement manufacturing had the highest
environmental footprint, which was responsible for consumption of
about 74% energy while also producing 88% GHG emissions
(Chaote, 2003). Further, the energy required to produce 1 ton of con-
crete is 1.4 GJ, mainly generated by burning of fossil fuels
(NRMCA: concrete CO2 factsheet, 2008). Additionally, the embodied
carbon dioxide (CO2) for concrete is approximately 5–13% of its total
weight. An investigation reported that the average energy consumed

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ce18d001@iittp.ac.in (A. Singh), ce19m032@iittp.ac.in (P. Vaddy), bkp@iittp.ac.in (K.P. Biligiri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104953
Received 1 November 2019; Received in revised form 11 May 2020; Accepted 12 May 2020
Available online 31 May 2020
0921-3449/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Singh, et al.
and GHG emissions produced from asphalt and/or plain cement con-
crete pavement structures were 700–1000 MJ/m2 and 52.5–130 kg/m2,
respectively (Chappat and Bilal, 2003). Another investigation suggests
that for high volume roadway applications, the global warming po-
tential (GWP) of asphalt pavements was 8% higher than cement con-
crete pavements (Miel, 2006).
Researchers reported that CO2 emissions released and energy con-
sumed due to production of high-strength concrete were 160 MJ/kg and
1.07 MJ/kg, respectively (Hakkinen and Makela, 1996). Additionally,
when the depth of Portland cement concrete pavement (PCCP) was
reduced by 10% of its initial depth, CO2 emissions reduced by about
7.5%, whereas sulfur and nitrous emissions were of similar magnitudes.
Another research developed a lifecycle assessment (LCA) toolkit that
comprised of material, distribution, construction, congestion, usage,
and end-of-life modules (Yu and Lu, 2012). LCA was performed over
three overlay systems: Portland cement concrete (PCC) overlay, hot-mix
asphalt (HMA) overlay, and crack-seat and HMA overlay option. It was
found that materials, congestion, and usage were the dominant con-
tributors to energy consumption and GHG emissions. In a recent study,
a comparative LCA was performed to investigate the environmental
impacts associated with production of asphalt and concrete (Ivel et al.,
2019). Based on the results, it was observed that production of asphalt
had almost 80% higher impact on the resources than concrete, thus
adjudging concrete as a more sustainable pavement material than as-
phalt. Huang et al. (2018) reported that energy consumption and
emissions through cement pavements was about 22 to 28% lower than
asphalt pavements.
In another study, a comparative LCA was performed over six dif-
ferent PCCP systems consisting of alternative materials such as fly ash
and steel slag aggregates (Anastasiou et al., 2015). It was concluded
that the use of alternative materials in PCCP reduces CO2 equivalent,
and concurrently GWP could also be reduced by minimizing GHG
emissions during construction phase. A study compared three green
concrete mixtures comprising of alternative materials such as foundry
sand, steel slag, and fly ash with four conventional concrete mixtures
and inferred that the reduction in energy consumption and GHG
emissions in green concrete was about 17.6–23.5% and 5.6–26.4%,
respectively, in comparison with conventional concrete (Turk et al.,
2015). Another research provided a generalized model that predicted
CO2 equivalent during the stages of raw material production and pa-
vement construction for different pavement systems to predict their
impact on climate change (White et al., 2010). Elsewhere, researchers
stated that more than 50% emissions occurred during the material
production and construction stages of concrete pavements, while the
activities associated with end-of-life were other major contributors
(Loijos et al., 2013).
It must be noted that in order to meet the sustainability criteria, it is
essential to quantify the economic dimensions of a pavement system
pertaining to construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation along with
environmental impacts over its design life (Santero et al., 2011;
Santos et al., 2017). Past investigations indicated that although the
initial cost of construction for asphalt pavements was low, their overall
life cycle cost (LCC) was higher than concrete pavements when all the
phases of LCA were considered (Embacher and Snyder, 2001;
Batouli et al., 2017). This was primarily attributed to minimal main-
tenance and rehabilitation activities associated with concrete pave-
ments.
Moving forward, the increasing crude oil prices have augmented the
overall cost of asphalt concrete pavements, while continued mining of
quarries to obtain coarse and fine aggregates have led to excessive
consumption of natural resources (Kowalski et al., 2016). Additionally,
impervious pavement surfaces do not allow for water percolation into
the ground during precipitation, thereby resulting in situations such as
flash flooding and surface runoff. Thus, there is a need to develop pa-
vement systems that assuage the problems associated with high impact
development of pavement infrastructure. One such approach is to
2
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 161 (2020) 104953
design and build pavements comprising of permeable materials in the
surface wearing course and subsequent underlying layers. Pervious
concrete pavement (PCP) systems have proved to be successful tech-
nologies having potential to alleviate problems pertinent to runoff
(Tennis et al., 2004; ACPA, 2009). Additionally, PC has been found to
conserve resources (specifically, sand) as it does not require fine ag-
gregates at all. Further, PCP systems have been utilized in low-volume
roads, parking lots, residential streets as well as shoulders and medians
in high-volume roads.
Literature reports that GHG emissions were 78-95% lower for
permeable pavements and bio-retention basins than conventional
drainage systems (Sousa et al., 2012). Another study reported a re-
duction in energy consumption (by about 73.48%) and GHG emissions
(by about 46.70%) when permeable pavements were used instead of
conventional asphalt pavements (Wang et al., 2018). From economic
perspective, researchers reported that LCC of permeable pavements was
about 30% lower as compared to conventional pavements (Wang et al.,
2010). Further, studies have also accounted for the cost involved in
construction, maintenance, rehabilitation, and stormwater treatment of
four pavement alternatives, i.e., HMA, PCCP, porous asphalt, and PC.
The results revealed that maintenance costs of permeable pavements
were lower compared to HMA and PCCP (Rehan et al., 2018). Some
other benefits pertinent to permeable pavements are mitigation of
urban heat island effects, noise reduction, better skid resistance, and
improved quality of stormwater (Li et al., 2013; Chu et al., 2017;
Roddin et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2018).
Overall, studies indicate that there are differences of environmental
impacts and economic aspects due to disparity in design, construction,
and utility of conventional impervious pavements versus pervious pa-
vement systems. However, pervious pavements have been found to be
prospective candidates for low-impact development. In this direction,
there is a need to develop an approach to quantify environmental im-
pacts of unconventional pavement systems such as PCPs while also
comparing the results with those of conventional pavements. Thus, the
major objective of this study was to quantify the embodied energy and
GHG emissions for a PCP system, which was further compared with
PCCP using cradle-to-gate LCA approach. Additionally, the initial ca-
pital invested for the construction of PCP and PCCP have been com-
pared to estimate sustainable credibility of one material over other up
to the phase of construction. It is envisioned that this research will
provide a methodical framework that can be adopted by routine en-
gineers and practitioners to compute the embodied energy and kg CO2
equivalent in PCPs, and develop strategies for construction of eco-
friendly pavement systems.
2. Research significance
Historically, several studies have been performed to investigate the
environmental burdens of conventional concrete and asphalt pavement
systems. Albeit, the contribution of alternative pavement systems such
as PCPs in reducing the total embodied energy and kg CO2 equivalent is
still emerging. In this direction, a systematic LCA framework was de-
veloped to quantify and compare the environmental impacts of PCP and
conventional concrete pavement systems suitable for application in
low-volume roadways. The LCA model developed in this study can be
directly utilized by researchers, practitioners, and engineers to quantify
the energy consumption and GHG emissions from the stage of pro-
duction of raw materials to the construction of pavements as well as
end-of life phases. Although the LCA methodology established in this
study is conceptual, it is certainly adaptable for site-specific conditions
and offers an advantage for optimization of model parameters with
appropriate modifications. Furthermore, the capital cost analysis per-
formed on various pavement systems to quantify the initial cost benefits
could be well-utilized as part of a detailed LCA in future that involves
maintenance and exhaust of the products at the end-of-life. For in-
stance, the capital cost of PCP was slightly higher than PCCP for RMC
A. Singh, et al.
mixing, and lower than PCCP for in-situ mixing, which showcased the
economic aspects offered by the two pavement systems, consequential
of formulating a futuristic framework that could be extended for a
comprehensive LCA of these special materials, with capital cost being
the seed value for a rational LCCA as well. Overall, this study provided
a conceptual framework that is expected to pave way for rational as-
sessment of environmental credibility of different pavement systems a-
priori pavement design process.
3. Materials and methodology
In order to understand the environmental impacts of alternative
pavement systems such as PCPs over conventional concrete pavements,
a comparative LCA was performed. Different pavement systems were
systematically characterized to represent common conventional pave-
ment designs that are built across the world. This investigation pri-
marily utilized the realistic data provided by the “construction agency”
in combination with statistics derived from the “India construction
materials database of embodied energy and GWP, 2017”. Due to the
absence of fine aggregates in PC surface wearing course and rigid semi-
permeable base layers underneath, it was assumed that the construction
of PCP systems in regions with low traffic and susceptible to frequent
rainfall would assist in reducing high environmental impacts of pave-
ment construction, and help achieve sustainability in construction
sector.
3.1. Materials and pavement systems
Past studies have shown that cement is the major source of en-
vironmental burden during concrete production, which further depends
on total clinker content (The construction sector in India and climate
change, 2019; Material consumption patterns in India, 2016; Dam et al.,
2012; NRMCA: concrete CO2 fact sheet, 2008). Thus, for the sake of
comparison, ordinary Portland cement 53-grade (with equal total
clinker content) conforming to IS:12269 was used for the production of
PC and PCC. Crushed aggregates indexed as 12.5 mm and finer size
were referenced as coarse aggregates for the design of two pavement
systems. Additionally, manufactured sand (M-sand) produced at the
same stone quarry was input as fine aggregate for preparation of PCC.
PC specimens were prepared per the tentative mixture proportions
provided in Tennis et al., 2014 and ACI 522R, 2010, to achieve the
target compressive strength of 25 MPa, whose proportions are given in
Table 1. Further, a standard concrete mix design was carried out to
prepare M25 grade PCC as per IS:10262. The specific gravities of ce-
ment, fine aggregates, and coarse aggregates were reported as 3.14,
2.55, and 2.7, respectively. Furthermore, the bulk densities of cement,
M-sand, and coarse aggregates were considered as 1440, 1650, and
1600 kg/m3, respectively. The mixture proportions for the different
Table 1
Proportioning of PC and PCC pavement systems.
Material Proportion
Target compressive strength (MPa) 25
Pervious Concrete
Cement (kg/m3) 400
Coarse aggregate (kg/m3) 1500
Water (kg/m3) 120
Cement-to-aggregate 1:3.75
Water-to-cement 0.30
Superplasticizer (by mass of cement) 0.5%
Portland Cement Concrete
Cement (kg/m3) 409
Fine aggregate (kg/m3) 779
Coarse aggregate (kg/m3) 976
Water (kg/m3) 202
Superplasticizer (by mass of cement) 0.5%
3
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 161 (2020) 104953
Table 2
Configurations of different pavement systems with base layers and equal service
life.
Scenario Surface course Base layer Material mixing method
A Pervious concrete Granular RMC
B Portland cement concrete Granular RMC
C Pervious concrete Granular In-situ
D Portland cement concrete Granular In-situ
scenarios of pavement systems are summarized in Table 1.
The configurations of two pavement systems and the two con-
struction scenarios adopted for this study are given in Table 2. In all the
four scenarios, thicknesses of surface and base layers were considered
as 0.15 m and 0.2 m, respectively. It is noteworthy that a PCP parking
lot of area 50 m × 6 m was constructed in the premises of Indian In-
stitute of Technology Tirupati, State of Andhra Pradesh, which served
as the basis for selecting the input model parameters for this com-
parative study, whose details can be found in (Vaddy et al., 2020).
One of the tasks of this study was to quantify the energy consumed
and emissions generated due to a PCC surface course layer overlaid on
dry-lean concrete (DLC) base (as a replacement of granular base). Along
with those mentioned in Table 2, RMC (Scenario E) mixing and in-situ
(Scenario F) mixing methodologies were employed for preparation of
PCCP with DLC base. Three different cement-to-aggregate (c/a) ratios
(1:5, 1:10, and 1:14) were adopted for the preparation of DLC to cover a
wide range of mixture proportions as per IRC: SP-49-2014. Further, the
minimum cement content of 140 kg/m3 as given in IRC:SP-49-2014 was
adopted, and the aggregate content was varied accordingly.
Despite the fact that limited studies are available on the utilization
of PC in low-volume roads, highway shoulders, and driveways; an at-
tempt was made to compare their environmental footprints with PCCP
consisting of a DLC base. Having said that, a comparison between PCP
and PCCP (with DLC base) seems premature in the present scenario due
to the differences in their configuration, structural performance, and
durability. Nonetheless, this comparison is expected to pave way for
futuristic comparative LCA between PCCP and PCP systems with known
advanced structural performance characteristics.
3.2. LCA methodology
In the absence of data pertinent to serviceability and end-of-life
phases of PCP systems, this LCA study followed cradle-to-gate ap-
proach, including the stages of raw material production, material
transportation to the site, and pavement construction. For analysis, the
lifecycle inventory data was collected from a variety of sources such as
construction agency, India construction materials database of embodied
energy and GWP, Central Pollution Control Board of India, and ex-
amined for each of those phases. Once the data was collected, a model
developed by White et al. (2010) was utilized to quantify the en-
vironmental burdens of the various pavement systems considered in
this study. This model was further refined by the authors to incorporate
the consumed embodied energy and carbon emissions (carbon footprint
equivalent) produced during compaction phase of different layers
within the pavement systems. Note that a series of equations were es-
tablished for various input model parameters and phases, as illustrated
in subsequent sections (Section 3.6). The functional unit chosen for the
comparative analysis consisted of 3.5 m wide, 1 km single lane road
designed to handle low-volume traffic. The thicknesses of surface
course and underlying base course layers were 0.15 m and 0.20 m,
respectively.
3.3. System boundaries
The system boundaries represent the unit processes that are
A. Singh, et al.
modeled to quantify the energy consumed and GHGs emitted right from
the stage of production of raw materials to the pavement construction.
The energy required for compaction of different layers in a pavement
will depend on the type of subgrade, base course, and workability of
surface wearing course layers. For this study, the compaction effort for
subgrade, granular base course, and DLC was considered similar for all
pavement types and configurations, i.e., using 10 passes of an 8-ton
static steel wheel roller of 76 horsepower engine and 1.7 m drum width
such that the compaction velocity was 3 km/h. For the actual PC sur-
face wearing course (slump 12 mm) constructed in the field, the com-
paction was performed using a surface plate vibratory compactor run-
ning with 2 horsepower engine and 0.3 m width such that it imparted a
compaction velocity of 0.36 km/h. Similarly, for PCC (about 100 mm
slump), a needle vibrator of 2.2 horsepower engine was used and the
compaction effort was attained at a rate of 0.15 m2/s (ACI 309R, 2005).
Further, a screed roller compactor of 2.5 horsepower was used to attain
the finished surface at a rate of 0.097 m2/s. Moreover, the material for
the base layer was spread at the rate of 0.12 m2/s through a backhoe
loader of 36 horsepower engine. The different phases and components
of the LCA that constituted the system boundary in this research are
shown in Fig. 1.
3.4. Limitations
It is noteworthy that there exists inherent variability in the database
developed for the present study. For example, the GHG emissions
generated from cement production are primarily dependent upon the
clinker content, which in turn depends on the energy source and type of
kiln. The material production factors (embodied energy and kg CO2
equivalent) for coarse and fine aggregates were adopted from “India
construction database for embodied energy and GWP”, and considered
similar throughout the study. However, a more refined approach would
be to segregate the environmental contribution of both fine and coarse
aggregate fractions. Further, the emissions derived from electricity
were considered for Indian conditions only, thus modifications must be
made depending on the mode of electricity generation for global sce-
nario. Additionally, the fuel consumption and speed of vehicles were
based on field experience. The traffic delays due to congestion and/or
expansion/maintenance/repair of pavements were not considered in
this study. Moreover, other impact categories such as source of water
supply, production of superplasticizer, and soil-treatment processes
were not accounted for in this conceptual framework. Similarly, the
energy consumption and GHG emissions due to compaction metho-
dology will vary depending on the anticipated traffic, thickness of pa-
vement layers, characteristics of surface wearing course (open/gap/
dense/uniformly graded), type of sub-base/base course, nature of sub-
grade, type of soil treatment, and environmental conditions. The em-
bodied energy and CO2 equivalent for the present study represented the
average Indian scenarios, so relevant modifications must be made to the
Fig. 1. Lifecycle phase and components within system boundary for different pavement systems.
4
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 161 (2020) 104953
proposed framework following study and location requirements.
3.5. LCA model
The models developed for the quantification of total embodied en-
ergy and total kg CO2 equivalent per km for the different pavement
systems are given in Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively.
Total embodied energy (MJ / km)= (1000 x W x
(T x Dn x (Pe + Me + (Te x Di )) + Ce )
(1)
Total kg CO2 eq. / km = (1000 x W x (T x Dn
x (Pg + Mg + (Tg x Di )) + Cg ) (2)
Where,
W = Width of the road in m
T = Thickness of layer in m
Dn = Density of pavement material in kg/m3
Pe = Material production value in MJ/kg
Pg = Material production value in kg CO2 eq./kg
Me = Material mixing value in MJ/kg
Mg = Material mixing value in kg CO2 eq./kg
Te = Transport from production site to application site in MJ/kg-km
Tg = Transport from production site to application site, kg CO2 eq./
kg-km
Di = Distance from material production site to application site in
km
Ce = Material compaction value in MJ/m2
Cg = Material compaction value in kg CO2 eq./m2
3.5.1. Material production values
In general, material production value refers to the total energy
consumed or GHG emissions produced during production of a unit
quantity of the pavement material. According to India construction
materials database of embodied energy and GWP, the material pro-
duction values for cement, coarse aggregates, and m-sand were 6.4,
0.11, and 0.11 MJ/kg, respectively. In terms of GHG potential, the
material production values for cement, coarse aggregates, and M-sand
were 0.91, 0.009, and 0.009 kg CO2 eq./kg, respectively.
3.5.2. Material mixing value
It is defined as the energy consumed or quantity of GHG produced
due to mixing of a unit quantity of the pavement material. With regard
to embodied energy, the mixer engine power and mixing frequency
were provided by the contractor, and the material mixing value was
calculated using Eq. (3), using RMC mixing. In the absence of such data,
the mixing value can be calculated using the fuel consumption and its
thermal energy, as shown in Eq. (4) for in-situ mixing.
A. Singh, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 161 (2020) 104953

3.6 x Engine power (kW ) Tg (kg CO2 eq. / kg km)

Me (MJ / kg ) =
Mixing frequency (kg /hr ) (3) Vehicular emissions (kg CO2 Eq. / km hr ) x Travel time (hr )
=
Fuel consumption (l/ hr ) x Thermal energy of fuel (MJ /l) Quantity of material transported (kg ) (9)
Me (MJ / kg ) =
Mixing frequency (kg / hr )
(4) 3.5.4. Material compaction value
With respect to energy, material compaction value may be defined
In terms of kg CO2 equivalent, the material mixing values for fossil fuel
as the energy required to compact unit surface area of a pavement
based concrete mixers and electric concrete mixers were calculated
layer. For PC, granular base course, and subgrade, the material com-
using Eq. (5) for in-situ mixing, and Eq. (6) for RMC mixing.
paction values were estimated using Eq. (10), whereas for PCC and
Mg (kg CO2 eq. / kg ) DLC, Eq. (11) was utilized for computation of total energy consumed.
Fuel consumption (l/ hr ) x Emissions from fuel (kg CO2 eq . /l) 0.0036 x Number of passages x Engine power (kW )
= Ce (MJ / m2) =
Mixing frequency (kg / hr ) (5) Speed of vehicle (kmph) x Width of roller (m) (10)
Mg (kg CO2 eq. / kg ) = E x Energy consumed in mixing (MJ / kg ) (6) Engine power (kW )
Ce (MJ / m2) =
Where, Compaction rate (m2 / s ) x 1000 (11)
E = Electric energy and GHG emission factor, which was taken as In terms of emissions, material compaction value may be defined as the
0.037101 kg CO2eq./MJ. quantity of GHGs emitted during the compaction of unit surface area of
In the absence of plant-specific data pertaining to the emission of a pavement layer. For computation of material compaction value with
GHGs during generation of electricity, a systematic procedure was respect to CO2 equivalent in PC, granular base layer, and subgrade, Eq.
utilized for computation of “E”, which is discussed below: (12) was utilized, whereas for PCC and DLC layer, Eq. (13) was used.

• The latest power generation details based on the data of Central
Electricity Authority (CEA), Ministry of Power (MoP), Government
of India is given in Table 3.
• Guttikonda and Jawahar (2014) suggested that carbon monoxide
(CO) and nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions from thermal power plants
be taken as 100 t/PJ and 189 t/PJ, respectively.
• For electricity, the kg CO2 equivalent due to CO and NOx emissions
were chosen as 1.90 and 265, respectively (Forster et al., 2007;
Myhre et al., 2013). Furthermore, kg CO2 equivalent generated
during transportation due to CH4 emissions was taken as 28
(Myhre et al., 2013).
• The emissions due to hydro- and renewable energy resources were
neglected. Furthermore, due to a very small contribution of nuclear
energy sector to overall power generation in India, it was neglected.
• “E” was calculated using the relationship given in Eq. (7):
Electric Energy GHG Emission Factor = % of Thermal Energy
x ((1.90 x CO (kg / MJ ))
+ (265 x NOx (kg / MJ )))
3.5.3. Transportation distance
Past studies have shown that the transportation distance amongst
other factors is one of the major contributors to high environmental
impacts of pavement construction. The energy consumed due to
transportation of raw materials for preparation of unit quantity of pa-
vement material was computed using Eq. (8).
Te (MJ /kg km)
3.6 x Engine Power (kW )
= Total cost (Rs . /km) =
Speed of vehicle (kmph) x Quantity of material transported (kg )
Cg (kg CO2 eq. / m2)
Number of passes x Emissions from fuel (kg CO2 eq. / l)
=
Width of compactor (m) x Milage of vehicle (m / l) (12)
Cg (kg CO2 eq. / m2) = E x Compaction energy (MJ / m2) (13)
Where, E = Electric energy and GHG emission factor (0.037101 kg
CO2eq./MJ)
4. Capital cost analysis
Due to the absence of inventory pertinent to maintenance, re-
habilitation, and end-of-life of PCP systems, the cost analysis for this
research study was restricted to the expenditure incurred up to pave-
ment construction stage alone. Additionally, the capital cost analysis
performed in this study utilized locally available materials and labor
costs, which are bound to vary from one region to another across the
globe.
Moving forward, the cost incurred during the construction of pa-
(7)
vements was broadly divided into three categories: material cost (Mc);
transportation cost (Tc), and construction cost (Cc). Mc encompassed
the cost of raw materials such as cement, coarse aggregate, and fine
aggregate. Tc comprised of the cost incurred in transportation of raw
materials from source to the application site. In case of RMC mixing, Tc
covered the cost involved in transportation of raw materials to the RMC
plant and transportation of RMC to the construction site; whereas in-
situ mixing only included transportation cost of raw materials to the
construction site. Cc included concrete mixing cost, equipment (con-
crete mixer and vibrator) rental charges, and labor charges. The total
cost of the different pavement systems was calculated using Eq. (14).
(T x W x (Mc + Tc + Cc ))
(8) (14)

Similarly, Eq. (9) was utilized for computation of GHG emissions due to Where,
transportation of raw materials. T = Thickness of layer in m
W = Width of the road in m
Table 3 Mc = Material cost in Indian Rs./km/m2
Power Generation in India (Ministry of Power, 2019). Tc = Material transportation cost in Indian Rs./km/m2
Cc = Construction cost in Indian Rs./km/m2
Power type Power generated (MW) % of total

Thermal 2,27,644 63.15 5. Results and discussion

Hydro (Renewable) 45,399 12.59
Nuclear 6,780 1.88
The results included the quantification of total embodied energy
Renewable energy sources 80,633 22.37
Total 3,60,456 100.00 and total kg CO2 equivalent per lane km length of the pavement sys-
tems.

5
A. Singh, et al.
5.1. Inventory for quantification of environmental impacts of pavement
systems
The material production values in terms of embodied energy and kg
CO2 equivalent for different layers of the pavement systems were calcu-
lated as weighted average of their individual production values, and the
results are tabulated in Table 1 of Appendix A. The material mixing values
pertinent to embodied energy and kg CO2 equivalent were computed using
Eqs. (3) through (7), and the results are shown in Table 2 of Appendix A.
Based on the data provided by the construction agency, the RMC plant
mixer had a power of 60 kW with mixing frequency equal to 60 m3/h.
However, for in-situ concrete mixing, the mixing frequency of the batch
mixer was equal to 3.8 m3/h with diesel consumption at the rate of 1 L/h.
The details of vehicles that were used for the transportation of individual
pavement materials and the concrete mixtures are shown in Table 3 of
Appendix A. It is noteworthy that the pavement mixtures, including PC,
PCC, and DLC were transported in quantities of 4 m3 at one time instead of
6 m3 using RMC transit mixers to avoid wastage due to stiffening of the
material product within the truck. The velocity of trucks was adopted based
on experience, and accordingly the travel times were computed. The en-
ergy consumption and GHG emissions, respectively, due to transportation
distance of materials were calculated using Eqs. (8) and (9). Further, the
total energy and emissions due to material transportation were calculated
as the weighted average of individual material transportation values, as
shown in Tables 4 and 5 of Appendix A for RMC mixing and in-situ mixing,
respectively. The material compaction values for different layers of PCP
and PCCP systems were calculated using Eqs. (10) through (13), and the
results were reported in Table 6 of Appendix A. Note that the material
production values, mixing values, and material transportation values (for
RMC and in-situ mixing) are provided in Tables 7 through 10, respectively.
5.2. Impact due to pavement systems
The environmental impacts of PCP and PCCP systems were calcu-
lated by adding the individual environmental contribution of each pa-
vement layer. Since the subgrade soil was assumed good for construc-
tion, no treatment was provided. The embodied energy involved in
construction of subgrade was 1399 MJ/km, whereas the GHG emissions
were 5.52 kg CO2 eq./km. Note that one of the system boundaries of
this study was to discount the emissions and embodied energy that may
have been generated if subgrade soil were treated. Nonetheless, the
quantified magnitudes of subgrade soil as aforementioned were utilized
in the calculation of overall carbon footprint and embodied energy of
the pavement systems.
The input variables that affect the embodied energy and GHG
emissions of base courses are primarily: material production, material
mixing, transportation, and material compaction, and the results are
summarized in Table 1 of Appendix B. Since a granular sub-base was
utilized for the preparation of PCP and PCCP systems, the embodied
energy and GHG emissions were similar as reported in Table 4.
The energy consumption and kg CO2 equivalent due to the pave-
ment materials utilized in the construction of surface wearing courses of
PCP and PCCP systems for a 1 km long and 3.5 m wide roadway are
shown in Table 2 of Appendix B. Additionally, the environmental
contributions of PC and PCC surface course layers in different pavement
construction scenarios is shown in Table 4. Note that the mixing pro-
cedures did not have a very significant impact on the environment.
For RMC mixing, it was observed that the embodied energy and kg
CO2 equivalent of PCP were lower than PCCP by about 2.97% and 2.84%,
respectively. On another account, for in-situ mixing, the embodied energy
and kg CO2 equivalent of PCP were lower than PCCP by about 3.16% and
2.94%, respectively. In general, lower embodied energy and carbon foot-
print in PCP may be attributed to the fact that the quantity of cement
(recall that cement production is a major contributor to kg CO2 equivalent
and embodied energy, as mentioned earlier) used in PCCP was high. This
result agrees with some other studies, which reported that the
6
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 161 (2020) 104953
Table 4
Environmental impacts of pavement systems.
Scenario Surface course Base course Subgrade Total
3
Total embodied energy (x 10 MJ/km)
A 1538.33 210.35 1.40 1750.08
B 1590.24 210.35 1.40 1801.99
C 1518.64 210.35 1.40 1730.39
D 1573.34 210.35 1.40 1785.09
Total GHG emissions (x 103 kg CO2 eq./km)
A 205.28 14.83 0. 00552 220.11
B 211.10 14.83 0. 00552 225.93
C 206.81 14.83 0. 00552 221.64
D 212.89 14.83 0.00552 227.73
environmental impacts associated with cement are highest as compared to
other raw materials such as fine and coarse aggregates for a cradle-to-gate
LCA (Loijos eta al., 2013; Van Dam et al., 2012; Chaote et al., 2003).
Furthermore, there is a need to design and construct PCP test sections
utilizing supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) and blended ce-
ments instead of hydraulic cements, which are promising technologies
having potential to suppress the high environmental impacts of concrete
pavements (Anastasiou et al., 2015; Van Dam et al., 2012). Moreover, sand
was not utilized for the preparation of PC mixture, resulting in reduced
energy consumption and GHG emissions during pavement construction.
5.3. Impact due to dry lean concrete base on scenarios E and F of pavement
systems
For the different scenarios (E and F) of DLC base course considered
in this study, the embodied energy and GHG emissions are reported in
Tables 3 and 4 of Appendix B. It was observed that the embodied energy
and GHG emissions for the DLC base course with c/a ratio of 1:14 were
18.47% and 9.95% higher than the scenario when c/a ratio was 1:5 for
RMC mixing, and 22.18% and 11.81% higher for in-situ mixing.
Further, the embodied energy and GHG emissions for PCCP with
granular base were lower than PCCP with DLC base layer by about
32–40% and 36–40%, respectively. This obviously suggests that with
increase in the proportion of materials, i.e., cement and aggregates, the
environmental impacts of pavements would increase.
Although limited studies have discussed the performance of PCP in
highway shoulders, low-volume roads, shoulder retrofit of impermeable
pavements, in regions of slow-moving heavy vehicles, driveways
(Wanielista and Chopra, 2007; Izevbekhai and Akkari, 2011; Li et al.,
2012a; Geode and Haselbach, 2012), there still exists a vast scope to
enhance the pavement performance characteristics. Even though it is
unfair to compare PCP (with granular base) and PCCP (with DLC base)
systems due to their distinct compositions and serviceability, still an
attempt was made to differentiate between energy and carbon foot-
prints of these two pavement systems. Based on the results, it was
concluded that the total embodied energy and GHG emissions in PCP
were lower than PCCP with DLC base layer by about 35–44% and
40–45%, respectively for increasing c/a ratio.
Unlike the untreated granular base used in the PCP system, the base
layer used for PCCP had higher volume fraction of cement (DLC base
course) that played a critical role in increasing the environmental impacts
of pavement infrastructure. However, future research must focus on en-
hancing the structural and functional performance of PCP to establish
unbiased and more rational comparisons between two pavement systems.
One way to achieve this could be the utilization of a limited percentage of
fines (Singh et al., 2019) or small maximum sized aggregates (Li et al.,
2012b) in base course to provide strong support to PC surface wearing
course. Some other attempts could be the addition of SCM (Sun et al.,
2018; Wang et al., 2019) and fibers (Harry et al., 2018) in PC mix pro-
portioning and innovative PCP designs to advance their suitability for all-
weather-all-traffic roadway systems.
A. Singh, et al.
5.4. Capital cost analysis
The cost analysis was carried out for the individual layers of six
different pavement systems to quantify and compare their capital costs.
It was assumed that for RMC mixing, the rate of installation of PC and
PCC was 6 and 10 meters per hour (m/h), respectively. On the other
hand, for in-situ mixing, the rate of installation for PC and PCC were 4
and 6 m/h, respectively. A detailed cost analysis was first performed for
the individual layers of PCP and PCCP systems, which were further
substituted in Eq. (14) to arrive at the overall cost of pavement systems.
The inventory was first sub-divided into three distinct components, as
already described in the methodology section. The rates for the total
raw materials, labor charges per day, and equipment and transportation
vehicle charges per day were provided by the construction agency. Note
that the rates used in the present study are applicable for Indian sce-
narios, specifically in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The cost involved in
the construction of PC and PCC surface courses for RMC mixing is given
in Table 1 of Appendix C, whereas for in-situ mixing the cost for two
distinct surface wearing courses is given in Table 2 of Appendix C. As
observed from Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix C, the cost of PC surface
wearing course was higher than PCC surface layer by 2.05% in case of
RMC mixing, and lower by 6.45% for in-situ mixing. Similarly, for RMC
mixing, the capital cost of PCP system was higher than that of PCCP by
1.21%, whereas for in-situ mixing capital cost was lower by 4.13%. The
total and layer-wise cost of pavement systems is shown in Table 5.
These results imply that the initial cost of construction of PC is
slightly higher than PCC in RMC mixing. Similar outcomes were re-
ported by some other investigations, where the initial cost of con-
struction of PCP was higher as compared to traditional pavements
(Rehan et al., 2018; Terhell et al., 2015). However, studies have shown
that LCC of permeable pavements is much lower than conventional
pavement systems due to multiple benefits offered by PCP such as mi-
tigation of stormwater runoff (Terhell et al., 2015; Jones et al., 2010).
Additionally, for in-situ mixing, PC proved to be a cheaper alternative
than PCC, which may be attributed to the fact that PC matrix does not
comprise of sand, as it is just a mixture of cement and coarse ag-
gregates, therefore, utilizing fewer resources and contributing to sus-
tainable pavement infrastructure.
Similarly, the cost involved in the construction of aggregate, and
DLC base layers (Scenario E, and c/a - 1:14) for RMC mixing is shown in
Table 4 of Appendix C, and that for in-situ mixing (Scenario F, and c/a -
1:14) are given in Table 5of Appendix C. It was obvious that due to the
inclusion of cement for preparation of DLC, its cost was higher by
41.45% as compared to aggregate base layer. For RMC mixing, the
capital cost of PCCP with aggregate base was lower than PCCP with
DLC base by 17.15%, whereas, for in-situ mixing, the cost of con-
struction of PCCP with DLC was higher than PCCP with aggregate base
by 14.33%. Additionally, for RMC mixing, the cost of PCP was lower
than PCCP with DLC base by 15.74%, and for in-situ mixing it was
lower by 19.05%.
These results are promising in the sense that the capital cost of PCP
was lower than PCCP (aggregate base), except for RMC mixing scenario.
However, the total embodied energy and GHG emissions were lower in all
scenarios, thus making PCP a sustainable pavement system that has high
potential to curb the negative impacts of impervious pavement
Table 5
Total and layer-wise cost of pavement systems.
Scenario Surface course Base course Subgrade Total (INR)
A 3349205 2318622 2667 5670494
B 3280709 2318622 2667 5601997
C 4119556 2318622 2667 6440845
D 4385282 2318622 2667 6706571
E 3280709 3279632 2667 6563007
F 4385282 3279632 2667 7667581
7
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 161 (2020) 104953
infrastructure. However, a detailed lifecycle analysis must be performed
till the end-of-life phase to further investigate the sustainability benefits of
PCPs.
6. Sensitivity analysis
In order to capture the uncertainty in the total embodied energy and
total kg CO2 equivalent due to variability in the LCA model parameters,
sensitivity analysis was performed. The model developed for the com-
putation of total embodied energy and total kg CO2 equivalent were
tested for sensitivity variations in the input parameters: transportation
distance, material production, material mixing, material compaction,
and density of materials, as shown in Fig. 2 (a) and (b), respectively.
The two outputs under study were tested for a uniform variation
of ± 20% in the input parameters to understand their impacts on PC
(RMC mixing) surface wearing course layers. It was observed from
Fig. 2 (a) and (b) that though the density of pavement materials had
greater sensitivity than material production, the magnitudes of varia-
tion in density and material production were similar. This result fell
well within the hypothesis that the energy consumption and GHG
emissions required for production of unit quantity of concrete will in-
crease with increasing density of materials, and thus resulting in high
impact on the environment. Further, it seems that the contribution of
transportation distances was not significant (lower) for total energy
consumption and GHG emissions. However, this hypothesis may fail if
there is a significant difference in the transportation distances (over 100
km for one-way) of the pavement materials, as discussed in the litera-
ture (Anastasiou et al., 2015; Turk et al., 2015).
7. Conclusions and recommendations
This research presented an LCA methodology that was developed to
quantify the total embodied energy and total GHG emissions expected
during the various phases of concrete production and pavement con-
struction. The methodology provided a practical and convenient tool
with well-defined system boundaries and elaborated calculation pro-
cedures that allows for easy adoption by researchers and agencies
across the world.
A comparative LCA was performed to quantify the impacts of PCPs
with respect to conventional concrete pavements. It was observed that
the energy consumption and GHG emissions produced by PCP were
lower than that of PCCP systems. A sensitivity analysis was performed
for the various input model parameters, which confirmed that the major
contributors of energy consumption and GHG emissions included
amount of pavement materials and corresponding material production
value. In addition, it was observed that for PCP system, the environ-
mental burdens were lower than that of PCCP with aggregate base layer
by about 2.7–3.0%. The results of capital cost analysis suggested that
PCP is slightly expensive as compared to PCCP when RMC mixing was
adopted, and about 4% more economical than PCCP for in-situ mixing.
Thus, reduced environmental loads and lower capital cost seems to be
the inherent advantages of PCP over PCCP.
Albeit several intriguing findings from the study, the following are a
few recommendations for future research and implementation. First,
this research does not consider all phases of LCA. Thus, there exists
significant room to advance the current LCA methodology to quantify
energy consumption and GHG emissions during operation, main-
tenance, and end-of-life phases. Secondly, a complete LCCA must be
undertaken for PCP systems to adjudge their economic advantage over
PCCP systems in a comprehensive manner. Next, the factors considered
during different components of LCA were geared for scenarios in India,
and hence must be modified based on site-specific requirements else-
where. Additionally, the cost of pavement materials, labor, and ma-
chinery were based on local rates, and must be modified for other lo-
cations. Very importantly, LCA must be carried out for different
configurations of PCP, PCCP, and several other pavement systems to
A. Singh, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 161 (2020) 104953

Fig. 2. Sensitivity of density, production, mixing, compaction, and transportation distance for: (a) Embodied energy; (b) GHG emissions.

quantify the change in environmental burdens, suiting the requirements Prapoorna Biligiri: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology,
for site-specific development of pavement infrastructure. Project administration, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing -
review & editing.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Acknowledgments
Avishreshth Singh: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software. The authors gratefully acknowledge Mr. Sanat Kumaracharyulu, Mr.
Poornachandra Vaddy: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Srikar, and Mr. Vijay Kumar of Harini Constructions Private Limited,
analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software. Krishna India for providing the necessary inventory for this illustrative research.

Appendix – A: Inventory analysis for quantification of environmental impacts of pavement systems

Table 1. Material production values of embodied energy and GHG emissions for surface and granular base layers of PCP and PCCP

Material Quantity (kg/cum) % Weight Pe (MJ/kg) Total Pe (MJ/kg) Pg (kg CO2 eq./kg) Total Pg (kg CO2 eq./kg)

PC production
Cement 400 19.78 6.40 1.347676 0.91 0.186696
Coarse aggregate 1500 74.18 0.11 0.009
PCC production
Cement 409 17.27 6.40 1.186907 0.91 0.163842
Fine aggregate 779 32.90 0.11 0.009
Coarse aggregate 976 41.22 0.11 0.009
Aggregate base material production
Coarse aggregate 1600 100.00 0.11 0.110000 0.009 0.009000

8
A. Singh, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 161 (2020) 104953

Table 2. Material mixing values for PC and PCC layers

Material / Method Me (MJ/kg) Mg (kg CO2 eq./ kg)

PC PCC PC PCC

RMC 0.001780 0.001520 0.000066 0.000056

In-situ 0.004672 0.003990 0.000349 0.000298

Table 3. Characteristics of transportation vehicles and their pavement material capacities

Trip Purpose Engine power Distance (Di) Velocity Travel time Material transported Density of materials Total material transported
(kW) (km) (km/h) (h) per trip (kg/m3) per trip (kg)

Cement source to RMC plant 242 182 60 3.03 25000 kg - 25000

Coarse aggregate source to R- 242 35 60 0.58 6 cu.m 1600 9600
MC plant
Fine aggregate source to RMC 242 35 60 0.58 6 cu.m 1650 9900
plant
PC from RMC plant to con- 177.1 15 30 0.50 4 cu.m 2020 8088
struction site
PCC from RMC plant to con- 177.1 15 30 0.50 4 cu.m 2400 9472
struction site
Cement source to construction 242 192 60 3.2 25000 kg - 25000
site
Coarse aggregate source to co- 242 50 60 0.83 6 cu.m 1600 9600
nstruction site
M-sand source to construction 242 50 60 0.83 6 cu.m 1650 9900
site

Table 4. Energy consumption and emissions due to transportation of PC, PCC, and aggregate base material (RMC mixing)

Material Quantity (kg/cum) % Weight Te x Di (MJ/kg) Total Te x Di (MJ/kg) Tg x Di (kg CO2 eq./kg) Total Tg x Di (kg CO2 eq./kg)

PC transportation
Cement 400 19.80 0.105706 0.099596 0.021138 0.006579
Coarse aggregate 1500 74.26 0.052938 0.002036
PC 2020 100.00 0.039414 0.000888
PCC transportation
Cement 409 17.27 0.105706 0.090617 0.021138 0.005897
Fine aggregate 779 32.90 0.051333 0.001974
Coarse aggregate 976 41.22 0.052938 0.002038
PCC 2368 100.00 0.033654 0.000758
Aggregate base material transportation
Coarse aggregate 1600 100.00 0.075625 0.075625 0.002036 0.002036

Table 5. Energy consumption and GHG emissions due to transportation of PC, PCC, and aggregate base material (in-situ mixing)

Material Quantity (kg/m3) % Weight Te x Di (MJ/kg) Te x Di (MJ/kg) Tg x Di (kg CO2 eq./kg) Tg x Di (kg CO2 eq./kg)

PC transportation
Cement 400 19.80 0.111514 0.078162 0.023525 0.007736
Coarse aggregate 1500 74.26 0.075625 0.004155
PCC transportation
Cement 493.01 20.54 0.111514 0.074553 0.023525 0.007101
Fine aggregate 564.91 23.54 0. 073333 0.004155
Coarse aggregate 1095.58 45.65 0. 075625 0.004029
Aggregate base material transportation
Coarse aggregate 1600 100.00 0.075625 0.075625 0.004155 0.004155

Table 6. Material compaction values for different layers of pavement systems

Pavement layer Ce (MJ/m2) Cg (kg CO2eq./m2)

PC surface course 0.024847 0.010694

Granular sub-base 0.699885 0.024815
PCC surface course 0.030475 0.001131
Aggregate base course 0.699885 0.026391
Subgrade 0.399885 0.001576

9
A. Singh, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 161 (2020) 104953

Table 7. Material production values of embodied energy and GHG emissions for DLC layers with different mixture proportions.

Material Quantity (kg/cum) % Weight Pe (MJ/kg) Total Pe (MJ/kg) Pg (kg CO2 eq./kg) Total Pg (kg CO2 eq./kg)

DLC production (a/c - 14:1)

Cement 140 6.35 6.40 0.504127 0.91 0.065778
Coarse aggregate 1960 88.89 0.11 0.009
DLC production (a/c - 10:1)
Cement 140 8.66 6.40 0.649351 0.91 0.086580
Coarse aggregate 1400 86.58 0.11 0.009
DLC production (a/c - 5:1)
Cement 140 15.87 6.40 1.103175 0.91 0.151587
Coarse aggregate 700 79.37 0.11 0.009

Table 8. Material mixing values for DLC layers with different mixture proportions.

DLC (a/c ratio) Me (MJ/kg) Mg (kg CO2 eq./ kg)

14:1 10:1 5:1 14:1 10:1 5:1

RMC 0.001633 0.002226 0.004082 0.000061 0.000083 0.000151

In-situ 0.004285 0.005843 0.010711 0.000159 0.000217 0.000397

Table 9. Energy consumption and emissions due to transportation of DLC (RMC mixing).

Material Quantity (kg/cum) % Weight Te x Di (MJ/kg) Total Te x Di (MJ/kg) Tg x Di (kg CO2 eq./kg) Total Tg x Di (kg CO2 eq./kg)

DLC (a/c – 14:1)

Cement 140 6.35 0.105706 0.089910 0.021138 0.003803
Aggregate 1960 88.89 0.052938 0.002036
DLC 2205 100.00 0.036143 0.000651
DLC (a/c – 10:1)
Cement 140 8.66 0.105706 0.104271 0.021138 0.004481
Aggregate 1400 86.58 0.052938 0.002036
DLC 1800 100.00 0.049286 0.000888
DLC (a/c – 5:1)
Cement 140 15.87 0.105706 0.089910 0.021138 0.006599
Aggregate 700 79.37 0.052938 0.002036
DLC 840 100.00 0.090357 0.001628

Table 10. Energy consumption and emissions due to transportation of DLC (In-situ mixing).

Material Quantity (kg/cum) % Weight Te x Di (MJ/kg) Total Te x Di (MJ/kg) Tg x Di (kg CO2 eq./kg) Total Tg x Di (kg CO2 eq./kg)

DLC (a/c – 14:1)

Cement 140 6.35 0.111514 0.074302 0.023525 0.005187
Aggregate 1960 88.89 0.075625 0.004155
DLC (a/c – 10:1)
Cement 140 8.66 0.111514 0.075131 0.023525 0.005634
Aggregate 1400 86.58 0.075625 0.004155
DLC (a/c – 5:1)
Cement 140 15.87 0.111514 0.077720 0.023525 0.007031
Aggregate 700 79.37 0.075625 0.004155

Appendix – B: Environmental impacts of different layers in pavement systems

Table 1. Embodied energy and GHG emissions from granular base.

Embodied energy
Pavement Layer Pe Me Te x Di Ce Embodied energy (MJ/km)

Aggregate base 0.110000 0 0.075625 0.699885 210349.60

GHG emissions
Pavement Layer Pg Mg Tg x Di Cg GHG emissions (kg CO2 eq./km)
Aggregate base 0.009000 0 0.004807 0.026391 1037.07

10
A. Singh, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 161 (2020) 104953

Table 2. Total embodied energy and GHG emissions of PC and PCC surface courses.

Embodied energy
Pavement layer Pe Me Te x Di Ce Embodied energy (× 103MJ/km)

A 1.347676 0.001780 0.099596 0.024847 1538.33

B 1.186907 0.001520 0.090617 0.030475 1590.24
C 1.347676 0.004672 0.078162 0.024847 1518.64
D 1.186907 0.003990 0.074553 0.030475 1573.34
GHG emissions
Pavement layer Pg Mg Tg x Di Cg GHG emissions (× 103kgCO2eq./km)
A 0.186696 0.000066 0.006579 0.010694 205.28
B 0.193160 0.000056 0.005897 0.001131 211.10
C 0.186696 0.000349 0.007736 0.010694 206.81
D 0.193160 0.000294 0.007101 0.001131 212.89

Table 3. Total embodied energy and GHG emissions of DLC base layer (RMC mixing).

Embodied energy
a/c ratio Pe Me Te x Di Ce Embodied energy (MJ/km)

14:1 0.504127 0.001633 0.089910 0.699885 921865.50

10:1 0.649351 0.002226 0.104271 0.699885 857994.00
5:1 1.103175 0.004082 0.089910 0.699885 778154.62
GHG emissions
a/c ratio Pg Mg Tg x Di Cg GHG emissions (kg CO2 eq./km)
14:1 0.065778 0.000061 0.003803 0.026391 107583.58
10:1 0.086580 0.000083 0.004481 0.026391 103257.56
5:1 0.151587 0.000151 0.006599 0.026391 97850.03

Table 4. Embodied energy and GHG emissions of DLC base layer (In-situ mixing).

Embodied energy
a/c ratio Pe Me Te x Di Ce Embodied energy (MJ/km)

14:1 0.504127 0.004285 0.089910 0.699885 901868.59

10:1 0.649351 0.005843 0.104271 0.699885 829103.59
5:1 1.103175 0.010711 0.089910 0.699885 738147.34
GHG emissions
a/c ratio Pg Mg Tg x Di Cg GHG emissions (kg CO2 eq./km)
14:1 0.065778 0.000159 0.005187 0.026391 109871.34
10:1 0.086580 0.000217 0.005634 0.026391 104714.72
5:1 0.151587 0.000397 0.007031 0.026391 98268.94

Appendix – C: Capital costs of different layers in pavement systems

Table 1. Cost analysis of PC and PCC surface course by RMC mixing method.

Task Rate Unit PC PCC

Quantity per day Cost (Rs) Quantity per day Cost (Rs)

Material cost (Mc)

Cement 5.8 Rs/kg 10080 58464 17178 99632
Coarse aggregate 1.57 Rs/kg 37800 59346 40992 64357
Fine aggregate 0.83 Rs/kg 0 0 32718 27156
Sub total 117810 191146
Transportation of materials from source to plant (Tc)
Cement 7000 Rs/day 0.20 1411 0.34 2405
Coarse aggregate 7000 Rs/day 0.98 6891 1.07 7473
Fine aggregate 7000 Rs/day 0 0 0.83 5783
RMC 6600 Rs/day 2.10 13860 3.50 23100
Sub total 22162 38761
Construction cost (Cc)
RMC mixing 700 Rs/m3 25.20 17640 42.00 29400
Operators (Transit mixer) 300 Rs/day 1 300 1.00 300
Labor 350 Rs/day 4 1400 4.00 1400
Mason 550 Rs/day 2 1100 2.00 1100
Vibrator 350 Rs/day 1 350 1.00 350
Sub total 20790 32550
Grand total 160762 262457
Cost per km 3349205 3280709

11
A. Singh, et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 161 (2020) 104953

Table 2. Cost analysis of PC and PCC surface course by in-situ mixing method.

Material Cost Unit PC PCC

Quantity per day Cost (Rs.) Quantity per day Cost (Rs.)

Material cost (Mc)

Cement 5.8 Rs/kg 6720 38976 10307 59779
Coarse aggregate 1.57 Rs/kg 25200 39564 24595 38614
Fine aggregate 0.83 Rs/kg 0 0 19631 16294
Sub total 78540 114687
Transportation cost (Tc)
Cement 7000 Rs/day 0.13 941 0.21 1443
Coarse aggregate 7000 Rs/day 0.88 6125 0.85 5978
Fine aggregate 7000 Rs/day 0 0 0.66 4627
Sub total 7066 12048
Construction cost (Cc)
Mixer 2000 Rs/day 1 2000 1.00 2000
Labor 350 Rs/day 10 3500 10.00 3500
Mason 550 Rs/day 2 1100 2.00 1100
Compactor 350 Rs/day 1 350 2.00 700
Sub total 6950 7300
Grand total 131826 210494
Cost per km 4119556 4385282

Table 3. Cost analysis of granular base and aggregate base.

Material Rate Quantity Cost, Rs.

Material cost (Mc)

Coarse aggregate 1.57 56000 87920
Sub total 87920
Transportation cost (Tc)
Coarse aggregate 7000 1.94 13611
Sub total 13611
Construction cost, Cc
Labor 8000 1 8000
Compactor 6400 1 6400
Sub total 14400
Grand total 115931
Cost per km 2318622

Table 4. Cost analysis of dry lean concrete base course.

Material Rate RMC In-situ

Quantity Cost (Rs.) Quantity Cost (Rs.)

Material cost (Mc)

Cement 5.8 3920 22736 2940 17052
Coarse aggregate 1.57 54880 86162 41160 64621
Sub total 108898 81673
Transportation cost (Tc)
Cement 7000 0.0784 549 0.0588 412
Coarse aggregate 7000 1.91 13339 1.43 10004
DLC 6600 2.33 15400 - -
Sub total 29288 10416
Construction cost, Cc
Mixer 2000 - - 1 2000
Labor 350 4 1400 10 3500
Compactor 6400 1 800 1 800
Sub total 2200 6300
Grand total 140385 98389
Cost per km 3509632 3279632

References %20Mgmt%20with%20pervious%20concrete.pdf (accessed 07 May 2020).

ACI 309R: Guide for Consolidation of Concrete. American Concrete Institute, Michigan,
United States.
ACI 522R: Report on Pervious Concrete. American Concrete Institute, Michigan, United
States.
American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA), 2009. Stormwater Management with
Pervious Concrete Pavement, American Concrete Pavement Association, Skokie, IL.
http://dep.wv.gov/WWE/Programs/stormwater/MS4/green/Documents/SW
Anastasiou, E.K., Liapis, A, Papayianni, I., 2015. Comparative life cycle assessment of
concrete road pavements using industrial by-products as alternative materials.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 101, 1–8.
Batouli, M., Bienvenu, M., Mostafavi, A., 2017. Putting sustainability theory into roadway
design practice: Implementation of LCA and LCCA analysis for pavement type se-
lection in real world decision making. Transp. Res. Part D 52, 289–302.
Chappat, M., Bilal, J.The environmental road of the future: life cycle analysis. Energy
Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2003. http://www.colas.com/sites/
default/files/publications/route-future-english_1.pdf (accessed 15 March 2019).

12
A. Singh, et al.
Chaote, W.T., 2003. Energy and Emission Reduction Opportunities for the Cement
Industry. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.
org/5632/664c14108d45e1aa9cbf578a7e708b075d93.pdf accessed 7 May 2020.
Chu, L., Fwa, T.F., Tan, K.H., 2017. Laboratory evaluation of sound absorption char-
acteristics of pervious concrete pavement materials. Transp. Res. Record J. Transp.
Res. Board 2629, 91–103.
Cohen, B., 2004. Urban growth in developing countries: A review of current trends and a
caution regarding existing forecasts. World Dev. 32 (1), 23–51.
De Sousa, M.R.C., Montalto, F., Spatari, S., 2012. Using life cycle assessment to evaluate
green and grey combined sewer overflow control strategies. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, 901–913.
Embacher, R.A., Snyder, M.B., 2001. Life-cycle cost comparison of asphalt and concrete
pavements on low-volume roads; case study comparisons. Transp. Res. Record J.
Transp. Res. Board 1749, 28–37.
Forster, P., Ramaswamy, V., Artaxo, P., Berntsen, T., Betts, R., Fahey, D.W., Haywood, J.,
Lean, J., Lowe, D.C., Myhre, G., Nganga, J., Prinn, R., Raga, G., Schulz, M., Van
Dorland, R., 2007. Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative Forcing. In:
Solomon, S, Qin, D, Manning, M, Chen, Z, Marquis, M, Averyt, K.B, Tignor, M, Miller,
H.L (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom New York,
NY, USA. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.
pdf accessed 9 May 2020.
Geode, W., Haselbach, L., 2012. Investigation into the structural performance of pervious
concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 138, 98–104.
Guttikonda, S.K., Jawahar, P., 2014. Atmospheric emissions and pollution from the coal-
fired thermal power plants in India. Atmos. Environ. 92, 449–460.
Hakkinen, T., Makela, K., 1996. Environmental Adaption of Concrete: Environmental
Impact of Concrete and Asphalt Pavement. Technical Research Center of Finland,
Espoo.
Harry, R., Milena, R., Somayeh, N., Karl, E., 2018. Enhancing mechanical properties of
pervious concrete using carbon fiber composite reinforcement. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30
04018012.
Huang, J., Xiao, F., Zhang, Y., 2018. Reliability evaluation of pavement life-cycle as-
sessment model. Model. Simul. Eng 4172519.
IRC:SP-49, 2014. Guidelines for the Use of Dry Lean Concrete as Sub-base for Rigid
Pavement. Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, India.
IS:10262: Concrete Mix Proportioning - Guidelines. Indian Standard, New Delhi, India.
IS:12269: Ordinary Portland Cement—53-Grade Specification. Indian Standard, New
Delhi, India.
India Construction Materials Database of Embodied Energy and Global Warming
Potential: Methodology Report. International Finance Corporation November 30.
Ivel, J., Watson, R., Abbassi, B., Abu-Hamatteh, Z.S., 2019. Life cycle analysis of concrete
and asphalt used in road pavements. Environ. Eng. Res. 25, 52–61.
Izevbekhai, B.I., Akkari, A., 2011. Pervious Concrete Cells on MnROAD Low-Volume
Road. Minnesota Department of Transportation, MN. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
materials/researchdocs/201123.pdf accessed 04 May 2020.
Jones, D., Harvey, J., Li, H., 2010. Laboratory Testing and Modeling for Structural
Performance of Fully Permeable Pavements: Final Report, California Department of
Transportation Division of Environmental Analysis Storm Water Program. https://
escholarship.org/content/qt784252zg/qt784252zg.pdf (accessed 5 May 2020).
Kowalski, K.J., Krol, J., Radziszewski, P., Casado, R., 2016. Eco-friendly materials for a
new concept of asphalt pavement. 6th Transport Research Arena 18–21 April. Transp.
Res. Procedia 14, 3582–3591.
Li, H., Jones, D., Harvey, J., 2012a. Development of Mechanistic Empirical Design
Procedure for Fully Permeable Pavement Under Heavy Traffic. Transportation
Research Record, Transportation Research Board, pp. 83–94.
Li, H., Jones, D., Harvey, J., 2012b. Material Characterization for Mechanistic Design of
Fully Permeable Pavements: Low-Compaction Subgrade and Open-Graded Base
Materials. b. Transportation Research Record 1823, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.
Li, H., Harvey, J.T., Holland, T.J., Kayhanian, M., 2013. The use of reflective and
permeable pavements as a potential practice for heat island mitigation and storm-
water management. Environ. Res. Lett. 8 049501.
Loijos, A., Santero, N., Ochsendorf, J., 2013. Life cycle climate impacts of the US concrete
pavement network. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 72, 76–83.
Material Consumption Patterns in India, 2016. https://www.international-climate-
initiative.com/fileadmin/Dokumente/2016/GIZBaselineReportSummary_
SinglePages.pdf (accessed 22 October 2019).
Meil, J., 2006. Athena Institute, A Life Cycle Perspective on Concrete and Asphalt
Roadways: Embodied Primary Energy and Global Warming Potential. Cement
Association of Canada A Report Submitted to. http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_
storage/www.athenasmi.ca/ContentPages/859479425.pdf accessed 30 October
2019.
Ministry of Power, Power sector at a glance all India, 2019. https://powermin.nic.in/en/
content/power-sector-glance-all-india (accessed 23 October 2019).
Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Bréon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., Koch, D.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B., Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G.,
13
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 161 (2020) 104953
Takemura, T., Zhang, H., 2013. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In:
Stocker, T.F, Qin, D, Plattner, G.-K, Tignor, M, Allen, S.K, Boschung, J, Nauels, A, Xia,
Y, Bex, V, Midgley, P.M (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom New York, NY, USA. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/
uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf accessed 09 May 2020.
NRMCA: Concrete CO2 Fact Sheet. National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. http://
www.nrmca.org/greenconcrete/concrete%20co2%20fact%20sheet%20june
%202008.pdf accessed 22 October 2019.
Qin, Y., Hiller, J.E., 2014. Understanding pavement surface energy balance and its im-
plications on cool pavement development. Energy Build. 85, 389–399.
Rehan, T., Qi, Y., Werner, A., 2018. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Traditional and
Permeable Pavements. Construction Research Congress, American Society of Civil
Engineering, pp. 422–431.
Roddin III, H, Nassiri, S, AlShareedah, O, Yekkalar, M, Haselbach, L, 2019. Evaluation of
skid resistance of pervious concrete slabs under various winter conditions for driver
and pedestrian users. Road Mater. Pavement Des. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14680629.2019.1688175.
Santero, N., Masanet, E., Horvath, A., 2011. Life cycle assessment of pavements. Part I:
critical review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 801–809.
Santos, J., Flintsch, G., Ferriera, A., 2017. Environmental and economic assessment of
pavement construction and management practices for enhancing pavement sustain-
ability. Resour. Conserv. Recyc. 116, 15–31.
Singh, A., Jagadeesh, S.G., Sampath, P.V., Biligiri, K.P., 2019. Rational approach for
characterizing in situ infiltration parameters of two-layered pervious concrete pa-
vement systems. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31 04019258.
Sreedhar, S., Jichkar, P, Biligiri, K.P., 2016. Investigation of carbon footprints of highway
construction materials in India. 11th Transportation Planning and Implementation
Methodologies for Developing Countries TPMDC 2014, 10–12 December 2014,
Mumbai, India. Transp. Res. Procedia 17, 291–300.
Sun, Z., Lin, X., Vollpracht, A., 2018. Pervious concrete made of alkali activated slag and
geopolymers. Constr. Build. Mater. 189, 797–803.
Tennis, P.D., Leming, M.L., Akers, D.J., 2004. Pervious Concrete Pavements. Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, and National Ready Mixed Concrete Association,
Silver Spring, Maryland, pp. 32p Technical report, EB302.02.
Terhell, Su-Lin, Cai, K., Chiu, D., Murphy, J., 2015. Cost and Benefit Analysis of
Permeable Pavements in Water Sustainability. University of California Agriculture
and Natural Resources, Davis, CA, USA. http://watermanagement.ucdavis.edu/files/
5414/3891/2393/A03_Terhell_Cai_Chiu_Murphy_ESM121_FinalReport.pdf accessed
7 May 2020.
The Construction Sector in India and Climate Change. https://www.devalt.org/
newsletter/jan97/of_1.htm (accessed 22 October2019).
Turk, J., Cotic, Z., Mladenovic, A., Sajna, A., 2015. Environmental evaluation of green
concretes versus conventional concrete by means of LCA. Waste Manage. (Oxford) 45,
194–205.
Vaddy, P., Singh, A., Sampath, P.V., Biligiri, K.P., 2020. Multi-scale In-situ infiltration
parameter in pervious concrete pavements. J. Testing Evaluat. Am. Soc. Testing
Mater in press.
Van Dam, T., Taylor, P., Fick, G., Gress, D., VanGeem, M., Lorenz, E., 2012. Sustainable
Concrete Pavements: A Manual of Practice. National Concrete Pavement Technology
Center, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. http://publications.iowa.gov/12058/1/
971efe90-1ec8-4486-a915-a59ba0679169.pdf accessed 7 May 2020.
Wang, T., Harvey, J.T., Jones, D., 2010. A Framework for Life-Cycle Cost Analyses and
Environmental Life-Cycle Assessments for Fully Permeable Pavements. Technical
memorandum, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of
California, Davis. UCPRC report No.: UCPRC-TM-2010-05. http://www.ucprc.
ucdavis.edu/PDF/UCPRC-TM-2010-05.pdf (accessed 5 May 2020).
Wang, Y., Li, H., Abdelhady, A., Harvey, J., 2018. Initial evaluation methodology and case
studies for life cycle impact of permeability of permeable pavements. Int. J. Transp.
Sci. Technol. 7, 169–178.
Wang, H., Li, H., Liang, X., Zhou, H., Xie, N., Dai, Z., 2019. Investigation on the me-
chanical properties and environmental impacts of pervious concrete containing fly
ash based on the cement-aggregate ratio. Constr. Build. Mater. 202, 387–395.
Wanielista, M., Chopra, M., 2007. Report 4 of 4: Performance Assessment of a Pervious
Concrete Pavement Used as a Shoulder for an Interstate Rest Area Parking Lot.
Stormwater Management Academy University of Central Florida Orlando, FL 32816,
Orlando, Florida. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b586/
2f4c77527f758a4c3b19bef569ffc3388a94.pdf?_ga=2.177252327.334096826.
1589026580-1367927393.1587820694 (accessed 04 May 2020).
White, P., Golden, J.S., Biligiri, K.P., Kaloush, K., 2010. Modelling climate change impacts
of pavement production and construction. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 776–782.
World economic forum, 2019. Why the world should be watching India's fast-growing
cities. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/india-urbanization-why-the-
world-should-watch/ (accessed 22 October 2019).
Yu, B., Lu, Q., 2012. Life cycle assessment of pavement: methodology and case study.
Transp. Res. Part D 17, 380–388.