Full Depth Reclamation:

A Cost-Effective and Environmentally-

Friendly Alternative
Jared C. Easterlin

November 15, 2008

Affiliation: Dennis Corporation

2337 SW Archer Road

Gainesville, FL 32608
(843) 819-2186
[email protected]

4051 Words

Special thanks to:

Dan Dennis, P.E., P.L.S. (Dennis Corporation)
Joe O’Grady (Portland Cement Association)
Tim Antley (Dennis Corporation)
Tim McConnell, P.G. (Portland Cement Association)
Easterlin 1

ABSTRACT
The current state of our nation’s transportation infrastructure is inadequate, and many state
and county municipalities do not have the funds to rehabilitate their road networks to
improve them to an acceptable level. To add to this problem, modern road reconstruction
practices are expensive, time-consuming, and harmful to the environment. To solve this
problem, a road rehabilitation technique must be implemented which takes into account
sustainability, recycling of materials, timely and cost-effective construction, environmental
effects, and global applicability.
The solution to this problem is a process called Full-Depth Reclamation (FDR) that
uses the existing road’s materials to create a durable, reclaimed road base. A mix design for
the new base can be easily determined through the testing of core samples at a lab. The
existing materials are crushed and mixed together with water and a specified additive, such
as Portland cement, to achieve a uniform reclaimed mixture to a depth of usually 6 to 10
inches. After the materials are compacted and graded to specifications, a sealant is applied to
the cement-stabilized base, and the road is ready for a surface application.
The significance of this technique is the reduction of emissions, price, and
construction waste. Since 100% of the in-situ materials are used, there is no need for virgin
material to be hauled in or waste to be taken to a landfill. The amount of trucks and landfill
space utilized is significantly reduced, lowering costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Using
this method, the existing materials are recycled, virgin materials are conserved, construction
debris is eliminated, and a long-lasting, economical road base is created.
Easterlin 2

INTRODUCTION
Throughout America, many states, like South Carolina, are suffering from increasingly
expensive problem within the transportation sector of their infrastructure. Due to factors such
as population increases and unexpected development, roadways around the country are being
subjected to increased traffic loading and, as a result, are deteriorating faster than they can be
repaired. Approximately 39% of South Carolina’s major roadways are considered to be
inadequate, so road rehabilitation is an important issue (10). As the price of oil continues to
rise, so does the cost of road construction, which puts an enormous burden on the state’s
Department of Transportation as well as county governments to find ways to collect the
necessary funding for their projects. Unfortunately, South Carolina puts the least amount of
money towards its highway system than any other state in the nation (18). FIGURE 1 shows
how money from state revenues is allocated to transportation infrastructure funds for South
Carolina and two neighboring states. These funds, spread over 41,500 miles of state
highways, and thousands more miles of secondary county roads, results in a largely
inefficient road network that puts a strain on the economy and the welfare of South
Carolina’s residents.
Money Towards
State State Revenue
Roads (per mile)
South Carolina $605,071,000 $14,580
Georgia $1,033,069,000 $57,393
North Carolina $2,421,628,000 $30,780
FIGURE 1 Comparison of SC to Neighboring States (18).
Many counties in South Carolina cannot raise the necessary funds to repair their
secondary roadways, which damages the economy in a number of ways. The main problem is
that the condition of many of these roads prevents large trucks from being able to access
them. Because 81% of South Carolina communities are solely supplied by trucks, the driving
conditions of these roads are crucial to the service of most of the state. Building materials,
farm products, machinery, petroleum, and food are just a few of the many goods that trucks
transport throughout the state everyday. In fact, 90% of all manufactured freight and almost
100% of all dairy, fruit, and vegetables are carried by trucks in SC, and 57% of South
Carolina’s workers are employed by trucking companies or truck-dependant industries (19).
To add to this, it is expected that, by 2020, commercial trucking in SC will increase about
61% (10) Truly the improvement of our secondary roadway network is necessary for better
transportation for South Carolina citizens and will also boost the economy and stimulate
economic development.
The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) is significantly under-
funded as well. In a report by TRIP, a transportation research organization, the SCDOT will
require a total of $28.2 billion over the ten-year period between 2007 and 2016 to bring
South Carolina’s major roadways up to acceptable standards. Unfortunately, only about $6.3
billion will be accessible during the time period, which leaves a need for $21.9 billion to
complete all the necessary improvements (10).
This is not the only problem for the roadways of South Carolina. Inflation in many
areas adds to the lack of funds needed to bring these roads up to proper standards. Below are
three figures that illustrate the increase in cost of some economically influential products
such as PG64-22 liquid asphalt binder, diesel fuel, and unleaded fuel.
Easterlin 3

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09

FIGURE 2 Inflation of PG64-22 Liquid Asphalt Binder since January 2005 (7).
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09

FIGURE 3 Inflation of Diesel Fuel since January 2005 (7).

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09

FIGURE 4 Inflation of Unleaded Fuel since January 2005 (7).

Easterlin 4

Clearly, with the rising costs of fuel and construction materials, the need for a
sustainable, economical, and cost-effective road reconstruction technique is dire, and in
South Carolina a relatively new rehabilitation technique is being applied to many of its major
and secondary roadways. A process that crushes and blends the full existing pavement
structure and a specified depth of the underlying materials together to create a stabilized base
course is now being incorporated into the state and county road reconstruction programs. It
reduces the impacts on the environment, use of virgin materials, and high construction costs
associated with today’s road construction processes. This process is called Full-Depth
Reclamation (FDR), and it is revolutionizing the road construction industry.

THE FULL-DEPTH RECLAMATION PROCESS

The FDR process is fairly simple. An analysis of the deteriorated road should be performed
to determine the cause of failure. Pavement failure can happen a number of different ways.
Fatigue cracking, often called alligator cracking, is one of the most common modes of
failure, and it is the result of repeated traffic loading. Rutting is another common failure
mode which is caused by channelized traffic on a weak subgrade. Another failure is an effect
of the lateral braking forces vehicles impose on the road causing separation of the pavement
from the base materials, called shoving.
A mix design must be determined before any work is started on the road. A sample of
the in-situ materials is sent to a laboratory to determine the types of materials present, the
depth to be reclaimed, and the amount of stabilizing agent to mix in with the reclaimed
material to achieve the required strength. This is done by taking core samples of all materials
present, including the asphalt surface, base aggregate, and the subgrade soil. The pavement
design should be based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, and the Portland Cement
Association (PCA) recommends a 7-day strength of 300 to 400 psi (8). Based on AASHTO
structural coefficients, 8 in. of GAB is equal to 6 in. of cement-stabilized base (13).
Once construction is started, a machine called a reclaimer crushes the existing
pavement structure and mixes it with the underlying materials. This process is called
pulverization. Some common road reclaiming machines are the Caterpillar RM-350, CMI
RS-500B or RS-650, Wirtgen WR-2500, or Hamm Raco 550 (12). During this step, the
gradation of the mix is controlled so that the materials are evenly distributed throughout the
specified depth.
Chemical additives or bituminous stabilizing agents can be added to the mix to
achieve the required strength. Some typical chemical additives are Portland cement, calcium
chloride, hydrated lime, or fly-ash. Portland cement is the most common and can be applied
dry or in slurry form. The advantages of using Portland cement are that it achieves a good
early strength and is resistant to moisture. Calcium chloride is used in areas prone to frost
heaving. When the in-situ soils are relatively fine, hydrated lime is used and acts similar to
cement. It also can be applied dry or as a slurry. Bituminous stabilization materials are
usually slow or medium set asphalt emulsions, such as CRS-2 or CRS2-P (4), or foamed
asphalt, sometimes referred to as “expanded asphalt”. The advantage of emulsions is that
they are resistant to fatigue cracking and can be easily mixed into the base in the reclaimer’s
mixing chamber. Unfortunately emulsions are more expensive and take a much longer time
to gain strength than Portland cement. Foamed asphalt is less expensive than emulsions and
Easterlin 5

gains strength quickly allowing for the quick resumption of normal traffic conditions. In
Europe and Canada, a combination of cement and emulsions is sometimes used (12).
If cement, fly-ash or any other type of stabilizer is to be applied, it is either spread out
in front of the reclaimer or added in the reclaimer’s mixing chamber. This ensures that the
additive is evenly mixed with the reclaimed material. Water is also added in the mixing
chamber to achieve the required moisture content. Next, the mixture is compacted with
various types of rollers according to predetermined specifications, usually to a minimum of
96% of the maximum density, and then shaped with a motor-grader (14). Finally, a sealant is
applied to the stabilized base, and the road is ready for a surface course. For interstates and
airports, hot-mix asphalt (HMA) or concrete is generally used, and for secondary roads, a
thin, bituminous chip seal is applied. FIGURE 5 shows core samples from a typical 4” paved
road and a 6” FDR road in Fairfield County, SC.

4” Asphalt 6” FDR Road

FIGURE 5 Comparison of Core Samples.

THE FDR ADVANTAGE

The FDR process produces a relatively inexpensive road base with increased
compressive strength and higher resistance to fatigue failure than conventional road
reconstruction techniques. The most common and least expensive reconstruction method has
traditionally been mill and overlay. It is easily and quickly implemented, which is one of the
primary reasons for its widespread use. In this procedure, an inch or two of asphalt is milled
off the existing road to remove surface cracks and deformations, such as rutting. A tack coat
is applied to bond the old material to the new wearing surface, and a new layer of asphalt is
added. Mill and overlay only corrects surface deterioration, though. Excessive fatigue
cracking and the formation of potholes reveal weak spots in the base and subgrade of a road,
and, using mill and overlay, the weak soils and other imperfections in the subgrade are not
corrected. If defects in the subgrade are present, mill and overlaid pavements will last, on
average, a period of 2 to 5 years (11). Thus, this technique only covers up the problem for a
relatively short period of time and, therefore, is a waste of time and money. The FDR
process, however, produces an entirely new base, eliminating the weak spots in the soil.
Easterlin 6

Another common technique, when long-term performance is desired, is total

reconstruction. The pavement is milled out, a base of usually 6 in. is prepared, and a new
asphalt layer is placed on top. Though this process effectively removes defects in the road
base, it is much more costly than FDR. The milling of the existing pavement also creates
unwanted dust pollution that is avoided when using the FDR process.
The FDR base also acts as a continuous slab in the way that it rises and falls in freeze-
thaw conditions. This reduces the stress on the flexible pavement surface and prolongs the
life of the roadway. Another way that this reduces stresses and strains in the pavement is the
distribution of traffic loads. With a cement-stabilized base, wheel loads are distributed over a
larger area and cause less deflection than an unstabilized, granular base because of its
increased stiffness and strength. FIGURE 6 shows the difference between how vehicle loads
are distributed on an FDR base compared to a conventional base. As illustrated in this
graphic, the increase in the load distribution area results in reduced strains on the asphalt
surface from deflections. In fact, a thinner cement-stabilized base reduces subgrade stress
better than a thicker stone base.

Unstabilized Granular Base Cement-Stabilized Base

FIGURE 6 Granular Base vs. Cement-Stabilized Base (8).

Due to the increased compressive strength of the stabilized base, the thickness of the
asphalt overlay can be decreased, which considerably cuts costs. The difference in the price
of a new asphalt roadway and an FDR road using a triple treatment surface is, on average,
about $100,000 per mile of roadway (TABLE 1).
Easterlin 7

TABLE 1 Cost Benefits of “Reclamation” (3)

Asphalt Road
Item Units Quantity Price Extended Price
Hot Mix Asphalt Surface Type D (2" Depth) SY 11733 $12.00 $140,800.00
Graded Aggregate Base Course (6" Depth) SY 11733 $8.00 $93,866.67
Total $234,666.67

Full-Depth Reclamation
Item Units Quantity Price Extended Price
Double Treatment SY 11733 $2.75 $32,266.67
Single Treatment SY 11733 $1.75 $20,533.33
6" Cement Stabilized Base Course SY 11733 $5.25 $61,600.00
Total $114,400.00

Savings of $120,266.67 per mile.

EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Road construction puts a burden on the environment in many ways. The massive machinery
used in today’s construction practices causes greenhouse gas emission and physical
destruction of the environment. The FDR process reduces greenhouse gas emissions greatly
when compared to conventional road construction. Wasted material torn out from roads is
expensive to haul away and puts a burden on landfills. The use of virgin materials also
creates many problems for the environment.
Some common greenhouse gases associated with roadway construction are Carbon
Dioxide (CO2), caused by the burning of fossil fuels; Methane (CH4), emitted during the
production and transport of oil and coal and from landfills; Nitrous Oxide (N2O), also caused
by fossil fuel combustion; and Fluorinated Gases, caused by various industrial processes.
Fossil fuel combustion is the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United
States today. In 2006, the last year for which data is available, the amount of CO2 emissions
from fossil fuel combustion in the United States was 5,637,931 gigagrams (Gg), and the
amount of N2O emissions from mobile combustion was 107 Gg (1). The medium- and heavy-
duty trucks similar to those used to haul road construction materials and debris account for
22% of the total emissions from fossil fuel combustion (1).
One of the most attractive advantages to using FDR is the fact that no material must
be hauled away for the construction of the base since all the in-place materials are used. As a
result, considerably less material must be transported to the site. For example, for the
construction of a one-mile stretch of 24-foot-wide roadway with a 6-inch FDR base, the 180
trucks needed for conventional road construction can be reduced to just 12 for FDR
construction. This decreases the demand for diesel fuel from 3000 to just 500 gallons (8).
This reduction in trucks also results in about an 83% reduction of CO2 and N2O
emissions, and the decreased need for oil production causes a reduction in CH4. The chemical
formula for diesel fuel is C12H23. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
22.2 pounds of CO2 are produced per gallon of diesel fuel (5). If a truck needs to travel 20
miles roundtrip to haul one truckload of material to or from a road construction job, and the
truck, on average, gets 10 miles to the gallon, 44 pounds of CO2 are produced. Using FDR,
Easterlin 8

the decrease in diesel fuel of 2500 gallons equates to an average CO2 reduction of 55,000
pounds, or 27.5 tons, per mile of constructed roadway.
The short time needed to complete FDR projects further reduces emissions. There is
no need for inconvenient detours, and traffic delays are almost eliminated. Traffic is allowed
to move smoothly around the construction zone and emissions from idling cars are
diminished. On average, a car idling for one hour emits about 1.19 pounds of CO2. This
might not seem to be much, but this is especially important on interstates and other major
roads where construction delays lasting for hours or days can back up traffic for miles.
Full-Depth Reclamation reduces CH4 emissions through the reduction in binder use.
Methane is emitted during the production and application of asphalt. A normal asphalt mix
contains is made up of about 5.5% binder. The use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) in
30% of the FDR mix reduces the amount of virgin binder needed by 1.2% (2). The 1.2%
reduction in binder use saves on heating costs and lowers total emissions. Some mix designs
use more than 30% RAP, which further lessens the amount of virgin binder required to
rehabilitate the road. Also, fuel for heating the binder is conserved because less binder is
needed for construction. For example, in the southeastern United States, CRS-2 and CRS-2P
emulsified asphalts are commonly used for chip seal surface treatments. This binder must be
applied at 110° F to 160° F which requires extra trucks and fuel to keep it at the correct
temperature (4). In addition to this, the material must also remain heated during storage on
the job site, using up even more fuel.
Since the existing road materials are used, there is no wasted material, which prevents
unnecessary disposal costs. This eases the strain that construction debris imposes on landfills
and eliminates CH4 and other gas emissions that would be the result of that waste. Landfills
accounted for 23% of the total CH4 emissions in the U.S. in 2006 resulting in 5,985 Gg of
CH4 (1). In construction and demolition (C&D) landfills, concrete and mixed rubble, which
includes asphalt, makes up about half of the total debris (17). Dumping just one mile of
asphalt roadway into a landfill is about equal to dumping 3,000 compacted cars. In most
places, asphalt is not allowed to be dumped in landfills due to these problems and the sheer
amount of it being thrown away each year.
The FDR process greatly reduces, and often eliminates, the amount of aggregate
needed for road reconstruction. If the underlying soil is considerably weak, aggregate must
be added to the base to achieve the required compressive strength, but usually, no extra stone
is needed to construct the base. This is an important benefit because the supply of aggregate
has dropped dramatically in the last 50 years. Furthermore, many counties do not have local
quarries to supply their roadway projects, so materials must be hauled in from distant
quarries, resulting in high shipping costs, unnecessary fuel use, and increased emissions.
Constructing new roads causes significant environmental disturbance due to the noise
of the machines, the effects from transporting material, and the road construction process
itself. By reclaiming the materials already on-site, the amount of trucks used to transport
material in and out of the site is notably reduced, and, as a result, so is the impact on the
environment.

CASE STUDY: FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA

Fairfield County, SC is a rural county north of Columbia, and most of its county roads are
gravel or dirt and are in need of repair. Prior to 2005, Fairfield County was paving, on
average, about 2 miles of county roads per year. Using the FDR process in 2006 and 2007,
Easterlin 9

they have been able to pave 29.36 miles of roadway. In 2008, Fairfield County proposes to
rehabilitate 9.02 more miles of secondary roads (3). Since they started their road
improvement program, the cost of asphalt binder has risen from $223.00 in July 2005 to
$621.11 in July 2008 (7). That is an increase of almost 180% in just three years. Had the
FDR process not been used, the County would not have been able to pave but just a fraction
of the amount they did, given the notable construction cost increase since the beginning of
the project in 2005. Utilizing the FDR process in their road reconstruction program, the
county was able to pave significantly more roads than previously possible with no additional
funding from the State. FDR will continue to be used in Fairfield County, and, due to the
success of this project, other counties in South Carolina are beginning road rehabilitation
programs using this const-saving and effective technique.

CASE STUDY: MOODY BRIDGE ROAD, LONG COUNTY, GEORGIA

In 2001, Long County and the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) conducted an
evaluation of Moody Bridge Road (CR 52), a 1.1 mile county road that had been
deteriorating quickly due to increased truck traffic. The GDOT decided the road needed to be
replaced, but Long County did not have the funds to cover the costs. The project was put off
until 2004 when the decision was made to use FDR on CR 52 as a pilot project. This was the
first time that the GDOT used FDR.
A mix design was developed for a design strength of 450 psi using 6% cement in the
reclaimed mix. Construction began on July 7, 2004 and ended on July 23, 2004. The base
was 6 in. of cement-treated FDR on top of 1.24 in. of untreated FDR. For 1.1 miles the
reclaimed base was topped with a overlay of 1.5 in. of 12.5mm Superpave® mix, and for 1.9
miles, the road was overlaid with 1.5 in. of 12.5mm Superpave® mix not using FDR (13).
In April 2005, a follow up testing of the road to compare the two methods of road
repair. The FDR performed better than the overlay and cut costs from the estimate of
$239,734 to $139,280 (13). The 42% reduction on construction costs allowed the county to
repair their county road and convinced the GDOT that FDR is an effective solution to county
road rehabilitation.

CASE STUDY: SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON

In Spokane County, Washington, FDR is “gradually improving the quality of (their road
network) at a very reasonable cost,” says County Engineer Ross Kelley (9). Spokane County
has been using FDR to rehabilitate their county roads since the 1990’s. The FDR process, in
effect, is contributing positively to the County’s economy which was previously suffering
due to the impassibility of many of their roads by heavy trucks. Spokane County is in a
colder climate so the pavement is subjected to harsh winter conditions, such as freeze-thaw,
and spring melting conditions where the underlying soil is heavily saturated. Many rural
roads are restricted to truck traffic in the spring due to these conditions, and as a result, the
economy of the area suffers from the interruption in commercial transport. The cement-
treated base results in a pavement structure that can withstand seasonal conditions, such as
frost-heaves, with increased performance and increased strength when compared to the
previous condition of the road. A “triple-shot” bituminous surface treatment was used for the
riding surface and has not been in need of repair since the late 1990’s when it was first
implemented there.
Easterlin 10

CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS

The application of the Full-Depth Reclamation process creates an economical, long-lasting
pavement foundation. The FDR base is more uniform, stronger, and more moisture-resistant,
which allows for a longer service life with very low maintenance. Deflections due to traffic
loads are reduced, and the formation of fatigue cracks and potholes is delayed. Since there is
no need for hauling material in and out of the site, virgin materials are conserved, and
emissions are lowered. The cement-stabilized base is quick and easy to construct, which
reduces the need for large quantities of equipment, eliminates long construction delays and
traffic detours, and lowers total emissions.
The FDR process is a viable solution to many of the problems that today’s roadways
face. This technique can be applied in any climate, eliminating the need for regionally
specialized equipment. It has superior strength compared to a graded aggregate base and will
last much longer, drastically reducing the need for costly temporary maintenance techniques
such as patching and resurfacing. Using this method, old materials are recycled, virgin
materials are conserved, and waste and costs are drastically reduced. The FDR process can
improve the quality, and quantity, of any network of roads while keeping emissions and
waste at a minimum. Beyond doubt, this is the best cost-effective and environmentally-
friendly solution for improving the transportation infrastructure of all counties and cities
across the United States today. The potential of FDR stretches beyond just secondary road
reconstruction, though. Perhaps, with just a few modifications for climate and materials, FDR
can improve the road network, and, in effect, the economies of the poorer countries of the
world.
Easterlin 11

References

1. 2008 Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. April 15, 2008. United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html. Accessed July 2, 2008.
2. Asphalt Paving: Stretching Your Asphalt. Roads and Bridges. Vol. 2006, p. 46.
3. Cost Benefits of ‘Reclamation. July 2008. Dennis Corporation.
<www.denniscorporation.com>.
4. CRS-2 Product Data Sheet. December 12, 2006. Martin Asphalt Company.
www.martinasphalt.com. Accessed July 2, 2008.
5. Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and
Diesel Fuel. February 2005. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420f05001.pdf. Accessed, November 10, 2008.
6. FDR Recent Projects. Portland Cement Association.
www.cement.org/pavements/pv_sc_fdr_projects.asp. Accessed July 8, 2008.
7. Fuel and Asphalt Binder Index Adjustment Worksheet. July 2008. South Carolina
Department of Transportation.
www.scdot.org/doing/Fuel_and_AC_Index_Spreadsheet.xls. Accessed July 7,
2008.
8. Full-Depth Reclamation: Recycling Roads Saves Money and Natural Resources.
2005. Portland Cement Association. www.cement.org/fdr. Accessed June 30,
2008.
9. Full-Depth Report. Roads and Bridges. Vol. 2006, p. 76.
10. Future Mobility in South Carolina: Meeting the State’s Need for Safe and Efficient
Mobility. May 2008. TRIP.
www.tripnet.org/southcarolinamobilityreportmay2008.pdf. Accessed July 8,
2008.
11. Jenson, Wayne G. et. al. Evolving Rehabilitation Strategies for Asphalt Pavement.
2008. International Journal of Pavement Engineering. Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 257-264.
12. Kearney, Edward J. & John E. Huffman. Full-Depth Reclamation Process. 1999.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
Issue 1684, pp. 203-209. Transportation Research Board: Washington, D.C.
13. Lewis, Dwane E. et. al. Georgia’s Use of Cement-Stabilized Reclaimed Base in Full-
Depth Reclamation. 2006. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board. Issue 1952, pp. 125-133. Transportation Research
Board: Washington, D.C.
14. Luhr, David R. et. al. Guide to Full-Depth Reclamation (FDR) with Cement. Portland
Cement Association, Illinois, 2005.
15. Maurer, Gayle et. al. Alternative Strategies for Rehabilitation of Low-Volume Roads
in Nevada. 2007. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board. Issue 1989, Vol. 2, pp. 309-320. Transportation Research Board:
Washington, D.C.
16. Report on Sustainable Manufacturing. Portland Cement Association, Illinois, 2008.
17. Sandler, Ken. Analyzing What’s Recyclable in C&D Debris. Biocycle. November
2003, pp. 51-54.
Easterlin 12

18. South Carolina Motor Fuel User Fee. 2007. South Carolina Alliance to Fix Our
Roads. www.sctransportation.com/aboutus/factsheet/tabid/74/default/aspx.
Accessed July 8, 2008.
19. Supporting Commerce. South Carolina Trucking Association. www.sctrucking.org.
Accessed July 7, 2008.