Assessment of Massachusetts asphalt mixtures: EPDs and beyond cradle-to-gate LCA of high RAP mixes and targeted overlay pavements
Source abstract
Abstract
This study evaluated the environmental impacts of Massachusetts asphalt mixtures by analyzing their global warming potential (GWP) using reported environmental product declarations (EPDs). A life-cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted beyond cradle-to-gate for two sustainable, low-carbon mixture types: high reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) surface mixtures with up to 40% RAP and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) targeted overlay pavement solutions (TOPS). EPDs from the National Asphalt Pavement Association's (NAPA) Emerald Eco-Label tool were categorized by mix characteristics to identify factors influencing GWP, and results were compared to national benchmarks. AASHTOWare® PMED was used to predict the performance of high-RAP and TOPS mixtures, and the FHWA LCAPave tool provided a 20-year beyond cradle-to-gate LCA. Publicly available reports and predicted performance informed treatment needs and timing. Overall, Massachusetts mixtures exhibited lower GWP than national averages, and recycled content and mix design parameters strongly affected both GWP and performance.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Asphalt Pavement Performance Evaluation · Infrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring · Polymer Nanocomposites and Properties
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Funding
Massachusetts Department of Transportation · MassDOT · Interdepartmental Service Agreement
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1080/10298436.2022.215202510.1080/10298436.2022.2152025 ↗
2. Al-Qadi I. L. Jayme A. G. & Okte E. (2021). Georgia Use of SMA OGFC and Micro-milling Results in Improved Sustainable Pavement Performance (No. FHWA-HIF-19-084). United States. Federal Highway Administration. Office of Preconstruction Construction and Pavements.
3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2020). Mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide: A manual of practice 3rd Edition. AASHTO Washington D.C.
4. Aschenbrener T. (2022). Targeted Overlay Pavement Solutions (TOPS) — Stone Matrix Asphalt Georgia Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/tops/pubs/TOPS_SMA_Case_Study_2-pager.pdf
5. Aschenbrener T. (2024). Targeted Overlay Pavement Solutions (TOPS) — Asphalt Rubber Gap Gradded. Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/tops/pubs/asphalt_tops_combined_508_1.pdf
6. Asphalt Institute. (2019). Life cycle assessment of asphalt binder. Thinkstep.
7. Butt, A. A., Wu, R., & Harvey, J. (2024, May). Recommended to include relevant material performance in the construction material environmental product declarations. In International symposium on pavement, roadway, and bridge life cycle assessment (pp. 43–49). Springer Nature Switzerland.
8. Federal Highway Administration. (2016). Pavement life cycle assessment framework. Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/sustainability/hif16014.pdf
9. Federal Highway Administration. (2020). Challenges in meeting data needs for use of environmental product declarations in pavement design and construction: State of practice and future scope. ROSAP. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/43786
10. Federal Highway Administration. (2021). LCA pave: A tool to assess environmental impacts of pavement material and design decisions — Underlying methodology and assumptions. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/lcatool/LCA_Pave_Tool_Methodology.pdf
11. International Organization of Standardization. (2006). ISO 14040: Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework.
12. International Organization of Standardization. (2017). ISO 21930: Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works — Core rules for environmental product declarations of construction products and services.
13. Kim, C., Butt, A. A., Harvey, J. T., & Ostovar, M. (2024). Environmental impacts from traffic on highway construction work zones: Framework and simulations. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 18(8), 680–694.10.1080/15568318.2024.2392624 ↗
14. MassGIS (Bureau of Geographical Information). (2022). MassGIS Data: MassDOT Highway Districts. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massgis-data-massdot-highway-districts
15. Miller L. (2017). Emerald Eco-Label EPD Tool Instructions. Trisight. https://www.asphaltpavement.org/uploads/documents/EPD_Program/Emerald_Eco-Label_EPD_Tool_Instructions.pdf
16. Mogawer, W. S., Austerman, A. J., Abdalfattah, I. A., & Stuart, K. D. (2023). Evaluation of three federal highway administration targeted overlay pavement solutions for asphalt pavements based on their performances and potential to increase pavement service life. Transportation Research Board, 2679(1).10.1177/03611981231186421 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.14058010.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140580 ↗
18. Mostatab, S., Yildirim, U. S., Okte, E., Tseng, E., Ozer, H., & Al-Qadi, I. L. (2025). Stochastic network-level pavement life cycle assessment framework development. In Hasan Ozer & Quintin Watkins (Eds.), Airfield and highway pavements 2025 (pp. 169–179). American Society of Civil Engineers.10.1061/9780784486221.016 ↗
19. Mukherje A. (2016). Life cycle assessment of asphalt mixtures in support of an environmental product declaration. Michigan Technological University. https://www.asphaltpavement.org/uploads/documents/EPD_Program/NAPA_LCA_2016.pdf
20. National Asphalt Pavement Association. (2022). Product Category Rules (PCR) for asphalt mixtures. https://www.asphaltpavement.org/uploads/documents/EPD_Program/NAPA_PCR_AsphaltMixtures_v2.pdf
21. National Asphalt Pavement Association. (2024). The carbon footprint of asphalt pavement. The Road Forward. https://www.asphaltpavement.org/uploads/documents/Climate/NAPA-SIP109-TheCarbonFootprintOfAsphaltPavements-March2024.pdf
22. National Center of Sustainable Transportation. (2023). Recommended approach for use of cradle-to-gate environmental product declarations (EPDs) in procurement of civil infrastructure materials. Escholarship. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3fn4n3q610.1088/2634-4505/acf06d ↗
23. 10.1177/036119811983677610.1177/0361198119836776 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12461910.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124619 ↗
25. 10.1201/978100309457110.1201/9781003094571 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.13358910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133589 ↗
27. U.S. General Services Administration. (2023). Inflation reduction act low embodied carbon asphalt requirements inflation reduction act low embodied carbon asphalt requirements. https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/gsa-properties/inflation-reduction-act/lec-program-details/material-requirements
28. Van Dam, T. J., Harvey, J., Muench, S. T., Smith, K. D., Snyder, M. B., Al-Qadi, I. L., Ozer, H., Meijer, J., Ram, P., Roesler, J. R., & Kendall, A. (2015). Towards sustainable pavement systems: A reference document (No. FHWA-HIF-15-002). Federal Highway Administration.
29. Wang T. Harvey J. & Kendall A. (2013). Network-Level Life-Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas from CAPM Treatments.