RAP in HMA Pavements

Peter E. Sebaaly, Ph.D., P.E. Nevada T2 Center University of Nevada April, April 2009

Recycled asphalt Pavements

RAP is obtained by:
cold milling ld illi heating/softening and removal full d th f ll depth removal l plant waste HMA materials.

WRSC

Including RAP in HMA

RAP MIX

WRSC

+
Virgin Aggregate

PG Grade!

Target Binder Grade PG64-22, PG58-34 PG64 22 PG58 34

3

RAP before and after Extraction

RAP in HMA mixes

RAP was recycled into HMA as early as 1915 First sustained efforts to recycled HMA was in 1974 Oil embargo during 1970s pushed the interest towards recycling i t tt d li

WRSC

4/29/2009

Benefits of RAP in HMA mixes

Reduction in construction costs. Less disposal materials. Transportation cost.

WRSC

Conservation of aggregates and binders. Conservation of energy.

Benefits of RAP in HMA mixes

Preservation of environment (reduction in toxic and greenhouse gas emissions) emissions). Preservation of existing pavement geometrics. Reduction in road wears due to less transport of materials.

WRSC

4/29/2009

Benefits of RAP in HMA mixes Economic Aspects (NCAT)

20-50% RAP in mix result in 14-34% of savings per ton ton. Cost savings in various US regions
Region Northwest Southwest North Central South Central Average Savings (%) 24-26 4-18 20 10-13

WRSC

Benefits of RAP in HMA mixes Economic Aspects (Belgium)

WRSC

Cost in 1,000 kg Batch of HMA Materials cost Production cost Total Cost

HMA w/o RAP 14.60 $/ton 3.80 $/ton 18.40 $/ton

HMA with 40% RAP 10.80 $/ton 5.20 $/ton 16.00 $/ton

$2.40 (13%) saving

9

Benefits of RAP in HMA mixes Economic Aspects

NAPA Example
Assume: RAP asphalt content of 4% Cost of virgin asphalt = $350/ton Cost of virgin aggregate = $10/ton Value of RAP: Asphalt cement in RAP = $3500.04 = $14/ton Aggregate in RAP = $10/ton0.96 = $9.60/ton Total value of RAP = $14/ton+$9.60/ton = $23.60/ton

WRSC

10

Benefits of RAP in HMA mixes Economic Aspects

NAPA Example for cost associated with obtaining and processing RAP
Costs
Value of RAP RAP cost Plant cost for extra equipment - $ 0.75/ton

WRSC

Example 1 p RAP obtained from millings

Example 2 p RAP purchased

$23.60/ton

$23.60/ton - $ 2.00/ton - $ 0.75/ton - $ 5 00/ton 5.00/ton - $ 0.25/ton $15.60/ton $ 1 56/ton (7%) 1.56/ton $ 3.12/ton (13%) $ 4.68/ton (20%) $ 6.24/ton (26%)
11

- $ 3.00/ton Processing and handling cost - $ 5 00/ton 5.00/ton Extra quality control cost - $ 0.25/ton Total Savings $14.60/ton Savings Sa ings per 10%RAP in mi mix $ 1 46/ton (6%) 1.46/ton Savings per 20%RAP in mix $ 2.92/ton (12%) Savings per 30%RAP in mix $ 4.38/ton (19%) Savings per 40%RAP in mix $ 5.84/ton (25%)
Trucking cost

Benefits of RAP in HMA mixes Potential Energy Savings

Notational workshop for Materials and Energy Conservation for HMA
Activity

WRSC

Savings in dollars/year $180,000/yr. $ 70,000/yr. $ 60,000/yr. $400,000/yr

Cumulative Potential savings $180,000/yr. $250,000/yr. $310,000/yr. $710,000/yr. $3.55/ton $3 55/ton

1. Aggregate drying costs: 2. Asphalt storage system 3. Electricity (add VFD drives to exhaust fan, burner blower) h tf b bl ) 4. Recycle (increase amount of recycle by 10%) Total Savings per ton 5. Switch to Coal burner$60.00 / ton coal Total Potential Savings per ton

$320,320/yr

$1,030,320/yr. $5.15/ton $5 15/ton

12

Benefits of RAP in HMA mixes

WRSC

Impact on Performance Life of Airport Pavements

For all RAP sources and traffic:

At 25C: 20% RAP pavement life by 26 52% At 46C: 20% RAP pavement life by 2.5 12% At 52C: 20% RAP + PG58-34 pavement life by 0.5 2% 20% RAP + PG58 28 pavement lif by PG58-28 t life b 4.5 8.5%

In general, 20% RAP increased the life of a pavement under all traffic mix.
13

WRSC

14

Impact of RAP on mixtures properties

Stiffness Rutting Fatigue Thermal Moisture Damage

15
15

Stiffness
Dynamic Modulus |E | Modulus, |E*|

WRSC

10

E* , 10 ksi 0

0.1

0.01 1.0E-05

1.0E-03

Dynamic modulus testing setup

1.0E-01 1.0E+01 Frequency, Hz

1.0E+03

1.0E+05

16

Stiffness
Li et al.(2004): 10 mixes at 0 20 and 40% al (2004): 0, RAP, two virgin asphalt binders (PG58-28 and PG58-34), and two RAP sources (RAP ), ( and millings). 20 40% RAP |E*| 20-40% |E*|. No significant impact for RAP on |E*| at low temperatures and high frequencies.

17
17

Stiffness
McDaniel et al. (2006):

WRSC

15-25% RAP No significant impact on |E*|. 40% RAP |E*| at higher temperatures. temperatures

18

Rutting

2-20

Rutting
Repeated Shear at Constant height (RSCH)

WRSC

Perman nent Shear Strain r

5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Cycles 4,000 5,000

21

Rutting
Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA)

WRSC

10 Deform mation (mm m) 8 6 4 2 0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 Strokes (100/point)

22

Rutting
NCHRP 9-12 (2000): impact of 0 10 20 and 0,10, 20, 40% RAP content on mixtures resistance to rutting. g
Generally, y, RAP content Shear deformation & accumulated shear strain rutting resistance i t

WRSC

23

Rutting
Xiao et al. (2007): Effect of RAP (0 - 38%) al and rubber on APA rutting resistance of HMA mixes.
RAP content rutting resistance Rubberized binder increases the rutting resistance

24
24

Fatigue Cracking

Fatigue Cracking

Fatigue Cracking

Fatigue
Flexural Beam Fatigue Test

10,000

Strain (mi icrons)

1,000

28

100 1,000

10,000

Cycles to Failure

100,000

1,000,000

28

Fatigue
Puttaguanta et al. (1996): Estimated fatigue al life of 0, 25 and 50% RAP mixes at 5, 22, and 40C.
At 5C, 25 and 50% RAP mixes fatigue , g resistance. At 22C and 40C all three mixes performed similarly.

29
29

Fatigue
NCHRP 9-12 (2000): impact of 0 10 20 and 9 12 0,10, 20, 40% RAP content on mixes resistance to fatigue.
10% RAP no significant impact fatigue resistance. i t 20 and 40% RAP fatigue resistance. g 40% RAP mix resistance < 20% RAP mix resistance. resistance

30
30

Thhermal Cracking

Thermal Cracking

Thermal Cracking

Thermal Cracking
Indirect Tensile (IDT) creep stiffness

34
34

Thermal Cracking
Thermal Stress Restraint Specimen (TSRST)
500 450 400 350

Stress (psi)

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 -30 -25 -20 -15

o

-10

-5

Temperature ( C)

Load to keep beam at a constant h i h height 2210 beam

35
35

Thermal Cracking
NCHRP 9-12 (2000): Resistance to low 9 12 temperature cracking using IDT.
10% RAP no impact on low temperature cracking resistance. >10% RAP low temperature cracking resistance.

36
36

Evaluate Moisture Damage g

3 Conditioned Specimens p Wet Set 3 Unconditioned Specimens Dry Set

Avg wet tensile strength TSR = Avg dry tensile strength x 100

12-37

Moisture Damage
Li et al (2004 ): 10 RAP mixtures with al.(2004 0-40% RAP using AASHTO T283 test.
TSR of 20 and 40% RAP mixes > 75% (criterion) RAP TS (both wet and dry) but TSR

38
38

Moisture Damage
Xiao et al. (2007): RAP mixtures with ( ) rubberized binder according to AASHTO T283
Mixes containing RAP and rubberized binders TSR > 90%

39
39

UNR 2007 Sponsored by RTC

WRSC

PG64-22 (Neat)

PG64-28 (polymer modified) Source II Source III

20-year old HMA pavement (5.8% binder content) 0% RAP 15% RAP 30% RAP

Source I S
Plant waste (4.6% binder)

15-year old HMA pavement (5.4% binder content) 0% RAP 15% RAP 30% RAP

0% RAP

15% RAP

30% RAP

40

Summary of Selected Binder

Target Binder Grade RAP PG64-22 @ 15% RAP RAP I RAP II RAP III PG64-22 PG64 22 PG64-28 PG64-28 @ 30% RAP PG58-28 PG58 28 PG58-28 PG58-28 PG64-28NV @ 15% RAP PG64-34 PG64 34 PG64-34 PG64-34 @ 30% RAP PG58-34 PG58 34 PG58-34 PG58-34

Summary Final PG Grades

Mix

Final Physically Blended

PG64-22 PG64-22 PG64-22 PG64-22 PG64 22 PG64-22 PG70-22 PG64-22

Final Extracted from Mixture

PG64-22 PG70-16 PG70-16 PG70-22 PG70 22 PG70-22 PG76-22 PG76-22

Mix

Final physically Blended

PG64-28 PG64-34 PG64-34 PG64-34 PG64 34 PG64-28 PG64-34 PG64-28

Final Extracted from Mixture

PG64-28 PG64-34 PG70-34 PG70-34 PG70 34 PG70-34 PG70-34 PG70-34

A0
AI15 AI30 AII15 AII30 AIII15 AIII30

B0
BI15 BI30 BII15 BII30 BIII15 BIII30

Rutting
UNR - 2007: APA Tests
Passed NDOT APA criterion of 8 mm at 60C good rutting resistance
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
APA Rut Depth at 60C, mm a

WRSC

Control

Plant waste RAP

15-year old RAP

20-year old RAP

0% RAP 15% RAP 30% RAP 15% RAP 30% RAP 15% RAP 30% RAP (Source I) (Source I) (Source II) (Source II) (Source III) (Source III) III)(Source

43

Fatigue
UNR- 2007: mixtures with 0 15 and 30% 0, RAP.
PG64-22 (neat): PG64 22 15% RAP better or equivalent fatigue resistance. PG64-28 (polymer modified): 15-30% RAP significant in fatigue resistance.

44
44

Thermal Cracking
UNR - 2007: RAP mixes with 0,15 and 30% 0 15 RAP using TSRST
-45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 0% RAP 15% RAP 30% RAP 15% RAP 30% RAP 15% RAP 30% RAP (Source I) (Source I) (Source II) (Source II) (Source III) (Source III) Mixtures

45
45

Moisture Damage
UNR 2007: RAP mixtures with 0 15 UNR0,15 and 30% RAP, AASHTO T283 test.
Tensile Strength TS at 77 e h, 7F, psi Tensile Strength Ratio (TS S SR)
46

250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 0% RA AP

Unconditioned

Conditioned

TSR

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 30% RA AP (Source III)

46

PG64-22 Mixtures

15% RA AP (Source III)

15% RA AP (Source II)

30% RA AP (Source II)

15% RA AP (Source I) e

30% RA AP (Source I) e

47

T Tensile Strength, TS at 77F psi T F,

250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 0% RAP 15% RAP (Sour I) rce 30% RAP (Sour I) rce 15% RAP R (Sourc II) ce 30% RAP R (Sourc II) ce Unconditioned Conditioned

UNR - 2007 (contd) (cont d)

Moisture Damage

PG64-28 Mixtures
15% RAP R (Sourc III) ce 30% RAP R (Sourc III) ce
47

Tensile Strengt Ratio (T th TSR)

TSR 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Moisture Damage
UNR - 2007 (contd) (cont d)
15 and 30% RAP acceptable moisture resistance (TSR>70). 15 and 30% RAP TS conditioned and unconditioned.

48
48

Cost of Production and Comparison for Type-A Mixture

RAP HMA Mixtures (%) A0 AI15 AII15 AIII15 AI30 AII30 AIII30 0 15 15 15 30 30 30 ( $/ton ) 53 46 52 50 44 46 45 (%) 1.00 1 00 1.15 1.03 1.06 1.21 1.14 1.17 Cost of HMA Mixture Cost Ratio

Cost of Production and Comparison for Type-B Mixture

RAP HMA Mixtures (%) B0 BI15 BII15 BIII15 BI30 BII30 BIII30 30 0 15 15 15 30 30 30 ( $/ton ) 59 50 51 50 44 45 45 (%) 1.00 1.16 1.14 1.15 1.26 1.23 1.23 1 23 Cost of HMA Mixture Cost Ratio

Cost Comparison Based on Fatigue Performance for Type-A Mixture

Cost of Pavement per 1000 Cycles per Mile

HMA Mixture ID A0 AI15 AII15 AIII15 AI30 AII30 AIII30

Cost ($/ton)

2" $/1000 cycle

4" $/1000 cycle

6" $/1000 cycle

53 46 52 50 44 46 45

2,486 2 486 3,571 1,571 2,081 1,600 1,801 2,253

492 155 463 530 545 613 83

94 8 102 98 142 190 3

Cost Comparison Based on Fatigue Performance for Type-B Mixture

Cost of Pavement per 1000 Cycles per Mile

HMA Mixture Mi t ID B0 BI15 BII15 BIII15 BI30 BII30 BIII30

Cost ($/ton) 59 50 51 50 44 45 45

2" $/1000 cycle

4" $/1000 cycle

6" $/1000 cycle

339 72 39 122 319 762 1,099

67 276 92 337 439 212 813

59 198 39 208 115 21 228

NCHRP 9-12
Binder Selection Guidelines for RAP Mixtures
RAP Percentage Recommended Virgin Asphalt Binder Grade G d No change in binder selection Select virgin binder one grade softer than normal (i.e. select a PG58-28 if a PG64 22 PG64-22 would normally be used) Follow recommendations from blending charts Recovered RAP Grade PGXXPGXX PGXXPGXX PGXX22 or 10 or 16 lower higher < 20% < 15% < 10% 20 30% > 30% 15 25% > 25% 10 15% > 15%

53
53

WRSC

54

Field performance
CALTRANS: Evaluated life expectancy of 15% RAP pavements in California

Environmental Zone

Expected Service Lives (y p (years) ) Based on

Structural Distress Roughness Performance Performance Performance

Triggering Failure Mode

North Coast Desert Mountain

55

18 15 11

21 9 13

17 15 15

Ride q quality y Distress Structural

55

Field performance
Louisiana DOT: Compared the performances of 5 RAP sections (20-50%) and 4 virgin mix pavement sections
after 6 - 9 years: long & trans cracking and rutting were the Major type of distresses. 20-50% RAP sections perform equally to virgin sections. g sect o s No significant diff. between recovered binder from virgin and RAP sections. sections
56
56

Field performance
Connecticut DOT: 3 Connecticut sections Containing 20% RAP.
Good field performance after 8 years in service . No fatigue and transverse cracking. Lower rutting than other sections. Slightly higher non-wheel path longitudinal cracking.
57
57

Field performance
Boston Logan International airport:
20 feet above sea level Loads up to 873,000 lb 873 000 Tire pressure in excess of 200 psi

58
58

Field performance
Boston Logan International airport: (contd)
In 2001: 18.5% RAP mix was used as a surface course on a section of Taxiway November. In 2003 RAP mix showed good performance. Good experience Logan airport mix design specs include 15 20% RAP 15-20% in all surface mixes

59
59

Field performance
Griffin Spalding County Airport (GA) Griffin-Spalding
Runway 14-32 rehabilitated with 17% RAP mix in 1999 Taxiway A rehabilitated with 17% RAP mix in 2000
Taxiway A

Runway 14-32

60
60

Field performance
Griffin-Spalding County Airport (contd)
No construction problems in achieving GDOT requirements with RAP mixtures 2001 performance survey: Taxiway A: PCI = 97 Runway 14-32: PCI = 98

61
61

Field performance
Griffin Spalding County Airport (contd) Griffin-Spalding
In 2007, Runway 14-32 showed moderate longitudinal joint cracks & transverse cracks and moderate raveling

62
62

Field performance
G iffi S ldi County Airport (contd) Griffin-Spalding C Ai ( d)
In 2007, Taxiway A showed low severity transverse cracks and low severity raveling

63
63

WRSC

64

RAP in HMA Surface Mixes

NCDOT)

(After
WRSC

0% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% n/a

Specified use of RAP

0% 1 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30% n/a

Average use of RAP

65

RAP in HMA Intermediate Mixes

NCDOT)

(After
WRSC

0% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% n/a

Specified use of RAP

0% 1 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30% n/a

Average use of RAP

66

RAP in HMA Base Mixes

(After NCDOT)

WRSC

0% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% n/a

Specified use of RAP

0% 1 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30% n/a

Average use of RAP

67

State highway agencies use of RAP M Most hi h highway agencies allowed RAP in i ll d i HMA Mixes. Most specs limit practical use of higher % RAP in mixes. Most highway agencies specs change with
mix type: dense graded mix SMA open mix, SMA, graded mix and p oduct o method: batch plant vs. a d production et od batc p a t s drum mix plant.

68
68

State highway agencies use of RAP Most highway agencies allow max 10-25% of RAP in surface mixes and a higher %RAP i b in base mixes. i g Some agencies restrict RAP in surface course for pavements with high applied ESAL. Some highway agencies require approval for the RAP sources prior to their usage in the mix.

69
69

State highway agencies use of RAP S Some hi h highway agencies specify max size i if i for RAP material. Some highway agencies restrict or limit RAP to 10% with PMB mixes. Most highway agencies require an adjustment to the binder grade when > 15 1520% RAP is used. RAP is used with M i d ith Marshall, Hveem, and h ll H d Superpave mix design methods.
70
70

RAP characteristics.
RAP Source RAP variability
Literature review

RAP processing and stockpiling

RAP Processing RAP Stockpiling RAP Fractionating g

RAP evaluation for variability analysis

71
71

WRSC

72

RAP Source
RAP shall be free of contaminants that are potentially detrimental to the mixture p performance. Such contaminants may be, but not limited to:
coal-tar sealer rejuvenators paving fabrics

WRSC

73

WRSC

74

RAP Variability

Kallas (1984): RAP composition

Sample No. of samples No. 8 sieve No. 200 sieve tested Ave n-1 Ave. n-1 12 5 12 5 12 10 12 6 --54 69 69 72 52 58 41 52 --8.3 6.5 3.2 0.9 3.8 2.8 28 2.1 1.1 2.81 2 81 -9.9 11.8 6.1 8.0 8.7 9.9 99 9.7 13.0 --2.01 0.34 0.66 0.11 2.60 1.15 1 15 0.79 0.30 0.94 0 94 1.00

% Passing

Asphalt binder A h lt bi d content Ave 5.4 5.2 5.7 5.7 6.5 6.2 62 5.3 5.2 --n-1 0.71 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.28 0.44 0 44 0.20 0.12 0.28 0 28 0.23
75

California Road cores California stockpile after milling North Carolina Road cores NC stockpile after milling Utah Road cores Utah stockpile after milling Virginia Road cores Virginia stockpile after milling Typical T i l HMA surface variability f i bilit HMA surface variability on 75 Airport Pavements (P-401-6.5)

RAP Variability
Solaimanian and Tahmoressi (1996) TxDOT (1996),

76

Mean deviations from job mix formula target gradation for sieve No. 10
76

RAP Variability
Solaimanian and Tahmoressi (1996) (contd) (cont d)

77

Mean deviations from target job mix formula asphalt content

77

RAP Variability
Solaimanian and Tahmoressi (1996) (contd) (cont d)

78

Standard deviations for air voids as a function of RAP content in the mix
78

RAP Variability
Estakhri et al. (1998): 33 projects with RAP al containing FDOT mixes.
At the asphalt plant site: variability of RAP is not statistically different from that of y stockpiled virgin aggregates. RAP did not show an adverse effect on the variability of HMA (Based on aggregate gradations).

79
79

RAP Variability
West coast contractor (2007):
California RAP Arizona RAP

SIEVE (AASHTO ( T30) 1-in. 3/4-in. 1/2-in. 3/8-in. 3/8 in No. 4 No. 8 No. 16 No. No 30 No. 50 No. 100 No. 200 AC, AC % DWA$
80

Solvent Extraction+ Ignition (CTM 382)# (ASTM D2172 and D5404) No.! Ave. SD* No.! Ave. SD* 100. 0.00 ---8 0 100. 8 0.00 ---0 8 98.3 0.89 ---8 91.5 2.07 91 5 2 07 ---8 70.4 3.38 ---8 54.3 2.82 ---8 43.8 2.92 ---8 34.6 3.11 34 6 3 11 ---8 24.0 1.85 ---8 16.1 1.46 ---8 11.1 1.15 ---8 3.52 0.31 3 5.30 0.31

Solvent Extraction+ Ignition (CTM 382) # (ASTM D2172 and D5404) No.! Ave. SD* No.! Ave. SD* 100. 100. 4 0.00 2 0.00 0 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 98.8 0.50 89.3 77.5 77 5 53.0 39.0 29.0 21.8 21 8 14.0 9.3 6.8 2.50 1.73 1 73 2.31 2.31 1.83 1.26 1 26 1.15 0.96 0.90 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 98.0 0.00 88.5 77.0 77 0 51.5 37.5 27.5 20.0 20 0 13.0 8.5 5.6 1.06 1.41 1 41 1.06 1.06 1.06 0.71 0 71 0.71 0.35 0.39

4.04 0.22

4.66 0.19

80

RAP Variability
West coast contractor (2007) contd cont d
California RAP has an equivalent variation to that of a typical HMA surface course Arizona RAP has a lower variability than that of a typical HMA surface course Higher variability in gradation and asphalt binder bi d content was found with the reflux t t f d ith th fl extraction than the ignition method California RAP showed hi h variability C lif i h d higher i bilit than Arizona RAP in binder stiffness tests
81
81

RAP Processing & Stockpiling

RAP P Processing i
Full-depth RAP, or RAP that arrives at the facility i l f ilit in large sizes, must be crushed i tb h d prior to recycling. Blend the RAP thoroughly with a front-end front end loader or bulldozer. Down-size the top stone size in the RAP by the crushing operation to one size smaller than the top size in the HMA. Careful blending and crushing operations will result in a remarkably consistent RAP.

WRSC

82

RAP Processing & Stockpiling

RAP Stockpiling S k ili
Large conical RAP stockpiles are good to reduce RAP moisture content. RAP storing under roof of an open sided g p building. RAP should never be covered with a tarp or p plastic especially in humid climates. Storing RAP on a paved floor prevents water absorption and possible contamination of RAP.
83
83

RAP Processing & Stockpiling

84

Storing RAP under roof of an open sided building

84

RAP processing and stockpiling

RAP Fractionating
Crushing and screening RAP into different sizes is good to max the %RAP in HMA. i i dt th i HMA Fractionating RAP into different sizes Give better control over the gradation, AC content. I Improve consistency of volumetric i t f l ti properties of produced mix. Reduce the chances for segregation segregation.

85
85

RAP processing and stockpiling

86
86

WRSC

87

Assessment of RAP variability

RAP shall be of a consistent gradation and h ll b f i d i d AC content. RAP samples should be taken from 8-10 random locations distributed throughout the RAP pile and evaluated for RAP binder content and gradation. Determine Average & SD of RAP binder content & aggregate gradation within the gg g g RAP stockpile

WRSC

88

Assessment of RAP variability

%AC in RAP shall be established for variability evaluation according to either:
ASTM D2172 using the centrifuge (method A) Reflux (method B) extraction ASTM D6307 using the ignition oven ONLY IF Calibrated to solvent extraction.

WRSC

89

Assessment of RAP variability

Ignition oven can change the gradation and properties of some aggregates ( gg g (aggregate particles breakdown). p ) Local experience should be considered. Experience with local aggregates can indicate if an ignition oven is an appropriate method to use. Breakdowns can also lead to erroneous estimates of the binder content with some aggregates. gg g

WRSC

90

Assessment of RAP variability

Extracted RAP aggregate gradation should be determined according to ASTM D5444. Account for ash content from solvent extraction in RAP aggregate gradation. RAP may have a significant amount of P200 material P200 sieve must be monitored closely. y

WRSC

91

Assessment of RAP variability

E ti t feasible RAP contents based on Estimate f ibl t t b d final HMA mix variability & agency specs NCHRP 9 33 p oject (o go g) C 9-33 project (ongoing):

m = R + (1 ) 2 V2 + ( X V X R ) 2 2
2 2

92
92

RAP materials evaluation

Bulk specific gravity (Gsb) of each aggregate stockpile, including RAP t t k il i l di aggregate needs to be determined for the calculation of BSG of combined aggregates.

93
93

RAP materials evaluation

RAP aggregate SG can be determined by either: 1. Measuring Gsb of extracted RAP aggregate. gg g 2. Measuring max specific gravity of RAP mix and estimating absorbed AC. 3. Measuring max specific gravity of RAP mix and using calculated Gse in lieu of Gsb. b
94
94

RAP materials evaluation

1. 1 Measuring RAP aggregate SG would require:
Extracting the RAP Sieving it into coarse and fine fractions Determining the specific gravity of each fraction. fraction

Measured BSG of RAP aggregate may not accurately present actual value. (extraction process can change the aggregate properties and may result in a change in the amount of fine material). material)

95
95

RAP materials evaluation

2. 2 Gsb of RAP aggregate may b f t be estimated by determining Gmm of the RAP mix & using an assumed i i d asphalt absorption for the RAP aggregate. t

100 Pb G se = 100 Pb Gmm Gb

Gse Gsb = Pb Gse ba 100 G + 1 b

96
96

RAP materials evaluation

3. 3 RAP aggregate Gse may be used in lieu of the Gsb at the discretion of the engineering consultant or agency. This may introduce an error into the combined aggregate BSG VMA calculations. An increase in minimum VMA may be y required.

97
97

Batching procedure
Account for weight of RAP binder when batching aggregates:
Mass of RAP aggregate
Mass of dry RAP =

(100 % RAP Binder )

100

RAP aggregate must be heated gently & to a lower temperature than virgin aggregates.
98
98

Quality Control (QC)

Good QC practices are essential to produce consistently high-quality recycled HMA mixes. Some additional tests need to be performed when producing HMA mixes with RAP:
RAP material i l Final RAP containing HMA mix

99
99

Quality Control (QC)

Important to measure asphalt content and gradation at several locations on each of the RAP stockpiles before beginning production.
Suggested Quality Control Schedule for RAP (after NAPA Series 124)
Test D T t Description i ti Asphalt content Gradation Binder extraction and recovery Binder properties Aggregate properties
100
100

Sampling Location S li L ti Stockpile or combined RAP feed Stockpile or combined Stockpile or p combined RAP feed Post extraction and recovery Post extraction

Frequency1,2 eque cy (samples/lot) 15 15 1 1 1

Priority P i it High High Low Low Medium Low

Quality Control (QC)

RAP M i Moisture C Content: same way as moisture content of a sample of stockpiled aggregates. aggregates RAP Binder Content: determined from extraction process in accordance with AASHTO T164 or ASTM D2172 for the centrifuge ( if (method A) or reflux ( h d fl (method B) h d extraction. RAP Aggregate Gradation: must be evaluated through solvent extraction or g ignition oven.
101

101

Quality Control (QC)

Moisture sensitivity test
RAP containing HMA mixtures should be tested for moisture sensitivity during production. Moisture sensitivity of the final HMA should be d t b determined in accordance with AASHTO i di d ith T283 test .

102
102

Superheating Aggregates
Aggregate Dryer - Adequate veil - Cooling period to avoid warping Dryer Exhaust System - Lower temperature to prevent damage to baghouse

WRSC

RAP Bin, Feeder and Conveying System WRSC

RAP Cold Feed Bin

Steep sides, large discharge opening

RAP Conveying System y g y

Heavy duty motor to ensure frequent starting and stopping

Bin

WRSC RAP Cold Feed

Drum Plant Showing Center Entry

Virgin gg g Aggregate RAP

WRSC

WRSC

Drum with C t E t D ith Center Entry

RAP in Parallel-Flow Drum with ParallelIsolated Mixing Area

WRSC

WRSC

Schematic of Double Barrel Mixer

WRSC

Thank you for your participation Check online for latest reports at: http://www.wrsc.unr.edu/ // / And http://www.arc.unr.edu

110