# A Practice for the Application of Waste in Road Asphalt Pavements in an Eco-Friendly Way
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Performance Evaluation Based on MCDA and Sensitivity Analysis
\[f_{p}=\frac{n_{p}}{n} \tag{10}\]  
where:  
\(n_{p}\) is the number of times the \(p\)-th alternative of the binder layer or the base layer is selected as the best solution; and \(n\) is the total number of analyses (24) performed in different weight configurations. According to the results obtained for the binder layer (see Figure 4a), HMA\({}_{\text{binder}}\)GW was the best alternative for 18 out of 24 weight configurations (75% of all cases); HMA\({}_{\text{binderFA}}\) was selected in the remaining 25% cases, while HMA\({}_{\text{binder}}\) and HMA\({}_{\text{binder}}\)CDW were never preferred. The results obtained for the base layer (see Figure 4b) revealed that CMRA\({}_{\text{RAPJGW}}\) was selected as the best alternative for 10 out of 24 weight configurations (42%), HMA\({}_{\text{baseJGW}}\) for 8 out of 24 configurations (33%) and HMA\({}_{\text{baseFA}}\) for 6 out of 24 configurations (25%), while HMA\({}_{\text{base}}\) and CMRA\({}_{\text{RAP}}\) were never selected as the preferable solutions. The data presented in Figure 4a for the binder asphalt mixtures can be summarized as follows:  
* HMA\({}_{\text{binderJGW}}\) was the solution that produced the highest concordance and low discordance values; it also represented the best alternative regardless of the weight assigned to the LP group of indicators (the blue shades in Figure 4a) and was selected either when LP was the only criterium of the analysis procedure or when LP was excluded. Because HMA\({}_{\text{binderJGW}}\) had the best HP group among the binder solutions, it also outranked all other solutions when the weight of this group exceeded 20% (see the dark shades of red in Figure 4a). Hence, HMA\({}_{\text{binderJGW}}\) can be used at various pavement service temperatures in the range of 10-60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Similar conclusions may be drawn from the yellow shades in Figure 4a, which represent the configurations with MP weights varying between 20% and 100%. * When the weight assigned to the EHP group is equal to or higher than 60% (the dark shades of green in Figure 4a), HMA\({}_{\text{binderFA}}\) outranks the other binder alternatives in all pairwise comparisons mainly due to the low values of ecotoxicity (M-ECO and F-ECO) and human toxicity (NCT), which were primarily derived from the limestone filler production; thus, HMA\({}_{\text{binderFA}}\) stands out when the mitigation of environmental and human health impacts is the main decision criterium. Instead, HMA\({}_{\text{binderFA}}\) does not produce a good HP group, making it mainly suitable for cold climate regions. The last weight configuration that makes HMA\({}_{\text{binderFA}}\) the best solution for the binder layer does not take into account the MP group (0% MP); this scenario can arise in dry climates or when the groundwater has little effect on the deterioration of pavement materials. The results presented in Figure 4b for the base asphalt mixtures can be summarized as follows:  
* \(\text{CMRA}_{\text{RAPJGW}}\) is preferred to the other base layer alternatives regardless of the weight assigned to the EHP indicators (from 0% to 100%; see the dark shades of green in Figure 4b). In particular, the preference of \(\text{CMRA}_{\text{RAPJGW}}\) over the other alternatives for the base layer increases when the weight of these indicators grows in the decision-making scenario (\(-34\%\) on average for all environmental impact indicators as compared to those of \(\text{HMA}_{\text{base}}\), \(\text{HMA}_{\text{baseJGW}}\) and \(\text{HMA}_{\text{baseFA}}\)). In addition, \(\text{CMRA}_{\text{RAPJGW}}\) is also preferred to the four remaining base layer solutions with HP indicator weights exceeding 40%, especially in terms of the S, ITSM and RD values, which increased by 13% and 26% and decreased by 17%, respectively.