Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 1

Sustainable Assessment of Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) Used in

Highway Construction

Jeff Donalson
(Corresponding Author)
Environmental Engineering Student
Department of Environmental Engineering
University of Florida
365 Weil Hall, Post Office Box 116580
Gainesville, Florida 32611-6580
Phone: (863) 287-6873

Raymond Curtis
District Manager
The LANE Construction Corporation
3995 Hwy 60 East
Mulberry, Florida 33860
Phone: (863) 425-8000, Fax: (863) 425-3995

Dr. Fazil T. Najafi

Professor
Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering
University of Florida
365 Weil Hall, Post Office Box 116580
Gainesville, Florida 32611-6580
Phone: (352) 392-9537 Ext. 1493, Fax: (352) 392-3394

Paper is submitted for publication and presentation for the 90th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board in January 2011 in Washington, D.C.

Re-Submission Date: November 15, 2010

Word Count: 6,199 words + 2 figures + 3 tables = 7,449words

Keywords: Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA), highway construction, life cycle assessment,
cost-benefit analysis, lime rock

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 2

ABSTRACT
1
2 Due to the increased volume of construction and demolition wastes deposited in landfills
3 in recent years, the transformation of recycling waste materials into useful products for re-
4 application in highway construction projects is recommended. Approximately 18% to 50% of
5 construction and demolition waste could potentially be reclaimed and reused. Recycled concrete
6 aggregate can be utilized in this fashion when substituted as a roadway base material in highway
7 construction. The sustainability of recycled concrete aggregate used as a base material is
8 currently unknown; therefore, this study determined the sustainability of recycled concrete
9 aggregate when used in highway construction by comparing the environmental, social, and
10 economic impacts of each product. The environmental impact was found to only demonstrate a
11 reduced impact in favor of recycled concrete aggregate in process energy and disposal at -0.01
12 and 0.04 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, respectively. It was determined that both
13 recycled concrete aggregate and virgin lime rock aggregate are socially sustainable products;
14 however, the leachability of recycled concrete aggregate was determined to be less than that of
15 virgin lime rock aggregate. The life-cycle cost analysis, which was completed as if a project
16 were located in Winter Haven, Florida, determined that recycled concrete aggregate was both
17 economically sustainable and feasible for application as a base material in highway construction.
18 As hypothesized, the use of recycled concrete aggregate not only demonstrates sustainable
19 benefits, but also economic feasibility as long as the transportation distance is limited when
20 compared to virgin lime rock aggregate.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 3

1 INTRODUCTION
2
3 The United States Department of Transportation (DOT) has noticed an increase in
4 construction and demolition (C&D) waste deposited in landfills in recent years. As a partial
5 solution to this problem, the DOT recommends the recycling of waste materials into useful
6 products for re-application in highway construction projects (1). In order to reduce the stress on
7 the amount of natural resources used in the construction industry and disposed in landfills,
8 recycling of construction and demolition (C&D) waste in the United States (U.S.) is becoming
9 more common. Approximately 4 million miles (6.4 million km) of highways are currently being
10 replaced every 20 to 40 years. Concrete is the most widely used of all construction material, as
11 approximately 1 ton (0.91 Mg) of concrete is produced per person per year (2, 3). Also,
12 aggregate is the largest component of concrete and its consumption is increasing each year.
13 Approximately 1.3 billion tons (1.2 billion Mg) of natural aggregate is consumed each year in
14 the U.S. construction industry. Further, 58% of the 1.3 billion tons of natural aggregate is used in
15 highway construction as granular base material. Overall, it is becoming more difficult to permit
16 new quarries due to the diminishing supply of virgin aggregate and the increasing cost of virgin
17 aggregate and transportation (3).
18 Recycled concrete aggregate is most frequently used in highway construction as a base
19 material. When concrete aggregate is recycled for the purpose of reuse as a construction
20 material, the product is then renamed recycled concrete aggregate (RCA). According to the
21 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), RCA is a granular material manufactured by
22 removing, crushing, and processing hydraulic-cement concrete pavement for reuse with a
23 hydraulic cementing medium to produce fresh paving concrete (2). RCA can be
24 remanufactured as either coarse or fine aggregate. In 2002, the FHWA declared that the reuse of
25 the materials used to construct the original highway structure is a decision that makes sound
26 economic and environmental sense (4).
27 The use of recycled materials are carefully tested and regulated to ensure that the
28 structural integrity of the product is suitable for each project. Options for managing out-dated
29 concrete pavement include the following possibilities: removal from the site and disposal into a
30 C&D waste landfill; processing it into aggregate for later use in granular base, sub-base, or
31 shoulder construction; processing the concrete pavement into a RCA suitable for use as backfill,
32 granular embankment, or in low-performance asphalt or hydraulic-cement concrete; or
33 processing the concrete pavement into a high quality RCA suitable for use in high-performance
34 asphalt or hydraulic-cement concrete (1, 4). For highway construction, processing the RCA into
35 a high-quality product is essential to uphold strength of material design standards (4).
36 RCA was not commonly used in high performance asphalt or hydraulic-cement concrete
37 construction until many researched works published its effectiveness in recent years as a
38 practical substitute for virgin aggregate. The main difference between RCA and virgin
39 aggregates lies in the amount of cement paste remaining on the surface of the original natural
40 aggregates after the manufacturing process. The accumulation of this cement paste leads to the
41 lower particle density and higher porosity, variations in quality, and higher water absorption of
42 the RCA. The most problematic difference is the accumulation of contaminants, including, but
43 not limited to, glass, rubber, asphalt, bricks and other friable materials within RCA (5). In most
44 highway construction projects, RCA replaces natural aggregates in the form of lime rock, soil-
45 cement and shell.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 4

1 Although the bulk of material in C&D waste is not hazardous, it has been historically
2 misconceived as an inert waste. Misconceptions of C&D waste include minimal environmental
3 impacts and a lack of contaminants such as those found in municipal solid wastes (MSW).
4 However, C&D waste has been proven to undergo very active biological processes within
5 landfills, elevating the degree of pollution within the leachate and landfill gas released. For
6 instance, this biological activity can accelerate the quantity of metals (such as iron) released into
7 the groundwater below a landfill and thus can contaminate the drinking water supply available to
8 that community (6).
9 Florida has a tremendous potential for groundwater pollution in the Floridan aquifer;
10 however, bottom liners are not required in C&D landfills. Only twenty-three states in the United
11 States actually require a C&D landfill bottom liner. In Florida, access to the aquifer is not only
12 directly below the ground surface but also via surface water runoff. Thus, the EPA requires
13 Floridas C&D waste landfills to undergo mandatory groundwater monitoring to ensure that
14 polluted contaminants are not reaching the aquifer via leaching or runoff (6).
15 Although constant advancements in technology limit the possibility for groundwater
16 contamination to occur, it is imperative that the volume of waste entering landfills is reduced by
17 preserving the limited amount of natural resources available. Of approximately 350 to 850
18 million tons (320 to 770 million Mg) of virgin lime rock and other remanufactured concrete
19 materials used in highway construction each year in the U.S., 123 million tons (112 million Mg)
20 of C&D waste is generated and disposed of in landfills. This means that with the
21 implementation of recycled waste, approximately 18% to 50% of the waste could potentially be
22 reclaimed and reused (6, 7).
23 Within this assessment, a cost-benefit analysis of the sustainable use of RCA in
24 replacement of virgin lime rock aggregate (VLA) in Florida highway construction was
25 determined. VLA is comprised of a combination of crushed limestone aggregate and natural
26 sand. The three legs of sustainability (environmental, economic, and social impacts) were
27 collectively analyzed using two separate methods. An economic life-cycle assessment was used
28 to compare the cost effectiveness of RCA versus the virgin lime rock aggregate. Further, a
29 literature review was completed to evaluate the potential environmental and social impacts of
30 RCA. The economic life-cycle cost analysis was adopted from the national Recycled Materials
31 Resource Center (RMRC), and the quantification of each environmental and economic benefit
32 was based on one short ton of material (8). It was anticipated that upon conclusion of this
33 assessment, the use of RCA in a Florida highway construction project would not only be a
34 beneficial option, but also a sustainable option for the respective client only when the distance
35 between the construction project and the crushing operation remains minimal and negligible to
36 the cost of the total project.
37

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 5

1 METHODOLOGY
2
3 Sustainability Review
4
5 Within this study, a collaborative review of environmental, social, and economic impacts
6 of VLA versus RCA was used to identify and determine the sustainable potential of each product
7 as a base material in highway construction. An extensive literature review of several peer-
8 reviewed works was conducted to determine the overall environmental and social impacts of
9 each product from cradle-to-grave. All data will be conservatively estimated to maintain the
10 veracity of an actual highway construction project in Winter Haven, Florida. Further, studies
11 evaluated for environmental impacts include a quantitative life-cycle assessment (LCA)
12 comparison of the relative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a metric ton of carbon dioxide
13 equivalent per short tone of concrete (MTCO2E) adopted from the EPAs Waste Reduction
14 Model (WARM). Studies evaluated for social impacts include the following: a qualitative risk-
15 based assessment of the potential groundwater contamination, which is based on (1) the National
16 Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards regulated by the EPA and (2) the Soil
17 Cleanup Target Levels (SCTL) published in Chapter 62-777, Table II of the Florida
18 Administrative Code (F.A.C.) and regulated by the Florida Department of Environmental
19 Protection (FDEP) (9-11). The economic impacts of VLA and RCA have been evaluated by
20 collecting cost data on the processing, construction, labor, materials, supplies, and transportation
21 costs from the LANE Construction Corporation, located in Mulberry, Florida. Further, the
22 economic impact data will follow a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) approach adopted from the
23 RMRCs User Guidelines for Byproducts and Secondary Use Materials in Pavement
24 Construction (8).
25
26 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
27
28 Environmental Impact
29
30 According to the FHWA, aggregate is the granular material used in concrete mixtures
31 that compose approximately 90 to 95% of the mixture weight and provides a majority of the load
32 bearing characteristics of the applied concrete (12). The aggregate retained on the No. 4 (4.75
33 mm) sieve is known as coarse aggregate, and the material passing the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve is
34 called fine aggregate. Aggregate accounts for a majority of the environmental impacts
35 associated with manufacturing and utilizing concrete and recycled concrete in highway
36 construction. The production of recycled concrete includes an extensive, detailed process that
37 requires precision. Figure 1, adopted from Chapter 5 of the ACI Committee Report, provides the
38 typical production process for RCA (13, 15).
39 The initial step illustrated in Figure 1 involves demolishing the concrete pavement and
40 transporting the material to a processing plant. At the plant, the first initiative is to remove all
41 steel (such as rebar), soil, and other contaminants from the demolished concrete. Next, the
42 concrete is crushed and sized by screens that result in the aggregate product sized to meet the
43 specific gradation requirements. The process of RCA production is identical to VLA production
44 with the exception of the activities for the removal of steel, impurities and contaminants. The
45 disposal tipping fees and demolition costs of the concrete aggregate and other unwanted
46 constituents are typically included in the raw material costs (4).

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 6

1 The extensive separation, crushing, and screening processes illustrated in Figure 1

2 represent the concern for removal of contaminants and foreign materials that exist in the virgin
3 and recycled aggregate particles. The major contaminants found in RCA are plastics, wood, and
4 paper; however, metals have also been found in RCA material. It is essential to reduce the
5 amount of these contaminants in concrete aggregate before it is reused for highway construction
6 or disposed of in a local C&D landfill (13). Thus, waste disposal is a vital environmental impact
7 associated with the use of aggregates in highway construction.
8
DEMOLITION FINAL TRANSPORTATION
Selective demolition to reduce individual fragments of broken &
concrete to a maximum of 40 to 70 mm
RE-APPLICATION

Separate storage of concrete, brick, rubble, and mixed FRACTION OF CONCRETE

demolition debris which is heavily contaminated with
wood, iron, plastics, and gypsum
DEMOLITION WASTE AND BRICK
RUBBLE < 40mm

MANUAL OR MECHANICAL WASHING, SCREENING, OR AIR-

PRE-SEPARATION SIFTING
Removal of large pieces of wood, iron, paper, plastics, etc Removal of remaining contaminants such as plastics, paper,
d d

PRIMARY SCREENING SECONDARY

Removal of all minus 10mm fine material such as soil,
gypsum, etc
CRUSHING

PRIMARY MANUAL OR MECHANICAL REMOVAL OF

REMAINING CONTAMINANTS
Removal of lightweight material such as plastics, paper, and
CRUSHING wood

MAGNETIC SEPARATION SECONDARY

Removal of remaining ferrous matter
9 SCREENING
10 FIGURE 1 Typical Crushing Plant Process & Procedure for Concrete
11 Aggregate
12 The typical concrete crushing procedure includes demolition, primary and secondary separation, primary and
13 secondary crushing, primary and secondary screening, and washing. The process proceeds in order from
14 demolition to secondary screening.
15
16 Figure 2 demonstrates the screening equipment used to separate the fine and coarse material in
17 the recycling process of demolished concrete. In this step all fine material less than 0.39 inches
18 (10 mm), such as soil or gypsum, is typically removed from the crushed concrete. Further, the
19 final product for RCA contains a large amount of fine material.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 7

1
2 FIGURE 2 Primary Screening Equipment
3 The screening equipment shown above is used at JVS Contracting in Bartow, Florida, in
4 the primary screening process to remove foreign objects such as paper, plastics, wood
5 and metal from the crushed concrete.
6
7 A quantitative comparison of the environmental impacts associated with the use of VLA
8 versus RCA in highway construction is shown in Table 1 below. This quantitative analysis was
9 compared by utilizing the EPAs Waste Reduction Model (WARM). WARM estimates the
10 carbon footprint as a GHG equivalent of recycling concrete aggregate as opposed to disposing it
11 in a landfill. WARM also analyzes the GHG emission sources and sinks, including, but not
12 limited to, the raw material and transportation stages of concretes life cycle. The net GHG
13 emission is then calculated as MTCO2E. A positive MTCO2E value represents increased GHG
14 emissions, while a negative MTCO2E represents reduced GHG emissions. Further, GHG
15 emissions associated with raw materials acquisition and manufacturing (RMAM) are (1) GHG
16 emissions from energy used during the acquisition and manufacturing processes, (2) GHG
17 emissions from energy used to transport raw materials, and (3) non-energy GHG emissions
18 resulting from manufacturing processes. For the recycling emission factor, WARM compares
19 the impact of producing aggregate from recycled concrete to the impact of producing virgin
20 aggregate. (14)
21 In WARM, the benefits of recycling are calculated by comparing the difference between
22 the emissions associated with producing one short ton of RCA and the emissions from producing
23 one short ton of VLA. Non-energy emissions were considered negligent and, thus, are
24 considered to be zero for both RCA and VLA. Three significant steps were used to calculate
25 MTCO2E for both RCA and VLA. First, the MTCO2E of RCA is calculated from the
26 combustion of fossil fuels for both process energy, which includes the energy required for
27 extracting and processing the raw material, and transportation energy. Second, the MTCO2E is
28 calculated for the production of recycled aggregate. Finally, the difference in MTCO2E between
29 VLA and RCA production is calculated. The results for these environmental impacts of VLA

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 8

1 versus RCA are shown in Table 1a for process energy and transportation energy and Table 1b for
2 the disposal of concrete (14).
3 Table 1a demonstrates that the process energy and transportation energy stages
4 demonstrate a beneficial environmental impact for RCA. Further, the total difference in RCA
5 versus VLA (for one short ton of material) represents -0.01 MTCO2E in favor of RCA. The
6 favorable environmental impact associated with RCA is wholly represented by the process
7 energy stage of concretes life cycle (14).
8 Table 1b shows the environmental impacts associated with the disposal of concrete.
9 According to WARM, approximately 0.04 MTCO2E is spent when concrete is disposed of in a
10 landfill. Comparatively, no carbon is stored when demolished concrete is converted to RCA and
11 diverted from disposal into a landfill. It is noteworthy to mention that the carbon storage when
12 concrete is deposited in a landfill is difficult to quantify and considered to be beyond the scope
13 of WARM. Therefore, WARM only counts the transportation of concrete to a landfill and
14 operation of landfill equipment result in anthropogenic CO2 emissions due to the combustion of
15 fossil fuels in the vehicles used to haul and move the wastes (14).
16
17 TABLE 1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of VLA versus RCA
18 (Table 1a: Process Energy and Transportation Energy)
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Total
Material/Product Process Energy Transportation Energy (d = b + c)
RCA 0.00 0.01 0.01
VLA 0.01 0.01 0.02
TOTAL (RCA VLA) -0.01 0.00 -0.01
19
20 (Table 1b: Landfill Emissions)
Material/Product RMAM Transportation Landfill CH41 Avoided Landfill Carbon Net Emissions
(Current Mix of to Landfill Emissions from Sequestration1 (Post-
Inputs)1 Energy Consumer)
Recovery1
Concrete - 0.04 - - - 0.04
21 1
- = Zero Emissions
22
23 Social Impact
24
25 Although the upper layers of highway pavement exposed to the atmosphere prevent most
26 of the vertical, permeable flow to the base and sub-base layers unless failures in the structure
27 occur, the base material in highway construction frequently is exposed to the saturated vadose
28 zone beneath the roadway and within the upper portion of the groundwater table. In Florida, the
29 vadose zone can be a partitioning agent transferring any chemical constituents that inhabit
30 construction materials from its host material directly to the local groundwater (drinking water)
31 supply. Further, the process of partitioning chemicals from a solid to an aqueous phase in the
32 environment is often termed leaching, because the constituents are drawn out or leached from
33 the host material into the surrounding environment (15, 16).
34 Therefore, in order to determine the social impacts of RCA used in highway construction,
35 the release of these harmful chemical constituents through leaching was evaluated. This
36 evaluation was performed by comparing multiple literature works which test the leaching ability
37 (leachability) of natural and recycled concrete aggregate. Overall, the results indicate that RCA

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 9

1 is not only an environmentally sustainable product when compared to VLA, but is also a socially
2 sustainable product (15, 16).
3 The leachability of un-reactive ions observed by Sani et al concluded that the presence of
4 RCA increases the leachability of un-reactive ions, such as sodium, potassium, and chloride
5 (NA, K, Cl). However, the leachability of RCA for calcium (Ca) resulted in lower net leaching
6 than VLA. In the study by Sani et al, the leachability of each product was assessed by means of
7 a dynamic leaching test, in which solidified cubes were immersed in aqueous solutions.
8 Further, it was also determined that the use of RCA as a structurally competent material in
9 replacement of VLA causes an increase in the total porosity. This increased porosity may
10 contribute to the lower ion leaching rate of calcium in RCA (15).
11 Engelsen et al evaluated the leaching characteristics of several types of RCA when
12 dependent upon pH. This study represents the variability of exposure on a highway base
13 material from vehicular pollutants and solid and liquid hazardous spills associated with routine
14 traffic. In the case of a failure in the highway material structure, the sub-layers would be
15 exposed to the petroleum, plastics, metallic, and wood-based contaminants available on the
16 surface of the roadway. The variability of these factors could result in a significant variability in
17 pH as local groundwater, surface water and storm water comprise of both acidic and basic pH
18 levels. Therefore, the leachability of certain chemicals could possibly have a significant
19 dependence on pH, especially in the presence of a strong alkaline material, such as concrete (16).
20 Engelsen et al focused their study on six major elements: aluminum (Al), calcium (Ca),
21 iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), silicon (Si), and sulfur (S) as SO42-. Leachability was tested for each
22 of the previously listed elements and molecules in the range of the entire pH spectrum. The
23 leachability of each constituent was directly influenced by the acid neutralization of the host
24 material (i.e., RCA or VLA). Thus, RCA had an overall higher tendency to retain the element
25 and limit leachability when compared to VLA (15). Results for leachability of Ca in this study
26 were also limited, which was also similar to the results in the study completed by Sani et al (15).
27 However, trace amounts of leachate for all elements were recorded in both studies evaluated
28 (16).
29 It is significant to note that although RCA leaches less harmful and less toxic amounts of
30 chemicals than VLA, the actual amount of constituent reaching the groundwater is negligible
31 when compared to the groundwater contamination limits of the EPA for potable drinking water
32 (9-11, 16). For instance, Table 2 demonstrates threshold limits for the elements evaluated in this
33 study from both (1) the National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards regulated by
34 the EPA and (2) the Soil Cleanup Target Levels (SCTL) published in Chapter 62-777, Table II
35 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) and regulated by the Florida Department of
36 Environmental Protection (FDEP) (9-11). The listed regulations represent the maximum
37 allowable and enforced Leachability limits for each contaminant as set by the EPA and FDEP.
38 Each limit is based on the human health risk associated with exposure to the corresponding
39 contaminant. Calcium, magnesium, and silicon are not enforced under these regulations because
40 large quantities of either of these contaminants pose no water quality or human health risks to the
41 surrounding environment (16).
42 As shown in Table 2, both aluminum and iron require either the Synthetic Precipitation
43 Leaching Procedure (SPLP) test or the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test
44 to be performed to grade the degree of contaminated precipitation which will leach through the
45 sampled soil and mobilize into the groundwater. For highway road base construction purposes,
46 the SPLP Test is more applicable than the TCLP test (16-18).

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 10

1 The purpose of the TCLP test is to determine and identify the mobility of both organic
2 and inorganic analytes present in liquid, solid, and multiphasic wastes (17). The TCLP test
3 simulates landfill conditions and measures the percolation of liquids through a waste in the
4 presence of an acidic solution. If a waste fails the TCLP test for any listed compound, the waste
5 is considered a characteristic hazardous waste and may pose environmental and human health
6 risks to the surrounding environment. A waste that fails the TCLP test is deemed a characteristic
7 hazardous waste and is either listed in the code of federal regulations (40 CFR 261, Table 1) or
8 will exhibit one of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity
9 (17, 18).
10 The purpose of the SPLP test is to determine and identify the mobility of both organic
11 and inorganic analytes present in liquids, soils, and wastes (17). The SPLP is normally applied
12 to soil samples in which leaching can cause contaminants to migrate into the groundwater
13 supply. Similar to the TCLP test, a sample which fails the SPLP test is deemed a hazardous
14 waste and the aggregate sample shall not be applied to the project area (17, 18).
15
16 TABLE 2 Leachability Thresholds set by the EPA and FDEP on Leachable Elements
17 within Concrete Aggregate
SCTL Leachability
SCTL Residential Secondary Drinking
based on Human Health
Contaminant Direct Exposure Water Standard
Groundwater Criteria Risk
Threshold (mg/kg) (mg/L)
(mg/kg)
Al 80,000 SPLP or TCLP** 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L Body Weight
Ca NR* NR* NR* No Risk
Mg NR* NR* NR* No Risk
Si NR* NR* NR* No Risk
Fe 53,000 SPLP or TCLP** 0.3 mg/L Gastrointestinal
S as SO42- NR NR 250 mg/L Aesthetic, Odor
18 NR: Not regulated under the listed regulation.
19 ** Leachability values may be derived using the SPLP test to calculate site-specific SCTLs or may be determined
20 using TCLP in the event oily wastes are present.
21
22 Upon evaluating the ability of RCA and VLA to leach reactive and un-reactive chemicals
23 into the groundwater by comparing the studies of Sani et al and Engelsen et al and utilizing
24 Table 2, the use of RCA in replacement of VLA in highway construction is sustainable to the
25 social environment (15, 16).
26
27 Economic Impact
28
29 The economic analysis follows a life-cycle cost analysis adopted from the RMRCs User
30 Guidelines for Byproducts and Secondary Use Materials in Pavement Construction. This
31 approach focuses on three specific costs of interest when evaluating the cost of using a recycled
32 material in highway construction projects. The three cost categories include: (1) the cost of the
33 material, (2) the cost of installation, and (3) the life-cycle cost of the pavement when using the
34 material. Table 3 demonstrates the cost-benefit relationship between RCA and VLA within the
35 defined cost categories (8).
36

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 11

1 Cost of Material
2
3 In this case, the cost of material includes, but is not limited to, the cost that the purchaser
4 would pay to have the concrete aggregate delivered to a project site. The cost of material can
5 then be identified as the delivered price (DP). The delivered price (DP) is the accumulated sum
6 of the following items: the price of the raw material (RM), cost of processing (PR), cost of
7 stockpiling (ST), cost of loading (LD), cost of transporting (TR), and profit (P). Equation 1
8 below illustrates the collective ingredients involved with the cost of material (8).
9
10 DP = RM + PR + ST + LD + TR + P (1)
11
12 When performing an evaluation of Equation 1, it is important to clearly identify all
13 parameters associated with the equation. The price of raw material (RM) simply includes the
14 cost or value of the unprocessed material and is determined by the supplier. In this case, the
15 disposal tipping fees and demolition costs of the concrete aggregate would be included in raw
16 material costs. The cost of processing the material includes the costs associated with
17 manufacturing the product. For instance, primary and secondary separation, crushing, screening
18 and drying would be included in the processing costs for RCA. After processing occurs, the
19 length of time in which the product is stored or stockpiled (ST) until it can be utilized in a
20 construction project represents ST. The cost of loading (LD) is the cost to the purchaser for
21 delivery of the product. The distance required for delivery and the type of haul vehicle involved
22 makes up TR. Transportation costs (TR) can frequently represent a significant part of the overall
23 DP. Profit (P) can be determined in two different ways. The seller can either add P to the cost of
24 delivery or discount RM. In Table 3, P was in addition to the cost of delivery (8).
25 It is important to note that for RCA, concrete products are delivered free of cost to the
26 crushing source within the chosen project area. Therefore, the RM for RCA is negligible and is,
27 thus, considered zero. Further, it is also important to notice that PR, ST, and LD for both RCA
28 and VLA are equal in price. This is because the processing procedures for each product are very
29 similar and demonstrate negligible variance. Although the margin of RCA to VLA for P is six to
30 one, the most significant difference in DP is TR. Table 3 shows that because RCA is typically
31 only used when the processing plant is in close proximity to the project site, TR for RCA is
32 much less than for VLA. In this study, to have VLA delivered to the project site would require
33 an extra 30 miles of transportation expenses over RCA. The total DP for RCA in Table 3 is
34 $12.75 per ton compared with $13.20 per ton for VLA. Therefore, a slight benefit in RM is
35 experienced when applying RCA instead of VLA in highway construction if the project is within
36 close proximity to the crushing plant (8).
37
38 Cost of Installation
39
40 The cost of installation (CI), which includes the cost of design, construction and testing,
41 is significant to the life-cycle cost when the cost of using the recycled material differs from the
42 conventional material cost. Accordingly, the cost of installation is significant in this case. The
43 cost associated for design of application (DR), cost for construction (CC), and cost of testing
44 (RP) are equally summed to quantify CI. Therefore, CI was calculated as shown in Equation 2.
45 In Table 3, the overall CI associated with the installation of aggregate material in highway
46 construction revealed a benefit of $1.05 per ton of RCA used as a replacement to VLA (8).

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 12

1
2 CI = DR + CC + RP (2)
3
4 The cost for design of application (DR) can be allotted to the specific amount of time and
5 effort involved in the design. In this case, DR represents the specific amount of time and effort
6 involved in designing the base of the structure. In this location, DR for both recycled and
7 conventional materials is negligible assuming all materials are pre-approved for use (8).
8 The construction costs (CC) represent the procedures and activities that occur during the
9 installation of either the recycled or conventional aggregate product. For instance, the recycled
10 material could result in higher CC if special procedures, such as preparation or compaction, are
11 required during installation. In this case, CC was $3.75 per ton of RCA compared with $4.50 per
12 ton of VLA, inferring that the required installation of RCA is less complicated than VLA (8).
13 The cost of testing (RP) involves any subsequent testing costs associated with the
14 aggregate product. In Table 3, it is evident that RCA has less stringent requirements associated
15 with RP over VLA prior to application. In this case, RP differed from $0.70 per ton of RCA to
16 $1.00 per ton of VLA, for an overall benefit of $0.30 per ton of RCA used as a replacement to
17 VLA (8).
18
19 Life-Cycle Cost
20
21 When either the annual maintenance costs or length of product life differs, a life-cycle
22 cost analysis (LCCA) is necessary to determine an accurate cost-benefit comparison of recycled
23 versus conventional aggregate used in highway construction. The approach derived from the
24 RMRC is one of many different life-cycle cost approaches and focuses on the calculation of an
25 annual effective cost (EC) resulting from the application of the respective aggregate. The EC
26 calculation, shown in Equation 3, includes the annual maintenance cost (AM) plus an adjusted
27 installation cost. The capital recovery factor (CRF) is determined as a function of a fixed interest
28 rate (i) and product life (n) in years. The calculated CRF, demonstrated in Equation 4 below,
29 used a fixed interest rate of 8% as i and a product life of 10 years as n, for both RCA and VLA.
30 The CRF for RCA and VLA in Table 3 were calculated as $0.15 per ton of aggregate. The
31 annual maintenance costs (AM) were considered $1.00 per ton of aggregate for both materials to
32 maintain a conservative estimate. Although the value of n for RCA and VLA were not
33 considered to be different, the LCCA was determined to complete the overall economic
34 assessment (8).
35
36 EC = CI*(CRF) + AM (3)
37
38 CRF = (i (1 + i) n)/ ((1 + i) n 1) (4)
39

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 13

1 TABLE 3 Comparisons of Economic Impacts of Virgin Limerock Aggregate versus RCA in

2 Highway Construction
Recycled Concreted Virgin Limerock
Aggregate Aggregate
($USD per ton of aggregate) ($USD per ton of aggregate)
COST OF MATERIAL
Delivered Price (DP) 12.75 13.20
Price of Raw Material, F.O.B. (RM) 0.00 2.00
Cost of Processing the Material (PR) 3.00 3.00
Cost of Stockpiling the Material (ST) 0.50 0.50
Cost of Loading the Material (LD) 0.50 0.50
Cost of Transporting the Material (TR) 2.75 6.00
Profit (P) 6.00 1.20

COST OF INSTALLATION

Cost for Design of Application with Material (DR) 0.00 0.00

Cost for Construction with Material (CC) 3.75 4.50

Cost of Testing and Inspection for Proposed
Application (RP) 0.70 1.00

Sub-Total Cost of Installation (CI) 4.45 5.50

LIFE-CYCLE COST
Annual Effective Cost (EC) 1.66 1.82
Cost of Installation (CI) 4.45 5.50
Capital Revovery Factor (CRF) 0.15 0.15
Annual Maintenance Cost (AM) 1.00 1.00
3
4 As shown in Table 3, there is an economic incentive to use RCA as a replacement for
5 VLA in highway base construction as DP, CI, and EC all exhibit a reduction in cost per ton of
6 aggregate. Specifically, the cost of DP, CI, and EC is $0.45, $1.05, and $0.16 per ton of
7 aggregate less expensive, respectively, when using RCA as a replacement for VLA in highway
8 base construction. Therefore, the use of RCA in highway base construction in Winter Haven,
9 Florida, is both economically sustainable and feasible (8).
10
11 CONCLUSION
12
13 The use of recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) as a replacement for virgin lime rock
14 aggregate (VLA) in Florida highway base construction displayed limited impacts in the
15 environmental, social, and economic categories. Thus, the use of RCA in Florida highway
16 construction is deemed sustainable for the application of a base material. As hypothesized, the
17 use of RCA not only demonstrates sustainable benefits, but is also economically feasible as long
18 as the transportation distance is limited when compared to VLA (19).

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 14

1 The environmental impact of RCA versus VLA was found to be favorable in the
2 extraction of raw materials, calculating -0.01 MTCO2E. Further, the environmental impact
3 associated with transportation energy was found to be negligent, calculating 0.01 MTCO2E for
4 both RCA and VLA when the same distance was traveled. The environmental impact associated
5 with disposing concrete into a landfill was 0.04 MTCO2E, implying that recycling concrete is
6 more beneficial when diverted from a landfill. Overall, the total environmental impact of RCA
7 versus VLA demonstrates that RCA is a favorable option over VLA in the production of
8 concrete aggregate (14).
9 Upon reviewing the leachability of a selected array of elements contained in concrete
10 aggregate, it was determined that both RCA and VLA are socially sustainable products;
11 however, the leachability of RCA was determined to be less than that of VLA according to both
12 Sani et al and Engelsen et al. Therefore, it was expected that both RCA and VLA would be
13 deemed socially sustainable (15, 16).
14 The life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) completed for a project located in Winter Haven,
15 Florida, determined that RCA was both economically sustainable and feasible for application as
16 a base material in highway construction. All three categories of the LCCA proved to be
17 beneficial in favor of RCA over VLA. When calculating the cost of material, the cost of
18 transporting the material was the determining factor of the calculation (8).
19 As markets differ through time, it is necessary to re-evaluate this assessment as
20 frequently as possible. It is possible that the use of RCA over time could become the only viable
21 option, as the amount of available natural resources continues to diminish. Further, cradle-to-
22 grave qualitative and quantitative assessments on recycled road construction materials are
23 essential factors in making intelligent decisions in sustainable highway construction applications
24 (19, 20).
25
26 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
27
28 This work was supported by the fees paid to the University of Florida, Department of
29 Civil and Coastal Engineering by the taxpayers of the State of Florida. Censtate Contractors,
30 Inc. and JVS Contracting, Inc. provided information for this study.
31
32 REFERENCES
33
34 1. Schroeder, R. A. The Use of Recycled Materials in Highway Construction. FHWA, Vol.
35 58, No. 2, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2004.
36 2. Marinkovix, S., V. Radonjanin, M. Malesev, I. Ignjatovic. Comparative Enivronmental
37 Assessment of Natural and Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Waste Management. 2010, pp
38 1-10.
39 3. Carpenter, A. C., K. H. Garner, J. Fopiano, C. H. Bensen, T.B. Edil. Life Cycle Based
40 Risk Assessment of Recycled Materials in Roadway Construction. Waste Management.
41 Vol. 27, 2007, pp.1458-1464.
42 4. Gee, KK. W. Use of Recycled Concrete Pavement as Aggregate in Hydraulic-Cement
43 Concrete Pavement. FHWA Publication-T 5040.37. U.S. Department of Transportation,
44 2007.
45 5. Paranavithana, S., A. Mohajerani. Effects of Recycled Concrete Aggregates on Properties
46 of Asphalt Concrete. Resource Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 48, 2006, pp.1-12.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 15

1 6. Jambeck, J. R., T. G. Townsend, H. M. Solo-Gabriele. Landfill Disposal of CCA-Treated

2 Wood with Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris; Arsenic, Chromium, and Copper
3 Concentrations in Leachate. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol.42, 2008, pp.
4 5740-5745.
5 7. Mongon, A. Paving the Way to Recycled Roads. Dartmouth Engineer: Thayer School of
6 Engineering at Dartmouth, 2007. www.dartmouthengineer.com/2007/05/paving-the-way-
7 to-recycled-roads/. Accessed May 26, 2010.
8 8. User Guidelines for Byproducts and Secondary Use Materials in Pavement Construction:
9 Evaluation Guidance, Cost Issues. Recycled Material Resource Center.
10 www.recycledmaterials.org/tools/uguidelines/cost.asp. Accessed May 26, 2010.
11 9. National Primary Drinking Water Standards. United States Environmental Protection
12 Agency. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
13 idx?c=ecfr&sid=2f9f06e36cc38f40750d79229123704c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:
14 22.0.1.1.3&idno=40. Accessed June 4, 2010.
15 10. National Secondary Drinking Water Standards. United States Environmental Protection
16 Agency. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
17 idx?c=ecfr&sid=2f9f06e36cc38f40750d79229123704c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:
18 22.0.1.1.5&idno=40. Accessed June 4, 2010.
19 11. Soil Cleanup Target Levels. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
20 www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/rules/documents/62-777/TableIISoilCTLs4-17-
21 05.pdf. Accessed May 26, 2010.
22 12. Heinz, R. E. Asphalt Concrete Mix Design and Field Control. FHWA Publication-T
23 5040.27. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1988.
24 13. Lamond, J. F. Removal and Reuse of Hardened Concrete. American Concrete Institute
25 (ACI) Committee 555. ACI 555R-01, Chapter 5, 2001, pp. 18-24.
26 14. EPA. Waste Reduction Model Documentation: Concrete Chapter.
27 http://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/epalink?logname=allsearch&referrer=recycled concrete
28 aggregate|2|All&target=http://www.epa.gov/climate/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloa
29 ds/concrete-chapter10-28-10.pdf.
30 15. Sani, D., G. Moriconi, G. Fava, V. Corinaldesi. Leaching and Mechanical Behavior of
31 Concrete Manufactured with Recycled Aggregates. Waste Management. Vol. 25, 2005,
32 pp. 177-182.
33 16. Engelsen, C. J., H. A. Van der Sloot, G. Wibetoe, G. Petkovic, E. Stoltenberg-Hansson,
34 W. Lund. Release of Major Elements from Recycled Concrete Aggregates and
35 Geochemical Modelling. Cement and Concrete Research. Vol. 39, 2009, pp.446-459.
36 17. TCLP: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure and Characteristic Hazardous
37 Wastes. EHSO: Hazardous Waste Fact Sheet. www.EHSO.com. Accessed July 3, 2010.
38 18. Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure. United States Environmental Protection
39 Agency: Method 1312, 1994. http://www.caslab.com/EPA-Methods/PDF/EPA-Method-
40 1312.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2010.
41 19. Lee, J. C., T. B. Edil, J. M. Tinjum, C. H. Bensen. Qualitative Assessment of
42 Environmental and Economic Benefits of Using Recycled Construction Materials in
43 Highway Construction. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
44 Transportation Research Board, No. 2505, Transportation Research Board of the
45 National Academies, Washington, D.C. 2009, pp. 1-11.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Donalson, Curtis, Najafi 16

1 20. Chowdhury, R., D. Apul, T. Fry. A Life Cycle Based Environmental Impacts Assessment
2 of Construction Materials Used in Road Construction. Resources, Conservation and
3 Recycling. Vol. 54, 2010, pp.250-255.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.