Recycled Materials Resource Center /University of Wisconsin-Madison

Building Environmentally and Economically Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure-Highways

(BE2ST In-Highways)A Rating System for Sustainable Highway Construction & Rehabilitation

by

Tuncer B. Edil, Ph.D, PE, D.GE, F.ASCE.

Presentation Outline

Motivation / Objectives

System Design Process

Project & System Improvement

Case Study

Conclusion

Introduction of the BE2ST In-Highway program

Questions & Comments

Motivations

Increasing demands for C & M of highway - Public spending: $74bn(1994) to $120bn(2004) (CBO 2007)

Global warming profoundly impacting our planet- Constructing and maintaining highway for 50yrs produce

865 Mg of CO2 / 4 lanes - km (Lee et al 2010)

Sustainable development is a practical goal- Prelim research results support this possibility- Accomplished by Triple Bottom Line (Elkington 1998)

F - E - SR = TBLParadigm Shift

(Mendler and Odell 2000)More recycling = Less emission!

System Design Improvement Case study ConclusionIntroduction

Problem Statement

Limited research available on sustainable highway construction.Limitations of other approaches to green rating systems.

1. Lack of transparency and objectiveness• No logical connection btw. purposes & surrounding factors• Lack of quantifiable sustainability metrics

2. Lack of standardized methods of measurement• Quantitative impact on meeting environmental target is not known• Point system may lead to “point mongering”

3. No consideration of project/system improvement

System Design Improvement Case study ConclusionIntroduction

Objectives

A rating system with standardized

measurement methods

System resilience

- Incremental project improvement

- Continual system improvement

System Design Improvement Case study ConclusionIntroduction

Transparency & Objectiveness by systematic approaches

- Criteria selection & weighting- Evaluation of trade-offs- Measuring quantitative impact

GreenHighway

GHG Emission(24% reduction)

Water consumption /Noise Production(10% reduction)

Energy Use(10% reduction)

Material Reuse/Recycling(20% of CWD)

Human Health / Safety(10% less hazardous

waste)

Life Cycle Cost(10% reduction)

PromoteHuman

Health / SafetyLife Cycle Cost

BenefitMitigate

Environmental Burden

System Design: The Big Picture

System Design Improvement Case studyIntroduction Conclusion

System Design: Criteria Selection

• Literature Reviewed• Communication with user group

Big Picture

Kibert (2002)Reduce resource consumptionMaximum reuse and recyclingProtect natural system / eliminate toxicity

Gambatese (2005)3Rs (Reuse, Reserve, and Recycle)Reduce energy, waste, emission, and noiseWorkers’ safety

Toleman (2008) Full social costs and pricingReduction of traffic noiseZero emission to air and water No death or injuryUses fully renewable energy

Evaluationwith

stakeholders

System Design Improvement Case studyIntroduction Conclusion

System Design: System Boundary

System boundary: material selection related issues

Surroundings

ReduceEnergy Use

Regulation & Codes

ReduceGWP

CostVariations

Community Cohesion

AestheticAspect

Traffic Improvement

PovertyChange

Walking& Cycling Condition

Human Health

Alignment

Selection

Water

Consumption

System

?

Traffic Noise

?

Stormwater

Management

PromoteReuse &Recycle

System Design Improvement Case studyIntroduction Conclusion

System Design: Set up Target

GWP: construction industry can take one stabilization wedge

Pacala and Socolow (2004)

To accomplish this goal, highway construction area should reduce 24% of current CO2 emission level.

System Design Improvement Case studyIntroduction Conclusion

System Design

Structure of the System

* Laws, local ordinances, and quality requirement** Preservation of historic site and schedule requirement

System Design Improvement Case studyIntroduction Conclusion

System Design

Main Criteria Sub-criteria Target Intention

Environment

GWP • 12% reduction (1pt) • 24% (2pts)

Contribute to keeping GWP under the

current level

Energy use • 5% reduction (1pt)• 10% (2pts)

10% reduction is a practical goal

Water consumption

• 5% reduction (1pt)• 10% (2pts)

Reduce the waste to landfill

Recycling content

• More than 10% (1)• More than 20% (2)

Reduce resource mining /waste landfilling

Hazardous waste

• 5% reduction (1pt)• 10% (2pts)

Hazard free highwayconstruction

Economic LCCA • 5% saving (1pt)• 10% saving (2pts)

Rethinking construction (Egan 1998)

Judgment layer: Environmental indicator

System Design Improvement Case studyIntroduction Conclusion

System Design

Analytical Hierarchy Process

(Saaty 1980)

IRI (M-EPDG)LCA(PaLATE)LCCA(RealCost)TNM BMPs Lab Test

Fuzzy Logic

Methodologies

System Design Improvement Case studyIntroduction Conclusion

LiteratureReviewBench-markingConsensus

Decision of

CriteriaNormalizationPerformance

SimulationCriteria /

Target valueCriteria

SelectionCriteria

WeightingPerformance

metricsNormalization

of result

System Design

Procedure of Rating(1) Assume Pavement

Configuration

(2) Structural Modeling(Predict Service Life)

(3) Rehabilitation Strategy

(4) Performance simulation

(5) Score and AMEOBA

(6) Final Design & Labeling

System Design Improvement Case studyIntroduction Conclusion

Improvement

Adaptation

Project Improvement

AMOEBA (Bell and Morse 1999)General Method for Ecosystem Description and Assessment

Getting closer to the circle: progressing in a sustainable way

00.5

11.5

2GWP

Energy

Health and Safety

RecyclingWater

LCC

Traffic Noise

RPM + 15% Fly Ash

System Design Case studyIntroduction ConclusionImprovement

Establish Goal

Indicator Selection

Monitor Progress

Establish Context

Adjustment of target values

System expansion orconnection with other

system

Identify potential indicators

Monitoring improvement

System Improvement(Adaptive Learning Process)

5% Reduction 10%

System Design Case studyIntroduction ConclusionImprovement

System Improvement(examples)

System Design Case studyIntroduction ConclusionImprovement

Additional criteriaSocial Carbon Cost (SCC): award if SCC saving exceeds average annual salary Traffic noise mitigation: award if more efforts were made (e.g., OGFC, SMA)

Voluntary efforts (award pride stickers)

Aesthetic qualityProtection of wild animal habitatRenewable energy based operation

Case Study

Pilot Project

System Design Case studyIntroduction ConclusionImprovement

Project name: Burlington bypass

Length: 4.7 km

Case Study(Burlington Bypass)

Step 1: Assume Pavement Configuration

Reference (Current) Design* Alternative (Proposed) Design

System Design Case studyIntroduction ConclusionImprovement

* Reference Design: conventional design concept, no innovative ideas are considered.

Predicted Service Life(Reference: 29yrs, Proposed: 32yrs)

Step 2nd: Service Life

Service Life

020406080

100120140160180200

0 66 132 198 264 330 396

Pavement Age (month)

IRI (

in/m

i)

Design Limit

IRI(Reference)

IRI(Proposed)

Case Study(Burlington Bypass)

System Design Case studyIntroduction ConclusionImprovement

Performance curve vs. Rehabilitation strategy

Step 3rd: Rehabilitation Strategy

Case Study(Burlington Bypass)

System Design Case studyIntroduction ConclusionImprovement

Step 4: Performance Simulation

System Design Case studyIntroduction ConclusionImprovement

Case Study(Burlington Bypass)

0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,500

Reference Proposed

CO

2 (M

g)Life Cycle CO2 Emissions and Global Warming

PotentialProcesses (Equipment)Materials TransportationMaterials Production

LCA result (CO2 emission) : 32% reduction

Step 5: Score card of Burlington Bypass

SubCriteria

Reference Alternative DesignPerform

-anceGenericSurface: RAP 15% +RAS 5%

Base: RPM+15%FASubbase: FS

GWP (CO2) 4,064Mg 2,768Mg 32% Reduction

Energy 72,474GJ 52,531MJ 28% Reduction

Hazardous Waste 669Mg 500Mg 25% Reduction

Water Consumption 18,064L 12,839L 29% Reduction

Life Cycle Cost $9,055,140 $7,115,610 23% Reduction

Recycling Content 0 92% 92% more

Total 100 /100(Green Highway Gold)

System Design Case studyIntroduction ConclusionImprovement

Case Study(Burlington Bypass)

Conclusion

Problem Statement1. Limited research available2. Lack of transparency &

objectiveness3. Lack of standardized

measurement method4. Lack of consideration of

project & system improvement

Research Results1. Green Highway Rating System2. Transparency & objectiveness

by System Approach & AHP3. Standardized methods:

BE2ST In-Highways4. Continual improvement by

AMOEBA and ALP

Expected Contribution1. More beneficial use of recycled material & industrial byproducts2. Less environmental and social burden due to highway construction3. LCC benefits for agency and contractors4. Build green image and reputation of project participants

System Design Case studyIntroduction ConclusionImprovement

An Excel based program

System Design Case studyIntroduction ConclusionImprovement

Building Environmentally and Economically Sustainable

Transportation Infrastructure-Highway(BEST In‐Highway)

T r e e

T r e e

T r e e

T r e e

T r e e

T r e e

T r e e

W i s c o n s i n G r e e n H i g h w a y

P a r k

Feature of the BE2ST In-Highway program• Weighting (3 options) : AHP program (BE2ST In-Highway)

• Prediction of service life : M-EPDG (FWHA)

• Performance simulation : PaLATE (RMRC), RealCost (FWHA),

TNM-Outlook (FWHA), BMPs (BE2ST In-Highway)

• Score summary and labeling : BE2ST In-Highway

Recycled Materials Resource Center /University of Wisconsin-Madison