NCHRP Practice and Performance of Cold

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.
org/26319
Practice and Performance of Cold

In-Place Recycling and Cold Central
Plant Recycling (2021)
DETAILS
142 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PDF
ISBN 978-0-309-67418-8 | DOI 10.17226/26319
CONTRIBUTORS
M. Stroup-Gardiner; National Cooperative Highway Research Program; National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis Program; Transportation Research
BUY THIS BOOK Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Practice and
Performance of Cold In-Place Recycling and Cold Central Plant Recycling.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26319.
Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notifications of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts
All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)
This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
Practice and Performance of Cold In-Place Recycling and Cold Central Plant Recycling
N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP SYNTHESIS 569

Practice and Performance
of Cold In-Place Recycling
and Cold Central Plant Recycling
A SYNTHESIS OF HIGHWAY PRACTICE
M. Stroup-Gardiner
Gardiner Technical Services
Monterey, CA
Subscriber Categories
Maintenance and Preservation • Materials • Pavements
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2021
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 569

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most Project 20-05, Topic 51-08
effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of ISSN 0547-5570
transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway ISBN 978-0-309-67418-8
problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by Library of Congress Control Number 2021943086
state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities
© 2021 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transporta-
tion results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to high-
way authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated
program of cooperative research. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern published or copyrighted material used herein.
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA,
FHWA, FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration
practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational
(FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agree- and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted
ment No. 693JJ31950003. or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to Cover figures: top, cold central plant recycling; bottom, cold in-place recycling.
D. Schellhammer, Midstate Reclamation and Trucking, Lakeview, Minnesota.
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com-
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation NOTICE
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
directly to those in a position to use them. Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the
FHWA; or the program sponsors.
The program is developed on the basis of research needs iden-
tified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
transportation departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do
not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names or logos appear
the FHWA. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year
R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc-
tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these
topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are
selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of
research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies
and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.
Published reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from
Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from
the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 569

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Tanya Zwahlen, Senior Program Officer
Stephanie L. Campbell, Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P. Delaney, Publications Senior Advisor
Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications
NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

Joyce N. Taylor, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, ME (Chair)
Socorro “Coco” A. Briseno, California Department of Transportation (retired), Sacramento, CA
Anita K. Bush, Nevada Department of Transportation, Carson City, NV
Joseph D. Crabtree, Kentucky Transportation Center, Lexington, KY
Mostafa Jamshidi, Nebraska Department of Transportation, Lincoln, NE
Cynthia L. Jones, Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, OH
Jessie X. Jones, Arkansas DOT, Little Rock, AR
Brenda Moore, North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC
Ben T. Orsbon, South Dakota Department of Transportation, Pierre, SD
Randall R. Park, Avenue Consultants, Taylorsville, UT
Brian Worrel, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, IA
Jack D. Jernigan, FHWA Liaison
Jim T. McDonnell, AASHTO Liaison
Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison
TOPIC 51-08 PANEL

Howard J. Anderson, Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT
Edith Arámbula-Mercado, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, TX
Bomasur Banzon, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA
Sheila Hines, NOVA Engineering, Forest Park, GA
Timothy Kelley, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, ME
Hong Joon Park, Tennessee Department of Transportation, Nashville, TN
Eyoab Zegeye Teshale, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Maplewood, MN
Morgan Kessler, FHWA Liaison
Nelson Gibson, TRB Liaison

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information
already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor
mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has
been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings
may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to
recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engineers.
Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-
to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information
and to make it available to the entire highway community, the American Association of State High
way and Transportation Officials—through the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program—authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study.
This study, NCHRP Project 20-05, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Practices,” searches
out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented
reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series, Synthesis
of Highway Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the
detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides
a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful in
resolving specific problems.
FOREWORD
By Tanya Zwahlen
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
This report compiles and documents information regarding the current state of practice on how cold
in-place recycling (CIR) and cold central plant recycling (CCPR) technologies are selected, designed,
constructed, and evaluated by state departments of transportation (DOTs). A primary objective of this
synthesis is to summarize state DOT history and experience with CIR and CCPR as part of rehabilita-
tion strategies, including the number of projects and tons or lane-miles per year, type of roads used,
and equipment used, as well as the selection criteria for recycling projects.
Information used in this study was gathered through a literature review, a survey of state DOTs,
and interviews. Six agencies were selected for case examples.
Mary Stroup-Gardiner, PhD, PE, of Gardiner Technical Services, collected and synthesized the
information and wrote the report. The members of the topic panel are acknowledged on page iv. This
synthesis is an immediately useful document that records the practices that were acceptable within
the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. As progress in research and
practice continues, new knowledge will be added to that now at hand.


CONTENTS
1 Summary
4 Chapter 1 Introduction
6 Chapter 2 Literature Review
6 Project Selection
14 Pavement Design
23 Individual Materials
29 Mix Designs
61 Construction Processes
79 Pavement Performance
86 Economic Benefits
87 Environmental Benefits
89 Chapter 3 Agency Survey
89 Experience with CCPR and CIR Processes
92 Knowledge of, and Experience with, New CCPR and CIR Standards
94 Size of Existing Cold Recycling Programs
95 Traffic Levels on Cold Recycling Projects
96 Barriers to Increased Use of Cold Recycled Processes
98 Survey Summary
99 Chapter 4 Case Examples
99 Case Example One – Indiana DOT Approach to Project Selection
100 Case Example Two – Minnesota DOT Initial Experience with CCPR
103 Case Example Three – Maine DOT Operation of CCPR
104 Case Example Four – Utah DOT Cold Recycling Experiences
107 Case Example Five – Caltrans Experience with Cold Recycling Smoothness
Specification
108 Case Example Six – More than Four Decades of Federal Lands Highway
Experience with Cold Recycling
111 Chapter 5 Conclusions
111 Literature Review
112 Agency Survey and Case Examples
113 Recommendations for Future Research
115 References
121 Appendix A Web-Based Survey Form
125 Appendix B Individual Survey Responses
133 Abbreviations
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.


SUMMARY
Practice and Performance

of Cold In-Place Recycling
and Cold Central Plant Recycling
Cold recycling processes provide agencies with cost-effective and environmentally
friendly pavement maintenance and rehabilitation options for aged asphalt pavements. Cost
savings are achieved by reducing the need for new materials; requiring fewer haul trucks;
lowering fuel consumption; and eliminating the need for adjustments to curb, gutter, and
overhead clearances. Environmental benefits include the reduced need for natural resources
and lower generation of greenhouse gases by both the construction process and the reduced
time vehicles spend in traffic queues.
Cold in-place recycling (CIR) is a process in which 3 to 4 in. (75 to 100 mm) of the
existing asphalt pavement layers are pulverized, mixed with a recycling agent, and repaved
in place (Wagner 2018). Cold central plant recycling (CCPR) is similar to CIR, but it can
recycle thicker pavement layers and the recycling operation occurs at a nearby, usually
mobile, plant location. CCPR can use reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) obtained from the
roadway under construction, a mixture of RAP from various nearby projects, or previously
stockpiled RAP. Neither CIR nor CCPR is used to modify the underlying base and subgrade
materials, so roadways need to be structurally sound with good drainage.
The objective of this synthesis is to document how projects suitable for CIR and CCPR
processes are selected, considered in the pavement design phase, constructed, and eval
uated. Three methods were used to accomplish this objective: (1) an online agency survey,
(2) a literature review, and (3) interviews to collect agency experiences for case examples.
The online state agency survey assessed the size, extent, and experience with CIR and
CCPR as well as with newly published AASHTO and Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming
Association (ARRA) standards. A total of 40 agencies responded for a response rate of
80%, although not all respondents answered all questions. Most cold recycling programs
pave less than 50 lane-miles per year. Cold recycling is frequently used on roadways with
annual average daily traffic (AADT) under 10,000, but more experienced agencies use cold
recycling on roadways with AADTs between 10,000 and 25,000. Agencies have the most
experience using CIR with emulsion recycling agents. Additional communications with
various current and former agency staff revealed that the cold recycling process and the
type of recycling agent used by an agency are limited by what is locally available and not
usually the result of a preference for one material or process over another.
Agencies most frequently cited three barriers to increased use of cold recycling processes:
the lack of agency experience, the lack of experienced contractors, and the lack of well-
defined project selection criteria. Other barriers to increased use were the lack of quality
assurance testing and construction specifications for CCPR with a foamed asphalt recycling
agent and previous unsuccessful experiences with an emulsion CIR recycling agent. Most
1

2 Practice and Performance of Cold In-Place Recycling and Cold Central Plant Recycling
agencies have not yet used the recently released AASHTO and ARRA standards; however,
several agencies are planning to use the AASHTO standards for upcoming projects.
The literature review evaluated published CIR and CCPR literature, research reports,
and conference proceedings published on agency research websites, in peer-reviewed
journals, and by regional user-producer organizations. The literature review documented
information about pavement design, mix designs, performance testing, service life, cost
savings, and environmental benefits. Agencies using the older AASHTO 1993 pavement
design method employ a range of structural layer coefficients. AASHTO’s newer Mecha-
nistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) methodology uses laboratory testing
to establish material properties that provide inputs for the performance prediction models.
Several sources of data were found for dynamic moduli values, but few sources were found
that can be used for cracking and rutting models.
A variety of specimen preparation methods and modifications to the standard test method
temperatures and conditioning processes are used to evaluate cold recycled mixes. Specific
gravities are frequently determined using traditional hot asphalt mixture test methods, but
several agencies use vacuum sealing methods because cold recycled mixture specimens have
higher air voids and RAP particles that are not fully coated. Basic mix design testing evalu-
ates Marshall stability or indirect tensile strength. Moisture sensitivity of the mix is assessed
by evaluating the ratio of either stability or strength after saturation and soaking. Soaking
and testing temperatures as well as saturation levels are usually, but not always, decreased,
and conditioning may or may not include a freeze cycle.
Agencies may use performance testing as part of balanced mix designs. Compaction
levels, curing times, and curing temperatures vary widely between agencies and have a
significant impact on performance testing results. Cold recycled mixtures can be easily
damaged during sample preparation and can deform at platen and specimen clamp points.
The reported service life of cold recycled pavements ranges from 20 to 34 years when
the cold recycled mix is used in conjunction with an overlay. The service life is somewhat
shorter and more variable when chip seals are used as the wearing surface. Poor drainage
can reduce the service life by 30% or more.
Cold recycling with an overlay can reduce the cost of a project by 40% to 60% compared
to a conventional mill and fill. Greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by about 50%
compared to a conventional mill and fill.
Six agency case examples were developed to address individual key topics that were
not specifically covered with the survey and the literature review. The topics include
(1) project selection criteria based on pavement distresses (Indiana), (2) an agency’s first
experience with CCPR (Minnesota), (3) a CCPR plant owned and operated by an agency
(Maine), (4) innovative mix design and construction control testing (Utah), (5) smooth-
ness specification applied to cold recycled mixes (Caltrans), and (6) more than four
decades of experience with cold recycling (Federal Lands Highway).
The major advantage with CCPR is control over the consistency and quality of the cold
recycled mix. Stockpiling RAP and then processing it immediately before use helps rework
and blend RAP from various sources. It also permits specifying a smaller maximum size RAP
because oversized particles can be reground to meet the finer gradation requirements. With
the more prevalent use of finer cutting heads on the millers, smaller maximum size RAP is
more easily obtained with little further processing. The smaller maximum particle size helps
reduce segregation. Stockpiling RAP also helps stabilize the RAP moisture content. Con-
sistent gradations and moisture contents improve the consistency of material properties

Summary 3
and in-place densities. An added advantage to finer gradations is that the cold recycled mix
can also be used as a leveling course for other paving and maintenance projects.
The ride quality of cold recycled mix projects can meet existing ride quality specifica-
tions. More experienced contractors profile the existing roadway to identify areas that
can be pre-milled to improve the final ride quality. When an overlay is included, experi-
enced contractors can meet ride quality incentives with a single lift overlay over the cold
recycled layer.
Gaps in the available information include documentation on how emulsion tempera-
ture during construction influences the mix characteristics, documented procedures and
benefits of supplemental compaction, and existing databases of cold recycled mix properties
that can be used as inputs for pavement design performance prediction models.
Recommendations for future research include the following: (1) modify and standardize
conventional testing procedures for use with cold recycled mixes, (2) define the factors
behind problems with emulsions that a number of agencies reported as a barrier to increased
use, (3) define key factors for improved mix properties with supplemental compaction,
(4) define time limits and procedures for field quality assurance testing, (5) update current
definitions for CIR and CCPR to include a description of key material properties, and
(6) evaluate where cold recycling belongs on the pavement deterioration curve.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Cold recycling processes provide agencies with cost-effective and environmentally friendly
pavement maintenance and rehabilitation options for aged asphalt pavements. Cost savings
are achieved by reducing the need for new materials; requiring fewer haul trucks; lowering
fuel consumption; and eliminating the need for adjustments to curb, gutter, and overhead
clearances. Environmental benefits include the reduced need for natural resources and lower
generation of greenhouse gases by both the construction process and the reduced time vehicles
spend in traffic queues.
Cold in-place recycling (CIR) is a process in which 3 to 4 in. (75 to 100 mm) of the existing
asphalt pavement layers are pulverized, mixed with a recycling agent, and repaved in place
(Wagner 2018). Cold central plant recycling (CCPR) is similar to CIR, but it can recycle thicker
pavement layers and the recycling operation occurs at a nearby, usually mobile, plant location.
CCPR can use reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) obtained from the roadway under construc-
tion, a mixture of RAP from various nearby projects, or previously stockpiled RAP. Neither CIR
nor CCPR is used to modify the underlying base and subgrade materials, so roadways need to
be structurally sound with good drainage.
The objective of this synthesis is to document how projects suitable for CIR and CCPR
processes are selected, considered in the pavement design phase, constructed, and evaluated.
Three methods were used to accomplish this objective: (1) an online agency survey, (2) a litera-
ture review, and (3) interviews to collect agency experiences for case examples.
The online state agency survey assessed the size, extent, and experience with CIR and CCPR
as well as with newly published AASHTO and Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association
(ARRA) standards. A total of 40 agencies responded for a response rate of 80%, although not
all respondents answered all questions.
The literature review evaluated published CIR and CCPR literature, research reports, and
conference proceedings published on agency research websites, in peer-reviewed journals, and
by regional user-producer organizations. The literature review documented information about
pavement design, mix designs, performance testing, service life, cost savings, and environmental
benefits. Presentations by agency staff and researchers at local, regional, state, and national
conferences that were posted to websites were also reviewed.
Six agency case examples were developed to address individual key topics that were not
specifically covered with the survey and the literature review. The topics include (1) project
selection criteria based on pavement distresses (Indiana), (2) a first experience with CCPR
(Minnesota), (3) a CCPR plant owned and operated by an agency (Maine), (4) innovative mix
design and construction control (Utah), (5) smoothness specification applied to cold recycled

Introduction 5
mixes (Caltrans), and (6) more than four decades of experience with cold recycling (Federal
Lands Highway).
This synthesis is organized into the following chapters:
• Chapter 2 – Literature Review
• Chapter 3 – Agency Survey
• Chapter 4 – Case Examples
• Chapter 5 – Conclusions

CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
The literature review chapter is organized into the following sections:

• Project Selection
• Pavement Design
• Individual Materials
• Mix Designs
• Construction Processes
• Pavement Performance
• Economic Benefits
• Environmental Benefits
Project Selection
A well-defined process for identifying projects that are good candidates for CIR and CCPR
at the start of the project is key to comparing the economic and environmental factors asso-
ciated with all options for pavement maintenance and rehabilitation. The most appropriate
alternatives for a given project are identified during the project selection phase. Possible alter-
natives should be selected because they can
• Address the specific pavement distresses present on the existing roadway, and
• Effectively use and/or reuse the existing pavement structure and materials.
The condition of the existing roadway in an agency’s network is usually expressed as a single-
value number such as the pavement condition index (PCI) or pavement condition rating (PCR).
This number is useful for the initial identification of roadways in need of maintenance or reha-
bilitation, but an evaluation of the type and extent of individual pavement distresses is needed
to identify alternatives that can address the causes of the individual distresses.
Recycling processes use the existing pavement materials as a major component of the new
pavement. Therefore, it is important to identify the types of materials that need to be incorpo-
rated into the new mixture. A thorough review of any original construction and maintenance
records can provide a preliminary estimate of likely variations in the pavement materials.
The records review can also provide information on possible variations in the thickness pave-
ment structure. Recycling processes also need minimum amounts of available materials to
produce the mixes. The records can identify the probable pavement thickness variations in
the project.
A site investigation is needed to verify and expand the information collected with the records
review.

Literature Review 7
Pavement Distresses
CIR and CCPR mitigate or eliminate functional pavement distresses but need a structurally
sound, well-drained underlying pavement structure (i.e., minimal structurally related distresses).
Table 1 summarizes the ability of CIR and CCPR to minimize or eliminate individual pavement
distresses and at what stage of the project the cause of the distress can be addressed.
Nonwheel path longitudinal cracks, shoving, and slippage can be evidence of previous mix
design or construction problems. Nonwheel path longitudinal cracks can be due to poorly
compacted construction joints, discontinuities at the screed extensions, and mix segregation.
Shoving can be caused by too-soft asphalts [i.e., the performance grade (PG) is too low] or
higher than anticipated traffic, and slippage between lifts can happen because of a loss of adhe-
sion between layers. The milling depth needs to be deep enough to remove these distresses.
Table 1. When to address existing pavement distresses during phases of a project.
Ability of Cold Stage of Project When Distresses

Existing Pavement Recycling to Reduce Can Be Reduced or Eliminated**
Distress or Eliminate Materials Mix Milling Drainage Structural Pavement
Distress* Selection Design Depths Improvement Support Design
Polishing Good X
Friction improvement Good X
Moisture damage Good X X
Raveling Good X X
Bleeding, flushing Fair X X
Oxidation Good X
Longitudinal cracks
Good X
(nonwheel path)
Shoving Good X X
Slippage Good X
Bumps Fair X X X X
Rutting Good X X X X
Longitudinal cracks
Good X X X
(wheel path)
Alligator cracking Good X X X
Potholes Good X X X X X
Patches Good X X X X X
Edge cracking Fair X X X
Shoulder drop-off Poor X
Transverse cracks Good X X X X
Reflective cracking Good X X X
Block cracking Good X X
Shrinkage cracking — X X X
Ride quality (distress-
Fair X X X X
related)
Minor profile
Fair X X
corrections
*Source: Stroup-Gardiner 2011.
**There may be multiple causes for a single distress type. The specific cause needs to be identified during the site investigation so it can
be addressed at the appropriate stage of the project.
— not included.

Aggregates with round shapes or mineralogy that tends to polish under traffic can be recycled
into a lower pavement layer, and moisture-sensitive mixes can be amended with an active filler
(e.g., lime, Portland cement). Bleeding or flushing is a function of traffic combined with an
over-asphalted mix or surface treatment. In some cases, bleeding or flushing can be evidence
of a moisture-sensitive mix where, in hot weather, the asphalt is stripping off the aggregate
and moving to the surface as the underlying water evaporates through the pavement. Raveling,
which is accelerated by traffic working the fines out of the pavement surface, can indicate a
moisture-sensitive mix, an originally under-asphalted mix, or the advanced age and oxidation
of the surface mix. It is important to address any moisture or material distresses during the mix
design phase.
Bumps may have been generated by the paver stopping and starting during construction,
or they may indicate an underlying patched area—such as a Portland cement patch under an
overlay. In some areas of the country, bumps can also be evidence of soil-related problems (e.g.,
frost heave, expansive clays). Any base or subgrade deficiencies that are identified as the cause of
the bumps need to be addressed before any rehabilitation activities. If the bumps are the result
of previous paving operations, then the milling depth needs to be deep enough to remove the
distresses.
Transverse cracks may be either thermal or reflective. Thermal cracking resistance can be
improved by selecting a base asphalt for the recycled mix that is appropriate for the project’s
environmental conditions and that accounts for the influence of the oxidized binder on the com-
bined binder properties. For reflective cracking, cold recycled mixtures can be used as a crack
relief layer between the existing layer and the new wearing surface (Chan et al. 2009; Emerson
2017; Wagner 2018; Schellhammer 2019).
Block cracking is the result of a combination of oxidation and fluctuations in temperature; an
appropriate milling depth can reduce or eliminate this cracking. In some cases, block cracking
may be reflective cracking caused by underlying Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement.
Edge cracking usually indicates a lack of support immediately adjacent to the roadway, which
can be due to drainage problems or a lack of shoulders. Shoulder drop-off occurs when overlays
are placed on a roadway without raising the shoulder material to match the new pavement eleva-
tion; it can also be due to erosion of the shoulder material over time. The lack of edge support
needs to be addressed during the pavement design phase.
Structurally related distresses include longitudinal and alligator cracking as well as patching
in the wheel paths. Rutting, longitudinal cracks in the wheel paths, alligator (fatigue) cracking,
potholes, and patching all represent traffic-related distresses. Except for rutting, the distresses
in this group are sequential. That is, longitudinal cracking is the first evidence of traffic-related
cracking and evolves with additional load repetitions into fatigue cracking in the wheel paths.
As fatigue crack counts increase, longitudinal crack counts decrease. As time goes on, both
traffic and weather further damage the fatigue-cracked areas and a pothole forms, which is then
patched. When a roadway has a significant number of patched areas, the support structure of
the pavement is questionable and further testing is needed.
Traffic Levels
Cox and Howard (2013) reported that CIR projects typically had up to 3,000 annual average
daily traffic (AADT) levels (Figure 1). Agencies with a number of years of experience with
cold recycling processes frequently recycle roadways with higher AADT traffic levels (Table 2).
The cold recycled layer includes an overlay at higher traffic levels and chip seals for lower
AADT levels.

Literature Review 9
No. of Documented CIR Projects
Source: Based on Cox and Howard 2013.
Figure 1. Documented traffic levels.
Records Review
The existing records are reviewed to determine the existing pavement layers and probable
thicknesses, as well as the type, materials, and extent of previous maintenance and preservation
activities. Factors that can influence the consistency of the cold recycled RAP mix include the
amount of crack sealant, fabric interlayers, material properties in surface treatments, varia-
tions in the surface mix [e.g., open-graded friction course, stone matrix asphalt (SMA)], and
the narrowing of roadways from multiple overlays (Wagner 2018; Christianson and Mahoney
2019). If the project involves excessive crack sealing, then pre-milling the surface to remove the
crack sealant may be beneficial. However, when fabric interlayers are present, the miller may
not shred the fabric into acceptable particle sizes. These pieces of fabric can end up needing to be
removed by hand, which can significantly slow production rates. Chip seal surface treatments
Table 2. Summary of traffic levels on CIR projects.
AADT
Location Materials Source
Average Minimum Maximum
State Agency Projects
Chen 2006;
Iowa CIR with emulsions 1,217 130 5,842
Lee and Kim 2007
CIR with chip seal 581 40 4,880 Busch 2012;
Nevada
CIR with overlay 2,558 233 15,875 Sebaaly et al. 2018
Canadian Projects*
Ontario Ministry of CIR with emulsions 5,086 1,950 8,600
Transportation CIR with foamed asphalt 7,975 1,100 35,800
United Counties of CIR with emulsions 2,168 356 4,536
Stormont, Dundas,
CIR with foamed asphalt 1,589 526 5,674
and Glengarry Bhavsar 2015
CIR with emulsions 6,337 500 23,317
Region of Waterloo
CIR with foamed asphalt 4,903 500 10,000
CIR with emulsions 2,463 515 7,755
County of Perth
CIR with foamed asphalt** 6,710 6,710 6,710
*Wearing surface not identified in the report.
**Different sections on the same roadway were rehabilitated under different contracts.

tend to have high asphalt binder contents that are polymer or crumb rubber modified (Wagner
2018; Schellhammer 2019). Patching of the roadway is done intermittently, over time, with
whatever patching materials are on hand at the time. This means the patching mix properties
vary significantly from year to year. The variability in the milled material properties increases
with the type and extent of surface treatments and patching.
Thus, the materials that are in the existing pavement to be recycled significantly influence the
selection of any new materials needed for the cold recycled mix. When there are areas within
a single project with significantly different materials and layer thicknesses, then multiple mix
designs are needed for each area.
Site Investigation
There are four components to the initial site investigation (Wagner 2018; Christianson and
Mahoney 2019; Jones 2019):
• Visual inspection
• Confirmation of pavement layer thickness and thickness consistency
• Structural support evaluation
• Confirmation of roadway attributes (e.g., overhead clearance, utilities, signage, load
restrictions)
Visual Inspection
A thorough visual evaluation of the project is necessary to identify any specific site drainage
and support deficiencies that need to be addressed. Localized areas with edge cracking, excessive
numbers of potholes and patching at the outer edges of roadways, alligator cracking that extends
across the full lane width, wet areas in the pavement, and vegetation (such as cattails) in nearby
drainage ditches are all indicators of potentially poor drainage conditions (Figures 2 and 3).
Confirmation of Pavement Layer Thickness and Thickness Consistency

Full-depth cores, obtained over the entire length and width of the project, are used to docu-
ment individual and total layer thicknesses. The depth of any cracking is documented through
Source: Schellhammer 2019.
Figure 2. Alligator cracking and potholes across the

full width of the lane indicate poor drainage.

Literature Review 11
Source: Schellhammer 2019.
Figure 3. Cattails in the drainage

ditch indicate poor drainage.
a visual examination of the cores. The most successful projects ensure that the milling depth
is deep enough to remove the cracking. When a milling depth of more than 5 in. (125 mm) is
needed to remove deep cracks, then CCPR or full-depth reclamation (FDR) should be consid-
ered (Schellhammer 2019). However, CCPR projects can leave a freshly milled surface open to
traffic until milling is completed and the cold recycled mix is placed (see Milling in the Construc-
tion Processes section).
The total thickness of the existing pavement identifies if there will be sufficient RAP for the
optimum performance of the recycling equipment. FHWA initially defined optimum milling
depths as 2 to 4 in. (50 to 100 mm) (Kandhal and Mallick 1997, chap. 13). Cox and Howard
(2013) reported that most of the CIR projects documented in publications (1983 through 2011)
had recycled thicknesses of 5 in. (125 mm) or less (Figure 4). CIR “fluffs” the mix so an existing
thickness of 3 in. (75 mm) yields 4 in. (100 mm) of CIR. Recent recommendations define milling
depths between 3 in. and 5 in. (75 mm and 125 mm), with 3 to 4 in. (75 to 100 mm) as optimum, for
CIR processes (Wagner 2018). A milling depth of less than 3 in. (75 mm) may not be deep enough
to produce sufficient cold recycled mix for optimum paving processes (Schellhammer 2019).
A visual evaluation of the cores is used to log the thicknesses of each layer in the existing
pavement. Different pavement layers can represent different types of asphalt mixtures, each with
different material properties. These differences make it difficult to regulate the recycling agent
and stabilizing agent quantities (Cross 2014). They further lead to increased variability in the
cold recycled material properties and to potential differences in both service life and the length
of the project.
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) technology provides a good visual log of the total thick-
ness of the pavement for the entire length of the project (Cross 2014). However, identifying the
thicknesses of individual layers of similar materials (e.g., original and subsequent overlays of
dense-graded asphalt) is not always easy (Diefenderfer et al. 2017).

70
60 59
55

50
50
40
30
20
10 8
6
1 1 2 1
0
CIR Layer Thicknesses Reported

Figure 4. CIR layer thicknesses reported in documents.
Structural Support Evaluation

The load-carrying capability of the unbound pavement layers can be evaluated using a falling
weight deflectometer (FWD, ASTM D4694) or a dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP, ASTM
D6951). Some agencies, including the Nevada Department of Transportation (Nevada DOT),
routinely use FWD testing when the structural support is questionable (Busch 2012). While
the use of FWD is noted for evaluating the existing structural support, no information about
acceptable values was found.
DCP testing is usually conducted once full-depth cores are taken. Because the original use
for the DCP was to indicate the load-carrying capability of soils and unbound materials, several
correlation equations have been developed that estimate the soil bearing capacity [California
Bearing Ratio (CBR)] to the DCP results (Burnham 1997; Davich et al. 2006; Alghamdi 2016;
Minnesota DOT 2017). Burnham (1997) conducted over 700 tests during construction of the
mainline and low-volume sections of Minnesota’s pavement test track (MnROAD), which
focused on developing threshold DCP values to indicate acceptable layer support (Table 3).
The DCP value increases with decreasing moisture content (Davich et al. 2006). While varia-
tions in moisture content in the unbound layers can make results more variable, the dependency
on moisture content makes it useful for evaluating localized areas of poor support that need to
be addressed before any rehabilitation project.
Confirmation of Roadway Attributes

The presence, frequency, and location of utility covers need to be assessed during the prelimi-
nary project assessment (Wagner 2018). Any dimensional height and width restrictions—such
as overhead power lines, trees, bridges, mailboxes, and guardrails—need to be located and
documented. Vertical clearances need close attention as CIR mix tends to “fluff.” For example,
a milling depth of 3 in. (75 mm) can result in a CIR layer thickness of 4 in. (100 mm), not
including the wearing surface. The increased volume is a function of the higher CIR mix air

Table 3. Estimated DCP values for various pavement layer materials.
Estimated CBR Value Estimated Young’s

Material DCP Value
from Equation Modulus from Equation*
Key Threshold Valuesa
< 25 mm/blow > 37 MPa
Silty clay soil >8
(< 1.0 in./blow) (> 5,366 psi)
Select granular aggregate > 33
(< 0.28 in./blow) (> 20,517 psi)
MnROAD Class 3 special aggregate > 48
(< 0.20 in./blow) (> 29,298 psi)
b
Range of Values
15 to 127 mm/blow 7 to 63 MPa
Clay (USCS for CL)** 2 to 17
(0.6 to 5 in./blow) (1,015 to 9,137 psi)
Sand (S-W) 17 to 45
(0.2 to 0.6 in./blow) (9,137 to 24,221 psi)
2.7 to 5 mm/blow 202 to 389 MPa
Gravel (G-W) 53 to 100
(0.1 to 0.2 in./blow) (29,298 to 56,420 psi)
c
ARRA Recommendations
> 25 mm/blow < 37 MPa
Poor support range <8
(> 1 in./blow) (< 5,366 psi)
Marginal support range 8 to 17
(0.6 to 1 in./blow) (5,366 to 9,137 psi)
Acceptable support range > 17
(< 0.6 in./blow) (> 9,137 psi)
*Correlation equation evaluated by Davich et al. 2006.
**USCS = Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM D2487.
a
Source: Based on Burnham 1997.
b
Source: Skinner n.d.
c
Source: Cross et al. 2014.
void content (typically 9% to 17%) and additional materials added to the milled material (e.g.,
corrective aggregate, recycling agents, fillers). It may be necessary to pre-mill and haul off a thin
layer of the existing pavement to maintain the required vertical clearances (Brown 2013). Alter-
natively, the extra volume of material can be used to widen the lane. For example, a CIR project
can widen an existing lane width of 11 ft (3.4 m) to 12 ft (3.7 m) (D. Schellhammer, personal
communication, April 24, 2020).
The roadway profile and cross slope need to be evaluated to determine if any adjustments are
needed. The cold planing process can be used to obtain a 0.5% cross-slope correction (Wagner
2018; Schellhammer 2019) although newer three-dimensional millers can provide tighter
control on profile and cross-slope adjustments.
If possible, shoulders should be recycled at the same time as the adjacent lane (Cross et al.
2010). Doing so helps minimize any potential for shoulder drop-off. It also helps prevent any
transverse cracks remaining in the shoulders from initiating reflective-type cracking at the edge
of the new surface. The minimum shoulder depth for recycling needs to be at least 1 in. greater
than milling depth to keep from including unbound material in the recycled mix. Shoulders
with severe alligator cracks can make it difficult to mill the shoulder material to the desired
particle size, and the oversize material may end up in the recycled mix (Cross et al. 2010).
Shoulders that are 4 ft (1.2 m) or less wide can be recycled in one pass with an appropriate
extension to the milling machine. Alternatively, a smaller narrow-width miller can be used to
mill and deposit material into the path of the full-sized miller. Other options include replacing
shoulders before recycling the main pavement or milling the shoulders before the mainline,
then paving the full width of the lane and shoulder at one time.

Any load restrictions on roadways leading in and out of the project area need to be checked
to avoid any problems with moving heavy recycling equipment in and out of the work area
(Schellhammer 2019).
Grades and curves can have an impact on recycling construction but are not limiting factors.
Steeper grades may reduce milling and paving speeds. Also, recycling operations on downhill
grades tend to encourage faster equipment speeds, which result in a rougher milling texture and
larger maximum RAP particle sizes.
Project Selection Summary

Project selection is initially based on the types and extent of existing functional pavement
distresses. Less experienced agencies tend to limit cold recycling to roadways with lower traffic
levels, while agencies with more experience take on higher traffic levels with overlays and appro-
priate pavement designs. Site investigations, coring, and assessments of adequate subgrade
support and drainage are an essential part of the project selection process.
Pavement Design
The pavement design process involves considering the material properties for each layer in
the pavement structure to select the appropriate materials and layer thicknesses needed to carry
traffic for the design life of the road. Agencies with more cold recycled experience recognize the
importance of selecting appropriate wearing surface materials and thicknesses for higher traffic
volume roadways. Conventional dense-graded asphalt mix overlays from 1.5 to 3 in. (37 to
75 mm) are used when more structural support is needed to carry the traffic loads (Busch 2012).
An SMA wearing surface can also be used (Kergaye 2017).
Cold recycled mixes can be topped with simple surface treatments when an overlay is not
needed to carry the traffic loads. The Nevada DOT uses a double chip seal on roadways with
AADTs less than 5,000 (Busch 2012). Double chip seals are a good option when roadways need
to tolerate snowplows (Cross et al. 2010).
The AASHTO 1993 design methodology used the resilient moduli value of each material to
establish an appropriate structural layer coefficient. The newer AASHTO Mechanistic Empirical
Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) updates that methodology: the Level 1 pavement design
methodology requires the material dynamic moduli over a range of temperatures and loading
frequencies to define how the layer stiffness changes with changes in the environmental and
loading conditions. Additional testing can be used to define key permanent deformation and
cracking characteristics that can be used in rutting and cracking prediction models.
Resilient Modulus
Asphalt mix resilient modulus is determined using the AASHTO TP 31-96 or ASTM D7369
standard. Research findings show that smaller maximum RAP particle size gradations produce
cold recycled mixes with higher moduli than gradations with larger maximum particle sizes
(Nemati 2019) (Table 4). The resilient moduli are strongly influenced by the RAP source
(Soohyok et al. 2018) (Table 5). The use of corrective aggregate can substantially increase the
mix stiffness (Table 6), but each RAP source seems to have an optimum percentage of correc-
tive aggregate that will produce a maximum stiffness (Arambula-Mercado et al. 2018). Tables 4
through 6 show that foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes tend to have lower resilient moduli
values than emulsion cold recycled mixes.

Table 4. Influence of maximum RAP size

on emulsion CCPR resilient modulus.
Emulsion Resilient Modulus @ 77°F (25°C), ksi**
Code* 19 mm 12.5 mm
1 586 850
1a 550 1,050
*Specific emulsion types not identified in document.
**Emulsions, 10% air voids.
Source: Based on Nemati 2019.
Table 5. Influence of RAP source on CIR

resilient modulus.
Roadway Resilient Modulus @ 77°F (25°C), ksi**

for RAP PG58-
Source* CSS-1H PG64-22***
28***
US-60 370 180 160
I-40 390 180 220
FM-92 700 410 410
*Designations: US = U.S. highway route, I = Interstate
highway, FM = farm to market route.
**Estimated from graph, laboratory mixed.
***Foamed asphalt.
Source: Based on Soohyok et al. 2018.
Table 6. Influence of corrective aggregate

on laboratory-mixed, laboratory-compacted
cold recycled mix resilient modulus.
Resilient Modulus @ 77°F (25°C), ksi

Corrective
Aggregate, Limestone RAP Granite RAP
% Foamed Foamed
Emulsion Emulsion
Asphalt Asphalt
0% 294 134 ND ND
20% 272 500 319 ND
40% 413 314 407 233
ND = no data.
Source: Based on Arambula-Mercado et al. 2018.

Table 7. Foamed asphalt CCPR and CIR core

resilient modulus.
Resilient Modulus, ksi

Temperature CCPR CIR
Top Bottom Top Bottom
39°F (4°C) 1,331 745 1,170 1,066
68°F (20°C) 574 412 555 595
100°F (38°C) 326 254 250 324
Source: Based on Diefenderfer and Apeagyei 2014.
Diefenderfer and Apeagyei (2014) obtained cores from the foamed asphalt CIR and CCPR
Virginia DOT I-81 project and measured the resilient modulus at three temperatures. The two
CCPR test sections were 6 in. (150 mm) and 8 in. (200 mm) thick and, given the thickness, were
likely paved in two lifts. The CIR test section was 5 in. (125 mm) and likely paved in a single
layer. All cores were cut into upper and lower specimens to determine if there was any differ-
ence in the modulus throughout the cold recycled mix layer (Table 7). The lower portion of the
CCPR cores shows significantly lower moduli values at all three test temperatures compared to
the top portion of the cores. The moduli values were more consistent for the thinner CIR cores.
The average foamed asphalt cold recycled core moduli are generally higher than values reported
by other researchers for laboratory-mixed foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes.
Structural Layer Coefficients

The AASHTO 1993 pavement design method uses structural layer coefficients to represent
the relative contributions of each pavement layer to the overall structural number, SN. Each pave-
ment layer contributes support through the layer depth, D, the structural layer coefficient, a,
and the ability of the layer to manage drainage, m. The structural layer coefficient represents
the contribution of each layer’s support (stiffness) and resistance to pavement distresses. The
general equation is written as follows:
SN = a1D1 + a2 D2 m2 + a3D3 m3 + ai Di mi
The subscript indicates the pavement layer, starting with the wearing course as number 1.
Layer coefficients for conventional dense-graded asphalt paving mixes as well as unbound
aggregate subbase and base materials are well established and calibrated to fit each agency’s
specific materials, climate, and traffic conditions. However, a wide range of layer coefficients
from 0.17 to 0.45 has been suggested or adopted for cold recycled mixes (Table 8). Actual local
performance and experience can inform the selection of any adjustments.
Dynamic Modulus
The AASHTO MEPDG method uses fundamental material properties over a range of temper-
atures as inputs. Level 1 allows the direct input of dynamic modulus and binder properties
[three to eight test temperatures, three to six frequencies; the default temperatures (°F) are 14,
40, 70, 100, and 130; the default frequencies (Hz) are 0.1, 1, 10, and 25] (Vitillo 2012). The two
AASHTO standards that apply to dynamic modulus testing and analysis are
• AASHTO T 342 – Standard Method of Test for Determining Dynamic Modulus of Hot Mix
Asphalt (HMA), and
• AASHTO R 62 – Standard Practice for Developing Dynamic Modulus Master Curves for
Asphalt Mixtures.

Table 8. Structural layer coefficients found in the literature.
Structural Layer Recycling Agents,

Location Source
Coefficient Comments
Indiana 0.22 Recycled base Cosenza and Robinson 2019
New Mexico 0.25 No information Jahren et al. 2016
Nevada 0.23 to 0.26 Based on fatigue analysis Carvajal 2018
Nevada 0.28 No information Jahren et al. 2016
Kansas 0.25 to 0.28 No information Jahren et al. 2016
Considered equivalent to
Oregon No information Cox and Howard 2015
conventional asphalt mixes
Quebec 0.30 No information Carter et al. 2013
General 0.30 Used in analysis Cross et al. 2010
AASHTO 1993
0.32 No information Schwartz et al. 2017
design guide
General 0.28 to 0.33 AASHTO 93 Wielinski 2017
General 0.25 to 0.35 0.30 to 0.35 most common Wagner 2018
General 0.30 to 0.35 No information Cross 2014
General 0.26 to 0.36 HF recycling agent CIR* Cox and Howard 2015
Virginia I-81 0.39 Foamed asphalt CCPR, CIR Cross 2014
National Center for
Asphalt Technology 0.40 Foamed asphalt CCPR, CIR Schellhammer 2019
Test Track
VDOT 0.36 to 0.44 No information Wagner 2018
General 0.17 to 0.44 Emulsion CIR Cox and Howard 2015
General 0.45 CMS-2 emulsion CIR Cox and Howard 2015
*HF = high float.
The dynamic moduli over a range of frequencies and temperatures were reported in several
research reports (Table 9). These data represent cold recycled mixes with various binders (emul-
sion, foamed asphalt), active fillers (Portland cement, lime slurry), and corrective aggregate.
Cold recycled mixes are significantly less temperature sensitive than conventional dense-
graded hot asphalt mixtures, regardless of the material used to produce the cold recycled mixes
(Figure 5) (Carter et al. 2013; Stimilli et al. 2013; Bhavsar 2015; Schwartz et al. 2017; Arambula-
Mercado et al. 2018; Buczynski and Iwanski 2018; Carvajal 2018; Soohyok et al. 2018; Cosenza
and Robinson 2019; Nemati 2019). The moduli of the cold recycled mixtures are usually about
only one-third of the conventional mix moduli at lower temperatures and similar at warmer
temperatures.
Either cement or lime additives further reduce the temperature sensitivity (i.e., flatten the
slope of the relationship) and increase the moduli slightly at the warmer temperatures. Cement,
depending on the percentage used, usually increases the dynamic moduli more than lime.
Consistent trends reported by various researchers indicate
• Foamed asphalt cold mixes tend to be less sensitive to changes in temperature than emul-
sion cold mixes (Bhavsar 2015), and
• CIR mixes are somewhat stiffer than CCPR mixes (Schwartz et al. 2017; Matthews et al. n.d.).
Influence of Recycling Agent Content on Dynamic Moduli

Foamed asphalt mixes show higher dynamic moduli values at higher temperatures (lower
frequencies) and lower moduli at colder temperatures (higher frequencies) than cold recycled
mixes with emulsions (Gandi et al. 2016; Gu et al. 2018). However, this trend is influenced by
the foamed asphalt content.

Table 9. Documented dynamic modulus values for a range

of laboratory-mixed, laboratory-compacted CIR and CCPR
specimens.
Dynamic Modulus at Various Frequencies, ksi

Temperature Frequency, Hz
0.1 0.5 1 5 10 25
CIR, Foamed Asphalt, Limestone RAPa
14°F (–10°C) 833 986 1,050 1,188 1,243 1,311
40°F (4.4°C) 444 583 647 801 868 955
70°F (21.1°C) 174 253 294 407 463 541
100°F (37.8°C) 66 99 118 175 206 253
130°F (54.4°C) 29 42 50 73 87 110
CIR, Emulsion, Lime Slurryb
14°F (–10°C) 1,008 1,139 1,194 1,317 1,368 1,433
40°F (4.4°C) 631 761 819 953 1,010 1,085
70°F (21.1°C) 303 402 449 568 622 695
100°F (37.8°C) 121 177 206 286 325 382
130°F (54.4°C) 43 68 82 125 147 182
CCPRc
14°F (–10°C) No data
40°F (4.4°C) 532 625 705 839 897 973
70°F (21.1°C) 192 267 302 406 455 521
100°F (37.8°C) 61 93 109 165 196 237
130°F (54.4°C) 28 39 46 67 80 100
CIR, Foamed Asphalt (2.5%), Portland Cement (2%), Corrective
Aggregate 20%d
Frequency, Hz
Temperature
0.1 0.3 1 3 10 20
19.4°F (–7°C) 998 1,058 1,119 1,180 1,244 1,298
41°F (5°C) 735 802 874 938 1,026 1,045
55°F (13°C) 580 654 731 805 897 928
77°F (25°C) 364 428 499 570 665 723
104°F (40°C) 217 257 304 360 573 497
a
Source: Arambula-Mercado et al. 2018.
b
Source: Carvajal 2018.
c
Source: Cosenza and Robinson 2019.
d
Source: Buczynski and Iwanski 2018.
The cold recycled mix dynamic modulus tends to be dependent on the type and amount of
recycling agent (Figure 6, Bhavsar 2015). Increasing the foamed asphalt content lowers
the modulus at higher frequencies (lower temperatures) and increases it at lower frequen-
cies (higher temperatures). Increasing the emulsion content produced little difference in the
dynamic modulus except at the lowest frequencies (highest temperatures). Foamed asphalt cold
recycled mix stiffness can be more sensitive to the asphalt content than cold recycled mixes with
emulsions.
Influence of RAP Source and Gradation on Dynamic Modulus

Soohyok et al. (2018) used three sources of RAP to investigate the influence of both the
RAP source and type of binder on cold recycled mix modulus. The source of RAP produced

10,000
CIR, Foamed Asphalt, Texas
CCPR, Foamed Asphalt, Indiana/Virginia
CIR, Emulsion, Lime Slurry, Nevada
Dynamic Modulus, @ 1 Hz, ksi
CIR, 2.5% FA, 2% C, 20% Agg, Poland

Surface Mix, Virginia
1,000
100
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Temperature, F
Sources: Indiana/Virginia: Cosenza and Robinson 2019; Nevada: Carvajal 2018; Poland: Buczynski
and Iwanski 2018; Texas: Arambula-Mercado et al. 2018; Virginia: Habib 2017.
Figure 5. Comparison of cold mixes to conventional dense-graded hot

asphalt mixture (laboratory-mixed, laboratory-compacted specimens).
Source: Based on Bhavsar 2015.
Figure 6. Influence of binder content on laboratory-mixed,

laboratory-compacted cold mix dynamic modulus specimens.

significant differences in the moduli (Figure 7). The type of recycling agent for a given RAP
source shows emulsion cold recycled mixes tend to have slightly higher moduli than foamed
asphalt cold recycled mixes. Ma (2018) showed there was little impact on the dynamic moduli
of foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes with different gradations (Figure 8). In general, the prop-
erties of the RAP have more influence on cold recycled mix stiffness than the type of recycling
agent does.
Influence of Corrective Aggregate on Dynamic Moduli

Corrective aggregate can increase the cold recycled mix dynamic moduli, and the differences
are more significant at higher temperatures. Results reported by Arambula-Mercado et al.
(2018) show the foamed asphalt cold recycled mixtures with 20% corrective aggregate signifi-
cantly increase the mix stiffness (Figure 9). The stiffness increases only slightly more when the
percentage of corrective aggregate increases to 40%.
In a separate study, Buczynski and Iwanski (2018) demonstrated similar results for the
dynamic modulus, which increases with increasing percentages of corrective aggregate in
foamed asphalt mixtures (Figure 10). The percentage of corrective aggregate has more impact at
lower temperatures than at high temperatures.
CCPR and CIR Core Dynamic Modulus

An extensive, recently completed, research program obtained cores from cold recycling proj-
ects around the country. Average values for CCPR, CIR, CIR mixes with lime, and CIR mixes
with Portland cement mixes—all using emulsion recycling agents—are similar at lower temper-
atures (B. Diefenderfer, personal communication, May 11, 2020). At higher temperatures,
the CCPR average moduli are somewhat higher than the average CIR moduli. The use of lime
noticeably increases the average high temperature of CIR moduli. Portland cement provides a
further, but small, increase in the average CIR stiffness at a higher temperature (Figure 11). All
the CIR and CCPR mixtures exhibit viscoelastic properties; however, the viscoelastic behavior
is significantly different from conventional asphalt base.
Figure 7. Influence of RAP source on laboratory-mixed, laboratory-

compacted specimen dynamic modulus.

Source: Based on Ma 2018.
Figure 8. Influence of RAP gradation on foamed asphalt cold

recycled mix laboratory-mixed, laboratory-compacted specimen
dynamic modulus.
Figure 9. Influence of corrective aggregate on foamed asphalt

cold recycled mix laboratory-mixed laboratory-compacted specimen
dynamic modulus.

Source: Based on Buczynski and Iwanski 2018.
Figure 10. Evidence of peak dynamic modulus due to percentage

of corrective aggregate in laboratory-mixed, laboratory-compacted
foamed asphalt cold mix specimens.
Source: Diefenderfer, personal communication, 2020.
Figure 11. Average dynamic moduli for emulsified asphalt CIR and
CCPR cores.

Pavement Design Summary

Agencies using the older AASHTO 1993 pavement design methodology employ a wide range
of structural layer coefficients. Some dynamic modulus data can be used in the MEPDG pave-
ment design methodology, but data that can be used in cracking and rutting models have not
been documented. Cold recycled mixtures have viscoelastic properties that are distinctly dif-
ferent from those seen in conventional hot asphalt mixtures. Pavement performance prediction
models were developed for conventional hot asphalt pavements and have not been validated
for systems with cold recycled material layers.
Individual Materials
The materials used to produce cold recycled mixes include the following:
• RAP
• Fillers (e.g., lime, cement)
• Recycling agents (i.e., binders such as emulsions and foamed asphalt)
• Corrective aggregate
RAP
RAP material for mix designs needs to be obtained from the project roadway. Field sampling
of the pavement at multiple locations can be accomplished using coring, block sawing, or
milling with a small cold planer (Wagner 2018). RAP for more than one mix design may be
needed if the roadway materials vary significantly throughout the project. Each mix design
needs about 400 lb (180 kg) of usable RAP to prepare specimens 6 in. (150 mm) in diameter
(AASHTO PP 86 2019). Only about 200 lb (90 kg) of RAP is needed to prepare specimens
4 in. (100 mm) in diameter (ARRA CR201, CR202). The cores need to be separated, and only
the portion of the pavement that will be recycled in the field need be retained for mix designs.
Once the desired portions of the core (or slab) are isolated from the remainder of the core or
slab, a laboratory jaw crusher can be used to crush the RAP so that 100% passes the specified
maximum particle size. The RAP needs to be crushed in the laboratory in such a way that the
resulting RAP gradation represents the maximum particle size, shape, and gradation that will
be obtained with the cold planer (i.e., miller) (Wielinski 2017; Cross 2018; Jones 2019).
AASHTO PP 86 requires the RAP to be oven-dried to a constant mass at 104°F ± 4°F (40°C
± 2°C). ARRA CR201 and CR202 note that drying RAP at 104°F (40°C) can take several days to
reach a constant mass. Researchers have used a range of RAP drying temperatures and drying
times. For example, Arambula-Mercado et al. (2018) dried RAP for 4 hours at 230°F (100°C).
Buczynski and Iwanski (2018) oven-dried RAP at 104°F (40°C). RAP that was not immediately
used was stored in sealed containers to prevent the material from absorbing moisture from the
environment. Bhavsar (2015) air-dried RAP for at least 24 hours at room temperature.
The top RAP size varies, depending on the agency. McCarty (2017) with the Arizona DOT
indicated that 100% of the processed RAP should pass the 1.25-in. (32-mm) sieve or the 1-in.
(25-mm) sieve, depending on the thickness of the cold recycled mix layer to be placed. Cox
and Howard (2013) reported that 22 of 28 documented CIR studies used gradations with
100% passing the 1-in. (25-mm) sieve. Cross (2012) reported the results from a survey of 13 agen-
cies that showed
• One agency allowed particle sizes greater than 2 in. (50 mm),
• Three agencies required less than 1.5 in. (37 mm),
• Eight agencies required less than 1.25 in. (32 mm), and
• One agency required less than 1 in. (25 mm).

AASHTO PP 86, ARRA CR201, and ARRA CR202 require that 100% of particles pass the 1-in.
(25-mm) sieve when preparing specimens 4 in. (100 mm) in diameter.
The RAP gradation is a function of the pavement temperature, the forward speed of the recy-
cling machine, the rate of rotation of the milling drum, and the positioning of the gradation
control beam (Wirtgen Group 2004). Unlike gradations for conventional dense-graded hot
asphalt mixtures, cold recycling gradations are characterized by three typical gradations: fine,
medium, and coarse. The medium and coarse gradations represent cold planers in the up-cut
mode (ARRA CR201, CR202) used with standard milling operations. Fine and medium grada-
tions were developed to represent sizes produced by cold planers in the down-cut mode, but the
fine gradation is not commonly used. Examples of cold recycling gradation bands are shown in
Table 10.
Changes in gradations during production can be a function of the pavement temperature,
which changes as milling progresses throughout the day. Higher temperatures during milling
can result in finer RAP gradations, and colder pavement temperatures result in coarser grada-
tions (Cross 2012). Oversize RAP millings are sent to a crushing unit, which helps keep the
overall project gradation relatively consistent throughout the day. Cross (2012) documented a
comparison of gradations from materials sampled in the morning compared to the afternoon,
which showed no significant differences in the gradation.
Some agencies use AASHTO T 11 to determine the percentage passing the No. 200 (0.075-
mm) sieve by washing before fractionating with AASHTO T 27 (Illinois DOT 2012). Others
prefer to use the unwashed, crushed RAP (Utah DOT 2017, ARRA CR201). AASHTO PP 86
indicates that AASHTO T 11 can be used if there are appreciable fines in the RAP.
Foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes need enough fine aggregate to form the asphalt mastic
phase that “spot welds” the RAP particles together (Khosravifar 2012; Wirtgen Group 2004).
During mixing, the water suspends the fines in the RAP, which helps the foamed asphalt form
the asphalt-fines matrix. When the RAP does not have sufficient fines, active fillers can be added
to increase the percentage of fines.
Table 10. Examples of RAP gradations used for cold recycled mix designs.
Illinois Utah ARRA CR201, CR202 AASHTO MP 31, MP 38

DOT* DOT** (Emulsion, Foamed Asphalt (Emulsion, Foamed Asphalt
Sieve Cold Recycled Mixes) Cold Recycled Mixes)
Size Target for
Ideal Crushed Fine Med. Coarse Fine Med. Coarse
Cores
2 in. (50 mm) 100 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1.5 in. (37.5 mm) 87–100 100 --- --- --- --- --- ---
1.25 in. (31.5 mm) --- --- 100 100 100 100 100 100
1 in. (25 mm) 77–100 90 --- --- --- 100 100 85–100
3/4 in. (19 mm) 66–99 85 95–100 93–97 83–87 95–100 85–96 75–92
1/2 in. (12.5 mm) 67–87 68 --- --- --- --- --- ---
3/8 in. (9.5 mm) --- 59 --- --- --- --- --- ---
No. 4 (4.75 mm) 35–56 40 60–70 48–52 38–42 65–75 40–65 30–45
No. 8 (2.36 mm) --- 20 --- --- --- --- --- ---
No. 30 (0.60 mm) 18–33 8 20–30 8–12 3–7 15–35 4–14 1–7
No. 50 (0.30 mm) --- 5 --- --- --- --- --- ---
No. 100 (0.15 mm) 10–24 1 --- --- --- --- --- ---
No. 200 (0.075 mm) --- 0.6 1–7 1–3 0.5–2 --- --- ---
*Washed gradation.
**Unwashed gradation.
---: no requirements for sieve size.
Sources: Illinois DOT based on Illinois DOT 2012; Utah DOT based on Utah DOT 2017.

Foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes with finer gradations tend to produce tender mixtures
that are susceptible to permanent deformation (i.e., rutting). Coarser RAP gradations tend to
produce more rut-resistant mixes (Wirtgen Group 2004).
Fillers
Fillers can be nonactive or active. Nonactive fillers, such as mineral fillers, are used to increase
the fines content of the foamed asphalt RAP gradation. Active fillers, such as lime and cement,
react with one or more of the other cold mix materials. Fly ash, a pozzolan, can function as an
active filler under certain circumstances but is infrequently used in cold recycled mixes. The Cox
and Howard (2013) literature review showed that of the 146 instances of cold recycled mixes
detailed in research studies, 13 used cement (8 with 1% or less, 4 with 2%, and 1 with 2.5%), 10 used
lime (4 with 1% or less, 6 with 1.5%), and only 3 used fly ash (2 with 5%, 1 with 7%).
Lime
While lime is fine enough to be considered a filler, it is typically used to improve the mois-
ture resistance of mixtures that are prone to stripping (Busch 2012; Illinois DOT 2012; Cross
2015; Utah DOT 2017; Carvajal 2018; Schellhammer 2019). Hydrated lime can be added dry
or mixed with water at a 1:2 ratio to form a slurry (Carvajal 2018). The Nevada DOT requires
lime slurries to be used in all CIR mixes to mitigate moisture sensitivity (Busch 2012; Carvajal
2018). In the past, the Utah DOT used a quicklime slurry to generate heat to help evaporate
the water in the slurry (VanFrank et al. 2016). The current Utah DOT standard requires the
use of 1% lime (Utah DOT 2017).
AASHTO PP 86, for cold recycled mixes with emulsion, limits lime to a maximum of
1.5%; AASHTO MP 38, for foamed asphalt, limits lime to 1%. AASHTO MP 31 for emulsified
asphalt and MP 38 for foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes require lime or quicklime to meet
AASHTO M 216.
Cement
Cement can be used to improve moisture resistance but is more likely to be used to control
the speed at which an emulsion breaks (Cross 2014). The cement hydration process uses the
water in the mix to remove moisture and accelerate curing (Carter et al. 2013; Betti et al. 2017;
McCarty 2017). Cement, typically 1%, is used with foamed asphalt to help improve the asphalt
dispersion, increase the adhesion of the asphalt mastic to the aggregate, and increase the initial
strength gain (Khosravifar 2012). AASHTO MP 31 for emulsified asphalt and MP 38 for foamed
asphalt cold recycled mixes require Portland cement Type I or Type II to meet AASHTO M 85.
Quebec, Canada, uses cement, typically around 1%, in its emulsion cold recycled mixes
(Carter et al. 2013). A minimum ratio of emulsion residual asphalt content to cement of 3:1
is recommended to prevent brittle behavior (Cross 2015; AASHTO PP 86, MP 31). Excessive
percentages of cement are to be avoided as the cement tends to make the mix more brittle (i.e.,
less ductile).
Cement is alkaline and helps to counteract any acidic tendencies of the cationic emulsions
(Fang et al. 2016).
Recycling Agents
Emulsions
Emulsions are manufactured by introducing water (about 31%) and asphalt (68%) at the same
time into a high shear milling process. This process produces fine asphalt droplets suspended in
the continuous water phase. A chemical surfactant (about 1%) is added with the water to help

stabilize the asphalt droplets in the water (i.e., keep the droplets suspended) (Moors 2019).
The surfactants give the asphalt droplets a surface charge (i.e., positive, negative). Emulsions
are selected based on aggregate mineralogy, construction practices, and availability.
Carbonate aggregates such as limestone and dolomite tend to have a positive surface charge;
silicates such as granite, basalts, most gravels, and quartz have a negative surface charge. Slags
and clay particles also have a negative charge. Aggregates and mineralogies with negative charges,
if clean, work with cationic emulsions. Carbonate aggregates, which tend to be dusty, work
well with high float (HF) emulsions. The opposite charges attract the emulsion to the aggregate
surface, and the opposite charges neutralize each other, causing the emulsion to break.
Emulsions “break” when the droplets flocculate as they overcome the repulsive forces pro-
duced by the same surface charge on each droplet surface (Yeung 2017). The Wirtgen Group
(2004) defines breaking as the separation of the asphalt in the emulsion from the water phase.
Damp aggregate surfaces help keep emulsions from breaking too fast and improve adhesion
between the asphalt and aggregate surfaces (Christianson and Mahoney 2019).
Engineered emulsions are designed to meet specific project requirements for mixing and
coating ability, breaking times, curing times, moisture resistance, and the softening ability
of aged RAP binder. Engineered emulsion formulations can be tailored for a specific project
requirement by adjusting the stiffness of residual binder, using polymer modifications, adjusting
the pH, and adding fluxing agents. Polymer modification can be used to improve cohesion,
strength, and resistance to thermal cracking.
High float emulsions typically have a small amount of fluxing agent (i.e., low-viscosity
petroleum products) to promote coating and softening of the aged RAP binder. High float
emulsions tend to more thickly coat smaller particles and leave larger particles only partially
coated. In recent years, polymer-modified high float emulsions have become more common
than traditional high float emulsions (Cross 2015; AASHTO MP 31).
While medium-setting emulsions have been used in the past, cationic slow set (CSS) emul-
sions provide longer times for workability. However, any moisture trapped in the cold recycled
mix after compaction can lead to premature distresses. Like the high float emulsions, CSS
emulsions tend to coat the finer particles. Rapid-setting emulsions are not typically used as
they flocculate and coalesce rapidly (i.e., break) in the presence of fine aggregates and fillers.
This results in balling of the bitumen and fines and only partial coating of the aggregates
(Younes 2019).
Solventless emulsions such as CSS-1, polymer-modified emulsions, and engineered emul-
sions are commonly used to improve the RAP binder properties (Martin Asphalt 2016; Kergaye
2017; McCarty 2017). That is, most of the RAP particles are coated with the new binder, which
diffuses into the oxidized RAP binder and eventually softens the RAP binder.
Emulsions typically used by various agencies include CSS-1H (Iowa DOT, Minnesota DOT),
high float medium set (HFMS-2s, Minnesota DOT), and engineered emulsions (Minnesota
DOT, Illinois DOT) (Schellhammer 2019). AASHTO MP 31 lists the following emulsions as
acceptable:
• Engineered emulsions with a base asphalt selected to meet the Long-Term Pavement Perfor-
mance, LTPPBind, 98% reliability at a depth for the top of the CIR layer
• Cationic: CSS-1, CSS-1h
• Anionic: HFMS-2, HFMS-2h, HFMS-2s
Cationic emulsions break because of chemical reactions. Anionic emulsions break because of
evaporation, which is a mechanical process.

Influence of Cement on Emulsion Breaking

Recent imaging research was used to describe how emulsion droplets coalesce in the presence
of both mineral filler and Portland cement (Fang et al. 2016). When mineral filler was added,
the asphalt droplets remained as uniform, discrete, round droplets typically 2 µm in diameter,
or smaller. That is, the mineral filler did not influence the breaking of the emulsion. By compar-
ison, using cement caused the small asphalt droplets to partially coalesce, forming much larger
asphalt droplets close to 10 µm in diameter. This suggests the emulsion begins to break once the
water in the emulsion comes into contact with the cement. That is, the hydration process starts
in the presence of the water in the emulsion.
Other researchers have also used imaging analysis to demonstrate the growth of hydration
products when cement comes into contact with emulsions (Du 2015; Ma et al. 2015; Fang et al.
2016). Yang et al. (2019) demonstrated the increase in hydration products for a range of cement
percentages added to emulsions. The hydration products form inside the asphalt droplets as they
coalesce. At 2% or less cement, the hydration products are wrapped by the asphalt. The hydra-
tion products become the main component when the percentage of cement is 3% or higher.
When the cement content of the cold recycled mix is around 1%, the role of the cement is to
control the rate of set of the emulsion and/or to provide increased fines content (Batista et al.
2014). At levels of cement over 1%, the cement begins to increase the mix strength but also
tends to increase the cracking potential (i.e., mixes are more brittle) (Cox and Howard 2015).
When the amount of Portland cement is between 3% and 5%, the cement increases the bearing
capacity (load-carrying capability) of the layer (Batista et al. 2014), but the mix becomes more
of a cement-stabilized base material.
Foamed Asphalt
Foamed asphalt is distributed throughout the cold recycled mix as discrete droplets that
“weld” RAP particles together (Wirtgen Group 2004). Fu (2009) and Fu et al. (2010) identify
the different components in foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes as
• Asphalt mastic (foamed asphalt and finer particulates),
• Solid particles (e.g., RAP or corrective aggregate particles), and
• Active fillers, if used.
Foamed asphalt uses standard PG asphalts (Bhavsar 2015). The solid particles provide the
load transfer through the particle skeleton. The foamed asphalt comprises a combination of
asphalt binder and fine aggregate particles (i.e., mastic) and is present in the cold recycled mix
as discrete droplets that bond RAP particles together. The mineral filler portion of the mix
consists of fine aggregates that are not incorporated into the asphalt mastic during mixing and
help fill the voids between the larger particles. Foamed asphalt can require a higher percentage of
No. 200 (0.075-mm) particles than is present in most milled materials. Active fillers such as
cement or lime can be used to increase the fines content.
Foamed asphalt is produced by injecting water into hot asphalt binder, which causes the
asphalt to foam as the water turns to steam and is trapped inside the tiny asphalt bubbles
(Khosravifar 2012; Wirtgen Group 2004). The asphalt temperature needs to be in the range
300°F to 360°F (149°C to 182°C), and the water content needs to be 2% to 3% for foaming. Two
key characteristics are used to describe the foamed asphalt: (1) the foamed asphalt expansion
ratio (ER), and (2) the time it takes the volume of the foamed asphalt to reduce by half [i.e., the
half-life (HL)].
The expansion ratio is a ratio of the volume occupied by the expanded asphalt to the original
asphalt volume, which influences how the binder will disperse in the mix (Jones et al. 2008).

The requirements for the ER are usually from 10 to 20, with 8 to 10 typically set as the minimum.
The temperature of the aggregate can influence ER requirements. For example, an ER of 8 may
be best when the solid particles are anticipated to be above 77°F (25°C); at cooler temperatures,
an ER of 10 is more appropriate (Ma 2018).
The half-life is the time needed for the volume to reduce by half and is an indication of the
foam’s stability. The HL typically ranges from 6 to 15 seconds, with 6 seconds being a common
minimum value. The temperature of the vessel for capturing foam and the relative humidity can
influence measurements of both ER and HL characteristics, which influences the test results.
The asphalt is selected at the appropriate PG grade for project site environmental conditions
(Batista et al. 2014; Cross 2014; Schellhammer 2019). Higher viscosity asphalt needs higher
temperatures to produce acceptable foamed asphalt characteristics.
Part of the mix design process for foamed asphalt mixes is to determine the asphalt tempera-
ture and percentage of water needed to achieve optimum foamed asphalt properties. This is
accomplished by measuring the ER and HL characteristics at three temperatures using three
different percentages of water. The Illinois DOT (2012) recommends 2%, 3%, and 4% by mass
of asphalt. The process shown in Figure 12 needs to be repeated for three temperatures—320°F,
340°F, and 360°F (160°C, 170°C, and 180°C)—to identify the water content and temperature
that produces the best ER and HL characteristics.
Advantages of using foamed asphalt include the following (Bhavsar 2015):
• Mixes gain strength quickly and need shorter curing times.
• Less base binder is needed compared to emulsions.
• Mixes are somewhat less sensitive to adverse weather conditions during construction.
Corrective Aggregate
Corrective aggregate can be used to adjust the overall cold recycled mix gradation. If the
percentage passing the No. 4 (4.75-mm) sieve is less than 65%, then corrective aggregate may
be needed. RAP gradations with more than 65% passing the No. 4 (4.75-mm) sieve may benefit
Figure 12. Example of how to determine the optimum water content

for foaming asphalt at one temperature.

from amending the overall gradation; any benefit can be assessed during the mix design and with
mix performance testing (Cross et al. 2010). Typically, cold recycled mixes contain no more than
20% of corrective aggregates.
A survey of 13 agencies identified only 2 agencies that occasionally used corrective aggregate,
and 1 agency that used corrective aggregate when widening the lane (Cross et al. 2010). The
New York State DOT was the only agency that reported consistently using corrective aggregate.
The Utah DOT uses the impact of temperature on RAP compactability at two temperatures,
80°F and 120°F (27°C and 49°C) to estimate when corrective aggregate is likely to be benefi-
cial to the cold mix properties (Utah DOT 2017). The slope of the compaction-to-temperature
relationship is developed by compacting graded RAP-only specimens at the two temperatures
and then determining the specific gravity dimensionally and the RAP maximum gravity with
AASHTO T 209. The percentage of the maximum density is used to calculate the upper and
lower critical temperatures needed for adequate compaction. Additional mix designs with a
5% fine corrective aggregate need to be developed when the lower critical temperature is greater
than 80°F (27°C). When the upper critical temperature is less than 120°F (49°C), additional mix
designs with 5% coarse corrective aggregate are required. The function of the corrective aggre-
gate is to fill the air voids with solid aggregate particles. If the original RAP material contains
seal coat material, then mix designs are repeated without the seal coat material before using the
corrective aggregate.
Materials Summary
Four materials commonly used to produce cold recycled mixes are RAP, active fillers, binders
(emulsions or foamed asphalt), and corrective aggregate. Both active fillers and corrective aggre-
gates are used only if the mix design process shows they are needed to meet mixture properties.
RAP gradations are a function of miller speed, cutting head characteristics, and pavement
temperature. The maximum RAP particle size is commonly specified as either 1.25 in. or 1 in.
(37.5 mm or 25 mm) and is controlled during construction by scalping and crushing oversized
material. Emulsions are typically solventless engineered emulsions, although some agencies use
high float emulsions. Foamed asphalt uses standard PG asphalts. Lime is used to improve mois-
ture resistance, while cement is used to facilitate emulsion breaking or to help distribute the
foamed asphalt throughout the mix. Corrective aggregates are used to improve the strength and
stiffness of the cold recycled mixes.
Mix Designs
Cold recycled laboratory mix design procedures are used to establish the correct gradation
(RAP and any corrective aggregates), recycling, any stabilizing agent contents (Batista et al. 2014,
Cross et al. 2014), and any active mineral fillers. The first step is to optimize the water content
needed for workability (i.e., compactability). Some agencies skip this step by using a preset mois-
ture content based on previous experience or research. Cox and Howard (2015) documented
some of the mix design variables for nine agencies’ mix design components (Table 11).
More than one mix design may be needed, depending on how many areas of the pavement
have different materials (Cross 2015). Regardless of the agency, the basic steps in either emulsi-
fied or foamed asphalt cold recycled mix designs are similar. However, the specific procedures
within each step vary substantially among the agencies.
Regardless of the cold recycled mix design methods used by a given agency, they all start
with obtaining sufficient existing pavement materials for the layers to be included in the field

Table 11. Various mix design practices for emulsion mix designs.
Mix Designs CA IL IA KS MS MT NY TX VA
1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Set range to --- 1.5% to --- --- to to ---
2.55% 2.5% 4.5% 2.5%
Moisture AASHTO T 180,
--- --- --- --- X --- --- --- X
content Proctor
Needed Expected
Other --- for --- --- --- during --- --- ---
dispersion milling
Marshall, 75
X --- --- --- --- --- X --- X
Blow
Compaction Gyratory, 30 X X X X X X X --- X
Gyratory, 35 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- X
60°C X X X X X X X
Curing 16 to 48 hours X X X X X
48 hours --- --- X --- --- --- --- --- ---
Compacted,
X X X X --- --- --- --- ---
AASHTO T 166
Compacted,
AASHTO T 331 --- X --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Density
(vacuum seal)
Maximum
gravity, AASHTO X X --- X --- X X X ---
T 209
---: no requirements indicated.
recycling process for mix designs. The RAP is crushed and sieved into individual fractions so
the required gradations can be batched. Most agencies dry the RAP to a constant mass at 104°F
± 4°F (40°C ± 2°C). Some agencies use washed gradations (e.g., the Illinois DOT), while others
use unwashed RAP (e.g., the Utah DOT). Some agencies develop mix designs using two RAP
gradations to bracket the likely production gradation variations, while others define a single
ideal gradation for mix designs.
Most agencies balance results for mix stiffness and/or indirect tensile strength, permanent
deformation, and possibly cracking (Stimilli et al. 2013; Utah DOT 2017; Suleiman 2019). This
process adjusts the mix design parameters to balance the best possible overall performance
(Saidi 2019). Cox and Howard (2015) documented nine agencies’ pavement performance test
methods for stability and/or strength, moisture sensitivity, low-temperature cracking potential,
and raveling under traffic (Table 12).
Binder Contents
The purpose of mix designs is to select an optimum binder content for a given gradation that
produces a mix that meets the required mix properties such as air voids, strength, stiffness, and
moisture resistance.
Emulsion Contents
Cox and Howard (2013) documented 145 instances in 63 documents of emulsified asphalt
content in CIR mixes (Figure 13). The majority of the emulsion contents were from 0.5% to
2%, and the foamed asphalt contents ranged from 1% to 1.5%. More current examples of cold
recycled mix binder contents tend to show somewhat higher contents.

Table 12. Emulsion pavement performance test methods.
Mix Designs CA IL IA KS MS MT NY TX VA
AASHTO T 245,
X X X X --- X X X X
Marshall stability
AASHTO T 245,
X X X X --- X X X X
Retained strength
AASHTO T 322,
Low temperature --- X X --- X X X X
Testing creep compliance
ASTM D7196,
X --- X X --- X X X X
Raveling
Boil test, indirect
Tex 226,
tensile, TSR,
Agency specific Raveling --- --- F, St, ---
Marshall
Hamburg
quotient
---: no requirements indicated.
TSR = tensile strength ratio.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) uses three emulsion contents for mix
designs that are selected from between 0.5% and 4.0% at increments of either 0.5% or 1%. The
percentages are based on the dry mass of RAP.
The Minnesota DOT identifies 3% emulsion content as a likely optimum content and recom-
mends using engineered emulsion for urban projects. Three emulsion contents are selected for
mix designs from 1.5%, 2.0%, 2.5%, 3.0%, 3.5%, and 4.0% levels (Jahren et al. 2016).
The Utah DOT defines a single starting point for the optimum emulsion content, which is
estimated using the Asphalt Institute Manual Series No. 2 equation for calculating the effective
film thickness of 8.0 µm (Utah DOT 2017). Two other binder contents for the mix design are
selected at 0.5% on either side of this value.
Binder Content, %
Figure 13. Binder contents documented in literature review by
Cox and Howard (2013).

Foamed Asphalt Contents

Cox and Howard (2013) documented 37 instances in 63 documents of foamed asphalt con-
tent in CIR mixes (Figure 13). Most of the foamed asphalt contents were from 1.5% to 2.5%.
More recent research documents show most of the foamed asphalt contents are at least 2%
(Table 13).
Optimum Water Content

Water is added during construction to cool the miller’s cutting drum and needs to be factored
into the mix design process. Laboratory studies use ranges of moisture content from 1.5% to
4.5%, but the actual water added during construction usually ranges from 1.5% to 2.5% (not
including water in the emulsion) (Ortiz 2017). At appropriate amounts, water improves the
workability of both emulsified and foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes (Batista et al. 2014;
Gandi et al. 2016). Water also facilitates coating the particles by emulsions, helps keep the emul-
sion from setting too quickly, improves the dispersion of the foamed asphalt within the solid
particles, and improves compactability of cold recycled mixes in general. A balance is needed
between high liquid contents (water and emulsion) for compaction improvement and low liquid
contents that are desirable for rut and raveling resistance (Cross 2014). Cox and Howard (2013)
documented the optimum water contents (OWC) found in their literature review (Figure 14).
Most of the reported optimum moisture contents were 4% or lower. Some evidence in the litera-
ture reviewed indicated that identifying an optimum moisture content could be difficult because
of coarse RAP gradations and a lack of fines.
Preliminary work using the Florida DOT’s Florida Method 1-T180 Proctor method indi-
cated the dry specimen density ranged only from about 112 lb/ft3 to 115 lb/ft3 (1,794 kg/m3 to
1,842 kg/m3) for moisture contents ranging from 2 to 9% (Arambula-Mercado et al. 2018).
Specimens mixed with 8% additional water and various percentages of emulsion were over-
saturated in the mixing bowl, and the compacted specimens had free water on the surface of the
specimen. Researchers arbitrarily set the moisture content for their research project at 4% based
on the Cox and Howard (2015) study.
Table 13. Summary of typical foamed asphalt

contents.
Source Foamed Asphalt Content

Jenkins 2000 1.5% to 4.5%
Bhavsar 2015 1.2% to 3.2%
2% to 3.5%
Batista et al. 2014 2.5% to 5%
3% to 4%
Soohyok et al. 2018 2.0%
Gu et al. 2018 2.2%
Buczynski and Iwanski 2018 2.5%
Bowers et al. 2020 2% to 2.5%
Khosravifar 2012 2% to 3.5%
Ma 2018 2% to 3%
Betti et al. 2017 2% to 3%
Fu et al. 2010 3.0%
Arambula-Mercado et al. 2018 3.6% to 3.7%

Additional Moisture Content, %

Figure 14. Additional water content reported in literature.
To prevent over-saturation of the cold recycled mix design specimens, some agencies set the
additional water to be used for mix design purposes. Other agencies define a limit on the total
liquid content (i.e., additional water plus emulsion). The Ontario Ministry of Transportation
limits the total liquid content to 4.5% of the dry weight (Bhavsar 2015). Both Caltrans (2016)
and the Minnesota DOT (Jahren et al. 2016) set the water content that is likely to be added at the
cutting drum, from 1.5 to 2.5%.
The Utah DOT developed a vibratory compaction method using a set gradation for fine RAP.
This method uses a 100-gram RAP sample with a specified fine portion of the RAP gradation,
1% lime, and 24% water. This mixture is subjected to 15 seconds on a vibrating table as a starting
point for setting the optimum moisture content. Liquefaction is defined as the amount of water
needed to produce a noticeable film of water on the specimen surface and is used as an indication
of the water needed to keep the emulsion from breaking too soon. The OWC for the complete
RAP gradation is calculated based on the percent fine RAP in the total RAP gradation.
One research project investigated using a Superpave gyratory compactor (SGC) to determine
the OWC (Ma 2018). The modified Proctor method tended to indicate slightly higher OWC
than the SGC by 0.8 to 2.5% OWC.
Arambula-Mercado et al. (2018) evaluated the optimum moisture content for foamed asphalt
cold recycled mixes. Two optimum moisture contents (0% and 4%) were arbitrarily selected.
At 0%, the mixes had poor workability, and the foamed asphalt clumped together with the fines.
At 4%, the mixes were workable, and no clumping was observed.
Bazrafshan and Farhad (2017) evaluated the impact of varying the percentage of emulsion
on indirect tensile strength while keeping the total liquid content constant (Figure 15). Three
different gradations, a medium-setting emulsion, and 2% Portland cement were used. The total
liquid content was held constant at 5.3% for the 19 mm gradation, 5.0% for the 25 mm grada-
tion, and 4.3% for the 37.5 mm gradation. The indirect tensile strengths for the 19 mm grada-
tion remained constant as long as the total liquid content was held constant. The 25 mm and
37.5 mm gradation strengths varied only slightly. The indirect tensile strengths decreased with
increasing maximum particle size. It appears that different emulsion contents may not be as
important as the total liquid content.

Source: Based on Bazrafshan and Farhad 2017.
Figure 15. Influence on indirect tensile strength of holding total

liquid content constant but varying the water-to-emulsion ratio.
Mixing, Compaction, and Curing

Mixing
Mixing is accomplished with a standard bucket mixer or laboratory pugmill. The dry RAP
is mixed with the additional water, followed by any active fillers such as cement or lime, which is
mixed into the RAP. The binder is added and the mixing continued for a short time, typically
about 1 minute (Cross 2015).
Compaction
Specimens are typically compacted at ambient (room) temperatures, which in some cases is
defined as 77°F ± 4°F (25°C ± 2°C), using either Marshall compaction with 75 blow/side or an
SGC with either 30 or 35 gyrations. The Marshall compaction tended to produce densities that
were closer to field densities than the SGC (Ma 2018).
Some researchers varied the number of gyrations to achieve 12% air voids for specimens 6 in.
(150 mm) in diameter (Buczynski and Iwanski 2018) or 13% voids (Carter et al. 2013; Ortiz
2017; Kazmi 2018).
A Nevada research study compared Hveem and gyratory compacted specimens to deter-
mine the optimum emulsion content. Both methods provided similar optimum asphalt contents
(Carvajal 2018).
Curing
Procedures for curing cold recycled mix specimens vary:
• AASHTO PP 86 requires that specimens be extruded immediately after compaction, then
cured for 16 to 48 hours at 140°F ± 2°F (60°C ± 1°C).
• A Nevada research project prepared emulsified asphalt cold recycled mixes with lime slur-
ries and cured them for 48 hours at 140°F (60°C) (Carvajal 2018).
• A study for the Florida DOT (Arambula-Mercado et al. 2018) showed that compacted
specimens, either emulsion or foamed asphalt, needed 24 hours in a forced draft oven at

140°F ± 5.5°F (60°C ± 3°C) to reach a constant mass. Curing was followed by storage on
a flat surface for at least 24 hours at room temperature before testing.
• For a Virginia CCPR study, Kazmi (2018) oven-dried the RAP for 72 hours at 104°F (40°C),
then cooled the RAP at ambient temperature for 24 hours.
Batista et al. (2014) summarized European practices for curing conditions after compaction
(Table 14). This summary shows there is a wide range of procedures, but in general, European
agencies use cooler curing temperatures for longer periods than are used in the United States.
Mix Design Testing

Mix design testing includes bulk specific gravity for compacted and loose mix and some type of
strength test, such as indirect tension or Marshall stability. Some agencies include performance-
related testing to estimate the mixture’s raveling potential; critical low-temperature cracking
characteristics; and resistance to fatigue cracking, reflective cracking, and rutting.
Density and Air Void Measurements

Compacted Bulk Specific Gravities. The traditional standards for determining the bulk
specific gravity of compacted specimens are AASHTO T 166 and ASTM D2726. When specimens
contain open or interconnected air voids or absorb more than 2% moisture, the specimens need
to be coated before testing. Test methods that can be used in these cases are AASHTO T 275 for
paraffin-coated specimens, ASTM D1188 for Parafilm-coated specimens, and AASHTO T 331
and ASTM D6752 for vacuum sealing specimens. The specific gravity and density can also be
Table 14. European experimental curing conditions used to replicate different

agencies’ procedures.
Days
Country
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
68°F +/– 1°F (20°C +/– 2°C)
Czech Sealed* Unsealed**
Republic 68°F +/– 1°F (20°C +/– 2°C)
Sealed* Unsealed**
104°F (40°C)
Great Britain Sealed*
and Ireland 104°F (40°C)
Sealed*
64°F (18°C)
Unsealed**
France
64°F (18°C)
Unsealed**
104°F (40°C) 68°F +/– 1°F (20°C +/– 2°C)
Unsealed**
Australia
104°F (40°C) 68°F +/– 1°F (20°C +/– 2°C)
Unsealed**
104°F 68°F +/– 1°F
77°F (25°C)
(40°C) (20°C +/– 2°C)
South African Unsealed** Sealed* Unsealed**
Republic 104°F
77°F (25°C) 68°F +/– 1°F (20°C +/– 2°C)
(40°C)
Unsealed** Sealed* Unsealed**
*Sealed containers are assumed to represent 90% to 100% humidity conditions.
**Unsealed containers are assumed to represent typical humidity conditions in the field.
Source: Based on Batista et al. 2014.

volumetrically determined using the mass of the specimen and measurements of the specimen
height and diameter (AASHTO T 269, Section 6.2.2, ASTM D3203).
Schwartz et al. (2017) reported the average dimensionally calculated bulk specific gravity
was only 2.107 for cores from 18 emulsified or foamed asphalt cold recycled projects (1 to
2 years old) from around the country. The average density for these projects was 131 lb/ft3
(2,098 kg/m3). Although the air voids were not specifically reported, the low specific gravities
and low densities indicate the cores may have air voids that are higher than conventional dense-
graded hot asphalt mixes.
Bazrafshan and Farhad (2017) used AASHTO T 331 (vacuum sealing) to document the
density and air voids of various emulsified asphalt cold recycled mixes with 2% Portland cement
and three different RAP gradations (19 mm, 25 mm, 37.5 mm). This method was used because
of the high air voids (14% to 17%).
Saidi (2019) used the vacuum sealing method because the air voids for the range of foamed
asphalt cold recycled mix variables in the study ranged from 5% to 15% voids.
Gallegos (2019) noted that New Mexico requires the use of AASHTO T 331 (vacuum sealing)
for testing cold recycled mixes.
Illinois DOT LR1000-1 (2012) requires the use of ASTM D6852 (vacuum sealing) for emul-
sified CIR. Of the nine agencies documented in Table 11 (at the beginning of the Mix Designs
section), only the Illinois DOT lists AASHTO T 331 (vacuum sealing) as an option for measuring
compacted specific gravity.
Cox and Howard (2015) used specimens from seven projects to show there was a good
linear relationship between the results from AASHTO T 331 (vacuum sealing for compacted
specimens) and the dimensional specific gravities. Except for a few outliers, the dimensional
method estimated lower densities (i.e., higher air voids).
Maximum Specific Gravities. The traditional test methods for determining the maximum
specific gravity are AASHTO T 209 and ASTM D2041. Both of these standards require the use
of a dry-back procedure when the aggregates are not sealed by the asphalt binder film. Alter-
natively, ASTM D6857 can be used to vacuum seal the material before testing. The RAP-only
maximum specific gravity can be difficult to measure consistently because the particles are
not completely coated and the RAP agglomerations have micro-cracks in the old asphalt film,
which entrap air between the finer particles (Cox and Howard 2013). During the mix design
phase, the best coating of the RAP particles can be obtained by testing the cold recycled mix
with the highest emulsion content, then back-calculating the maximum specific gravities for
lower emulsion contents.
Only a limited number of research projects have compared AASHTO T 209 (ASTM D2041)
and ASTM D6857 (vacuum sealed). The literature review by Cox and Howard (2015) briefly
discusses two research projects (Ohio, Florida). The Ohio mixtures, with 33 replicates, showed
no statistical differences in the maximum specific gravity between AASHTO T 209 and ASTM
D6857. A Florida study also found no statistical difference between the two methods but did
find the vacuum sealing method test results were more variable. Both studies used conventional
dense-graded hot asphalt mixtures for these conclusions. When Florida mixtures with high
moisture absorption limestone aggregates were evaluated with AASHTO T 209 using the dry-
back procedure and with ASTM D6857, the vacuum sealing method gave significantly higher
maximum specific gravities.

Air Voids. AASHTO T 269 (ASTM D3203) is used to calculate air voids from the compacted
bulk specific gravity and maximum specific gravity test results (Gallegos 2019). Examples of the
range of cold recycled mix air voids reported in the literature are as follows:
• 9% to 14%, typically, possibly higher (Cross et al. 2010)
• 12.1% for cold recycled cores (Stimilli et al. 2013)
• 13.6%, 14.0%, and 17.3% air voids for the 19 mm, 25 mm, and 37.5 mm maximum RAP particle
size gradations, respectively (Bazrafshan and Farhad 2017)
• 9.6% to 14.1% for foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes (Graziani et al. 2018)
• 10% to 15% for emulsified asphalt cold recycled mixes (Chen 2006)
• 5% to 15% air voids for foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes (Saidi 2019)
• 6% to 17% for emulsion cold recycled mixes (Saidi 2019)
• 17.5% to 18.9% for emulsified asphalt cold recycled mixes (Graziani et al. 2018)
Cox and Howard (2015) used the AASHTO T 166 and T 331 test methods for compacted
bulk specific gravity and AASHTO T 209 for the theoretical maximum specific gravity to calcu-
late air voids. Cold recycled mixes prepared with RAP from three different projects were used
to show the air voids calculated using the vacuum-sealed bulk specific gravity were higher than
those calculated using the standard uncoated method (Figure 16).
The results for specimens prepared with a given RAP source were well correlated, but each
RAP source produced a different correlation equation.
Marshall Stabilities, Dry and Wet

A number of agencies include minimum Marshall stability requirements originally set for
conventional hot asphalt mixes, but they use a test temperature of 104°F (40°C) instead of
140°F (60°C). Some agencies have added a requirement for retained Marshall stability after
vacuum saturation (55% to 75%): after storing the mix in a 77°F (25°C) water bath for 24 hours,
they determine the wet stability at 104°F (40°C).
25
Air Voids Using AASHTO T 166
Air Voids Using AASHTO T 331 (Vacuum Seal)

Figure 16. Comparison of air voids calculated from different

compacted bulk specific gravity measurements.

Some Marshall stabilities, both wet and dry, and the retained Marshall strength are reported
in the literature (Table 15, Figure 17). Cosenza and Robinson (2019) reported that the dry
Marshall stability for field cold recycled mix was slightly lower than the fine gradation mix
design specimens. The highest dry Marshall stabilities reported were for field cores taken from
projects that were 4 to 7 years old.
Indirect Tensile Strengths, Dry and Wet

AASHTO T 283 (ASTM D4867) is used to evaluate the indirect tensile strength, dry and after
moisture conditioning with a freeze/thaw cycle, at 77°F (25°C) to assess the unconditioned
strength and moisture sensitivity of the mix. AASHTO MP 31 (emulsion) and MP 38 (foamed
asphalt) set the cured specimen indirect tensile strength (dry) at a minimum of 45 psi (310 kPa),
with a minimum tensile strength ratio of 70% for cold recycled mixes with cement, 60% for
mixes with hydrated lime or with no active fillers. The ARRA CR201 and CR202 standards use
the same criteria.
Wet and dry indirect tensile strengths from various research studies (Figure 18) show foamed
asphalt cold recycled mixes usually have lower indirect tensile strengths than emulsified asphalt
cold recycled mixes (Khosravifar 2012; Du 2015; Gandi et al. 2016; Sebaaly et al. 2018). Using
2% Portland cement significantly increases both the dry and wet indirect tensile strengths.
Emulsified asphalts with different modifiers (latex, polymers, and crumb rubber) and either
4.5% or 6% lime slurries show that dry and wet indirect tensile strengths depend on the type of
modifier and volume of lime slurry (Carvajal 2018; Sebaaly et al. 2018) (Figure 19). The trend is
for the 6% lime slurry either to have no influence or to reduce the indirect tensile strengths. This
may be due to the increased moisture content from the higher slurry content. Regardless of the
amount of lime slurry, all the dry indirect tensile strengths met the 45 psi (310 kPa) minimum
requirement. All the wet indirect tensile strengths also met the minimum required wet strength
of 35 psi (241 kPa).
Table 15. Examples of documented Marshall stabilities and retained stabilities.
Marshall Marshall Retained

Mix Variables Stability, Stability, Strength, Source
Dry, lb Wet, lb %
Over 5% emulsions with cement, 60°C 280 --- ---
Under 2% emulsions with cement, 60°C 1,229 --- ---
Emulsions with cement or hydrated lime, 60°C 2,705 --- ---
Cox and Howard 2015
Under 3.5% emulsion, 40°C 2,000 --- ---
Over 3% emulsion with cement, 40°C 2,018 --- ---
4% emulsions, 1% lime, 40°C 1,492 1,209 81%
3% engineered polymer mod., no cement 3,250 2,850 88%
3% engineered polymer mod., 0.3% cement 3,300 2,800 85%
Campos 2019
3% engineered polymer mod., 0.6% cement 3,700 3,500 95%
3% engineered polymer mod., 1% cement 3,200 3,000 94%
3% emulsion (room temperature for mixing) 1,286 926 72%
Wegman and Sabouri
1.8% emulsion (43°C for mixing) 1,970 1,615 82%
2019
1.5% emulsion (52°C for mixing) 2,080 1,955 94%
Cores (4 to 7 years old) 5,098 --- --- VanFrank et al. 2016
Note: ---: no data available; mod. = modifier.

Figure 17. Examples of dry Marshall stabilities for emulsified cold

recycled mixes.
150
Dry Wet
Foamed
Indirect Tensile Strength, psi
Emulsions
100 Asphalt
100
87 86
70 74 71
67
61 60 62 61
56 53
52 50 52
50 44 44 45 49 41 44
40
15
CMS = cationic medium set.
Figure 18. Comparison of indirect tensile test strength, wet and dry,
for emulsions and foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes.

Source: Based on Sebaaly et al. 2018. Note: Mod. = modifier
Figure 19. Influence of modified emulsions and different percentages

of lime slurry.
The use of corrective aggregates can improve the dry and wet tensile strengths (Arambula-
Mercado et al. 2018) (Figure 20). Cold mixes were prepared with either emulsion or foamed
asphalt and one of three percentages of corrective aggregate (0%, 20%, and 40%). The mixes with
no corrective aggregate had the lowest dry and wet indirect tensile strengths. Using 1% Portland
cement, with no corrective aggregate, significantly increased the strengths and reduced the
moisture sensitivity for the foamed asphalt mix.
Figure 20. Comparison of emulsified asphalt and foamed asphalt cold

recycled mixes with corrective aggregates.

A summary of the indirect tensile strengths for emulsion and foamed asphalt cold recycled
mixes reported by various researchers is shown in Table 16. The average indirect tensile strength
of emulsion cold recycled mixes is 69 psi; the average for foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes
is 46 psi.
Diefenderfer and Apeagyei (2014) measured the moisture sensitivity of cores obtained from
the foamed asphalt CIR and CCPR Virginia DOT I-81 project within the first few months of
construction (Table 17). Both the CCPR and CIR cores had indirect tensile strengths over 70 psi
Table 16. Documented dry and wet tensile strengths for different binders, active fillers,
and corrective aggregates.
Indirect Indirect
Tensile Tensile
Materials TSR Air Voids, % Source
Strength, Strength,
Dry, psi Wet, psi
Foamed Asphalt
0% corrective aggregate, foamed Arambula-Mercado et
33 20 61% 13.9% to 14.9%
asphalt* al. 2018
40 40 100% 11.6% to 19%
asphalt* al. 2018
2.3% foamed asphalt, no active filler,
44 15 34% No Information Khosravifar 2012
RAP 3
Foamed asphalt, no active filler 45 49 109% 13% +/– 1% Gandi et al. 2016
48 32 67% 15.6% to 19%
asphalt* al. 2018
2.2% foamed asphalt, no active filler,
53 41 77% 13% +/– 1% Khosravifar 2012
RAP 2
2.3% foamed asphalt, 1% cement, RAP 3 62 61 98% No Information Khosravifar 2012
Average 46 37 78%
Emulsified Asphalt
4% CMS-2s, 6% lime, nongraded RAP 52 40 77% 13% +/– 1% Sebaaly et al. 2018
Rubber-mod., 4.5% lime slurry 52 37 71% 13% +/– 1% Ortiz 2017
Rubber-mod., 6% lime slurry 55 42 76% 13% +/– 1% Ortiz 2017
3.6% CMS-2s, 4.5% lime, nongraded RAP 56 44 78% 13% +/– 1% Sebaaly et al. 2018
3% CMS-2s, 6% lime, graded RAP 60 50 84% 13% +/– 1% Sebaaly et al. 2018
Emulsion, no active filler 61 70 115% 13% +/– 1% Gandi et al. 2016
Polymer-mod., 6% lime slurry 65 41 63% 13% +/– 1% Ortiz 2017
Latex-mod., 6% lime slurry 70 63 90% 13% +/– 1% Ortiz 2017
3.4% CMS-2s, 4.5% lime, graded RAP 71 44 62% 13% +/– 1% Sebaaly et al. 2018
Emulsion, no active filler 74 52 70% 8% Du 2015
Latex-mod., 4.5% lime slurry 76 66 87% 13% +/– 1% Ortiz 2017
Polymer-mod., 4.5% lime slurry 82 53 65% 13% +/– 1% Ortiz 2017
Emulsion, 2.5% lime 87 67 77% 8.5% Du 2015
Emulsion, 1.5% cement 100 86 86% 10.7% Du 2015
Average 69 54 79%
*No freeze cycle.
TSR = tensile strength ratio.

Table 17. Foamed asphalt CCPR and CIR tensile

strengths.
Moisture Sensitivity CCPR CIR

Indirect tensile strength, dry (psi) 77.2 71.6
Indirect tensile strength, wet (psi) 54.2 56.6
Tensile strength ratio (%) 70.2 79.1
and tensile strength ratio (TSR) percentages over 70%. The core indirect tensile strength values
are all higher than those for the laboratory-mixed, laboratory-compacted foamed asphalt cold
recycled mixes. The foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes appear to gain strength over time.
Level of Saturation and Air Voids. Both AASHTO T 283 and ASTM D4867 standards
evaluate the moisture sensitivity of asphalt mixes, but they have somewhat different require-
ments for air voids, saturation levels, and specimen conditioning. AASHTO T 283 requires spec-
imens to be prepared with air voids of 7.0% ± 0.5%; the water saturation levels need to be between
70% and 80%; and conditioning includes a freeze/thaw cycle. ASTM D4867 requires specimens
to have air voids of 7.0% ± 1.0% and a saturation level between 55% and 80%; the freeze/thaw
cycle is optional. While both test methods are used to evaluate moisture sensitivity, air voids can
be significantly higher in cold recycled mixes than in conventional hot asphalt specimens. On the
basis of a literature review and construction testing, Cross et al. (2010) suggest a fixed compaction
effort (75 blow Marshall, SGC with 30 or 35 gyrations) and adjusting the saturation requirement
to 55% to 75%. Suggestions from other research include the following:
• Increase the required air voids to 13% ± 1% (Carter et al. 2013; Gandi et al. 2016; Arambula-
Mercado et al. 2018; Sebaaly et al. 2018).
• Reduce the required saturation level to 55% to 75% (Cross 2012; Cox and Howard 2015;
Illinois DOT 2012) or 55% to 80% (ASTM D4867, Gandi et al. 2016).
• Require a minimum wet strength of 35 psi (235 kPa) with no freeze/thaw cycle (Caltrans 2016).
Performance Testing
Balanced mix designs optimize the mix components and quantities to minimize the agency’s
most critical pavement distress(es). Testing is also included to assess the ability of mixes to
withstand initial traffic damage to the new cold recycled mix surface. Test methods that have
been used to evaluate cold recycled materials during mix design include the following:
• Durability
– Raveling
– Cantabro
– Cohesive strength
• Low-temperature cracking
– Instrumented indirect tensile strength
– Semi-circular bend test
– Disc-shaped compact tensile test
– Thermal stress restrained specimen test
• Fatigue cracking
– Beam fatigue
– Semi-circular bend test at warm temperatures
– IDEAL cracking test
– Instrumented indirect tensile strength at warm temperatures
– Simplified viscoelastic continuum damage

• Reflective cracking
– Overlay tester
• Rutting
– Hamburg loaded wheel rut tester
– Asphalt pavement analyzer loaded wheel rut tester
– Triaxial testing
– Repeated load permanent deformation
Cox and Howard (2015) identified eight agencies that require assessment of raveling potential,
six that require the evaluation of low-temperature cracking potential, and only one that requires
Hamburg rut testing (Table 18). It should be noted that while agencies have performance-based
testing requirements, the literature includes little documented test result data. Also, there are
significant differences in how researchers and agencies use existing test methods (e.g., different
test temperatures, curing temperatures before specimens tested).
Low-Temperature Cracking
Low-temperature cracking tests include
• Instrumented indirect tensile test (IDT),
• Semi-circular bend (SCB) test, used at lower temperatures,
• Disc-shaped compact tension (DCT) test, and
• Thermal stress restrained specimen test (TSRST).
Low-temperature cracking data, which can be used as MEPDG Level 1 inputs, use laboratory
creep compliance data at –4°F, 14°F, and 32°F (–20°C, –10°C, and 0°C) and loading times of
1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100 seconds (Vitillo 2012). An MEPDG Level 2 pavement design needs
the laboratory creep compliance data at 14°F (–10°C) and the same seven loading times. The
Level 3 pavement design automatically calculates typical low-temperature creep compliance.
No specific creep compliance databases were found in the literature search.
Table 18. Examples of agency performance testing.
Low-Temperature Cracking * Raveling Rutting

State
(AASHTO T 322) (ASTM D7196) (AASHTO T 324)
2% max., 20 gyrations, cured at 21°C for
California --- ---
4 hours
Illinois --- 2% max. at 10°C ---
Iowa Tcrit, –20C max. ---
4 hours
Tcrit, less than LTPPBind 98%
Kansas reliability low temperature at the ---
4 hours
top of the CIR layer
Montana Tcrit, –31C ---
4 hours
New York T 322, –20C max. ---
4 hours, 50% relative humidity
2% max., 20 gyrations, cured at 10°C for Tex-242-F Hamburg
Texas Tcrit, report only
4 hours, 50% relative humidity 5,000 < P12.5 < 15,000
Tcrit, less than LTPPBind 98%
Virginia reliability low temperature at the ---
4 hours, 50% relative humidity
top of the CIR layer
*Instrumented indirect tensile test.
---: no additional information provided.

Table 19. Low-temperature IDT results for MnROAD

test road CIR mixes.
MnROAD Cell Designations

133 233 135 235
Binder, %
PG58-28 PG58-28 PGXX-34 PGXX-34
Emulsion Foamed Emulsion Foamed
2% 1.5% 2% 1.5%
Laboratory-Mixed, Laboratory-Compacted Specimens
IDT @ Tcrit of IDT @ Tcrit of IDT @ Tcrit of IDT @ Tcrit of
–35°C, psi –34°C, psi –36°C, psi –34°C, psi
155 128 158 132
Temperature Field Mixes
40°F (–40°C) 250 230 235 280
–22°F
260 200 220 230
(–30°C)
–4°F (–20°C) 280 230 280 190
Source: Based on Tompkins 2019.
Instrumented Indirect Tensile Strength (AASHTO T322). Tompkins (2019) reported

various properties for cold recycled mixes placed on the MnROAD low-volume loop (Table 19).
The laboratory-mixed, laboratory-compacted foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes with the
PG58-28 base binder have slightly lower tensile strengths than the emulsion cold recycled mixes.
There is no clear pattern of results for the PGXX-34 base binder cold mixes. The field-mixed
materials have higher strengths than the laboratory-mixed, laboratory-compacted specimens.
Semi-Circular Bend (Low Temperatures). The AASHTO TP 105 Semi-Circular Bend

(SCB) test method is used to calculate fracture energy (FE), fracture toughness, and stiffness to
define the resistance of the mix to low-temperature cracking. Previous research linked decreased
FE to the increased amount of transverse cracking, which successfully predicted projects
with satisfactory performance and poor performance (Cox and Howard 2015; Wegman and
Mohammadreza 2016). The FE decreases with decreasing temperatures.
Saidi (2019) conducted a laboratory investigation to evaluate the influence of the compac-
tion level and curing temperatures on the SCB low-temperature FE (Table 20). The higher
Table 20. SCB laboratory study to evaluate

impact of compaction level and curing
conditions on fracture energy at 32çF (0çC).
Level of Fracture Energy, J/m2

Compaction Emulsions Foamed Asphalt
Hot curing, 140°F (60°C) for 3 days
30 gyrations 497 425
Cold curing, 50°F (10°C) for 3 days
Source: Saidi 2019.

Table 21. Results for SCB testing of CIR

mixes with different recycling agents
at –4çF (–20çC).
Average FIVE Cracking

Binders Energy, J/m2*
Lab 1 Lab 2
2.8% engineered emulsion 305 230
2.3% CSS-1 + 1.5% cement 220 190
2% HFMS-2S 300 290
2.2% foamed asphalt 295 210
*Estimated from figures.
Source: Based on Wegman and Mohammadreza 2016.
compactive effort accentuated the difference between emulsion and foamed asphalt cold recycled
mixes. The foamed asphalt mixes have lower FEs compared to emulsion mixes. Regardless of
the compactive effort, increasing the curing temperature increases the fracture energy.
Another parameter calculated from the load-deformation curve and the crack mouth
opening displacement (CMOD) is the fracture index value for energy (FIVE) (Table 21). The
FIVE value is calculated as the total energy (area under load versus CMOD curve) divided by
the ligament area [product of ligament length (i.e., specimen radius minus the crack length)
and the thickness of the specimen]. The test for determining the FIVE results is conducted at
18°F above the low PG temperature (10°C above the low PG temperature) with a loading rate of
0.0002 in./s (0.005 mm/s). Wegman and Mohammadreza (2016) suggested a pass/fail threshold
FIVE value of 230 J/m2. Values above the threshold have acceptable low-temperature cracking
resistance. The CSS-1 emulsion cold recycled mixes with the 1.5% cement had the lowest FE
(more brittle behavior) and failed the threshold criterion. However, the between-laboratory
variability may influence pass/fail conclusions when the results are close to the limiting value.
Disc-Shaped Compact Tension. The DCT test (ASTM D7313) determines the fracture
energy of mixtures at low temperatures. The low-temperature cracking potential decreases as
the FE increases.
Wegman and Mohammadreza (2016) compared the DCT and SCB test results for MnROAD
test cell mixtures (Table 22). They found that both test methods rank the CSS-1 cold recycled
mixes as having the most potential for thermal cracking. The engineered and high float emul-
sions showed better resistance to low-temperature cracking with the RAP source used for this
project.
Table 22. Results for DCT and SCB testing of CIR

mixes with different binders.
SCB, FIVE Fracture

Binder DCT*
Energy Index, J/m2*
Engineered emulsion 185 350
HFMS-2S 180 405
CSS-1 + cement 140 225
*Estimated from figures.
Source: Based on Wegman and Mohammadreza 2016.

The researchers noted the CIR mixes tended to crumble during testing in a way that suggests
the additional specimen preparation needed for the DCT testing may not be a viable option for
testing cold recycled mixes. They noted the DCT test can be used on cores, but it requires special
fixtures for testing and several steps for specimen preparation.
Thermal Stress Restrained Specimen. The TSRST (AASHTO TP 105) measures the critical
low-cracking temperature and the tensile stress at failure. Bhavsar (2015) evaluated Ontario,
Canada, CIR-emulsion and foamed asphalt mixes using the TSRST method (Table 23). The frac-
ture temperatures of the emulsion specimens were about 2oC lower than those of the foamed
asphalt mixes. The foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes could support only about one-fourth of
the tensile stress before failure compared to the emulsified asphalt cold recycled mixes.
Fatigue Cracking Tests

Fatigue cracking can be evaluated using
• Beam fatigue;
• Indirect tensile asphalt cracking test (IDEAL-CT);
• Instrumented indirect tensile strength, AASHTO T 322 at warm temperatures;
• Semi-circular bend (SCB) test, at intermediate (warm) temperatures; and
• Simplified viscoelastic continuum damage (S-VECD).
Beam Fatigue. The bending beam fatigue test evaluates the potential for traditional fatigue
cracking (i.e., bottom-up cracking). Hveem-compacted cold recycled mix specimens with latex
or rubber-modified emulsions showed improved cracking resistance compared to either an
unmodified cationic medium set (CMS-2s) or a polymer-modified emulsion (Carvajal 2018;
Sebaaly et al. 2018) (Figure 21).
IDEAL Cracking Test. The indirect tensile asphalt cracking test (IDEAL-CT) uses con-
ventional indirect tensile strength testing equipment to apply the load at a rate of 2 in./min
(50 mm/min) to standard gyratory compacted specimens at room temperature. The major
advantage of this test is that no environmental chamber is needed and the as-compacted gyratory
specimen is used (i.e., no cutting is needed). The cracking test (CT) parameter is calculated from
the load-displacement curve. CT values, a unitless parameter, range from 1 (poor performance)
to 800 (best performance).
Soohyok et al. (2018) compared the flexibility indices from the IDEAL-CT and SCB tests.
Cold recycled mixes were prepared and tested using one emulsion, two PG foamed asphalt
binders, and three RAP sources (Table 24). Except for two outliers, there is a good correlation
between the results from both test methods (Figure 22).
Instrumented Indirect Tensile Testing, Warm Temperatures. Instrumented IDT at warm

temperatures is conducted at 77°F (25°C). Cox and Howard (2015) used this method to eval
uate the tensile strength at fracture, St,f , the horizontal strain at fracture, εf , and the cracking
Table 23. TSRST results for CIR mixes with

different binders.
Fracture Maximum
Maximum
Recycling Agent Temperature, Tensile
Load, lb
°C Stress, psi
HF-150P emulsion –28.38 1,214 323
Foamed asphalt
–26.82 301 78
(PG58-28)

Source: Based on Sebaaly et al. 2018.
Figure 21. Influence of emulsion modifiers on fatigue resistance.
Table 24. Comparison of SCB flexibility index

to IDEAL-CT index at room temperature.
I-FIT*
RAP IDEAL-CT
Binder Flexibility
Source Index
Index
Laboratory Study with Different Binders and RAP Sources
US-60 1.5 30
CSS-1H I-40 2.8 105
FM-92 3.9 235
US-60 3.3 40
PG58-28** I-40 6.8 210
FM-92 5.3 120
US-60 1.0 20
PG64-22** I-40 3.0 50
FM-92 3.2 90
Cores
Ochiltree HMA*** 4.5 93.2
County,
Tex. CIR 0.3 9.4
Hemphill HMA*** 5.4 32.8
County,
Tex. CIR 0.6 13.9
*I-FIT = Illinois flexibility index test.

**Foamed asphalt.
***HMA = hot mix asphalt.

US-60
I-40
FM-92
Ochiltree (cores)
Hemphill (cores)
Figure 22. Comparison of SCB flexibility index and the

IDEAL-CT index.
index. The cracking index highlights the brittle nature of the cold mixes that contain cement
(Figure 23). The tensile strength showed no consistent trends for the different cold mix variables
(Table 25). The mixes with cement had significantly lower indirect tensile cracking indexes than
mixes with emulsion recycling agents.
Semi-Circular Bend, Warm Temperatures. When SCB testing is conducted at warmer

temperatures, it can be used to estimate fatigue cracking. The AASHTO TP 124 SCB test method
is conducted at 77°F (25°C) and used to calculate the flexibility index and fracture energy.
Figure 23. Influence of filler and RAP source on cracking resistance.

Table 25. IDT stiffness, strain, and cracking index.
Tensile Horizontal Cracking

Materials Strength at Strain at Index,
Fracture, psi Fracture, kJ/m3
4.4% cement 69 190 0.06
2.3% cement, 2%
RAP 42 719 0.17
emulsion
1
4% emulsion, 1%
51 4,289 1.32
hydrated lime
4.4% cement 63 248 0.07
2.3% cement, 2%
RAP 32 1,005 0.18
emulsion
2
4% emulsion, 1%
49 3,068 0.83
hydrated lime
4.4% cement 32 1,022 0.21
RAP 2.3% cement, 2%
22 1,069 0.14
3 emulsion
4% emulsion, 1%
44 4,477 1.17
hydrated lime
The flexibility index is used to rank mixes based on fracture (cracking) potential. Nemati (2019)
investigated four CCPR mixes from New Hampshire: the flexibility index for the CCPR mixes
ranged from 11 to 21, compared to 6 to 15 for conventional hot asphalt mixes. The fracture
energy for the CCPR mixes ranged from 100 to 600 J/m2, while the fracture energy for the con
ventional hot asphalt mixes was significantly higher, from 1,250 to 1,750 J/m2. The researcher
noted the CCPR cold mixes were difficult to test because they tended to be too ductile and
deformed under the loading platen.
Ma (2018) investigated the SCB Illinois flexibility index test (I-FIT) parameters for two grades
of foamed asphalt with fine, medium, and coarse RAP gradations (Table 26, Figure 24). The
tensile strength at fracture was similar for all of the foamed asphalt mixes. The medium grada-
tion, regardless of asphalt grade, showed the least cracking resistance, while the coarse grada-
tion showed the best cracking resistance. The stiffer asphalt produced better fatigue cracking
resistance, regardless of gradation, compared to the softer grade asphalt.
Table 26. Laboratory study to determine

SCB I-FIT tensile strength, fracture energy,
and flexibility index.
Foamed Asphalt Tensile Fracture

Flexibility
Grade and RAP Strength at Energy,
Index*
Gradations Fracture, psi J/m2
Fine 18 414 5.8
PG
Medium 15 355 3.8
67-22
Coarse 18 511 8.4
Fine 15 269 4.3
PG
Medium 14 251 3.6
58-34
Coarse 15 327 5.3
*Flexibility index > 6 indicates good cracking resistance.

Source: Based on Ma 2018.
Figure 24. Influence of foamed asphalt binder grade and RAP

gradation on the SCB I-FIT flexibility index.
VanFrank et al. (2014) evaluated the influence of curing times at 80°F (27°C) on the SCB
results (Table 27, Figure 25). Five different emulsions and three curing times were used to
show that, while there is some difference in the SCB peak force and fracture energy between the
various emulsions, the curing time has a more significant influence on the results. Most of the
increase in SCB parameters occurs within the first 48 hours of curing.
VanFrank et al. (2016) used SCB testing conducted at 80°F (27°C) to evaluate cores from six
cold recycled projects built over the previous eight years and surfaced with overlays. A value
above 0.5 was considered acceptable for high loads and traffic volume roadways; a value of 0.6
Table 27. SCB test results at warm temperatures.
Curing Times, Type of Emulsion

hours* RS-EE E-EE CSS-1 PASS-R CQS-1
SCB Peak Force, lb**
24 57 73 48 65 78
48 121 123 138 121 150
72 145 139 170 143 154
SCB Displacement at Peak Force, in.**
24 0.033 0.053 0.045 0.032 0.015
48 0.061 0.063 0.035 0.031 0.038
72 0.058 0.036 0.037 0.036 0.047
SCB Area Under Load-Displacement Curve
24 0.9 2 1.1 1.1 0.6
48 3.7 3.8 2.5 1.9 2.9
72 4.3 2.5 3.3 2.6 3.6
*Curing and testing at 80°F (27°C).
**Estimated from figures in original source.
Source: VanFrank et al. 2014.

Source: Based on VanFrank et al. 2014.
Figure 25. Influence of curing time on SCB peak load.
was considered the minimum for low loads and traffic volume roadways. The SCB results
were compared to a weighted performance index [1 (worst) to 10 (best) scale]. SCB values
over 0.5 were associated with performance index values of 6 or better (Table 28).
Simplified Viscoelastic Continuum Damage. The simplified viscoelastic continuum
damage (S-VECD) (AASHTO TP 107) test uses cyclic direct tension stress and strain measure-
ments acquired under different loading conditions to estimate bottom-up and top-down traffic-
related cracking. Dynamic modulus or frequency/temperature sweep testing is used to measure
Table 28. SCB testing of Utah CIR cores.
Site Fracture Energy* Core Condition

Projects with Performance Index Values Less than 6
Strawberry
East
Too friable to Poor condition, high voids in all layers
Strawberry
test
West
Peoa
Bottom layer very deteriorated (CIR), just
I-84 W 0.33
above this layer
I-84 E 0.33
Projects with Performance Index Values of 6 or Better
Marion 0.56 Very high voids
Currant
0.82
Creek West No major deterioration noted; total
Currant thickness was 13 in.
0.82
Creek East
Monticello
0.73
East No major deterioration noted; thickness of
Monticello old pavement varied from 1 to 4 in.
0.73
West
*Testing at 80°F (27°C).
Source: VanFrank et al. 2016.

the mixture stiffness followed by the application of a constant strain until failure. The data from
these tests are used as input into advanced mathematical models, such as the linear viscoelastic
continuum damage and viscoelastic continuum damage models, with a public domain finite
element program, FEP++.
Nemati (2019) used S-VECD to evaluate New Hampshire emulsion CCPR mixes and
compared the results to conventional hot asphalt mixes. The researcher used finite element
modeling software, FlexPave, with S-VECD laboratory data to predict fatigue performance
of New Hampshire cold recycled mixes. Results showed that the cold recycled mixes that had
good, predicted fatigue resistance also had higher moduli and/or phase angles. The software
predicted fatigue cracking from the bottom up and no failure points in the wearing course
(20-year design life). The best-performing mixes were the two cold recycled mixes with low
distillate oils.
Reflective Cracking
Reflective cracking can be evaluated with the Texas overlay test (Texas DOT Tex-248-F). The
overlay testing device can be used to estimate the potential resistance of a mixture to reflective
cracking and/or traffic-related top-down cracking. Sebaaly et al. (2018) and Carvajal (2018)
investigated Nevada cold recycled mixes with the overlay tester at 25°C (77°F). The resistance
of emulsion cold recycled mixes with lime increased with increasing percentages of lime and was
dependent on the type of emulsion recycling agent (Table 29, Figure 26).
Gu et al. (2018) used the overlay test results to evaluate emulsified and foamed asphalt CIR
and CCPR Alabama mixes. The number of cycles to failure was low, and there was no clear
difference between the mixtures (Table 29).
Table 29. Influence of cold recycled materials on overlay test results using
laboratory-mixed, laboratory-compacted specimens.
No. of Cycles Critical Crack

Type of Emulsion Source
to Failure Fracture Energy Propagation Rate
4.5% Lime Slurry*
CMS-2s 282 0.29 0.47 Carvajal 2018
Latex modified emulsion 76 0.33 0.52
Polymer-modified emulsion 155 0.19 0.49 Sebaaly et al. 2018
Crumb rubber modified emulsion 391 0.20 0.42
6.0% Lime Slurry
CMS-2s 496 0.33 0.44 Carvajal 2018
Latex modified emulsion 132 0.36 0.51
Polymer-modified emulsion 280 0.20 0.41 Sebaaly et al. 2018
Crumb rubber modified emulsion 1,254 0.24 0.35
CIR and CCPR Mixes
CCPR-foamed asphalt 105 --- ---
CCPR-emulsion 175 --- ---
Gu et al. 2018
CIR-foamed asphalt 145 --- ---
CIR-emulsion 105 --- ---
*Hveem compaction, nongraded RAP.
---: no data available.

1,500
1,000
Cycles to Failure
500
Source: Based on Carvajal 2018; Sebaaly et al. 2018.

Figure 26. Influence of binder type and percent lime slurry on overlay
tester cracking.
Rutting
Pavement rutting resistance performance prediction models are usually based on the general
power law relationship:
εp = AN B
Where A and B are the intercept and slope, respectively, determined for the steady rate of
deformation portion (i.e., secondary flow region) of the log-log deformation per load cycle
relationship (Figure 27). This curve can be generated from several different repeated load
test methods:
• Loaded wheel rut testers:

– Hamburg wheel tracking tester (HWTT)
– Asphalt pavement analyzer (APA)
• Triaxial testing, with and without confining pressure
• Repeated load permanent deformation (RLPD)
Hamburg Loaded Wheel Rut Tester. The Hamburg wheel tracking tester (HWTT)
(AASHTO T 324) can be used to evaluate both rutting and moisture sensitivity. When the load-
ing passes are conducted underwater, a discernible change in the rut depth versus the number
of passes is identified as the stripping inflection point (SIP). A higher number of passes asso-
ciated with the inflection point indicates a more moisture-resistant mixture.
Gu et al. (2018) found HWTT results were dependent on the type and dosage of recycling
agents as well as the percentage of cement added to cold recycled mixes. At up to 1.5% cement,
the cold recycled mixes tended to have better rut resistance than conventional hot mixes.
Arambula-Mercado et al. (2018) evaluated the influence of different percentages of correc-

tive aggregate, RAP source, and type of recycling agent on the rut resistance of cold recycled

Figure 27. Example of how rutting models are

calculated from repeated load testing.
mixes. Results show the cold recycled mixes exceed the maximum allowable rut depth of 0.5 in.
(12.5 mm) at less than about 3,500 loading cycles (Table 30). Foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes
tend to be more prone to rutting than cold recycled mixes with emulsions. Replacing some of
the RAP with corrective aggregate provides some improvement in rut resistance, but only at
the higher 40% level.
Cox and Howard (2015) evaluated cold recycled mixes with two types of active filler (cement,
hydrated lime) and three different RAP sources (Table 31). The results show the rutting resis-
tance is dependent on the RAP source as well as the type of active filler. In all but one case, the
emulsified asphalt with the hydrated lime shows more resistance to rutting than either of the
cold recycled mixes with cement.
Soohyok et al. (2018) evaluated one emulsified asphalt and two foamed asphalts with three
different RAP sources using the HWTT. The results show the rut resistance of cold recycled
mixes is significantly influenced by the RAP source (Table 32). Emulsion cold recycled mixes
tend to have slightly better rut resistance than the foamed asphalt mixes.
Tompkins’s (2019) evaluation of the MnROAD cold recycled mixes showed the emulsified
asphalt mixes were more rut resistant than the foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes (Table 33).
APA Rut Tester (AASHTO T 340). Saidi (2019) used the APA rut tester to evaluate emul-
sified asphalt and foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes that were compacted at one of two SGC
compaction levels and two curing temperatures for three days (Table 34). Both the increased
curing temperature and higher compaction level slightly reduced the APA rut depth after
8,000 passes. All the cold recycled mixes met the typical requirement of a maximum of 12.5 mm
rut depth at 8,000 passes.
Triaxial Testing. Diefenderfer and Apeagyei (2014) used AASHTO TP 79 (now T 378)
triaxial testing to evaluate field-mixed, laboratory-compacted foamed asphalt CIR and CCPR
mixes as well as cores from the Virginia DOT I-81 project. Triaxial testing was conducted with
and without confining pressure and various deviator stress levels (Table 35). The results show

Table 30. Influence of percentage of corrective aggregates and type

of RAP aggregate on Hamburg rut testing results at 122çF (50çC).
Materials
Passes to Failure VP Stripping
SN*
RAP Corrective (12.5 mm) Inflection Point
Aggregate Aggregate, %
Emulsion
0% 2,369 37 ---
Limestone 20% 2,202 50 1,876
40% 3,404 31 2,415
0% --- --- ---
Granite 20% 2,957 35 2,049
40% 2,115 48 1,491
Foamed Asphalt
0% No Stripping 68 1,454
Limestone 20% 1,433 55 1,650
40% 1,590 64 1,838
0% --- --- ---
Granite 20% --- --- ---
40% 1,034 134 946
*Parameter is the slope of the stripping number (SN) relationship. Lower values indicate better rut
resistance.
Table 31. Influence of RAP source, active fillers,

and binder type on Hamburg rut testing results.
RAP Passes at Rut Depth at

Materials
Source Failure Failure, mm
4.4% cement 906 14.0
RAP 1 2.3% cement, 2% emulsion 2,254 13.5
4% emulsion, 1% hydrated lime 5,900 14.1
4.4% cement 2,464 9.4
RAP 2 2.3% cement, 2% emulsion 20,000 9.0*
4.4% cement 1,002 13.2
RAP 3 2.3% cement, 2% emulsion 880 12.6
*Cycle stopped at 20,000; this sample did not fail.
Table 32. Influence of binder type and RAP source

on Hamburg rut testing results.
No. of Passes to Failure (12.5 mm)*

RAP
Binder
Source
CSS-1H PG58-28** PG64-22**
FM-92 600 400 150
I-40 500 160 200
US-60 1,500 1,750 1,250
*Estimated from Figure 29 in Soohyok et al. 2018.
**Foamed asphalt.

Table 33. Hamburg rut testing results for MnROAD cold recycled mixes.
Foamed Foamed
Binder Emulsion Emulsion
Asphalt Asphalt
MnROAD CELL 133 233 135 235
Binder or base binder PG58S-28 PG58S-28 PGXX-34 PGXX-34
Binder added (%) 2 1.5 2 1.5
Passes to failure, 12.5 mm
7,120 3,520 5,400 2,880
rut depth
Creep slope ( m/pass) 0.00128 0.00297 0.00166 0.00383
No stripping No stripping No stripping
Stripping inflection point 2,935
point point point
Table 34. Influence of compaction level

and curing temperature on APA rutting.
APA Rut Depth after 8,000 Passes @
Level of 147°F (64°C), mm
Compaction Foamed Asphalt
CSS-1h Emulsion
PG 64-22
Hot Curing @ 140°F (60°C) for 3 days
30 gyrations 4.4 3.0
Cold Curing @ 50°F (10°C) for 3 days
Source: Based on Saidi 2019.
Table 35. Field-mixed, laboratory-compacted foamed asphalt CCPR and CIR mixes
and core flow numbers.
Average Flow Number

Foamed Asphalt No Confining Pressure, 10 psi Confining Pressure, No Confining Pressure,
10 psi Deviator Stress 70 psi Deviator Stress 70 psi Deviator Stress
Field-Mixed, Lab-Compacted
Sieved 66 1,925 ---
CCPR
Not sieved 49 824 ---
CIR Sieved 39 772 ---
Cores
CCPR 2,761 9,158 309
CIR --- --- 62

that even a small confining pressure significantly increases the average flow number. The cold
recycled mix cores have significantly higher flow numbers than the laboratory-mixed, laboratory-
compacted specimens.
Repeated Load Permanent Deformation. AASHTO T 378 describes the laboratory proce-
dures for determining the flow number using asphalt mixture performance testing equipment.
Testing is conducted at a specific test temperature and applies a repeated load pulse of 0.1-second
duration followed by a 0.9-second rest period. Like the traditional triaxial testing, a confining
pressure may, or may not, be used. The flow number is the number of cycles to the start of the
tertiary flow, which is an indication of the start of shear deformation under constant volume.
Schwartz et al. (2017) measured the cumulative microstrain using a 10 psi (69 kPa) confining
pressure, 70 psi (483 kPa) deviator stress, and single test temperature of 113°F (45°C). The
results were used to calculate the constants needed for the MEPDG rutting model:
εp
= 10k1 T k2 N k3
εr
where
εp = measured permanent strain;
εr = resilient strain;
T = temperature, °F;
N = number of load repetitions; and
k1, k2, k3 = RLPD laboratory test parameters.
The average laboratory test parameters determined for cores from a wide range of projects are
shown in Table 36. The exponential constants k2 and k3 for temperature and cycles, respec-
tively, indicate that the plastic strain increases significantly faster for the emulsified asphalt cold
recycled mixes compared to the conventional hot asphalt mixtures (HMA). The plastic strain
of the foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes increases at a faster rate than either of the emulsified
asphalt cold recycled mixes.
The preceding discussion is based on averaging the parameters reported for each project
evaluated by Schwartz et al. (2017). When the parameters for each project are considered (with-
out averaging), some foamed asphalt and emulsion cold mixes can have similar upper micro
strain levels, but the foamed asphalt mixes can also show lower microstrains compared to the
emulsified asphalt cold mixes. The researchers documented other trends as well:
• CIR and CCPR mixes, with either emulsified or foamed asphalt, had similar permanent defor-
mation behavior.
• Incorporating Portland cement into the cold mixes reduced permanent deformation.
Table 36. Average RLPD rutting constants for cold recycled

mix cores.
Exponent for Exponent for Exponent for

Mixtures Constant Temperature Cycles
k1 k2 k3
HMA 2.670 0.481 0.145
CCPR Emulsion 1.490 1.527 0.301
CIR Emulsion 0.569 1.955 0.319
CIR Foamed* 1.052 2.076 0.348
*Only three projects.
Source: Based on Schwartz et al. 2017.

• Variability in measured permanent deformation was higher for cold recycled mixes than for
conventional hot asphalt mixes.
Arambula-Mercado et al. (2018) used RLPD testing to develop the VESYS equation param-
eters (Table 37):
εp (n ) = µε r n −α
The parameters show that using 20% corrective aggregate can be expected to decrease the plastic
strain. Using 40% corrective aggregate continues to decrease the plastic strain, but the decrease
is not as large as seen when going from 0% to 20%.
Gu et al. (2018) evaluated CCPR emulsified and foamed asphalt mixes at 130°F (54.5°C)
using a deviator stress of 70 psi (483 kPa) and a confining pressure of 10 psi (69 kPa). The
CCPR-foamed asphalt mixes showed lower microstrains than the CCPR emulsified asphalt.
Soohyok et al. (2018) conducted RLPD testing with no confining pressure, a deviator stress
of 20 psi (138 kPa), and a test temperature of 104°F (40°C). The testing was conducted up to
10,000 loading cycles or the start of tertiary flow and a 5% permanent strain level. This study
found the emulsified asphalt (CSS-1H) cold recycled mixes had significantly better rut resistance
than either of the foamed asphalts (PG58-28, PG64-22).
Durability
The resistance of cold recycled mixes to raveling, abrasion, and damage from traffic—and the
cohesion characteristics of the mixes—can be evaluated with the following:
• Raveling (ASTM D7196)
• Cantabro (AASHTO TP 108) test
• Cohesive strength (ASTM 3910)
Raveling. The ability of cold recycled mixes to withstand damage from traffic when the
road is initially trafficked and before the final wearing surface is placed is evaluated with ASTM
D7196 for emulsified cold recycled mixes. The AASHTO MP 31 provisional specification sets
the maximum mass loss at 7%.
Ortiz (2017) found the mass loss was dependent on the specific combination of the percentage of
lime slurry, the RAP gradation, and the type of emulsion (Table 38). Emulsified asphalts B and C
had higher mass loss percentages for nongraded RAP than graded RAP for either percentage of
lime slurry. The trend was reversed for emulsified asphalt D and mixed for emulsified asphalt A.
There was no consistent trend for different percentages of lime slurry.
Tompkins (2019) used this test method to evaluate both emulsion and foamed asphalt cold
recycled mixes. Results show the MnROAD foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes had more mass
loss than the emulsified asphalt cold recycled mixes (Table 39).
Table 37. RLPD rutting parameters for VESYS model.
Rutting Model Parameters

Mixture Type
μ α
Limestone, 0% corrective aggregate 0.206 0.665

Table 38. Results from ASTM D7196 raveling test

for Nevada CIR mixes.
Mass Loss, %
Lime Emulsion Code
Slurry, % RAP
Preparation A B C D
Graded 10.5 0.4 1.2 5.0
4.5
Nongraded 7.0 2.3 7.5 0.8
Graded 2.5 2.9 0.2 2.2
6.0
Nongraded 7.0 5.2 3.4 0.5
Source: Based on Ortiz 2017.
Cantabro Test. The Cantabro test (AASHTO TP 108) is used to indirectly evaluate the cohe-
sion, bonding, and effects of traffic on mixtures typically used in porous friction course mix
designs. Arambula-Mercado et al. (2018) used Cantabro testing to evaluate two sources of RAP,
each with a different type of aggregate (limestone, granite), various percentages of two types
of corrective aggregate (limestone, granite), and different types of recycling agent (emulsified,
foamed asphalt). The emulsified granite RAP cold recycled mixes, with or without corrective
aggregate, and the foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes all had significantly higher mass losses
than emulsified asphalt limestone RAP cold mixes (Table 40). Using 1% Portland cement in
foamed asphalt cold mixes helped improve the cold recycled mix durability.
Cox and Howard (2013) evaluated the Cantabro with three replicates of three cold recycled
mixes, all with the same RAP material (no information on the type of aggregate in RAP). All
the specimens were destroyed during testing (mass loss of 97% or more), and the test method
was removed from the final testing program, as it did not differentiate between different mix
variables.
Cohesive Strength. ASTM 3910 can be used to estimate the time needed for a mix to cure
sufficiently before the project is opened to traffic. The equipment is similar to that used for the
raveling test, but a torque measurement device is used to rotate the rubber abrasion head.
Ortiz (2017) prepared two specimens for a preliminary evaluation of a single emulsified
asphalt cold mix. Measurements were taken to determine the torque needed to rotate the loading
head every 30 minutes at three different locations until a torque of 1.5 lb-ft (20 kg-cm) was
reached (Table 41). The curing time was influenced by the type of emulsion and the percentage
of lime slurry. Cold recycled mixes with a higher percentage of lime slurry took longer to cure
to a minimum torque level.
Table 39. Results from ASTM D7196 raveling test

for MnROAD mixes.
Foamed Foamed
Emulsion Asphalt Emulsion Asphalt
Category
MnROAD Cell
133 233 135 235
PG grade PG58S-28 PG58S-28 PGXX-34 PGXX-34
Binder (%) 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.5
Raveling (%) 1.6 3.3 1.7 2.5

Table 40. Influence of asphalt cold mix material

variables on Cantabro mass loss.
Materials Mass Loss, %

Corrective Aggregate, % Limestone RAP Granite RAP
Emulsified Asphalt
0% 42.9 75.8
20% limestone aggregate 14.7 70.4
40% limestone aggregate 3.2 54.8
Foamed Asphalt
0% 90.7 ---
0% with Portland cement 53.1 ---
20% granite aggregate 71.4 ---
40% granite aggregate 86.9 92.6
Source: Based on Arambula-Mercado et al. 2018
Mix Design and Performance Testing Summary

Compaction is usually accomplished with a 75 blow Marshall, Superpave gyratory compactor
(SGC) using either 30 or 35 gyrations. Multiple methods are used to determine both the com-
pacted bulk specific gravity and the theoretical maximum specific gravity. Depending on the
level of air voids and the porosity of any exposed aggregate surface, the density and air voids of
the cold recycled mixes may be significantly under- or over-estimated by different test methods.
Air voids are typically, but not always, higher for cold recycled mixes (typically 9% to 15%)
compared to conventional hot asphalt mixtures.
Marshall stability—unconditioned and soaked, and determined at a reduced temperature—
is used during mix designs. Alternatively, the traditional indirect tensile strength moisture sensi-
tivity test method can be used; but the required level and tolerance range for air voids may need
to be increased, and the required saturation levels may need to be lowered.
Low-temperature cracking tests generally show foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes have
more potential for thermal cracking. Fatigue testing shows cold recycled mixes can provide
adequate fatigue resistance, but mixes with cement can exhibit brittle behavior. Rut testing
shows emulsion cold recycled mixes tend to be more rut resistant than foamed asphalt cold
recycled mixes. However, cold recycled mixes can be less rut resistant than conventional hot
asphalt mixes. Using confining pressure during testing significantly improves the ability of
Table 41. Initial investigation into using torque

measurements to determine the time needed
for cold recycled mixes to cure.
Curing Time to Torque
Lime of 1.5 lb-ft (20 kg-cm)
Slurry, % RAP Emulsion Code
Preparation A B C D
Graded 4.5 6.0 5.5 4.5
4.5
Nongraded 4.5 6.0 5.5 4.5
Graded 5.5 5.5 6.5 5.5
6.0
Nongraded 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0
Source: Based on Ortiz 2017.

cold recycled mixes to resist rutting. Durability testing (i.e., raveling, Cantabro tests) shows
that the source of RAP and the type and amount of active filler influence the test results.
Regardless of the type of performance test, compaction levels, curing times, and curing tem-
peratures consistently have a significant impact on performance testing results. Cold recycled
mixtures tend to be easily damaged during sample preparation and can deform at platen and
specimen clamp points.
Construction Processes
The construction process consists of several factors that need to be monitored and controlled.
A checklist can be used to ensure each part of the process is considered (Busch 2012; Cross 2014;
Christianson and Mahoney 2019; FHWA 2019).
Surface Preparation
Before any work starts, the existing pavement surface needs to be prepared (FHWA 2019).
Any grass and soil need to be removed from the surface and along the edge of the pavement.
If CCPR recycled mixes are to be placed, the newly milled surface needs to be swept to remove
any loose particles and dust (Paving News 2017). Specific requirements may be needed for mill-
ing operations to ensure an acceptable temporary surface until the cold recycled mix is placed.
Any subgrade or base support problems need to be identified and corrected. Subsurface
drainage problems also need to be addressed before construction begins. Pre-milling may be
needed to maintain specified height restrictions or to remove excessive surface distress preser-
vation materials (e.g., crack sealing, variations in previous surface treatments).
Traffic Control
Traffic control is needed for the recycling process; project-specific requirements can be
assessed and coordinated at the preconstruction meeting (Cross et al. 2010). Recycling trains can
be long and move slowly, factors that need to be considered on roads with limited pavement and
shoulder widths and/or few alternative routes. A single-unit recycling train may be preferred in
urban areas with short distances between blocks. Intersections with heavy trucks can rut/shove
fresh cold recycled mix when traffic is allowed on freshly placed cold mix surfaces.
Weather
Temperature and sunlight can influence how well the recycling agent coats the RAP; the
potential breaking time of windrowed emulsion mixes; the time available for working, placing,
and rolling the mix; and the time needed before allowing traffic on the new mix (Schellhammer
2019). Anticipated variations in temperature, humidity, and wind conditions and how they
might influence curing times need to be considered at the start of construction. These factors
can be reevaluated at the start of each day’s paving. The FHWA technical brief (Wagner 2018)
notes the preferable ambient air temperature in the shade is at least 50°F (10°C), with no weather
forecasts for measurable precipitation or freezing temperatures.
McCarty (2017) recommends that the pavement temperature be at least 65°F (18°C) and
rising, with a maximum of 130°F (54°C). An ambient temperature above 60°F (16°C), with a
maximum of 95°F (35°C) and a minimum overnight low of 35°F (2°C) is desirable. Seasonal
exclusions for cold recycling projects may be needed, depending on the project elevation.

Lombardo (2018) notes that the RAP, rather than the air temperature, needs to be greater
than 50°F (10°C). Cooler temperatures cause the foamed asphalt to cool too quickly, and asphalt
stringers can form, which—according to the Virginia DOT’s experience—makes compaction
difficult.
CCPR
The cold recycled material can be mixed in a portable batch or drum plant, or at an existing
plant. Regardless of the type of plant, the cold feed bin rates are used to control the proportions
of the RAP and any corrective aggregates that are fed into the plant. Emulsified asphalts need
shorter mixing times, and care is needed to avoid over-mixing, which results in scrubbing the
emulsified asphalt off the coarser aggregate particles. This can lead to premature breaking of the
emulsion and overly stiff mixtures. Under-mixing may leave the mix only partially coated, but
the additional movement of the mix during placement and rolling helps by further mixing and
coating it.
Ideally, the CCPR mixes are loaded into haul trucks and delivered to the paver within 1 hour
of mixing (Wielinski 2017). CCPR mix lift thicknesses need to be kept to 3 in. (75 mm) or less,
but multiple lifts can be used as long as sufficient time is given to allow emulsion mixes to break
before the next layer is placed (Kandhal and Mallick 1997, chap. 13).
Limiting the height of CCPR RAP stockpiles at the portable central plant location minimizes
the dead load. To prevent consolidation and clumping, it is important to keep construction
equipment off the RAP material, particularly in hot weather.
Locating a Cold Central Plant Operation

CCPR mobile plants can be used to temporarily store RAP and then produce cold recycled
mix from a single project, or they can be located at or near an existing surplus RAP stockpile.
If the agency owns an existing RAP stockpile, which is typically located at a maintenance or
storage facility, then the CCPR plant can be set up at that location. The agency asset manager
can help identify possible CCPR plant locations (D. Schellhammer, personal communication,
May 11, 2020).
The primary factors to consider when determining the location of a CCPR operation are these:
• Sufficient available space
• The capacity of roadways going in and coming out
• Site conditions
The location needs enough room for tankers to move in and out and to turn around—so
a minimum of 2 acres is preferable. The tanker acts as the liquid storage tank(s) so only one
tanker is moving in and out at a time. Also, the location needs to have a working platform for
the equipment and be sufficiently level to prevent material loss and allow proper front end loader
operation. A cement-stabilized area is an acceptable working platform.
If the portable plant needs to be located somewhere within the community other than an
existing agency or contractor site, then establishing communications with the local community
is critical. Clear and transparent explanations about the economic and environmental benefits
need to be included in any discussions as well as explanations of hours of operations, haul routes,
and how the plant operates. CCPR processes are dustless and exhaustless with limited numbers
of tankers and haul trucks, factors that also need to be communicated to the community.
One main benefit of using CCPR mobile plants to produce cold recycled mixes is that the voids
in the mix can be reduced with the use of secondary RAP stockpile processing. RAP materials
coming from different projects and lift locations can be blended to provide a mix with more

consistent properties. This is particularly helpful when the RAP comes from both driving lanes
and roadway shoulder, or from multiple projects. One advantage for CCPR is that RAP material
properties can be assessed for better control of the recycled asphalt mix properties.
Long RAP storage times can make it difficult to effectively work the stockpile as the RAP
begins to clump together. RAP moisture content influences the consistency of the cold recycled
mix properties. The moisture of the RAP stockpile can be measured at portable plant locations
with low-tech procedures, such as drying a sample on a hot plate and using a scale to measure
the before and after drying mass. The stockpile can be covered for short-term moisture control
if the CCPR plant needs to keep producing during wet weather.
Larger-size contaminants can cause problems with production when crack fillers and fabric
clog the screens. These contaminants can be more easily removed during screening at CCPR
operations at the plant location than during CIR construction on the roadway.
Milling
Standard milling equipment is used to remove the existing pavement to the required depth,
restore the pavement surface to the correct grade and slope, minimize or eliminate pavement
distresses, and improve the roadway ride quality (Cross 2015; FHWA 2019). The milling opera-
tion can be an integral part of the in-place recycling equipment, or it can be a separate operation
that removes and stockpiles the RAP at the CCPR location.
The width of milling operations needs to overlap any previous passes by at least 4 in. (100 mm),
and the milling depths and widths need to be verified during construction (Wagner 2018). The
milling equipment needs to be inspected to ensure the miller meets the required width, the
cutting teeth are in place and in good shape, the milling equipment has sufficient weight and
horsepower to cut to the required depth and at the required tolerances, and the spray bar and
nozzles are working and not clogged.
Milling Machine Characteristics

For CCPR, the milling operation may be separate from the paving process. In this case, the
milled surface may need to be exposed to traffic for a limited time. A fine, consistent texture
is desirable when the milled surface functions as a temporary driving surface. Micromillers
produce a fine surface texture but only remove a few millimeters of the existing surface. Full-
lane-width millers are used for the majority of milling operations, but smaller, narrower milling
units can be used in tight areas and around utility features (e.g., manhole covers) (Christianson
and Mahoney 2019).
Factors that contribute to the surface texture, and the uniformity of the texture, include the
cutting teeth configuration, miller speed, overall condition of the equipment (i.e., maintenance,
track pad condition), pavement condition, and amount of water used for dust control (Chastain
2019). Worn-out track pads generate an uneven platform for the cutting drum and loss of trac-
tion. A standard cutting pattern uses a triple wrap of teeth spaced at 5�8-in. (16-mm) intervals.
This configuration is useful for removing old pavements up to 17 in. (38 cm) deep. A cutter drum
with teeth spacing at 5�16 in. (8 mm) produces a finer texture, but this configuration can remove
only a few millimeters to a few centimeters in a single pass. Finer surface textures are obtained
with slower milling speeds (Figure 28).
Distributors
Distributors (i.e., nurse trucks) supply the emulsion to the recycling unit. The recycling train
must be able to push the nurse trucks to keep them moving at the same speed as the other
equipment (Christianson and Mahoney 2019). The tank interior needs to be clean, dedicated

Source: Based on Chastain 2019.
Figure 28. Examples of different

pavement textures that are generated
with different milling speeds.
to transporting a single material, and not contaminated with other materials. A flexible hose
connects the nurse truck to the pugmill/recycling unit (FHWA 2019).
Field Adjustments to Material Quantities

The environmental conditions at the construction site influence the quantities of water, recy-
cling agents, corrective aggregates, and active filler needed throughout the day. As the tempera-
ture increases, the initial optimum emulsion content typically needs to be reduced (Wegman
and Sabouri 2019). Limited changes in the field to quantities defined in the mix design and
job mix formula may be allowed. If the changes are minor, experience has shown they can be
expected to have little influence on the short-term performance as it relates to surface raveling
or cohesivity.
VanFrank (2015) noted that the existing pavement temperature influenced both the RAP
gradation obtained during milling operations and how easily the cold recycled mix compacted.
As the cold recycled mix became easier to compact, the contractor typically decreased the emul-
sion content only between 0.5% and 1.0% lower than the mix design to keep from producing a
tender mix that was prone to moving and rutting under traffic. On one project (VanFrank 2015),
observations showed that for every 5°F (9°C) increment above 85°F (29°C), the emulsion target
was reduced by 0.1%. The early cracking distresses on some of these projects were attributed
to residual asphalt contents that were too low to resist traffic-related and thermal cracking.
Another concern was that if the liquid quantities were decreased too far, then the emulsion
might flash set before compaction could be completed.
Typical field adjustments to material quantities use the mix design quantities as a starting
point; agencies have different tolerances for allowing changes in quantities in the field. McCarty
(2017) noted that the binder content (i.e., recycling agent) production target was set at ± 0.3% of

the mix design, and ± 0.2% allowances were permitted from the production target. Cross (2012)
conducted a 13-agency survey that showed the following allowable recycling agent tolerances:
• ± 0.2% (7 agencies)
• ± 0.3% (1 agency)
• ± 0.1% (1 agency)
A visual examination of the emulsified cold recycled mix being produced can determine
whether about 75% of the particles are coated. The mix needs to have adequate cohesion that
can be observed by squeezing the mix by hand into a ball. If the ball crumbles after the pressure
is released, then there is inadequate cohesion. If the mix is adequately coated but lacks cohesion,
the water content may need to be increased. Too little water results in mix segregation, raveling
under traffic, and/or poor density; excess water results in flushing and retards curing. If the
palm of the hand is coated with emulsion, then the emulsion content may need to be decreased
slightly. The look of the mat should be brown and cohesive. A shiny black mat indicates too
much emulsion, and excessive raveling indicates too little emulsion.
Successful projects routinely acknowledge the experienced individuals and emulsion manu-
facturer representatives on-site who provide good communication and timely education of
field staff.
Fillers
Portland cement or lime (or other dry materials) can be dry spread ahead of milling, added at
the mill head, or added directly into the pugmill. If the dry materials are spread in front of the
milling operation, then the materials need to be spread uniformly across the entire width of the
lane when using single-unit trains with no pugmill.
Dry materials added in slurry form can be added at the milling head or into the pugmill
(Cross et al. 2010).
Recycling Unit
The recycling unit consists of some means of managing the maximum RAP size, adding the
required materials, and mixing all the materials. The screen deck needs to have the proper size
openings to meet the required maximum RAP particle size, with the ability to divert the over-
sized material back through the crusher (Cross et al. 2010). The pugmill components (such
as the arrangement of the pugmill paddles), the height of the pugmill end gate, and the location of
the spray bar can be adjusted to control the quantities of added materials and the uniformity of
the cold recycled mix. Pugmill paddles should be in good condition, and appropriate clearance
should be maintained between the paddles and wall of the pugmill. The walls of the pugmill
need to be inspected to ensure there are no holes or evidence of excessive wear. The quanti-
ties of liquid materials added to the pugmill are influenced by the condition of the spray bar
components. The supply lines for incorporating additional water and emulsions, or from the
foamed asphalt portion of the equipment, should show no signs of clogging. It is important for
the materials to be delivered to the pugmill in a consistent, uniform manner.
Recycling agent and additive systems need to be properly calibrated and capable of accu-
rately dispensing required quantities. Typically, on-board equipment control systems have
meters that record the rate of flow and the total amount of each liquid being added (Wagner
2018). These systems are usually positive interlock systems that are linked to forward speed to
maintain the addition of liquid recycling agent according to the speed of the equipment. Full
equipment calibrations are completed at the start of paving season, and in-place volumetric
calibrations are done after every lot during paving (Cross 2014).

Equipment calibration can be checked using material quantity volumetrics at the end of each
day, certified delivery weigh tickets, or by using the canvas patch test. For foamed asphalt, the
system needs to have a sampling valve so the expansion ratio and half-life of the material can
be verified.
Paver
The cold recycled mix can be placed with conventional paving equipment as long as the screed
is not heated. A heated screed can tear the mat, influence breaking rates, and result in a less
workable mix (Kandhal and Mallick 1997, chap. 13). A paver with 170 hp is commonly consid-
ered the minimum power level for placing cold recycled mixes (Wielinski 2017).
The recycled mix is transferred directly into the paver hopper or a surge bin placed in the
hopper. Surge bins can help manage larger volumes of material and prevent spillover. When
windrows are used, sufficient lateral movement of the mix across the width of the screed requires
a paver with enough power to pick up the full windrow. The pickup device needs to be close
enough to the pugmill that emulsified asphalt cold recycled mixes do not start to break in the
windrow. Also, when the paver lags behind the recycling unit, the paver operator may raise the
windrow elevator an inch or two above the milled surface to keep up. This leads to lateral density
differences across the lane and segregation of the mix (VanFrank 2015).
The mix needs to be placed to the required grade, slope, and crown, and the longitudinal and
transverse joints need to be properly constructed. The paver should be operated with the auto-
matic grade and cross-slope controls (Cross et al. 2010).
Ambient and pavement temperatures can influence paving operations. The Utah DOT (2017)
reported that when the pavement temperature was above 90°F (32°C), the temperature in the
windrow was as high as 136°F (58°C) and the production slowed significantly (VanFrank
2015). In this case, the contractor chose to move paving to cooler nighttime work. In addition,
the emulsion content needed to be reduced by about 0.1% for every 5°F (3°C) increase in the
windrow temperature to keep the mix workable through and behind the paver.
Rolling
Both steel wheel and pneumatic tire rollers are needed to compact cold recycled asphalt
mixtures. But the number and sequencing of rollers vary widely. A 13-agency survey by Cross
et al. (2010) noted the following requirements for vibratory double steel drum rollers:
• 9-ton minimum (1 agency)
• 10-ton minimum (5 agencies)
The requirements for pneumatic tire rollers included these:

• Less than 20 tons (1 agency)
• 25 tons or greater (9 agencies)
While agencies and contractors seem to agree that both types of rollers are needed, which
type is best for breakdown and intermediate rolling varies. Heavy pneumatic tire rollers can
be used for breakdown rolling (Kandhal and Mallick 1997, chaps. 12 and 13; Cross et al. 2010;
McCarty 2017), and vibrating steel wheel rollers (high frequency and low amplitude) can be
used as the finish rollers. Zagoudis (2013), VanFrank (2015), Wielinski (2017), Wagner (2018),
and Gallegos (2019) indicate steel wheel rollers can be used for breakdown, and pneumatic tire
rollers can be used as the intermediate rollers. Steel wheel rollers in static mode are then used for

finish rolling to remove any pneumatic tire impressions. If pneumatic rubber tire rollers tend to
shove the mix when used as the breakdown rollers, then one or two passes with a double steel
wheel roller can help prevent excessive shoving. The ability of any combination and sequencing
of rollers is usually established for each project by constructing a test strip. McCarty (2017)
documented that satisfactory compaction was achieved on a northern Arizona project using
two heavy pneumatic tire rollers for breakdown (minimum 30 tons), operating in tandem, with
a minimum of nine passes. Finish rolling was completed with a 12-ton steel wheel roller with a
minimum of two coverages. Traffic was returned to the roadway after a 2-hour waiting period.
The number of rollers available needs to be sufficient to keep up with the construction speed;
they need to meet the weight and width requirements; and the water systems and spray bars for
roller scrapers need to be working and in good shape (FHWA 2019). The pneumatic tire pres-
sure needs to be consistent and the tires inflated to the proper pressure.
Care is needed to ensure the mix is not over-rolled; the roller stops, starts, and turns are gradual;
and the finish rolling is completed within the required time frame. Only a light application of
water on drums or tires—to prevent pickup—is necessary.
The Nevada DOT routinely waits to compact the mix until after the emulsion breaks, which
is usually between 1 and 2 hours (Busch 2012). Once compaction is complete, the surface is
fog sealed and a sand blotter is applied before opening to traffic. The traffic can be helpful for
further compaction on low-volume roads.
Test Strips
Some agencies allow work to proceed if the test strip was successfully constructed while other
agencies require material to be obtained and the mix design values verified before work starts.
The difficulty with using the field-mixed, laboratory-compacted specimens to establish the field
target density is that a significant amount of time is needed between sampling and obtaining
test results; construction equipment and staff sit idle until results are obtained. When the milled
material shows evidence of substantial changes as the construction proceeds, further delays
result during the wait for new target densities.
Test strips, usually at least 1,000 ft long, can be used to establish a rolling pattern at the
beginning of construction (Wagner 2018). The goal of constructing the test strip is to establish
the maximum achievable in-place density using a reasonable compaction effort (Cross 2015).
The test strip is also used to demonstrate the specific equipment, sequencing of equipment,
materials, and recycling processes that can produce a pavement layer that conforms to specifi-
cation requirements. During the construction of the test strip, optimal material quantities are
established, and the accurate metering of materials is validated. Additionally, test strips can be
used to obtain RAP samples before binders and other materials are added. These RAP samples
are then used to prepare laboratory-mixed, laboratory-compacted cold recycled mix specimens
to verify the original mix design and establish the target compacted specimen density for field
quality assurance (QA) testing.
The relative wet density of the test strip is measured with a nuclear density gauge (AASHTO
T 355, ASTM D2950). The density is measured after every roller pass and used to develop a plot
of density versus the number of passes until the break-over point is reached. That is when the
wet density stops increasing and starts to decrease with continued rolling. Daily communica-
tion with the roller operators is needed to review the rolling patterns needed for achieving the
required density.
The downside of establishing the rolling pattern, rather than setting a density requirement, is
that a fixed rolling pattern cannot be easily altered to adapt to environmental conditions as they
change throughout the day.

In-Place Density
Field density can be specified as 97% to 98% of test strip density, field compacted density, or
laboratory bulk specific gravity (Cox and Howard 2013). Alternatively, densities can be specified
as relative compaction that is 95% to 105% of the maximum break-over curve density (Wielinski
2017). A new break-over curve needs to be established if the test results are outside of compac-
tion limits.
If specimens are compacted in the field, a range of methods are used to prepare the spec-
imens, including a Proctor hammer, a modified Proctor hammer, and a Marshall hammer
(Christianson and Mahoney 2019).
Schwartz et al. (2017) used a nuclear moisture-density gauge to track foamed asphalt stabi-
lized base density and moisture. Results showed these gauges are useful for monitoring the mois-
ture content, but only if the actual moisture content is used for correlating the nuclear gauges.
Undamaged cores can be obtained only once the cold recycled mix has cured, which can take
several days to weeks. It can be difficult to correlate cured specimen laboratory density to wet
densities measured with a nuclear gauge during construction.
The Utah DOT developed a method for setting a target density based on field mix compacted
specimens with 30 gyrations and establishing roller patterns to achieve the best compaction
effort (Kergaye 2017). Specimens need to be compacted immediately after the mix is sampled.
Cold recycled mixes that are sampled and compacted later have significantly different properties
than those compacted immediately after sampling. If the mixes need to be sampled for compac-
tion later, then the maximum time between sampling and compaction as well as storage and
compaction temperatures need to be clearly defined.
Time Between Mixing (Stockpiling) or Sampling and Testing

The amount of time between taking field samples and then compacting and testing cold
recycled mixes influences the test results. Cross (2012) evaluated the effect of the time between
sampling and testing field samples on an Oroville, California, Federal Lands Highway (FLH)
project. Emulsified asphalt cold recycled mix samples were obtained in the morning then
compacted in the field lab (35 gyrations) that afternoon at ambient temperatures. Samples
obtained in the afternoon arrived at the field lab late in the evening and were not compacted
until the next morning. Both the compacted specific gravity and the air voids were significantly
influenced by the time between sampling and compaction (Table 42). The dynamic modulus was
also significantly affected by the time between sampling and compaction. Specimens sampled in
Table 42. Impact of delaying compaction on cold

recycled mix properties.
Sampled Afternoon Sampled in

of Day Before, Morning,
Property
Compacted in Compacted in
Morning Afternoon
Air voids, % 20.2 14.7
Indirect tensile
72.1 74.5
strength, dry, psi
Indirect tensile
64.5 55.6
strength, wet, psi
TSR, % 90 75
Dynamic modulus
355 456
@ 20°C, 1 Hz, ksi
Source: Based on Cross 2012.

the morning and compacted in the afternoon had significantly lower voids and higher moduli
values than specimens sampled in the afternoon and compacted the next morning.
Khosravifar (2012) and Schwartz et al. (2017) reported on the effect of stockpiling time from
0 to 15 days for typical Virginia foamed asphalt RAP mixes. The mix comprised 2.5% foamed
asphalt, 100% RAP, and 1% Portland cement. The indirect tensile strength was 58 psi (399 kPa)
immediately after compaction and decreased to 44 psi (303 kPa) after 3 days of storage. The wet
indirect tensile strength was about 46 psi (317 kPa) immediately after compaction and decreased
to about 35 psi (241 kPa) after 3 days of storage.
Kazmi (2018) provided a further evaluation for the Virginia DOT of the effect of time between
mixing and compacting on CCPR mix properties. The cold central plant was used to prepare a
mix of 85% RAP, 15% corrective aggregate (No. 10), 2.5% foamed binder, 1% Portland cement,
and a moisture content of 4.8%. Samples were taken from the mix and placed in a 5-gal bucket
lined with a plastic bag. The bucket was sealed to maintain the moisture content. Checks of
moisture showed a consistent 6% moisture in the bags of specimens that were fabricated at
various times after mixing. Specimens were prepared to a fixed height of 7 in. (180 mm) with
an SGC. The number of gyrations needed to compact the specimens to the fixed height (i.e.,
density) increased linearly with storage time. Specimens compacted immediately needed only
50 gyrations to obtain the required height. However, specimens compacted after 6 days of
storage needed approximately 410 gyrations.
Dynamic modulus at 1 Hz decreased as the time after mixing increased up to 3 days. The
increased compactive effort needed to achieve the required height was attributed to the need to
break up the cement hydration bonds.
The indirect tensile strength specimens were prepared using the 75 blow Marshall method.
The compactive effort was kept constant, but the mass in the mold needed to be reduced to
get the correct specimen height. Indirect tensile strength decreased with increasing time after
mixing and leveled off after about 3 days (Figure 29). The voids increased with increasing time
between sampling and compaction.
Source: Based on Kazmi 2018.
Figure 29. Influence of stockpiling time on foamed asphalt cold

recycled mix indirect tensile strength.

Delays between mixing the cold recycled materials and testing result in lower densities and
strengths than mixes that are compacted shortly after mixing and sampling. Specimens need to
be compacted and tested on the same day they are mixed. Storage times as short as overnight
will significantly influence the test results.
Materials and Testing

Testing requirements, other than density, include verification and monitoring of individual
material quantities and verification of key construction equipment and processes (McCarty 2017;
ARRA CR301). Individual material properties for foamed asphalt, emulsions, Portland cement,
and lime are typically accepted based on the submittal of a certificate of analysis provided by
the material supplier. Alternatively, individual material samples can be taken and returned to
the laboratory for testing (Cross 2014). When foamed asphalt is used, the asphalt temperature
needs to be checked before connecting the tanker to the recycling unit. The expansion ratio and
half-life need to be measured at the test nozzle on the recycling unit or mixer for compliance
with the specifications.
The physical properties of the corrective aggregates, if used, can also be accepted based on
a certificate of analysis provided by the material supplier. Alternatively, key aggregate prop-
erties can be assessed using materials sampled from the stockpile according to AASHTO T 2
(ASTM D75). The recommended aggregate testing includes (ARRA CR301):
• AASHTO T 27 (ASTM C136) for sieve analysis
• AASHTO T 11 (ASTM C117) for determining the minus No. 200 (0.075-mm) sieve by
washing
• AASHTO T 96 (ASTM C131) for durability using Los Angeles abrasion
• AASHTO T 176 (ASTM D2419) for sand equivalent test
The QA testing evaluates the maximum RAP particle size and the dry or wet RAP gradation
from the maximum top size, and usually down to the No. 30 (0.60-mm) sieve size. The RAP
temperature can be measured using a stem thermometer or handheld infrared temperature
“gun.” RAP moisture content can be measured using one of the following methods:
• AASHTO T 329 Standard Method of Test for Moisture Content of Asphalt Mixtures by Oven
Method
• ASTM D2216 Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)
Content of Soil and Rock by Mass
• ASTM D4643 Standard Test Method for Determination of Water Content of Soil and Rock
by Microwave Oven Heating
• AASHTO T 265 Standard Method of Test for Laboratory Determination of Moisture Content
of Soils
The mixing equipment is calibrated by delivering known quantities of RAP, bituminous
recycling agent, and water through the equipment. If the application rate varies by more than
10% (considered an acceptable equipment tolerance range) as determined by volumetric calcu
lations, then the equipment needs to be recalibrated.
The milling depth is commonly measured adjacent to the longitudinal joint every 100 ft
(33 m). The depth of recycled material can be measured with a depth probe, across the mat
width behind the screed. The cross slope can be measured across the width of the mat using a
Smart level to within ± 0.1% of the specified cross fall. The surface tolerance, as measured with a
10-ft (3-m) straight edge, is typically required not to vary by more than 3�8 in. (10 mm) over the
10-ft (3-m) length in any direction.

Opening to Traffic
The cold recycled mix surface is usually fog sealed before the roadway is opened to traffic to
seal the new surface. Blotter sand can be used on top of the fog seal to minimize the tracking
and raveling of the cold recycled mix. Excess blotter sand should not be allowed (FHWA 2019).
Any needed temporary pavement markings, as specified, should be placed before opening to
traffic. Depending on how fast the cold recycled mix cures, the traffic speeds may need to be
controlled at reduced speeds for an extended time to prevent raveling.
The Utah DOT (2017) requires a torque reading greater than 30 lb-ft (4 kg-m) for the shear
vane test before the roadway can be opened to traffic.
Secondary Compaction
Supplemental compaction, also referred to as secondary compaction, is done with emulsified
asphalt cold mixes after the roadway has been open to traffic but before the final wearing surface
is placed. It can remove minor depressions due to traffic (FHWA 2019) or provide further
densification of the cold recycled layer, which can minimize rutting (Saidi 2019). Cross (2012)
proposed modifications to the FLH CIR specification that includes provisions for supplemental
compaction. Supplemental compaction is undertaken a minimum of two days after the initial
compaction but before the final wearing surface is placed. Pneumatic and steel drum rollers
are used when the pavement temperature is at least 80°F (27°C). A new rolling pattern, using
the same equipment and procedures as for the initial compaction, should be established, with
a minimum of four roller passes. The new density needs to be within 5% of the target density
as measured with a nuclear density gauge; additional compaction can be stopped if checking or
cracking in the mat is seen, or if the CIR surface temperature drops below 80°F (27°C).
In 2017, McCarty of the Arizona DOT regional office in Flagstaff suggested revisions to the
state’s CIR specifications based on a forensic evaluation of a CIR project that had exhibited early
poor performance. These included requiring secondary compaction when the ambient tempera-
ture is at least 80°F (27°C) and monitoring density during compaction using a thin lift nuclear
density gauge. The wet density can be compared to the field compacted specimens, and the dry
density then compared to the theoretical maximum density.
Caltrans recently updated Section 30-5 for Cold In-Place Recycling Using Emulsified Asphalt.
Section 30-5.-3.H for supplemental compaction requires that the CIR surface be recompacted
after curing is complete, before smoothness testing and before the overlay is placed. “Cured” is
defined as one of the following:
• 3 days and the moisture measured at the mid-depth of the CIR layer is 2.0% or less
• 10 days without rainfall
The final wearing surface must be placed within at most 15 days after the completion of the
CIR surface.
A new rolling pattern and break-over density need to be established for the supplementary
compaction effort. Recompaction is done only after curing is complete and when the CIR
surface temperature is at least 80°F (27°F).
Laboratory Study to Investigate the Impact of Time and Temperature

on the Benefits of Supplemental Compaction
Campos (2019) reported the results of a laboratory study designed to evaluate the effects
of supplemental compaction applied at different times and temperatures. Cold recycled mixes
were prepared using 2.5% additional water, 3% of an engineered polymer-modified cationic

emulsion, one source of RAP, and four levels of Portland cement (0%, 0.3%, 0.6%, and 1%).
Specimens were mixed and compacted (30 gyrations) at room temperature [77°F ± 9°F (25°C
± 5°C)]. One set of specimens was extruded and tested immediately. Other specimens were left
in the molds and subjected to additional compaction after 2 hours, or after 48 hours. Specimens
were cured at one of two temperatures [77°F or 90°F (25°C or 32°C)] in between the initial
and supplemental compaction effort. Specimens were extruded only after the supplemental
compaction was complete.
The air voids and Marshall stability (wet, dry) were determined for all mixture, compac-
tion, and curing temperature variables (Table 43). Additional performance testing for mixes
with zero and 0.3% cement included Hamburg rut testing, indirect tensile strengths (dry, wet),
and SCB fracture energy. Results showed that supplemental compaction applied 2 hours after
initial compaction reduced air voids, increased Marshall stabilities (wet and dry) and indirect
tensile strengths, and decreased rutting potential. Supplemental compaction at 48 hours tended
to either provide no additional benefit or to be detrimental to mix properties.
When the specimens were cured at either temperature for 48 hours before the supplemental
compaction was applied, the air voids remained around the same levels as those compacted
and tested at 2 hours. In several cases, regardless of the curing and subsequent supplemental
compaction, the Marshall stabilities (dry and wet) and indirect tensile strengths (dry and wet)
Table 43. Influence of supplemental compaction time

and temperature on cold recycled mix properties.
Supplemental Compaction Temperature and Time

Active Filler, % 77°F (25°C) 90°F (32°C)
48 2 48
Immediate 2 hours
hours hours hours
Air Voids*
No cement 15.3 9.5 15.0 12.3 13.2
0.3% cement 14.0 11.5 14.5 13.5 12.2
0.6% cement 14.5 13.3 14.5 12.2 12.8
1% cement 17.0 13.7 13.5 12.5 15.8
Marshall Stability, lb, Dry*
No cement 3,950 5,150 4,250 5,650 5,400
0.3% cement 3,250 4,350 3,800 5,400 4,250
0.6% cement 3,600 4,550 4,150 5,050 5,200
1% cement 3,200 4,550 4,600 4,200 4,150
Marshall Stability, lb, Wet*
No cement 2,800 5,600 2,850 3,975 3,050
0.3% cement 2,800 3,850 3,450 3,800 4,450
0.6% cement 3,400 4,000 3,800 4,550 4,550
1% cement 3,000 3,950 4,050 4,800 4,100
Indirect Tensile Strength, psi, Dry*
0.3% cement 68 90 66 123 108
Indirect Tensile Strength, psi, Wet*
0.3% cement 43 68 55 88 79
Hamburg Rut Testing, mm @ 20,000 Passes
0.3% cement 4.0 2.5 5.3 3.1 3.9
*Values estimated from graphs in the presentation.
Source: Based on Campos 2019.

were lower after 48 hours compared to the 2-hour results (Figure 30). The Hamburg rut depths
also increased if the supplemental compaction was delayed for 48 hours.
The benefits that can be gained with supplemental compaction may be more easily obtained
if the additional compaction occurs within a short time after the initial compaction. The mix
variables may also influence the effectiveness of supplemental compaction. These possibilities
need to be evaluated in future research projects.
Curing
Some agencies have recently evaluated stiffness measurements or the shear resistance of
the mix as an indication of curing. The Utah DOT completed a 5-year study for improving the
design and construction of cold recycled mix projects (VanFrank et al. 2016; Kergaye 2017). The
study developed a shear vane test method to determine when the final wear course can be placed.
Most frequently, agencies specify either a minimum curing time or a maximum moisture
content, while some agencies and industry recommendations include both (Bowers et al. 2020).
Typical curing times range from 2 to 10 days; maximum moisture contents range from 1% to 3.5%.
The optimum moisture content can also be defined as a percentage of the mix design. ARRA
recommends a minimum curing time of 3 days and a maximum moisture content of 3% or less.
While moisture content is routinely used to specify when the cold recycled mix can be opened
to traffic, the method used to measure the in-place moisture is rarely defined.
Moisture Content Measurements

One researcher explored the use of dielectric constant sensors embedded in the CIR pave-
ment layer to measure the in-place moisture on nine projects (Woods 2011). All of the projects
experienced significant rainfall before the final overlay wearing surface was placed (Table 44).
160 160
25C (77F) 32C (90F)
Immediate 2 hr 48 hr Immediate 2 hr 48 hr
140 140
125
120 120
Indirect Tensile Strength, psi
105
100 100
90
85
80 78
80
68 68 70 68
60 55 60
45 45
40 40
20 20
0 0
IDT, Dry IDT, Wet IDT, Dry IDT, Wet
Source: Based on Campos 2019.
Figure 30. Impact of curing temperatures and timing of supplemental compaction

on indirect tensile strength (0.3% cement).

Table 44. Moisture measurements for instrumented CIR projects in Iowa.
Days
Daily
Before
No. of Initial to Peak Time to Drain Moisture
Recycling Wearing
Year County Rainfall Moisture to Pre-Rain Fluctuations
Agent Surface
Events Content, %* Level, hours During No-
Was
Rain Periods
Placed
2008 Scott CSS-1 14 19 2% to over 16% 24 to 28 2% to 3%
Foamed
2008 Grundy 11 22 3% to over 20% 24 1% to 2%
asphalt
2009 Clinton HFMS-2S 10 36 3.5% to over 16% 24 1%
Foamed
2009 Iowa 4 27 3% to over 14% 24 1%
asphalt
Foamed
2010 Benton 18 28 3% to over 22% 24 1%
asphalt
Foamed
2010 Marshall 4 28 3% to over 20% 24 1%
asphalt
Foamed
2010 Delaware (1) 9 41 2% to over 12% 24 < 1%
asphalt
Foamed
2010 Delaware (2) 7 24 4% to over 16% 24 2%
asphalt
Foamed
2011 Blackhawk 4 21 2% to over 20% 24 1%
asphalt
*Sensors located 2 in. (50 mm) below CIR surface.
Source: Based on Woods 2011.
While the moisture content frequently increased to more than 16% after a rainfall, the CIR layer
quickly drained the excess water, usually within 24 hours of the rain stopping.
The initial research at the start of the project evaluated the rate of change in moisture content
due to temperature changes (Figure 31) and humidity changes (Figure 32). Sensors were placed
in two projects at 2 in. (50 mm) and 3.5 in. (89 mm) from the CIR surface. The rate of change
in the moisture content is somewhat dependent on the depth of the sensors in the CIR layer.
Figure 31. Influence of temperature on the rate of moisture changes

in CIR layer.

Figure 32. Influence of humidity on the rate of moisture changes in

CIR layer.
Moisture content changes more rapidly as the temperature increases. Changes in the moisture
content slow as the humidity increases. All instrumented projects show the moisture content
was continually fluctuating, from 1% to 2%, as the environmental conditions changed through-
out the day.
If the wearing surface is placed before the cold mix has cured, trapped moisture can cause
delamination, stripping, or rutting (Carter et al. 2013; Wagner 2018).
Curing is slowed in shaded areas of the pavement. Newer solventless emulsions and engi-
neered emulsions can cure in a few days, but older solvent-based emulsions can take up to
2 weeks to cure. Foamed asphalt mixes cure significantly faster than some emulsified asphalt
cold recycled mixes. Carter et al. (2013) noted that the use of foamed asphalt reduces the curing
period from the 14 days needed for emulsion mixes to 3 days.
Layer Stiffness as an Indication of Curing

Seven of the nine Iowa projects that were instrumented with moisture sensors were also
evaluated with a GeoGauge to measure the CIR layer stiffness (Table 45).
Betti et al. (2017) examined six foamed asphalt bituminous stabilized material (BSM)
sections, comparing the results from a lightweight deflectometer (LWD), collected 4 hours after
construction, to those from an FWD, conducted 24 hours after construction. The 6.7-in. (17-cm)
thick cold recycled mix layer test sections were placed in Florence, Italy, and used various per
centages of foamed asphalt, one of two active fillers (Portland cement, lime), and one inactive
filler (mineral filler). The Italian Road Authority requires LWD stiffness of greater than 7 psi
(45 MPa), which all six test sections met at 4 hours after construction (Figure 33). This testing
showed layer moduli between 92 psi and 98 psi (634 kPa and 676 kPa) for the two sections with
only lime or lime plus mineral filler. Layer moduli were between 133 psi and 163 psi (917 kPa
and 1,124 kPa) for sections with cement.
Additional FWD testing was conducted at 14 days, 28 days, and 9 months. The six test sections
were closed to traffic for the 9 months needed for testing, and the sections had only a surface
treatment for protection from the environment. All but one of the six test sections showed
that most of the increase in layer stiffness occurred within the first 2 weeks after construction
(Figure 34). The presence of lime in the mixtures seems to slow the strength gain over time.

Table 45. Measure of stiffness after CIR was placed and before wearing surface was placed.
Days Before
Stiffness After Peak , Wearing
Year County Recycling Agent Peak Stiffness, MN/m
MN/m Surface Was
Placed
2009 Clinton HFMS-2S 35 at 3 days 30 36
26 but started to
2009 Iowa Foamed asphalt 28 to 30 at 11 days 27
increase again at 23 days
12 but started to
2010 Benton Foamed asphalt 18 to 20 at 4 days 28
increase again at 14 days
20 to 22 and continued
2010 Marshall Foamed asphalt 15 to 17 at 12 days 28
to increase
2010 Delaware (1) Foamed asphalt Consistently 25 to 27 41
2010 Delaware (2) Foamed asphalt 25 to 30 at 12 days 22 to 25 24
2011 Blackhawk Foamed asphalt Fluctuated between 20 and 38 over the entire period 21
Note: MN/m = MegaNewton/meter.
Schwartz et al. (2017) evaluated the time needed for the Zorn LWD and the GeoGauge in-place
stiffness measurements to reach a stable value. The maximum stiffness was used as an indication
that the final wearing surface could be placed. Results showed the stiffness measurements were
significantly different between the devices. The Zorn LWD stiffness values were approximately
half those of the GeoGauge, and neither unit provided “true” values. The percent change in
stiffness was 188% and 234% for the Zorn and GeoGauge, respectively, after 1 week. However,
both gauges appear to be useful for indicating relative gains in stiffness. That is, they may be
useful for determining the percent strength gain with time. Both gauges are also sensitive to
300
LWD @ 4 hr FWD @ 24 hr
250
3% Foamed Asphalt 2% Foamed Asphalt

Back Calculated Layer Moduli, ksi
200
163
154 150 3% Foamed Asphalt
150 133
98
100 92
50
24 20 24 24 24
18
Source: Based on Betti et al. 2017. Note: L = lime only; MF = lime plus mineral filler.
Figure 33. Comparison of cold recycled layer stiffness using LWD and FWD
measurements.

24 hr 14 days 28 days 9 months

350
3% Foamed Asphalt 2% Foamed Asphalt 3% Foamed Asphalt
Back Calculated Layer Moduli, ksi
300
250
200
150
100
50
Source: Based on Betti et al. 2017.

Note: FWD Testing (Normalized to 21°C).
Figure 34. Change in FWD stiffness measurements over 9 months.
any loss of stiffness due to rainfall at the early stages of curing. The maximum stiffness readings
limit the usefulness of the device to the early stages of strength gain. The GeoGauge user manual
noted that the device had a useful range from 4 to 80 ksi, but testing showed the practical upper
range was closer to about 65 ksi.
Chan et al. (2009) evaluated the use of a full-size falling weight deflectometer (FWD) for
determining the cold recycled layer stiffness for a roadway constructed in Ontario, British
Columbia. FWD testing was conducted after the cold recycled mix layers were constructed
(2003), then again each year after the final overlay wearing surface was placed (Table 46). The
moduli of the cold recycled mixes were about half the stiffness of the composite layer moduli
(i.e., years 2004 through 2006).
Chen (2006) conducted an FWD study of 24 Iowa cold recycled projects, which showed
similar moduli for both the conventional hot asphalt mix and the cold recycled mixes (Figure 35).
But Chen noted that it was difficult to separate the individual layer properties because of the
Table 46. Comparison of foamed

asphalt and emulsified asphalt cold
recycled mix FWD layer moduli.
Year Layer Moduli, ksi (MPa)*

Foamed Emulsified
Asphalt Asphalt
2003** 170 (1,173) 154 (1,059)
2004 345 (2,376) 363 (2,501)
2005 308 (2,123) 342 (2,360)
2006 322 (2,219) 348 (2,399)
*Normalized to 79°F (21°C).
**Values for CIR only. Other years are for CIR +
overlay.
Source: Based on Chan et al. 2009.

Source: Based on Chen 2006.
Figure 35. FWD results for Iowa cold recycled mixes

with overlay.
similarity of the mix stiffnesses. The individual layer differences only begin to emerge when the
differences between the individual layer moduli increase.
Diefenderfer and Apeagyei (2014) reported the results of periodic FWD testing of the foamed
asphalt CIR and CCPR test sections for the Virginia DOT I-81 project (Table 47). The CCPR
test sections were 6 in. (150 mm) and 8 in. (200 mm) thick. The thickness of the CIR test section
was 5 in. (125 mm). The stiffer subgrade and combined asphalt layer stiffness for the CCPR may
be a function of the 12-in. (30-cm) FDR stabilized base. The thicker CCPR and overlay thick-
ness compared to the CIR section variables may be contributing to the apparently lower CIR
moduli values. Both the CCPR and CIR sections show a small gain in stiffness at 15 months after
construction.
Construction Processes Summary

The weather during construction significantly influences milling operations, needed field
adjustments for liquid quantities, cold recycled mix workability, curing time, and strength gain.
When the milled surface needs to remain open to traffic before the cold recycled mix is placed,
Table 47. Foamed asphalt CCPR and CIR FWD layer moduli.
Months CCPR CIR

After Subgrade Asphalt Layer Subgrade Asphalt Layer
Construction Modulus, ksi Modulus, ksi Modulus, ksi Modulus, ksi
6 53 491 28 247
15 67 661 33 297
28 59 661 36 273

the miller speed and characteristics define the texture of the milled surface that may need to be
used as the driving surface.
It is important for recycling equipment to move together. A project needs a sufficient number
of rollers to keep up with the paving operation without increasing the speed of the rollers.
If the cold recycled mix is placed in a windrow, the paver elevator needs to have sufficient horse
power to pick up the mix and be close enough to the pugmill so that the emulsion does not break
in the windrow. For cold recycled mixes with emulsions, there needs to be some evidence the
emulsion is starting to break before rolling starts.
Test strips are routinely used to establish the number of passes needed to achieve the max
imum density for the project-specific cold recycled mix and current environmental conditions.
Nuclear gauges are used to obtain relative wet in-place densities. The nuclear density gauges
can be calibrated with wet maximum specific gravity measurement or wet compacted bulk
specific gravity using specimens compacted immediately after sampling. Cold recycled mix
specimens need to be compacted immediately after the mix is sampled. A delay as short as
15 hours produces significantly different results compared to specimens compacted and tested
within about 4 hours.
Fog seals with blotter sand are commonly used to protect the surface of the fresh cold recycled
mix before the roadway is opened to traffic.
Adequate curing of the cold recycled mix before placement of the final wearing surface can
be determined using the shear vane test or by specifying a minimum period, such as 14 days.
Although the cold recycled mix gains strength over time, some evidence suggests that sig-
nificant strength gains occur within the first 2 weeks. The reduction of in-place moisture is
frequently specified but is difficult to confirm during rainy periods.
The moisture content continually fluctuates from 1% to 2% over 24 hours because of envi-
ronmental changes in temperature and humidity. Any rain on the CIR surface before the
wearing surface is placed can increase the moisture content to over 16%. Using moisture content
as an indicator of when the wearing surface can be placed does not appear to be a consistently
reliable metric.
Pavement Performance
Five agencies have recycling programs at least 7 years old, with reported data:
• Iowa
• Minnesota
• Montana
• Nevada
• Ontario, Canada
Iowa
The pavement performance study of 24 CIR projects, all with overlays and constructed over
25 years, demonstrates that poor drainage can reduce the service life by 33% (Lee and Kim
2007; see also Chen 2006). The AADT traffic volumes were 2,000 or less. The study separated
the projects into two groups based on drainage ratings. Pavement with poor drainage showed
higher rutting, cracking (alligator, edge cracking, transverse), and lower average subgrade
moduli (Figure 36). For projects with good drainage, the statistical analyses showed an average

140
Poor Drainage Good Drainage
120 115
100
Distress Measurement
91
85 86
80
71
64
60
48
45
41
40
30
20
20 17
13
10
0 0
0
Rutting Longitudinal Transverse Alligator Edge Patching Subgrade PCI
Modulus, ksi
Source: Based on Lee and Kim 2007.
Figure 36. Summary of individual distresses for Iowa projects, sorted by

drainage condition.
predicted CIR service life of 34 years before the roadway reaches a pavement condition index
(PCI) value between 40 and 55. For roadways with poor drainage, the predicted service life was
only 22 years.
The Iowa data show that CIR over underlying Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements,
or old cracked asphalt pavements, and topped with an overlay almost eliminated reflective
cracking compared to new asphalt mix over PCC, old asphalt, and old, milled asphalt pavement
(Schellhammer 2019).
Minnesota
The Minnesota DOT uses the pavement quality index to rate the condition of its roadways.
The pavement index is calculated as the square root of the ride quality index times the surface
rating. The ride index is a measure of the pavement roughness in in./mi, which is converted to
a rating scale value from 0.0 to 5.0. The surface rating is based on the pavement distresses and
expressed using a rating scale from 0.0 to 4.0. Jahren et al. (2016) evaluated seven Minnesota
county CIR projects. The ride quality index ranged from about 2.25 to 3.70 (fair to good) for CIR
with chip seals (four projects) for up to 7 years, and from 3.65 to 3.80 (good) for up to 5 years for
CIR with overlays (three projects).
Montana
From 1995 through 2015, 23 CIR projects were constructed in Montana on low-traffic-
volume roadways. The AADT levels were usually under 500. Of these, 17 have performed well
for at least 11 years, 5 performed poorly, and one was constructed around 2015 so no perfor-
mance information is available (Bugni 2015). Assessments were based on international rough-
ness index (IRI) smoothness data, rutting measurements, reviews of construction reports, and

past Montana DOT documents summarizing information for each project. Table 48 summa-
rizes assessments for 10 of the projects with satisfactory performance for up to 11 years as well
as for 3 of the 5 poorly performing projects.
Three of the 23 projects were also used to construct various CIR test sections (Table 49). These
projects, ranging from 4 to 6 years old, show acceptable performance; the CIR sections with
overlays show less rutting than the section with no overlays. Cracking seems to be similar for
both CIR and conventional dense-graded hot asphalt mix sections.
While not always related to the long-term performance of the cold recycled mixes, comments
from the construction diaries listed various problems that can be organized into three categories:
project selection, construction, and traffic.
• Project selection:
– Cracking and breaking of the mat for one project was attributed to a centerline soil survey
that was not conducted; lack of subgrade support was blamed for CIR increased rutting.
• Construction:
– CIR was overlaid wet, which was considered the cause of the cracking and rutting. This
project had poor performance.
– Mix was placed at colder than desirable temperatures.
– Emulsion content decreased too much in the field (about 1% lower than design).
– Small pieces of crack sealant made it through the 1.25-in. screen but did not adhere well to
the CIR mat, leaving golf ball–sized voids in the surface. The contractor switched screens
and used two laborers to remove crack sealant from the mat surface.
• Traffic:
– Parked construction equipment and traffic left shallow depressions in the new mat.
The emulsion tended to adhere to the tires, which also resulted in damage to the surface.
Table 48. Summary of CIR projects on rural Montana roadways.
IRI, in./mi Rut Depth, in.

Materials Age
Before CIR After CIR Before CIR After CIR
Satisfactory Performance
0.20 ft CIR, 0.20 ft PMS overlay 1 100 65 0.15 0.07
CIR with chip seal 5 96 100 0.20 0.09
0.25 ft CIR with chip seal 5 174 105 0.30 0.12
CIR with chip seal
(Mix included 15% corrective aggregate, 1.4% 6 130 123 0.20 0.11
quick lime, and an engineered emulsion at 1%.)
Poor Performance
0.20 ft and 0.30 ft CIR with chip seal 4 171 121 0.21 0.40
Note: PMS = pavement management system.
Source: Based on Bugni 2015.

Table 49. Three sets of CIR test sections in Montana.
Average Rutting in Both Lanes Cracks per

Treatment
Outer Wheel Paths Inner Wheel Paths Mile
4 Years of Performance for Two Medicine Bridge, Montana (52 ESALs per Day)*
0.25 ft CIR, 0.20 ft grade D overlay 0.27 0.18
Not Available
0.20 ft CIR, 0.20 ft grade D overlay 0.23 0.15
5 Years of Performance for Red Lodge North, Montana (30 ESALs per Day)*
0.25 ft recycle 0.20 0.24 170**
0.25 ft recycle 0.18 0.24 88
0.25 ft recycle, 0.15 ft PMS 0.14 0.10 18
0.25 ft recycle, 0.30 ft PMS 0.24 0.16 0
0.30 ft cold mix, 0.34 ft PMS 0.18 0.18 0
0.25 ft mill and fill 0.22 0.16 73
6 Years of Performance for Hays North, Montana (40 ESALs per Day)*
0.10 ft HMA 0.14 0.17 375
0.20 ft 85/100 grade B 0.12 0.17 132
0.20 ft CIR, 0.15 ft 85/100 grade B 0.10 0.10 217
0.20 ft CIR 0.17 0.23 318
*ESAL = equivalent single axle load.
**Abnormally high cracking in first-year evaluation.
Source: Based on Bugni 2015.
The noted problems with tracking would have been eliminated by using blotter sand. One
comment noted that CIR may have been a poor choice given the long and extreme winter
climate typical in that part of the state.
– Rough areas were observed where traffic stopped to wait for the pilot car on portions paved
the previous days.
– Truck traffic was higher than anticipated.
Nevada
The Nevada DOT has placed over 100 emulsified asphalt CIR projects over 30 years, with
lime slurry to minimize moisture sensitivity. Over 3,421 lane-miles have been recycled on road-
ways with traffic levels ranging from 4 to 3,700 equivalent single axle loads (ESAL) per day with
excellent performance (Table 50). The types of emulsions that have been used are CMS-2s,
Table 50. Anticipated service life of CIR projects with lime

slurries for Nevada DOT projects.
Percentage Projected
Category ADT and Truck Traffic of Nevada Deterioration
DOT System Rate, Years
1 Controlled access 19 8
ESAL > 540 or
2 20 10
ADT > 10,000
540 ≥ ESAL > 405 or
3 21 12
1,600 < ADT ≤ 10,000
405 ≥ ESAL > 270 or
4 15 15
400 < ADT ≤ 1,600
5 ADT ≤ 400 25 20
Source: Busch 2012.

PASS, and Reflex products. CIR with engineered emulsions has shown mixed performance and
service life. Wearing surfaces that have been used over the years, other than overlays, include
single or double chip seals, double chip over fabrics, cape seals, flush seals, and microsurfacing.
The double chip over fabric did not work well because the paving conditions were too moist
and water was trapped by the fabric. The trapped water vapor created bubbles under the fabric,
which resulted in the chip seal aggregate debonding and raveling.
PCI values were provided in the report by Sebaaly et al. (2018) for 29 CIR projects with over-
lays and 25 CIR with chip seal projects. These data, with the extrapolated values removed from
the database, were used to develop the performance prediction equations for each type of CIR
project (Figure 37, Figure 38). A CIR with an overlay is estimated to provide about 23 years of
service life until a PCI of 40 is reached. The anticipated service life of the CIR with chip seal
projects is only about 16 years before the PCI reaches 40.
Jahren et al. (2016) noted several reasons for variations in pavement performance, including
isolated problems due to insufficient structural support that had not been identified at the begin-
ning of the project, recycling agents that set too quickly, and raveling and rutting. Experience
showed that the pavement performed best if at least 1.5 in. (37 mm) of the existing pavement was
left to support construction equipment. One project experimented with using imported RAP
from other locations, which performed well.
Ontario, Canada
PCI values were collected and analyzed for both emulsion and foamed asphalt cold recycled
pavements constructed by the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario, Canada (Bhavsar 2015).
The estimated service life is 21 years until the PCI decreases to 40. Data were also collected for
ride quality over time. The IRI is estimated to increase to 269 in./mi (4.23 m/km) (Figure 39) for
the foamed asphalt and emulsion cold recycled mix projects at 21 years of service life.
A total of 115 emulsion CIR projects were placed in the county of Perth, Ontario, Canada.
These projects had an average physical condition value of 56 when the pavements were from
100
90
80
70
y = -0.0105x3 + 0.1696x2 - 1.0289x + 100
60 R² = 0.4346
50
PCI
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Years After Construction
Note: Lime slurry standard requirement.
Figure 37. PCI changes with age for Nevada DOT CIR projects with
overlays.

100
90
80
70
60
50 y = -0.0589x3 + 1.0378x2 - 5.5726x + 100
PCI
R² = 0.3453
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Years After Construction
Figure 38. PCI changes with age for Nevada DOT CIR projects with
chip seals.
2.5
Emulsion IRI Foamed Asphalt IRI
2.0 y = 0.6742e0.0874x
R² = 0.4459
1.5
IRI, m/km
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Age, Years
Figure 39. Ride quality for cold recycled mixes in Ontario, Canada.

21 to 25 years old (Figure 40), which indicates roadways in good condition at ages of up to
25 years. Traffic levels for these projects were generally under 8,000 AADT. Five foamed asphalt
cold recycled mix projects included in the study showed the average physical condition value
was 58 at 10 years after construction. This value is noticeably lower than the emulsified asphalt
cold recycled mixes.
The United Counties, a municipality in Ontario, Canada, constructed both emulsified (21 proj-
ects) and foamed asphalt (12 projects) cold recycled mix projects. Among projects that were
less than 10 years old, the foamed asphalt projects had a higher average physical condition value
than the emulsified asphalt projects (76 and 64, respectively). Nevertheless, by the time the proj-
ects were 10 to 15 years old, both types had an average value between 50 and 52. These ratings
all classify the projects as being in fair condition at up to 15 years of age.
The statistical analyses by Bhavsar (2015) found the pavement condition ratings were not
significantly influenced by the AADT levels. However, a review of the individual inspection
report distress data showed that projects with lower condition ratings also had higher levels of
individual traffic-related distresses (e.g., rutting, distortion, cracking in the wheel paths). These
higher distresses occurred on roadways with higher volumes of heavy truck traffic.
Additional Cold Recycling Performance Information

A summary of findings for CIR projects in New York State noted the service life of the reha-
bilitated pavements increased by 11 years (Cross et al. 2010). The service life was similar to mill
and fill or two-course overlay rehabilitation options.
The Virginia DOT evaluated different options for pavement structures but with equivalent
structural capacity (Diefenderfer and Apeagyei 2014; Diefenderfer 2016). The CCPR in the right
lane of I-81 was used at two thicknesses—6 in. and 8 in. (150 mm and 200 mm)—over 12 in.
(300 mm) of the FDR stabilized base. Overlay thicknesses were 4 in. (100 mm) over the 8-in.
(200-mm) CCPR and 6 in. (150 mm) over the 6-in. (150-mm) CCPR. After 3 years, the average
rut depth was 0.05 in. (2.5 mm) and the IRI averaged 45 in./mi. The left lane was milled 2 in.
100
89
Average Physical Condition Values
80
70
67
60 56
40
20
0
< 10 10 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25
Age, years
Figure 40. Average Physical Condition Values for 115 CIR projects
in the county of Perth, Ontario, Canada.

Table 51. Summary of expected service life for CIR mix projects.
Estimated Average Traffic

Binder Wearing Surface Location
Service Life Levels
22 years (poor drainage)
< 10,000 Emulsions
34 years (good drainage) Nonoverlay (not Ontario,
21 to 25 years identified) Canada
< 6,000 Foamed Asphalt
(mixed experience)
20 years < 6,000 Emulsions Overlay Iowa
23 years < 6,000 Emulsions, lime slurry Overlay
Nevada
16 years < 6,000 Emulsions, lime slurry Chip seal, flush seal
At least 11 years < 2,000 Emulsions Nonoverlay Montana
At least 7 years Overlays
<2,000 Emulsions Minnesota
(early data only) Chip seals
(50 mm) and the CIR was placed at 5 in. (125 mm) and used 4 in. (100 mm) of the overlay as the
wearing surface. After 3 years, the average rut depth was 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) and the IRI averaged
56 in./mi.
One Connecticut project, which consisted of a 3-in. (75-mm) CIR layer and a 2-in. (50-mm)
overlay, was placed on a state highway with less than 5,000 vehicles per day (Henault and
Kilpatrick 2009). An adjacent section used the conventional hot asphalt dense-graded mix
overlay (control section). The primary distress on the existing roadway was extensive reflective
cracking. The CIR layer showed a 65% reduction in reflective cracking compared to the control
section. The CIR rut depths were 10% lower than the control section, as long as CIR longitu-
dinal joints were not placed in the wheel paths. Also, the CIR was more prone to rutting when
the uphill roadway grade was 4% or more.
Pavement Performance Summary

Emulsified asphalt cold recycled mix projects, with either overlays or nonstructural wearing
surfaces, are well documented by agencies and researchers. Service lives of over 20 years can be
typically expected for most projects (Table 51).
Economic Benefits
The economic benefits of using cold recycled mixes include the following:
• Reduced costs per lane-mile (Hoover 2014; Schellhammer 2019)
• Cost-effective source of materials in areas lacking local aggregate resources
• Lower-cost source of asphalt (Bugni 2015; Nair 2018)
• Reduced costs per lane-mile when compared to the conventional mill and fill option (VanFrank
2015; Wielinski 2017; Carvajal 2018; Wagner 2018; Schellhammer 2019; Stahl 2019)
• The economy of scale, which can be achieved when projects of at least 5 miles are cold recycled
• Reduced financial impact on local businesses (Hoover 2014)
The experience of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation shows that cold recycling mix,
without subgrade improvement, improves ride quality slightly to moderately, but it provides
the best price/advantage ratio (i.e., initial ride + user cost/ride quality improvement) (Carter
et al. 2013).
Data that compare the cost of a traditional rehabilitation project to the costs associated with
various cold recycled mix projects were collected from five reports (Table 52). While all of the

Table 52. Cost savings gained by replacing traditional rehabilitation options

with cold recycling mixtures.
Treatment Cost Percent Savings

New York
Mill and fill, 3 in.* $183,744 ---
CIR, 3 in. $134,042 27%
CIR, 3 in. with 20% corrective
$149,107 19%
aggregate
Illinois
2-in. mill and overlay* $231,796 ---
3-in. CIR with chip seal (0.5 in.) $160,474 31%
Montana
0.30-ft mill and fill* $92.09/ton ---
0.30-ft CIR with double chip seal $40.75/ton 56%
0.30-ft CIR with single chip seal $35.27/ton 62%
0.20-ft CIR with 0.10-ft overlay $48.64/ton 47%
Mississippi
Traditional construction* $323,000 ---
Emulsion CIR (6 in.) $191,000 41%
Minnesota
Conventional asphalt pavement* $255,500 ---
CIR with overlay $173,600 32%
CIR with chip seal $81,100 68%
*Considered the traditional rehabilitation option for a cost comparison.
projects and comparisons are different for each state, when the percent savings is calculated,
cold recycled mixes show cost savings from a low of around 20% to more than 60%, depending
on the type of wearing surface used on top of the cold recycled mixes.
Environmental Benefits
Some agencies are beginning to consider both economic and environmental costs and benefits
during the design and bidding stages of construction projects. These advantages can help make
cold recycled mixes more competitive. The environmental benefits include the following:
• Reuse of high-quality construction materials (Hoover 2014; Martin Asphalt 2016; Stahl 2019)
• Reduced greenhouse gases (GHG) (Cross et al. 2010; Busch 2012; Black 2013, Bugni 2015;
Schwartz et al. 2017; Wielinski 2017; Carvajal 2018; Nair 2018; Wagner 2018; Harvey
2019; Schellhammer 2019; Younes 2019)
• Conservation of natural resources (Sauceda 2008; Cross et al. 2010; Wagner 2018;
Schellhammer 2019; Stahl 2019)
• Reduced material added to landfills (Carvajal 2018; Wielinski 2017)
Agencies, such as Caltrans, are starting to legislate the reduction of GHG. Life cycle assess-
ments (LCA) are needed to quantify the current GHG emissions for traditional maintenance
and rehabilitation choices so any benefits that can be gained from the use of alternative strategies
can be back-calculated. Cold recycling mixes eliminate emissions from quarry operations that
would have been needed to produce virgin aggregates, as well as the energy needed to heat the
virgin aggregates during mix production. Using the existing in-place asphalt materials reduces

60,000
Material Transport Construction
kg of CO2e for 1 ln-km per Life Cycle Stage

50,000
46,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
14,000
11,000
10,000
6,600
3,500 4,500
2,800 2,100
480
0
CIR + Chip Seal CIR + Overlay Mill and Fill
Source: Based on Harvey 2019.
Note: CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent.
Figure 41. Example of greenhouse gas savings when using cold

recycled mixes as a replacement for mill and fill.
the number of haul trucks needed, thereby reducing the use of, and emissions from, diesel fuel
(Schwartz et al. 2017).
Fang et al. (2016) noted that the production of conventional asphalt mix consumes about
680 MJ of energy while CCPR and CIR mix only consumes about two-thirds to one-fifth of
that level of energy. More recent research indicates cold recycled processes use up to 80% less
energy and produce 50% less GHG compared to the typical mill and fill option (Christianson
and Mahoney 2019). Nair (2018) confirmed that up to 50% reduction in GHG emissions can be
achieved by replacing conventional hot asphalt mixtures with cold recycled mixtures. Harvey
(2019) provided basic LCA calculations for GHG emissions for CIR with a chip seal, CIR with
an overlay, and the mill and fill option (Figure 41). The environmental benefits associated with
cold recycled mixes are seen from the LCA calculations of GHG emissions.

CHAPTER 3
Agency Survey
A web-based survey was developed to collect information about the following:

• Experience with CCPR and CIR processes
• Knowledge of, and experience with, new CCPR and CIR standards
• Size of the existing cold recycling program
• Typical traffic levels on cold recycled projects
• Barriers to increased use of cold recycling processes
A total of 40 responses were received for a response rate of 80%; only one response per agency
was included in the analysis. The percentages of agencies responding to each question are based
on a fixed total response rate of 40 agencies to provide a common baseline for each column and
row. Not all respondents answered all questions. When respondents indicated they did not use
CCPR and CIR processes in their state, they rarely answered any further questions. While CCPR
and CIR processes are still not widely used at the state agency level, those agencies that do have
experience frequently provided additional comments for each survey question. This chapter
presents the percentage of responses, information on individual agencies responding to the
questions, and a summary of the additional comments. The first question collected information
about the respondent.
Experience with CCPR and CIR Processes

Question 2 asked respondents to
“Indicate if you use either of these recycling methods in your area and, if used, how long have you been
using each type.”
The results are shown in Table 53 and Table 54 and in Figure 42, Figure 43, Figure 44, and
Figure 45.
A summary of additional comments for this question shows the following:
• Cold recycling is only used by local agencies (2 agencies).
• Several agencies are interested in trying cold recycling soon (4 agencies).
• Several agencies have used cold recycling but only sporadically and only for a few projects
(5 agencies).
• One agency used to use emulsions but now uses only foamed asphalt (1 agency).
• One agency uses only emulsions with CIR (1 agency).
89

Table 53. Agency experience with cold recycling processes.
Recycling Agent More than 10 We don’t use this Total

Less than 5 years 5 to 10 years
and Method of years method Responses
Cold Recycling Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses per Row
CCPR with
10% 4 5% 2 3% 2 45% 18 25
emulsions
CCPR with foamed
3% 1 13% 5 3% 1 45% 18 25
asphalt
CIR with emulsions 5% 2 23% 9 40% 16 28% 11 38
CIR with foamed
8% 3 8% 3 13% 5 48% 19 30
asphalt
Note: Percentages are calculated based on a fixed total survey response of 40 respondents. Not all respondents answered all questions.
Table 54. Individual agency responses to questions about cold recycling experience.
We don't use this

Type of Recycling Less than 5 years 5 to 10 years More than 10 years
method
AK, AL, AZ, CA, CT, FL,
KS, KY, MI, MO, NC,
Emulsions CO, IN, MN, MT NY, UT PA, ME
NE, NV, OH, RI, SC, TN,
CCPR VA
AK, AL, AZ, CT, IN, FL,
Foamed GA, MD, NM,
MN CA KS, KY, MI, MO, MT,
asphalt NY, VA
NC, NE, NV, OH, RI
AZ, CA, CO, IA, ID,
CO, DE, GA, IL,
MN, MO, NE, NH, AK, AL, CT, FL, KS, KY,
Emulsions IN, VA MD, MT, ND,
NM, NY, PA, SD, UT, MI, OH, RI, SC, TN
NV, OR
VT, WA
CIR
Foamed IN, KS, KY, MI, MT, NC,
SC, VA, TX IL, MO, WI IA, MN, NE, NV, NY
asphalt OH, OR, RI, SD, TN, UT,
VT
Figure 42. Current use of CCPR with emulsified asphalts.

Figure 43. Current use of CCPR with foamed asphalt.
Figure 44. Current use of CIR with emulsified asphalt.
Figure 45. Current use of CIR with foamed asphalt.

Knowledge of, and Experience with,

New CCPR and CIR Standards
Question 3 asked respondents about their experience using recently released AASHTO
and ARRA specifications, practices, and guidelines:
“Do you have any experience with using the following cold recycling standards?”
• AASHTO MP 31 Standard Specification for Materials for Cold Recycled Mixtures with Emul-
sified Asphalt
• AASHTO PP 86 Standard Practice for Emulsified Asphalt Content of Cold Recycled Mix-
ture Designs
• AASHTO PP 94 Standard Specification for Determination of Optimum Asphalt Content of
Cold Recycled Mixture with Foamed Asphalt
• AASHTO MP 38 Standard Specification for Mix Design of Cold Recycled Mixture with
Foamed Asphalt
• ARRA CR101 Construction Guide for CIR Using Bituminous Recycling Agents
• ARRA CR102 Construction Guide for CCPR Using Bituminous Recycling Agents
• ARRA CR201 Mix Design Guidelines for Cold Recycling Using Emulsified Asphalt Agent
• ARRA CR202 Mix Design Guidelines for Cold Recycling Using Foamed (Expanded) Agent
• ARRA CR301 Quality Control Sampling and Testing Guidelines for Cold Recycling Using
Bituminous Recycling Agents
Thirteen percent of the agencies have used the provisional AASHTO material specifications
and another 13% are planning on using them for upcoming projects (Table 55). The individual
agencies with experiences with the standards are shown in Table 56.
Table 55. Experience with recently released AASHTO and ARRA specifications, practices,
and guidelines.
Yes No Planning on Using Total

Existing Standard Responses
Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses
per Row
Material Specifications
AASHTO MP 31 Spec. for Cold
13% 5 53% 21 13% 5 28
Recycling with Emulsified Asphalt
AASHTO MP 38 Spec. for Cold
5% 2 60% 24 10% 4 27
Recycling with Foamed Asphalt
Cold Recycling with Emulsion Recycling Agent
AASHTO PP 86 Emulsified Asphalt
5% 2 55% 22 15% 6 27
Cold Recycled Mix Design
ARRA CR201 Mix Design for Cold
15% 6 48% 19 8% 3 27
Recycling Using Emulsions
Cold Recycling with Foamed Asphalt Recycling Agent
AASHTO PP 94 Foamed Asphalt
5% 2 58% 23 10% 4 26
Cold Recycled Mix Design
ARRA CR202 Mix Design for Cold
13% 5 53% 21 5% 2 26
Recycling Using Foamed Asphalt
Guidelines for Cold Recycling Construction Processes
ARRA CR101 Construction
13% 5 50% 20 3% 1 25
Guidelines for CIR
ARRA CR102 Construction
13% 5 48% 19 5% 2 25
Guidelines for CCPR
ARRA 301 Quality Control
Sampling and Testing Guidelines 18% 7 50% 20 3% 1 26
for CIR
Note: Percentages are calculated based on a fixed total survey response of 40 respondents. Not all respondents answered all questions.

Agency Survey 93
Table 56. Individual agency responses to experience using various standards

for cold recycling.
Planning on using
Yes, we have used No, we have NOT
Standards the standard in the
the standard used the standard
near future
AK, AL, AZ, CT, GA,
AASHTO MP 31
IN, KS, MN, MO,
Standard Specification for Materials for CO, DE, MT, NY, MD, NM, OH, SC,
NC, NE, NM, NV,
Cold Recycled Mixtures with Emulsified TX TN
PA, RI, UT, VA, WA,
Asphalt
WI
AK, AL, AZ, CO, CT,
AASHTO PP 86
GA, IN, KS, MN,
Standard Practice for Emulsified Asphalt MD, NM, OH, SC,
MT, NY MO, NC, NE, NM,
Content of Cold Recycled Mixture TN, TX
NV, PA, RI, UT, VA,
Designs
WA, WI
AASHTO PP 94 AK, AL, AZ, CO, CT,
Standard Specification for GA, IN, KS, MN,
Determination of Optimum Asphalt NY, WI MO, NC, NE, NM, MD, NM, SC, TN
Content of Cold Recycled Mixture with NV, PA, RI, UT, VA,
Foamed Asphalt WA, WI
AK, AL, AZ, CO, CT,
AASHTO MP 38
GA, IN, KS, MN,
Standard Specification for Mix Design of
NY, WI MO, MT, NC, NE, MD, NM, SC, TN
Cold Recycled Mixture with Foamed
NM, NV, OH, PA, RI,
Asphalt
UT, VA, WI
AK, AL, CO, CT, GA,
ARRA CR101
MD, MO, MT, IN, KS, MN, NC, NE,
Construction Guide for CIR Using AZ
NM, NY NV, OH, PA, RI, UT,
VA, WA, WI
AK, AL, CO, CT, GA,
ARRA CR102
Construction Guide for CCPR Using AZ, OH
NM, NY, SC NV, PA, RI, UT, VA,
WA, WI
AK, AL, CO, CT, GA,
ARRA CR201
CA, MD, MT, NM, IN, KS, MN, NC, NE,
Mix Design Guidelines for Cold Recycling AZ, OH, TN
NY, SC NV, PA, RI, UT, VA,
Using Emulsified Asphalt Agent
WA, WI
AK, AL, CO, CT, GA,
ARRA CR202
MD, MO, NM, IN, KS, MN, MT, NC,
Mix Design Guidelines for Cold Recycling AZ, TN
NY, SC NE, NV, OH, PA, RI,
Using Foamed (Expanded) Agent
UT, VA, WA, WI
ARRA CR301 AK, AL, AZ, CO, CT,
Quality Control Sampling and Testing DE, MD, MO, MT, GA, IN, KS, MN, NC,
OH
Guidelines for Cold Recycling Using NM, NY, SC NE, NV, PA, RI, UT,
Bituminous Recycling Agents VA, WA, WI
Mix designs for cold recycling using emulsion recycling agents are performed using the
ARRA CR201 guidelines (15%) compared to using the AASHTO PP 86 (5%). Six agencies (15%)
are planning on using AASHTO PP 86, and three agencies (8%) are planning on using ARRA
CR201. A similar distribution of responses was received for cold recycling mix designs using
foamed asphalt (AASHTO PP 94 and ARRA CR202).
Between 13% and 15% of the agencies report using the ARRA construction guidelines;
however, no more than 5% of the agencies are planning on using these guidelines in the future.
A summary of comments indicates that agencies
• Have developed their own standards over time and will continue to use them (8 agencies); and
• Are reviewing all recent standards and guidelines, including the Wirtgen Group manual
(2004), for possible adoption (2 agencies).

Size of Existing Cold Recycling Programs

“Indicate the approximate number of lane miles that are recycled per year. (Check all that apply)”
Most of the cold recycling programs pave less than 50 lane-miles per year (Table 57, Table 58,
Figure 46). When CIR programs pave less than 50 lane-miles per year, they use emulsion
recycling agents more frequently (43%) than foamed asphalt (25%). Similar percentages of
agencies use emulsions (10%) and foamed asphalt (8%) when CIR programs pave between 50
and 100 lane-miles per year. None of the responding agencies indicated that they are recycling
more than 100 miles per year. This may be driven more by budgetary constraints than resistance
to recycling processes.
The additional comments show the following:
• The number of cold recycling projects varies widely from year to year. Even if an agency uses
cold recycling, it can go several years without completing a cold recycling project (4 agencies).
In one case, an agency went from routinely completing 10 to 12 projects a year to no projects
over 10 years.
• Some agencies are just starting to use cold recycling (other than full-depth reclamation)
(3 agencies).
Table 57. Size of existing cold recycling programs, measured in lane-miles.
Less than 50 lane- 50 to 100 lane-miles Greater than 100 Total

Recycling Agent and miles per year per year lane-miles per year Responses
Method of Cold Recycling
Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses per Row
Emulsion 38% 15 3% 1 0% 0 16
CCPR
Foamed asphalt 30% 12 3% 1 0% 0 13
Emulsion 43% 17 10% 4 0% 0 21
CIR
Foamed asphalt 25% 10 8% 3 0% 0 13
Note: Percentages are calculated based on a fixed total survey response of 40 respondents. Not all respondents answered all
questions.
Table 58. Individual agency responses on number of cold recycled lane-miles

paved per year.
Less than 50 lane- 50 to 100 lane- Greater than 100

Type of Recycling
miles miles lane-miles
AL, AZ, CO, KS, MN,
Emulsions MT, NE, NV, NY, PA, IN No agencies
RI, SC, UT, VA
CCPR
AL, AZ, CA, KS, MD,
Foamed asphalt MN, NE, NV, NY, RI, NM No agencies
SC, VA
AL, AZ, CO, DE, KS,
MD, MN, MO, MT,
Emulsions CA, IN, NY, UT No agencies
NE, NM, NV, PA, RI,
CIR SC, TX, VA, WA
AL, AZ, KS, MN,
Foamed asphalt MO, NE, NV, RI, SC, NY, WI No agencies
VA

Agency Survey 95
Responses, %
Figure 46. Size of existing cold recycling programs.
Traffic Levels on Cold Recycling Projects

“Indicate typical annual average daily traffic (AADT) levels on your recycled pavement projects. (Check
all that apply)”
Agencies report using cold recycling processes on roadways with a wide range of traffic levels
(Table 59, Figure 47). At lower traffic levels (less than 10,000 AADT), CIR with emulsion is the
most used cold recycling process and recycling agent. Only a limited number of agencies have
used cold recycling on roadways with over 25,000 AADT. The individual agency traffic levels for
their cold recycled mix projects are shown in Table 60.
The additional comments reveal two distinctly different approaches to project selection. The
first approach is to limit cold recycling to lower AADT and lower ESAL roadways. One respon-
dent noted that changing from high float emulsions to engineered emulsions may allow cold
recycling on higher traffic volume roadways. The second approach to project selection is to
consider only the existing pavement distresses. Key comments include these:
• If there is deep cracking and a good base, CCPR is used.
• The agency is phasing out a standard 0.2-ft mill and fill treatment and replacing it with a
0.3-ft CIR.
Table 59. Size of existing cold recycling programs, measured in AADT.
10,000 to 25,000 More than 25,000 Total

Recycling Agent and Up to 10,000 AADT
AADT ADT Responses
Method of Cold Recycling
Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses per Row
Emulsion 10% 4 10% 4 3% 1 9
CCPR
Foamed asphalt 13% 5 10% 4 8% 3 12
Emulsion 25% 10 18% 7 5% 2 21
CIR
Foamed asphalt 20% 8 13% 5 8% 3 16
questions.

Responses, %
Up to 10,000 AADT 10,000 to 25,000 AADT More than 25,000 AADT
Figure 47. Traffic levels for cold recycled projects, measured

in AADT.
Table 60. Individual agency responses on traffic levels on cold recycled mix projects.
Traffic Levels
Type of Recycling 10,000 to 25,000
Up to 10,000 AADT More than 25,000 AADT
AADT
Emulsions CO, MN, MT, UT IN, MT, NY, PA MT
CCPR CA, MD, MN, MT,
Foamed asphalt MT, NM, NY, VA MT, VA, TX
VA
CA, CO, DE, MD,
IN, MN, MT, NM,
Emulsions MN, MO, MT, NE, MN, MT
NY, PA, VA
CIR NV, WA
MN, MO, MT, NE,
Foamed asphalt MN, MT, NY, SC, VA MN, MT, VA
NV, VA, WI, TX
Barriers to Increased Use of Cold Recycled Processes

“Please indicate all barriers that limit the implementation or increased use of cold recycling methods.
(Check all that apply)”
Four of the choices provided for this question highlight key barriers to increased use of cold
recycling processes (Table 61, Figure 48, Table 62). The two most frequently cited barriers are
the lack of experience and lack of recycling contractors. Respondents noted they had slightly
more experience with CIR than CCPR. The lack of project selection criteria was cited by at least
10% of the respondents.
The additional comments identified other barriers:
• There is a lack of funding for additional paving programs (1 agency).
• High RAP hot asphalt mix is economically competitive and does not require a second
contractor (1 agency).
• Hot asphalt mix contractors are a strong influence on not implementing cold recycling
processes (1 agency).
• There are weather restrictions in the project area (2 agencies).

Agency Survey 97
Table 61. Barriers to increased use of cold recycling processes.
CCPR with CCPR with Foamed CIR with Foamed

CIR with Emulsion
Barrier Emulsion Asphalt Asphalt
Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses Percent Responses
No previous agency
28% 11 30% 12 18% 7 25% 10
experience
No experienced cold
28% 11 25% 10 25% 10 23% 9
recycling contractors
Lack of availability of
3% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
materials
Previous unsuccessful
0% 0 3% 1 30% 12 5% 2
experiences
Project selection criteria
13% 5 10% 4 13% 5 13% 5
not well defined
QC/QA testing not well
8% 3 5% 2 10% 4 3% 1
defined*
QC/QA testing takes too
3% 1 5% 2 3% 1 3% 1
long in the field*
Lack of construction
13% 5 8% 3 8% 3 8% 3
specifications
Excessive time needed
3% 1 5% 2 8% 3 0% 0
before opening to traffic
*QC = quality control; QA = quality assurance.
questions.
Figure 48. Barriers to increased use of cold recycled processes.

Table 62. Individual agency responses identifying barriers.
CCPR CIR
Barriers
Emulsion Foamed Asphalt Emulsion Foamed Asphalt
AK, AL, AZ, GA, MT, AK, AL, AZ, GA, IN, AK, AL, AZ, GA, IN,
No previous agency AK, AL, GA, NC,
NC, NM, NV, OH, SC, MT, NC, NV, OH, MT, NC, NM, OH,
experience OH, SC, TN
TN SC, TN, TX TN
AK, AL, AZ, GA, IN, AK, AL, GA, IN, AK, AL, AZ, GA,
No experienced cold AK, AL, AZ, GA, MD,
MT, NC, NM, SC, TN, MD, MT, NC, SC, MT, NS, NM, PA,
recycling contractors MT, NC, SC, TN, VA
VA TN, VA TN, VA
AZ, DE, GA, KS,
Previous unsuccessful MD, MO, MT,
--- GA NE, VA
experiences NE, NM, NV, UT,
TX
Project selection criteria not AZ, GA, IN, MN, AZ, GA, MN, RI,
AZ, GA, IN, MN, RI AZ, GA, MN, RI
well defined PR WI
PA --- --- ---
materials
MT, OH, SC MD, MT, OH, SC AZ AZ
defined
QC/QA testing takes too long
GA GA, TX GA GA
in the field
GA, NM, NV, OH, SC GA, NV, SC GA, OH, SC AZ, GA, NM
specifications
SC MD, TX DE, MD, SC ---
Survey Summary
Agencies have the most experience with emulsion CIR. CCPR is not widely used, but when
it is used, agencies with the most experience report using foamed asphalt rather than emul-
sion recycling agents. Agencies that are just starting to evaluate CCPR tend to use emulsion
recycling agents. Most cold recycling programs pave less than 50 lane-miles per year. While
cold recycling is still used on roadways with AADTs under 10,000, these agencies are also using
cold recycling on roadways with AADTs between 10,000 and 25,000. Only a limited number of
agencies use cold recycling at higher traffic volumes.
The most frequently cited barriers to increased use of cold recycling processes, both CCPR
and CIR with either emulsion or foamed asphalt recycling agents, are the lack of agency expe-
rience, lack of experienced contractors, and lack of well-defined project selection criteria. The
lack of quality assurance testing and construction specifications for CCPR with foamed asphalt
recycling agent was also cited as a barrier to increased use. In addition, previously unsuccessful
experiences with emulsion CIR recycling agent were cited as a barrier for increased use.
Most agencies have not yet used the recently released AASHTO and ARRA standards;
however, several agencies are planning on using the AASHTO standards for upcoming projects.

CHAPTER 4
Case Examples
Several agencies indicated on the survey that the lack of project selection criteria was a barrier
to increased use of cold recycling. The first case example was selected to highlight the Indiana
DOT process for identifying the types of projects on which CCPR and CIR processes can provide
an alternative to traditional maintenance and rehabilitation practices.
The survey also showed that CCPR was used by only a limited number of agencies, so the
next two case examples were selected to document the implementation and running of a CCPR
program. Case example two describes the Minnesota DOT’s initial experience with constructing
CCPR test sections. Case example three documents the Maine DOT experience with operating
an agency-owned CCPR plant.
Case example four describes the new Utah DOT specification for cold recycling mix designs
and criteria for when the cold recycling layer can be surfaced. The mix design method incorpo-
rates changing environmental temperatures into determining acceptable adjustments to recy-
cling agent quantities in the field. The criteria for when the cold recycled layer can be surfaced
uses a stiffness measurement rather than either moisture content or a set time.
Case example five highlights Caltrans’s experience with applying smoothness specifications
to cold recycled mix projects.
Case example six provides a brief summary of the Federal Lands Highway CIR experience
gained over more than four decades.
Case Example One – Indiana DOT Approach

to Project Selection
Indiana
The Indiana DOT has been experimenting with cold recycling for a number of years. How-
DOT
ever, cold recycling was typically considered as an alternative close to the time the project
was about to go to bid (N. Awwad, personal communication, July 10, 2020). This meant
cold recycling was not included in the early stages of the project development. The agency’s
experience led to the development of a decision flow chart to identify when cold recycling
can provide the best way to improve the roadway with the least cost.
The Indiana Department of Transportation Design Manual, Chapter 602 (Indiana DOT
2020), provides a good example of how to use the pavement type (i.e., composite, full-depth
asphalt) and pavement distresses to identify potential cold recycling projects. Indiana roads,
both owned by the agency and local municipalities, historically used PCC pavements, so
the presence of these old pavements needs to be considered at the start of project selection
(Figure 49).
99

Source: Indiana DOT 2020, Chapter 602, Figure 602-1a.
Figure 49. Initial part of Indiana DOT decision tree.
Asphalt pavements with less than 10% full-depth patching and no evidence that an underlying
PCC pavement needs repair or recycling are good candidates for CIR with an overlay. When the
PCC pavement needs remediation, then the existing asphalt pavement needs to be milled off so
the underlying structure can be repaired. In those cases, the milled RAP can be stockpiled and
used to produce a CCPR base layer and topped with an overlay (Figure 50).
More than 10% full-depth patching, a subgrade CBR of more than 6, and an existing asphalt
pavement 5 in. (125 mm) or thicker can be improved by using an emulsion FDR to recycle the
asphalt and any aggregate base if present (Figure 51). Since the subgrade provides acceptable
support, it should not be disturbed during FDR. When the existing pavement is more than 10 in.
(250 mm) thick, pre-milling the surface may be needed. When more than 3 in. (75 mm) needs
to be pre-milled, the RAP can be stockpiled and used for a CCPR base layer once the FDR is
completed. CIR can be used when the existing pavement is less than 5 in. (125 mm) thick.
More than 10% full-depth patching and a subgrade CBR of less than 6 are an indication
of poor subgrade support that needs to be addressed (Figure 52). In these cases, cement FDR
that includes 50% subgrade material is used to restore support. Either a CCPR base layer with
an overlay or multiple lift overlays can be used for higher traffic volume roadways. When the
existing asphalt pavement is over 10 in. (250 mm) thick, pre-milling may be needed before
proceeding with the FDR.
Minnesota Case Example Two – Minnesota DOT

DOT
Initial Experience with CCPR
The first experience of the Minnesota DOT with CCPR was the construction of four test
cells (133, 135, 233, 235) on the MnROAD low-volume test track in Otsego, Minnesota, in the
fall of 2017. All four test sections consisted of 3.5 in. (89 mm) of CCPR, after compaction,

Case Examples 101
Source: Indiana DOT, Chapter 602, Figure 602-1a.
Figure 50. Decision tree for when an overlay is considered appropriate.
Figure 51. Decision tree for when full depth repair is indicated and CBR
is greater than 6.

Pavement Condition and Pavement Distresses Indicate Full Depth Repair

and CBR is less than 6
Distress Trigger:
Bottom up cracking, distresses requiring full depth patching.
What is the existing pavement thickness?
> 10 in 5 to 10 in < 5 in
What is pre-mill depth?
Cement FDR +
50% of subgrade
< 3 in > 3 in
Proceed with Use CCPR on
pre-mill pre-milled portion
Cement FDR + 50% of subgrade,

CCPR (if suggested)
Multi-lift overlay
Figure 52. Further options on decision tree for when full-depth repair
is indicated and CBR is less than 6.
which were placed on 12-in. (305-mm) Class 6 aggregate base over a clay/loam subgrade
(Tompkins 2019). Since this was the Minnesota DOT’s first project with CCPR, the mix design
and testing were completed as a joint effort between the agency and American Engineering
Testing, Inc. Additional CCPR and CIR cells were constructed in 2019–2020 in collaboration
with the National Center for Asphalt Technology and the Virginia Transportation Research
Council as part of an ongoing NCHRP study.
The CCPR mixes for the 2017 MnROAD test cells were produced with the pugmill portion
of a CIR recycling train. The RAP was obtained from a single source, and the only gradation
preparation was to ensure the maximum particle size requirement was met. The in-place density
was defined by establishing the rolling pattern. The Minnesota DOT is continuously monitoring
the performance because this is an ongoing research study.
Since the construction of short test sections (700 ft) limits experience-based learning, David
Rettner of American Engineering Testing, Inc., was asked to outline, based on his previous
experience, key points for obtaining density on a typical cold recycled mix project (personal
communication, July 10, 2020). Mr. Rettner noted that using a test strip to define the rolling
pattern may be problematic. Roller operators tend to increase rolling speed to keep up with
paving operations, which can produce ripples in the cold recycled mix surface. For example, he
noted, a roller speed of 7 mph (11 km/h) can produce poor compaction and premature rutting
of cold recycled mixes. Having more rollers on the job allows the operators to maintain a slower
speed while keeping up with the paving operations. Rather than establishing a rolling pattern
and specifying the number and types of rollers, a target density needs to be defined; then the
contractor can be allowed to do what is necessary to meet the density requirements.

Case Examples 103
Mr. Rettner also noted that the density on a typical cold recycled mix project is dependent on
the weather throughout the day of construction. Colder pavement temperatures result in lower
achievable densities when using a set rolling pattern. To compensate, more water is added to
improve the compactability of the mix. The original Road Science design was based on adjusting
liquid quantities according to the surface area of the RAP. The minus No. 4 (4.75-mm) RAP is
air-dried and sieved down to No. 30 (0.60-mm) for a quick calculation of surface area.
Emulsion and foamed asphalt recycling agents were used for test sections, and both recy-
cling agents produced visually similar mixes. When asked if foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes
tended to be friable and not well coated, Mr. Rettner noted that when the original asphalt pave-
ment used a finer gradation with a hard aggregate, milling tended to break up the RAP by
separating particles rather than fracturing the aggregate particles. The result is milled RAP that
looks like well-coated aggregate with either emulsion or foamed asphalt recycling agents. When
the original pavement used a softer aggregate, such as limestone, and coarser gradations, the
milling operations tended to fracture the aggregate. In this case, the cold mix can look more
like a partially coated aggregate material. Foamed asphalt cold recycled mixes need to cure for
at least 3 days before testing to avoid being damaged (i.e., too friable). Both foamed asphalt and
emulsion cold recycled mixes can produce similar test results when cured before testing.
Case Example Three – Maine DOT Operation of CCPR

Mr. Brian Luce (personal communication, July 29, 2020) provided a summary of the Maine
DOT cold recycling program. Mr. Luce noted that by the late 1990s, the requirements for high- Maine DOT
quality aggregates in conventional asphalt mixes restricted the use of local aggregates in some
locations. The high cost of trucking in aggregates was becoming cost-prohibitive, and in 1997 the
Maine DOT started to explore using excess RAP to produce cold recycled mixes. The premise
was presented to the administration as a way of essentially mining existing pavements as sources
of high-quality materials that had already met specification requirements.
But as in most areas of the country, the difficulty was finding cold recycling contractors.
In 2004, the agency purchased a portable twin shaft pugmill with three feeder bins (primary,
secondary, fines). Initially, the expectation was that the cement could be added with the fines
bin; but metering the cement accurately was too difficult, and a 30-ton cement silo was added
to the portable plant. The cement is used to reduce the curing time and to improve the cold
recycled mix.
When asked if the agency had any push-back about competing with local contractors,
Mr. Luce indicated the CCPR operation only produces the mix. Local trucking firms are used
to move materials. Local paving contractors are hired to place the cold recycled mix and to
provide the overlays. RAP stockpiles are developed by offering contractors on capital improve-
ment projects a disposal site for excess RAP close to their projects. The contractor saves money
and time while the agency builds stockpiles of high-quality RAP. The Maine DOT uses a rolling
5-year capital improvement planning process with project funding identified 3 years before
building the project. The RAP disposal sites are tentatively identified as part of the 5-year project
planning.
RAP stockpiles are built over several months and processed just before the production of
the cold recycled mix starts. Screening equipment controls the maximum particle size and
diverts oversized material for reprocessing. A stacker conveyor moves the RAP to the pugmill
cold feed bins. The maximum RAP particle size is eventually reduced to ¾ in. (19 mm) to
improve the mix characteristics and uniformity. Recent improvements in miller cutting heads
(i.e., micromillers) are making it easier to meet the smaller maximum size as well as producing

RAP with more consistent gradations. The finer gradation also produces mixes that are less
prone to segregation.
Water storage is a tank on a trailer that can be filled up at a local water source, such as a fire
hydrant. The optimum water content is determined during the mix design phase of the project, but
it is actually used to set the maximum allowable amount of water. The water content of the RAP
stockpile is frequently monitored during production as it changes throughout the day, at different
depths in the stockpile, and with environmental changes such as humidity and rainfall. The RAP
moisture content is typically between 2% and 4%. When it is too low, the mix is difficult to work
and the emulsion has difficulty coating the RAP particles. When the moisture content gets too
high, the mix is tender, slow to cure, and will likely have pavement performance problems.
The emulsion tanker acts as the recycling agent tank. The finer RAP gradation has increased
the optimum emulsion content to about 2.6% to 3% (residual asphalt content of 1.8% to 2%). The
CCPR mix, referred to as “pugmill mix,” is currently designed using 50 gyrations, but this
number will likely decrease so the mix design voids more closely replicate those seen in the
field cores.
The plant is operated by a four-person crew: two loader operators, a plant operator, and one
person acting as a troubleshooter and choreographer. Additional day labor is added as needed.
The Maine DOT CCPR operation produces between 60,000 and 100,000 tons of cold mix
per year.
The field target density is set as a percentage of the test strip maximum specific gravity. The
final wearing surface is placed about 14 days after the cold recycled mix is placed. Cores can be
taken to determine if the overlay can be placed sooner, sometimes as soon as 3 to 4 days after
placing the cold recycled mix. When asked if the cores hold together when taken shortly after
placement, Mr. Luce noted that if the core held together during coring, the mix had likely cured
sufficiently, which is demonstrated by meeting strength requirements.
The fine cold recycled mix gradation allows the mix to be used as a leveling course, a base
layer, or in multilift designs. The typical lift thickness is 3 in. (75 mm). Additional lifts can be
placed once the first lift cures for about 2 to 3 days. As many as three lifts of the cold recycled
mix have been used on projects. Regardless of the number of lifts, cold recycled mixes have been
typically used on lower traffic volume roadways, although a recent project was completed using
a cold recycled mix on 12 miles of interstate highway.
None of the projects to date have involved ride quality specifications. But preliminary evalu-
ations show that a cold recycled mix layer will reduce an existing International Roughness
Index (IRI) of about 350 in./mi to under 90 in./mi when the overlay (one lift) is placed on the
cold recycled mix.
The current cost of conventional hot asphalt mix is around $110/ton. The cost of the entire
cold recycled mix project (material processing, mix production, placing) is between $46 and
$47 per ton, which is a cost savings of at least 54%.
Case Example Four – Utah DOT

Cold Recycling Experiences
Utah DOT The Utah DOT recently completed a 5-year research study, which resulted in the implemen-
tation of Utah DOT Materials Manual, Part 8-965: Guidelines for Evaluation, Mix Design and
Field Acceptance of Cold Recycling of Asphalt Pavements Using Solventless Emulsion (Utah
DOT 2017). The original research findings are documented in VanFrank et al. (2014), VanFrank
(2015), and VanFrank et al. (2016).

Case Examples 105
The new standard includes four innovative components:

• Adjusting the RAP gradation based on achievable density over a range of temperatures
• Setting an optimum moisture content to prevent flash setting of the emulsion
• Field testing in nearby field laboratories with quick turnaround times
• Shear vane testing to determine when the roadway can be opened to traffic
Discussions with Mr. Kevin VanFrank were used to clarify, expand, and summarize these
points in the following sections (K. VanFrank, personal communication, July 23 and 31, 2020).
Density over a Range of Temperatures

The RAP temperature needs to be between 80°F (27°C) and 120°F (47°C) to achieve the
densification. There is only a limited change in density when the temperature is below or above
this range (Figure 53). The slope of the percent compaction–temperature relationship provides
an understanding of how a particular RAP source responds to changes in temperatures. When
the slope is flat (i.e., little change in density with temperature), the RAP will behave like a black
rock. Steeper slopes indicate the workability and compactability of the cold recycled mix can be
significantly influenced by changes in temperatures. This indicates the RAP may be binder-rich,
and have less oxidized asphalt, from one or more chip seals. Understanding adjustments that
need to be made during the mix design stage helps reduce unanticipated, but needed, changes
in the materials and/or quantities during construction. It also highlights the importance of
having experienced personnel evaluating and overseeing projects.
For mix design purposes, the lowest desirable density was set at 92% of the RAP maximum
specific gravity (8% air voids) for RAP-only specimens compacted at 80°F (27°C); the upper
desirable density was set at 97% at 3% air voids when compacted at 120°F (47°C). Adjustments
to the quantity and type(s) of materials are needed when the RAP-only densities do not meet
these limits.
Figure 53. Example of the compacted RAP density-temperature

relationship.

When the percent compaction at 80°F (27°C) is less than 92% (± 1%), fine corrective aggre-
gate or Portland cement can be used to fill the voids between the RAP particles. If RAP-only
specimens prepared at 120°F (47°C) have compaction levels higher than 97% (± 1%), other
materials such as coarse corrective aggregates can help by providing more room in the mix for
other materials. Specimens with the additional materials are prepared and tested. If the percent
compaction at either temperature still does not meet the requirements, further material adjust-
ments may be evaluated at the engineer’s discretion. Alternatively, the project may not be a good
candidate for cold recycling.
Setting an Optimum Water Content

The optimum water content is defined as the water needed to prevent the emulsion from
flash setting. The initial laboratory research showed that over 90% of the optimum moisture
content needed to prevent flash set was held by the No. 8 (minus 2.36-mm) and No. 30 (minus
0.60-mm) RAP sieve sizes. A vibratory compaction table (15 seconds, 50 Hz), to represent steel
wheel rollers in vibratory mode, is used to consolidate a fixed fine RAP gradation. The amount
of water needed to show a thin film of water on the surface is defined as the moisture content
needed to prevent the emulsion from breaking. This is the moisture content for the fine RAP.
The water needed for the entire RAP gradation is defined as the ratio of the percent water
needed to prevent the emulsion from breaking to the percent fine RAP in the total RAP grada-
tion. The optimum water content includes added water and the water content in the lime slurry
used to improve moisture resistance.
Field Testing
Nuclear density gauges used to measure the in-place density are calibrated with wet theo-
retical maximum specific gravities. Wet theoretical maximum specific gravities are calculated
as follows:
• Set the target density as a percentage of the mix design theoretical maximum specific gravity.
• Measure the moisture content of the cold recycled mix, w% (in decimal form).
• Divide the mix design theoretical maximum specific gravity by (1 – w%).
• Input this value into the nuclear density gauge as the target density.
The nuclear gauge readings can be adjusted to reflect density estimates based on current moisture
content.
The Utah DOT requires the contractor to maintain a field laboratory within 5 minutes of the
construction site, and results need to be completed within 30 minutes of obtaining the sample.
The distance and time limit were set based on a typical speed of 30 ft/min of paving. Therefore, test
results can be obtained for every 1,000 ft (300 meters) of paving.
The cold recycled mix needs to exhibit cohesive characteristics (i.e., the emulsion needs to
break) before rolling begins. Rolling may need to be delayed until this point is reached. If rolling
starts too soon, the mix moves out from under the roller and is not densified. It is best to have
more than one steel wheel vibratory (40 ton) breakdown roller and a pneumatic rubber tire
roller available to maximize the density in a short time without having to increase the speed of
the rollers to keep up with the paver. Rollers that move too quickly create fine ripples on the
surface that can influence ride quality.
The shear vane test is used to estimate timing for compaction and opening to traffic:
• Between 25 and 35 ft-lb is considered the compaction “sweet spot.”
• Over 40 ft-lb indicates finish rolling needs to be completed.
• Greater than 30 ft-lb indicates the mat can be opened to traffic.

Case Examples 107
Source: VanFrank 2015.
Figure 54. Components of shear vane test equipment.
The equipment consists of a 5-lb sledgehammer, a torque wrench capable of reading to at least
150 ft-lb, a segmented vane [approximately 3 in. by 3 in. (75 mm by 75 mm)], and a 15�16-in.
socket (Figure 54). The vane is driven into the mat with the sledgehammer, and the socket and
torque wrench are used to rotate the vane 90° in 10 seconds within the mat surface.
The original research study also used a Marshall hammer to evaluate the effort needed to make
an indentation in the mat. But continued work with both methods showed the shear vane test
was the most useful method.
Case Example Five – Caltrans Experience

with Cold Recycling Smoothness Specification
Numerous agencies have implemented the use of IRI ride quality specifications for accep-
tance of conventional pavement projects. However, no information was found in the literature
review that evaluates the ability of cold recycling processes to meet these specifications. Over
the past decade, Caltrans has transitioned from using the California profilograph to inertial Caltrans
profilers for acceptance. Caltrans was also developing cold recycling specifications over the
same period. Mr. Allen King of Caltrans worked with Don Matthews of Pavement Recycling
Systems to document the ride quality of the existing pavement, the cold recycled mix layer, and
the final overlay surface.
Caltrans defines ride quality as the mean roughness index (MRI), which is the average of
the wheel path IRI. Data were collected to establish the ability of cold recycling to improve
existing ride quality as well as to evaluate the typical smoothness of the cold recycled mix layer
(without an overlay) (Table 63). Regardless of the existing MRI, the CIR layer consistently has
an MRI between about 75 and 90 in./mi. While CIR improves a rough existing pavement, it can
make a smooth pavement somewhat rougher.
Data were also collected for cold recycling projects’ ride quality after the final wearing surface,
an overlay, was placed (Table 64). These projects then placed a 4-in. (0.33-ft) CIR layer with an
overlay from 1.2 to 1.8 in. (0.1 to 0.15 ft) thick. The average MRI was 55 in./mi once the overlay
was placed, and the average improvement in the ride quality was 41%.

Table 63. CIR ride quality measurements,

without overlay.
Existing MRI CIR MRI Percent

MRI Range Segments
Average Average Improvement
≤60 34 53.7 76.6 −42.6%
61 to 70 35 65.7 83.8 −27.5%
71 to 80 44 76.4 89.3 −16.9%
81 to 90 56 86.6 84.0 3.0%
91 to 100 34 96.2 85.8 10.8%
101 to 120 54 110.9 88.7 20.0%
121 to 140 23 130.7 89.4 31.6%
141 to 180 77 164.0 90.4 44.9%
181 to 240 166 211.6 86.4 59.2%
241 to 300 85 268.1 88.5 67.0%
301 to 400 84 342.5 89.4 73.9%
≥401 28 441.0 89.4 79.7%
Total 720
Source: King and Matthews 2019.
Table 64. Smoothness improvements for CIR with overlay, cold planing
with rubberized hot mix asphalt surface course, and bonded wearing
course options.
HMA
Data Existing %
Treatment Pavement
Points MRI Improvement
MRI
CIR with Overlay
0.15' HMA-A / 0.33' CIR 33 77.0 48.7 36.8%
0.15' HMA-A / 0.33' CIR 39 95.1 57.0 40.1%
0.15' HMA-A / 0.33' CIR 150 87.3 50.6 42.0%
0.10' RHMA-G / 0.33' CIR 53 121.2 70.1 42.2%
CIR Totals Average 275 93.7 55.0 41.3%
Source: King and Matthews 2019.
Case Example Six – More than Four Decades

of Federal Lands Highway Experience
with Cold Recycling
The Federal Lands Highway (FLH) is the roadbuilding component of the FHWA. The core
business of the FLH is providing engineering and construction services for highway and trans-
portation facility projects on, or serving, federally owned land. Over the past 10 years, FLH has
used in-place recycling to rehabilitate 1,430 miles with FDR (85%) and CIR, usually with an
overlay (15%) (Voth 2019).
The FLH in-place recycling program started in the early 1980s and routinely constructs CIR
on roadways in extreme environments. A CIR with an overlay was constructed in 2006 on

Case Examples 109
Badwater Road in Death Valley, and after 11 years, the pavement condition rating was 95.8.
In 1988, the FLH constructed the first CIR project in California on Ice House Road in the
Eldorado National Forest. The 13-mile roadway was 4 to 5 in. (100 to 125 mm) of CIR with a
2-in. (50-mm) overlay and needed to withstand 1,000 AADT with heavy logging trucks. After
33 years, the roadway is still in good shape, albeit with fine block cracking (Figure 55). Candidate
CIR projects are selected based on a visual distress evaluation, a soil analysis, and the existing
pavement thickness (M. Voth, personal communication, July 27, 2020). Localized areas of
webbing (i.e., alligator cracking), which indicates localized loss of support, can be managed
with spot repairs or edge drains. Soil testing includes determining the R-value and gradations
to determine the soil classification.
Pavement thickness is a key rehabilitation selection criterion. Rural roadways can be very
thin, sometimes only 1.5 to 2 in. (37 to 50 mm) of asphalt pavement topped with multiple chip
seals. At least 2 in. (50 mm) is needed to provide adequate material for CIR processes. CIR proj-
ects can recycle 100% of the existing pavement, down to the top of the subgrade. When asked if
support for the construction equipment is a problem when all the existing pavement is removed,
Mr. Voth noted that old pavement without evidence of support-related distress is typically a
good indication of adequate support, which can be confirmed with the soil testing. Experience
has shown that if 2 in. (50 mm) or more of the existing pavement cannot be left after milling,
then the entire pavement layer needs to be recycled. Leaving only 1 in. (25 mm) of old pavement
when using CIR is not recommended because the equipment can break up the thin layer of old
asphalt, creating an uneven paving surface. If the pavement is too thin for CIR [usually less than
2 in. (50 mm)], then some form of FDR is likely the best option.
Mr. Voth indicated the FLH has more experience with emulsion than foamed asphalt recy-
cling agents. The reason is the availability of materials rather than a materials selection consider-
ation. The limited availability of recycling contractors and the types of processes the contractors
can provide frequently restrict recycling and material options.
The density that needs to be met during construction is usually based on a test strip. The wet
density is measured with a nuclear density gauge. This provides a baseline for density measure-
ments but not an absolute measurement of density.
Traffic is usually controlled with pilot cars during construction and with signage for speed
control until the wearing surface is placed. The wearing surface is placed once the moisture
content is below 2.5% but no more than 14 days after the CIR is placed.
Secondary compaction can improve density, but when the compaction is the most beneficial
depends on the site-specific environmental conditions. In dry climates, secondary rolling can
Source: Mike Voth, FLH.
Figure 55. Ice House Road, 33 years of performance.

be completed the next day, and then the surface can be fog sealed. In humid climates, secondary
compaction may need to wait for several days until the CIR layer cures sufficiently. The timing
tends to be at the discretion of the contractor.
When the roadway needs to meet a ride quality specification, more experienced contractors
profile the roadway before construction. The data are used to identify opportunities for pre-
milling for profile corrections that can improve the final ride quality. When the CIR is done
correctly, and once the overlay (usually only one lift) is placed, the contractor can frequently
meet incentive requirements.

CHAPTER 5
Conclusions
The literature review documented information about pavement design, mix designs, perfor-
mance testing, service life, cost savings, and environmental benefits. The agency survey, discus-
sions with current and former agency staff, and a review of agency reports provided information
about project selection, construction procedures and practices, and barriers to increased use of
cold recycling.
Literature Review
The literature review evaluated published CIR and CCPR literature, research reports, and
conference proceedings published on agency research websites, in peer-reviewed journals, and
by regional user-producer organizations. The literature review documented information about
pavement design, mix designs, performance testing, service life, cost savings, and environmental
benefits. Agencies using the older AASHTO 1993 pavement design method employ a range
of structural layer coefficients. The newer AASHTO MEPDG pavement design methodology
uses laboratory testing to establish material properties that provide inputs for the performance
prediction models. Several sources of data for dynamic moduli values were found, but few
sources were found that can be used for cracking and rutting models.
A variety of specimen preparation methods and modifications to standard test method
temperatures and conditioning processes are used to evaluate cold recycled mixes. Specific
gravities are frequently determined using the traditional hot asphalt mixture test methods, but
several agencies use vacuum sealing methods because cold recycled mixture specimens have
higher air voids and RAP particles that are not fully coated. Basic mix design testing evaluates
Marshall stability or indirect tensile strength. Moisture sensitivity of the mix is assessed by eval-
uating the ratio of either stability or strength after saturation and soaking. Soaking and testing
temperatures as well as saturation levels are usually, but not always, decreased, and conditioning
may or may not include a freeze cycle.
Agencies may use performance testing as part of balanced mix designs. Compaction levels,
curing times, and curing temperatures vary widely among agencies and have a significant impact
on performance testing results. Cold recycled mixtures can be easily damaged during sample
preparation and can deform at platen and specimen clamp points.
The reported service life of cold recycled pavements ranges from 20 to 34 years when the cold
recycled mix is used in conjunction with an overlay. The service life is somewhat shorter and
more variable when chip seals are used as the wearing surface. Poor drainage can reduce the
service life by 30% or more.
Cold recycling with an overlay can reduce the cost of a project by 40% to 60% compared to
conventional mill and fill. Greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by about 50% compared
to conventional mill and fill.
111

Agency Survey and Case Examples

According to the survey responses and interviews, most cold recycling programs pave less
than 50 lane-miles per year. Cold recycling is frequently used on roadways with annual average
daily traffic under 10,000, but more experienced agencies use cold recycling on roadways with
AADTs between 10,000 and 25,000. Agencies have the most experience using CIR with emul-
sion recycling agents. Additional communications with various current and former agency staff
revealed that the cold recycling process and the type of recycling agent used by an agency are
limited by what is locally available and not usually the result of a preference for one process or
material over another.
Experienced agencies select potential cold recycled projects based on pavement distresses
and conventional pavement maintenance and rehabilitation triggers. Site investigations, coring,
and assessments of adequate subgrade support and drainage are an essential part of the project
selection process. With thorough site investigations and pavement designs, CIR can be used
to recycle existing pavement down to the subgrade when the soil has adequate strength. Many
agencies also use traffic levels as a project selection criterion. Less experienced agencies limit cold
recycling to AADT levels generally under 5,000, while experienced agencies use cold recycled
mixes on roadways with over 10,000 AADT. Successful CIR projects can be constructed in hot
desert climates and on mountain roadways with logging truck traffic.
Construction processes and material quantities are influenced by the existing pavement prop-
erties and environmental conditions. The hardness of the existing pavement is a function of the
oxidation of the asphalt and the temperature of the pavement. Changes in hardness and mat
temperature influence milling operations and the resulting RAP gradations, needed field adjust-
ments for liquid quantities, cold recycled mix workability, curing time, and strength gain.
The major advantage with CCPR is control over the consistency and quality of the cold
recycled mix. Stockpiling RAP and then processing it immediately before use helps rework
and blend RAP from various sources. It also permits specifying a smaller maximum size RAP
because oversized particles can be reground to meet the finer gradation requirements. With the
more prevalent use of finer cutting heads on the millers, smaller maximum size RAP is more
easily obtained with little further processing. The smaller maximum particle size helps reduce
segregation. Stockpiling RAP also helps stabilize the RAP moisture content. Consistent grada-
tions and moisture contents improve the consistency of material properties and in-place
densities. An added advantage to finer gradations is that the cold recycled mix can also be used
as a leveling course for other paving and maintenance projects.
Test strips can be used to establish the maximum density that can be achieved for the project-
specific cold recycled mix and current environmental conditions. However, a few agencies
enforce density requirements based on a percentage of the laboratory specific gravities. The
in-place density is measured with a nuclear density gauge. The gauge can be calibrated with wet
maximum specific gravity measurements, which are calculated using the mix design maximum
specific gravity and the moisture content of the field mix.
Cold recycled mixes with emulsions need to show some evidence that the emulsion is starting
to break before rolling starts. A sufficient number of rollers is needed so the rolling can keep
up with the paving operation without needing to increase the speed of the rollers. If the cold
recycled mix is placed in a windrow, the paver elevator needs to be close enough to the pugmill
so the emulsion does not break in the windrow and it needs sufficient horsepower to pick up the
mix. The shear vane test can provide useful information for when rolling will be most effective
and when traffic can be allowed on the new layer.

Conclusions 113
Adequate curing of the cold recycled mix needs to occur before placement of the final wearing
surface. This is commonly done by defining maximum allowable moisture content or by setting
a limit on the time between recycling and overlay placement. The reduction of in-place moisture
can be difficult to confirm during rainy periods.
The ride quality of cold recycled mix projects can meet existing ride quality specifications.
More experienced contractors profile the existing roadway to identify areas that can be pre-
milled to improve the final ride quality. Experienced contractors can meet incentive limits for
ride quality with the cold recycled layer and a single lift overlay.
The most frequently cited barriers to increased use of cold recycling processes are the lack
of agency experience, the lack of experienced contractors, and the lack of well-defined project
selection criteria. The lack of quality assurance testing and construction specifications for
CCPR with foamed asphalt recycling agent and previous unsuccessful experiences with emul-
sion CIR recycling agent were also cited as barriers for increased use.
Most agencies have not yet used the recently released AASHTO and ARRA standards,
however, several agencies are planning on using the AASHTO standards for upcoming projects.
Recommendations for Future Research

Suggestions for future research include the following:
• Modify and standardize conventional testing procedures for use with cold recycled mixes.
• Develop a cold recycled mix design procedure that includes an assessment of specimens
compacted at different temperatures.
• Define the factors behind problems with emulsions that a number of agencies reported were
a barrier to increased use.
• Establish key temperatures (air and pavement) needed for producing acceptable cold recycled
mixes with emulsions.
• Define key factors for improved mix properties with supplemental compaction.
• Define time limits and procedures for quality assurance testing in the field.
• Evaluate performance characteristics and service life of CIR and CCPR projects.
• Update current definitions of CIR and CCPR to include a description of key material
properties.
• Evaluate where cold recycling belongs on the pavement deterioration curve.
While determining the density and air voids of asphalt mixes is routinely done during mix
design and for QA testing, the partially, or thinly, coated RAP particles and the porous nature
of the cold recycled mixes makes the selection of the most appropriate test method problem-
atic. Also, routine tests—such as Marshall stability, indirect tensile strength, and moisture
conditioning—are used to evaluate cold recycled mixes. However, the specimen compaction
levels, conditioning temperatures, and saturation levels are routinely adjusted for cold recycled
mixes. These adjustments need to be standardized.
The Utah DOT research showed that the densities that can be achieved at key temperatures
likely to be encountered during construction need to be evaluated. This evaluation would pro-
vide guidance on when additional materials are needed and would bracket a range of densities
that can be expected during construction. A comprehensive study is needed to evaluate how
temperature differences can be incorporated into cold recycled mix designs.
Various agencies reported poor experiences with emulsions in cold recycled mixes as a barrier
to increased use. However, ensuing discussions revealed the reasons for “poor experiences” are

varied and may be a function of unexpected environmental conditions. Guidance is needed for
selecting an appropriate emulsion that can be locally sourced for use in cold recycling projects.
Emulsions are used to produce cold recycled mixes, but the emulsions are usually held at warm
temperatures slightly above pavement temperatures. When the existing pavement temperatures
and/or the emulsion temperatures are too low or too high, the quality of the field produced mix
can suffer. The impact of the individual material component temperatures on the in-place mix
properties needs to be investigated so that appropriate temperature limits can be defined.
Supplemental compaction can significantly improve the in-place density. But at this time, the
use and timing of supplemental compaction are generally left to the discretion of the contractor.
Research is needed to identify key factors for using supplemental compaction.
The time between sampling and testing significantly influences test results. Well-defined time
requirements for sampling, specimen preparation, and testing are needed so that QA testing
will provide useful and accurate results.
While various agencies and researchers have documented the long-term performance of
cold recycled mix properties, they each used their own methods for calculating the pavement
condition rating and for statistical analyses. This variation limits the applicability of the find-
ings because the underlying factors that influence service life are not consistently included in
the analysis and resulting performance models. A comprehensive study is needed to develop
material inputs and verify performance prediction models that include cold recycled mix layers.
The current definitions of cold in-place and cold central plant recycling describe the processes
but not the material characteristics. Cold recycled mixes are viscoelastic materials that are
distinctly different from conventional hot asphalt dense-graded mixes. Cold recycled mixture
pavement layers significantly reduce reflective cracking, have adequate indirect tensile strengths,
can resist rutting from heavy traffic loads, and show a gradual increase in strength over the first
few years. Including the material property characteristics in the definition will help users under-
stand the most appropriate uses for these materials.
CIR and CCPR have two uses: as an alternative to conventional mill and fill, and to rehabili-
tate the entire asphalt layer. These two uses are applied at different locations on the pavement
deterioration curve. Currently, the mill and fill option is shown on the pavement deterioration
curve at about 60 PCI, but cold recycling is only shown as an option at about 40 PCI. Adding
cold recycling as an alternative to mill and fill at the higher PCI level needs to be considered.
The usefulness of cold recycling as an alternative to mill and fill may help increase the use of
these processes earlier in the life of the pavement.

References
AASHTO. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing. Washington,
D.C., 2019. https://digital.transportation.org/MyStore/WebPublication/4453. Accessed Jan. 10, 2020.
Alghamdi, H. A. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) Based Evaluation of Sustainable Low Volume Rehabilitation
Techniques. MS thesis. Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University, Aug. 2016. https://
www.acppubs.com/articles/8320-virginia-dot-widens-i-64-to-aid-commuters. Accessed Nov. 2019.
Arambula-Mercado, E., S. J. Chavarro-Munoz, S. Hu, J. Epps, E. S. Park, and A. Epps-Martin. High Reclaimed
Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Asphalt Mixes for Low Volume Roads. Final Report BE194. Texas A&M Transpor-
tation Institute, Nov. 2018.
Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association (ARRA). Recommended Mix Design Guidelines for Cold Recycling
Using Emulsified Asphalt Recycling Agents, CR 201. Annapolis, Md., April 7, 2016.
Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association (ARRA). Recommended Mix Design Guidelines for Cold Recycling
Using Foamed (Expanded) Recycling Agent, CR 202. Annapolis, Md., Aug. 25, 2017.
ASTM. ASTM Volume 04.03 Road and Paving Materials; Vehicle-Pavement Systems. ASTM International,
Conshohocken, PA, March 31, 2021.
ASTM. ASTM D6951/D6951M Standard Test Method for Use of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer in Shallow
Pavement Application. ASTM Volume 04.03 Road and Paving Materials; Vehicle-Pavement Systems. https://
www.astm.org/Standards/D6951.htm. Accessed Dec. 29, 2019.
Batista, F., J. Valentin, Z. Cizkova, T. Valentova, D. Simnofske, K., Mollenhauer, A. Tabakovic, C. McNally, and
M. Engels. Report on Available Test and Mix Design Procedures for Cold-Recycled Bitumen Stabilised Materials,
Characterization of Advanced Cold Recycling Bitumen Stabilized Pavement Solutions, Deliverable D1.1.
Conference of European Directors of Roads, Brussels, Belgium, July 31, 2014.
Bazrafshan Moghadam, B., and H. Farhad Mollashahi. Suggesting a Simple Design Method for Cold Recycled
Asphalt Mixes with Asphalt Emulsion. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, Vol. 23, No. 7, June 2017,
pp. 966–967. https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2017.1343200. Accessed Dec. 2, 2019.
Betti, G., G. Airey, K. Jenkins, A. Marradi, and G. Tebaldi. Active Fillers’ Effect on In Situ Performances of
Foam Bitumen Recycled Mixtures. Road Materials and Pavement Design, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2017, pp. 281–296.
Bhavsar, J. Comparing Cold In-Place Recycling (CIR) and Cold In-Place Recycling with Expanded Asphalt Mix-
ture (CIREAM). MS thesis. University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2015. https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/
bitstream/handle/10012/9634/Bhavsar_Janki.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed Jan. 15, 2020.
Black, K. Cold In-Place Recycling: A Cost-Effective Pavement Preservation Treatment. Presented at 2013
Transportation Short Course, Texas Department of Transportation, Oct. 15, 2013. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/
conferences/tsc13/presentations/materials-1/black.pdf. Accessed Jan. 10, 2020.
Bowers, B. F., D. E. Allain, and B. K. Diefenderfer. A Review of Agency Pavement Recycling Construction Speci-
fications. Prepared for 2020 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2020.
Brown, D. CIR a Hit in L.A. Better Roads, July 8, 2013. https://www.equipmentworld.com/cir-a-hit-in-l-a/.
Accessed Oct. 26, 2019.
Buczynski, P., and M. Iwanski. Complex Modulus Change Within the Linear Viscoelastic Region of the Mineral-
Cement Mixture with Foamed Bitumen. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 172, 2018, pp. 52–62.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/construction-and-building-materials/vol/172/suppl/C. Accessed
Jan. 15, 2020.
Bugni, C. Cold Recycling in Montana. Surfacing Design Unit Report. Montana Department of Transportation,
Aug. 2015.
Burnham, T. R. Application of the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer to the Minnesota Department of Transpor-
tation Pavement Assessment Procedures. Office of Minnesota Road Research Report MN/RC-97/19.
115

Minnesota Department of Transportation, May 1997. https://ntlrepository.blob.core.windows.net/

lib/20000/20200/20242/PB98118359.pdf. Accessed Nov. 30, 2019.
Busch, A. Cold In-Place (CIR) Recycling in Nevada. Presented at National Pavement Preservation Conference,
Nashville, Tenn., 2012. http://pavementvideo.s3.amazonaws.com/2012_Pavement_National/PDF/Wed%20
345%20-%20T1%20-%203%20-%20Cold-In-Place%20Recycling%20in%20Nevada%20-%20Anita%20
Bush.pdf. Accessed Nov. 1, 2019.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Special Provisions Section 903-1: Cold In-Place Recycled
Asphalt Concrete Pavement. March 1, 2016.
Campos, J. Influence of Time and Temperature of Supplemental Compaction on the Performance of Cold
Recycled Pavements. Presented at Semi-Annual ARRA Conference, Monterey, Calif., 2019.
Carter, A., N. Bueche, and D. Perraton. Laboratory Characterization of CIR and FDR Materials. Presented at
3rd Specialty Conference on Material Engineering & Applied Mechanics, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2013.
https://csce.ca/elf/apps/CONFERENCEVIEWER/conferences/2013/pdfs/mechanics/106.pdf. Accessed
Jan. 10, 2020.
Carvajal, M. E. Evaluation of Cracking Behavior of Cold In-Place Recycling Asphalt Mixtures. MS thesis. Uni-
versity of Nevada, Reno, 2018.
Chan, S., B. Lane, C. Raymond, W. Lee, and T. Kazmierowski. Five Year Performance of Cold In-Place Recycling
and Cold In-Place Recycling with Expanded Asphalt Mix on Highway 7, Perth, Ontario. Presented at 2009
Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia, 2009.
Chastain, T. Best Practices for Milling and Cold Planing. Wirtgen America, Antioch, Tenn., 2019. https://
www.rmaces.org/docs/tomchastain.pdf. Accessed Oct. 26, 2019.
Chen, D. Evaluation of Long-Term Performance of Cold In-Place Recycled Asphalt Roads. PhD dissertation. Iowa
State University, Ames, 2006. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/1498. Accessed Jan. 10, 2020.
Christianson, T., and A. Mahoney. Cold In-Place Recycling Using an Emulsion Binder. Presented at NDLTAP
2019 North Dakota Conference, Bismarck, 2019. https://www.ndltap.org/events/asphalt/. Accessed Dec. 1,
2019.
Cleaver, L. Dunn Performs Urban CIR in Illinois. For Construction Pros, Nov. 25, 2013 [Online]. Available: https://
www.forconstructionpros.com/pavement-maintenance/preservation-maintenance/article/11248246/
dunn-performs-urban-cold-inplace-recycling-in-illinois. Accessed Oct. 28, 2019.
Cosenza, N., and Z. Robinson. Cold Central Plant—A View into Our Future. Presented at Semi-Annual ARRA
Conference, Monterey, Calif., 2019.
Cox, B. C., and I. L. Howard. Cold In-Place Recycling and Full Depth Reclamation Literature Review. White
Paper No. CMRC WP 13-1. Mississippi State University Construction Materials Research Center, July 2013.
https://www.cee.msstate.edu/downloads/(2013)CoxandHoward-CMRCWP13-1-LitReviewofCIRandFDR.
pdf. Accessed Nov. 16, 2019.
Cox, B. C., and I. L. Howard. Cold In-Place Recycling Characterization Framework and Design Guidance for
Single or Multiple Component Binder System. Report No. FHWA/MS-DOT-RD-15-250 Volume 2. Mississippi
State University, Dec. 18, 2015. https://www.cee.msstate.edu/publications/2015_FHWA_MS_DOT_RD_
15_250_Vol_2_CIR.pdf. Accessed Nov. 25, 2019.
Cross, S. A. Cold In-Place Recycling (CIR) Study. Report No. FHWA-CFL/TD-0x-00x. FHWA Central Federal
Lands Highway Division, Lakewood, Colo., Sept. 7, 2012.
Cross, S. A. Project Selection for In-Place Recycling and CRAB. Presented at 54th Annual Idaho Asphalt Confer-
ence, Moscow, Idaho, 2014.
Cross, S. A. Specification Resources for In-Place Recycling. Presented at SHRP 2 Implementation Task Force
Meeting, Feb. 24, 2015. http://shrp2.transportation.org/documents/presentations/9_Cross_SHRP2R07
Vermont.pdf. Accessed Jan. 10, 2020.
Cross, S. A. Cold In-Place and Cold Central Plant Recycling. Presented at Midwest Pavement Preservation
Partnership Meeting, Madison, Wis., Nov. 6–8, 2018.
Cross, S. A., J. A. Epps, T. Parker, J. Goldbaum, M. O’Leary, D. Johnson, and L. Gallivan. In-Place Pavement
Recycling: Gaps, Barriers, and a Path Forward. Presented at 2014 International and Western States In-Place
Recycling Conference, Denver, Colo., 2014.
Cross, S. A., R. Kearney, H. G. Justus, and W. H. Chesner. Cold In-Place Recycling in New York. Report
No. C-06-21. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and New York State Department
of Transportation, Albany, July 2010. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/
trans-r-and-d-repository/C-06-21%20Final%20Report%20-%20July%202010.pdf. Accessed Nov. 25, 2019.
Davich, P., F. Camargo, B. Larsen, R. Roberson, and J. Siekmeier. Validation of DCP and LWD Moisture Specifica-
tions for Granular Materials. Office of Materials Report No. MN/RC-2006-20. Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Maplewood, July 2006.
Diefenderfer, B. In-Place Pavement Recycling: VDOT Experiences and Expectations. Presented at 2016 SCAPA
Winter Meeting, Columbia, S.C., 2016.

References 117
Diefenderfer, B. K., and A. K. Apeagyei. I-81 In-Place Pavement Recycling Program. Report No. FHWA/VCTIR
15-R1. Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, Charlottesville, Va., Aug. 2014. http://
www.virginiadot.org/vtrc/main/online_reports/pdf/15-r1.pdf. Accessed Jan 20, 2020.
Diefenderfer, B. K., D. Jones, A. J. T. Hand, B. F. Bowers, and G. Flintsch. Phase I Interim Report. NCHRP Project
No. 09-62, “Rapid Tests and Specifications for Construction of Asphalt-Treated Cold Recycled Pavements,”
Dec. 2017.
Du, S. Performance Characteristics of Cold Recycled Mixture with Asphalt Emulsion and Chemical Addi-
tives. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2015. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/amse/
2015/271596/. Accessed Jan. 13, 2020.
Emerson, J. Utilization of Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP). Presented at 2017 Public Works Officers Institute
and Expo, San Diego, Calif., March 22, 2017. https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Education-
and-Events-Section/Public-Works-Officers-Institute/2017-Handouts/What-s-It-Going-To-Be-Asphalt,-
Concrete,-Paver-(2). Accessed Nov. 20, 2017.
Fang, X., A. Garcia-Hernandez, and P. Lura. Overview on Cold Cement Bitumen Emulsion Asphalt. RILEM
Technical Letters, Vol. 1, 2016, pp. 116–121. https://www.h-a-d.hr/pubfile.php?id=1035. Accessed Jan. 5, 2020.
FHWA. Cold In-Place Asphalt Recycling Checklist. Pavement Preservation Checklist Series, FHWA-HIF-19-035.
U.S. Department of Transportation, 2019. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/preservation/2019checklists/
hif19035.pdf. Accessed Jan. 10, 2020.
Fu, P. Micromechanics for Foamed Asphalt Stabilized Materials. PhD dissertation. Research Report UCD-ITS-
RR-09-69. University of California, Davis Institutes of Transportation, Dec. 2009.
Fu, P., D. Jones, and J. T. Harvey. Micromechanics of the Effects of Mixing Moisture on Foamed Asphalt Mix
Properties. ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 10, 2010, pp. 985–995.
Gandi, A., F. BenSalem, S. Bressi, A. Carter, and N. Bueche. Double Coating of Full Depth Reclamation Materials.
E & E Congress 2016, 6th Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress, Prague, Czech Republic, June 1–3, 2016.
https://www.h-a-d.hr/pubfile.php?id=1035. Accessed Jan. 5, 2020.
Gallegos, J. Cold In-Place Recycling in New Mexico. Asphalt Magazine, Oct. 19, 2019. https:\\asphaltmagazine.
com/cir-new-mexico. Accessed Feb. 25, 2020.
Graziani, A., C. Mignini, E. Bocci, and M. Bocci. Complex Modulus of Cold Recycled Mixtures: Measurements
and Modeling. Presented at International Society of Asphalt Pavement Conference, Fortaleza, Brazil,
June 2018. http://icongresso.ikone.itarget.com.br/arquivos/trabalhos_completos/ikone/3/281_27102017_
113907.pdf. Accessed Jan. 10, 2020.
Gu, F., W. Ma, R. C. West, A. J. Taylor, and Y. Zhang. Structural Performance and Sustainability Assessment of
Cold Central-Plant and In-Place Recycled Asphalt Pavements: A Case Study. Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 208, March 12, 2018, pp. 1513–1523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.222. Accessed Jan. 10, 2020.
Habib, A. VDOT AASHTOWare Pavement ME User Manual. Virginia Department of Transportation, Pavement
Design and Evaluation Section, Central Office Materials Division, Sept. 2017. https://www.virginiadot.org/
VDOT/Business/asset_upload_file108_3638.pdf. Accessed Nov. 23, 2019.
Harvey, J. LCA and Pavement Reclamation: Overview and a Look Forward. Presented at Semi-Annual ARRA
Conference, Monterey, Calif., 2019.
Henault, J. W., and D. J. Kilpatrick. Evaluation of a Cold In-Place Recycled Rehabilitation Treatment, Final
Report. Report No. CT-2259-F-09-2. Bureau of Engineering and Construction Research Unit, Connecticut
Department of Transportation, June 2009.
Hoover, B. Pavement Recycling Systems Utilizes Cold Central Plant Recycling for the City of Glendale Improvement
Project on Central Avenue and Adjacent Streets. California Asphalt Magazine, 2014 Pavement Preservation
Issue. https://www.pavementrecycling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/glendale.pdf. Accessed Nov. 30, 2019.
Indiana DOT. Chapter 602 Project Categories and Pavement Types. In Indiana Department of Transportation
2013 Design Manual, rev. Jan. 2020. https://www.in.gov/indot/div/mt/itm/pubs/592_testing.pdf. Accessed
March 20, 2020.
Illinois DOT. Special Provision for Cold In-Place Recycling (CIR) and Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) with Foamed
Asphalt Mix Design Procedures. LR 1000-2. Bureau of Local Roads and Streets, June 1, 2012.
Jahren, C., J. Yu, and R. C. Williams. Alternate Design Methods to Renew Lightly Traveled Paved Roads. Research
Report MN/RC 2016-14. Minnesota Department of Transportation, March 2016. http://www.lrrb.org/
pdf/201614.pdf. Accessed Dec. 2, 2019.
Jenkins, K. J. Mix Design Considerations for Cold and Half-Warm Bituminous Mixes with Emphasis on Foamed
Bitumen. PhD dissertation. University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, Sept. 2000. http://www.aapaq.org/
q/2012st/doc/REF/N07_Jenkins-Mix_design_considerations_for_cold_mix_and_half-warm_bituminous_
mixtures_with_emphasis_on_foamed_bitumen-Complete_PhD_Jenkins.pdf. Accessed Jan. 15, 2020.
Jones, D. Ongoing Research from the UC Davis Test Track: What Are We Testing? Presented at Semi-Annual
ARRA Conference, Monterey, Calif., 2019.
Jones, D., P. Fu, J. Harvey, and F. Halles. Full-Depth Pavement Reclamation with Foamed Asphalt: Final Report.
Research Report No. UCPRC-RR-2008-07. University of California Pavement Research Center, UC Davis,
UC Berkeley, April 2008.

Kandhal, P. S., and R. B. Mallick. Chapter 12. Cold-Mix Asphalt Recycling—Central Plant (Construction
Methods and Equipment). In Pavement Recycling Guidelines for State and Local Governments, Participant’s
Reference Book. Publication No. FHWA-SA-98-042. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycling/98042/12.cfm. Accessed Oct. 26, 2019.
Kandhal, P. S., and R. B. Mallick. Chapter 13. Cold In-Place Recycling (Construction Methods and Equipment).
In Pavement Recycling Guidelines for State and Local Governments, Participant’s Reference Book. Publica-
tion No. FHWA-SA-98-042. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
pavement/recycling/98042/13.cfm. Accessed Oct. 26, 2019.
Kazmi, S. Effect of Cold Central Plant Recycled Stockpiling on Mixture Performance. MS thesis. University of
Virginia, Charlottesville, 2018.
Kergaye, C. Cold In-Place Recycling of Asphalt Pavements: 2017 High Value Research Projects. Presented at
Utah Department of Transportation, July 2017.
Khosravifar, S. Design and Mechanical Properties of Foamed Asphalt Stabilized Base Material. MS thesis. Univer-
sity of Maryland, College Park, 2012.
King, A., and D. Matthews. Smoothness in CA and in ARRA Processes. Presented at Semi-Annual ARRA Con-
ference, Monterey, Calif., 2019.
Lee, H. D., and J. J. Kim. Evaluation of Long-Term Field Performance of Cold In-Place Recycled Roads: Field
Distress Survey. Report No. IHRB Project TR-502. Public Policy Center, Department of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, 2007.
Lombardo, J. Recycling Efforts Save Virginia Over $15M on I-64 Rebuild. For Construction Pros, June 4, 2018.
https://www.forconstructionpros.com/asphalt/article/21003538/recycling-efforts-save-virginia-dot-over-
15m-on-i64-rebuild. Accessed Nov. 25, 2019.
Ma, T., H. Wang, Y. Zhao, X. Huang, and Y. Pi. Strength Mechanism and Influence Factors for Cold Recycled
Asphalt Mixture. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 2015, Article ID 181853, 2015. https://
www.hindawi.com/journals/amse/2015/181853/. Accessed Jan. 20, 2020.
Ma, W. Design and Characterization of Cold Recycled Foamed Asphalt Mixtures with High RAP Contents. PhD
dissertation. Auburn University, 2018.
Martin Asphalt. Everything Asphalt-Central Plant Recycling. Brochure. July 29, 2016. http://www.MartinAsphalt.
com. Accessed Dec. 19, 2019.
Matthews, D., B. J. Diefenderfer, and D. Timm. Cold Central Plant Recycling: A Proven Paving Approach Using
100% Recycled Materials. Presentation for TRB Webinar, AFD60, Design of Flexible Pavements Committee,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., n.d.
McCarty, N. F. Cold Recycling Within ADOT: Lessons Learned and Future Implementation. Presented at
Arizona State University Conference, Nov. 15, 2017. https://pavement.engineering.asu.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2017/12/1-Cold-Recycling-ASU-PM-Conference-11-15-17.pdf. Accessed Oct. 15, 2019.
Minnesota DOT. MnDOT Grading and Base Manual. Geotechnical Section, Grading and Base Unit, Aug. 23, 2017.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/manuals/GBase/2017gbmanual11032017.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2020.
Moors, D. Evolution of Oil: Where Did the Cutbacks Go? Presented at North Dakota Asphalt Conference,
Bismarck, 2019. https://www.ndltap.org/events/asphalt/downloads/2019-evolution-of-oil.pdf. Accessed
Nov. 19, 2019.
Nair, H. VDOT Experiences with Pavement Recycling. Presented at Virginia Transportation Construction
Alliance Conference, Oct. 2, 2018. https://www.vtca.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/BO6_Nair_
Pavement-Recycling.pdf. Accessed Nov. 28, 2019.
Nemati, R. Evaluation of Structural Contribution of Asphalt Mixtures Through Improved Performance Indices. PhD
dissertation. University of New Hampshire, Durham, 2019. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/2460.
Accessed Nov. 27, 2019.
Ortiz, J. A. C. Cold In-Place Recycling Mix Design, In-Place Density, and Long-Term Performance in Nevada.
MS thesis. University of Nevada, Reno, 2017.
Patenaude, D. RoadResource.org: A Day in the Life of a Super User. Presented at Semi-Annual ARRA Confer-
ence, Monterey, Calif., 2019.
Paving News. Solid Performance: Milling Machine Productivity Exceeds Expectations. Paving News, Issue
1, 2017, pp. 4–6. https://www.louisianacat.com/content/uploads/2016/03/Paving-News-PNV8N1.pdf.
Accessed Oct. 26, 2019.
Saidi, A. Laboratory Evaluation of Cold In-Place Recycling Asphalt Mixtures Using A Balanced Mix Design
Approach. MS thesis. Rowan University, 2019. https://rdw.rowan.edu/etd/2723. Accessed Jan. 15, 2020.
Sauceda, N. Pavement Preservation in the City of Los Angeles. Bureau of Street Services, 2008. https://prnc.org/
presentations/2008-Pavement.pdf. Accessed Nov. 20, 2019.
Schellhammer, D. Cold In-Place Recycling. Presented at Semi-Annual ARRA Conference, Monterey, Calif., 2019.

References 119
Schwartz, C. W., B. K. Diefenderfer, and B. F. Bowers. NCHRP Research Report 863: Material Properties of
Cold In-Place Recycled and Full-Depth Reclamation Asphalt Concrete. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2017.
Sebaaly, P. E., J. A. Castro, F. Ayala, M. Carvajal, and E. Y. Hajj. Development of Mix Design and Structural Design
Procedures for Cold In-Place Recycling. Research Report No. P643-15-803. Pavement Engineering and Science
Program, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, 2018.
Skinner, R. H. User Guide to the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Minnesota Department of Transportation,
MnROAD, Maplewood, n.d. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/materials/researchdocs/User_Guide.pdf. Accessed
Nov. 30, 2019.
Soohyok, I., S. Sebesta, and R. Younho. Methods of Rehabilitating Pavements with Moisture Damaged Asphalt
Layers: Technical Report. Research Report FHWA/TX-18/0-0626-R1. Texas A&M Transportation Institute,
2018.
Stahl, M. Cold Central Plant Recycling. Presented at 82nd Annual Meeting of the Illinois Asphalt Pavement
Association, March 11, 2019.
Stimilli, A., G. Ferrotti, A. Graziani, and F. Canestrari. Performance Evaluation of Cold Recycled Mixture
Containing High Percentage of Reclaimed Asphalt. EATA 2013, pp. 1–14. https://andreagrazianidotnet.
files.wordpress.com/2014/09/eata2013.pdf. Accessed Jan. 15, 2020.
Stroup-Gardiner, M. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 421: Recycling and Reclamation of Asphalt Pavements
Using In-Place Methods. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=14568. Accessed March 20, 2020.
Suleiman, N. Developing Balanced Mix Design Gyrations (NDesign) for North Dakota’s HMA Pavements. Pre-
sented at North Dakota Asphalt Conference, Bismarck, 2019. https://www.ndltap.org/events/asphalt/
downloads/2019-balanced-mix-design-gyrations.pdf. Accessed Nov. 19, 2019.
Tompkins, D. Cold Central Plant Recycling (CCPR): Update 2019. Presented at National Road Research Alliance
(NRRA) 2019 Pavement Workshop, May 21–23, 2019.
Utah DOT. Guidelines for Evaluation, Mix Design, and Field Acceptance of Cold Recycling of Asphalt Pave-
ments Using Solventless Emulsions. UDOT Materials Manual, Part 8-965.01, 2017.
VanFrank, K. Cold In-Place Recycle Phase III, Supplemental Field Protocol: Short Term Field Stability. Report
No. UT-15.08. Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City, 2015.
VanFrank, K., M. VanMilligen, and T. Biel. Cold In-Place Recycle Phase III: Mix Design. Report No. UT-14.08.
Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City, 2014.
VanFrank, K., M. VanMilligen, and T. Biel. Cold In-Place Recycling Using Solventless Emulsion—Phase IV (Emulsion
Qualification and Long-Term Field Performance). Report No. UT-16.04. Utah Department of Transportation,
Salt Lake City, 2016.
Vitillo, N. DARWIN-ME Pavement Analysis and Design Manual for NJDOT: Book 3—Materials Inputs. CAIT Pave-
ment Resource Program, Rutgers University, Piscataway, N.J., 2012. https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/
eng/pavement/pdf/Material_Inputs.pdf. Accessed Jan. 15, 2020.
Voth, M. Use, Experience, and Performance of In-Place Recycling. Presented at Semi-Annual ARRA Conference,
Monterey, Calif., 2019.
Wagner, C. Overview of Project Selection Guidelines for Cold In-Place and Cold Central Plant Pavement Recycling.
Tech Brief, FHWA-HIF-17-042. Office of Asset Management, Pavements, and Construction, FHWA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 2018. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/asphalt/pubs/hif17042.pdf.
Accessed Jan 10, 2020.
Wegman, D. E., and S. Mohammadreza. Optimizing Cold In-Place Recycling (CIR) Applications Through Fracture
Energy Performance Testing. Report No. MN/RC 2016-21. Local Road Research Board, Minnesota Depart-
ment of Transportation, 2016.
Wegman, D., and M. Sabouri. Evaluating Effective Asphalt Content in CIR Mixtures. Report No. MN/RC 2019-43.
Local Road Research Board, Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2019. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
research/reports/2019/201943.pdf. Accessed Jan. 22, 2020.
Wielinski, J. Introduction to Cold Central Plant Recycling. Presented at Purdue Road School 2017: Session 130,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., 2017.
Wirtgen Group. Wirtgen Cold Recycling Manual, 2nd ed. Windhagen, Germany, 2004. https://www.yumpu.com/
en/document/read/33315918/wirtgen-cold-recycling-manual-resansil. Accessed Jan. 18, 2020.
Woods, A. M. Evaluation of Curing Criteria for Cold In-Place Recycling of Asphalt. MS thesis. University of Iowa,
Iowa City, 2011. https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/3014. Accessed Jan. 15, 2020.
Yang, Y., Y. Yang, and B. Qian. Performance and Microstructure of Cold Recycled Mixes Using Asphalt Emulsion
with Different Contents of Cement. MDPI Materials, Vol. 12, No. 16, 2019, 2548. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC6720606/pdf/materials-12-02548.pdf. Accessed Dec. 15, 2019.

Yeung, E. A. Exploring Compaction Effects on Cold In-Place Recycling Mixtures Using Emulsified Asphalt. PhD
dissertation. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 2017. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1959. Accessed
Jan. 15, 2020.
Younes, T. An Experimental Study to Investigate the Effect on Tensile Strength and Dynamic Modulus of
the Addition of Portland Cement to Cold In-Place Recycled Asphalt Using Indirect Tensile and Dynamic
Modulus Tests. Presented at 2019 TAS-ITS Canada Joint Conference, Innovations in Pavement Manage-
ment, Engineering and Technologies Session, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, 2019. https://www.tac-atc.ca/
sites/default/files/conf_papers/tyounes-effect_on_tensile_strength.pdf. Accessed Jan. 7, 2020.
Zagoudis, J. Natural Preservation: Los Angeles County Uses Cold In-Place Recycling to Repair National Forest
Highway. Roads and Bridges, Feb. 2013, pp. 22–24. https://www.pavementrecycling.com/wp-content/
uploads/2017/08/lacaf_highway0213.pdf. Accessed Oct. 26, 2019.

APPENDIX A
Web-Based Survey Form
Survey for NCHRP Project 20-05/Topic 51-08, “Practice and Performance of Cold In-Place
Recycling and Cold Central Plant Recycling”
This survey is designed to collect key information needed to develop this synthesis. There are a total of 7
questions about various aspects of in-place recycling. The first three questions document contact
information, experience with the new AASHTO Provisional Standards, and help locating other regional,
local, and city agencies with cold recycling experience. The remaining four questions focus on the size and
extent of cold central plant recycling (CCPR) and cold in-place recycling (CIR) programs and any remaining
barriers to increased use. Please note, it is as important to collect “don’t use” information as to collect
information about existing programs.
The majority of the questions are "check the box" type. There are also opportunities for including
further information in the “Other” or “Additional Comments” boxes at the bottom of each question.
Thank you for taking the time to contribute your valuable information to our database.
1) Contact Information
Name ___________________________________
Agency ___________________________________
Position ___________________________________
Address ___________________________________
City ___________________________________
State ___________________________________
Zip Code ___________________________________
Phone ___________________________________
E-mail ___________________________________
121

2) Indicate if you use either of these recycling methods in your area and, if used, how long have you
been using each type: (Check all that apply)
Type of Recycling Less than 5 More than 10 We don't use this

5 to 10 years
years years method
Cold central plant Emulsions
recycling Foamed asphalt
Emulsions
CIR
Foamed asphalt
Additional Comments:
3) Do you have any experience with using the following cold recycling standards? (Definition: ARRA =
Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association)
Yes, we have No, we have NOT Planning on using

Standard used the used the the standard in the
standard standard near future
AASHTO MP 31
Standard Specification for Materials for Cold
Recycled Mixtures with Emulsified Asphalt
AASHTO PP 86
Standard Practice for Emulsified Asphalt
Content of Cold Recycled Mixture Designs
AASHTO PP 94
Standard Specification for Determination of
Optimum Asphalt Content of Cold Recycled
Mixture with Foamed Asphalt
AASHTO MP 38
Standard Specification for Mix Design of Cold
Recycled Mixture with Foamed Asphalt
ARRA CR101
Construction Guide for CIR Using Bituminous
Recycling Agents
ARRA CR102
Construction Guide for CCPR Using Bituminous
Recycling Agents
ARRA CR201
Mix Design Guidelines for Cold Recycling Using
Emulsified Asphalt Agent
ARRA CR202
Mix Design Guidelines for Cold Recycling Using
Foamed (Expanded) Agent

Web-Based Survey Form 123
ARRA CR301
Quality Control Sampling and Testing Guidelines
for Cold Recycling Using Bituminous Recycling
Agents
Other (indicate any other specifications or
guidelines used)
4) Indicate the approximate number of lane-miles that are recycled per year: (Check all that apply)
Less than 50 lane- 50 to 100 lane- Greater than 100

Type of Recycling
miles miles lane-miles
Emulsions
CIR
Foamed asphalt
5) Indicate typical annual average daily traffic (AADT) levels on your recycled pavement projects: (Check
all that apply)
Traffic Level
Type of Recycling
Emulsions
CIR
Foamed asphalt

6) Please indicate all barriers that limit the implementation or increased use of cold recycling methods.
(Check all that apply)
Cold Central Plant Recycling CIR

Barriers
No previous agency
experience
No experienced cold
recycling contractors
Previous unsuccessful
experiences
Project selection criteria not
well defined
materials
defined
in the field
specifications
Other
7) If you know of any other state, regional, or local agency that has cold recycling experience, please
provide contact information.
Type of Recycling Name, Contact Information

Cold central plant recycling
CIR

APPENDIX B
Individual Survey Responses
This appendix details how agency contacts were identified, the response rate and respondents’ job titles,
and each individual agency’s response to the survey questions.
Developing the Agency Contact List

Four AASHTO provisional standards related to cold recycling mix design and material specifications were
finalized in 2017. The AASHTO Technical Section 2a for Emulsified Asphalts manages the specification for
cold recycling processes with emulsified asphalt (MP 31) and cold recycling mix designs with emulsified
asphalt (PP 86). The AASHTO Technical Section 2d for Bituminous Materials manages the specification for
cold recycling processes with foamed asphalt (MP 38) and cold recycling mix designs with foamed asphalt
(PP 94). The members of these two Technical Sections are the agency staff most likely to have current
knowledge of cold recycling projects and processes in their state.
The combined membership for the two Technical Sections provided contacts for 41 state agencies
and the District of Columbia. Twenty-two of the contacts were members of both Technical Sections. When
there were two or more potential contacts for a given state, the initial survey invitation was sent to the
first name on the list. If no response was received after two reminder e-mails, then an invitation to take
the survey was sent to the next name on the contact list. Contacts for the nine agencies with no members
on either Technical Section were identified using referrals from other agencies, personal ASTM committee
contacts, and state-specific project articles in trade magazines.
Survey Response Rate

Individual responses were received from 40 state agencies for an 80% response rate. Not all respondents
answered all questions. Only one response per agency was included in the reported survey results.
Twenty-nine respondents self-identified, while 11 respondents chose not to provide this
information. However, 33 respondents did list their job title:
• Materials Engineer (5)
• Regional or District Engineer (5)
• Maintenance Engineer (4)
• Quality Assurance Supervisor (1)
• Technical Services Manager (1)
125

• Construction and Materials Bureau Chief (1)

• Asphalt Division Chief (1)
• Cold Asphalt, Grading, Base, Aggregate Engineer (1)
• Pavement Engineer (3)
• Civil Engineer Specialist (1)
• Asphalt Materials Workgroup Supervisor (1)
• Pavement Design Engineer (1)
• Chief Maintenance and Asset Management Engineer (1)
• Professional Engineer 1 (1)
• Engineer of Test (1)
• Managing Engineer (1)
• Chemical Stabilization Engineer (1)
• Director (1)
• Pavement Unit Supervisor (1)
• Materials and Testing (1)
Individual Agency Responses to Survey Questions

Question 2: Indicate if you use either of these recycling methods in your area and, if used, how long have
you been using each type (check all that apply):
Type of Recycling Less than 5 We don't use this
5 to 10 years More than 10 years
years method
CO, IN, MN, KS, KY, MI, MO, NC,
Emulsions NY, UT PA
MT NE, NV, OH, RI, SC,
Cold central
TN, VA
plant recycling
AK, AL, AZ, CT, IN, FL,
Foamed GA, MD, NM,
MN CA KS, KY, MI, MO, MT,
asphalt NY, VA
NC, NE, NV, OH, RI
AZ, CA, CO, IA, ID,
CO, DE, GA, IL,
MN, MO, NE, NH, AK, AL, CT, FL, KS, KY,
Emulsions IN, VA MD, MT, ND,
NM, NY, PA, SD, UT, MI, OH, RI, SC, TN
NV, OR
VT, WA
CIR
Foamed IN, KS, KY, MI, MT,
SC, VA, TX IL, MO, WI IA, MN, NE, NV, NY
asphalt NC, OH, OR, RI, SD,
TN, UT, VT
The additional comments by respondents follow:

Individual Survey Responses 127
• We have not used any treatment. Have had locals (City of Hilliard and City of Dublin just used CIR
and NE Ohio locals have used more often). We have considered possibly trying CIR and CCPR
within the next few years.
• Very few CCPR, majority CIR.
• I believe there is interest in CCPR.
• We did only limited amount of jobs using CCPR and CIR techniques.
• Have used emulsion in the past but now use foam asphalt exclusively.
• We had a trial CCPR with foamed asphalt project ready to go this past summer but had to abort at
the last minute. We are actively developing specifications for all four processes with the hope to
do some test sections or projects in the near future.
• Current VDOT specifications allow for use of emulsion or foamed asphalt for CIR and CCPR. To
date, only one project tried using CIR with emulsion and ultimately used foamed. No CCPR
projects have used emulsion to date.
• The Department does not use these treatments; however, many municipalities do use them. Two
companies in our area do most of the work for the municipalities.
• CIR with foam has only recently been approved as a standard specification. I would like to use this.
• No cold recycling has been performed by Arizona DOT since 2016.
• We have only done one project with bituminous, and it was a deep (8 inch) Cold in Place project in
Fall 2019. Looking for more candidates as it was successful.
• We have placed one test section on a project using CIR with emulsion.
• UDOT has used CIR for about 30 years. We have one project with CCPR that was about 7 years
ago. We have always used emulsions with our CIR projects.
Question 3: Do you have any experience with using the following cold recycling standards?
Planning on using the
Yes, we have used No, we have NOT
Standards standards in the near
the standard used the standard
future
AK, AL, AZ, CT, GA,
AASHTO MP 31
IN, KS, MN, MO,
Standard Specification for Materials for CO, DE, MT, NY, MD, NM, OH, SC,
NC, NE, NM, NV,
Cold Recycled Mixtures with Emulsified TX TN
PA, RI, UT, VA, WA,
Asphalt
WI
AK, AL, AZ, CO, CT,
AASHTO PP 86
GA, IN, KS, MN,
Standard Practice for Emulsified Asphalt MD, NM, OH, SC,
MT, NY MO, NC, NE, NM,
Content of Cold Recycled Mixture TN, TX
NV, PA, RI, UT, VA,
Designs
WA, WI

AASHTO PP 94 AK, AL, AZ, CO, CT,

Standard Specification for GA, IN, KS, MN,
Determination of Optimum Asphalt NY, WI MO, NC, NE, NM, MD, NM, SC, TN
Content of Cold Recycled Mixture with NV, PA, RI, UT, VA,
Foamed Asphalt WA, WI
AK, AL, AZ, CO, CT,
AASHTO MP 38
GA, IN, KS, MN,
Standard Specification for Mix Design of
NY, WI MO, MT, NC, NE, MD, NM, SC, TN
Cold Recycled Mixture with Foamed
NM, NV, OH, PA, RI,
Asphalt
UT, VA, WI
AK, AL, CO, CT, GA,
ARRA CR101
Construction Guide for CIR Using AZ
NM, NY NV, OH, PA, RI, UT,
VA, WA, WI
AK, AL, CO, CT, GA,
ARRA CR102
Construction Guide for CCPR Using AZ, OH
NM, NY, SC NV, PA, RI, UT, VA,
WA, WI
AK, AL, CO, CT, GA,
ARRA CR201
CA, MD, MT, NM, IN, KS, MN, NC, NE,
Mix Design Guidelines for Cold Recycling AZ, OH, TN
NY, SC NV, PA, RI, UT, VA,
Using Emulsified Asphalt Agent
WA, WI
AK, AL, CO, CT, GA,
ARRA CR202
MD, MO, NM, IN, KS, MN, MT, NC,
Mix Design Guidelines for Cold Recycling AZ, TN
NY, SC NE, NV, OH, PA, RI,
Using Foamed (Expanded) Agent
UT, VA, WA, WI
ARRA CR301 AK, AL, AZ, CO, CT,
Quality Control Sampling and Testing DE, MD, MO, MT, GA, IN, KS, MN, NC,
OH
Guidelines for Cold Recycling Using NM, NY, SC NE, NV, PA, RI, UT,
Bituminous Recycling Agents VA, WA, WI

• Plan to possibly have a few projects with CIR and/or CCPR in a few years.
• We have developed our own spec based on ARRA specs, and we used it extensively in the past.
Since AASHTO specs are relatively new, we will consider them for future jobs.
• We started a few years before any standards or guidance really existed. We created specs and our
own mix design document. https://www.in.gov/indot/div/mt/itm/pubs/592_testing.pdf. It seems
to be working well so why fix what isn't broken?
• Wisconsin Specifications: STP 327-010 Cold in Place Recycling (CIR) Asphalt Base Layer, STP 211-
010 Prepare CIR Foundation for HMA Layer, STP 211-020 Prepare Foundation for CIR Base Layer,
STP 211-030 Base Repair for CIR Layer.
• We are reviewing all the information mentioned and also the Wirtgen manuals as well.
• VDOT used BARM and ARRA guidelines for specification development, including test procedures.

• PennDOT Publication 408, Specifications, Section 341 (CIR Base Course) and Section 342 (CCPR
Base Course).
• I am not familiar by name with many of these called out Standard Specification.
• Historical NMDOT standards and specifications.
• I am aware of all of these, and we have referenced ARRAs guidelines. I plan to check out the new
AASHTO ones shortly. We used Wirtgen procedures on our only foamed project, which are similar.
• MoDOT developed a specification based upon ARRA mix design and construction guides for CIR.
• Our specification is 02968S. We may adopt some of these in the future, especially the AASHTO
specs.
Question 4: Indicate the approximate number of lane-miles that are recycled per year (check all that
apply):
Greater than 100
Type of Recycling Less than 50 lane-miles 50 to 100 lane-miles
lane-miles
AL, AZ, CO, KS, MN,
Emulsions MT, NE, NV, NY, PA, IN ---
Cold central plant RI, SC, UT, VA, TX
recycling AL, AZ, CA, KS, MD,
Foamed asphalt MN, NE, NV, NY, RI, NM ---
SC, VA
AL, AZ, CO, DE, KS,
MD, MN, MO, MT,
Emulsions CA, IN, NY, UT ---
NE, NM, NV, PA, RI,
CIR
SC, VA, WA
AL, AZ, KS, MN, MO,
Foamed asphalt NY, WI, TX ---
NE, NV, RI, SC, VA

• The number is zero lane-miles in the last year.
• MDOT SHA have done only two small jobs per year on an average. May be less than 10 lane-miles
per year on an average.
• This is an average estimation as the quantity varies per year. In 2018, 128 miles, and in 2019, 140
miles, and in 2020, 34 miles are on the schedule to date.
• We have recycled most of our low-volume road pavements that had enough depth with surface
treatments. We have done a few higher volume roads with overlay.
• WSDOT has done 15 to 20 CIR projects in the past 30 years. The average length of each project
was 5 to 10 centerline miles each.

• This should be changing in 2020. Two of our five districts are now on board for doing CIR and
CCPR.
• Historically, NMDOT has led use of CIR with emulsion. Prior to 2000, we were completing 10 to 12
CIR projects per year. Between 2008 and 2018, no CIR projects were completed. In 2018 we
completed an approximately 20 lane-mile CIR with success.
• SCDOT does hundreds of lane miles of FDR with cement, we are just now breaking into
alternatives and partial depth (CIP/CCPR).
• Do not use CCPR. CIR has been very limited in Missouri.
• Our last CCPR project was about 7 years ago. This project was on SR 191 near Blanding, Utah. The
lower layer was CIR, then CCPR was placed on top of that with a double chip seal on top of the
CCPR. It is performing well. The last two years we have had just one CIR project each year. Prior to
that we had 4 projects in one year. All of these have been performing well. We have our best
performance with solventless emulsions and a high effort on getting good density.
Question 5: Indicate typical annual average daily traffic (AADT) levels on your recycled pavement projects
(check all that apply):
Traffic Levels
Type of Recycling
Emulsions CO, MN, MT, UT IN, MT, NY, PA MT
Cold central plant
recycling CA, MD, MN, MT,
Foamed asphalt MT, NM, NY, VA MT, VA, TX
VA
CA, CO, DE, MD,
IN, MN, MT, NM,
Emulsions MN, MO, MT, NE, MN, MT
NY, PA, VA
CIR NV, WA
MN, MO, MT, NE,
Foamed asphalt MN, MT, NY, SC, VA MN, MT, VA
NV, VA, WI, TX

• Since 2004 the maximum AADT on an Arizona DOT recycled pavement project was 4,150.
However, Arizona DOT has historically used a high float (HF) emulsion and has only recently
updated our cold recycling specification to require an engineered emulsion for higher AADT (no
projects constructed yet).
• It is based on the condition of the pavement. We did not let the high traffic roads deteriorate
much.

• Traffic is not and shall not be a factor in using these technologies. The distress type exhibited in
the road is what determines what we are going to use. If we have deep cracking, and a good base,
we use CCPR. We are currently phasing out our standard 0.2' mill and fill treatment with 0.3' CIR.
We do not use foam due to the distance of roads from a bituminous producer. We cannot keep
the foam hot enough when we have work in the rural areas of Montana. It is easier for our state
to use emulsion for this reason. However, if you are in a state with a reasonable source of
bituminous producers, feel free to use foamed asphalt. Just remember that there is a limit on how
far you can ship it. Talk to your supplier to determine the radius from the plant. It is fairly far if I
remember correctly.
• Max ADT volume for CCPR with emulsions and CIR with emulsions is 15,000 and when the daily
ESALs are less than 200. If daily ESALs are greater than or equal to 200, then CCPR and CIR are not
to be used.
• No set policy on AADT but projects to date have all been below the 10,000 AADT.
Question 6: Please indicate all barriers that limit the implementation or increased use of cold recycling
methods (check all that apply):
Cold Central Plant Recycling CIR
Barriers
AK, AL, AZ, GA, MT, AK, AL, AZ, GA, IN, AK, AL, AZ, GA, IN,
No previous agency AK, AL, GA, NC,
NC, NM, NV, OH, SC, MT, NC, NV, OH, MT, NC, NM, OH,
experience OH, SC, TN
TN SC, TN, TX TN
AK, AL, AZ, GA, IN, AK, AL, GA, IN, AK, AL, AZ, GA,
No experienced cold AK, AL, AZ, GA, MD,
MT, NC, NM, SC, TN, MD, MT, NC, SC, MT, NS, NM, PA,
recycling contractors MT, NC, SC, TN, VA
VA TN, VA TN, VA
AZ, DE, GA, KS,
Previous unsuccessful MD, MO, MT,
--- GA NE, VA
experiences NE, NM, NV, UT,
TX
Project selection criteria not AZ, GA, IN, MN, AZ, GA, MN, RI,
AZ, GA, IN, MN, RI AZ, GA, MN, RI
well defined PR WI
PA --- --- ---
materials
MT, OH, SC MD, MT, OH, SC AZ AZ
defined
GA GA, TX GA GA
in the field
GA, NM, NV, OH, SC GA, NV, SC GA, OH, SC AZ, GA, NM
specifications
SC MD, TX DE, MD, SC ---


• General lack of agency knowledge and experience with modern cold recycling techniques.
• These have not been barriers for us.
• Colorado DOT has a good CCPR and CIR program in place.
• Lack of funding for additional paving programs.
• We have created a design flow chart to better select recycling treatments. Had early cases of bad
project selection. Figure 602-1A.
https://www.in.gov/indot/design_manual/design_manual_2013.htm
• We had bad experience with one job because of weather restrictions.
• Excessive time needed before opening to traffic used to be a problem for Montana. We recently
learned that there are plenty of additives that can be used to allow for traffic on it towards the
end of the day.
• The primary reason we have moved away from CIR with foam and CIR with emulsion is that our
high RAP hot mix is very competitive. High RAP HMA does not require a second subcontractor and
it is not sensitive to high precipitation events.
• Cost.
• Can you do CIR with foamed asphalt?
• Not sure it works any better than reclamation, which is inexpensive and effective.
• There are no CIR contractors in Missouri. Hot Mix contractors have a strong influence on not
implementing CIR or CCPR.
• Requires specialized equipment/contractors, not always readily available locally. Change and
concerns of “risk” and performance.
• The maintenance of traffic (MOT) is a big consideration when selecting a project. The project also
needs to have the proper level of distress. Another barrier is having Region material engineers
with trust in the CIR process and willingness to use it. There is also a perceived barrier—do we
have enough contractors to bid on the work. Right now, we do have a CIR specification that we are
gaining experience and confidence with.
• Prior CIR projects were performed by “out-of-state” contractors as no locally available contractor.
There is a locally based CIR contractor in Virginia now, so minimal concern with experienced
contractor. One CIR project did not go well, so there has been some hesitation to use the process
previously but is going away as a project is being developed to use CIR in this same region. Recent
years have seen an expansion on CCPR contractors/use in the eastern part of the state, but it has
been slow to gain momentum in other areas.
• Traffic volumes can be an issue when pilot cars are needed. CIR is not done in Western
Washington due to weather concerns. Overall, WSDOT has been successful with using CIR
practices.

Abbreviations
AADT annual average daily traffic

ARRA Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association
APA asphalt pavement analyzer
BSM bituminous stabilized material
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CBR California bearing ratio
CCPR cold central plant recycling
CIR cold in-place recycling
CMOD crack mouth opening displacement
CSS cationic slow set (emulsion)
CT cracking test
DCP dynamic cone penetrometer
DCT disc-shaped compact tension
ER expansion ratio (ratio of the maximum volume of foam relative to the original
volume)
ESAL equivalent single axle load
FDR full-depth reclamation
FE fracture energy
FIVE fracture index value for energy
FLH Federal Lands Highway
FM farm to market route
FWD falling weight deflectometer
GHG greenhouse gases
GPR ground-penetrating radar
HF high float
HFMS high float medium set (emulsion)
HL half-life (time, in seconds, needed for the foam to collapse to half of its maximum
volume)
HMA hot mix asphalt
HWTT Hamburg wheel tracking test
I Interstate highway
IDEAL-CT indirect tensile asphalt cracking test
IDT indirect tensile test
I-FIT Illinois flexibility index test
IRI international roughness index
LCA life cycle assessment
LWD lightweight deflectometer
MEPDG Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide
133

MnROAD Minnesota Department of Transportation pavement test track

MRI mean roughness index
OWC optimum water content
PCC Portland cement concrete
PCI pavement condition index
PCR pavement condition rating
QA quality assurance
QC quality control
RAP reclaimed asphalt pavement
RLPD repeated load permanent deformation
SCB semi-circular bend
SGC Superpave gyratory compactor
SIP stripping inflection point
SMA stone matrix asphalt
SN structural number
S-VECD simplified viscoelastic continuum damage
TSR tensile strength ratio
TSRST thermal stress restrained specimen test
US U.S. highway route
USCS Unified Soil Classification System

Abbreviations and acronyms used without de nitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Transportation Research Board NON-PROFIT ORG.

500 Fifth Street, NW U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Washington, DC 20001 COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
ISBN 978-0-309-67418-8
90000
9 780309 674188

NCHRP Practice and Performance of Cold

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

NCHRP Practice and Performance of Cold

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NCHRP Practice and Performance of Cold

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.

Practice and Performance of Cold

FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 569

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 569

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 569

NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

TOPIC 51-08 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

ABOUT THE NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROGRAM

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Practice and Performance

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

The literature review chapter is organized into the following sections:

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review 7

Ability of Cold Stage of Project When Distresses

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review 9

No. of Documented CIR Projects

Source: Based on Cox and Howard 2013.

Figure 1. Documented traffic levels.

Table 2. Summary of traffic levels on CIR projects.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Confirmation of Pavement Layer Thickness and Thickness Consistency

Source: Schellhammer 2019.

Figure 2. Alligator cracking and potholes across the

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review 11

Source: Schellhammer 2019.

Figure 3. Cattails in the drainage

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

No. of Documented CIR Projects

CIR Layer Thicknesses Reported

Figure 4. CIR layer thicknesses reported in documents.

Structural Support Evaluation

Confirmation of Roadway Attributes

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Literature Review 13

Estimated CBR Value Estimated Young’s

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Project Selection Summary