Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rigid Pavement
Rigid Pavement
and Building
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, UP 208 016, India
Received 23 February 2006; received in revised form 16 May 2006; accepted 25 May 2006
Available online 18 July 2006
Abstract
Central plant hot mix recycling is one of the popular techniques adopted for recycling of asphalt pavement materials. Literature
review reports varied levels of performances (laboratory as well as field) of recycled mix compared to the performances of corresponding
virgin mixes. Thus, there is a need for conducting performance-related tests before finalizing any recycled mix design. The present paper
discusses laboratory study conducted on recycled mix design of two different Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) samples, and subse-
quently develops an integrated mix-design-structural-design approach for hot recycled mix. The total cost of the asphalt layer construc-
tion is estimated considering the constituent proportion and the pavement design thickness so that the designer can choose the best
option.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Reclaimed asphalt pavement; Central plant recycling; Hot mix recycling; Mix design; Pavement design
0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.05.004
K. Aravind, A. Das / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 928–936 929
Fatigue performance of recycled mix, are observed to be performed on the recycled samples in order to asses their
poorer with respect to the virgin mix [13,4,5], although performance. The same tests are conducted for virgin
other studies suggest that it could be similar [11,7] or even mixes, with same specification, in order to have a compar-
better [3,12], specially for the situation when RAP content ative idea of mix performance. The schematic plan of the
with respect to the total mix is less than 30% [16]. study is presented in Fig. 1.
It can be noted from the above discussions that the per-
formance of recycled mixes in fatigue, rutting or stiffness 2.1. Determination of constituent properties and mix
could be better, worser, or similar compared to the corre- proportioning
sponding virgin mix. Similar conflicting conclusions can
be derived for various other properties [8,10,17,18] of the Representative samples from in-service pavement (i.e.,
mix. RAP) intended to be recycled are procured from two sites
Thus, the mix design for recycled mix essentially advo- of Kanpur city and cleaned for deleterious matters. These
cates for conducting performance-related laboratory tests materials are identified as Sample 1 and Sample 2.
on the mix designed samples, so as to ascertain its in–ser- The physical properties of the individual components of
vice performance. The test parameters, (for example, stiff- the collected RAP samples are to be determined. Thus,
ness modulus and fatigue life) can as well be used for aged asphalt binder and old aggregates are separated from
pavement design purposes. Since there is a possibility that the RAP samples using Centrifuge Bitumen Extractor
the stiffness modulus and fatigue life values are different (CBE) as per ASTM D2172 [25]. The average asphalt bin-
from that of the corresponding virgin mix, the design thick- der content of the RAP and the gradation of the old aggre-
ness values need to be calculated afresh. Thus, the scope of gates present in RAP are found out. The virgin and
the present paper is to design a pavement with a hot recy- extracted (aged) binders are tested for their physical prop-
cled asphalt surfacing, where the recycled mix is finalized erties. The test results are given in Table 1. The gradation
through a systematic mix design system. of RAP aggregates is presented in Fig. 2.
2. Laboratory investigation
Table 2
Formulae for calculating constituent proportions in recycled mix
Percentage of virgin binder pnb P Rb
ðpob P Rb 100Þ
Percentage of RAP
P RAP
b
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram explaining contribution of various components
to the recycled mix. Percentage of new aggregates 100 ðP RRAP þ P Rnb Þ
K. Aravind, A. Das / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 928–936 931
2.2. Mix preparation which dictate the final value of optimum binder content.
The purpose of the Marshall test is, therefore, to estimate
Using the formulation for constituent proportioning, as this optimum value of binder content by checking the vol-
explained in the previous section, recycled mixes are pre- umetric and strength parameters with varied binder
pared. Two processes are adopted to prepare the samples. contents.
Using the procedure of preparing the mix, as explained
Type 1 process: First, aged binder and old aggregates are in the previous section, Marshall samples (diameter
separated from the RAP using CBE equipment. Then, 100 mm) are prepared for binder contents as 4.5%, 5.0%,
precalculated quantity of virgin binder is added to the 5.5%, 6.0% and 6.5% (with respect to the total weight of
extracted binder to produce a homogeneous mixture of the mix). It may be noted that, as the target binder content
binder of required viscosity. This binder mix is then of the recycled mix ðP Rb Þ changes, the constituent propor-
added to a hot mix of old and new aggregates to pro- tions also gets changed and needs recalculation every time
duce the recycled mix. (refer to Table 2).
Type 2 process: Collected RAP is broken into pieces The recycled mix is poured into Marshall mold, and
using hammer. While breaking, care is taken to make then compacted with Marshall hammer with 75 blows on
sure that aggregates are not crushed due to impact of each face. The compacted Marshall samples are tested after
hammer. This broken material is added to new aggre- curing for 24 h. The weight measurements are done for esti-
gates and then heated to higher temperature. To this mation of volumetric parameters. The Marshall samples
mixture, known amount of hot virgin binder is added. are kept in water bath at 60 °C for 30 min and then tested
This mixture is mixed well to produce the recycled mix. for Marshall flow and stability using Marshall testing
machine [23,24,31].
These two types of material processing are adopted in The Marshall test results are tabulated for S1-T1, S1-T2,
the test plan, because these represent the two possible S2-T1 and S2-T2 types of mixes. A typical set of Marshall
extreme cases during manufacture of recycled mix. Type- test results (averaged using three specimens) for S1-T1 mix
1 process represents a situation where aged binder melts is presented in Table 3. Separate specifications for recycled
at high temperature and get mixed with virgin binder com- mix not being available in Indian guidelines, it was thought
pletely. Type-2 process represents a situation where due to to compare the Marshall results with the specifications of
impact of drum rotation, a part of RAP breaks down into the virgin mix itself (i.e., SDBC in the present case). The
smaller sized lumps; this, in turn, gets mixed with virgin acceptable range of Marshall test parameters for SDBC
binder and new aggregates. Old aggregates and aged binder (as virgin mix) as stipulated in MORT&H guidelines [23]
are not separated out completely during this process. How- is reproduced in Table 4.
ever, it is believed that the realistic situation is somewhere Comparing Table 3 with Table 4, it can be seen that a
in between these two cases [17,29,30]. number of test parameters are going out of the range and
Therefore, in the present study, four possible mix com- a common zone of satisfaction is not achieved. Similar
binations emerge, namely, Sample 1-Type 1, Sample 1- results are obtained for other recycled mixes, i.e., S1-T2,
Type 2, Sample 2-Type 1 and Sample 2-Type 2 mixes. S2-T1 and S2-T2. Non-compliance between test results
These are termed as S1-T1, S1-T2, S2-T1 and S2-T2 respec- and specified acceptance values is mainly observed with
tively, and have been referred so in the rest of the paper.
Table 4
2.3. Marshall tests Marshall parameters for SDBC (as virgin mix) laid down by MORT&H
[23]
The approximate binder demand for SDBC, estimated Parameter Permissible value
as 5.5%, may not necessarily be the optimum binder con- Air voids (VA) (%) 3 to 5
tent of the mix, because it is estimated considering the Voids in mineral aggregates (VMA) (%) P14
approximate surface area to cover the aggregates with Voids filled with bitumen (VFB) (%) 65–78
some approximate film thickness. There are other volumet- Marshall stability (kN) P8.2
Marshall flow (mm) 2–4
ric and strength issues involved in the mix design process,
Table 3
A typical Marshall test result for S1-T1 mix (average of the three samples)
Bitumen Air voids Voids in mineral aggregates Voids filled with Marshall Marshall
content (%) (VA) (%) (VMA) (%) Bitumen (VFB) (%) stability (kN) flow (mm)
4.5 5.04 17.8 71.6 7.0 1.66
5.0 3.59 16.7 78.5 10.7 1.80
5.5 3.43 16.7 79.5 8.8 2.20
6.0 2.43 15.8 84.6 7.6 2.30
6.5 2.43 14.9 83.7 7.0 2.35
932 K. Aravind, A. Das / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 928–936
the volumetric parameters. Thus, the optimum binder con- 2.4. Creep test
tent for any of the recycled mixes could not be conclusively
established. Static creep test is one of the tests that can characterize
Tests have been conducted for the virgin mix, using the rutting potential of a mix. This involves application of
mid-point gradation of the SDBC mix as specified by known amount of static load for a specified duration at
MORT&H, and the common zone of binder content for constant temperature. Since the optimum binder content
which all the Marshall parameters are satisfied is found of the recycled mixes could not be established conclusively
to be ranging between 5.0% and 6.4% (refer Fig. 4). Any from Marshall test, it was decided to carry out creep test
binder content within the feasible zone can be adopted over a range of binder content.
[20] as design value. However, a binder content, close to In the present study, recommendations made by Shell
middle portion of the upper and lower limit of the feasible pavement design manual [34] has been used for performing
zone, entails a more reliable mix design [32,33]. So, a bin- creep test. This involves loading and unloading for a period
der content of 5.5% can be safely assumed as optimum bin- of 1 h each at a temperature of 40 °C. Schematic diagram
der content for the virgin mix in this study. of setup fabricated at Transportation Engineering Labora-
tory, IIT Kanpur [28] is shown in Fig. 5. It consists of a
2.3.1. Discussion loading frame and a pair of dial gauges. Loading frame
The Marshall test results for estimating the optimum is designed in such a way that it transfers the load to the
binder content remained inconclusive for all the recycled specimen axially. The samples are placed in between the
mixes, when compared to the specification limits of the vir- smooth surfaced ceramic plates with the flat surfaces hori-
gin mix. It is seen that, the Marshall stability and flow val- zontal. The dial gauges are fixed at two places on the cera-
ues almost remained within the permissible ranges and even mic plates. The dial gauges are placed independent of the
comparable to the virgin mix. It is only the volumetric loading frame which helps in accurate measurement of
parameter values that seem to go out of the range. A pos- axial deformation [28].
sible reason can be explained in the following: The samples for creep test are prepared in similar way
For the recycled mix design process adopted in the pres- the samples are prepared for Marshall testing. Each sample
ent case, first the quantities of RAP, virgin binder and new is tested after curing for 24 h. Calculated amount of load is
aggregates are determined, and later the gradation of the placed at the end of the loading frame such that stress of
new aggregates are adjusted so as to closely match with 0.1 MPa is developed in the sample. After a period of
the mid-point gradation of SDBC. Since, the quantities 1 h, the load is removed. The displacements are noted at
of the old and new aggregates are fixed beforehand, and different time intervals using dial gauges over the entire
so also the gradation of the old aggregates (i.e., RAP gra- period. A typical variation (for virgin mix sample with
dation), the only parameter that can be varied is the grada- 6.5% binder content) of axial deformation with time (i.e.,
tion of new aggregates. By this process, the achieved creep curve) is shown in Fig. 6. The recoverable strain val-
gradation may not necessarily match the mid point grada- ues at different binder contents is plotted for various mixes
tion, considering all possible gradations of the new aggre- in Fig. 7.
gates. This might have caused non-compliance of the
volumetric parameters with reference to the SDBC virgin 2.4.1. Discussion
mix specification. Thus, there remains a need of developing As expected, it is seen that the recoverable strain gradu-
specifications for recycled mixes for Indian gradation. ally increases with the binder content and then again starts
decreasing for all types of mixes. From Fig. 7 it is seen that
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram showing feasible zones for SDBC virgin mix
design. Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of creep test setup.
K. Aravind, A. Das / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 928–936 933
Fig. 6. Variation of deformation with time in creep test for virgin mix
sample with 6.5% bitumen content. Fig. 8. Comparison of creep performance of different mixes at binder
content of 5.5%.
Table 5
Regression coefficients and initial stiffness of different mixes
Mix type Number of Regression R2 Average initial
samples tested coefficients stiffness (MPa)
k0 k1
Virgin mix 10 2.8150 1.3355 0.91 1477
S1-T1 9 0.5647 1.5458 0.92 1711
S1-T2 9 0.0631 1.8755 0.92 1723
S2-T1 10 0.7872 1.3573 0.94 773
S2-T2 10 0.1951 1.6928 0.78 738
Table 6 Table 7
Design thickness of SDBC layer (mm) Construction cost of asphalt layer of 7 m wide and 1 km long stretch with
different mixes
Mix type Granular layer thickness (mm)
Mix type Construction cost (Indian % Saving
200 500
Rupees)
Virgin mix 217 201
S1-T1 190 175 Granular layer thickness Granular layer
(mm) thickness (mm)
S1-T2 148 136
S2-T1 >400 >400 200 500 200 500
S2-T2 244 226 Virgin mix 55,65,616 51,55,248 – –
S1–T1 32,42,350 29,96,350 41.7 41.9
S1-T2 25,40,272 23,38,112 54.5 54.6
S2-T2 48,90,004 45,32,430 12.1 12.1
It is assumed that same machinery and manpower can
be used for production of virgin mix as well as recycled
mix. Operations that have been considered in the cost esti- due to (i) differences of design thickness, as well as (ii) dif-
mate are milling and transportation of RAP, production of ferences in the mutual constituent proportions.
asphalt mix using hot mix plant, transportation of mix thus
produced to construction site and compacting using differ- 4. Conclusion
ent rollers. It is assumed that the thickness of existing pave-
ment is such that there is no excess or deficit of RAP Mix design for recycled asphalt mix has been performed
collected. through Marshall, creep and fatigue tests. The parameters
A typical calculation is given in Appendix A. Standard obtained are used in pavement design and the economy in
schedule of rates issued by Central Public Works Depart- alternative designs are evaluated considering the material
ment (CPWD), Government of India has been used for cost towards constituent proportion as well as design thick-
computation of the costs [42,43]. ness. Thus, the paper has presented an integrated mix-
Thus the construction cost of asphalt layer of 7 m wide design-structural-design system for hot recycled asphalt
and 1 km long stretch is tabulated in Table 7. mix.
It can be seen that cost of construction with recycled mix The senior author wishes to thankfully acknowledge the
could be economical compared to virgin mix. Percentage financial support provided by the All India Council of
saving in the present example problem varied between Technical Education (AICTE), Government of India, un-
12.1% and 54.6% for different mixes. It may be noted that der the scheme of ‘‘Career award for young teachers
these differences in material costs across various mixes is (2002-03)’’.
Appendix A
Typical rate analysis for asphalt layer construction with virgin SDBC mix
Description Unit Quantity Rate (Indian Rupees) Amount (Indian Rupees)
(a) Labour Man-day 21 1116.3 2443.80
(b) Machinery
Batch mix plant h 6 13,400.00 80,402.40
Paver finisher h 6 2070.00 12,420.00
Generator 250 kVA h 6 720.00 4320.00
Front end loader h 6 624.00 3744.00
Tipper 10 ton capacity ton km 4500 2.09 9396.00
Smooth wheeled roller h 3.9 297.00 1158.30
Vibratory roller h 3.9 1192.80 4651.92
Smooth wheeled tandem roller h 3.9 356.40 1389.96
(c) Material
Bitumen @5.5% of mix ton 24.75 17,151.60 424,502.10
20–5 mm aggregate (65%) cum 184.27 420.00 77,395.50
5 mm and below aggregate (33%) cum 93.55 552.00 51,642.36
Cement filler (2%) ton 8.50 3079.20 26,157.97