sustainability

Article
Performance of Sustainable Road Pavements Founded on Clay
Subgrades Treated with Eco-Friendly Cementitious Materials
Samuel Y. O. Amakye 1, * , Samuel J. Abbey 2 , Colin A. Booth 2 and Jonathan Oti 3

1 Department of Engineering, Design and Mathematics, Faculty of Environment and Technology,

University of the West of England, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK
2 Centre for Architecture and Built Environment Research (CABER), Faculty of Environment and Technology,
University of the West of England, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK
3 School of Engineering, Faculty of Computing, Engineering and Science, University of South Wales,
Pontypridd CF37 1DL, UK
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Clays encountered during road construction are mostly weak and result in major pavement
failures due to their low California bearing ratio (CBR) and high swelling potential. In this study,
sustainable and eco-friendly waste materials including brick dust waste (BDW), ground granulated
blastfurnance slag (GGBS), recycled plastic (RP) and recycled glass (RG) at varying proportions of
11.75% and 23.5% were used as partial replacement for cement and lime in clay treatment. After
determining the water content by conducting Atterberg limit and compaction test, A CBR and swell
characteristics of treated and untreated clay were also conducted. A road pavement design was
conducted using the Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB) as a guide to determine the
performance of treated clay with varying CBR values. A road pavement failure analysis was also
conducted to understand the defect formation within pavement structures supported by eco-friendly
treated clay. The embodied carbon of treated clay was calculated and a life cycle cost analysis (LCCA)
Citation: Amakye, S.Y.O.; Abbey, S.J.; of flexible pavement with treated clay and road with imported materials was conducted. The results
Booth, C.A.; Oti, J. Performance of show a liquid limit of 131.26 and plastic limit of 28.74 for high plasticity index (clay 1) and liquid
Sustainable Road Pavements limit of 274.07 and a plastic limit of 45.38 for extremely high plasticity index (clay 2). An increase in
Founded on Clay Subgrades Treated CBR values from 8% and 9% to 57% and 97% with a reduction in swell values from 4.11% and 5.03%
with Eco-Friendly Cementitious to 0.38% and 0.56% were recorded. This resulted in a reduction in pavement thickness and stresses
Materials. Sustainability 2022, 14,
within the road pavement leading to reduced susceptibility of the pavement to fatigue, rutting and
12588. https://doi.org/10.3390/
permanent deformation. Very low embodied carbon was recorded for eco-friendly treated clay and
su141912588
a high life cycle cost (LCC) with clay removed and replaced with imported materials compared
Academic Editor: Edoardo Bocci with clay treated using eco-friendly waste materials. The study concluded that carbon and overall
Received: 15 August 2022
construction costs can be reduced using waste materials in road construction. Owners and operators
Accepted: 30 September 2022 can save money when clay is treated and used in road construction instead of removing clay and
Published: 3 October 2022 replacing it with imported materials.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

Keywords: brick dust waste; eco-friendly solutions; pavement; clay; economic appraisal; life cycle
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
cost analysis; fatigue; rutting; deformation
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. One of the vital components in the process of road projects is road pavement design.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Road pavement design plays an important role in determining the layer composition,
This article is an open access article materials required and the cost of the projects based on the California bearing ratio (CBR)
distributed under the terms and of clay (original ground). The California bearing ratio (CBR) is a penetration test to
conditions of the Creative Commons investigate the strength of subgrade and evaluate its bearing capacity to carry traffic
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
load [1]. CBR plays an important role in determining the thickness and type of road
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
pavement materials to select during the construction phase of a project [2]. In this study, the
4.0/).

Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912588 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 2 of 23

Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB) was used in the design of road pavement and
road pavement failure investigation conducted using clay treated with waste and industrial
by-products. Clay soils expand when wet and shrink when dry causing movement in
the foundation due to the repeated expansion and shrinkage [3,4]. These movements
within the road foundation cause defects in the road pavement structure leading to high
cost of maintenance and sometimes a total reconstruction of the road [4]. This calls for
modification and reengineering of the clay before construction. Traditional cement and lime
are mostly used in clay treatment however, they are associated with high carbon dioxide
(CO2 ) emissions and are non-environmentally friendly [5]. This calls for the use of more
sustainable and environmentally friendly binders in clay treatment.
In this study, waste materials including brick dust waste (BDW), ground granulated
blastfurnance slag (GGBS), recycled plastic (RP) and recycled glass (RG) were used as
binders to treat clay. Research has shown that waste materials can be used in clay treatment
due to their ability to improve the engineering properties of clay through the production of
calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) gel during the hydration process [6]. Materials including
brick dust, synthetic fibre, thermal bituminous, rice husk, sugarcane bagasse, cow dung,
geo-textiles, fabric and electrical waste have been used in soil treatment [6]. Waste materials
including electric arc furnace (EAF) ladle furnace (LF) slags, coal fly (CF) ash, bottom
ash, glass waste (GW) and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) were used to improve the
economic and environmental sustainability of road constructions [7]. Carbon reduction
in pavement construction was observed when recycled plastic (RP) waste was used at
varying proportions to enhance the engineering properties for eco-friendly pavement
application [8]. Road pavements are superimposed layers of materials placed over the
natural ground [9,10]. Development of stresses within road pavement caused by traffic
load and geotechnical issues lead to damage to the road pavement [11]. According to [12],
clay corrugates at the surface of the road and increases unevenness. The process of treating
clay using cement and lime to improve its CBR to make them usable in road construction
can lead to a high overall construction cost of road pavement [1,4]. Countries such as the
United States and China have spent USD 30 billion on maintenance costs only due to road
pavement defects caused by clay [2,4]. Road pavement defect that leads to permanent
damage to the pavement was investigated in this study using a mixture of bentonite and
kaolinite to form clay with varying plasticity index. Atterberg and compaction tests were
conducted for untreated clay to determine its water content after which the clay was treated
using waste materials. The CBR of treated clay was determined and the results were used in
the pavement design and defect analysis conducted in this study. A life cycle cost analysis
(LCCA) was conducted to determine the cost of treating clay compared with the cost of
removing clay and replacing them with imported materials. LCCA serves as a tool to
calculate the real cost of an asset over its useful design life [13,14]. In the 1930s the LCCA
concept was introduced in highway projects and as part of federal legislation on flood
control [13]. The nature and characteristics of clay (natural ground) can influence the LCC
of road pavement [1].

2. Materials and Methods

Bentonite and kaolinite were mixed in varying proportions to form an Artificially
Synthesised Clay (ASC): Clay 1 (25% bentonite + 75% kaolinite) of high plasticity index and
Clay 2 (75% bentonite + 25% kaolinite) of extremely high plasticity index. Sustainable waste
materials including brick dust waste (BDW), ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS),
recycled plastic (RP) and recycled glass (RG) at varying proportions of 11.75% and 23.5%
were used in clay treatment. The process of water content determination (compaction and
Atterberg limit tests), California bearing ratio (CBR) and swell tests, road pavement design,
defect analysis and the design guidance used are as reported in the authors’ previous
study [3,15] using CBR values achieved in this study. Stresses within the various layers
of the pavement were analysed using KENPAV software, and a detailed description of
KENPAV software is as reported in the authors’ previous study [3,15]. The suppliers’
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 23

Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 3 of 23

various layers of the pavement were analysed using KENPAV software, and a detailed
description of KENPAV software is as reported in the authors’ previous study [3,15]. The
suppliers’ information
information for thekaolinite,
for the bentonite, bentonite,cement
kaolinite,
andcement
lime usedandinlime
this used
studyinarethis
asstudy are
reported
as the
in reported
authors’in the authors’
previous previous
study study
[2]. The [2].dust
brick The brick
wastedust
(BDW)wastewas(BDW)
suppliedwas bysupplied
Celtic
by Celtic Sustainable
Sustainable Ltd., Unit Ltd., UnitTeifi
9 Parc 9 Parc Teifi Business
Business Park Cardigan,
Park Cardigan, Wales,Wales,
SA43 SA43
1EW 1EW UK
UK and
and complies
complies with BSwith ENBS EN 771-1:2011+A1:2015.
771-1:2011+A1:2015. GroundGround Granulated
Granulated Blastfurnace
Blastfurnace Slag
Slag (GGBS)
(GGBS)
used wasused was in compliance
in compliance with BSwith EN BS EN 15167-1:2006
15167-1:2006 and supplied
and supplied by Francis
by Francis Flower,
Flower, The
The White
White House, House, Gurney
Gurney Slade,
Slade, Radstock,
Radstock, Somerest,
Somerest, England,
England, BA34UU.
BA3 4UU.TheTheplastic
plastic used
used
was
was supplied by Poli Plastic Pellets Ltd., Monor farmhouse, Hawarden, Hawarden, Flintshire,
Flintshire, Wales,
Wales,
CH5 3PL, UK. The recycled glass used used was supplied
supplied by Centurywise
Centurywise Ltd., Unit 2 Bridge Bridge
House, Stuart
Stuart Road
RoadBredbury,
Bredbury,Stockport,
Stockport,Greater
GreaterManchester,
Manchester, England,
England, SK6 SK6 2SR.
2SR. TheThe
fo-
focused
cused onon conducting
conducting roadroad pavement
pavement design
design using
using sustainably
sustainably treated
treated clayclay subgrade
subgrade ma-
materials
terials in in compliance
compliance with
with DMRB
DMRB Guidetotoascertain
Guide ascertainhowhowtreated
treated clay
clay subgrade affects
road pavement
road pavement design.design. The study also carried out pavement defect analysis to investigate
the effect of varying CBR values and traffic loads on sustainably treated clay subgrade in
terms
terms ofof failure.
failure. Further
Further investigations
investigations of of the
the life
life cycle
cycle cost
cost (cost effects) of
(cost effects) of road
road pavement
pavement
designed
designed using
usingsustainably
sustainablytreated
treated clay subgrade
clay subgrade materials were
materials conducted
were conductedand compared
and com-
with
paredthewithlifethe
cycle
life cost
cycleofcost
roadof pavement
road pavement designed usingusing
designed imported subgrade
imported subgradematerials.
mate-
Lastly, the study investigated the embodied carbon for each sustainable
rials. Lastly, the study investigated the embodied carbon for each sustainable binder used binder used in
stabilising clay subgrade materials. The particle size distribution,
in stabilising clay subgrade materials. The particle size distribution, oxide and chemicaloxide and chemical
composition
composition of of all
all materials
materials used
used inin this
this study
study areare shown
shown in in Figures
Figures11andand22and andTable
Table1.1.

Figure 1. Materials used in this study.

study.

Table 1. oxide and chemical composition of materials used.

Oxide SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 FeO MgO CaO K2O SO3 TiO2 Na2O BaO Cr2O3 Trace L.O.I
Bentonite Clay (%) 63.02 21.08 3.25 0.35 2.67 0.65 - - - 2.57 - - 0.72 5.64
Kaolinite Clay (%) 48.5 36.0 1.00 - 0.30 0.05 2.15 - 0.06 0.15 - - - 11.7
Cement (%) 20 6.0 3.0 - 4.21 63 - 2.30 - - - - - 0.80
GGBS (%) 35.35 11.59 0.35 - 8.04 41.99 - 0.23 - - - - - -
Lime (%) 3.25 0.19 0.16 - 0.45 89.2 0.01 2.05 - - - - - -
BDW (%) 52 41 0.7 - 0.12 4.32 0.53 0.33 0.65 0.05 - - - 2.01
Plastic (%) 45.47 12.11 1.04 - - 38.49 0.94 0.43 - - - - - -
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 23

Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 4 of 23

Glass (%) 72.20 1.50 0.07 - 1.30 10.90 0.45 0.16 0.06 13.30 0.04 0.02 - -

Figure 2. 2.
Figure Particle
Particlesize
sizedistribution
distribution of
of materials usedininthis
materials used thisstudy.
study.

3. California Bearing
Table 1. Oxide Ratiocomposition
and chemical (CBR) and of Swell
materials used.
The sample preparation, testing procedure and standards used to determine the CBR
Oxide SiO2 Al2 O3 Fe2 O3FeO MgO CaO K2 O SO3 TiO2 Na2 O BaO Cr2 O3 Trace L.O.I
Bentonite Clay (%) 63.02
and Swell
21.08 3.25
for
0.35
treated
2.67
and0.65untreated
-
clay-
are as- reported
2.57
in -the authors’
-
previous
0.72 5.64
study
Kaolinite Clay (%) 48.5 36.0[2]. A1.00
high-quality
- subgrade
0.30 0.05 has2.15a CBR -value0.06between
0.15 80% and
- 100%
- minimum
- [2,3]. A
11.7
Cement (%) 20 6.0 3.0 - 4.21 63 - 2.30 - - - - - 0.80
GGBS (%) 35.35 CBR value
11.59 0.35 <2%- is unacceptable
8.04 41.99 for- use in
0.23road construction
- - and
- would- need - modification
-
Lime (%) 3.25 0.19 0.16 - 0.45 89.2 0.01 2.05 - - - - - -
BDW (%) 52 41or reengineering
0.7 - [2,3].
0.12 A subgrade
4.32 0.53swell >2.5%
0.33 is
0.65unacceptable
0.05 - for use- in road- construction
2.01
Plastic (%) 45.47 and must
12.11 1.04 be -treated- [2,3].38.49 0.94 0.43 - - - - - -
Glass (%) 72.20 1.50 0.07 - 1.30 10.90 0.45 0.16 0.06 13.30 0.04 0.02 - -

4. Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCC)

3. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Swell
Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) was carried out in this study for the best performing
The sample preparation, testing procedure and standards used to determine the CBR
mix design for a design period of 35 years in compliance with BS ISO 15686-5:2017 [16].
and Swell for treated and untreated clay are as reported in the authors’ previous study [2].
The LCC of claysubgrade
A high-quality treated using waste
has a CBR materials
value betweenwas80%compared with the LCC
and 100% minimum of CBR
[2,3]. A clay re-
moved
value < 2% is unacceptable for use in road construction and would need modification or in
and replaced with imported materials. The life cycle cost analysis performed
this study would[2,3].
reengineering helpAinform
subgradecontractors on is
swell > 2.5% the choice of binders
unacceptable for useand binder
in road proportions
construction
to and
adopt when
must they encounter
be treated [2,3]. clay with characteristics similar to what was used in this
study. The cost of binders used was investigated using current market prices at the time
of 4.
thisLife Cycle Cost Analysis (LCC)
study to calculate the total cost of binders required to stabiles a square kilometre of
Life on
clay based cycle
thecost analysis (LCCA)
percentages was used
of binders carried
inout in this studyInfor
a mix-design. the best performing
establishing the real cost
mix design for a design period of 35 years in compliance with BS ISO 15686-5:2017
of treating a square kilometre of clay, plant cost was estimated using the Newmarket [16]. The
Plant
LCC of clay treated using waste materials was compared with the LCC of clay removed
Hire (NPH) [17] Group document and ecoinvent database [18] to get product and materi-
and replaced with imported materials. The life cycle cost analysis performed in this study
alswould
data for the analysis.
help inform contractors on the choice of binders and binder proportions to adopt
when they encounter clay with characteristics similar to what was used in this study. The
5. Results and Discussion
cost of binders used was investigated using current market prices at the time of this study
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Swell
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 5 of 23

to calculate the total cost of binders required to stabiles a square kilometre of clay based on
the percentages of binders used in a mix-design. In establishing the real cost of treating
a square kilometre of clay, plant cost was estimated using the Newmarket Plant Hire
(NPH) [17] Group document and ecoinvent database [18] to get product and materials
data for the analysis.

5. Results and Discussion

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) and Swell
After conducting California bearing ratio (CBR) and swell test for treated and untreated
clay samples soaked and unsoaked, it was observed that CBR values increased for treated
soaked and unsoaked clay samples compared with untreated soaked and unsoaked samples.
The highest CBR value of 97% was recorded for Clay 1 treated with ground granulated
blastfurnace slag (GGBS) and brick dust waste (BDW) after 28 days of curing. This confirms
that waste materials can improve the engineering properties of clay. A CBR value > 250%
was achieved in a study conducted by [19] using a minimum of 20% of high calcium waste
dust from asphalt concrete manufacturing to stabilise low-quality soil used as subbase
course material in road structures. The study concluded that, recycled waste dust from
asphalt concrete in sustainable road construction. The lowest swell value of 0.38% was
recorded for Clay 1 treated with GGBS and plastic. Table 2 shows CBR and swell values for
treated and untreated clay samples.

Table 2. CBR and swell values for treated and untreated clay samples.

Clay Type Mix Design Treated Soaked Curing Days CBR Values (% ) Swell Values (% )
1 25% B + 75% K x x 0 8
√ 4.11
1 25% B + 75% K x 0 0.6
2 75% B + 25% K x x 0 9
√ 5.03
2 75% B + 25% K x 0 1.3
√
1 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% GL x 7 14
√ √ 0.52
1 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% GL 7 17
√
1 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% GL x 28 16
√ √ 0.46
1 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% GL 28 11
√
2 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% GL x 7 11
√ √ 0.64
2 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% GL 7 3
√
2 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% GL x 28 8
√ √ 0.57
2 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% GL 28 4
√
1 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% PL x 7 13
√ √ 0.56
1 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% PL 7 12
√
1 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% PL x 28 13
√ √ 0.51
1 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% PL 28 8
√
2 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% PL x 7 12
√ √ 0.61
2 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% PL 7 6
√
2 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% PL x 28 8
√ √ 0.59
2 2L% + 2.5% C + 23.5% PL 28 3
2L% 2.5% C + 11.75% √
1 x 7 44 0.38
GGBS + 11.75% PL
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 6 of 23

Table 2. Cont.

Clay Type Mix Design Treated Soaked Curing Days CBR Values (% ) Swell Values (% )
2L% 2.5% C + 11.75% √
2 x 7 21 0.94
GGBS + 11.75% PL
2L% 2.5% C + 11.75% √ √
1 7 59 0.39
GGBS + 11.75% GL
2L% 2.5% C + 11.75% √ √
2 7 31 0.56
GGBS + 11.75% GL
2L% + 2.5% C + 11.75% √ √
1 28 97 0.42
GGBS + 11.75% BDW
2L% + 2.5% C + 11.75% √
2 x 7 27
GGBS + 11.75% BDW
0.54
2L% + 2.5% C + 11.75% √ √
2 7 16
GGBS + 11.75% BDW
2L% + 2.5% C + 11.75% √
2 x 28 44
GGBS + 11.75% BDW
0.49
2L% + 2.5% C + 11.75% √ √
2 28 24
GGBS + 11.75% BDW
Where B = Bentonite, K= Kaolinite, L = Lime, C = Cement, GGBS = Ground Granulated Blastfurnace Slag, PL=
Plastic, GL = Glass, BDW = Brick Dust waste.

6. DMRB Road Pavement Design Using Sustainable Treated Clay

Road pavement design was conducted in this study in accordance with DMRB CD
226 [20]) using selected California bearing ratio (CBR) values achieved in this study. The
procedure used and parameters adopted are as reported in the authors’ previous study [13].
The design traffic load selected include 3 msa, 8 msa, 60 msa and 100 msa and the CBR
values selected include 3% for Clay 2, 8% for Clay 1, 109% for Clay 1. A three-layer
composite pavement was adopted for the design using class 3 design in accordance with
DMRB CD 226 [20]). The results show a reduction in pavement thickness as CBR values
increase for Clay 1 for all design traffic loads. A high CBR value resulted in reduced
pavement thickness and the overall construction cost of a project [21]. A CBR value of
19% reflected in a reduction in the overall thickness and life cycle cost of road pavement
in Uganda [4]. Ref. [22], stated in a study that pavement thickness is determined by the
subgrade CBR. According to [23]. Pavements are built to a set thickness dependent on
the clay quality, being dependent on anticipated traffic. After designing pavement using
DMRB 226 [20], a slight change in pavement thickness was observed compared with using
other standards. Changes in pavement thickness were significant for clay CBR values
from 2–5% using DMRB [16]. This is so because the subbase layer forms a major part of
pavement thickness and Class 3 subbase chart offers a thicker subbase layer only for CBR
values between 2–10.5%, after which the sub-base thickness remains the same (180 mm).
This means no significant pavement thickness was observed even with a CBR value of
100%. Using sustainable waste materials resulted in achieving very high CBR values and
thinner pavement. The thickest pavement of 600 mm (100 msa) was recorded for clay with
a CBR value of 3% and the thickest pavement of 418 mm (3 msa) was recorded for clay
with a CBR value of 109%. Figure 3a,b shows Class 3 design–single foundation layer (IAN
73/06 [3,24]) (b) Nomograph for determining the design thickness for flexible pavement
(DMRB CD 226 [3,20]). Figure 4a,b show the result of road pavement designed using DMRB
for traffic 3 msa and 8 msa. (b) Result of road pavement designed using DMRB for traffic
60 msa and 100 msa.
Sustainability 2022,
Sustainability 14,14,
2022, 12588
x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of
7 of 2323

(a)

(b)
Figure3.3.(a)
Figure (a)Class
Class3 3design–single
design–singlefoundation
foundationlayer
layer (IAN
(IAN 73/06[3,24]).
73/06 [3,24]).(b)
(b)Nomograph
Nomographfor
for deter-
determin-
mining the design thickness for flexible pavement (DMRB CD 226 [3,20]).
ing the design thickness for flexible pavement (DMRB CD 226 [3,20]).
Sustainability
Sustainability2022,
2022,14,
14,x12588
FOR PEER REVIEW 8 8ofof23
23

(a)

Figure 4. Cont.
Sustainability
Sustainability2022,
2022,14,
14,x12588
FOR PEER REVIEW 9 9ofof23
23

(b)
Figure
Figure4.4.(a)
(a)Result
Resultof
ofroad
road pavement
pavement designed using DMRB
DMRB for
for traffic
traffic33msa
msaand
and88msa
msa(b)
(b)Result
Resultof
ofroad
roadpavement
pavementdesigned
designed using DMRB for traffic 60 msa and 100
using DMRB for traffic 60 msa and 100 msa. msa.

7.7.Road
RoadPavement
PavementFailure
FailureInvestigation
Investigation
Road pavement
Road pavement defect
defectinvestigations
investigationswere
wereconducted to determine
conducted the level
to determine theoflevel
stresses
of
within within
stresses road pavement structures
road pavement usingusing
structures selected CBR CBR
selected values achieved
values in this
achieved study
in this for
study
sustainably
for treated
sustainably clay.
treated TheThe
clay. level of stress
level within
of stress roadroad
within pavement
pavementstructures is determined
structures is deter-
by the CBR values used in road construction [3,15]. For defects to occur
mined by the CBR values used in road construction [3,15]. For defects to occur in road pavement
in roadis
pavement is dependent on the severity of the stresses within the road pavement [3].defect
dependent on the severity of the stresses within the road pavement [3]. The pavement The
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 10 of 23

analysis conducted in this study includes fatigue, rutting and deformation. The stresses
within the various layers of the road pavement were analysed using KENPAV software. The
procedure used, selected pavement type, design traffic adopted and other parameters used
in the defect analysis are as reported in the authors’ previous study [3,15]. The equations
used in calculating the allowable load repetition for fatigue, permanent deformation and
rutting life of the road pavement are as reported in the authors’ previous study [3]. After
conducting defect analysis, it was observed that clay treated with sustainable waste with
low CBR values recorded very high stresses compared with clay with high CBR values.
According to [3,25,26], fatigue cracks are initiated in road pavement with high stresses
within its clay. Hence, clay with low CBR values achieved in this study are susceptible to
defects when used in road construction. However, clay with a high CBR value has less
stress making them more durable for use in road construction. Asphalt layer thickness
is required to limit stresses within the pavement and reduce the severity of reflective
cracking. Due to the low CBR value of 5%, a thicker pavement was required to limit the
rate of pavement deterioration due to stress from traffic load [27]. Thicker pavement was
observed for clay with low CBR values. The results achieved shows that sustainable waste
materials can be used in road clay treatment to reduce the occurrence of defect within a
pavement structure. Plastics can be used in flexible pavement to improve its performance
against rutting [3,28]. To compensate for clay with low CBR values, road pavements are
made thicker to help reduce the stresses within the road structure to prevent defects from
occurring. However, the thicker the road pavement the high the overall cost of construction.
According to [3,29], road pavement with asphalt thickness below 180 mm deforms quicker
but thicker pavement deforms at a lesser rate [3,29]. High elastic modulus was recorded
for pavements with high clay CBR values resulting in reduced stresses hence less chances
for deformation to occur. A reduction in allowable load repetition for fatigue, rutting and
permanent deformation confirms that road pavement with clay treated with sustainable
waste can withstand fatigue for a longer period before they occur. A reduction in CBR
values reflected in a reduction in allowable repeated loads and an increase in CBR value
resulted in an increase in allowable repeated loads for fatigue, rutting and permanent
deformation. Failure occurs after a large number of cycles when load repetitions are high
and applied stresses are low [3]. However, low load repetitions result in high stresses hence
failure occurs after a few cycles due to high stresses above the materials’ yield stress [3,25].
Stresses and KENPAVE results are shown in Figures 5–7 showing stresses and KENPAVE
results for treated clay and Figure 8a,b shows results for permanent deformation and
fatigue and rutting for sustainably treated clay using plastic, glass and brick dust waste.
lity 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 23
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 11 of 23

Figure 5. Stresses
Figureand KENPAVE
5. Stresses results for
and KENPAVE clayfortreated
results usingusing
clay treated plastic waste.
plastic waste.
bility 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 23
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 12 of 23

Figure 6. Stresses
Figure 6.and KENPAVE
Stresses resultsresults
and KENPAVE for clay
for treated using
clay treated glass
using waste.
glass waste.
lity 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 13 of 23

Figure 7. Stresses
Figureand KENPAVE
7. Stresses results for
and KENPAVE clayfor
results treated usingusing
clay treated brickbrick
dustdust
waste.
waste.
ability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 14 of 23

(a)

(b)
Figure 8. Cont.
nability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 15 of 23

(c)

(d)
Figure 8. (a) results
Figure 8. (a)for permanent
results deformation
for permanent deformationforfor
clay
claytreated
treated with plasticand
with plastic and glass
glass wastewaste (b)
(b) results
results forfor
fatigue
fatigueand
andrutting failurefor
rutting failure forclay
clay treated
treated withwith
plasticplastic and waste
and glass glass (c)
waste (c)for
results results for
permanent
permanentdeformation
deformation forfor
clayclay treated
treated withwith
glassglass and dust
and brick brickwaste
dust(d)
waste (d)for
results results forand
fatigue fatigue
ruttingand
clay
rutting clay treated
treated with
with glassglass
andandbrickbrick
dust dust
waste.waste.

8. Life Cycle Cost Analysis

8. Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Life Cycle Cost Analysis in this study was conducted using economic principles
Life based
Cycle on Cost Analysis
a range in this
of design study
traffic was conducted
to ascertain using
the long-term economic
cost principles
and economic effects
based on of
a range of design traffic to ascertain the long-term cost and economic
roads designed using CBR values achieved in this study. Due to the effectivenesseffects of
roads designed using CBR values achieved in this study. Due to the effectiveness
of life cycle cost analysis in determining the cost-effectiveness of road pavement, Theof life
cycle cost analysis in determining the cost-effectiveness of road pavement, The United
States has made efforts to record life cycle cost analysis state-of-practice for all highways
construction [30]. A life cycle analysis (LCA) conducted for sustainable pavement demon-
strated lower environmental impacts and is suitable for eco-design in the pavement sector
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 16 of 23

United States has made efforts to record life cycle cost analysis state-of-practice for all
highways construction [30]. A life cycle analysis (LCA) conducted for sustainable pavement
demonstrated lower environmental impacts and is suitable for eco-design in the pavement
sector [31]. According to [32], a key factor in multiyear prioritisation is emphasised the
use of life cycle cost information in cost calculations. LCCA has gained recognition in the
road construction sector as a practice in the sustainability of its infrastructural systems [33].
Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is an economic analysis process used to evaluate the
cost-efficiency of alternatives based on the net present value (NPV) concept [34]. The
LCCA approach was used to develop an inventory of quantitative asset-level models for
predicting life cycle costs associated with the preservation and replacement of highway
assets [35] RealCost software was used as a tool to investigate the cost and economic effects,
agency and user costs during the service life of the road. [36] used RealCost in life cycle
cost analyses (LCCA) for infrastructure sustainability. RealCost software was proposed
as the preferred software for use in life cycle cost analyses for road pavement [37]. The
five sections of the RealCost Switchboard used for data input and results are shown in
Figure 9. The initial costs, maintenance cost rehabilitation cost and salvage value of the
road were projected using the net present value (NPV) indices in Equation (1). Using
Equation (2), the present and future expenditure was converted into annual costs and used
to calculate the equivalent uniform annual costs (EUAC) for future budget calculations
while Equation (3) was used to calculate the discount rate. Table 3 shows the description of
parameters used in LCCA.

N   
1 1
NPV = Initial Cons.Cost + ∑ Future CostK
(1 + i ) n k
] –Salvage Value
(1 + i ) n e
(1)
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW k =1 17 of 2

where:

Figure9.9.The
Figure The five
five sections
sections of the
of the RealCost
RealCost Switchboard
Switchboard used inused in this study.
this study.

A CBR value of 80% for clay 2 after 28 days achieved in this study was used to con
duct the Life Cycle Analysis (LCCA). Two alternatives were considered during the anal
ysis and the lowest NPV for user and agency costs derived from RealCost software wa
used to calculate the LCC for a period of 35 years. The initial construction cost composed
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 17 of 23

Table 3. Description of parameters used in the LCCA.

Parameters Description
This is the cost presented in unit prices and derived from bid
Initial construction cost (ICC)
records of previous projects.
This is the cost incurred to make sure the road is usable
Maintenance and Rehabilitation
through its service life. This cost is normally M&R retrieved
cost (M&R)
from previous projects.
Is the evaluation of the road beyond the period of analysis to
Salvage value (SV)
ascertain the useful life of the road at the end of the analysis.
This is the rate used to estimate the real value of money based
Discount rate (DR)
on the difference between inflation and interest rates.
Life Cycle Cost (LCC) ICC + (M&R × DR)

N = number of future costs incurred over the analysis period

i = discount rate in the present
nk = number of years from the initial construction to the K th expenditure
ne = analysis period in years.

(1 + i ) n
 
EUAC = NPV (2)
(1 + i ) n − 1

where:
i = discount rate
n = years of expenditure.

interest − in f lation
 
Discount Rate = (3)
1 + in f lation

where:
interest = Expected interest rate
inflation = Expected inflation rate.
A CBR value of 80% for clay 2 after 28 days achieved in this study was used to conduct
the Life Cycle Analysis (LCCA). Two alternatives were considered during the analysis and
the lowest NPV for user and agency costs derived from RealCost software was used to
calculate the LCC for a period of 35 years. The initial construction cost composed of user
and agency cost, cost of cement and lime treatment was calculated for a square kilometre of
the road at year 0. Maintenance costs were calculated at years 6, 19 and 28 and rehabilitation
costs were calculated at years 9, 21 and 30, respectively. The salvage cost of the road at year
35 in this study was based on a prorated cost of year 30 rehabilitation. The initial cost of
construction was calculated based on a square kilometre of the road at year 0. Rehabilitation
and maintenance costs including salvage value for clay removal and replacement were
calculated for years 9, 21 and 30, respectively. This brought the Life Cycle Cost of a road
with treated clay using cement and lime to GBP268,536,644.10 and Life Cycle Cost for a
road with clay removed and replaced with imported materials to GBP488,754,774.64. A
vast difference in life cycle cost (LCC) was observed between roads with clay treated using
cement and lime and clay removed and replaced with imported materials. The LCC for the
road with clay treated using cement and lime was less compared to the LCC for the road
with clay removed and replaced with foreign materials. It was observed that the overall life
cycle cost of the two types of roads was greatly influenced by the initial cost (user, agency
cost and cost of clay treatment) at year 0. According to [38], land acquisition, renovation,
modification, construction and equipment cost can increase the initial cost during Life cycle
Cost Analysis (LCCA). The study proves that it is cheaper to construct roads using the
existing clay compared to removing and replacing roads with clay during construction. It is
more economical to design road pavement for the existing subgrade capacity than to import
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 18 of 23

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW

or raise subgrade supports by using an extra-thicker subbase [39]. A gradual increase in
maintenance and rehabilitation cost was seen for road pavement with treated clay after
year 0. The high maintenance cost compared with rehabilitation cost translated into a drop
in salvage value at year 35. Road pavement with clay removed and replaced recorded
value.
the The
highest total
initial costcost of 0treating
at year a square
with a gradual kilometre
increase of road
in maintenance andclay using cement a
rehabilitation
against
cost and athe total
later dropcost of removing
in salvage value. Theandtotal
replacing a square
cost of treating kilometre
a square of clay
kilometre of can b
road clay 10.
Figure using cement
The NPVand lime against
derived fromthe total costsoftware
RealCost of removing forand replacing
agency anda square
user cost for
kilometre of clay can be seen in Figure 10. The NPV derived from RealCost software for
tives 1 and 2 can be seen in Table 4. Estimated maintenance and rehabilitation
agency and user cost for alternatives 1 and 2 can be seen in Table 4. Estimated maintenance
therehabilitation
and discount rates cost used
and thecan be seen
discount inused
rates Figures 11seen
can be andin12. Life 11
Figures Cycle Cost
and 12. Lifeanalysis
tainability
Cycle treated
Cost analysis clay and Life
for sustainability Cycle
treated clayCost analysis
and Life for analysis
Cycle Cost road clay removed
for road clay and
with imported materials are shown in Figures 13 and 14.
removed and replaced with imported materials are shown in Figures 13 and 14.

Figure
Figure Cost
10.10. of treating
Cost and removing
of treating clay.
and removing clay.

Table 4. Agency and user cost for alternatives 1 and 1 derived from RealCost software.
Table 4. Agency and user cost for alternatives 1 and 1 derived from RealCost software.
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Total Cost Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Total
AgencyCost
Cost User Cost Agency Cost User Cost
Agency Cost User Cost Agency Cost User Co
Undiscounted Sum GBP 6,000,000.00 GBP 80,000.06 GBP 7,200,000.00 GBP 133,000.43
GBP GBP
Net Present Value Undiscounted
GBP 5,521,000.40 Sum GBP 80,000.06 GBP 6,632,000.91 GBPGBP
7,200,000.00
133,000.43 GBP 133
6,000,000.00 80,000.06
EUAC GBP 295,000.82 GBP 4000.29 GBP 355,000.37 GBP 7000.15
GBP GBP
Lowest Net Present Value AgencyNet
CostPresent Value Alternative 1 GBP 6,632,000.91 GBP 133
5,521,000.40 80,000.06
Lowest Net Present Value User Cost Alternative 1
EUAC GBP 295,000.82 GBP 4,000.29 GBP 355,000.37 GBP 7,00
Lowest Net Present Value Agency CostAlternative 1
Lowest Net Present Value User Cost Alternative 1
 6,000,000.00 80,000.06
GBP GBP
Net Present Value GBP 6,632,000.91 GBP 133,000.43
5,521,000.40 80,000.06
EUAC GBP 295,000.82 GBP 4,000.29 GBP 355,000.37 GBP 7,000.15
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 Lowest Net Present Value Agency CostAlternative 1 19 of 23
Lowest Net Present Value User Cost Alternative 1

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 23

Figure 11. NPV results from RealCost software for agency and user cost for alternatives 1 and 2.
Figure 11. NPV results from RealCost software for agency and user cost for alternatives 1 and 2.

Figure 12.12.
Figure Discount
Discountrate,
rate,estimated maintenanceand
estimated maintenance and rehabilitation
rehabilitation cost.cost.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 20 of 23

Figure 12. Discount rate, estimated maintenance and rehabilitation cost.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 23

Figure 13.13.
Figure Life Cycle
Life CycleCost
Costanalysis forsustainability
analysis for sustainability treated
treated clay.
clay.

Figure 14.
Figure 14. Life
Life Cycle Cost analysis
Cycle Cost analysis for
for road
road clay
clay removed
removed and
and replaced
replaced with
with imported
imported materials.
materials.

9. Embodied Carbon Associated with Mix

The lowest embodied carbon was recorded for mix design 2% 2% Lime + 2.5% Cement ++
23.5% GGBS (0.0018 Co e/kg)
Co₂e/kg)
2 compared with the control
compared with the control mix mix 8% Lime + 20% Cement of
0.0084 Co 2 e/kg.However,
Co₂e/kg. However,sustainably
sustainablytreated
treated mix
mix recorded
recorded low embodied carbon except
for
for mixed
mixed designs
designs containing
containingplastic.
plastic. The
Thehighest
highestembodied
embodiedcarbon
carbonofof0.0107
0.0107Co 2 e/kg was
Co₂e/kg was
recorded
recorded for
for2%
2%Lime
Lime+2.5%
+2.5%Cement
Cement+11.75%
+11.75%GGBS
GGBS+11.75%
+11.75%Plastic
Plasticasasaaresult
resultofofthe
theplastic
plas-
because plastics
tic because have
plastics veryvery
have highhigh
embodied
embodiedcarbon. [40] stated
carbon. that plastics
[40] stated are carbon
that plastics more
are carbon
specifically because almost all plastics are fossil carbon locked up in polymer
more specifically because almost all plastics are fossil carbon locked up in polymer form. form. Control
mix 8% Lime
Control + 20%
mix 8% LimeCement
+ 20%recorded the lowestthe
Cement recorded Life CycleLife
lowest CostCycle
(£268,344,106.46) for treated
Cost (£268,344,106.46)
clay followed by mix design 2% Lime + 2.5% Cement + 23.5%
for treated clay followed by mix design 2% Lime + 2.5% Cement + 23.5% GGBS GGBS (£268,433,336.06).
However, there was
(£268,433,336.06). no significant
However, there was difference in their
no significant LCC which
difference in theirmakes using makes
LCC which waste
using waste materials in clay treatment the best option for achieving more sustainable
construction. Even though traditional cement and lime are cheaper compared with sus-
tainable waste-treated clay, they are none-environmentally friendly and unsustainable
due to their high embodied carbon. Table 5 shows the classification of parameters and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 21 of 23

materials in clay treatment the best option for achieving more sustainable construction.
Even though traditional cement and lime are cheaper compared with sustainable waste-
treated clay, they are none-environmentally friendly and unsustainable due to their high
embodied carbon. Table 5 shows the classification of parameters and embodied Carbon.

Table 5. Classification of Parameters and Embodied Carbon.

Embodied Carbon for Life Cycle Cost (LCC) 35 Years

S/N Binder Composition CBR Range (% ) Binders (Co2 e/kg) Clay Removal and
(BSRIA Guide 2022 [41]) Treated Clay
Replacement
1 8% L + 20% C (control) 38–96 0.0084 GBP268,344,106.46 GBP488,754,774.64
2 2% L + 2.5% C + 23.5% BDW 17–23 0.0036 GBP268,447,414.50 GBP488,754,774.64
3 2% L + 2.5% C + 23.5% GGBS 46–97 0.0018 GBP268,433,336.06 GBP488,754,774.64
4 2% L + 2.5% C + 23.5% PL 3–13 0.0195 GBP268,998,357.71 GBP488,754,774.64
5 2% L + 2.5% C + 23.5% GL 3–17 0.0069 GBP268,383,764.06 GBP488,754,774.64
2% L + 2.5% C + 11.75%
6 16–109 0.0028 GBP268,536,644.10 GBP488,754,774.64
GGBS + 11.75% BDW
2% L + 2.5% C + 11.75%
7 44–93 0.0107 GBP269,087,587.31 GBP488,754,774.64
GGBS + 11.75% PL
2% L + 2.5% C + 11.75%
8 21–80 0.0072 GBP268,472,993.66 GBP488,754,774.64
GGBS + 11.75% GLASS
Where L = Lime, C = Cement, GGBS = Ground Granulated Blastfurnace Slag, PL= Plastic, GL = Glass,
BDW = Brick Dust waste.

10. Conclusions
Conducting road pavement design, defect analysis and Life Cycle Cost Analysis
(LCCA) using clay treated with eco-friendly waste materials achieved good results in this
study therefore the study concludes on the following:
1. Road pavement thickness reduced with an increase in CBR value however, there was
no significant difference between pavement thickness.
2. CBR values from 2–5% only recorded high pavement thickness as a result thicker
subbase layer influences the overall thickness of the pavement.
3. Defects are less likely to occur due to high CBR values recorded resulting in low
stresses within the pavement structure.
4. High allowable repeated loads were recorded for subgrade with high CBR value
resulting in the ability of road pavement to withstand several cyclic loading before
failure occurs.
5. The study reveals the possibility of treating clay using waste materials which would
help reduce the problem of landfill and greenhouse gas emissions and the envi-
ronmental effects associated with cement and lime production while reducing our
overreliance on natural resources such as clinker used in cement production.
6. Road pavement constructed using clay removed and replaced with foreign materials
recorded the highest Life Cycle Cost. Compared to the Life Cycle Cost of road pave-
ment constructed using clay treated with waste. The study confirmed that road pave-
ment constructed using clay treated with waste is cheaper and more economical com-
pared with road pavement with clay removed and replaced with imported materials.
7. The Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of a road is greatly influenced by the initial cost such as
agency, user cost and subgrade treatment cost. Year 0 to year 19 observed a gradual
increase in maintenance and rehabilitation costs as road pavement age increased. Fol-
lowed by a reduction in rehabilitation cost in year 21 with an increase in maintenance
cost in year 28. Both road pavements recorded the same salvage value.
8. Decision-makers, road contractors and engineers can quickly refer to this study when
deciding on the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of road projects with subgrade characteristics
and parameters similar to what was used in this study.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 22 of 23

9. To save money in road construction, this study recommends that clay or weak sub-
grades should be treated for use in road construction instead of removing subgrades
and replacing them with imported materials. The cost of road pavement can be
reduced by achieving good CBR values and thinner pavement thickness through
subgrade treatment using cement and lime as binders.
10. This study would encourage the use of waste materials dumped in landfills in ground
improvement and road construction. This would promote greener, sustainable and
eco-friendly ways of road construction to help battle the climate change problems
faced today.

Author Contributions: S.J.A. and S.Y.O.A.; methodology, S.Y.O.A., J.O. and S.J.A.; validation,
S.Y.O.A., J.O. and S.J.A.; formal analysis, S.Y.O.A.; investigation, S.Y.O.A.; re-sources, S.J.A. and C.A.B.;
data curation, S.Y.O.A. and S.J.A.; writing—original draft preparation, S.Y.O.A.; writing—review and
editing, S.Y.O.A., S.J.A. and C.A.B.; visualization, S.J.A., J.O. and C.A.B.; supervision, S.J.A., J.O. and
C.A.B.; project administration, C.A.B. and S.J.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data can be obtained from corresponding authors upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge that the advice, comments and suggestions from
anonymous reviewers significantly improved the quality of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest associated with this
publication, and no financial support has been given to influence the outcome of this work.

References
1. Amakye, S.Y.; Abbey, S.J. Understanding the performance of Clay subgrade materials treated with non-traditional stabilisers: A
Review. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2021, 4, 100159. [CrossRef]
2. Amakye, S.Y.O.; Abbey, S.J.; Booth, C.A.; Oti, J. Road Pavement Thickness and Construction Depth Optimization Using Treated
and Untreated Artificially-Synthesized Clay Road Subgrade Materials with Varying Plasticity Index. Materials 2022, 15, 2773.
[CrossRef]
3. Amakye, S.Y.; Abbey, S.J.; Booth, C.A. Booth. Road pavement defect investigation using treated and untreated Clay road subgrade
materials with varying plasticity index. Transp. Eng. 2022, 9, 100123. [CrossRef]
4. Amakye, S.Y.; Abbey, S.J.; Booth, C.A.; Mahamadu, A.-M. Enhancing the engineering properties of subgrade materials using
processed waste: A review. Geotechnics 2021, 1, 307–329. [CrossRef]
5. Abbey, S.J.; Eyo, E.U.; Ng’Ambi, S. Swell and microstructural characteristics of high-plasticity clay blended with cement. Bull.
Eng. Geol. Environ. 2020, 79, 2119–2130. [CrossRef]
6. Abbey, S.J.; Ngambi, S.; Coakley, E. Effect of cement and by-product material inclusion on plasticity of deep mixing improved
soils. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2016, 7, 265–274.
7. Baldo, N.; Rondinella, F.; Daneluz, F.; Pasetto, M. Foamed Bitumen Mixtures for Road Construction Made with 100% Waste
Materials: A Laboratory Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6056. [CrossRef]
8. Suksiripattanapong, C.; Phetprapai, T.; Singsang, W.; Phetchuay, C.; Thumrongvut, J.; Tabyang, W. Utilization of Recycled Plastic
Waste in Fiber Reinforced Concrete for Eco-Friendly Footpath and Pavement Applications. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6839. [CrossRef]
9. Abbey, S.J.; Eyo, E.U.; Jeremiah, J.J. Experimental Study on Early Age Characteristics of Lime-GGBS-Treated Gypseous Clays
under Wet–Dry Cycles. Geotechnics 2021, 1, 402–415. [CrossRef]
10. Rivera, J.F.; Orobio, A.; De Gutiérrez, R.M.; Cristelo, N. Clayey soil treatment using alkali-activated cementitious materials. Mater.
Construc. 2020, 70, e211. [CrossRef]
11. Li, J.; Cameron, D.A.; Ren, G. Case study and back analysis of a residential building damaged by Clay soils. Comput. Geotech.
2014, 56, 89–99. [CrossRef]
12. The Constructor Building Ideas (TCBI). Available online: https://theconstructor.org/transportation/flexible-pavement-design-
cbr-method/11442/ (accessed on 14 November 2021).
13. Wild, W.J.; Waalkes, S.; Harrison, R. Life Cycle Analysis of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement. Research Report SWUTC/01/167205-
1 Southwest Region University Transportation Center. University for Transport Research, The University of Texas at Austin. 2001.
Available online: https://ctr.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubs/1739_1.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2022).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12588 23 of 23

14. Life Cycle Cost Analysis. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2017. Available online:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/lccasoft.cfm (accessed on 14 August 2022).
15. Amakye, S.Y.O.; Amakye, S.J.; Booth, C.A. DMRB Flexible Road Pavement Design Using Re-Engineered Clay Road Subgrade
Materials with Varying Plasticity Index. Geotechnics 2022, 2, 395–411. [CrossRef]
16. BS ISO 15686-5:2017; Building and Constructed Assets–Service Life Planning–Part 5: Life-Cycle Costing. ISO Standrads. Available
online: https://www.iso.org/standard/61148.html (accessed on 14 August 2022).
17. Newmarket Plant Hire (NPH) Group. Available online: http://www.nphgroup.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Plant-
Tools-Hire-Rates-Final-Copy.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2021).
18. Ecoinvent. Available online: https://ecoinvent.org/ (accessed on 27 February 2022).
19. Chaiyaput, S.; Sertsoongnern, P.; Ayawanna, J. Utilization of Waste Dust from Asphalt Concrete Manufacturing as a Sustainable
Subbase Course Material in Pavement Structures. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9804. [CrossRef]
20. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) CD 226. Design for New Pavement Construction. Available online: https:
//www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/ (accessed on 14 November 2021).
21. Otoko, G.R.; Pedro, P.P. Cement treatment of laterite and Chikoko soils using waste rubber fiber. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Res. Technol.
2014, 3, 1–7. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267211553_Cement_Stabilization_of_Laterite_and_
Chikoko_Soils_Using_Waste_Rubber_Fibre (accessed on 2 April 2022).
22. The Construction, Road Construction. 2022. Available online: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Road_construction
(accessed on 10 March 2022).
23. Dawson, A.; Kolisoja, P.; Vuorimies, N. Understanding Low-Volume Pavement Response to Heavy Traffic Loading. Institute of
Earth & Foundation Structure. 2008. Tampere University of Technology. Available online: https://www.roadex.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/01/task-b2_designa_140408.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2022).
24. Interim Advice Note (IAN) 73/06; Design Guidance for Road Pavement Foundations. Available online: https://www.
standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/ (accessed on 14 November 2021).
25. Lowa State University. 2021. Available online: https://www.nde-ed.org/Physics/Materials/Mechanical/FractureToughness.
xhtml (accessed on 14 February 2022).
26. Fleck, N.; Shin, C.; Smith, R. Fatigue crack growth under compressive loading. Eng. Fract. Mech. 1985, 21, 173–185. [CrossRef]
27. Parry, A.R.; Phillips, S.J.; Potter, J.F.; Nunn, M.E. Design and performance of flexible composite road pavements. Proc. Inst. Civ.
Eng. Transp. 1999, 135, 9–16. [CrossRef]
28. Dhiman, A.; Arora, N. Improving rutting resistance of flexible pavement structure by using waste plastic. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth
Environ. Sci. 2021, 889, 012030. [CrossRef]
29. Nunn, M.E.; Brown, A.; Weston, D.; Nicholls, J.C. Design of long-life flexible pavement for heavy traffic. Br. Aggreg. Constr. Mat.
Indust Refin. Bitum. Associ. 1997, 250, 1–81.
30. Peterson, D.E. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Pavements. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of Highway
Practice. Transportation Research Board. 1985, Volume 122, pp. 1–145. Available online: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/
nchrp/nchrp_syn_122.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2021).
31. Praticò, F.G.; Giunta, M.; Mistretta, M.; Gulotta, T.M. Energy and Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Sustainable Pavement
Materials and Technologies for Urban Roads. Sustainability 2020, 12, 704. [CrossRef]
32. Zimmerman, K.A.; Smith, K.D.; Grogg, M.G. Applying economic concepts from life-cycle cost analysis to pavement management
analysis. Transp. Res. Rec. 2000, 1699, 58–65. [CrossRef]
33. Ozbay, K.; Jawad, D.; Parker, N.A.; Hussain, S. Life-cycle cost analysis: State of the practice versus state of the art. Transp. Res. Rec.
2004, 1864, 62–70. [CrossRef]
34. Babashamsi, P.; Yusoff, N.I.M.; Ceylan, H.; Nor, N.G.M.; Jenatabadi, H.S. Evaluation of pavement life cycle cost analysis: Review
and analysis. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2016, 9, 241–254. [CrossRef]
35. Flannery, A.; Manns, J.; Venner, M. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 494: Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Management of Highway
Assets; Transportation Research Board of the National Academies: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
36. Lee, E.-B.; Thomas, D.K.; Alleman, D. Incorporating Road User Costs into Integrated Life-Cycle Cost Analyses for Infrastructure
Sustainability: A Case Study on Sr-91 Corridor Improvement Project (Ca). Sustainability 2018, 10, 179. [CrossRef]
37. Rangaraju, P.R.; Amirkhanaian, S.; Guven, S.Z. Life Cycle Analysis for Pavement Type Section; FHWA, South Carolina Department of
Transportation: Clemson, SC, USA, 2008. Available online: https://www.scdot.scltap.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/SPR6
56Final.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2021).
38. Fuller, S. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST). 2006. Available online:
https://www.wbdg.org/resources/life-cycle-cost-analysis-lcca (accessed on 8 March 2022).
39. Li, S. Heavy duty pavements. S. D. Sch. Mines Technol. 1964, 25, 1–4. Available online: https://www.concreteconstruction.net/
_view-object?id=00000153-8b57-dbf3-a177-9f7feb540000 (accessed on 14 August 2022).
40. Zhu, X. The Plastic Cycle—An Unknown Branch of the Carbon Cycle. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 7, 1–4. Available online:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.609243/full (accessed on 14 November 2021).
41. Carbon, E. The Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE) A BSRIA Guide. 2022. Available online: https://greenbuildingencyclopaedia.
uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Full-BSRIA-ICE-guide.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2021).