Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

The effects of using reclaimed asphalt pavements (RAP) on the long-term

performance of asphalt concrete overlays
Yuhong Wang
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong

h i g h l i g h t s

RAP performance is affected by asphalt overlay thickness and pre-treatment intensity.

Virgin asphalt outperforms RAP in crack resistance in thin and less treated overlay.

Virgin asphalt outperforms RAP in rutting resistance in thin and less treated overlay.

Virgin asphalt outperforms RAP in smoothness in thin and less treated overlay.

RAP outperforms virgin asphalt in rutting resistance in thick and pre-treated overlay.

RAP outperforms virgin asphalt in smoothness in thick and pre-treated overlay.

RAP performance is driven by its reduced crack resistance and increased stiffness.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The long-term performance of asphalt concrete (AC) overlays using mixtures containing reclaimed
Received 7 December 2015 asphalt pavements (RAP) is compared with the performance of overlays using virgin mixtures. Data from
Received in revised form 13 May 2016 18 sites of the long-term pavement performance (LTPP) program are used for analysis. Each site consists
Accepted 15 May 2016
of 8 side-by-side experimental sections that vary in overlay thickness and pre-overlay treatment method.
Available online 24 May 2016
The selected performance indicators include fatigue cracking, longitudinal cracking, transverse cracking,
rutting, and roughness. Explorative data analysis, non-parametric survival analysis, and pair-t tests are
Keywords:
used to compare possible performance differences. The analysis results suggest that there are interactive
Reclaimed asphalt pavements
Asphalt concrete
effects between the use of RAP-containing mixtures, overlay thickness, and pre-overlay treatment
Overlay method. With relatively thin (51 mm) overlay and minimal pre-overlay treatment, undesirable perfor-
Long-term performance mance of RAP-containing mixtures is expected. Conversely, with relatively thick (127 mm) overlay and
Aging intensive pre-overlay treatment, RAP-containing mixtures outperform virgin mixtures in rutting and
Cracking roughness, without inducing additional cracking-related distresses. The field performance of RAP-
Rutting containing mixtures is believed to be driven by their fundamental properties, i.e., the reduced cracking
Roughness resistance and increased stiffness.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Demolition of asphalt pavements generates a large quantity of
inert solid waste. With the depletion of landfill spaces, ever-
increasing demands on natural aggregates and bitumen, and con-
struction cost escalation, asphalt pavement recycling has become
a top priority for highway agencies around the world. Currently,
a number of highway agencies permit the use of reclaimed asphalt
pavements (RAP) in new asphalt mixtures. Extensive laboratory
studies have been conducted to examine the effects of using RAP
on pavement performance from the perspectives of: 1) the proper-
E-mail address: ceyhwang@polyu.edu.hk
ties of recycled asphalt binders [e.g., 1–3] and 2) the properties of
asphalt mixtures containing RAP [4,5]. The actual field perfor-
mance of asphalt pavements incorporated with RAP, however, is
rarely reported. Particularly lacking is information on the long-
term performance of RAP-containing asphalt pavements side-by-
side compared with pavements that only use virgin mixtures. Such
information would not only be useful in understanding the engi-
neering performance of RAP mixtures, but also be critically impor-
tant for life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) and /or life cycle assessment
(LCA) of pavements containing RAP.
This paper aims to systematically compare the long-term per-
formance of asphalt concrete (AC) overlays using only virgin
asphalt mixtures with the performance of AC overlays using mix-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.115
0950-0618/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
336 Y. Wang / Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348

tures with 30 percent of RAP. Data used for comparison is the 18
SPS-5 sites constructed and monitored under the long-term pave-
ment performance (LTPP) program in the United States (U.S.) and
Canada [6]. At each site, 8 pavement sections were built side-by-
side, half of which used virgin asphalt mixtures while the other
half used RAP-containing mixtures. The sites had been periodically
monitored for the development of cracks, permanent deformation,
and roughness. The longest monitoring period is more than
20 years. Therefore, a large quantity of performance data was gen-
erated. Since pavement sections at each site were built at the same
time with the same construction methods and were subject to the
same traffic and climate conditions, the data realistically reflect the
effects of materials (RAP vs. virgin) on the long-term performance
of AC overlays.
It is noted that several studies have been performed using the
LTPP SPS-5 data [e.g., 1,7–9]. In the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) project 20-50[3/4], the performance of
various pavement maintenance and rehabilitation treatment tech-
niques is compared by using LTPP data, including the SPS-5 data
[1]. The analysis indicates that there is no significant difference
in roughness, rutting, and cracking between sections using virgin
and RAP-containing mixtures, and between sections using minimal
pre-overlay treatments and those using extensive pre-overlay
treatments [1]. However, more data had been accumulated after
the NCHRP project, and possible interactive effects of overlay
thickness and pre-overlay treatment is not included in the project.
Although the studies by Dong and Huang [7–9] generate useful
information, they do not focus on the performance of RAP-
containing mixtures. In addition, not all the pavement performance
indicators are included, and possible interactive effects of overlay
thickness and pre-overlay treatment are not considered, either.
Unlike the existing studies, this paper focuses on the performance
comparisons of virgin and RAP-containing mixtures used in AC
overlays that vary in thickness and pre-overlay treatment.
2. Research data selection
The locations and summaries of climate conditions of the 18
test sites are shown in Table 1. These sites cover a wide spectrum
of climate conditions. For instance, the climate is warm and wet for
the sites in Florida and Alabama, warm and dry for the sites in Ari-
zona and California, cold and wet for the sites in Alberta and Man-
itoba, and relatively cold and dry for the sites in Colorado and New
Mexico. The variations in climate conditions paint a comprehen-
sive picture of possible performance difference between virgin
and RAP-containing mixtures. In addition, they enable local high-
way agencies to find a site that has similar climate conditions with
theirs and use the performance data from the LTPP site as a
reference.
The SPS-5 experiment involves three factors: overlay thickness,
pre-overlay treatment, and materials (virgin vs. RAP). The factorial
design of the experiment, excluding the control section (ID: 0501)
where no overlay was applied, is shown in Table 2. Only the effects
of materials are interested in this study. Hence, to avoid perfor-
mance variations due to overlay thickness and pre-overlay treat-
ment, the data is divided into four blocks: Each block is a unique
combination of overlay thickness and pre-overlay treatment. Sec-
tions using virgin and RAP-containing mixtures are compared
within each block.
Each section is about 152.4 m long and 3.66 m wide. Periodic
visits had been made to collect various performance data from
the pavement sections. Three major types of cracks were exam-
ined, including: fatigue cracking, longitudinal cracking, and trans-
verse cracking. According to the ‘‘Distress Identification Manual”
for LTPP [10], fatigue cracking is characterized as ‘‘a series of inter-
connected cracks in early stages of development,” which later
develop into ‘‘many-sided, sharp-angled pieces” with ‘‘a chicken
wire/alligator pattern”. Longitudinal cracks are ‘‘parallel to pave-
ment centerline,” while transverse cracks are ‘‘perpendicular to
pavement centerline [10].” Fatigue cracking is provided in crack
area (m2), and the longitudinal and transverse cracking is given
in crack length (m). The severity (low, medium, high), location
(wheel path, non-wheel path) and treatment history (sealed, not
sealed) of the cracks are also recorded in the LTPP database. This
study treats potholes as the advanced form of fatigue cracking
and patching as the remedy of the fatigue cracking. Therefore,
the fatigue cracking areas of the three severity levels, pothole
areas, and patching areas are summed to represent the total fatigue
cracking area. The addition of potholes and patching, however,
only slightly increase the total fatigue cracking areas in a limited
number of data records. For the longitudinal and transverse crack-
ing, cracks of all severity levels, with or without being sealed, are
added to represent the total crack length of the test section.
Different cross-sectional deformation measurements are avail-
able in the LTPP database. In this study, rutting is represented by
the maximum displacement between the bottom of a 1.8-m
straight edge and pavement surface. At each wheel path, about
10–11 measurements are made along the test section. This study

Table 1
The experimental sites from 18 states/provinces in the U.S. and Canada

State/ Annual Precipitation Annual Wet Annual Snow Fall No. of Days above No. of Days below No. of Freeze-thaw
Province (mm) Days (mm) 32.2 °C 0 °C Cycles
Alabama 1433 144 3 68 31 31
Arizona 220 51 0 172 20 20
California 113 30 3 135 24 24
Colorado 413 71 862 32 165 140
Florida 1515 197 0 62 1 1
Georgia 1267 139 62 35 63 61
Maine 1038 165 1866 4 161 102
Maryland 1098 143 547 21 91 80
Minnesota 650 139 1066 3 189 89
Mississippi 1420 131 19 57 51 49
Missouri 1076 132 247 45 96 88
Montana 410 91 1378 25 149 121
New Jersey 1157 136 631 17 107 91
New Mexico 315 84 135 85 102 102
Oklahoma 774 87 102 91 74 69
Texas 986 117 45 92 38 36
Alberta 514 161 1494 0 217 135
Manitoba 575 129 1201 3 194 78
 Y. Wang / Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348 337

!
Table 2 Y
n X
m
The experimental design of the pavement sections analyzed in this study [1]. LðhÞ ¼ aij hj ; ð2Þ
i¼1 j¼1
Overlay thickness 51 (mm) 127 (mm)
Pre-overlay treatment Minimal Intensive Minimal Intensive
where n is the number of subjects, aij = 1 if the Turnbull interval
Materials (V: virgin; V R V R V R V R Ij ¼ ðqj ; pj  is contained in the observed subject failure interval
R: RAP)
ðLi ; Ri  and 0 otherwise. The maximum likelihood estimates for
Section ID 505 502 506 509 504 503 507 508 ^ ¼ fh
h ^j ; j ¼ 1; . . . ; mg can be used to estimate the survival function:

X
m
^S ¼ ^hk ; j ¼ 1; . . . ; m; pj 6 t 6 qjþ1 ð3Þ
uses the average value of the rut depth measurements taken at k¼jþ1
both the left and right wheel paths to represent the overall rutting
It is noted that t can only be defined if it is not within the Turn-
level of a particular test section.
bull intervals. The above procedure has recently been incorporated
Roughness of the test section is provided in the international
in the ICLIFETEST procedure in the SAS/STATÒ system [15]. In addi-
roughness index (IRI) value. Multiple runs were performed during
tion, the procedure enables the comparisons of treatment effects
each site visit, and IRI values at both two wheel paths were
(RAP vs. virgin) on survival functions based on the generalized
recorded separately. This study uses the average IRI value from
log-rank statistic.
all the runs and at both wheel paths as the representative rough-
The paired-t test enables the comparison of two performance
ness value of the entire test section.
indicators that were obtained at about the same time. At the same
Data processing results in sets of time series of fatigue cracking,
test site, performance measurements of different sections were
longitudinal cracking, transverse cracking, rutting, and roughness
typically made on the same day; however, a few days of lapses
development data at each test section. A few sections were resur-
may occur when measuring different sections because the tests
faced or treated with aggregate seal coat at the end of the monitor-
may be time consuming [16]. In this study, pairwise comparisons
ing period. For these sections, data after treatments are removed
are made between two sections for which performance measure-
from analysis because they may distort the distress development
ments were made within 30 days. It is anticipated that this short
trends. A total of 3603 cracking, 1691 rutting, and 1547 roughness
period does not significantly change the conditions of a section.
measurements are finally used for further analysis.
The three cracking measurements contain a large number of zeros
because cracks may not have been developed in the early ages of
the pavements. The paired-t test aims to assess the difference in
3. Data analysis methods
the cracking extent of two sections after they had already shown
the signs of cracking. Therefore, the observations in which both
Three approaches are used to compare the performance of
of the paired sections have zero cracks are removed from the sta-
pavements made of virgin asphalt mixtures and those containing
tistical tests.
RAP. The first approach is explorative data analysis by plotting
Survival analysis provides information on pavement perfor-
the data from RAP and non-RAP sections on the same diagram to
mance from the perspective of time. For different experiments,
examine the possible difference. The second approach is non-
the changes of survival probability with time can be compared in
parametric survival analysis to assess the difference in perfor-
a visually friendly manner. However, each pavement section only
mance lives of two test sections at pre-determined threshold val-
contributes one observation in survival analysis. Conversely, the
ues. The third approach is to use paired-t test to evaluate the
paired-t test provides information on the magnitude of distress/
performance difference of two paired sections.
performance indicators at all the time points. Compared with sur-
Survival analysis can be generally divided into two types: para-
vival analysis, the amount of data to make inference in the paired-t
metric and non-parametric. Parametric survival analysis requests
test is much more. The results of the two tests, although related,
the specification of the underlying probability distribution func-
offer insights on performance differences between virgin and RAP
tion, while non-parametric survival analysis is distribution free.
mixtures from different perspective.
The parametric approach has been used in analyzing pavement
performance data [e.g., 11,12], while the use of non-parametric
approach in pavement data analysis is rare, likely due to the chal-
4. Results and discussion
lenges in handling interval-censored data. For example, this paper
uses 20 m2 of cracking area (about 3.6% of the total section area) as
4.1. Fatigue cracking
the survival threshold for fatigue cracking, which is consistent with
a previous study [11]. A test section may have reached this thresh-
Examples of fatigue cracking development for 51 mm AC over-
old between two consecutive time points at which measurements
lay with minimum pre-overlay treatment are shown in Fig. 1. The
were made. We can only know the interval of the failure time, but
four plots represent four extreme climate conditions. The series
not the exact time point. This creates an interval-censoring situa-
labeled with ‘‘0502 (LTPP section code)” used RAP-containing mix-
tion. Methods and tools for non-parametric estimation of the sur-
tures, while the ones labeled with ‘‘0505” used virgin mixtures.
vival function have been developed relatively recently. In
Pavements made of the two materials demonstrate noticeable dif-
performing non-parametric estimation, the overlapping failure
ferences at some sites. For instance, at the sites in Florida and
time intervals need to be first converted to non-overlapping inter-
Alberta, fatigue cracking developed more rapidly and more
vals, also known as Turnbull intervals fIj ¼ ðqj ; pj ; j ¼ 1; . . . ; mg
severely in the RAP sections, compared with the sections using vir-
[13–15]. The probability of failure time occurring in a Turnbull gin mixtures. At the site in California, fatigue cracking of the two
interval is defined as [11]: sections initially developed at the same rate, but the section using
RAP showed more fatigue cracking in a long run. The apparent ‘‘de-
hj ¼ PðT 2 Ij Þ; j ¼ 1; . . . ; m: ð1Þ
cline” in fatigue cracking in the section ‘‘6-0502” may be attributed
The likelihood function for h ¼ fhj ; j ¼ 1; . . . ; mg is calculated as to crack type classification variations. A common variation is that
[11]: certain longitudinal cracking may be classified as low severity level
338 Y. Wang / Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348
(a) 12-0502: RAP; 12-0505: Virgin
(c) 81-0502: RAP; 81-0505: Virgin
Fig. 1. Comparisons of fatigue cracking development in 51 mm overlays without pre-overlay treatment at four example sites.
fatigue cracking and vice versa [11]. At the site in New Mexico, fati-
gue cracking developed slowly in both sections.
The estimated survival functions of all the pavement sections
made of RAP-containing or virgin HMA mixtures are shown in
Fig. 2. In processing the data, if the 20 m2 cracking threshold
occurred between two observed time points and the difference of
the two time points are less than 2 years, an interpolation method
is used to estimate the time point at which the threshold is
reached. This approach converts an interval observation to a point
observation. If the interval between the two observed time points
is greater than 2 years, the interval is used directly for the estima-
tion of the survival functions. The reduction in interval observa-
tions (by converting them into point observations) assists
improving estimation efficiency. The same approach is used to pro-
cess the data of longitudinal cracking, transverse cracking, rutting
and roughness.
Fig. 2 indicates that the survival probabilities of the sections
using virgin materials are generally higher, especially toward the
end of the monitoring periods. This trend applies to all of the four
experiments. Therefore, the survival functions indicate that fatigue
resistance of the pavement sections using virgin materials is gener-
ally better than those using RAP.
The paired-t tests show the differences in the magnitudes of
fatigue cracking between the pavement sections made of the two
materials. As mentioned previously, a pair is created by measure-
ments from two sections at the same site and the time lapse
between two measurements is within one month. Since all the
other conditions of the two sections are very similar, if the RAP-
containing and virgin mixtures perform the same, no difference
in fatigue cracking areas should be expected. One example of the
differences between the pairs is shown in Fig. 3, where the X-
(b) 6-0502: RAP; 6-0505: Virgin
(d) 35-0502: RAP; 35-0505: Virgin
axis shows the number of the pairs and the Y-axis is the difference
in fatigue cracking areas between the sections 0502 (RAP) and
0505 (virgin). Fig. 3 indicates that the sections using RAP-
containing mixtures (0502) obviously developed more extensive
fatigue cracks. For the interest of brevity, the fatigue cracking dif-
ferences of other comparisons are not shown in figures, but sum-
marized in Table 3.
4.2. Longitudinal cracking
For illustration purpose, the trends of longitudinal cracking
development of the four pavement sections in Fig. 1 are shown
in Fig. 4. Unlike fatigue cracking, it appears that the longitudinal
cracking of the sections using RAP in Florida (12-050X) and Califor-
nia (6-050X) is even less severe than those using virgin mixtures.
At the site in Alberta, the extent of longitudinal cracking of the sec-
tion using RAP (81-0502) seems higher than that using virgin mix-
ture, but the difference is not as distinguishable as the difference in
fatigue cracking (Fig. 1c). At the site in New Mexico, the extent of
longitudinal cracking of the section using RAP (35-0502) is initially
higher than that using virgin mixture, but eventually became less
at the end of the monitoring period. The four sites, representing
four extreme climate conditions, indicate that the trends of longi-
tudinal cracking development may be different than the trends of
fatigue cracking.
Possible differences in longitudinal cracking of the pavement
sections using RAP-containing vs. those using virgin mixtures are
further examined from the survival functions. A total crack length
of 20 m is chosen as the failure threshold. This threshold often
coincides with the sudden jump in the longitudinal crack develop-
ment curves, as shown in Fig. 4.
 Y. Wang / Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348 339

Virgin

RAP Virgin
RAP

(a) 51 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment (c) 127 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment
(0502: RAP; 0505: Virgin) (0503: RAP; 0504: Virgin)

Virgin
Virgin

RAP RAP

(b) 51 mm overlay with intensive pre-overlay treatment (d) 127 mm overlay with extensive pre-overlay treatment
(0509: RAP; 0506: Virgin) (0508: RAP; 0507: Virgin)

Fig. 2. Fatigue cracking survival functions of 4 experiments at 18 sites.

Fig. 3. Difference in fatigue cracking area between the sections using RAP mixtures
and those using virgin mixtures.
For each of the four experiments, the survival functions of the
sections using RAP as compared with those using virgin materials
are shown in Fig. 5. The figure shows that the survival functions of
the two comparison sections are quite similar, except for those in
Fig. 5(d) where the sections using virgin mixtures demonstrate
higher survival probabilities after 5 years. Therefore, the longitudi-
nal cracking survival functions of the two sections from each
experiment appear to be more similar.
The magnitude of the longitudinal cracking difference of the
two sections for each experiment during the monitoring period is
also evaluated using the paired-t tests. The results of paired-t tests
are summarized in Table 4. A pair is formed by two observations
from the two sections at the same site and measured within one
month period, hence most likely reflecting the performance differ-
ences of the materials. Table 4 indicates that the differences in lon-
gitudinal cracking are not significant for the relatively thin
(51 mm) overlay sections, regardless of the availability of pre-
treatment.
Cautions need to be taken to interpret the insignificant differ-
ence in longitudinal cracking in the relatively thin overlay sections.
It does not necessarily imply that RAP mixtures perform as well as
the virgin mixtures in resisting longitudinal cracking in these sec-
tions. A more plausible explanation is that once longitudinal cracks
emerge on the sections using RAP, they are more easily evolved
340 Y. Wang / Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348

Table 3
Summary of pair-t tests for fatigue cracking.

Comparisons Average difference (m2) No. of observations Sample standard deviation t-Value Significant? (significance level = 0.01)
502(RAP)-505 42.985 89 70.894 5.720 Yes
509(RAP)-506 41.659 91 95.400 4.166 Yes
503(RAP)-504 37.732 70 64.548 4.891 Yes
508(RAP)-507 15.201 78 59.624 2.252 No

(a) 12-0502:RAP; 12-0505:Virgin (b) 6-0502:RAP; 6-0505:Virgin

(c) 81-0502:RAP; 81-0505:Virgin (d) 35-0502:RAP; 35-0505:Virgin

Fig. 4. Comparisons of longitudinal cracking development in 51 mm overlays without pre-overlay treatment at four example sites.

into fatigue cracks, which are a more severe form of cracking. For
the sections using relatively thick (127 mm) overlays, it takes a
longer time for the longitudinal cracks to further deteriorate into
fatigue cracks. Therefore, the longitudinal cracks of the sections
using RAP mixtures are significantly higher on the thick overlay
sections.
4.3. Transverse cracking
Transverse cracking is typically related to the thermal proper-
ties of asphalt mixtures [17]. The trends of the transverse cracking
development of the four pavement sections in Fig. 1 are shown in
Fig. 6. For the site in Florida (12-050x), it appears that the total
length of transverse cracks of the section using RAP mixture is ini-
tially similar to that of section using virgin mixture, but becomes
relatively less toward the end of the monitoring period. At the sites
in California (6-050X) and New Mexico (35-050X), the transverse
cracking of the sections using the two materials appear to be sim-
ilar. At the site in Alberta, the extent of transverse cracking of the
section using RAP (81-0502) seems less than that using virgin mix-
ture. The transverse cracking development trends of the four sites
appear to be different than the trends of fatigue cracking and lon-
gitudinal cracking.
Possible differences in transverse cracking of the pavement sec-
tions using RAP vs. virgin mixtures are further examined from the
survival functions. The failure threshold is chosen to be 20 m of the
total crack length. This threshold also often coincides with the sud-
den jump in the transverse crack development curves, as shown in
Fig. 7.
For the two thin overlay experiments, Fig. 7 reveals that the sur-
vival functions of the sections using RAP-containing mixtures are
similar to those using virgin mixtures. For the two thick overlay
experiments, however, the survival probabilities of the sections
using virgin materials appear to be higher within the monitoring
period.
The results of paired-t tests on the transverse cracking differ-
ences of the sections using virgin vs. those using RAP-containing
mixtures are summarized in Table 5. It shows that the differences
 Y. Wang / Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348 341

Virgin
Virgin RAP
RAP

(a) 51 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment (c) 127 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment
(0502:RAP; 0505:Virgin) (0503:RAP; 0504:Virgin)

Virgin
Virgin RAP
RAP

(b) 51 mm overlay with intensive pre-overlay treatment (d) 127 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment
(0509: RAP; 0506: Virgin) (0508: RAP; 0507: Virgin)
Fig. 5. Longitudinal cracking survival functions of 4 experiments based on data from 18 sites.

Table 4
Summary of pair-t tests for longitudinal cracking.

Comparisons Average difference (m) No. of observation Sample standard deviation t-Value Significant? (significance level 0.01)
502(RAP)-505 3.651 114 91.533 0.426 No
509(RAP)-506 20.602 119 165.960 2.121 No
503(RAP)-504 43.461 106 105.664 4.235 Yes
508(RAP)-507 49.160 122 105.203 5.161 Yes

are not significant for the relatively thin overlay sections, regard-
less of the availability of pre-overlay treatment. The differences,
however, are significant for the relatively thick overlay sections.
The findings are similar to those for longitudinal cracking.
Again, cautions need to be taken to interpret the insignificant
transverse cracking in the relatively thin overlay sections. It does
not necessarily imply that RAP-containing mixture performs as
well as virgin mixture in transverse cracking in those sections. A
more plausible explanation is that fatigue cracks in the wheel path
may have ‘‘covered” (overlapped with) the previously developed
transverse cracks, or fatigue cracks developed earlier than the
transverse cracks. The fatigue cracks in the wheel path may have
caused the apparent ‘‘drop” in the total length of transverse cracks,
especially in the thin overlay sections where fatigue cracks devel-
oped much earlier and more extensively. The amount of fatigue
cracks in the thick overlay sections is limited and hence causes less
interference on the transverse cracks. Consequently, the amount of
transverse cracks in the thick overlay sections using RAP-
containing mixture is significantly more than that in the sections
using virgin mixtures.
342 Y. Wang / Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348
(a) 12-0502:RAP; 12-0505:Virgin
(c) 81-0502:RAP; 81-0505:Virgin
Fig. 6. Comparisons of transverse cracking development in 51 mm overlays without pre-overlay treatment at four experimental sites.
4.4. Rutting
Rutting, or cross-sectional permanent deformation, is an impor-
tant performance indicator of asphalt pavements. In wet weathers,
rutting increases the risk of vehicle hydroplaning and loss of skid
resistance [18]. In addition to pavement rut depth, other factors
such as pavement mix design and surface textures, the character-
istics of traveling vehicles, and environment factors also play roles
in vehicle hydroplaning and skid resistance [18]. A comprehensive
literature review by Fwa et al. [18] suggests that the low limit of
rut depth that may cause hydroplaning risk is 5.1 mm (0.2 in.).
The authors further developed criteria for safety assessment of
vehicles with different speeds and braking distance for rut depths
ranging from 5 mm to 25 mm. In this paper, 5.5 mm rut depth is
used as the low threshold in survival analysis.
Rutting may be caused by different mechanisms, including
shear flow of AC, loss of surface materials, or permanent deforma-
tion of unbound layers. The trends of rutting development of the
four pavement sections in Fig. 1 are shown in Fig. 8. Unlike fatigue
cracking, rut depth does not start with zero. It appears that rutting
development of the four sections in Fig. 8 followed different trends.
The overall rut depth of the RAP sections in Florida (12-0502) and
Alberta (81-0502) appear to be higher than the rut depth of the
sections using virgin materials, while in California (6-0502) and
New Mexico (35-0502) the rut depth of the RAP sections is similar
to that of the non-RAP sections.
Using 5.5 mm rut depth as the threshold value, the survival
functions of the comparison sections in the four experiments are
shown in Fig. 9. For thin overlay without pre-overlay treatment,
the survival probabilities of the sections using virgin materials
(b) 6-0502: RAP; 6-0505: Virgin
(d) 35-0502: RAP; 35-0505: Virgin
are initially higher, but become similar to those of the RAP sections
toward the end of the monitoring period. The survival probabilities
of the RAP and non-RAP sections are about the same for the thin
overlays with intensive pre-overlay treatment and the thick over-
lay without pre-overlay treatment. It is interesting to note, how-
ever, that the survival probabilities of the RAP sections of the
thick overlays with intensive pre-overlay treatment are apparently
higher than the survival probabilities of the non-RAP sections.
The paired-t test results are summarized and presented in
Table 6. It indicates that, for the thin overlay sections, the average
rut depths of the RAP sections are higher than those of the non-RAP
sections. For the thick overlay sections without pre-overlay treat-
ment, the difference in average rut depth between the RAP and
non-RAP sections is not statistically significant. For the thick over-
lay sections with pre-overlay treatment, however, the average rut
depth of the RAP section is significantly less than that of the
non-RAP section. Since these findings are based on a large amount
of data, they may reflect the intrinsic rutting development mecha-
nisms in those test sections as well as how different factors affect
rutting development. Rutting is a complicated phenomenon. As
stated previously, it is caused by AC shear flow, loss of pavement
surface materials, permanent deformation of unbound layers, and
their combinations. Previous analysis has clearly shown that fati-
gue cracking is prevalent in the thin overlays. Fatigue cracking
weakens pavement structure and likely leads to permanent defor-
mation of unbound layers and even the loss of surface materials.
Conversely, the thick overlays with intensive pre-overlay treat-
ment showed much less fatigue cracking. As a result, rutting in
the thick overlays with intensive pre-treatment may be mainly
manifested in the shear flow of the asphalt mixtures. RAP-
 Y. Wang / Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348 343

RAP

Virgin
Virgin

RAP

(a) 51 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment (c) 127 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment
(0502: RAP; 0505: Virgin) (0503: RAP; 0504: Virgin)

RAP

Virgin

Virgin

RAP

(d) 127 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment

(b) 51 mm overlay with intensive pre-overlay treatment
(0508: RAP; 0507: Virgin)
(0509: RAP; 0506: Virgin)
Fig. 7. Transverse cracking survival functions of 4 experiments based on data from 18 sites.

Table 5
Summary of pair-t tests for transverse cracking.

Comparisons Average difference (m) No. of observation Sample standard deviation t-Value Significant? (significance level = 0.01)
502(RAP)-505 10.880 109 86.690 1.310 No
509(RAP)-506 20.668 112 87.220 2.508 No
503(RAP)-504 41.357 91 70.891 5.565 Yes
508(RAP)-507 30.520 94 66.188 4.471 Yes

containing mixture is typically harder than the virgin mixture due
the age hardening of asphalt binder. Therefore, RAP-containing
mixture may become more resistant to rutting caused by shear
flow. The data of the four experiments clearly and logically shows
a transition of the average rut depth in response to pavement
thickness, pre-overlay treatment, and the use of RAP-containing
or non-RAP mixtures.
4.5. Roughness
Roughness is an important functional performance indicator of
pavements. High roughness not only affects ride comfortability,
but also affects the vehicle operating costs and fuel consumption.
Therefore, roughness has been used as a key parameter in LCA
and LCCA of asphalt pavements. Pavement roughness is commonly
represented by the international roughness index (IRI). Pavement
conditions are commonly rated by roughness values based on
established thresholds. In the U.S., for instance, pavement with
an IRI value of less than 0.9 (m/km) is rated as ‘‘excellent,” between
0.9 and 1.5 is rated as ‘‘good,” between 1.5 and 2.7 is rated as ‘‘fair,”
and above 2.7 is rated as ‘‘poor [19].”
The trends of roughness development of the four pavement sec-
tions in Fig. 1 are shown in Fig. 10. The overall roughness appears
to be affected by the initial roughness conditions. In addition, the
sites in Florida (12-050X) and New Mexico (35-050X) suggest that
the roughness of the RAP sections was always higher than that of
344 Y. Wang / Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348
(a) 12-0502:RAP; 12-0505:Virgin
(c) 81-0502:RAP; 81-0505:Virgin
Fig. 8. Comparisons of rutting development in 51 mm overlays without pre-overlay treatment at four experimental sites.
the sections using virgin materials. The sites in California (6-050X)
and Alberta suggest that the roughness of the RAP sections was ini-
tially similar to that of the non-RAP sections but the RAP sections
became rougher toward the end of the monitoring period. Overall,
the RAP sections are rougher than the non-RAP sections at the end
of the monitoring period.
Using 1.5 m/km as the roughness threshold, the survival func-
tions of different experiments are shown in Fig. 11. For the thin
overlays without pre-overlay treatment, the survival probability
of the sections using virgin mixtures appears to higher than that
of using RAP mixtures. For the other experiments, however, the
survival probabilities of the two sections are mixed. The last pair
of survival functions (thick overlay with intensive pre-overlay
treatment) do not yield much information because the predomi-
nant majorities of the pavement sections did not reach the IRI
threshold, indicating that they were still in very good condition.
The paired-t test results are summarized and presented in
Table 7. It indicates that, for thin overlays, the average IRI values
of the RAP sections are higher than those of the non-RAP sections.
For the thick overlays without pre-overlay treatment, the differ-
ence in average IRI values between the RAP and non-RAP sections
is not statistically significant. For the thick overlays with intensive
pre-overlay treatment, the average IRI value of the RAP sections is
significantly less than that of the non-RAP sections. Since the
results are based on a large amount of data, they may reflect the
intrinsic roughness development mechanisms in the test sections
as well as how different factors affect roughness development.
Interestingly, the results of paired-t tests on roughness follow the
similar trends as rutting. Rut depth is a measurement of the
(b) 6-0502:RAP; 6-0505:Virgin
(d) 35-0502:RAP; 35-0505:Virgin
cross-sectional profile while roughness is a measurement of the
longitudinal profile. The paired-t tests indicate that the two pro-
files are closely related. For thin overlays, pavement roughness is
negatively affected by reduced cracking resistance of the RAP-
containing mixtures, while for thick overlays with pre-overlay
treatments, pavement roughness benefits from the reduced shear
flow caused by stiffer RAP-containing mixtures.
5. Summary and conclusions
The long-term performance of asphalt concrete (AC) overlays
using virgin asphalt mixtures is systematically compared with
the performance of overlays containing 30 percent of RAP. Pave-
ment fatigue cracking, longitudinal cracking, transverse cracking,
rutting, and roughness are used as performance indicators for com-
parison. Performance differences between the RAP sections and
non-RAP sections are compared by explorative data analysis,
non-parametric survival analysis, and paired-t tests. Major findings
are shown as follows.
(1) Fatigue cracking. For pavement sections with the same over-
lay thickness and pre-overlay treatment method, the sur-
vival probabilities of the non-RAP sections are typically
higher than those of the RAP sections. The overall fatigue
cracking areas of the non-RAP sections are significantly less
than those of RAP sections, except for the thick overlays with
intensive pre-overlay treatment where the overall fatigue
cracking level is very low.
 Y. Wang / Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348 345

Virgin

RAP Virgin

RAP

(a) 51 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment (c) 127 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment
(0502:RAP; 0505:Virgin) (0503: RAP; 0504: Virgin)

Virgin
RAP
RAP

Virgin

(b) 51 mm overlay with intensive pre-overlay treatment (d) 127 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment
(0509: RAP; 0506: Virgin) (0508: RAP; 0507: Virgin)
Fig. 9. Rutting survival functions of 4 experiments based on data from 18 sites.

Table 6
Summary of pair-t tests on rut depth.

Comparisons Average difference (mm) No. of observations Sample standard deviation t-Value Significant? (significance level = 0.01)
502(RAP)-505 0.755 222 1.733 6.489 Yes
509(RAP)-506 0.593 243 2.851 3.240 Yes
503(RAP)-504 0.277 220 2.046 2.010 No
508(RAP)-507 0.429 245 2.053 3.268 Yes

(2) Longitudinal cracking. The survival probabilities of the non-
RAP sections are similar to those of the comparable RAP sec-
tions, except for the thick overlays with pre-overlay treat-
ment where the survival probabilities of non-RAP sections
are slightly higher. The average longitudinal crack lengths
between the paired sections (virgin mixtures vs. RAP-
containing mixtures) are not significant for the two thin
overlay experiments. For the thick overlays, however, the
sections using RAP-containing mixtures show significantly
more longitudinal cracks. The findings are believed to be
attributed to the quick evolution of the longitudinal cracks
into fatigue cracks in the thin overlay sections.
(3) Transverse cracking. The survival probabilities of the thin
overlay sections using virgin mixtures are similar to
those using RAP-containing mixtures. For the thick overlay
sections, however, the survival probabilities of the sections
using virgin materials are higher. The differences in trans-
verse crack lengths are not significant for the two thin over-
lay experiments, but are significant for the thick
overlay experiments where the RAP sections show more
transverse cracks. The difference between the thin and thick
overlays is likely attributed to fatigue cracking develop-
ment in the wheel path that overlaps with the transverse
cracking.
346 Y. Wang / Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348
(a) 12-0502: RAP; 12-0505: Virgin
(c) 81-0502:RAP; 81-0505:Virgin
Fig. 10. Comparisons of roughness development in 51 mm overlays without pre-overlay treatment at four experimental sites.
(4) Rutting. The survival probabilities of the RAP and non-RAP
sections are about the same for the two thin overlay exper-
iments and the thick overlays without pre-overlay treat-
ment. For the thick overlays with pre-overlay treatment,
the survival probabilities of the RAP sections are comparably
higher. For the two thin overlay experiments, the average rut
depths of the non-RAP sections are significantly less than the
corresponding RAP sections. For the thick overlay with pre-
overlay treatment, however, the average rut depth of the
sections using virgin mixtures is significantly higher. The
effects are likely attributed to the reduced cracking resis-
tance and increased stiffness of RAP-containing mixtures.
The former leads to distresses that weaken pavement struc-
ture and cause rutting in the thin overlays, while the latter
favorably causes the reduction in shear flow in the thick
overlays (with pre-overlay treatments) where the structural
integrity is not a concern. Despite the statistically significant
differences in some of the paired-t tests on average rut
depth, the magnitudes of the differences are small (<1 mm).
(5) Roughness. The survival probabilities of the non-RAP thin
overlays without pre-overlay treatment appear to be higher
than the corresponding RAP sections. For the other experi-
ments, however, the survival probabilities of the comparison
sections are mixed. The average IRI values of the RAP sec-
tions in the two thin overlay experiments are higher than
those of the corresponding non-RAP sections. The difference
(b) 6-0502: RAP; 6-0505: Virgin
(d)35-0502: RAP; 35-0505: Virgin
is not significant for the thick overlays without pre-overlay
treatment. For the thick overlays with pre-overlay treat-
ment, however, the average IRI value of the RAP section is
significantly less than that of the sections using virgin mate-
rials. The paired-t tests on roughness follow similar trends as
rutting. For thin overlays, pavement roughness is negatively
affected by the reduced cracking resistance of RAP-
containing mixtures, while for thick overlays with pre-
overlay treatment, pavement roughness benefits from the
reduced shear flow of the stiffer RAP-containing mixtures.
The analysis results consistently indicate that the field perfor-
mance of RAP-containing mixtures is driven by their fundamental
material properties, i.e., the reduced cracking resistance and
increased stiffness. It is noted that the reduced cracking resistance
of RAP-containing mixtures is also shown in other LTPP experi-
ments [20]. With relatively thin (51 mm) overlay and minimal
pre-overlay treatment, undesirable performance of RAP-
containing mixtures is observed because the influence of cracks
from existing pavement on overlay is expected to be relatively
high. Conversely, with relatively thick (127 mm) overlay and inten-
sive pre-overlay treatment, RAP-containing mixtures outperform
virgin mixtures in rutting and roughness, without inducing addi-
tional cracking-related distresses. Therefore, the recommended
use of RAP-containing mixtures may be summarized as a simple
rule of thumb: if the overlay is not expected to resist cracking,
 Y. Wang / Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348 347

RAP

Virgin
Virgin

RAP

(a) 51 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment (c) 127 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment
(0502:RAP; 0505:Virgin) (0503: RAP; 0504: Virgin)

Virgin

RAP

Virgin

RAP

(b) 51 mm overlay with intensive pre-overlay treatment (d) 127 mm overlay with minimal pre-overlay treatment
(0509: RAP; 0506: Virgin) (0508: RAP; 0507: Virgin)
Fig. 11. Roughness survival functions of 4 experiments based on data from 18 sites.

Table 7
Summary of pair-t tests on roughness.

Comparisons Average difference (m/km) No. of observations Sample standard deviation t-Value Significant? (significance level = 0.01)
502(RAP)-505 0.152 0.343 189 6.073 Yes
509(RAP)-506 0.101 0.431 198 3.310 Yes
503(RAP)-504 0.014 0.229 192 0.852 No
508(RAP)-507 0.081 0.209 204 5.523 Yes

RAP mixture should be favorably considered; otherwise, cautions References

need to be taken.
Acknowledgements
This paper is based on the research project (Project Number:
2013.A6.013.13A) funded by the Public Policy Research Funding
Scheme from the Central Policy Unit of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region Government.
[1] K.T. Hall, C.E. Correa, A.L. Simpson, LTPP Data Analysis: Effectiveness of
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Options, NCHRP Web Document 47 (Project
20-50[3/4]), Contractor’s Final Report, TRB, Washington DC, 2002.
[2] B. Huang, G. Li, D. Vokosavljevic, X. Shu, B. Egan, Laboratory investigation of
mixing hot-mix asphalt and reclaimed asphalt pavement, Transp. Res. Rec.
1929 (2005) (2005) 37–45.
[3] X. Shu, B. Huang, D. Vukosavljevic, Laboratory evaluation of fatigue
characteristics of recycled asphalt mixture, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (7)
(2008) 1323–1330.
348 Y. Wang / Construction and Building Materials 120 (2016) 335–348
[4] Y. Wang, Y. Wen, K. Zhao, D. Chong, J. Wei, Connections between the
rheological and chemical properties of long-term aged asphalt binders, ASCE J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (9) (2014) 04014248.
[5] R. Karlsson, U. Isacsson, Material-related aspects of asphalt: recycling-state-of-
the-art, ASCE J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 18 (1) (2006) 81–92.
[6] B. Colbert, Z. You, The determination of mechanical performance of laboratory
produced hot mix asphalt mixtures using controlled RAP and virgin aggregate
size fractions, Constr. Build. Mater. 26 (1) (2012) 655–662.
[7] Q. Dong, B. Huang, Evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of asphalt
pavement rehabilitations utilizing LTPP data, J. Transp. Eng. 138 (6) (2011)
681–689.
[8] Q. Dong, B. Huang, Evaluation of influence factors on crack initiation of LTPP
resurfaced-asphalt pavements using parametric survival analysis, J. Perform.
Constr. Facil. 28 (2) (2014) 412–421.
[9] Q. Dong, B. Huang, Failure probability of resurfaced preventive maintenance
treatments: investigation into long-term pavement performance program,
Transp. Rea. Rec. 2481 (2015) 65–74.
[10] J.S. Miller, W.Y. Bellinger, Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term
Pavement Performance Program (4th revised ed.), FHWA-RD-03-031, U.S.
Federal Highway Adminstration, McLean, VA, 2003.
[11] Y. Wang, K.C. Mahboub, D.E. Hancher, Survival analysis of fatigue cracking for
flexible pavements based on LTPP Data, ASCE J. Transp. Eng. 131 (8) (2005)
608–616.
[12] Y. Wang, D. Allen, Staged survival models for overlay performance prediction,
Int. J. Pavement Eng. 9 (1) (2008) 33–44.
[13] R. Peto, Experimental survival curves for interval-censored data, J. R. Stat. Soc.
Ser. C 22 (1973) 86–91.
[14] B.W. Turnbull, The empirical distribution function with arbitrarily grouped,
censored, and truncated data, J. R. Stat. Soc. B 38 (1976) 290–295.
[15] SASÒ Institute Inc., The SAS/STATÒ 14.1 User’s Guide: The ICLIFETEST
Procedure, SASÒ Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 2015.
[16] Y. Wang, G. Wang, Y.H. Ahn, Impact of climate conditions on the effectiveness
of asphalt pavement preservation techniques, J. Transp. Res. Rec. 2292 (2012)
(2012) 73–80.
[17] K.T. Hall, C.E. Correa, S.H. Carpenter, R.P. Elliot, Rehabilitation Strategies for
Highway Pavements, NCHRP 1-38, NCHRP Web Document 35, Contractor’s
Final Report, TRB, Washington DC, 2001.
[18] T.F. Fwa, H.R. Pasindu, G.P. Ong, Critical rut depth for pavement maintenance
based on vehicle skidding and hydroplaning consideration, J. Transp. Eng. 138
(4) (2012) 423–429.
[19] U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Improving Pavements with
Long-Term Pavement Performance. Products for Today and Tomorrow.
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-06-109, 2006. <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/06109/paper1.cfm>
(accessed May 2015).
[20] Y. Wang, Ordinal logistic regression model for predicting AC overlay cracking,
J. Perform. Constr. Facil. 27 (3) (2013) 346–353.