Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 296340911, USA
Abstract
In many parts of the world highway officials are utilizing crumb rubber and reclaimed asphalt
pavement (RAP) in order to save money, protect the environment, and improve the life of
asphalt pavement. However, due to the use of these materials, the effects of moisture damage
should be investigated for rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) mixtures containing RAP. The
objective of this research involved investigating the moisture susceptibility of RAC
containing RAP. The testing conducted included the determination of binder viscosity,
toughness and indirect tensile strength (ITS) analysis. Several mixtures containing different
crumb rubber types, two different RAP sources and various percentages of rubber and RAP
were evaluated. The results indicated that, in general, the additional of RAP was beneficial in
improving the ITS values and reducing the moisture susceptibility of the mixture although the
addition of crumb rubber had a slightly negative effect.
1. Introduction
Moisture damage, caused by a loss of bond between the asphalt binder or the mastic and the
aggregate under traffic loading, can cause a decrease of strength and durability in asphalt
mixtures. Moisture damage is relatively prone to produce the separation and removal of
asphalt binder from the aggregate surface, thus, leading to stripping in the asphalt pavement
and ultimately causing premature failure. Some researchers identified six contributing
mechanisms that might produce moisture damage: detachment, displacement, spontaneous
emulsification, pore pressure-induced damage, hydraulic scour, and the effects of the
environment on the aggregate-asphalt system (Taylor and Khosla 1983, Kiggundu and
Roberts 1988, Terrel and Al-Swailmi 1994). However, it is apparent that moisture damage is
usually not limited to one mechanism but is the result of a combination of many processes.
From a chemical standpoint, the literature is clear that although neither asphalt nor aggregate
has a net charge, but components of both have nonuniform charge distributions, and both
behave as if they have charges that attract the opposite charge of the other material (Curtis et
al., 1992, Robertson, 2000, Little et al. 1999).
The viscosity of the asphalt binder does play a role in the propensity of the asphalt
mixture to strip. Previous research presented that high viscosity asphalt resists displacement
by moisture better than those that have a low viscosity. High viscosity asphalt provides a
better retention of asphalt on the aggregate surface (Khosla 1993; Xiao et al. 2007). However,
a low viscosity is advantageous during mixing because of increased coat ability, providing a
more uniform film of asphalt over the aggregate particles. Based on the theory of adhesion,
the properties of the binder and aggregate materials directly influence the adhesion developed
between the mix components (Khosla 1993).
In the United States, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) reported that 73
of the 91 million metric tons of asphalt pavement removed each year during resurfacing and
widening projects are reused as part of new roads, roadbeds, shoulders and embankments
(FHWA 2002). The recycling of existing asphalt pavement materials produces new
pavements with considerable savings in material, cost, and energy. Furthermore, mixtures
containing reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) have been found to perform as well as virgin
mixtures. The National Cooperation Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report provided
basic concepts and recommendations concerning the components of mixtures, including new
aggregate and RAP materials (NCHRP 2001).
Approximately 299 million scrap tires were generated in the United States in 2005, 82
percentage of which were recycled or reused (RMA 2006). Rubberized asphalt, the largest
single civil engineering market using crumb rubber, is being used in increasingly large
amounts by many Departments of Transportation (DOTs) around the country. Most roads
comprised of experimental asphalt containing crumb rubber show improvements in durability,
crack reflection, fatigue resistance, skidding resistance, and resistance to rutting (Hicks et al.
1995; Choubane et al. 1999; Way 2003, Amirkhanian 2003).
Previous research (Xiao et al. 2007) results have indicated that the use of RAP
reduced the asphalt binder content and increased cohesive strength while the use of crumb
rubber was beneficial in improving low temperature, reflective, and fatigue crack resistance
of the mixtures. The results showed that it is possible to use crumb rubber and RAP together.
Furthermore, these specific mixtures containing crumb rubber and RAP, have not yet to be
fully investigated for moisture susceptibility. The mix properties such as viscosity of the
asphalt influence cohesive forces of the mixture that are inversely proportional to the
temperature of the mix. Therefore, it has become necessary to seek a more fundamental
understanding of the relationships between moisture damage process and viscosity by
carefully considering the rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) and RAP that influence the
adhesive, the cohesive strength and durability of the mastics.
C) were used for preparing samples, and two binder grades from the same source, PG 64-22
and PG 52-28, were used for this project. The engineering properties of all binders (virgin
and extracted) are shown in Table 1. There were a total of 34 Superpave mix designs.
The RAPs were taken from the same geographical area as the virgin aggregates to
ensure that the aggregates in the RAP have similar properties to the virgin ones. Both RAP
sources (L and C) were mixed with an original binder equivalent to a PG 64-22 grade. Aged
binders extracted from two types of RAP according to ASTM D 5402 (Standard Practice for
Recovery of Asphalt from Solution Using the Rotary Evaporator) and AASHTO TP 2-01
procedures (Standard Test Method for the Quantitative Extraction and Recovery of Asphalt
Binder from Asphalt Mixtures) were only used for characterizing for the modified binders.
A mechanical mixer was used to blend the rubber, the aged and the virgin binder. The
crumb rubber and aged binder were added to the virgin binder using a reaction time of 30
minutes, a reaction temperature of 177 C (350 F), and a mixing speed of 700 rpm (Xiao
2006). The blended components were used for the rheological property tests. These
conditions are the same as field criteria used by South Carolina Department of Transportation
(SC DOT) for producing rubberized mixtures.
shown in Table 2, were used. The procedures described in AASHTO PP 19 and AASHTO T
312 regarding the preparation of hot mixture asphalt (HMA) specimens were followed.
The engineering properties of two aggregate sources L and C are shown in Table 3.
Some details of the mix design of two RAP sources are shown in Tables 4 and 5. The RAP
materials were first oven-dried and sieved to obtain particles with target sizes shown in Table
5. These materials were then blended with the virgin aggregate at the specified (target)
mixing temperatures (Xiao 2006). The mixture was heated for approximately one hour in
order to maintain the target mixing temperature. Finally, the modified binder (rubber and
virgin binder) was added to the mixtures and the final mixture was heated for about two hours
prior to compaction.
Hydrated lime, used as an anti-strip additive, was added at a rate of 1% by dry mass
of virgin aggregate. Gradations of the 9.5mm mixtures are illustrated in Figure 1. All mixes
satisfied the requirements as specified in Table 2 and Figure 1. When the rubber contents
were varied for other mix designs, the same gradation of the aggregate, as shown in Figure 1,
was used.
(SMS). As expected, the aged binders extracted from RAP have the larger amount of LMS
than other virginal binders.
The viscosity of all binders was obtained using the procedures described in AASHTO
T 316 (Viscosity Determination of Asphalt Binder Using Rotational Viscometer). Bulk
specific gravity (BSG) was determined using the ASTM D 2726. Moisture susceptibility was
conducted by comparing the ITS values of various mixture types (ASTM D 4867). Three wet
and three dry samples were tested at room temperature (25 1oC), and the specimens were
compacted to 6-8% air voids with a Marshall hammer. Furthermore, toughness value was
measured and computed to test the moisture sensitivity of these mixtures.
same percentage of RAP (30%RAP). Figure 2(b) presents the ITS values of the modified
mixtures containing RAP C, where the viscosity property of the modified binders is similar to
Figure 2(a).
considerable increases (Khedaywi et al. 1993; Airey et al. 2003, Xiao et al. 2008). To achieve
a target air void of the rubberized mixtures during the mixing and compaction process at
design gyrations, the higher temperature, greater compaction pressure or extensively
modified binders will be needed than conventional mixtures. At the same time, the
incorporation of the RAP in the mixtures also affects the BSG values. Table 6 shows that
increasing the percentage of crumb rubber causes a reduction in the BSG values regardless of
the rubber types and aggregate sources.
The increase of crumb rubber also results in a decrease in weight of specimens
possessing identical volumes and air voids with the conventional HMA specimens. This
decrease is due to the fact that the bulk specific gravity of the crumb rubber is significantly
smaller than the fine aggregate in the mixture. However, Table 6 shows that as the percentage
of RAP increases, the BSG value of the mixtures also increase. Therefore, the aged binder in
the mixture plays a key role in achieving the target air voids, mixing and compacting
temperatures. A similar trend is attainable when using the PG 52-28 virgin binder in place of
PG 64-22, mixed with 30%RAP.
of rubber and RAP regardless of the rubber type. However, an analysis of the toughness
results of both wet and dry specimens indicate that the mixture made with PG 52-28 asphalt
binder has a significantly lower toughness values compared to that made with PG 64-22.
necessary to include a higher percentage of RAP to achieve the satisfied TSR values or the
need for additional anti-striping additive to improve the mixtures moisture damage
resistance.
When comparing the specimens made with PG 64-22 binder and the softer binder (PG
52-28), as shown in Figure 3, the ITS values of the specimens made with PG 52-28 is lower.
Figure 3 also shows that the specimens containing ambient rubber produced results very
similar to cryogenic specimens even though there are some differences in manufacturing
process for these two types of crumb rubber.
10
RAP type. Obviously, this increased viscosity value caused by the additional RAP percentage.
In Figure 5, the ITS value of the mixtures without the RAP and crumb rubber is defined as
the control mixture and it is shown as a straight line. Although Figure 5(a) only presents the
relationship between the wet ITS and viscosity values, the dry ITS specimens exhibited
similar trend. In addition, the specimens made with either ambient or cryogenic crumb
rubbers showed similar ITS and viscosity properties, therefore, the effect of asphalt
composition on the rubber types appears to much less pronounced.
With respect to the effect of rubber percentage, as shown in Figure 5(b), the additional
rubber significantly, as expected, increases the viscosity values; however, this increase does
not result in an increase of ITS values. A decrease of ITS value is found for each curve that
was obtained based on the regression logarithmic analysis. Especially, when using 0% or
15% RAP, the ITS values decrease although the viscosity values increase significantly as the
rubber percentage increased. In most cases, these values were less than the control ITS
values. However, when using 25% and 30% RAP, the ITS values are significantly higher
than the control mixtures. Both RAP sources, C and L, showed similar results. In the
previous study, it can be seen that the additional RAP is beneficial in mitigating the loss of
bond in the mixture caused by the additional rubber. On the other hand, the crumb rubber is
effective in improving the long term performance (fatigue resistance) and diminishing low
temperature and reflective cracking due to the additional RAP (Xiao 2006).
4. Conclusions
The following conclusions were determined based upon the experimental results obtained
from a laboratory investigation of various HMA mixtures which contain both RAP and RAC:
1. Statistical analysis of viscosity showed no significant differences in the viscosity values
of modified binders between two types of rubber (ambient and cryogenic) under identical
conditions (0%, 5%, and 10% rubber). The binders blended with ambient rubber had
11
higher viscosity values than those blended with cryogenic rubber when using 15% rubber
regardless of RAP percentages and types.
2. In comparison with 15% rubber, in general, specimens containing 0%, 5% and 10%
crumb rubber had significantly higher toughness values regardless of the percentage of
RAP and the rubber type (ambient and cryogenic). The toughness values of mixtures
made with the softer binder showed a lower value compared to specimens made with PG
64-22 binder.
3. When using 15% rubber, the specimens exhibited moisture damage, however, the
increased RAP content significantly improves the moisture resistance and increase the
bonds between the aggregate, rubber particle, and modified binder.
4. The viscosity values of modified binder increased, caused by an increase of rubber
content, and the ITS values of both the dry and wet specimens decreased. However, the
increase of the percentage of RAP resulted in an increase in viscosity and ITS values. The
additional RAP plays a key role in mitigating the loss of bond in the mixture due to the
influence of the additional rubber.
5. Two aggregate and RAP sources showed similar effects on the viscosity of the binder and
the ITS values of the mixture although there are some differences in engineering
properties of the aggregates and RAP materials.
Acknowledgements
Financial support was possible through a grant from South Carolinas Department of Health
and Environment Control (DHEC) and the Asphalt Rubber Technology Service (ARTS) of
Clemson University.
12
References
Airey G.D, Rahman M. M., and Collop A. C., Absorption of bitumen into crumb rubber
using the basket drainage method. The International Journal of Pavement Engineering,
Vol. 4(2) pp. 105-119, 2003.
Amirkhanian, S. N., Establishment of an asphalt-Rubber technology service (ARTS).
Proceedings of the Asphalt Rubber 2003 Conference, Brasilia, Brazil, 577-588, 2003.
Bahia H.U. and Davis R., Effect of crumb rubber modifier (CRM) on performance related
properties of asphalt binders. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists
Vol. 63 pp 414-449, 1994.
Choubane, B., Sholar, G.A., Musselman, J.A., and Page, G. C., A Ten-year Performance
Evaluation of Asphalt-Rubber Surface Mixes. Transportation Research Record CD,
Washington, D.C., 1999.
Curtis, C. W., Lytton R. L., and Brannan C. J., Influence of aggregate chemistry on the
adsorption and desorption of asphalt. Transportation Research record 911, Washington,
D.C., pp 1-9, 1992.
Federal Highway Administration, Pavement recycling guidelines for state and local
governments. Report No. FHWA-SA-98-042, Washington, D.C., 1997.
Federal Highway Administration, User guidelines for waste and byproduct materials in
pavement construction. Washington, D.C., 2002.
Freeman R. B., Burati J. L., Amirkhanian S. N., Bridges W. C., Polyester fibers in asphalt
paving mixtures. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists Vol. 58 pp
387-409, 1989.
Green E.L. and Tolonen W.J., The chemical and physical properties of asphalt-rubber
mixtures. Arizona Department of Transport, Report ADOT-RS-14 (162), 1977.
Heitzman M., Design and construction of asphalt paving materials with crumb rubber
modifier. Transportation Research Record 1339, Washington, D.C., pp 1-8, 1992.
Hicks, R.G., Lundy, J.R., Leahy, R.B., Hanson, D., and Epps, J., Crumb rubber modifier in
asphalt pavement summary of practice in Arizona, California and Florida. Report Nr.
FHWA-SA-95-056-Federal Highway Administration, 1995.
Jennings, P.W., Pribanic, J.A., Dawson, K.R., Smith, J.A., and Koontz, S., Uses of High
Performance Gel Permeation Chromatography for Asphalt Analysis, Proceeding, 64th
annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 1985.
Khedaywi, T.S., Tamimi, A.R., Al-Masaeid, H.R., and Khamaiseh, K., Laboratory
investigation of properties of asphalt rubber concrete mixtures. Transportation Research
Record 1417, Washington, D.C., pp 93-98, 1993.
13
Wahhab, H.I. Al-Abdul, Asi, I.M., Ali, F.M. and Al-Dubabi, I.A., Prediction of asphalt
rheological properties using HP-GPC, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol.11,
No.1, pp6-14, 1999.
Way, G. B., The Rubber Pavements Association, Technical advisory board leading the way in
asphalt rubber research. Proceedings of the Asphalt Rubber 2003 Conference, Brasilia,
Brazil, 17-33, 2003.
Xiao F. P., Development of fatigue predictive models of rubberized asphalt concrete
containing reclaimed asphalt pavement mixture, Ph. D dissertation, Clemson University,
2006
Xiao F. P., Amirkhanian S. N., and Juang C. H., Rutting resistance of rubberized asphalt
concrete pavements containing reclaimed asphalt pavement mixtures, Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, Vol. 19, pp. 475-483, 2007
Xiao F. P., Amirkhanian S. N., Shen J.N., and Putman B. J., Influences of crumb rubber size
and type on reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) mixtures, Construction and Building
Materials, (in press) 2008
Zanzotto L. and Kennepohl G., Development of rubber and asphalt binders by
depolymerization and devulcaniztion of Scrap Tires in Asphalt, Transportation Research
Record 1530, Washington, D.C., pp 51-59, 1996
15
No aging
RTFO
PAV
Test properties
Viscosity @135oC (Pa-s)
G*/sin() @64 oC (kPa)
G*/sin() @64 oC (kPa)
o
G*sin() @25 C (kPa)
Stiffness @-12 oC (MPa)
m-value @-12 oC
LMS (%)
MMS (%)
SMS (%)
LMS (%)
MMS (%)
SMS (%)
LMS (%)
MMS (%)
SMS (%)
Virgin Binder
PG64-22
PG52-28
0.430
0.213
1.279
0.398
2.810
0.825
4074
821
217
60.4
0.307
0.476
21.42
11.94
59.99
51.89
18.59
36.17
22.26
12.74
59.07
52.62
18.67
35.62
30.25
13.65
51.05
52.34
18.70
34.01
Extracted Binder
Source L
Source C
5.982
2.55
58.542
45.625
109.780
95.298
8000
11000
294
277
0.241
0.243
38.45
34.74
34.42
33.53
27.15
31.72
-
Note:
LMS, MMS, and SMS: Large, Medium, and Small Molecular Size
16
96
% VMA
>15.5
%Voids Filled
% Max. Density at Ni
70 - 80
< 89
% Max. Density at Nm
< 98
0.6-1.2
17
Specific Gravity
Dry (BLK) SSD (BLK) Apparent 11/2 to3/4 3/4 to3/8 3/8 to #4
L
C
51
23
0.70
0.50
2.650
2.610
2.660
2.620
2.690
2.640
18
0.3
0.2
0.2
2.4
0.3
1.0
Sand
Hardness
Equivalen
t
76
60
5
6
% by weight of
aggregate
Specification
Stone 789
R. S.
M. S.
Lime
-4RAP
+4RAP
0%RAP
L
59
22
18
1
0
0
C
50
18
31
1
0
0
Note:
L and C: Aggregate Sources L and C
R. S. and M. S.: Regular Screenings and Manufactured Screenings
19
30%RAP
L
C
53
47
8
7
8
14
1
1
18
18
12
12
RAP
+4 RAP
-4 RAP
+4 RAP
-4 RAP
#4
59
100
43
100
#8
45
88
33
90
20
#30
30
57
21
56
0.150
mm
#100
0.075
mm
#200
Asphalt
Binder (%)
14
24
9
16
8
14
5.4
8
4.66
6.96
4.46
5.66
Table 6 Optimum binder content and bulk specific gravity of the mixtures
BSG
OBC
Aggregate L
RAP%
0%
15%
25%
30%
30%*
0%
15%
25%
30%
30%*
0%
5.40
5.25
4.70
4.82
4.65
2.345
2.361
2.364
2.373
2.388
Ambient
5%
10%
5.60
5.85
5.45
5.75
5.02
5.08
4.59
5.12
4.95
4.90
2.336
2.322
2.345
2.330
2.350
2.325
2.376
2.363
2.373
2.372
15%
6.35
5.90
5.65
5.25
5.05
2.299
2.327
2.322
2.354
2.370
5%
5.25
5.25
5.02
4.80
2.340
2.344
2.367
2.372
-
Note:
OBC: Optimum binder content (%)
BSG: Bulk specific gravity
*: PG52-28 asphalt binder
: Percentage of rubber by weight of virgin binder
21
Cryogenic
10%
6.08
5.85
5.18
5.30
2.297
2.318
2.332
2.348
-
15%
6.11
5.30
5.10
5.08
2.305
2.304
2.352
2.367
-
Aggregate C
Ambient
0%
10%
5.00
5.75
5.10
5.53
5.10
4.85
5.00
2.323
2.303
2.347
2.317
2.338
2.346
2.339
Wet
Dry
Aggregate L
RAP%
0%
15%
25%
30%
30%*
0%
15%
25%
30%
30%*
0%
3.25
3.22
3.09
3.09
2.04
2.79
2.83
2.81
2.55
1.83
Ambient
5%
10%
3.17
3.07
3.04
3.16
3.05
3.05
3.00
3.05
2.00
1.81
2.94
2.99
3.08
3.08
2.96
2.99
2.93
2.87
2.00
2.08
15%
3.03
2.90
2.88
2.89
1.52
3.22
2.86
2.78
2.70
1.63
5%
3.04
2.80
2.92
2.96
2.57
2.22
2.80
2.66
-
Note:
Toughness unit: N/mm
*: PG52-28 asphalt binder
: Percentage of rubber by weight of virgin binder
22
Cryogenic
10%
2.80
2.72
2.88
2.76
2.75
2.64
2.79
2.53
-
15%
2.88
2.19
2.41
2.13
2.66
1.94
2.36
2.45
-
Aggregate C
Ambient
0%
10%
2.99
3.02
3.51
3.12
3.24
2.35
2.35
3.20
3.88
3.66
3.69
3.31
2.17
2.19
100
90
80
70
60
50
Source L: 0% RAP
Source L: 15% RAP
Source L: 25% RAP
Source L: 30% RAP
Source C: 0%RAP
Source C: 15%RAP
Source C: 30%RAP
Lower Range of Gradation
Upper Range of Gradation
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.075
0.15
0.60
4.75
2.36
9.5
23
12.5
4000
0%(A)
0%(C)
3500
5%(A)
5%(C)
10%(A)
10%(C)
Viscosity (cP)
3000
15%(A)
15%(C)
*: PG52-28
|: STD.
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
A: Ambient Rubber; C: Cryogenic Rubber
0
0
15
25
30
30*
(a)
4000
0%(A)
0%(C)
3500
5%(A)
5%(C)
10%(A)
10%(C)
Viscosity (cP)
3000
15%(A)
15%(C)
*: PG52-28
|: STD.
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
A: Ambient Rubber; C: Cryogenic Rubber
0
0
15
25
30
30*
(b)
Fig. 2. Viscosity comparisons of all binders containing PG 64-22 or PG 52-28 and
ambient or cryogenic crumb rubber for RAP sources, (a) L and (b) C
24
1600
0%Rub
10%Rub
*: PG52-28
|: STD.
5%Rub
15%Rub
1200
800
400
0
0
15
25
30
30*
(a)
1600
0%Rub
10%Rub
5%Rub
15%Rub
*: PG52-28
|: STD.
1200
800
400
0
0
15
25
Percentage of RAP (%)
(b)
25
30
30*
1600
0%Rub
10%Rub
*: PG52-28
|: STD.
1200
800
400
0
0
15
25
30*
(c)
Fig. 3. Wet ITS comparisons of all mixtures made with PG 64-22 or PG 52-28 for
specimen containing, (a) ambient crumb rubber, RAP L; (b) cryogenic crumb rubber,
RAP L; and (c) ambient crumb rubber, RAP C
26
120
*: PG52-28; |: STD.
100
80
60
40
0%Rub
5%Rub
10%Rub
15%Rub
20
0
0
15
25
30
30*
(a)
120
*: PG52-28; |: STD.
TSR Values (%)
100
80
60
40
0%Rub
5%Rub
10%Rub
15%Rub
20
0
0
15
25
30
(b)
27
30*
120
*: PG52-28; |: STD.
100
80
60
40
0%Rub
10%Rub
20
0
0
15
25
30*
(c)
Fig. 4. TSR comparison of all mixtures made with PG 64-22 or PG 52-28 for specimen
containing (a) ambient crumb rubber, RAP L; (b) cryogenic crumb rubber, RAP L; and (c)
ambient crumb rubber, RAP C
28
1600
(1)
1400
(5)
(3)
(2)
1200
(6)
Control
1000
(9)
(7)
(4)
(8)
800
(1): 0% Rub
b
(2): 0% Rub
(3): 5% Rub (C)a
a
(4): 5% Rub (A)
(5): 10% Rub (A)b
(6): 10% Rub (A)a
(7): 10% Rub (C)a
(8): 15% Rub (C)a
(9): 15% Rub (A)a
600
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Viscosity (cP)
(a)
1600
(8)
(6)
1400
(7)
(10)
1200
(9)
Control
1000
(5)
(3)
(4)
(1)
(2)
800
a: RAP L; b: RAP C; A: Ambient; C: Cryogenic
600
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Viscosity (cP)
(b)
Fig. 5. Relationship of the wet ITS and viscosity values, (a) RAP effect; (b) rubber effect
29