English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

With the ever-increasing road mileages worldwide, the focus of pavement construction has been shifted from new pavement to pavement maintenance and rehabilitation. A big challenge faced by achieving pavement construction sustainability is the huge consumption of capital, energy and non-renewable materials. In this study, an integrated eco-efficiency analysis (EEA) framework was developed and applied to compare two common asphalt pavement rehabilitation methods: hot-in-place recycling (HIRP) and milling-and-filling (M&F), for a real project. It was found that HIPR saved 5% cost and reduced 16% overall environmental impacts than M&F, while M&F saved 7% energy consumption than HIPR. The portfolio positions of HIPR and M&F provided by the EEA clearly indicate that HIPR is more eco-efficient than M&F for the studied project.

Eco-Efficiency Analysis on Asphalt Pavement Rehabilitation Alternatives: Hot In-Place Recycling (HIPR) and Milling and Filling (M&F)