1 
 
Sustainability assessment of steel fibre reinforced 
concrete pavements 
Griffith D’costa, 
IIT Madras, Chennai 
(griffith.dcosta@gmail.com) 
Sunitha K Nayar 
IIT Madras, Chennai 
(sunithasanthoshnair@gmail.com) 
Ravindra Gettu 
(gettu@iitm.ac.in) 
Abstract 
The current scenario of depleting resources has lead to a major thrust in developing and 
applying highly sustainable solutions to construction industry. Therefore, it has become 
essential to devise designs based on materials that cost the least for the transportation network 
and at the same time have a minimum environmental impact. Though there are a few modern 
material solutions that may meet these criteria, like the use of steel fibre reinforced concrete 
(SFRC) for pavement constructions, a proper evaluation of the performance and impact of 
utilization of such materials is lacking. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost 
Analysis (LCCA) offer the means to evaluate the sustainability, and have been used in this 
paper to provide frameworks analysing Asphalt, Jointed Plain concrete (JPC) and Steel Fibre 
Reinforced Concrete pavements. In this work, asphalt, JPC and SFRC pavement sections have 
been designed as per the respective IRC guidelines so as to get equivalent designs for the given 
traffic loading, environmental and material conditions. Subsequently, LCCA is done as per the 
procedure provided in the Federal Highway Administration’s Interim Technical bulletin and 
LCA is done by using the process approach for each of the pavements. The assessment 
indicates where sustainable practices can be directed to so as to minimize environmental 
impacts in the initial stage of the pavement life cycle. The paper also discusses the limitations 
and difficulties of carrying out life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis for highways in 
India.  
Keywords: Life cycle analysis, sustainability, rigid pavements, steel fire reinforced 
concrete, flexible pavements 
2 
 
1. Introduction 
In almost every part of the world, pavements have shown premature distress, which results in 
frequent replacement of the existing surface. Often, though the construction cost of the 
pavements is low, the maintenance costs are very high and time is lost due to frequent 
resurfacing and replacement. Due to the current scenario of depleting resources, it has become 
essential to devise designs based on materials that cost the least for the entire transportation 
system life and at the same time have minimum environmental impact over a sufficiently large 
analysis period. Though there are a few modern material solutions that may meet these criteria, 
like the use of steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) for pavement constructions, a proper 
evaluation of the performance and impact of utilization of such materials is lacking. In addition, 
maintenance budgets are more often than not insufficient, thereby requiring the optimal usage of 
funds for repair and rehabilitation (Kadiyali and Dandavate 1984). This necessitates a proper 
evaluation technique for the performance and economics of the pavements throughout the life 
cycle so as to obtain sustainable solutions (Kadiyali and Dandavate 1984, Chakravarty and 
Kadiyali 1989, Dandawate 1993). 
Sustainability in the construction scenario would essentially require a design that takes care of 
durability throughout its functional service life, a construction methodology which would cause 
the least harm to the environment and also reduce the effect of disposal by reusing and recycling 
the materials at the end of life phase, and all these in the most economic way (Swamy 2001). 
Integrating sustainability requirements in the design so as to find an intersection between 
environmental impact initiatives and financial benefits is definitely a challenge faced by most of 
the infrastructure developers today.  
In general, any sustainability study would point towards three facets, viz., Environmental 
impact, Economic impact and Social impact. A proper assessment technique of each of these 
three spheres of influence is essential to obtain the maximum benefit with the minimum 
negative impact (Muga 2009). An integrated life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis 
framework would be the most appropriate solution when coupled with some sort of social 
impact assessment. The life cycle assessment would result in obtaining a clear picture about the 
environmental loads related to the project (Josa et al. 1999, Josa et al. 2005) while the life cycle 
cost assessment would enable amalgamating economics into the process so as to direct funds 
and resources in the most productive manner. The most difficult factor to assess and quantify is 
the social cost (e.g., comfort, aesthetics, noise, effect of providing access and traffic movement) 
of the project. As a result, though vaguely included in the existing assessment techniques, it 
cannot be fully ascertained nor can it be completely ignored.  
2. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) 
Lifecycle assessment is a process to understand and estimate the environmental impacts of a 
product throughout its lifecycle (Häkkinea and Mäkelä 1996, Josa et al. 1999, Zapata and 
Gambatese 2005, Muga 2009). It is typically also referred to as ―cradle to grave‖ analysis since 
LCA should ideally include all phases of a product life cycle from the raw material extraction 
phase to the end of life/recycling phase (Horvath and Hendrickson 1998, Maija et al. 1999, 
3 
 
Stripple 2001, Josa et al. 2003, Santero et al. 2010). LCA generally involves four stages of 
analysis as shown in figure 1 below (Josa et al. 1999, Stripple 2001, Josa et al. 2003, Josa et al. 
2005, Santero et al. 2010) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1.Stages in life cycle assessment and associated factors 
2.1 Basic LCA Framework modified for pavements 
The general LCA framework has been modified by many researchers and tailored specifically 
for pavements (Horvath and Hendrickson 1998, Ulla-Maija et al. 2000, Huang 2008, Miller and 
Bahia. 2009, Santero et al. 2010). The general features of such a framework are discussed 
below. For LCA specific to pavement application, the functional unit is defined in terms of 
analysis length, analysis period and the volume of traffic that would use the facility during the 
analysis period. System boundaries correspond to the pavement phases that are considered in the 
analysis and the processes considered in each phase.  
2.1.1 Inventory Analysis 
It is mostly useful to compartmentalise the data required for inventory analysis of pavements. 
From the review of existing literature, a suitable method of data compartmentalisation can be as 
summarised in the figure 2 below (Stripple 2001, Miller and Bahia 2009, Santero et al. 2010).  
In order to identify the specific phases and processes that cause maximum environmental 
impact, it is suitable to segregate the pavement life into different phases (Santero et al. 2010). 
This modular approach will help identify and direct sustainable practices to these phases, and 
thus minimize the impact of the process as a whole. A logical classification of these phases has 
been proposed by Santero (2010) that is widely accepted and is summarized in figure 3 below. 
4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2 Compartments of the inventory data  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.Phases in pavement lifecycle that may be assessed in LCA 
2.1.2 Impact Assessment 
From the inventory, the results are classified, characterized and assessed to finally arrive at a 
single value indicator that would follow from a general list of impact categories. However, the 
list of impact categories is not very comprehensive so as to make the task of choosing the right 
effect for a particular application easy. Due to this limitation, most of the existing life cycle 
assessment studies for pavements are restricted to being a life-cycle inventory (LCI) rather than 
5 
 
true life cycle assessment. However, some of the results are close enough to the impact 
categories themselves (Santero et al. 2010).  
From the review of the existing literature, it is understood that, most commonly, the output of 
these studies amounts to energy consumption data that cannot be easily translated to impact 
parameters. Another common but more appropriate indicator is the CO2 emission, which can be 
directly taken as an indicator of global warming potential. Some of the uncommon indicators 
used are air pollutants, hazardous waste generations, green house gases, nitrogen release, heavy 
metal release, noise, water consumption, etc. These categories could as well be inventoried 
pollutants rather than impacts and better related indicators could be human toxicity, 
eutrophication, acidification, etc (Häkkinea and Mäkelä 1996, Horvath and Hendrickson 1998, 
Maijaet al. 1999, Stripple 2001, Santero et al. 2010). 
2.1.3 Interpretation 
Analysis of the results to direct improvement plans towards the most beneficial route is the aim 
of this step. The choice of different pavement alternatives or modifying specific processes in a 
chosen alternative is to be essentially done using the single value indicators developed during 
impact assessment (Josa et al. 1999). The assessment results would indicate the area where 
sustainable practices can be directed to so as to minimize environmental impacts in the initial 
stage of the pavement life cycle. 
3. Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) 
In addition to the environmental impact, it is extremely important to analyze the economic 
impact of the project throughout the lifecycle in order to arrive at the most suitable solution. 
This is especially so in large scale projects like pavement construction, where maintenance cost 
is as significant as the initial cost. Lifecycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is a process for evaluating 
the total economic worth of a usable project segment by analyzing initial costs and discounted 
future costs, such as maintenance, user costs, reconstruction, rehabilitation, restoring and 
resurfacing costs (TEA 21, 1998). The essence of life cycle costing for pavements is basically to 
capture all predictable costs that may have an impact on the economy/society that could be 
affected by the highway pavement project under consideration (Wilde et al, 1999). 
3.1 LCCA framework for pavement application 
Figure 4 describes the procedure adopted by the State Department of Transportation in USA for 
comparing lifecycle costs across different pavement design alternatives (Walls and Smith, 1998, 
NCHRP document, 2004). It is to be noted that the framework provided in the figure 4 below 
can be applied to compute life cycle costs for any type of pavements, and is not specific to any 
particular pavement type (i.e., flexible or rigid). 
 
6 
 
Figure 4.Steps in LCCA for pavements  
4. Case study - LCA details of the study 
For the purpose of comparing the feasibility of pavement alternatives in India, LCA and LCCA 
of three types of pavements, namely Asphalt pavements, Jointed plain concrete pavements 
(JPCP) and Steel fibre reinforced concrete pavements (SFRCP) were done with the data 
available. Here, the process-based approach was adopted for LCA. A national highway 
upgradation project in the vicinity of Chennai (India), nearing completion, was selected for the 
study. The unit rates and technical specifications for labour, material and equipment used in the 
analysis are typical of those encountered in highway construction for Chennai.  
National highways are generally designed considering a soaked CBR value of 10% which 
corresponds to a modulus of sub-grade reaction of 5.5 kg/cm
2
/cm (IRC 58:2002). For the 
calculation of temperature stresses developed in the slabs of concrete pavement, the highway 
has been assumed to lie in a coastal area unbounded by hilly zones (i.e., Zone VI). The dowel 
and tie bar quantity for the concrete pavements is based on the 98 percentile axle load taken to 
be 16 tonnes (IRC 58:2002). The total traffic (in both directions) at the end of the construction 
period on the four lane highway was obtained from assumed traffic data as 11,163 vehicles per 
day (IRC 58: 2002, D’costa 2011). 
7 
 
The functional unit for this study is a one km long stretch of the widened lane in each direction 
of the highway. The scope of the LCA includes the materials and energy consumed in 
construction and maintenance of asphalt, JPCP and SFRC pavements over a 40 year period. The 
phases considered are given in the flowchart below. Note that gaseous emissions have been 
excluded from the study. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 5. Different phases considered in the current study 
8 
 
In the analysis, the following assumptions had to be made. Transit mixers and tipper trucks are 
assumed to have the same speed while loading and unloading. The distance from the Hot Mix 
Asphalt batch mix plant and Ready Mix Concrete plant to the construction site was assumed to 
be same. The rehabilitation schedule for SFRC pavements was assumed to be same as that for 
JPCP due to lack of data since most of the SFRC pavements are very recent and have not 
warranted any rehabilitation. Temperature stresses developed in a SFRC slab was assumed to be 
the same as that developed in a plain concrete slab. Also, for this analysis, the energy consumed 
for the production and transportation of water, superplasticisers and high density polythene 
sheet has been excluded. The energy consumed for transformation processes like drawing of 
steel fibres from steel wires, etc. has been neglected since the overall contribution of this 
process to the total energy consumed is considered very minimal. 
The hierarchy for the processes considered (i.e., the material supply chain) in the construction of 
the pavement layers is shown in the figures 6 & 7 below. The processes for JPCP are same as 
that for SFRC excluding the fibre manufacturing and/or the fly ash manufacturing and thereby 
are not shown separately.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6 Asphalt pavement 
processes 
Figure 7 SFRC/ JPCP pavement 
process 
 
9 
 
 
 
Flexible pavements were designed as per IRC 37:2001 based on traffic in the lane carrying the 
maximum number of commercial vehicles. The method of design is not discussed here as it is 
well established (IRC 37:2001) and the details are given in Table 1Table 1. The mixture 
proportions for the bituminous layers and the aggregate gradation for the non-bituminous layers 
were assumed to be the same as that given in the NHAI data book since they are in accordance 
with the respective IRC and Ministry of Road Transport and Highway (MORTH) specifications.  
Only the Pavement Quality Concrete (PQC) layer was varied across the concrete pavement 
alternatives while the drainage layer and the Dry Lean Concrete (DLC) layer were kept 
constant. Most of the rigid pavements (using normal concrete without any cement substitution) 
in India are designed to have a 28-day characteristic cube compressive strength of at least 40 
MPa, which corresponds to a flexural strength of about 4.43 MPa. As per IRC 58:2002, this 
value can be rounded off to 4.5 MPa for design purposes. The design of JPCP was entirely done 
based on IRC 58:2002 and the design thickness of pavement was obtained as 320 mm with M40 
grade concrete.  
Table 1 Flexible pavement design details 
Layer Thickness (mm)  Width (m) 
Granular sub-base (GSB) 200 8 
Wet mix macadam (WMM) 250 8 
Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) 81 7 
Bituminous concrete (BC) 40 7 
 
In this work, the design of SFRC is done as per the specifications of IRC SP: 46, 1994 and IRC 
58:2002. As the flexural strength was the design criteria and was assumed to be same (4.5 MPa) 
for both SFRC and JPCP, the design thickness for SFRC is the same as that of JPCP since the 
design methodology as per IRC 58 :2002 considers only the design flexural strength. However, 
the enhanced flexural capacity of SFRC was used to change the concrete grade requirement by 
incorporating the expression (1+Re,3)fct in the required flexural strength calculation, where Re,3 
is the equivalent flexural strength ratio of SFRC (Note that the equivalent flexural strength is a 
toughness parameter obtained from flexural testing of SFRC beam specimens as per standards 
such as ASTM 1609-2010 or JSCE SF4- 1984). This resulted in a lower requirement for fct in 
comparison to plain concrete as Re,3 >1 always. M25 concrete with 10 and 15 kg/m
3 
hooked-
ended cold-drawn steel fibre dosage could normally give characteristic design flexural strengths 
of 4.34 MPa and 4.83 MPa, respectively. Accordingly, an M25 grade concrete with a dosage of 
12.5 kg/m
3
, which corresponds to a characteristic flexural strength of approximately 4.5 MPa 
was selected for the design.  
10 
 
Since the 28 day characteristic compressive strength required for SFRC was 25 MPa while that 
for the plain concrete pavement was 40 MPa, the quantity of dowel bars required per lane was 
4.56 tonnes and 6.66 tonnes, respectively (IRC 58: 2002). 
Based on the above data, the materials consumed by each of the pavement types considered per 
functional unit are obtained and summarized in the Table 2 below 
Table 2 Material consumption 
Pavement Alternative Aggregates (cu.m.) Bitumen (tonne) Steel (tonne) Diesel (L) 
Flexible pavement 9620  492  0.0 7770 
JPCP 4315 1027  14.9 5205 
SFRCP 4225 874 49.3 5176 
 
The energy consumed by each of the alternatives per functional unit in each phase of the 
pavement life cycle is shown in the Table 3 below. 
Table 3 Energy Consumption (GJ) across pavements 
Pavement Alternative Manufacturing Transport Placement Maintenance Total 
Flexible 1180 534 77 5300 7090 
JPCP 6640 848 90 742 8320 
SFRC 6160 791 890 557 7600 
 
From the results it can be seen that when assessing the impact due to material consumption, 
asphalt pavements definitely result in higher impact when compared to the rigid pavement 
alternatives. The aggregates consumed by asphalt pavements are more than double that required 
by an equivalent JPCP or SFRC pavement, as can be seen in table 2, which is a factor that 
would outweigh many other advantages that asphalt pavements seem to have. The major 
disadvantage of rigid pavements seems to be in the high energy consumption. However, the 
most energy intensive process in construction of concrete pavement is the construction of the 
PQC layer as can be seen from table 3; this is on account of the large thickness (320 mm) of the 
PQC layer in comparison to the asphalt alternative in which the bituminous layer is only 
121 mm thick.  
Though SFRC has higher flexural crack resistance compared to normal concrete, the high 
amount of energy consumed in the manufacture of steel fibres overpowers the advantage of 
having a lower grade of concrete. It is noted at this juncture that for the current study, the design 
thickness was kept constant for both JPCP and SFRC because both the pavements were 
designed for the same flexural strength using the same design principles. However, an 
appropriate inelastic design procedure for SFRC pavements would lead to a much lower 
thickness design, as suggested by many researchers and codes (Losberg 1961, Meyerhof 1962, 
IRS SP: 46, 1994, TR- 34 2003). Such design would definitely result in a lower energy 
consumption requirement resulting in the SFRC pavements having minimum energy impact as 
compared to asphalt and JPCP pavements. 
11 
 
5. LCCA for the case study 
Deterministic life cycle cost analysis was done for the given LCCA parameters for a period of 
40 years since the concrete pavements are expected to undergo rehabilitation after 35 years 
(Bongirwar and Momin, 2000). A discount rate of 12% was used as per the Government of 
India norms. A traffic growth rate of 4% was used since the four lane highway reaches its 
capacity at 44 years for the given growth rate.  
The relative proportion of the different vehicles is assumed to remain constant throughout the 
analysis period. The work zone user costs associated with the initial construction phase has been 
excluded as the analysis period is assumed to begin from the commercial operation date. Also, it 
is assumed that there is no change in the traffic volume in the given facility when a work-zone is 
in place. 
The periodic maintenance schedule for rigid pavements consists mainly of two activities that are 
Joint seal renewal and diamond grinding (Bongirwar and Momin 2000, Prasad 2007). The 
periodic maintenance for a standard flexible pavement in India includes surface renewals with 
25 mm bituminous concrete (BC) (Prasad 2007). 
The timing assumed for maintenance and rehabilitation activities of flexible pavements was 
taken as given in table 4 below while that for rehabilitation activities of rigid pavements was in 
accordance with specified in the Caltrans LCCA Manual 2007 and is given in table 4. 
Table 4.Maintenance and rehabilitation activity timing and cost  
M&R Activity 
Frequency 
(Years) 
Service Life 
(Years) 
Lane closure time 
per lane km (hours) 
Cost per lane km (in 
millions of Rs.) 
Surface renewal 5 5 3 0.62 
Overlays 10 5 5(BC)+9(DBM) 2.61 
CPR-Type C At 35 years 5 13 2.19 
 
The initial cost of construction for a two lane national highway across the different types of 
pavement alternatives is given in table 5 below. 
Table 5 Initial Cost of construction (using present market unit rates for labour, material and 
equipment) 
Pavement Type Cost (in millions of Rs. per lane km) 
Asphalt 10.77 
JPCP 14.40 
SFRC 17.55 
The traffic data was classified into three main categories of passenger car units, single unit 
trucks (SUTs) and combination unit trucks (CUTs) based on the assumption that SUTs and 
Table 6 Value of User time 
 
12 
 
CUTs correspond to single axle loads and tandem axle loads respectively. The value of user 
time across the different vehicle categories is summarized in the table 6 below  
 
 
 
As can 
be 
seen from the table 6, the value of user time for SUTs are comparatively higher than the other 
vehicle categories primarily due to higher vehicle occupancy.  
The Vehicle operating costs (VOC), excluding taxes per unit vehicle for each vehicle class, for a 
four lane divided highway were calculated based on the equation for VOCs as provided in 
URUCS 2001 (CRRI 2001). The Net present value (NPV) for rigid pavements was accordingly 
estimated to be Rs. 72.31 million. Since asphalt pavements receive surface renewals every five 
years it can be assumed that the roughness is lower than rigid pavements and accordingly the 
estimated NPV is only Rs. 63.1 million. Finally the net present value of the life cycle agency 
and user costs for the different alternatives is summarized in table 7 below. 
Table 7 Life Cycle Costs 
 
 
 
The total life cycle cost for JPCP works out to be the lowest compared to the asphalt and SFRC 
pavements, which is a positive indication for sustainable practices. However, the higher life 
cycle cost for SFRC pavement is solely due to the thickness design which is the same as JPCP 
and a more economical solution would be obtained if more appropriate design could be 
incorporated. 
6. Conclusions 
The following conclusions can be made from the work presented here: 
 LCA and LCCA seem to be good tools for assessing the sustainability of the processes 
in pavement construction. 
Vehicle Category Value of user time (Rs/hour) 
PCUs 127 
SUTs 734 
CUTs 115 
Pavement Type 
Life Cycle Agency Costs 
(Rs in millions) 
Life Cycle User Costs 
(Rs in millions) 
Life Cycle Costs 
(Rs in millions) 
Asphalt 14.8 0.052 14.85 
JPCP 14.5 0.075 14.58 
SFRC 17.6 0.075 17.68 
13 
 
 For the case study considered here, asphalt pavements consume the least energy for the 
given traffic, environmental and subgrade conditions. The LCCA results indicate that 
jointed plain concrete pavements (JPCP) would be a good choice for sustainability. 
However, a properly designed SFRC pavement with a reduced thickness would 
definitely yield better results in terms of economy.  
 
References 
Athena Institute (2006) A life cycle perspective on concrete and asphalt roadways: embodied 
primary energy and global warming potential, Cement Association of Canada. 
ASTM C1609/C1609M-10 (2010) Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fibre 
Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third- Point Loading), Pennsylvania, USA. 
Bongirwar, P.L. and Momin, S.S. (2000) From concept to commissioning, The Indian Concrete 
Journal, pp 285-308. 
By an analyst (2010) Point of view: Examining codes and practises for reducing pavement 
quality concrete thickness, Indian Concrete Journal, 2010, pp 27-34. 
Central Road Research Institute CRR, (2001) Updation of road user cost study data, Final 
Report, Vols I and II, Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi, Government of India. 
Chakravarty, S.M., and Kadiyali, L.R. (1989) Economics of concrete road, The Indian Concrete 
Journal, Vol. 63, No. 5, pp. 239-243. 
Dandawate, M.G. (1993) Review of economics of flexible and rigid pavements, The Indian 
Concrete Journal, Vol. 67, pp. 369-373. 
D’costa, G. (2011) Life-cycle evaluation of concrete pavements, M.Tech. Thesis, Indian 
Institute of Technology Madras, India. 
Häkkinea, T., and Mäkelä, K. (1996) Environmental adaptation of concrete – Environmental 
impact of concrete and asphalt pavements, Technical research centre Finland, ESPOO, 
Jukaisija-Utgivare publishers. 
Hendrickson, C.T., Horvath, A., Joshi, S., and Lave, L.B. (1998) Economic Input-Output 
Models for Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment, Environmental Science & Technology, ACS, 
32(4), pp. 184A-191A. 
Indian Road Congress, Guidelines for the Design of Flexible Pavements, IRC 37-2001. 
Indian Road Congress, Code for Design of Plain Jointed Rigid Pavements, IRC 58:2002.  
The Indian Roads, Congress Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete for Pavements, IRC special 
publication, No. 46, 1994. 
Josa, A., Cardim, A., Aguado, A. and Gettu, R. (1999) Considerations in the Life Cycle 
Assessment of Precast Concrete Products, Prefabricating on the Eve of the Third Millennium 
(16th Intnl. Congress of the Precast Concrete Industry, Venice, Italy), pp. 45-51. 
14 
 
Josa, A., Aguado, A. and Gettu, R. (2003) Life Cycle Assessment of Concrete Products, Proc. 
5th National Congress on Concrete, Istanbul, Turkey, ISBN: 975-395-639-8, Maya Basin 
Yayin, Istanbul, pp. 279-292. 
Josa, A., Gettu, R. and Aguado, A. (2005) Environmental Assessment of Cement Based 
Products: Life cycle assessment and the Ecoconcrete software tool, Achieving Sustainability in 
Construction (Proc. Intnl. Conf., Dundee, UK), Eds. R.K. Dhir, T.D. Dyer and M.D. Newlands, 
Thomas Telford, London, UK, pp. 281-290. 
JSCE-SF4, Part III – (1–4), Method of Tests for Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Concrete 
Library of JSCE, The Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 1984. 
Kadiyali, L.R., and Dandawate, M.G. (1984) A comparative study of the economics of rigid and 
flexible pavements, The Indian Concrete Journal, Vol. 58, pp. 319-331. 
Losberg, A. (1961) Design methods for structurally reinforced concrete pavements, 
Transactions of Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. 
Meyerhof, G.G., (1962), Load carrying capacity of concrete pavements, Journal of the Soil 
mechanics and foundations Division, Proceedings of ASCE, pp 89-116. 
Miller, T.D., and Bahia, H.U. (2009) Sustainable asphalt pavements: technologies, knowledge 
gaps and opportunities, MARC, Modified asphalt research centre publication, University of 
Winsconsin, USA. 
Muga, H.E. (2009) An Integrated framework for assessing the sustainability of components that 
make up the built environment, Ph.D Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Michigan 
Technological University, USA. 
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), 2004, Appendix C – Life-cycle 
cost analysis guidelines, Guide for mechanistic – empirical design of new and rehabilitated 
pavement structures. 
NHAI, Basic Approach and General Conditions for the Preparation of Standard Data Book, 
Standard data book for road work. 
Prasad, B. (2007) Life Cycle Cost Analysis of cement concrete roads vs. bituminous roads, 
Indian Highways, Vol. 35, No: 9, pp 19-26.  
Reddy, B.V.V. and Jagdish, K.S. (2003) Embodied energy of common and alternative building 
material technology, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 33, Issue 2, pp 129-137. 
Maïni, S. (2008) Calculations from embodied energy of raw materials, Auroville Earth Institute, 
India.  
Santero, N., Masanet, E., and Horvath, A. (2010) Life Cycle Assessment of Pavements: A 
Critical Review of Existing Literature and Research, PCA R&D Serial No. SN3119a, Portland 
Cement Association, USA. 
Stripple, H. (2001) Life cycle assessment of road- A pilot study for inventory analysis, IVL 
report, IVL Swedish environmental research institute, Sweden. 
Swamy, R.N. (2001) Holistic design- Key to sustainability in concrete construction, 
Proceedings of ICE-Structures and Buildings, Vol. 146, Issue 4, pp 371-379. 
15 
 
TEA- 21, Transportation Equity Act for 21
st
 Century- A Summary, FHWA, U.S. Transportation 
Department, 1998. 
The Concrete Society Guidelines, Concrete Industrial Ground floors: A Guide to Design and 
Construction, TR 34-2003, England. 
Ulla-Maija M, Eskola, P., Laine-Ylijoki, J., Wellman, K., Juvankoski, E.M.M., and 
Ruotoistenmäki, A. (1999) Life cycle assessment of road construction, Finnra Reports, 
17/2000, Helsinki, Finnish National Road Administration. 
Walls, J., and Smith, M.R. (1998) Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design —Interim 
Technical Bulletin, Pavement Division Interim Technical Bulletin. 
Wilde, W.J., Waalkes, S., and Harrison, R. (1999) Life cycle cost analysis of portland cement 
concrete pavements, FHWA/TX-00/0-1739-1, Center for Transportation Research, Austin, 
USA. 
Zapata, P., and Gambatese, J.A. (2005) Energy consumption of asphalt and reinforced concrete 
pavement materials and construction, Journal of infrastructure systems, ASCE, Vol. 11, No. 1, 
pp 9-20. 
Zhan, H., Keoleian, G.A., and Lepech, M.D. (2008) An integrated life cycle assessment and life 
cycle analysis model for pavement overlays system, Life-cycle Civil Engineering – Biondini and 
D. Frangopol (eds.), Taylor and Francis group, London, pp 907-912.