Comparative Analysis of Rubberized Asphalt and Traditional Asphalt: Performance, Economic, and Environmental Impacts in Life Cycle

Rubberized asphalt mixtures, including dry-process, wet-process with asphalt rubber binder, and wet-process with terminal blend binder, are superior options for pavement construction compared to conventional hot mix asphalt (HMA). This study compared these mixtures in terms of performance, cost, and environmental impact, considering their expected lifespan. Their performances were assessed through a literature review, the costs for material production and construction were estimated, and the environmental impacts were evaluated using a life cycle assessment (LCA) with the SimaPro software. The results showed that rubberized mixtures, overall, outperformed conventional asphalt by about 25%, making them a viable choice for sustainable pavements. Despite the higher material and construction costs, an economic analysis revealed that rubberized mixtures are more cost-effective in the long term due to their extended service lives. The wet-process rubberized mixture made with asphalt rubber binder proved to be the most cost-effective over the pavement’s lifespan, followed by the terminal blend and dry-process mixtures. The LCA indicated higher environmental impacts during production for rubberized asphalt due to increased fuel consumption and material usage. However, when normalizing emissions over the pavement’s lifespan, the wet-process rubberized mixtures made with asphalt rubber binder exhibit the lowest equivalent CO2 emissions per year, making them the most sustainable option. The comparative approach used in this study highlights the pros and cons of rubberized asphalt mixtures, offering valuable insights for informed decision-making in pavement construction.