Crumb Rubber Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA) Project
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
3 gefällt mir•1,559 views
Crumb Rubber Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA) Project Michael R. Barr, Jesus M. Garza & Duy L. Nguyen February 2013 M.Sc. in Sustainability Management | SEM 604 - Life Cycle & Risk Assessment National University
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie Crumb Rubber Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA) Project
Ähnlich wie Crumb Rubber Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA) Project (20)
Mehr von Michael R. Barr
Mehr von Michael R. Barr (7)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Crumb Rubber Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA) Project
- 1. Crumb Rubber LCCA Project Michael R. Barr, Jesus M. Garza, & Duy L. Nguyen 1
- 2. Introduction • Demonstrating LCCA approach of AR application to highway surfaces • Determine total economic worth – Initial and discounted future costs • LCCA methodology for successful dialogue – Differential costs of investment options – Demonstrating sustainable commitment 2
- 3. Background • Scrap Tire Management – a major economic, environmental and social issue • Asphalt Rubber – a proven technology and superior performance product in highway preservation • Significance – Useful, sustainable reclaimed products – Reduction, management and/or elimination of EH&S problems 3
- 4. Assumptions Location: Central California, San Joaquin Valley, Visalia, Interstate 5 (I-5) Project Type: Day Project, Application/Overlay of Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) to Highway Surface Comparison: Application/Overlay of Asphalt Concrete (AC) to Highway Surface Work Zone: 5-mile stretch, 2-Lanes, Northbound and Southbound (4 Lanes total) = 20 Lane Miles Material Type: Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete (RAC), 2“ overlay to existing highway surface Comparison: Conventional hot mix asphalt (AC), 4“ overlay to existing highway surface [Note: 2:1 (AC:RAC) Equivalency Factor for resurfacing projects per Caltrans testing] Options: Application of a Stress Absorbing Membrane (SAM): Application of a Stress Absorbing Membrane Interlayer (SAMI) Starting Capital: $10 million 4
- 5. Design Alternatives • AC – Asphat Concrete • RAC – Rubberized Asphalt Concrete • HMA overlay • HMA mill-and-overlay • 20 year pavement design lives 5
- 6. Maintenance Options Stress Absorbing Membrane (SAM) Consists of a sprayed-on application of heated straight-run binder, followed by a layer of aggregate chips that are precoated with asphalt rubber binder and seated with a rubber-tired roller Utilizes asphalt rubber binder with 20% rubber Greatly reduces the incidence of reflective cracking Stress Absorbing Membrane Interlayer (SAMI) Consists of a SAM with a surface course of either rubberized or conventional hot mix asphalt Also utilizes asphalt rubber binder with 20% rubber Is used instead of SAM on high-traffic roads or when extra structural pavement capacity is needed 6
- 7. Benefits • Resists Cracking • Reduces Road Noise • Environmental Benefits • Extends of road Surface • Reduces Hydroplaning • Cost Effective $ $ $ $ $ 7
- 8. AC LCCA 8
- 9. RAC LCCA 9
- 10. Results AC • Initial Investment = $281,572.00 • Cost (O&M) Maintenance = $847,616.5 Energy = $689.500.67 • Savings (and or Revenue) Recycle = $56,508.36 • NPV = $16,683,921.30 • Sustainability details CO2 Emissions = 773.04 tonnes Energy = 6.41E+12J RAC • Initial Investment = $176,000.00 • Cost (O&M) Maintenance = $387,695.62 Energy = $344,747.62 • Savings (and or Revenue) Recycle = $31,017.65 • NPV = $14,350,494.38 • Sustainability details CO2 Emissions = 375.88 tonnes Energy = 3.12E+12J 10
- 11. Results AC • Initial Investment = $281,572.00 • Cost (O&M) Maintenance = $847,616.5 • Savings (and or Revenue) Recycle = $56,508.36 • NPV = $16,683,921.30 RAC • Initial Investment = $176,000.00 • Cost (O&M) Maintenance = $387,695.61 • Savings (and or Revenue) Recycle = $31,017.65 • NPV = $14,350,494.38 11
- 12. Conclusions Economic Environment Equity Cost Effective GHG Reduction Reduce Insect Breeding Grounds Reduces Raw Material Usage Resource Conservation Reduce Fire Hazards Speeds Construction Reduce Surface and Ground Water Pollution Environmental Justice Reduces Road Maintenance Renewable Resource Utilization Performance Issues (Noise, Vibration, Hydroplaning, Vehicle Splash, Skid Resist.) Reduces Liability 12 Asphalt Rubber: The Sustainability Effect
- 13. Recommendations • When life cycle cost effective, AR overlays for highway resurfacing typically yield 10- 25% cost savings • Project’s limited scope: consider design alternatives for optimization. 13
- 14. References • Cooper, S. J. (2011, October). Asphalt pavement recycling with reclaimed asphalt pavement (rap). Nwpma, 18th annual fall pavement conference, Portland, OR. • Entech asphalt rubber. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.4entechasphaltrubber.com/about_asphalt_rubber.html • Keches, C., & LeBlanc, A. (2007). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from asphalt materials. Unpublished manuscript, Science, Worcester Polytechnic Institute , • Roschen, T. (n.d.). Asphalt rubber. Informally published manuscript, , Available from CalRecylce. Retrieved from www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ • rubberized asphalt concrete (rac) benefits. (2011, August 25). Retrieved from http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/tires/rac/Benefits.htm • Shatnawi, S. (2012). Life-cycle cost analysis of flexible pavement systems rehabilitated with the use of asphalt rubber interlayers. Informally published manuscript, 14
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Introduction Define the subject of the project Demonstrating a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) approach of the Application of Asphalt Rubber to Highway Surfaces State the purpose of the project Conduct a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) on the application of asphalt rubber to existing road and highway surfaces to determine total economic worth by examining and analyzing initial costs and discounted future costs, such as resurfacing and maintenance costs. Main Point (Conclusion) It is anticipated that LCCA’s structured methodology in this team project will provide necessary data, information and documentation for successful dialogue regarding differential costs of investment options for design alternatives, as well as demonstrating a sustainable commitment to road and highway preservation through the application of asphalt rubber.
- Background Information With the disposal of an estimated 300 million vehicle tires each year in the United States, scrap tire management has become a major economic, environmental and social (equity) issue. Although responsible means for disposal, such as recycling, reuse and energy recovery have become more common, rubber vehicle tires that have reached the end of their life cycle have accumulated in landfills and scrap yards, creating a large pollution stream, a public safety and health issue, and a visual eye sore. The tire dumps of the last forty years continue to present environmental, safety and health hazards and issues that will last into the foreseeable future. Reclaimed rubber crumbs can be added to hot asphalt mixtures to create an asphalt rubber (AR) material. Asphalt rubber has been proven through years of research and testing to be a superior performance product in highway preservation. It can extend the lifetime of roads and highways, reduce ambient noise and hydroplaning for highway traffic, and provide a consistent medium for efficient vehicle transportation which reduces tire wear and saves gas. Significance Reclaimed products have been shown to save money and resources and allow for reduced production costs compared to virgin products. Ambient and cryogenic technologies have been developed to process vehicle tires that have been discarded and reached the end of their useful life, resulting in the reclaiming of steel, polymer, and rubber crumb products in a sustainable supply chain. If just 5% of the nation’s 2.76 million miles of paved road could be resurfaced with alternative AR materials (i.e. National Highway System) using reclaimed rubber crumbs, the environmental, health and safety problems and issues with accumulated tires in landfills and scrap yards would be significantly reduced, managed and/or eliminated. Forecast Organization – Briefly describe the remainder of the report.
- Economic Cost Effective – Dramatically reduces road maintenance and repairs; saves as much as $50,000 per lane mile over the highway’s lifetime [2” AR overlay vs. 4” conventional asphalt overlay] Reduces Raw Material Usage – Uses less aggregate stone and asphalt oil (20% displacement) Speeds Construction – AZ Study (I-40): Conventional Asphalt Reconstruction Project; 5 miles; $25/sq yd ($45/sq yd); 2 yrs to build vs. AR Reconstruction Project; 10 miles; $10.sq yd; 4 months Reduces Road Maintenance – AR road surfaces have 2X the lifespan of conventional asphalt surfaces. Reduces Liability – Safer Highways and reducing health, safety, and source effects at tire landfills and storage areas. Environment GHG Reduction – CO2, Methane Resource Conservation – Uses less asphalt oil; aggregate stone in AR Surfaces as opposed to conventional asphalt surfaces. Reduce Surface and Ground Water Pollution – Reduction of source tires at landfills and storage areas has net effect of reducing surface and ground water pollution at the site. Renewal Resource Utilization – Rubber chips, crumbs, steel belts, and polymer belts, and carbon black from tire recycling. Equity (Social) Reduce Insect Breeding Grounds – Mosquito infestation; wellbeing, disease, and health issues Reduce Fire Hazards – Tire create special hazard fires, emit toxic fumes; wellbeing, health, and safety issues Environmental Justice – Lower income populations tend to live near areas affording convenient employment opportunities; wellbeing, environmental, health, and safety issues Performance Issues – Safety, nuisance, and consumer issues