Influence of LCA allocation methods on the life cycle carbon emission from roads and uncertainty analysis

QIAO Ya-ning; WEN Xia; GAO Yang-ming; HE Liang

doi:10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2025.05.007

Volume 25 Issue 5

Oct. 2025

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering > 2025 > 25(5): 82-95

Next Previous

QIAO Ya-ning, WEN Xia, GAO Yang-ming, HE Liang. Influence of LCA allocation methods on the life cycle carbon emission from roads and uncertainty analysis[J]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2025, 25(5): 82-95. doi: 10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2025.05.007

Citation:

QIAO Ya-ning, WEN Xia, GAO Yang-ming, HE Liang. Influence of LCA allocation methods on the life cycle carbon emission from roads and uncertainty analysis[J]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2025, 25(5): 82-95. doi: 10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2025.05.007

Citation:

PDF( 3417 KB)

Influence of LCA allocation methods on the life cycle carbon emission from roads and uncertainty analysis

doi: 10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2025.05.007

1.
School of Mechanics & Civil Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, Jiangsu, China
2.
School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, Merseyside, UK
3.
School of Civil Engineering, Chongqing Jiaotong University, Chongqing 400074, China

Funds:

National Natural Science Foundation of China 52008388

National Natural Science Foundation of China 52278440

More Information

Corresponding author: HE Liang (1983-), male, professor, PhD, heliangf1@163.com
Received Date: 2024-08-27
Accepted Date: 2025-03-12
Rev Recd Date: 2025-01-15
Publish Date: 2025-10-28

Abstract

Abstract

To analyze the effect of allocation method selection on the life cycle carbon emissions of roads, two common allocation methods (50/50 and Cut-off) were selected to quantify and compare the life cycle carbon emissions of roads. According to a single-factor sensitivity analysis, the influence of different parameters on the carbon emission comparison was evaluated to identify critical parameters affecting the comparison between the two allocation methods. Additionally, the probability density distribution functions of the parameters were introduced to quantify the parameter uncertainty of the model in comparison, and the Monte Carlo simulation method was used to propagate the parameter uncertainty to the results. Analysis results show that the carbon emission ratio of the 50/50 to the Cut-off allocation method is approximately 1.022 (no milling and resurfacing), 1.024 (one milling and resurfacing), 1.025 (two millings and resurfacings), and 1.026 (three millings and resurfacings), respectively. After the uncertainty analysis, the ratio decreases to 1.020, 1.021, 1.023, and 1.023, respectively. Since the difference between the 50/50 and Cut-off allocation methods is narrowed, the allocation method selection does not significantly influence the calculation of life cycle carbon emissions of roads. Moreover, despite different milling and resurfacing times, when the few calculation parameters change by 1%, the ratio of the rate of change in the carbon emission ratio to that in the calculation parameter exceeds 0.012. The density of the base and subbase, N₂O emissions from diesel production, and the recycling rate of reclaimed pavement materials are critical parameters having an influence on the comparison of life cycle carbon emissions of roads between the 50/50 and the Cut-off allocation methods. The argumentation of allocation method selection in road life cycle assessment and the uncertainty analysis framework in this study can improve the method for calculating life cycle carbon emissions of roads and reduce the uncertainty in the calculations.
- road engineering,
- carbon emission,
- life cycle assessment,
- allocation method,
- uncertainty analysis

FullText(HTML)

References(39)

References

[1]	ZHANG Jin-xi, SU Ci, WANG Chao, et al. Review of energy-saving and emission-reduction issues and technologies in the construction of road infrastructure[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Technology, 2022, 48(3): 243-260.
[2]	SANTOS J, BRESSI S, CEREZO V, et al. SUP&RDSS: A sustainability-based decision support system for road pave-ments[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2019, 206: 524-540. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.308
[3]	HE Liang, LI Guan-nan, ZHANG Jun-hui, et al. Research progress on pavement life cycle energy consumption and carbon dioxide emission assessment[J]. Journal of Chang'an University (Natural Science Edition), 2018, 38(4): 10-20.
[4]	LI Song, NIU Zi-heng, Bao Bin-shuo, et al. Optimization carbon emission reduction technology for asphalt mixture production enterprises under carbon cap and trade policy[J]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2025, 25(5): 65-81.
[5]	HÄKKINEN T, MÄKELÄ K. Environmental adaptation of concrete environmental impact of concrete and asphalt pavements[R]. Espoo: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 1996.
[6]	HARVEY J T, MEIJER J, OZER H, et al. Pavement life cycle assessment framework, FHWA-HIF-16-014[R]. Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2016.
[7]	ZHENG Jian-long. Development trend of highway main-tenance technology[J]. China Highway, 2021(14): 66-68.
[8]	EKVALL T, BJÖRKLUND A, SANDIN G, et al. Modeling recycling in life cycle assessment[R]. Gothenburg: Swedish Life Cycle Center, 2020.
[9]	HERMANSSON F, EKVALL T, JANSSEN M, et al. Allo-cation in recycling of composites-the case of life cycle asse-ssment of products from carbon fiber composites[J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2022, 27(3): 419-432. doi: 10.1007/s11367-022-02039-8
[10]	SANTOS J, BRESSI S, CEREZO V, et al. Life cycle assess-ment of low temperature asphalt mixtures for road pavement surfaces: A comparative analysis[J]. Resources, Conserva-tion and Recycling, 2018, 138: 283-297. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.012
[11]	YANG R, KANG S, OZER H, et al. Environmental and economic analyses of recycled asphalt concrete mixtures based on material production and potential performance[J]. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2015, 104: 141-151. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.08.014
[12]	GIANI M I, DOTELLI G, BRANDINI N, et al. Compara-tive life cycle assessment of asphalt pavements using reclaimed asphalt, warm mix technology and cold in-place recycling[J]. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2015, 104: 224-238. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.08.006
[13]	CHEN X D, WANG H. Life cycle assessment of asphalt pave-ment recycling for greenhouse gas emission with temporal aspect[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 187: 148-157. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.207
[14]	ABDALLA A, FAHEEM A F, WALTERS E. Life cycle assessment of eco-friendly asphalt pavement involving multi-recycled materials: A comparative study[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022, 362: 132471. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132471
[15]	YU B, JIAO L Y, NI F J, et al. Evaluation of plastic-rubber asphalt: Engineering property and environmental concern[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2014, 71: 416-424. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.08.075
[16]	HASAN U, WHYTE A, AL JASSMI H. Life cycle assess-ment of roadworks in United Arab Emirates: Recycled construction waste, reclaimed asphalt pavement, warm-mix asphalt and blast furnace slag use against traditional approach[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 257: 120531. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120531
[17]	CHEN C, HABERT G, BOUZIDI Y, et al. LCA allocation procedure used as an incitative method for waste recycling: An application to mineral additions in concrete[J]. Resour-ces, Conservation and Recycling, 2010, 54(12): 1231-1240. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.04.001
[18]	WANG X J, HUANG B J, WANG Y, et al. The impact of allocation methods on carbon benefits-A case study of con-struction waste recycling[J]. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2023, 199: 107269. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107269
[19]	HUANG Y, SPRAY A, PARRY T. Sensitivity analysis of methodological choices in road pavement LCA[J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2013, 18(1): 93-101. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0450-7
[20]	ALLACKER K, MATHIEUX F, PENNINGTON D, et al. The search for an appropriate end-of-life formula for the purpose of the European Commission Environmental Foot-print initiative[J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2017, 22(9): 1441-1458. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1244-0
[21]	RAN Mao-ping, DENG Xu-hong, GUAN Jia-xi, et al. Re-view on road infrastructure carbon emission accounting and low carbon reduction technology based on LCA[J]. 2025, 25(5): 23-37.
[22]	ZAMPORI L, PANT R. Suggestions for updating the Pro-duct Environmental Footprint (PEF) method, EUR 29682 EN[R]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union: Joint Research Centre (JRC), 2021.
[23]	IPCC. Climate change 2021: The physical science basis[R]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021.
[24]	MA F, DONG WH, FU Z, et al. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from asphalt pavement main-tenance: A case study in China[J]. Journal of Cleaner Pro-duction, 2021, 288: 125595. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125595
[25]	JING C, ZHANG J X, SONG B. An innovative evaluation method for performance of in-service asphalt pavement with semi-rigid base[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2020, 235: 117376. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117376
[26]	BHATIA P, CUMMIS C, Brown A, et al. The GHG proto-col product life cycle accounting and reporting standard[R]. New York: World Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2011.
[27]	OU Xun-min, ZHANG Xi-liang. Fossil energy consumption and GHG emissions of final energy by LCA in China[J]. China Soft Science, 2009(S2): 208-214.
[28]	EUROPEAN BITUMEN ASSOCIATION. The Eurobitume life-cycle inventory for bitumen, Version 3.1[R]. Brussels: the European Bitumen Association, 2020.
[29]	HOSSAIN M U, POON C S, LO I M C, et al. Comparative environmental evaluation of aggregate production from recycled waste materials and virgin sources by LCA[J]. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2016, 109: 67-77. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.02.009
[30]	QIAO Y N, WANG Z Y, MENG F R, et al. Evaluating the economic and environmental impacts of road pavement using an integrated local sensitivity model[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022, 371: 133615. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133615
[31]	SHAO Yi-bai, LIU Yu, ZHENG Yan, et al. Life cycle inven-tory analysis method and application of waste cement clinker product system[J]. China Cement, 2022(11): 59-62.
[32]	CAI Bo-feng, ZHAO Liang, ZHANG Zhe, et al. China regional power grids carbon dioxide emission factors (2023)[R]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, 2023.
[33]	BRESSI S, PRIMAVERA M, SANTOS J. A comparative life cycle assessment study with uncertainty analysis of cement treated base (CTB) pavement layers containing recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) materials[J]. Resources, Conser-vation and Recycling, 2022, 180: 106160. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106160
[34]	DIWEKAR U, AMEKUDZI-KENNEDY A, BAKSHI B, et al. A perspective on the role of uncertainty in sustainability science and engineering[J]. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2021, 164: 105140. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105140
[35]	WEIDEMA B P, WESNÆS M S. Data quality management for life cycle inventories-An example of using data quality indicators[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1996, 4(3/4): 167-174.
[36]	AZARIJAFARI H, YAHIA A, AMOR B. Assessing the indivi-dual and combined effects of uncertainty and variability sour-ces in comparative LCA of pavements[J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2018, 23(9): 1888-1902. doi: 10.1007/s11367-017-1400-1
[37]	CAO R J, LENG Z, YU H, et al. Comparative life cycle assessment of warm mix technologies in asphalt rubber pave-ments with uncertainty analysis[J]. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2019, 147: 137-144. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.031
[38]	YU B, WANG S Y, GU X Y. Estimation and uncertainty analysis of energy consumption and CO₂ emission of asphalt pavement maintenance[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 189: 326-333. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.068
[39]	CANTER K G, KENNEDY D J, MONTGOMERY D C, et al. Screening stochastic life cycle assessment inventory models[J]. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2002, 7(1): 18-26. doi: 10.1007/BF02978906

Relative Articles

Supplements(0)

Cited By

Get Citation

PDF

XML

Article Metrics

Article views (11) PDF downloads(1)

Influence of LCA allocation methods on the life cycle carbon emission from roads and uncertainty analysis

doi: 10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2025.05.007

Abstract

References

Catalog

Article Metrics

Related

Influence of LCA allocation methods on the life cycle carbon emission from roads and uncertainty analysis

doi: 10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2025.05.007

Abstract

References

Catalog

Article Metrics

Related

Export File

Citation

Format

Content