U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration March 1996 PAVEMENT RECYCLING 1ExEcuTIv~ SUMMARY Archived NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. This publication does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document.Archived 1. Report No. FI-IWA-SA-95-060 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date March 1996 PAVEMENT RECYCLING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND 6. Performing Organization Code REPORT 8. Performing Organization Report No. 9. Performin Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Office of I?ngmeermg and Office of Technology Applications Federal Highway Administration 11. Contract or Grant No. 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Office of Engineering and Office of Technology Applications Final Report Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.C. 20590 15. Supplementary Notes Technical Contact: Jason Harrington 16. Abstract There is a considerable emphasis on waste management at national, State, and local levels. Government at various levels has passed or is considering legislation or ordinances that mandate the recycling of waste materials or by-products. Reusing or recycling old, deteriorated pavement structure in the rehabilitation or reconstruction of a new structural section is nothing new. Forms of asphalt pavement recycling date back as far as 1915. However, asphalt pavement recycling in its present form first took place in the mid-1979s, when interest in asphalt pavement recycling was sparked by inflation of construction prices and by the oil embargo. In response to these economic pressures, the FIIWA initiated Demonstration Project 39, Recycling Asphalt Pavements, in June 1976. The project showed that asphalt pavement recycling was a technically viable rehabilitation technique, and it was estimated that the use of reclaimed asphalt pavement would amount to approximately 15 percent of the total hot- mix asphalt production by the mid-1980’s. It was expected that most of the asphalt pavement removed would be reused in new pavement construction or overlays. This publication reports on a project initiated in mid-1992 to assessthe state-of-the-practice of recycled hot mix asphalt production. The scope of this project included site visits to 17 State highway agencies, with at least two state highway agencies in each FHWA region. Field contacts included discussions with design, research, and construction individuals from States, contractors, and industry. This report summarizes the state-of -the practice for the use, materials mix design, structural design, construction, and performance of recycled hot mix asphalts. 17. Key Words I 18. Distribution Statement asphalt, recycling,Archived hot mix, pavement, No restrictions. This document is available to the reclaimed asphalt public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22 161 I 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 119 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized Archived CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVESUMMARY . 1 CHAPTER1.INTRODUCTION ................................................... SCOPE ..................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 2. EXTENT OF USE .................................................... 9 SUMMARY ................................................................ 12 CHAPTER 3. LIMITATIONS ..................................................... 15 SUMMARY ................................................................ 20 CHArTER4.RAPVARIABILITY.................................................2 1 SUMMARY ................................................................ 23 CHAPTER 5. ASPHALT CEMENT BLENDING . 25 CHAPTERG.PERFORMANCE...................................................2 7 SUMMARY ................................................................ 37 CHAPTER7.CONCLUSIONS ................................................. ..3 9 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 43 APPENDIX A. MIXTURE DESIGN PRACTICES .................................... 45 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING .............................................. 45 PAVEMENT EVALUATION ................................................. 46 PRELIMINARY MIX DESIGNS FOR PLAN PREPARATION ..................... 50 PRODUCTION MIXTURE DESIGN ........................................... 53 SUMMARY ................................................................ 65 APPENDIX B. QUALITY ASSURANCE PRACTICES ................................ 67 AGGREGATES.. ........................................................... 67 ASPHALTCEMENTCONTENT ............................................. 69 ASPHALT CEMENT PROPERTIES ........................................... 72 SUMMARY ................................................................ 73 APPENDIX C. SHA PERFORMANCE EXPERIENCES ............................... 75 ARIZONADOT ............................................................ 75 FLORIDADOT ............................................................. 77 MASSACHUSETTSDPWArchived .................................................... 78 MINNESOTADOT ......................................................... 79 NEVADADOT ............................................................. 80 . 111 NEWJERSEYDOT ....................................................... ..8 0 PENNSYLVANIADOT ..................................................... 81 WISCONSINDOT .......................................................... 82 WYOMING DOT ........................................................... 84 SUMMARY ................................................................ 84 APPENDIX D. WASHINGTON STATE DOT CASE STUDY .......................... 87 INTERSTATE 90 (I-90), FROM RENSLOW TO RYEGRASS, MILEPOSTS 121.92 TO 126.14 .............................................. 87 I-90, YAKIMA RIVER TO W. ELLENSBURG, MILEPOSTS 102.61 TO 106.34 ........ 96 SUMMARY ............................................................... 102 REFERENCES . ...103 Archived iv FIGURES Page 1. Percent of HMA production containing RAP .................................... 9 2. UseofRAPinHMAsurfacecourse ........................................... 15 3. Transverse cracking, eastbound roadway ...................................... 30 4. Transverse cracking, westbound roadway ..................................... 30 5. Longitudinal cracking, eastbound roadway .................................... 31 6. Longitudinal cracking, westbound roadway .................................... 31 7. Hot recycle, Pawnee County ................................................. 34 8. Comparison of transverse cracking within the five test sections ................... 36 9. Comparison of the total cracking within the five test sections ..................... 36 10. Effects of recycling agents on viscosity of asphalt ............................... 57 11. Viscosityblendingchart ................................................... ..5 9 12. Wisconsin DOT hot mix asphalt production .................................... 82 13. Interstate 90, Renslow to Ryegrass: overlaid section ............................. 91 14. Interstate 90, Renslow to Ryegrass: nonoverlaid section .......................... 91 15. Interstate 90, Renslow to Ryegrass: pavement structural condition ................. 94 16. Interstate 90, Renslow: average ride index ...................................... 96 17. Interstate 90, Renslow: average rut index ...................................... 96 18. Interstate 90, Yakima River to West Ellensburg: pavement structuralcondition ....................................................... 100 19. Interstate 90, Yakima average ride index ...................................... 101 20. Interstate 90, Yakima average rut index ....................................... 101 Archived V Archived vi TABLES Page 1. HMA and recycled HMA production for 1986 ................................... 6 2. Generation and use of RAP in recycled HMA ................................... 11 3. Specification limits of RAP at producer’s option ................................. 17 4. Maximum limits of RAP-State design, source specified ......................... 18 5. RAP composition of cores and stockpiles ....................................... 21 6. RAP composition from other sources .......................................... 22 7. Virginia DOT specification requirement for surface course SM3C ................. 23 8. Performance summary of Washington State DOT recycled HMA recyclingprojects ........................................................ ..2 8 9. Comparison of recycled HMA and conventional HMA: average test results (standard deviation) ....................................................... 33 10. Cost data for K-96 test sections ............................................... 35 11. Core gradation correlation factors ............................................. 47 12. Pavement evaluation sample frequency and size ................................ 48 13. Inclusion of RAP in HMA without mix design testing ............................ 56 14. States using the