Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 545556

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Life cycle assessment on using recycled materials
for rehabilitating asphalt pavements
Chui-Te Chiu

, Tseng-Hsing Hsu, Wan-Fa Yang

Department of Civil Engineering, Chung Hua University, Taiwan
Received 15 March 2007; received in revised form 3 July 2007; accepted 4 July 2007
Available online 21 August 2007
Abstract
This research performed life cycle inventory using proposed recycled material formulas and service
records and incorporating the database provided by Eco-indicator 99 in order to study the eco-burden
presented by using recycled materials to rehabilitate asphalt pavements. Three recycled materials
(recycled hot mix asphalt, asphalt rubber, and Glassphalt) and the traditional hot-mixed asphalt are
compared. Assuming that the thickness of the asphalt is 5 cm and the service life is 6 years, the eco-
burden presented by the traditional hot-mixed asphalt is 3.45 kPt. per lane-kilometer. Using recycled
hot mixed asphalt can reduce the eco-burden by 23% under the same conditions. Using asphalt rubber
increases the eco-burden by 16%, while the eco-burden remains essentially the same (reduced by
less than 1%) using Glassphalt. Taking into account the difference in service life between different
materials, this research also uses a 40-year time span to evaluate the eco-burden for each material. The
results show that the traditional hot mixed asphalt has an eco-burden of 23.03 kPt. for that time span.
Both recycled hot mixed asphalt and asphalt rubber can reduce the eco-burden by 23% in the same
period. On the contrary, Glassphalt increases the eco-burden by 19%. This research also identied the
sources of the eco-burden for these asphalts. The results showthat a large percentage of the eco-burden
comes from two sources, the asphalt binder used (3948%) and the heat sources required to process
these paving materials (4250%). This suggests that the most effective way to lower the eco-burden
may be to reduce the heat requirement during the manufacturing process.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Asphalt rubber; Recycled hot mix asphalt; Glassphalt; Life cycle assessment

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ctc@chu.edu.tw (C.-T. Chiu).
0921-3449/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.07.001
546 C.-T. Chiu et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 545556
1. Introduction
Increasing energy cost and environmental concerns have encouraged the development
of using pollution-free, recyclable engineering materials that consume less energy to man-
ufacture. Generally, there is a vast amount of material used in constructing a roadway.
Different materials are used in different ways to fully exploit their potentials. For exam-
ple, the best part of the soilrock mixture can be used as the aggregates of the asphalt
or concrete, the part with average quality can be used as road embankment ller, and the
remaining part can be stabilized and used as the material of road bed. Waste materials are
usually called resources in the wrong places and can be used or recycled. In Europe and
United States (Pihl and Milvang-Jensen, 2001), recycled materials used in construction are
classied as industrial byproducts, such as steel slag and coal y ash; road byproducts,
such as reclaimed concrete pavement materials and reclaimed asphalt pavement materials;
or demolition byproducts, such as crushed concrete, tiles, and bricks. The incorporation of
recycled materials in road construction as substitution for virgin materials is perceived as
an opportunity to save resources and avoid the impact associated with their extraction and
transportation. The use of byproducts in road construction is important to divert loads that
would otherwise be disposed of in landlls.
Because of limited land availability and the dense population in Taiwan, efforts have
been made toward Source Reduction, Recycling, and Incineration and Vitrication
for solid waste management. The ultimate goal will be zero landll and zero waste (Huang et
al., 2006). In recent years, attempts have been made to use recycled hot mix asphalt (HMA),
asphalt rubber (AR for blending ground tire rubber into asphalt), and Glassphalt (the term
used to represent hot mix asphalt incorporating 1025% crushed glass) for rehabilitating
pavements (Chiu and Lu, 2007; Chiu and Pan, 2006; Chiu, 2004). The use of recycled HMA
has become the primary way to rehabilitate the pavements. There are energy consumption
concerns regarding the use of the recycled HMA because an extra heating unit has to be
installed in hot mix plants to effectively blend the recycled materials. Yet asphalt rubber is
more expensive and requires a higher working temperature. The balance between possible
extension of the service life and possible increase of eco-burden is yet to be determined.
As for Glassphalt, can the benet of reducing the load of disposing waste glass compensate
for the reduction of durability? The proponents of these recycled materials are quick to
claim the benet of conservation of resources and reduction of waste; however, there is
no real quantied index to corroborate these claims of environmental friendliness. It is
therefore necessary to use the method of life cycle assessment to evaluate the broader
picture (Chevalier and Teno, 1996; Koroneos and Dompros, 2007; Thenoux et al., 2007).
Through complete inventory analysis, the input materials and energy as well as output waste
can all be accounted for, and a more comprehensive and objective evaluation of the impact
on the environment can be obtained.
This research performed life cycle inventory with proposed recycled material formulas
and service records and incorporated the database provided by Eco-indicator 99 to study
the eco-burden presented by using recycled materials to rehabilitate asphalt pavements.
Three recycled materials (recycled HMA, AR, and Glassphalt) and the traditional hot mix
asphalt are compared. The results can provide a foundation for decision making regarding
the choice of recycled materials on rehabilitating pavements.
C.-T. Chiu et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 545556 547
2. Life cycle assessment
The industries in general have been using life cycle assessment and have extended the
methodology into so called green design and green engineering. The Swedish Environ-
mental Research Institute published a report in 2001 in which a comprehensive inventory
analysis was done based on a 40-year life cycle (Stripple, 2001). Utilizing the method pro-
posed by Society of Environmental Toxicity and Chemistry (SETAC), the energy consumed,
resources used, and pollution released for a 1-km asphalt road during its life cycle were
calculated. The results show that the total energy consumed is close to 23 trillion joules
(TJs). The energy consumed during the construction phase is approximately 8 TJs (35% of
the total consumption). The consumption for lighting and trafc control is more than half
of the total consumption (12 TJs) during the operation phase. In the maintenance phase, the
energy consumption is less than 3 TJs (13%). Table 1 is a summary of the results.
As shown in Table 1, the amount of energy consumption will be different using different
material. The energy consumption increases to 27 TJs/km in a life cycle (40 years) by
using concrete pavement instead of asphalt. The increase occurs mainly in the construction
phase and little or no change occurs in the operation and maintenance phase. The reduction
of energy consumption is not noticeable by switching to cold mix asphalt. In terms of
greenhouse gas emission, the emission of CO
2
is 2000 t/km asphalt road in its life cycle (40
years). The amount of SO
2
and NO
x
is 1.2 and 4.4 t, respectively. Switching to concrete
pavement will increase the amount to 2700 t of CO
2
, 2.1 t of SO
2
, and 7.0 t of NO
x
. Also
shown in Table 1 is the fact that using low emission vehicles can reduce the eco-burden.
The research also indicated that the user of the roadway imposed more eco-burden on the
environment. Based on assumed daily trafc of 5000 vehicles and estimated mileage of
0.1 l/km per vehicle, the total energy consumed by the user of the roadway is 292.2 TJs in
the same time span. It is more than 12 times of the energy consumption of the construction,
operation, and maintenance phase combined. As for the effect of different materials on
eco-burden, the report did not provide any relevant data.
It is an important trend of the industries that emphasize environment management to
perform life cycle assessment in the design stage and in the choice of construction method
and make decision based on the assessment. This is the essence of the life cycle assessment
standard (ISO 14040) (Bovea and Gallardo, 2006). The life cycle assessment framework as
dened in ISO 14040 is shown in Fig. 1. There are four parts in this framework: goal and
scope denition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation. The technique
of inventory analysis has been used for quite some time and comprehensive database is
available. It is the less controversial part of the framework. The interpretation of the impact
assessment is another matter. Currently the impact assessment data is processed using
characteristic transformation or weighted multiplication to obtain an impact index. The
interpretation is based on this impact index. The process is usually very complicated as well
as time consuming and can only be performed adequately by an expert of environmental
management.
To overcome this cumbersome process and to provide pertinent information in a timely
fashion, researchers in the Netherlands proposed a method of using one index to represent
the environmental impact of a product or a manufacturing process. The index is based on
the concept of an ecological foot print and is now widely accepted. The current version
5
4
8
C
.
-
T
.
C
h
i
u
e
t
a
l
.
/
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
5
2
(
2
0
0
8
)
5
4
5

5
5
6
Table 1
Summary of LCA results for a road by IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute
Road construction,
maintenance and operation
for 1 km long road during
40 years of operation
Asphalt road, hot
method, low emission
vehicles
Asphalt road, cold
method, low emission
vehicles
Concrete road,
low emission
vehicles
Asphalt road, hot
method, normal
emission vehicles
Asphalt road, cold
method, normal
emission vehicles
Concrete road,
normal emission
vehicles
Energy consumed (TJ)
Construction 8.0 6.5 11.5 8.0 6.5 11.5
Maintenance 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.0
Operation 12.0 11.5 13.0 12.0 11.5 13.0
Total 23.0 21.5 27.5 23.0 21.5 27.5
NOx emission (Mg)
Construction 3.0 2.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 7.2
Maintenance 1.1 1.3 1.8 2.2 2.4 3.2
Operation 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6
Total 4.4 4.4 7.0 7.5 7.5 11.0
SO
2
emission (Mg)
Construction 0.80 0.70 1.60 0.85 0.80 1.70
Maintenance 0.15 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.30
Operation 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Total 1.20 1.25 2.05 1.30 1.35 2.25
CO
2
emission (Mg)
Construction 1700 1600 2350 1700 1600 2350
Maintenance 250 250 300 250 250 300
Operation 100 100 100 100 100 100
Total 2050 1950 2750 2050 1950 2750
Source: summarized from reference Stripple (2001).
C.-T. Chiu et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 545556 549
Fig. 1. Life cycle assessment framework according to ISO 14040.
is Eco-indicator 99 (MHSPE, 2000). This index utilizes data from inventory analysis and
transforms these data into three categories in a unied way. These three categories are human
health, ecological quality, and resource consumption. These three quantities are then com-
bined in a weighted manner (40%, 40%, and 20% for human health, ecological quality, and
resource consumption, respectively). The resulting number is used to indicate the average
burden every 1000 Europeans impose on the environment in a year. In this way, the eco-
logical footprint of 1000 Europeans is 1 point (1 Pt.). The Eco-indicator 99 design manual
provides point values for over 200 materials, energy sources, and manufacture processes
(Table 2). Designers of products or manufacture processes can use these data to evaluate the
eco-burden based on the resources and energy sources required. Designers can also use this
information to determine the critical point of the process and try to improve the environ-
mental characteristics of their products. Eco-indicator 99 has become a convenient method
to simplify the life cycle assessment. It is not advisable to use the indicator to compare the
environmental characteristics of different products in the market, but it is sufcient for use
in the design of the best product or the determination of the best manufacturing process.
3. Life cycle inventory
The roadway enters the operation phase and the maintenance phase once the construc-
tion phase ends. The predicted trafc load and the existing pavement structure including
the thickness of asphalt concrete are important factors to be considered for selecting dif-
ferent alternatives. To simplify the process of comparing different recycled materials for
rehabilitating pavements, the effects of trafc volume and pavement thickness are assumed
to be the same for different alternatives in this study. Fig. 2 is the life cycle of pavement
maintenance investigated in this paper.
As shown in Fig. 2, the maintenance consists mainly of production in a hot mix plant and
work on site. The method used to maintain the asphalt pavement depends on the condition
550 C.-T. Chiu et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 545556
Table 2
Example of Eco-indicator values listed in Eco-indicator 99 manual for designers (MHSPE, 2000)
Indicator Description
Alkyd varnish 520 Production +emissions during use of varnish, containing
55% solvents
Cement 20 Portland cement
Ceramics 28 Bricks, etc.
Concrete not reinforced 3.8 Concrete with a density of 2200 kg/m
3
Float glass coated 51 Used for windows, tin, silver and nickel coating (77 g/m
2
)
Float glass uncoated 49 Used for windows
Gypsum 9.9 Selenite: Used as ller
Gravel 0.84 Extraction and transport
Lime (burnt) 28 CaO: Used for production of cement and concrete. Can also
be used as strong base
Lime (hydrated) 21 Ca(OH)
2
: Used for production of mortar
Mineral wool 61 Used for insulation
Massive building 1500 Rough estimate of a (concrete) building per m
3
volume
(capital goods)
Metal construction building 4300 Rough estimate of a building per m
3
volume (capital goods)
Sand 0.82 Extraction and transport
Wood board 39 European wood (FSC criteria); CO
2
absorption in growth
stage disregarded.
Wood massive 6.6 European wood (FSC criteria); CO
2
absorption in growth
stage disregarded.
Land-use 45 Occupation as urban land per m
2
year
Production of building materials in mPt. per kilogram.
of the pavement. This research concentrates on the use of recycled materials. As a result,
only the milling/overlaying method is investigated. The quantity of recycled materials used
is evaluated based on the assumption of a one-lane road and a milling/overlaying of 5-cm
pavement thickness. The total volume of pavement for this pavement unit is 132.5 m
3
/km
Fig. 2. Life cycle of pavement maintenance investigated in this paper.
C.-T. Chiu et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 545556 551
Table 3
Inventory data for different material alternatives
Consumption per 1 Mg paving materials Conventional HMA Recycled HMA AR HMA Glassphalt
Raw material
Crushed stone (kg) 450 300 650 450
Sand (kg)) 500 250 270 400
Asphalt cement (kg) 50 35 64 50
Ground tire rubber (kg) 0 0 16 0
RAP (kg) 0 415 0 0
Waste glass (kg) 0 0 0 100
Energy consumed
Electricity (kWh) 2.35 4.25 2.75 2.35
Fuel (heavy oil (l)) 12 10 13 12
Machinery
Diesel (l) 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77
Transportation
40 Mg truck for an average of 20 km transportation
Performance
Year 6 6 9 5
Waste
Mg 0
(2.65 m1000 m0.05 m). Assuming that the density is 2.3 t (Mgs)/m
3
, the total mass of
the recycled materials used is 304.75 t. This research uses a round number of 300 t as the
mass of the recycled materials used per lane-kilometer.
The quantities of the raw materials required for the asphalt pavement can be found based
on the mix design. On the other hand, the heat source, electricity required, and energy
source for the machinery require inquiries of the actual hot mix plants. The actual cost can
be calculated by combining this information with the electricity rate and fuel consumption
(Liu, 2006). The results of this investigation are shown in Table 3.
In Table 3, the energy used in the hot mix plants includes the electricity required for the
plants to operate and the fuel (the plants use heavy oil) for heating the granular material.
The machineries in the table include the carriers in the plants and road shapers, pavers,
and graders on site and are evaluated by the diesel fuel consumed. The depreciation and
maintenance expense of the machineries in the plant and on site are not included in the
analysis.
Due to the governments environmental protection policy, the reclaimed asphalt pave-
ment, ground tire rubber, and waste glass in Fig. 2 and Table 3 can sometimes be obtained
free of charge. Occasionally, companies can even receive reimbursement for using these
materials; however, the amount of this reimbursement is difcult to estimate. In this
research, these effects are seen as the by-product of recycling other materials and are
not factored into the assessment of environmental impact. The post process of other
scraped materials is also seen as a part of the recycle process and is excluded from the
assessment.
552 C.-T. Chiu et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 545556
Table 4
Basic material and energy usage in milling/overlaying asphalt pavements
For 1 km lane Conventional HMA Recycled HMA AR HMA Glassphalt
Crush stone (kg) 135,000 90,000 195,000 135,000
Sand (kg) 150,000 75,000 81,000 120,000
Asphalt cement (kg) 15,000 10,500 19,200 15,000
Electricity (kWh) 705 1,275 825 705
Heat (MJ) 144,000 120,000 156,000 144,000
Diesel (l) 231 231 231 231
Transportation (Mg km) 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Performance (year) 6 6 9 5
Waste 0
Utilizing the database provided in Eco-indicator 99, the results of the inventory analysis
in Table 3 can be transformed into the data in Table 4. It represents the materials and energy
usage for 300 t of asphalt pavement material which milling/overlaying one lane-kilometer
of asphalt pavement. The energy usage from burning heavy oil is calculated by assuming
40 million joules per liter. The data in Table 4 needs to be multiplied by 6.67, 6.67, 4.44,
and 8 for conventional hot mix asphalt, recycled hot mix asphalt, asphalt rubber hot mix
asphalt, and Glassphalt, respectively, if a 40-year life cycle is used.
4. Impact analysis
Table 5 is part of the Eco-indicator 99 database mentioned in the previous section.
For the input raw materials, the crush stone cites the number of the database under
gravel: extract and transport. The eco-burden is 0.84 mPt./kg. The eco-burden of sand
is 0.82 mPt./kg from the same database. There is no data for asphalt in the database. This
research uses the average value for manufacturing common organic chemicals which is
99 mPt./kg. The data for electricity uses the average value of high voltage electricity in
Europe (UCPTE). The number used in this research is 23 mPt./kWh. The eco-burden is
Table 5
Lists of Eco-indicator values used in this study
Consumption Description of Eco-indicator 99 listing Eco-indicator value
Crush stone (kg) Gravel: extract and transport 0.84 mPt./kg
Sand (kg) Sand: extract and transport 0.82 mPt./kg
Asphalt cement (kg) Chemical organic: average value for
production of organic chemicals
99 mPt./kg
Electricity (kWh) Electr. HV Europe (UCPTE) 23 mPt./kWh
Heat (MJ) Heat oil (industrial furnace): combustion
of oil in an industrial furnace
11 mPt./MJ
Diesel (l) Fuel diesel: production of fuel only;
combustion excluded
180 mPt./kg
Transportation (Mg km) Truck 40 t: road transport with 50% load
(European average including return)
15 mPt./tkm
C.-T. Chiu et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 545556 553
Fig. 3. Relative contribution of environmental load for milling/overlaying one lane-kilometer of asphalt pavement
using different materials.
11 mPt. per million joules (MJs) of heat consumption. The diesel used by the construction
machinery produces 180 mPt. eco-burden per liter. This research takes into account the
transport of the asphalt concrete only and uses the eco-burden value of European 40-t truck
found in the database (15 mPt./tkm).
First, the eco-burdens for rehabilitating one lane-kilometer pavement using different
materials are calculated from the data in Tables 4 and 5. The eco-burden for using tradi-
tional hot mix asphalt is 3.45 kPt. Using recycled HMAwill produce a 2.66 kPt. eco-burden.
The values are 4.00 kPt. and 3.43 kPt. for asphalt rubber and Glassphalt, respectively. Fig. 3
shows the contribution from different sources to the environmental load for different mate-
rials. It is obvious that the use of asphalt binder and the heat are two major sources of the
environmental load. The percentage for the asphalt binder is 3948%. The percentage for
heat is 4250%.
Fig. 4 is the comparison of environmental loads using different materials. As shown
in Fig. 4, using recycled hot mix asphalt presents the least eco-burden among the four
materials investigated in this research. Comparing to using traditional hot mix asphalt, the
eco-burden is reduced by 23%. The reduction can be attributed to less asphalt used and
less heat required. On the contrary, using asphalt rubber requires more asphalt and uses
more heat. As a result, using asphalt rubber presents the most eco-burden. It increases the
eco-burden by 16% compared to using traditional hot mix asphalt. As for Glassphalt, the
use of waste glass is not critical, which leads to little difference in eco-burden produced.
Because the service record is different for each material, it is necessary to take the
service record into account. For example, the asphalt rubber lasts longer while using more
asphalt. Can the longer service life compensate for the effect of using more asphalt? The
Glassphalt is easily affected by the water. As a result, the service life will be shorter. Will
this make the Glassphalt less desirable to use? To investigate the effect of different service
554 C.-T. Chiu et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 545556
Fig. 4. Environmental loads of milling/overlayingone lane-kilometer of asphalt pavement usingdifferent materials.
records, this research lengthens the life cycle to 40 years. For a 40-year life cycle, the data
in Table 4 needs to be multiplied by 6.67, 6.67, 4.44, and 8 for conventional hot mix asphalt,
recycled hot mix asphalt, asphalt rubber hot mix asphalt, and Glassphalt, respectively. This
analysis shows that the eco-burdens in a 40-year time span are 23.03 kPt. for conventional
hot mix asphalt, 17.72 kPt. for recycled hot mix asphalt, 17.75 kPt. for asphalt rubber hot
Fig. 5. Environmental loads of milling/overlaying one lane-kilometer of asphalt pavement for 40 years using
different materials.
C.-T. Chiu et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 545556 555
mix asphalt, and 27.43 kPt. for Glassphalt. The comparison is shown in Fig. 5. In a 40-
year time span, Glassphalt needs 8 millings/overlayings, and each time requires asphalt and
consumes heat. As a result, the eco-burden is the highest. The increase is 19% compared
to the traditional hot mix asphalt. The asphalt rubber needs less millings/overlayings (4.44
times in a 40-year span). This is more than enough to compensate for the effect of the
higher amount of asphalt required for each overlaying. The reduction in eco-burden is 23%
compared to using traditional hot mix asphalt. The gure is comparable to that of using
recycled hot mix asphalt.
5. Conclusion
This researchtries toutilize the life cycle assessment toevaluate the environmental impact
of rehabilitating pavement using different recycled materials. Four materials traditional
hot mix asphalt, recycled hot mix asphalt, asphalt rubber, and Glassphalt are investigated.
These four materials are applied for milling/overlaying one lane-kilometer asphalt pavement
with a thickness of 5 cm. Using the mix ratio of each material and information frominventory
analysis, the eco-burden for each scenario is calculated based on the database provided in
Eco-indicator 99. The following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) Using traditional hot mix asphalt to rehabilitate asphalt pavement, the material and
energy required is equivalent to an eco-burden of 3.45 kPt. per lane-kilometer. Using
recycled hot mix asphalt can reduce the eco-burden by 23%. Using asphalt rubber will
increase the eco-burden by 16%. The eco-burden remains essentially the same (less
than 1% lower) using Glassphalt instead.
(2) An analysis on the contribution fromvarious sources during rehabilitation indicates that
the majority of eco-burden comes from two sources, the asphalt and the heat required,
no matter which material is used. The percentage is 3948%for the asphalt and 4250%
for energy. Both are much higher than the percentages for sand, stone, electricity, and
transportation.
(3) The service record for each material is different. The service life of the traditional hot
mix asphalt and recycled hot mix asphalt are 6 years. Asphalt rubber has a 9-year service
life. Glassphalt has a shorter service life (5 years) due to spalling. Taking this difference
in service into consideration, this research uses a 40-year life cycle to compare the eco-
burden for each material in this time span. The eco-burden for traditional hot mix asphalt
is 23.03 kPt. in this time span. Recycled hot mix asphalt and asphalt rubber both reduce
eco-burden by 23% in the same time span. On the contrary, Glassphalt increases the
eco-burden by 19%.
The analysis of this research indicates that reduction of the amount of asphalt and
the consumption of heat are the keys to lower the eco-burden of rehabilitation work.
But the reduction of the amount of asphalt used will have an effect of reducing the ser-
vice life. Just reducing the amount of asphalt without considering this effect will increase
the amount of rehabilitation work and increase the eco-burden. A more effective way to
reduce eco-burden is to assure the quality of pavement and lower the heat required during
rehabilitation.
556 C.-T. Chiu et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52 (2008) 545556
Acknowledgements
This research was part of a project (Project Number CHU-95-ADV-001) supported by the
Chung Hua University. Special thanks are due to Gi-Liphong Asphalt Plant and Way-Yuon
Paving Company for providing the necessary help in inventory investigation.
References
Bovea MD, Gallardo A. The inuence of impact assessment methods on materials selection for Eco-design. Mater
Des 2006;27:20915.
Chevalier JL, Teno JFL. Requirements for an LCA based model for the evaluation of the environmental quality
of building products. Build Environ 1996;31(5):48791.
Chiu CT. Taiwans experiences on hot mix recycling. Shanghai Highways 2004;95(1):713 (in Chinese).
Chiu CT, Lu LC. A laboratory study on stone matrix asphalt using ground tire rubber. Constr Build Mater
2007;21(5):102733.
Chiu CT, Pan C. Taiwans experience on asphalt rubber pavement. In: Proceedings asphalt rubber 2006; October
2006. p. 31326.
Huang CM, Chiu CT, Li KC, Yang WF. Physical and environmental properties of asphalt mixtures containing
incinerator bottom ash. J Hazard Mater 2006;137(October (3)):17429.
Koroneos C, Dompros A. Environmental assessment of brick production in Greece. Build Environ
2007;42:211423.
Liu CW, Astudy on life cycle assessment on recycled materials for asphalt pavement, a thesis presented for master
of science degree. Chung Hua University; February 2006 [in Chinese].
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Eco-indicator 99 manual for designersa damage
oriented method for life cycle assessment, Netherlands; October 2000.
Pihl KA, Milvang-Jensen O. The motivation factors in the development and sustainment of a well-functioning
recycling industry for road and nonroad byproducts in Denmark. Benef Use Recycl Mater Transport Appl
2001(November (1315)).
Stripple H. In: Life cycle assessment of roada pilot study for inventory analysis. 2nd revised ed. Gothenburg,
Sweden: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute; March 2001.
Thenoux G, Gonzalez A, Dowling R. Energy consumption comparison for different asphalt pavements rehabili-
tation techniques used in Chile. Resour Conserv Recycl 2007;49:32539.