Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/129343
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRafiq, Waqas-
dc.contributor.authorMusarat, Muhammad Ali-
dc.contributor.authorAltaf, Muhammad-
dc.contributor.authorNapiah, Madzlan-
dc.contributor.authorSutanto, Muslich Hartadi-
dc.contributor.authorAlaloul, Wesam Salah-
dc.contributor.authorJaved, Muhammad Faisal-
dc.contributor.authorMosavi, Amir-
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-27T08:50:59Z-
dc.date.available2024-11-27T08:50:59Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationRafiq, W., Musarat, M. A., Altaf, M., Napiah, M., Sutanto, M. H., Alaloul, W. S., ... & Mosavi, A. (2021). Life cycle cost analysis comparison of hot mix asphalt and reclaimed asphalt pavement: A case study. Sustainability, 13(8), 4411.en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/129343-
dc.description.abstractIn the construction and maintenance of asphalt pavement, reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is being widely used as a cheaper alternative to the conventional hot mix asphalt (HMA). HMA incorporated with a high RAP content (e.g., 40%), which is the most commonly used, may have prominent adverse effects on life cycle, performance properties, and related costs. Thus, before utilizing RAP, it is essential to investigate whether it is still economical to use under the local climate by taking into consideration the life cycle performance. Therefore, for this paper, a case study was conducted using 20% RAP, assessed in terms of materials related to cost analysis. The results of the analysis showed that, from the total life cycle costing measurement, a total of 14% cost reduction was reported using RAP as compared to conventional materials. Moreover, the two materials (conventional HMA and RAP) are manufactured in different types of manufacturing plants. Thus, in analyzing the cost difference between the two chosen manufacturing plants for virgin materials and RAP, a total of 57% cost reduction was observed for a RAP manufacturing plant. Besides this, no cost difference was observed in the rest of the phases, such as manpower, materials transportation, and construction activities, as the same procedures and types of machinery are used. Furthermore, assessing the carbon dioxide impact and cost, the transportation and machinery emissions were considered, while the plant’s operation emission was omitted due to the unavailability of the data.en_GB
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherMDPI AGen_GB
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_GB
dc.subjectLife cycle costingen_GB
dc.subjectPavements, Asphalt -- Design and constructionen_GB
dc.subjectInfrastructure (Economics)en_GB
dc.subjectSustainable developmenten_GB
dc.subjectProduct life cycleen_GB
dc.subjectConstruction industry -- Cost effectivenessen_GB
dc.subjectConstruction industry -- Materials managementen_GB
dc.titleLife cycle cost analysis comparison of hot mix asphalt and reclaimed asphalt pavement : a case studyen_GB
dc.typearticleen_GB
dc.rights.holderThe copyright of this work belongs to the author(s)/publisher. The rights of this work are as defined by the appropriate Copyright Legislation or as modified by any successive legislation. Users may access this work and can make use of the information contained in accordance with the Copyright Legislation provided that the author must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the prior permission of the copyright holder.en_GB
dc.description.reviewedpeer-revieweden_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/su13084411-
dc.publication.titlesustainabilityen_GB
Appears in Collections:Scholarly Works - FacBenCPM



Items in OAR@UM are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.