Carbon Footprint Estimation in Road Construction: La Abundancia–Florencia Case Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- (a)
- Petroleum products: when calculating the GHGs to produce the different petroleum products, a model developed by Yang et al. was used [30]. The evaluated impact included the extraction, transport, refinery, and transport processes to Puerto Moín, assuming that the product was transported by tanks from the Gulf Coast in the United States to Puerto Moín in Costa Rica, a distance of 2640 km.
- (b)
- Electric energy: the generation of electric power depends on the sources used to produce electricity. These sources can be coal, oil, wind, and solar energy. However, in Costa Rica, electric power is renewable, using hydroelectric, geothermal, and wind power sources. Therefore, the GHGs emitted in Costa Rica related to energy production are among the lowest in the world [31].
- (c)
- Asphalt: since two mix designs were used in the project, two types of asphalt were considered at the time of the analysis. The first was modeled as an AC-30 (PG 64-22). For the second, it was modeled as a polymer-modified asphalt (PMA). In this case the asphalt was mixed with a terpolymer and polyphosphoric acid. As the exact composition of these additives is patented, a generic styrene–butadiene–styrene (SBS) commonly used in PMA was assumed and modeled based on the Eurobitume life cycle inventory report [32]. It is also assumed that the SBS was 30% styrene and 70% butadiene and was mixed with the asphalt using an electric high shear stirrer. The PMA was classified as PG 76-22.
- (d)
- Aggregates: the aggregates used were extracted from two riverbeds, one located 7 km and the other 15 km from the asphalt plant. The material was then transported and crushed (primary and secondary crushers), and finally washed. For both HMA mix designs, the same aggregates stockpiles were used: coarse (19 mm nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS)), intermediate (16 mm NMAS), and fine aggregates. The production processes for the aggregates were modeled based on the models for crushing and production in Ecoinvent 3.0. Each of the sizes of aggregates used was analyzed separately, because the crushing and production was different for each case; due to this, the energy consumption of each product evaluated also varied. Therefore, an allocation procedure was used to distribute the total energy used in the system to each of the products, using the market value of the product supplied by the local producers. The allocation factor is presented in Table 2 and represents the relative environmental impact of the product to the average aggregate product produced in the facility.
- (e)
- Asphalt plant: the production process in the asphalt plant was modeled using the information obtained from the questionnaires and supplementary data from the database Ecoinvent 3.0. The asphalt plant operates with diesel oil for the drying and heating processes. Similar to aggregates, the Ecoinvent 3.0 global model for asphalt production was used to estimate electricity and fuel usage for non-dryer-related plant components (28% of total energy usage in plant operations), which were then modeled with Costa Rican energy processes. The United States National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) model was used to estimate the energy required for drying (78% of total energy), using a contractor survey to obtain the parameters for the NAPA model and the type of dryer fuel used, which required the mixing temperature and moisture content as inputs to the model [33]. An average temperature of 159 °C and a moisture content of 5% were used as inputs in the analysis.
- (f)
- Hauling: the raw materials were transported in trucks to the plant and from the plant to the construction site. The environmental impacts per ton-km for a class size greater than 32 tons were determined. It should be noted that Costa Rica only complies with the EURO 1 standard requirements at this time, but in this study, it was assumed that the truck complied with the EURO 3 standards, since the EURO emissions standards target NOx, CO, and other gases that do not significantly affect GHGs. Thus, an increased emissions standard should not directly affect the GHGs. Furthermore, one-way trips were considered for hauling.
- (g)
- Construction equipment: the specific equipment that operated in the construction of the analyzed section was determined from the questionnaires. For each type of equipment, the respective efficiency (L/h), speed (km/h), and weight (ton) was identified. The equipment consisted of one asphalt paver, two vibratory steel wheel rollers, one pneumatic tire roller, and one pavement sweeper.
- Design stage: the production of materials and mixes required for the HMA layers in the pavement structure were considered. Due to this, the environmental impacts generated by the production process and transport to the asphalt plant were considered. The design of the HMA mixtures is shown in Table 3.
- Construction stage: in this stage the mobilization of equipment to the work site was considered, as well as their operation. In order to estimate the amount of fuel required by each equipment, the total operation time was estimated using the productivity rates defined in the NCHRP Report 744: Fuel usage factors in highway and bridge construction [34]. In addition to the fuel consumption data (L/h) obtained for each equipment, the hours of use and the corresponding environmental impacts for the equipment were obtained.
3. Results and Discussion
4. Conclusions
- The production and construction stages of the HMA layers generated a carbon footprint of 65.781 kg of CO2e per lane-km.
- The production stage of polymer-modified HMA layer presented a contribution of 29.596 kg of CO2e per lane-km, while the unmodified HMA layer contributed 34.851 kg of CO2e per lane-km. The unmodified HMA layer was thicker and used more asphalt content.
- Aggregate production contributed approximately 6% of total GHGs, which was similar to the transport contribution (close to 6%).
- Considering production and construction stages only, the production stage contributed approximately 98% of the total GHGs in this project, while the construction stage contributed only 2% of the total GHGs.
- The percentage of energy required to operate the components of the HMA plant is small (1%). This is because Costa Rica uses renewable energy to generate electricity. Therefore, GHG emissions due to electricity generation (kg of CO2e per lane-km) in Costa Rica are low.
- It is recommended to increase the efficiency of asphalt mixing equipment and techniques of construction. The use of raw materials with lower emissions (e.g., Recycled Asphalt Pavement RAP) can result in reducing energy use and corresponding emissions.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas Sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC); No Gaceta 126. Ley 7414; Naciones Unidas: San José, Costa Rica, 1994.
- Granados, A. Decimonoveno Informe Estado de la Nación en Desarrollo Humano Sostenible, Carbono Neutralidad: Avances y Desafíos de Cara al año 2021; Consejo Nacional de Rectores- La Defensoría de los Habitantes: San José, Costa Rica, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Betrano, S. Vigésimoprimer Informe Estado de la Nación en Desarrollo Humano Sostenible, Evolución y Efectos de la Legislación Energética en Costa Rica (1950–2014); Consejo Nacional de Rectores- La Defensoría de los Habitantes: San José, Costa Rica, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Badilla, G.; Molina, D. Incidencia de las Estaciones de Pesaje Móvil en los Factores Camión en Pavimentos de Costa Rica; Programa Infraestructura del Transporte (PITRA), LanammeUCR: San José, Costa Rica, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Harvey, J.T.; Meijer, J.; Ozer, H.; Al-Qadi, I.L.; Saboori, A.; Kendall, A. Pavement Life-Cycle Assessment Framework; No. FHWA-HIF-16-014; U.S. Department of Transportation: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Greenhouse Gases—Carbon Footprint of Products—Requirements and Guidelines for Quantification and Communication; ISO 14067:2013; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework; ISO 14040:2006; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines; ISO 14044:2006; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Environmental Labels and Declarations—General Principles; ISO 14020:2000; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Environmental Labels and Declarations—Type I Environmental Labelling—Principles and Procedures; ISO 14024:1999; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Environmental Labelling and Declarations—Type III Environmental Declarations—Principles and Procedures; ISO 14025:2006; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Qadi, I.L.; Yang, R.; Kang, S.; Ozer, H.; Ferrebee, E.; Roesler, J.R.; Salinas, A.; Meijer, J.; Vavrik, W.R.; Gillen, S.L. Scenarios Developed for Improved Sustainability of Illinois Tollway: Life-Cycle Assessment Approach. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2015, 2523, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, R.; Al-Qadi, I.L. Development of a Life-Cycle Assessment Tool to Quantify the Environmental Impacts of Airport Pavement Construction. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2017, 2603, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mukherjee, A. Carbon Footprint HMA and PCC Pavements. Michigan Department of Transportation; Report RC-1553; Office of Research and Best Practices: Houghton, MI, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kar, S.; Behl, A.; Jain, P.K.; Shukla, A. Estimation of Carbon Footprints in Bituminous Road Construction: A Case Study. Indian Highw. 2015, 43, 12. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, J.C.; Edil, T.B.; Tinjum, J.M.; Benson, C.H. Quantitative assessment of environmental and economic benefits of recycled materials in highway construction. Transp. Res. Rec. 2010, 2158, 138–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butt, A.A. Life Cycle Assessment of Asphalt Pavements Including the Feedstock Energy and Asphalt Additives. Ph.D. Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, B.; Lu, Q. Life cycle assessment of pavement: Methodology and case study. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2012, 17, 380–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biswas, W.K. Carbon footprint and embodied energy assessment of a civil works program in a residential estate of Western Australia. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 732–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Araújo, J.P.C.; Oliveira, J.R.; Silva, H.M. The importance of the use phase on the LCA of environmentally friendly solutions for asphalt road pavements. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2014, 32, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hulail, Z.A.; Ayob, A.; Omar, W.M.S.B.W. Carbon Footprint of Road Pavement Rehabilitation: Case Study in Sungai Petani, Kedah. Int. J. Appl. Environ. Sci. 2016, 11, 1285–1302. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, F.; Sha, A.; Lin, R.; Huang, Y.; Wang, C. Greenhouse gas emissions from asphalt pavement construction: A case study in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Trunzo, G.; Moretti, L.; D’Andrea, A. Life Cycle Analysis of Road Construction and Use. Sustainability 2019, 11, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badilla, G.; Ávila, T.; Duarte, A. Evaluación del Desempeño de Bases Estabilizadas con Asfaltos Espumados en Tramos de Prueba; Laboratorio Nacional de Materiales y Modelos Estructurales, LanammeUCR: San José, Costa Rica, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Aguiar, P.; Cruz, M.; Porras, A.; Vargas, A.; Loría, G. Materiales de Desecho Como Modificantes de la Mezcla Asfáltica; Memorias XVIII CILA: Bariloche, Argentina, 2015; pp. 634–645. [Google Scholar]
- Leiva, P.; Loría, G. Determinación de las Propiedades de los Asfaltos Obtenidos del Reciclaje de Materiales de Pavimentos (RAP). Construyendo Caminos 2014, 3, 39. [Google Scholar]
- Loría, G.; Castro, J. Do uso Bioasfaltonas Propiedades Viscoelasticas de Mistura Asfáltica Reciclada; Laboratorio Nacional de Materiales y Modelos Estructurales, LanammeUCR: San José, Costa Rica, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Vargas, A.; Timm, D. Avaliação estrutural e Desempenho de Curto Prazo das Misturas Asfalticas mornas; Memorias XVII CILA: Antigua Guatemala, Guatemala, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Villegas, E.; Loría, G.; Aguiar, J.; Leiva, F.; Salazar, J.; Navas, A. Usos de Materiales de Desecho Como Modificantes de Asfalto en Costa Rica; Laboratorio Nacional de Materiales y Modelos Estructurales, LanammeUCR: San José, Costa Rica, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Murillo, M. Proyecto de Graduación: Evaluación de las Propiedades de Mezclas Asfálticas; Laboratorio Nacional de Materiales y Modelos Estructurales, LanammeUCR: San José, Costa Rica, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, R.; Ozer, H.; Al-Qadi, I. Regional upstream life cycle impacts of petroleum products in the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 126, 1138–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kroposki, B.; Johnson, B.; Zhang, Y.; Gevorgian, V.; Denholm, P.; Hodge, B.M.; Hannegan, B. Achieving a 100% renewable grid: Operating electric power systems with extremely high levels of variable renewable energy. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 2017, 15, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blomberg, T.; Barnes, J.; Bernard, F.; Dewez, P.; Le Clerc, S.; Pfitzmann, M.; Taylor, R. Life Cycle Inventory: Bitumen; European Bitumen Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Young, T.J. Energy Conservation in Hot-Mix Asphalt Production; National Asphalt Pavement Association: Lanham, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Skolnik, J.; Brooks, M.; Oman, J. Fuel Usage Factors in Highway and Bridge Construction; National Cooperative Research Report 744; Transportation Board Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Exports. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_R30-Z00_mbblpd_a.htm (accessed on 10 May 2018).
Project Description | Analyzed Stages | Analyzed Materials | Total Emissions CO2e (tons) | Reference | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Location | Length (km) | ||||
United States | 4.7 | Material production, Transportation, and Construction | C1. Bitumen, crushed aggregates | 4064 | [16] |
C2. Recycled material fly ash, and foundry sand | 3255 | ||||
Sweden | 1 | Construction, Maintenance, and End of life | C1. Bitumen, aggregate | 55.41 | [17] |
C2. Asphalt, SBS polymer | 47.23 | ||||
United States | 2.4 | Construction, Use, Maintenance, Rehabilitation, and End of life | C1. Concrete | 3872 | [18] |
C2. Asphalt | 6730 | ||||
C3. Overlay with asphalt | 5598 | ||||
Australia | 0.1 | Raw material extraction, Construction, and Maintenance | C1. Asphalt, concrete, and limestone | 180.6 | [19] |
C2. Reused crushed rock and recycled concrete rubble | 170.7 | ||||
Portugal | 1 | Extraction, Production, Transportation, and Construction | C1. Aggregates, bitumen, cement | 121.86 | [20] |
C2. Aggregates, bitumen, polymer modified | 116.66 | ||||
C3. Aggregates, bitumen | 104.54 | ||||
C4. Aggregates, recycled asphalt | 100.59 | ||||
Malaysia | 99.6 to 103.0 | Rehabilitation | Cement, stone aggregate, quarry dust, and bitumen | 3247 | [21] |
China | 20 | Mixture mixing, Transportation, Laying, Compacting, and Curing phase | Aggregate, bitumen, Portland cement | 0.052 | [22] |
Italy | 8.5 | Construction and Maintenance | Aggregates, bitumen, cement | 0.212 | [23] |
Aggregate Type | Allocation Factor |
---|---|
Large aggregate (76 mm) | 1.49 |
Base/sub-base aggregate | 1.93 |
Coarse aggregate | 2.38 |
Intermediate aggregate | 2.38 |
Fine aggregate | 2.67 |
Mix Design Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Layer | Category | Item | Design | Amount (Ton/Project) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Polymer-modified | Volumetric | Air voids | 4.00% | - |
Voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) | 14.75% | - | ||
Bulk specific gravity (Gmb) | 2.403 | - | ||
Maximum theoretical specific gravity (Gmm) | 2.499 | - | ||
Materials | Polymer-modified bitumen | 5.10% | 358 | |
Coarse aggregate | 20.00% | 1331 | ||
Intermediate aggregate | 15.00% | 998 | ||
Fine aggregate | 65.00% | 4327 | ||
Unmodified | Volumetric | Air voids | 4.00% | - |
Voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) | 14.72% | - | ||
Bulk specific gravity (Gmb) | 2.397 | - | ||
Maximum theoretical specific gravity (Gmm) | 2.497 | - | ||
Materials | AC-30 | 5.55% | 453 | |
Coarse aggregate | 27.00% | 2082 | ||
Intermediate aggregate | 20.00% | 1542 | ||
Fine aggregate | 53.00% | 4086 |
Category | Material | GHG (kg CO2e/lane-km) |
---|---|---|
Polymer-modified HMA layer | Polymer-modified bitumen | 11,369 |
Coarse aggregate | 313 | |
Intermediate aggregate | 234 | |
Fine aggregate | 1109 | |
HMA plant operation | 16,572 | |
Polymer-modified asphalt (PMA) mix subtotal | 29,596 | |
Unmodified HMA layer | Neat bitumen | 13,668 |
Coarse aggregate | 489 | |
Intermediate aggregate | 362 | |
Fine aggregate | 1047 | |
HMA plant operations | 19,285 | |
Conventional mix subtotal | 34,851 | |
Total | Project subtotal | 64,448 |
Category | Material | GHG (kg CO2e/lane-km) |
---|---|---|
Design (Production) | Polymer-modified HMA layer | 29,596 |
Unmodified HMA layer | 34,851 | |
Design subtotal | 64,448 | |
Construction | Construction subtotal | 1333 |
Total | Project total | 65,781 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Espinoza, M.; Campos, N.; Yang, R.; Ozer, H.; Aguiar-Moya, J.P.; Baldi, A.; Loría-Salazar, L.G.; Al-Qadi, I.L. Carbon Footprint Estimation in Road Construction: La Abundancia–Florencia Case Study. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082276
Espinoza M, Campos N, Yang R, Ozer H, Aguiar-Moya JP, Baldi A, Loría-Salazar LG, Al-Qadi IL. Carbon Footprint Estimation in Road Construction: La Abundancia–Florencia Case Study. Sustainability. 2019; 11(8):2276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082276
Chicago/Turabian StyleEspinoza, Marianela, Noelia Campos, Rebekah Yang, Hasan Ozer, José P. Aguiar-Moya, Alejandra Baldi, Luis G. Loría-Salazar, and Imad L. Al-Qadi. 2019. "Carbon Footprint Estimation in Road Construction: La Abundancia–Florencia Case Study" Sustainability 11, no. 8: 2276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082276
APA StyleEspinoza, M., Campos, N., Yang, R., Ozer, H., Aguiar-Moya, J. P., Baldi, A., Loría-Salazar, L. G., & Al-Qadi, I. L. (2019). Carbon Footprint Estimation in Road Construction: La Abundancia–Florencia Case Study. Sustainability, 11(8), 2276. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082276