AP-R517-16-Maximising The Use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in Asphalt Mix Design Field Validation

Research Report
AP-R517-16
Maximising the Use of Reclaimed

Asphalt Pavement in Asphalt Mix Design
Field Validation
Maximising the Use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in Asphalt Mix Design: Field Validation
Publisher
Prepared by
Austroads Ltd.
Dr Laszlo Petho and Dr Erik Denneman Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Project Manager Phone: +61 2 8265 3300
austroads@austroads.com.au
Andrew Papacostas
www.austroads.com.au
Abstract About Austroads

The use of recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) in asphalt mixes Austroads is the peak organisation of Australasian road
provides a vital basis for sustainable development. Maximising the transport and traffic agencies.
re-use of RAP in its highest value application, as new asphalt
product, has significant economic and environmental benefits. Austroads purpose is to support our member organisations to
deliver an improved Australasian road transport network. To
The overall goal of the study was to provide guidance on the design succeed in this task, we undertake leading-edge road and
and specification of RAP mixes and to reduce uncertainty transport research which underpins our input to policy
surrounding the performance of asphalt mixes designed and development and published guidance on the design,
manufactured with RAP. It was found that the binder blend construction and management of the road network and its
characterisation according to AGPT/T193 is valid for a wide range of associated infrastructure.
asphalt mixes and therefore it can be used with confidence for
designing the binder blend in mixes containing RAP. It was also Austroads provides a collective approach that delivers value
found that the addition of RAP to asphalt mixes, with different for money, encourages shared knowledge and drives
percentages of RAP and manufactured in different types of asphalt consistency for road users.
plants, does not have an adverse impact on the performance. This Austroads is governed by a Board consisting of senior
was assessed by using performance-based tests such as flexural executive representatives from each of its eleven member
stiffness, wheel-tracking and moisture sensitivity. Test results organisations:
showed that the addition of 40% RAP, validated on large-scale
asphalt production, did not have a negative effect on the in situ
Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
workability and thermal segregation. Roads Corporation Victoria
Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
A feasibility study concluded that the RAP can be subjected to
recycling multiple times. A long-term monitoring of RAP sources Main Roads Western Australia
showed that there is little variation within a stockpile; however, there Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
is significant variation within stockpiles over time. A comprehensive South Australia
sensitivity study, using the Monte Carlo simulation, was performed as Department of State Growth Tasmania
part of the validation process to provide insight into the variability,
impact and risk assessment for asphalt mixes containing RAP.
Department of Transport Northern Territory
Binder blend characterisation should be required for asphalt mixes Territory and Municipal Services Directorate, Australian
with RAP content greater than 15%. Capital Territory
Australian Government Department of Infrastructure and
The report notes the importance of implementing a RAP Regional
management plan and proposes amendments to the Guide to
Pavement Technology Part 4B: Asphalt to incorporate the binder Australian Local Government Association
blend characterisation for mix designs containing RAP. New Zealand Transport Agency.
ISBN 978-1-925451-09-2 Austroads 2016

Austroads Project No. AP-R517-16 Keywords
This work is copyright. Apart from any use
Austroads Publication No. TT1817 RAP, mix design, performance, binder blend as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
characterisation, repeated recycling, Monte no part may be reproduced by any process
Publication date April 2016 Carlo simulation, variability, risk assessment without the prior written permission of
Pages 69 Austroads.
Acknowledgements
This report and the underlying research is the result of a close collaboration between various state road agencies, Brisbane City Council,
the City of Gold Coast, Downer, Fulton Hogan and ARRB. Input from these organisations was received in the form of manufacturing and
placement of various asphalt mixes, and supply of samples and test results free of charge. The authors gratefully acknowledge the
support of many committed and enthusiastic employees of these organisations; their contribution to this Austroads project was vital. Also,
many thanks to Elizabeth Woodall, Shannon Malone, Shannon Lourensz and Melissa Dias of ARRB for their assistance with the
experimental work and laboratory testing during the project.
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes by
providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising from
the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Summary
The use of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) in asphalt mixes provides a vital basis for sustainable
development. The re-use of RAP reduces the depletion of scarce resources, i.e. virgin bitumen and high
quality crushed aggregates. Maximisation of the re-use of RAP in its highest value application, i.e. as new
asphalt product, has significant economic and environmental benefits. The inclusion of RAP in asphalt mixes
does, however, require due consideration during the mix design process and production control, including
RAP management, to ensure satisfactory performance of the final product.
Current Australasian practice generally allows limited usage of RAP in asphalt mixes. There was a need to
improve the material characterisation, design methodology, production and construction practices to promote
appropriate use of a high percentages of RAP in asphalt mixes without compromising the performance. Clear
mix design guidelines and specifications were needed to implement high RAP content mixes.
The overall goal of the study was to provide guidance on the design and specification of RAP mixes and to
reduce uncertainty surrounding the performance of asphalt mixes designed and manufactured with RAP;
therefore a three-year study was planned. In the first year characterisation of binder blends at a wide range
of RAP contents was performed. In the second year the performance of laboratory asphalt mixes containing
different percentages of RAP was validated, designed using the binder blend characterisation. In the final
year of the study (this report), the aim was to focus on validating the binder blend design through large-scale
asphalt plant manufacturing.
It was found that the binder blend calculation according to AGPT/T193 is valid for a wide range of asphalt
mixes and therefore it can be used with confidence for designing the binder blend in mixes containing RAP. It
was also found that the addition of RAP to asphalt mixes, with different percentages of RAP and
manufactured in different types of asphalt plants, does not have an adverse impact on the performance. This
was proven on a number of asphalt mixes using performance-based test methods, such as flexural stiffness,
wheel-tracking and moisture sensitivity. Test results showed that the addition of 40% RAP did not have
negative effect on the in situ workability and did not cause thermal segregation. It should be noted, however,
that the addition of 40% RAP has minimum requirements for asphalt plant set-up and not every asphalt plant
is capable of manufacturing asphalt successfully with such a high level of RAP.
The feasibility of repeated recycling was assessed by using rolling thin film oven (RTFO) treatment and
subsequent dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) testing of extracted RAP binders. Test results showed that the
recycling process further ages the already hard binder in the RAP. It was concluded that the binder in the
RAP can be subjected to recycling multiple times; however, after the second and third recycling, the binder
blend characterisation becomes increasingly important.
Long-term monitoring of a RAP source, where appropriate stockpile management practices have been
implemented, showed that there is relatively little variation within a stockpile; on this basis one sample taken
from the RAP stockpile can be considered representative of the lot. It was also noted that there is significant
variation between RAP stockpiles in terms of RAP binder viscosity; this observation further supports that the
assessment and monitoring of the binder viscosity in the RAP is critical for the final mix performance.
A comprehensive sensitivity study, using the Monte Carlo simulation, was performed as part of the validation
process to provide insight into the variability, impact and risk assessment for asphalt mixes containing RAP.
The parameters investigated included virgin binder type and viscosity, RAP binder source and viscosity,
design mix binder content and RAP binder content.
It is recommended that the binder blend characterisation should be required for asphalt mixes with RAP
content greater than 15%. Below 15% RAP content the impact of the RAP binder on the binder blend is
normally negligible; however, this is highly dependent of the RAP binder content, the RAP binder viscosity
and the design mix binder content. RAP binder characterisation below 15% RAP content would only be
required in exceptional cases based on a risk assessment of the RAP supply, production plant application.
Austroads 2016 | page i

The importance of an implemented RAP management plan was noted which should be developed and
implemented by the asphalt supplier. It is also recommended that a testing and inspection plan should be
required for determining binder content, grading and characterisation of the RAP binder viscosity by using the
DSR; these tests should be carried out at least for every 1000 tonnes of processed RAP. By using the binder
blend characterisation, the asphalt manufacturer has the tools to alter the production for an optimum and
specified asphalt performance. This requires an implemented RAP management plan, constant monitoring of
the RAP stockpiles and alterations in the production process according to a pre-defined strategy.
The overall objective was to develop improved and validated asphalt mix design guidelines for mixes
containing RAP by characterising the binder blend. A number of amendments are therefore proposed for the
update of the Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4B: Asphalt to incorporate the binder blend
characterisation and removal of inconsistent references to mix designs containing RAP.
Austroads 2016 | page ii

Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Objectives and Scope ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Summary of Year 1 Binder Blend Characterisation in the Laboratory .......................................... 2
1.3 Summary of Year 2 Asphalt Mix Validation in the Laboratory....................................................... 2
1.4 Scope of Year 3 Asphalt Mix Validation in the Field ..................................................................... 3
2. Asphalt Plant Validation of the Binder Blend Characterisation ........................................................ 4
2.1 Binder Blend Design ......................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Calculation of the Binder Blend Viscosity......................................................................................... 5
2.3 Methodology of the Plant Validation Process .................................................................................. 5
2.4 The Role of Rejuvenator in Asphalt Recycling ................................................................................. 7
3. Sample Collection and Laboratory Testing ......................................................................................... 8
3.1 DSR Test Temperature-frequency Sweep .................................................................................... 8
3.2 Repeated Recycling of RAP ............................................................................................................. 8
3.3 Variability of RAP ........................................................................................................................... 10
3.4 Asphalt Plant Validation of the Binder Blend Calculation in RAP Mixes ........................................ 13
3.5 C320 Equivalent RAP Mix and Control Mix Production ................................................................. 20
3.6 C600 Equivalent RAP Mix and Control Mix Production ................................................................. 22
3.6.1 Purpose and Background of the Validation Project........................................................... 22
3.6.2 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................... 22
3.6.3 Preparation and Design ..................................................................................................... 22
3.6.4 Asphalt Manufacture and Paving ...................................................................................... 24
3.6.5 Infrared Camera Pictures .................................................................................................. 25
3.6.6 Finished Surface and Cores .............................................................................................. 27
3.6.7 Laboratory Test Results, Binder Blend Validation ............................................................. 29
3.6.8 In situ Workability and in situ Air Voids Contents .............................................................. 31
3.7 Performance-based Test Results ................................................................................................... 32
3.7.1 Flexural Modulus ............................................................................................................... 32
3.7.2 Wheel-tracking................................................................................................................... 35
3.7.3 Moisture Sensitivity............................................................................................................ 35
4. Assessing the Variability by using the Monte Carlo Simulation ..................................................... 37
4.1 Input Data for the Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................................................ 37
4.2 Sensitivity Runs .............................................................................................................................. 39
5. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................. 45
5.1 Outcomes and Conclusions of the Plant Validation Study ............................................................. 45
5.2 Proposed Implementation .............................................................................................................. 47
5.2.1 RAP Management Plan ..................................................................................................... 47
5.2.2 Proposed Update of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4B: Asphalt .......... 48
References ................................................................................................................................................... 50
Volumetric Properties of the Asphalt Mixes and Grading and Binder Content
of the RAP Sources .............................................................................................................. 52
DSR Viscosity Test Results, 60 C, 1 RAD/s ...................................................................... 56
Flexural Modulus Temperature-Frequency Sweep Test Results..................................... 61
Moisture Sensitivity Test Results ....................................................................................... 68
Austroads 2016 | page iii

Tables
Table 3.1: Viscosity increment of RAP binders after RTFO treatment .......................................................10
Table 3.2: DSR viscosity test results of the extracted RAP samples .........................................................11
Table 3.3: Sampling schedule of RAP mixes .............................................................................................13
Table 3.4: DSR viscosities at 60 C and 1rad/s, all RAP mixes .................................................................14
Table 3.5: DSR viscosities at 60 C and 1rad/s, T171 (RAP mix) and T320 (control mix) ........................20
Table 3.6: Binder blend calculation input for the 40% RAP mix during the design phase .........................23
Table 3.7: Alternative scenario (example) for the binder blend calculation input for the 40% RAP mix ....23
Table 3.8: Delivery and rolling temperatures ..............................................................................................25
Table 3.9: DSR viscosities at 60 C and 1rad/s, all RAP mixes, DG20(C170)(40R) RAP mix and
DG20(600) control mix ..............................................................................................................29
Table 3.10: Compaction test results, measured on cores extracted from the pavement using
the SSD method ........................................................................................................................32
Table 3.11: Flexural modulus values at 15 and 25 C ..................................................................................34
Table 4.1: Statistical analysis of binder viscosities input into MCS .........................................................37
Table 4.2: RAP binder viscosity distribution input into MCS (60 C, 1 rad/s) .............................................38
Table 4.3: Sensitivity table for C320 viscosity, RAP2 binder content and RAP2 binder viscosity,
design binder content of 4.2% (in conjunction with Figure 4.7) .................................................42
Table 4.4: Sensitivity table for C320 viscosity, RAP2 binder content and RAP2 binder viscosity,
design binder content of 5.6% (in conjunction with Figure 4.7) .................................................43
Figures
Figure 2.1: Schematic of the production flow, sampling and testing regimes ............................................... 6
Figure 3.1: Master curves of the RAP binders after two RTFO treatments ................................................... 9
Figure 3.2: Viscosity of the RAP binders after RTFO treatments ................................................................10
Figure 3.3: Variability within the RAP stockpile and variability between stockpiles in the longer term .......12
Figure 3.4: Master curves of RAP samples within the stockpile and in the longer term .............................12
Figure 3.5: Measured versus calculated binder blend viscosities of the RAP mixes (RAP viscosity
increase 2.0X)............................................................................................................................15
Figure 3.6: Measured versus calculated binder blend viscosities of the RAP mixes (RAP viscosity
increase 1.5X)............................................................................................................................15
Figure 3.7: Master curves from sampling regime on 28 January 2015 (T171) ............................................16
Figure 3.8: Master curves from sampling regime on 27 May 2015 (T171) ..................................................16
Figure 3.9: Master curves from sampling regime on 23 July 2015 (T171) ..................................................17
Figure 3.10: Master curves from sampling regime on 5 May 2015 (50% SA mix) ........................................17
Figure 3.11: Master curves from sampling regime on 5 March 2015 (B771) ................................................18
Figure 3.12: Master curves from sampling regime on 22 April 2015 (B771) .................................................18
Figure 3.13: Master curves from sampling regime on 24 June 2015 (B771) ................................................19
Figure 3.14: Master curves from sampling regime on 20 October 2015 (DG20(170)(40R)) .........................19
Figure 3.15: Master curves from sampling on 28 January 2015 (T171 and T320) .......................................21
Figure 3.16: Flexural stiffness of asphalt mixes T171 (C170 + 20% RAP) and T320
(C320 + 0% RAP) ......................................................................................................................21
Figure 3.17: As-constructed chainages for the 40% RAP validation project .................................................24
Figure 3.18: DG20(multi) behind the paver ................................................................................................25
Figure 3.19: DG20(multi) behind the paver across line P1.........................................................................25
Figure 3.20: DG20(600) behind the paver ..................................................................................................26
Figure 3.21: DG20(600) behind the paver across line P1 ..........................................................................26
Figure 3.22: DG20(170)(40R) in front of the auger ....................................................................................26
Figure 3.23: DG20(170)(40R) in front of the auger relative temperature distribution within
the marked area ........................................................................................................................26
Figure 3.24: DG20(170)(40R) behind the paver .........................................................................................26
Figure 3.25: DG20(170)(40R) behind the paver across line P1 .................................................................26
Figure 3.26: DG20(170)(40R) breakdown rolling .......................................................................................27
Figure 3.27: DG20(170)(40R) breakdown rolling across line P1 ................................................................27
Figure 3.28: DG20(170)(40R) multi-rolling (on the left-hand side only, breakdown rolling completed) .....27
Austroads 2016 | page iv

Figure 3.29: DG20(170)(40R) multi-rolling across line P1..........................................................................27

Figure 3.30: Finished surface of DG20(multi) ................................................................................................28
Figure 3.31: Cores from the DG20(multi) section ..........................................................................................28
Figure 3.32: Finished surface of DG20(600) .................................................................................................28
Figure 3.33: Cores from the DG20(600) section ...........................................................................................28
Figure 3.34: Finished surface of DG20(170)(40R) ........................................................................................28
Figure 3.35: Cores from the DG20(170)(40R) section ..................................................................................28
Figure 3.36: Master curves from sampling regime on 20/10/2015, DG20(C170)(40R) RAP mix and
DG20(600) control mix ..............................................................................................................30
Figure 3.37: Flexural stiffness of asphalt mixes DG20(C170)(40R) RAP mix and
DG20(600) control mix ..............................................................................................................30
Figure 3.38: Compaction curve of the asphalt mixes measured by the nuclear density gauge ....................31
Figure 3.39: Flexural modulus master curves of C320 equivalent mixes ......................................................33
Figure 3.40: Flexural modulus master curves of M1000 mixes with 15% RAP and C600
equivalent mixes ........................................................................................................................33
Figure 3.41: Comparison of the flexural modulus values ..............................................................................34
Figure 3.42: Wheel-tracking test results ........................................................................................................35
Figure 3.43: Moisture sensitivity test results ..................................................................................................36
Figure 4.1: Outline of the Monte Carlo simulation .......................................................................................38
Figure 4.2: MCS, the impact of different RAP proportions and different RAP sources ...............................39
Figure 4.3: MCS, the impact of the virgin binder and different RAP sources ..............................................40
Figure 4.4: MCS, the impact of different RAP proportions and different design mix binder
contents when using C170 binder and RAP 1 (softer source) ..................................................40
Figure 4.5: MCS, lower design mix binder content increases the binder blend range
(RAP proportion and source unchanged) ..................................................................................41
Figure 4.6: MCS, the impact of different RAP proportions and different design mix binder
contents when using C320 binder and RAP 2 (stiffer source) ..................................................41
Figure 4.7: MCS, the impact of different RAP proportions, RAP binder contents (4% and std. = 0.2%),
different design mix binder contents when using C320 binder and RAP 2 (stiffer source) .......42
Figure 4.8: MCS, the impact of different RAP proportions and different RAP sources
when using C600 binder ............................................................................................................43
Figure 4.9: MCS, the impact of different RAP proportions and different RAP sources when
using M1000 binder ...................................................................................................................44
Austroads 2016 | page v

1. Introduction
Aggregates and binder in reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) may be re-used in the manufacture of new hot
mix asphalt, recycled in situ in hot or cold processes or cold recycled as a plant mixed pavement material
(Austroads 2014). The use of RAP in asphalt mixes provides a vital basis for sustainable development.
According to World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), sustainable development is
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs. From a sustainability perspective, the re-use of RAP in its original form (i.e. hot mix
asphalt) has to be preferred over its use in lesser value applications such as granular layers. The re-use of
RAP reduces the depletion of scarce resources, i.e. virgin bitumen and high quality crushed aggregates
(Austroads 2013a).
The re-use of RAP material in the production of new hot mix asphalt has become standard practice both
locally and internationally. In many countries, including Australia, RAP is by far the most recycled
construction waste product. Maximisation of the re-use of RAP in its highest value application, i.e. as new hot
mix asphalt product, has significant economic and environmental benefits. The inclusion of RAP in asphalt
mixes does however require due consideration during the mix design process to ensure satisfactory
performance of the final product (Austroads 2013a). This report refers to the re-use of RAP in hot mix
asphalt.
1.1 Objectives and Scope

Maximisation of the re-use of RAP has significant economic and environmental benefits. Current
Australasian practice generally allows limited usage of RAP in asphalt mixes. There is a need to improve the
material characterisation, design methodology, production and construction practices to promote appropriate
use of high percentages of RAP in asphalt mixes. Clear mix design guidelines, specifications and RAP
management plan are needed to implement high RAP content mixes.
The overall goal of this overarching study is to provide guidance on the design and specification of asphalt
mixes containing RAP and to reduce uncertainty surrounding the performance of asphalt mixes designed
and manufactured with RAP. A three-year study was planned, and separate objectives were set for each
year as follows:
The objective in the first year of the study (201213) was to improve the guidelines for the
characterisation and designs of the binder blend in RAP mixes. The study included characterisation of
blends at a wide range of RAP contents mixed with virgin bitumen and rejuvenator.
The second year of the study (201314) focused on the performance of laboratory mixes containing
different percentages of RAP. The design guidelines for mixes containing RAP were developed based on
the results of year one of the study and international best practice.
In the final year of the study (201415), which is the topic of this report, the aim was to focus on validating
the procedures, developed in year one and two, for large-scale asphalt plant manufacturing. The RAP
binder blend design methodology developed in year one and the laboratory RAP mix design process from
year two was used for designing mixes and validate the design procedure on plant-produced mixes.
Performance-based asphalt testing was conducted in the laboratory on samples collected during plant
production. The goals for year three were based on the outcomes of the first two years of the study.
The objective of the study was to develop improved and validated asphalt mix design guidelines for mixes
containing RAP by characterising the binder blend. For the report of this final year no literature review was
conducted; a comprehensive national and international overview is provided in Austroads (2013a and 2015).
Austroads 2016 | page 1

1.2 Summary of Year 1 Binder Blend Characterisation in the

Laboratory
Austroads (2013a) presented the findings from the first year of a three-year Austroads study. The objective
was to improve the methodology for the characterisation of RAP binders and the design of the binder blend
in asphalt mixes containing RAP.
A literature survey found that the Australian approach to accounting for the increase in viscosity of the binder
blend due to the use of RAP is broadly in line with international best practice. This was true both on a
national level in terms of the methodology proposed in Austroads (2014) and on a state level in terms of the
requirements set by road agencies for the use of different proportions of RAP in mixes. Characterisation of
the properties of the blend of RAP and virgin binder was not part of standard practice in Australia. In some
cases, the viscosity of the blend is corrected by adding a softer binder, but typically without checking the
viscosity of the final product.
Internationally, the characterisation of the properties of the extracted RAP binder, and design of an appropriate
blend of RAP and virgin binder is often required, even at relatively low percentages of RAP in the final mix. It
was also found that limited use was made of the binder viscosity prediction model in Austroads (2014).
The experimental work in the first year of the study showed that the dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) can be
used for viscosity measurement as an alternative to both the Shell sliding plate test (viscosity at 45 C) and
the capillary viscosity test (viscosity at 60 C). Although the DSR results for viscosity at 45 C tend to be
lower than those obtained using the Shell sliding plate, the DSR results are more repeatable than those of
the Shell sliding plate test, which has conventionally been a common test used in Australia for the
characterisation of RAP binder.
The results showed that for the RAP sources under study, a blend of C170 with 10% to 20% RAP binder
does result in a viscosity equivalent to that of a C320, as sometimes assumed in current practice. The DSR-
based methodology provides a practical, consistent and cost-effective method to characterise RAP binder
blends. As successfully demonstrated, the viscosity results from the DSR tests can be used to design RAP
binder blends to a desired viscosity.
1.3 Summary of Year 2 Asphalt Mix Validation in the Laboratory

Austroads (2015) presented the findings from the second year of this three-year study. The objective was to
focus on the laboratory performance assessment of asphalt mixes containing different percentages of RAP.
A survey to identify the issues regarding the use of RAP mixes in Australia was conducted, followed by an
extensive national and international literature review to address the issues identified in the survey. The
second part of the study involved undertaking laboratory experiments to evaluate the performance of asphalt
mixes with different binder types and RAP content. Material characteristics such as volumetrics, stiffness,
fatigue, permanent deformation and moisture sensitivity were determined for dense graded asphalt mixes.
The results provided input into the validation of the RAP binder blend design methodology developed in year
one of the project. A blended binder containing 60% RAP was designed, targeting C320 equivalent viscosity,
using the viscosity prediction equation; the dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) test was performed on the
blended binder to validate that it has similar viscosity to the C320 binder. The test results revealed that the
60% RAP asphalt mix had similar performance to the control mix with C320 binder and 0% RAP.
Based on the asphalt performance observed from the tests of different mixes, it was suggested that the
viscosity of the blended binder is a strong indicator of the dense graded asphalt performance. Thus, the
viscosity of all RAP asphalt components (e.g. RAP, virgin binder, rejuvenating agent) should be determined
for asphalt mixes containing more than 15% RAP.

1.4 Scope of Year 3 Asphalt Mix Validation in the Field

In the final year of the study (201415), the aim was to focus on validating the binder blend design through
large-scale asphalt plant manufacturing. The scope of the study can be summarised as follows:
validate the binder blend viscosity design for plant-produced mixes with different RAP content and for
different asphalt plant types
provide insight into the impact of repeated recycling of asphalt
assess the variability within RAP stockpile and the variability of RAP over time
design a high RAP content mix using the binder blend design method
provide insight into the binder blend variability through a sensitivity analysis for risk management
develop design guidelines for mixes containing RAP and propose updates to the Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 4B: Asphalt (Austroads 2014).

2. Asphalt Plant Validation of the Binder Blend

Characterisation
2.1 Binder Blend Design

Draft guidelines for designing of RAP mixes were presented in Austroads (2015), which was used in this
study for the plant validation process. It was proposed that if a mix design contains more than 15% RAP, the
properties of the binder blend (consisting of the RAP binder, the virgin binder, and rejuvenator, if applicable)
should be determined as follows:
1. Collect a representative sample of the RAP in accordance with AS 1141.3.1.
2. Determine the binder content of the RAP in accordance with AS/NZS 2891.3.1, AS/NZS 2891.3.3 or other
agreed method.
3. Extract the binder from a representative sample of RAP in accordance with AGPT/T191, or equivalent
method as specified by the road agency.
4. Determine the complex viscosity (*) of the RAP binder, the virgin binder and rejuvenator (where
applicable) by using the DSR at 60 C and 1 rad/s, in accordance with AGPT/T192.
5. Predict the viscosity of the blended binder according to AGPT/T193. It should be noted that the viscosity
of the binder blend is influenced by the viscosity of the virgin binder, the RAP binder and the rejuvenator
oil (if applicable), the binder content of the design mix, the binder content of the RAP source and the
amount of the rejuvenator oil (if applicable).
6. If the predicted viscosity is outside the desired range for the design, adjust the proportion of the binder
blend components iteratively.
7. Check the viscosity of the final design blend directly using the DSR (optional).
The findings of year two of the study confirmed that suitable results may be obtained by targeting the normal
AS 2008 viscosity ranges when designing a binder blend for:
equivalent Class 170 (C170) bitumen, with target viscosity between 140 and 200 Pa.s
equivalent Class 600 (C600) bitumen, with target viscosity between 500 and 700 Pa.s.
It should be noted that the binder blend characterisation may be used for two applications:
asphalt mix design
asphalt production control.
In cases where the method is used for production control, RAP management is a vital component for
producing asphalt mixes with RAP to a consistent and high quality. RAP binder characterisation can be
successfully utilised if such a RAP management is implemented.

2.2 Calculation of the Binder Blend Viscosity

The blended binder viscosity was calculated in this study according to Equation 1 (AGPT/T193).
3 + 1
=
6 +

=
=1
3
( 3)
1
= 10
where
= viscosity of th component (in Pa.s)
= viscosity blending index of th component
= viscosity blending index of the blend
= volume fraction of th component
= viscosity of the blend (in Pa.s).
2.3 Methodology of the Plant Validation Process

Since the process presented in this report is for plant validation, it was necessary to subject all virgin binder
samples to rolling thin film oven (RTFO) treatment according to AS/NZS 2341.10 and determine the viscosity
on this sample and perform the calculations on post-plant (i.e. post-RTFO) properties. Therefore, in this
study the viscosities of the RTFO treated binders were utilised for the validation. The rationale behind this
approach is that the binder blend, extracted from the asphalt mix, contains aged binder due to the heating
process in the plant and comparison with this value required that the virgin binder properties are also
considered in their aged (post-RTFO) status.
For mix design purposes, unless the road agency specifies otherwise, the pre-RTFO viscosities should be
used. The binder blend calculations for virgin binders (pre-RTFO) were already validated in the laboratory
validation study (Austroads 2013a).
In this study the following input was used for the validation:
DSR test performed on binder from the pipelines sampled during production of the asphalt mix (pre- and
post-RTFO)
DSR test performed on binder extracted from RAP
DSR test performed on binder extracted from plant mix.
The schematics of the procedure are provided in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Schematic of the production flow, sampling and testing regimes
production flow
sampling and testing
Collect binder
from the Determine
pipelines during viscosity
asphalt mix (pre-RTFO)
production
Determine
viscosity
Calculate
(post-RTFO)
binder blend
viscosity
Collect sample according to
Extract Compare
from RAP AGPT/T193
binder from calculated
stockpile during (post-plant
RAP and and
asphalt mix properties)
determine measured
production
viscosity binder blend
(front and back)
viscosities
Collect hot mix Extract

asphalt sample binder from
from the delivery final asphalt
truck mix
For the validation of the asphalt mix performance, i.e. to verify that the RAP does not have adverse effects
on the performance of the asphalt mix, the following performance-based test methods were utilised:
moisture sensitivity according to AGPT/T232
wheel-tracking test according to AGPT/T231
flexural modulus temp-frequency sweep according to AGPT/T274.
Due to time and budget constrains fatigue testing was not performed in this project. Further work is needed
to fully assess fatigue performance.
The asphalt mixes were produced at different asphalt plant types; the majority of the asphalt plants in
Australia fall within these categories:
counter-flow drum plant Brisbane City Council (BCC)
parallel drum plant a South Australian supplier in conjunction with the Department of Planning,
Transport and Infrastructure South Australia (DPTI)
double-barrel plant Fulton Hogan (FH).
The material produced at these plants covered the following asphalt mix types:
wearing course type asphalt with C170 binder + 20% RAP (C320 equivalent)
wearing course type asphalt with C170 binder + 50% RAP + rejuvenator oil (C320 equivalent)
structural asphalt layer with M1000 binder + 15% RAP
structural asphalt layer with C170 binder + 40% RAP (C600 equivalent).
From the above mixes only the asphalt mix containing C170 binder and 40% RAP was designed using the
calculation in Equation 1; the other mixes were designed using the grade bump approach or an experimental
process.

2.4 The Role of Rejuvenator in Asphalt Recycling

According to Shen and Ohne (2002) there are many types of rejuvenators available for the recycling of RAP.
Among those, asphalt and petrol lubricant types are the most prevalent ones, and are generally classified by
dynamic viscosity at 60 C ranging from 0.05 to 0.5 Pa.s. Karlsson and Isacsson (2002) defined the term
rejuvenator as all oil derivatives that are added for the purpose of modifying the old binder. Del Barco
Carrin et al. (2015) indicated that the addition of an appropriate dosage of a compatible rejuvenator may be
necessary to prevent an increase in the susceptibility of the asphalt mixture that is to ensure mixture
longevity. They also state that the Australian blend design models developed in the first year of this study
(Austroads 2013a) may successfully include the use of rejuvenators through the application of current laws
to rejuvenated RAP binders and virgin binders. According to Tran et al. (2012) an aged asphalt binder may
be mixed with a recycling agent to restore its rheological properties, which can be a softening agent or a
rejuvenator. While softening agents such as asphalt flux oil, lube stock and slurry oil can lower the viscosity
of the aged binder, rejuvenators help restore the physical and chemical properties.
There is a large variety of products on the market used as rejuvenator for hot mix asphalt recycling. Based
on the above, the definition and application of the rejuvenator shows a wide range.
The method used in this study is suitable to include the rejuvenator in the binder blend design; this was
validated on a 50% RAP mix. However, it was out of scope for this study to investigate the appropriateness
and dosage of the rejuvenators used in asphalt recycling. Further research is required to define the purpose
and usage of the rejuvenator, whether it is applied as softening agent or an additive to restore the rheological
properties of the RAP binder. Also, investigation is needed on how to select an appropriate rejuvenator agent
type, and define properties and dosage for RAP applications in Australia.

3. Sample Collection and Laboratory Testing
3.1 DSR Test Temperature-frequency Sweep

DSR tests were performed according to AGPT/T192 for temperatures between 50 and 70 C. For lower
temperatures between 30 and 50 C the AASHTO standard, Standard method of test for determining the
rheological properties of asphalt binder using a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR), (AASHTO 2012) was used.
The rationale behind this was that the master curves of the different binders were used in this study for
general comparison. For the construction of the master curves a wide range of temperature-frequency
sweeps is required; however, AGPT/T192 currently accommodates the test conditions (i.e. large diameter
spindle) only for high temperatures. Therefore temperature-frequency sweeps were performed as follows:
Temperature-frequency sweeps for temperatures between 5070 C
frequency sweeps at 5055606570 C
15 different frequency values between 0.10.15850.25120.39810.6311.01.5852.5123.981
6.3110.015.8525.1239.8162.83 rad/s
larger diameter spindle of 25 mm
gap (i.e. sample thickness) 1.0 mm; trimming gap at 1.05 mm to achieve 1.0 mm gap.
Temperature-frequency sweeps for temperatures between 3050 C
frequency sweeps at 3035404550 C
15 different frequency values between 0.10.15850.25120.39810.6311.01.5852.5123.981
6.3110.015.8525.1239.8162.83 rad/s
small diameter spindle of 8 mm
gap (i.e. sample thickness) 2.0 mm; trimming gap at 2.1 mm to achieve 2.0 mm gap.
Two sets of the frequency-temperature sweeps were completed for every binder sample in this study. It had
already been shown that the DSR test provides very good repeatability (Austroads 2013b, 2013c); this has
been further validated in the study as discussed later.
3.2 Repeated Recycling of RAP

Two sources of RAP were sampled in the first year of the study (Austroads 2013a), denoted as RAP1 and
RAP2. Relatively large amounts of binder were extracted from both sources according to AGPT/T191, which
was enough to subject both samples to repeated RTFO treatment.
The viscosities of the binders extracted from the two RAP sources were determined after extraction (before
RTFO), and after the RTFO treatment. Following the first RTFO treatment there was still enough material
available so that both samples could be subjected to a second set of RTFO treatment and the viscosities
were tested again. Temperature-frequency sweeps were performed according to Section 3.1 and the master
curves (Figure 3.1) were constructed using these test results.

Figure 3.1: Master curves of the RAP binders after two RTFO treatments
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
1.0E+04
MC-RAP1 #1866
1.0E+03 MC-RAP1 #1866 (RTFO 1)
MC-RAP1 #1866 (RTFO 2)
1.0E+02
MC-RAP2 #1872

1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Reduced frequency (rad/s)
The multiple RTFO treatment and subsequent DSR tests provided valuable indicative information for the
assessment of RAP ageing through asphalt production. After RTFO treatment the RAP binder viscosity
increases, which indicates that the asphalt production process further increases the viscosity of the aged
binder in the RAP. This phenomenon should not be considered as an adverse effect; however, it should be
accounted for in the overall assessment process.
According to Figure 3.2 the viscosity of the binder increases after RTFO treatment and each RTFO treatment
can be considered as a new recycling process in hot mix asphalt application. Any new recycling process
further ages the already hard binder in the RAP source. After the second or third recycling, the binder blend
characterisation becomes increasingly important and the binder in the RAP can be subjected to multiple
recycling. In other words, the stiff binder does not present any problem in the asphalt mix, subject to it being
considered and treated properly in the mix design and production control process.

Figure 3.2: Viscosity of the RAP binders after RTFO treatments
100 000
DSR viscosity at 60 C, 1 rad/s - RAP1

90 000
85 400
DSR viscosity at 60 C, 1 rad/s - RAP2
80 000
70 000 68 510
Viscosity @ 60 C, 1rad/s
60 000
50 000
44 610
40 000
30 000
20 000
13 280
10 240
10 000
5 359
0 000
extracted RAP binder extracted RAP binder after 1st extracted RAP binder after 2nd
RTFO RTFO
The extent of ageing after multiple RTFO treatments (i.e. production runs) can be assessed based on
Table 3.1. The viscosity of the RAP binder is 1.3 to 1.9 times higher after the first RTFO treatment and 1.2 to
1.5 times higher after the second RTFO treatment. Based on this information, two scenarios an average
increment of 1.5 and of 2.0 are considered in Section 3.4 for assessing the RAP binder ageing through the
plant.
Table 3.1: Viscosity increment of RAP binders after RTFO treatment
Viscosity Viscosity
DSR viscosity DSR viscosity
increment between increment between
Binder at 60 C, 1Hz at 60 C, 1Hz
RTFO treatments RTFO treatments
RAP1 RAP2
RAP1 RAP2
Extracted RAP binder 5 359 N/A 44 610 N/A
Extracted RAP binder
10 240 1.9 68 510 1.5
after 1st RTFO
Extracted RAP binder
13 280 1.3 85 400 1.2
after 2nd RTFO
3.3 Variability of RAP

In order to obtain insight into the variability within the RAP stockpile and the variability of the RAP over time,
a series of sampling, binder extraction and DSR tests were performed at the Brisbane City Council Eagle
Farm asphalt plant. The stockpile at this plant holds 500 tonnes of RAP.

Samples were collected consistently every month from the front and back part of the stockpile. The binder
content and aggregate grading were determined by the BCC laboratory. A subsample were transported to
the ARRB laboratory, where the binder extraction and DSR tests were performed. Duplicate samples of each
binder extracted from the RAP were tested; the test results are summarised in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: DSR viscosity test results of the extracted RAP samples
Sampling location of Sampling date Viscosity at 60 C, 1 rad/s (Pa.s)

the stockpile
Test 1 Test 2 Average
Front 28/01/2015 71 570 71 920 71 745
5/03/2015 80 930 81 140 81 035
22/04/2015 48 290 48 670 48 480
27/05/2015 27 080 26 100 26 590
24/06/2015 13 310 15 790 14 550
23/07/2015 12 750 12 410 12 580
26/08/2015 30 100 28 750 29 425
22/09/2015 18 920 20 640 19 780
28/10/2015 27 980 29 210 28 595
24/11/2015 17 470 18 530 18 000
17/12/2015 34 300 34 380 34 340
Back 28/01/2015 63 920 61 740 62 830
5/03/2015 76 960 79 020 77 990
22/04/2015 46 680 43 150 44 915
27/05/2015 18 090 18 420 18 255
24/06/2015 13 640 13 590 13 615
23/07/2015 15 150 14 730 14 940
26/08/2015 27 030 28 040 27 535
22/09/2015 16 490 20 660 18 575
28/10/2015 13 070 15 440 14 255
24/11/2015 27 320 29 520 28 420
17/12/2015 37 020 36 870 36 945
The average values of the RAP binder viscosities from Table 3.2 are visualised in Figure 3.3 along with the
RAP usage over time. Based on this monitoring, where significant amount of RAP was used, it can be
concluded that there is relatively little variation within the stockpile (front and back). On this basis one sample
taken from the RAP stockpile can be considered representative for the lot provided appropriate RAP
stockpile management practices has been implemented and each RAP stockpile is processed to a consistent
and homogeneous state.
The long-term monitoring also revealed that there is significant variation within stockpiles over time in terms
of RAP binder viscosity; this observation further supports that the assessment of the binder viscosity in the
RAP is critical for the final mix performance. An asphalt mix produced with 20% RAP may have very different
binder blend properties if mixed with a RAP source of 80 000 Pa.s and 20 000 Pa.s binder viscosities. The
impact of this variation is discussed in Section 4.
The master curves of the RAP binders tested during the long-term observation are shown in Figure 3.4. This
figure, similarly to Figure 3.3 shows the variation between RAP binders over time.

Figure 3.3: Variability within the RAP stockpile and variability between stockpiles in the longer term
100000 60000
front of stockpile
90000 back of stockpile
RAP cumulative tonnage (Eagle Farm 2015) 50000
80000
RAP usage (cumulative tonnes)

Viscosity @ 60 C, 1rad/s (Pa.s)
70000
40000
60000
50000 30000
40000
20000
30000
20000
10000
10000
0 0
Source: Based on data from BCC and laboratory test results from ARRB.
Figure 3.4: Master curves of RAP samples within the stockpile and in the longer term
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
1.0E+04
#3388_RAP(front)_1/28 #3389_RAP(back)_1/28
1.0E+03 #3622_RAP(front)_22/04 #3621_RAP(back)_22/04
1.0E+02
1.0E+01 #3977_RAP(front)_22/09 #3978_RAP(back)_22/09
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03

3.4 Asphalt Plant Validation of the Binder Blend Calculation in RAP

Mixes
The binder blend calculation according to AGPT/T193 was validated in the laboratory (Austroads 2013a and
2015). The validation of the calculation for large-scale production is provided in this section. Asphalt mixes
from BCC (counter-flow drum plant), South Australia (parallel drum plant) and Fulton Hogan (double-barrel
plant) were used in this part of the study; the sampling schedule is summarised in Table 3.3. The volumetric
properties of the samples can be found in Appendix A.
Table 3.3: Sampling schedule of RAP mixes
Asphalt mix and Sampling schedule in 2015

sampling details
Production and January February March April May June July October
sample date 28/01 Cancelled 5/03 22/04 27/05 5/05 24/06 23/07 20/10
Supplier South
BCC BCC BCC BCC BCC BCC BCC FH/CoGC
Aust.
T171
C170 binder X X X
+ 20% RAP
B771
M1000 binder Cancelled X X X
+ 15 % RAP
14AC medium
C170 binder
X
+ 50% RAP
+ rejuvenator oil
DG20(C170)(40R)
C170 binder X
+ 40% RAP (1)
1 This mix was designed using the binder blend characterisation as per Equation 1.
In accordance with the methodology in Figure 2.1, DSR testing was performed on the following binder
samples:
binder from the pipelines sampled during production of the asphalt mix (pre- and post-RTFO)
binder extracted from RAP
binder extracted from plant mix.
For each sample a duplicate test was performed; the average DSR viscosity results at 60 C and 1rad/s are
summarised in Table 3.4. Full test results are provided in Appendix B. In Table 3.4 the calculated binder
blend viscosities are also provided. The calculations were performed according to Section 2.2.
In this study the viscosities of the RTFO treated binders were utilised for the calculations; this was necessary
since the binder blend, extracted from the asphalt mix, contains aged binder due to the heating process in
the plant. Comparison with this value required that the virgin binder and RAP binder properties are also
considered in their aged (post-RTFO) status; as discussed in Section 3.2, the RTFO treatments (i.e.
production runs) age the RAP binder. It was, however, not possible for this study to RTFO treat all extracted
RAP binders for assessing the ageing process through the plant. As discussed in Section 3.2, the viscosity of
the RAP binder is approximately 1.2 to 1.9 times higher after RTFO treatment. Based on this information two
scenarios were considered for post-RTFO viscosities of the RAP binder; 1.5 times (denoted as 1.5X) and of
2.0 times (denoted as 2.0X) of the as-extracted viscosities.

Table 3.4: DSR viscosities at 60 C and 1rad/s, all RAP mixes
DSR viscosities at 60 C and 1rad/s (Pa.s) production date and mix description
Material 5/05/2015 20/10/2015

28/1/2015 27/5/2015 23/7/2015 5/3/2015 22/4/2015 24/6/2015
SA DG20(C17
T171 T171 T171 B771 B771 B771
50%RAP 0)(40R)
Extracted RAP 67 288 22 423 13 760 5 346 79 513 46 698 14 083 89 393
binder (10 mm) (fine)
6 175 105 650
(14 mm) (coarse)
Bitumen from the 186 195 189 204 1 794 1 014 804 176
pipelines
Bitumen after RTFO 340 395 425 325 6 186 3 824 3 360 375
Rejuvenator oil N/A N/A N/A 0.02 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Binder extracted 619 930 1 257 869 9 509 6 002 6 693 1 319
from the produced
asphalt
Measured
(post-plant)
Estimated RAP 134 575 44 846 27 520 10 692 159 025 93 396 28 166 178 787
binder viscosity after (10 mm) (fine)
plant (2.0X) 12 350 211 300
(14 mm) (coarse)
Binder blend in the 724 807 817 728 9 369 5 696 4 435 1 416
asphalt
Calculated
(post-plant) (2.0X)
Estimated RAP 100 931 33 635 20 640 8 019 119 269 70 047 21 125 134 090
binder viscosity after (10 mm) (fine)
plant (1.5X) 9 263 158 475
(14 mm) (coarse)
Binder blend in the 703 778 786 663 9 064 5 515 4 283 1 347
asphalt
Calculated
(post-plant) (1.5X)
The correlation between the measured and calculated binder blend viscosities of the RAP mixes is shown in
Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6 for two scenarios. For the asphalt mixes outlined in Table 3.4 there were only two
outliers, mix B771 sampled on 24 June 2015 and mix T171 sampled on 23 July 2015, where the differences
between the calculated and measured viscosities were approximately 30%. However, the results show that
the binder blend calculations are reasonably accurate predictors of the binder viscosity in the asphalt mix. On
this basis the binder blend calculation (Section 2.2) is considered valid for plant-produced asphalt mixes.

Figure 3.5: Measured versus calculated binder blend viscosities of the RAP mixes (RAP viscosity increase 2.0X)
10000
Individual results
Binder viscosity in asphalt - calculated (Pa.s)
Line of equality
1000
100
100 1000 10000
Binder viscosity extracted from asphalt - measured (Pa.s)
Figure 3.6: Measured versus calculated binder blend viscosities of the RAP mixes (RAP viscosity increase 1.5X)
10000
Individual results
Binder viscosity in asphalt - calculated (Pa.s)
Line of equality
1000
100
100 1000 10000
Binder viscosity extracted from asphalt - measured (Pa.s)

The master curves of the virgin binder (pre- and post-RTFO), the extracted RAP binder and the binder
extracted from the asphalt mix are summarised in Figure 3.7 to Figure 3.10 for C320 equivalent mixes, in
Figure 3.11 to Figure 3.13 for M1000 mixes and in Figure 3.14 for the C600 equivalent mix. The stiffening
effect of the RAP binder can be easily detected in these figures.
Figure 3.7: Master curves from sampling regime on 28 January 2015 (T171)
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
1.0E+04
1.0E+03 #3389_RAP(back)_1/28
#3413_C170_1/28
#3413_C170(RTFO)_1/28
1.0E+02
#3411_T171(20%RAP)_1/28
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Figure 3.8: Master curves from sampling regime on 27 May 2015 (T171)
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
1.0E+04
1.0E+03
#3757_RAP(back)_27/05
1.0E+02 #3754_C170_27/05
#3754_C170(RTFO)_27/05
#3755_T171_27/05
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03

Figure 3.9: Master curves from sampling regime on 23 July 2015 (T171)
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
1.0E+04
1.0E+03
#3881_RAP(back)_23/07
1.0E+02 #3877_C170_23/07
#3877_C170(RTFO)_23/07
#3879_T171(20%RAP)_23/07
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Figure 3.10: Master curves from sampling regime on 5 May 2015 (50% SA mix)
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
1.0E+04
#3637_10mmRAP SA(back)_5/05
1.0E+03 #3640_14 mm RAP SA(back)_5/05
#3635_C170_5/05
#3635_C170(RTFO)_5/05
#3638_ 50% RAP SA_5/05
1.0E+02
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03

Figure 3.11: Master curves from sampling regime on 5 March 2015 (B771)
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
1.0E+04
1.0E+03
#3624_RAP(back)_5/03
1.0E+02 #3626_M1000_5/03
#3626_M1000(RTFO)_5/03
#3623_B771(15%RAP)_5/03
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Figure 3.12: Master curves from sampling regime on 22 April 2015 (B771)
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
1.0E+04
1.0E+03
#3621_RAP(back)_22/04
1.0E+02 #3627_M1000_22/04
#3627_M1000(RTFO)_22/04
#3619_B771(15%RAP)_22/04
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03

Figure 3.13: Master curves from sampling regime on 24 June 2015 (B771)
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
1.0E+04
1.0E+03
#3819_RAP(back)_24/06
1.0E+02 #3816_M1000_24/06
#3816_M1000(RTFO)_24/06
#3817_B771(15%RAP)_24/06
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Figure 3.14: Master curves from sampling regime on 20 October 2015 (DG20(170)(40R))
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
1.0E+04
1.0E+03
#3907_RAP(coarse3)_20/10
#3910_RAP(fine3)_20/10
1.0E+02
#4055_C170_20/10
#4055_C170(RTFO)_20/10
1.0E+01
#4051_DG20(170)(40R)_20/10
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03

3.5 C320 Equivalent RAP Mix and Control Mix Production

Following the T171 asphalt mix production with C170 binder and 20% RAP on 28 January 2015 (Table 3.3),
a reference asphalt mix, denoted as T320, with 0% RAP and C320 binder was manufactured. The production
of the two mixes was carried out consecutively, therefore no variation was expected in the aggregate
stockpiles. The two mixes were designed to be equivalent in terms of binder content and grading. The binder
blend was not designed for the T171 mix to be equivalent to the T320 mix with 0% RAP and C320 binder,
only the grade bump approach, i.e. using one grade softer binder, was utilised. The methodology (Figure 2.1)
developed for binder blend design was used to assess the validity of the grade bump approach, commonly
utilised by different road agencies and the asphalt industry.
The binder viscosities are summarised in Table 3.5 and the volumetric properties of the mixes can be found
in Appendix A. The binder extracted from the T320 mix with no RAP shows higher viscosities compared to
the binder extracted from the T171 mix with 20% RAP. The RAP source is considered relatively stiff;
however, this high viscosity binder in the RAP did not increase the viscosity of the C170 binder in the T171
mix to an extent that it would be equivalent to the T320 mix, containing only C320 binder. It should be noted
that the virgin C320 binder pre-RTFO properties show that the binder has relatively high viscosity and falls
on the high end of the specification limits (maximum 380 Pa.s). Figure 3.15 shows the master curves of the
binders virgin binder pre- and post-RTFO, RAP binder, binder extracted from the asphalt mix for the
T171 and T320 mixes. As indicated earlier, and confirmed on this figure, the binder extracted from the T320
mix is stiffer than the binder from the T171 mix.
Table 3.5: DSR viscosities at 60 C and 1rad/s, T171 (RAP mix) and T320 (control mix)
Material and production date
Material 28/1/2015 28/1/2015

T171 T320
Extracted RAP binder (Pa.s) 67 288 N/A
Bitumen from the pipelines (Pa.s) 186 376
Bitumen after RTFO (Pa.s) 340 841
Binder extracted from the produced asphalt 619 1 181
Measured (post-plant) (Pa.s)
Estimated RAP binder viscosity after plant (2.0X) 134 575 N/A
Binder blend in the asphalt 724 N/A
Calculated (post-plant) (Pa.s) (2.0X)
Estimated RAP binder viscosity after plant (1.5X) 100 931 N/A
Binder blend in the asphalt 703 N/A
Calculated (post-plant) (Pa.s) (1.5X)
The flexural modulus master curves for the two mixes were constructed, using the methodology in Section
3.7.1, and shown in Figure 3.16. The results are in line with the binder viscosities (extracted from the
asphalt) in Table 3.5; the T320 mix has higher stiffness compared to the T171 mix. In this example the grade
bump could be used in a sense that a softer grade bitumen can be used when adding 20% RAP in order to
counteract the stiffening effect of the RAP. However, it should be noted again that the C320 binder in the
control mix was close to the specification upper limit and the results would have shown a different outcome
when using a C320 binder closer to the lower end of the specification. The need for the characterisation of
the RAP binder is again highlighted; also, it indicates that the term grade bump is too generic and may not
be suitable in all cases when adding RAP to the asphalt mix.

Figure 3.15: Master curves from sampling on 28 January 2015 (T171 and T320)
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
1.0E+04
#3389_RAP(back)_1/28
1.0E+03 #3413_C170_1/28
#3413_C170(RTFO)_1/28
#3411_T171(20%RAP)_1/28
#3414_C320_1/28
1.0E+02
#3414_C320(RTFO)_1/28
#3412_T320(0%RAP)_1/28
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Figure 3.16: Flexural stiffness of asphalt mixes T171 (C170 + 20% RAP) and T320 (C320 + 0% RAP)
10,000
Flexural modulus (MPa)
T171 (#3479) - AV=5.3%
T320 (#3475) - AV=5.4%
1,000
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
Reduced frequency (Hz)

3.6 C600 Equivalent RAP Mix and Control Mix Production

A full-scale plant validation and placement trial was carried out with the support of Fulton Hogan (FH) and
the City of Gold Coast (CoGC). A DG20 asphalt mix was produced with 40% RAP, to be equivalent to the
control mix with 0% RAP and C600 binder.
3.6.1 Purpose and Background of the Validation Project
The purpose of the trial was to determine and document how to design high RAP content asphalt mixes by
characterising the RAP binder and the binder blend in the mix. Subsequently the design procedure was
validated on samples collected during production. The objectives of the work were to produce and place a
DG20(600) asphalt mix without RAP for the control section and design, manufacture and place a DG20
asphalt mix with 40% RAP, which properties are equivalent to the control mix (C600 binder viscosity). Fulton
Hogan in Yatala, QLD operates a double-barrel asphalt plant, which is capable of manufacturing asphalt
mixes with 40% RAP. The mixes involved in this project were structural asphalt mixes which were covered
by 45 mm thick DG14(multi) intermediate layer and 45 mm thick DG14(multi) wearing course.
The City of Gold Coast agreed to participate in this research project; the asphalt mixes were paved on a
medium traffic level road. The site selected by CoGC and agreed upon by all parties involved was the
eastbound carriageway of the Pacific Avenue, Miami. The work was completed during the nightshift of 20
October 2015. Due to the location of the road, a conventional DG20(multi) mix structural base layer with
M1000 binder was also placed on a short section leading to the Gold Coast Hwy intersection.
3.6.2 Scope of Work
The scope of work for this project included the following:

Processing and stockpiling the RAP for the project in a specially demarcated stockpile area.
Characterisation of the RAP binder and design of the binder blend. Based on the RAP binder
characterisation and the RAP level (40%) the mix was produced using a C170 binder; this provided a
binder blend viscosity equivalent to C600. The methodology allows for the addition of high levels of RAP
to be added to asphalt mixes in a controlled way.
Production and placement of DG20(600) without RAP (control/reference section).
Production and placement of DG20(170)(40R) with 40% RAP (validation project section).
Laboratory testing (grading, binder content, volumetrics, in situ compaction, etc.) performed by Fulton
Hogan.
ARRB attended and monitored the production and paving, including taking infrared camera photos for
checking potential thermal segregation.
Fulton Hogan sampled 250 kg of the control and 250 kg of the 40% RAP mix; ARRB performed
performance-based tests (flexural stiffness, moisture sensitivity and wheel tracking) for this study.
3.6.3 Preparation and Design
The asphalt mix was designed with 40% RAP and the RAP mix volumetric properties were targeted to be
identical to the control mix with 0% RAP. In order to achieve this goal, 10% fine RAP and 30% coarse RAP
was incorporated into the mix. Based on the nature of the RAP source and the processing, these
proportions, i.e. 10% fine and 30% coarse RAP, may not be suitable in every case for long-term production.
For this particular application, however, this was the only way to ensure that the RAP mix and the control mix
are identical in terms of volumetric properties. The grading and binder contents of the RAP and control mixes
are summarised in Appendix A.

The RAP was sourced from the Fulton Hogan quarry; 250 tonnes of RAP was processed and fractionated to
fine and coarse stockpiles and they were stored separately until the production was scheduled. In order to
avoid excessive accumulation of moisture in the RAP sources, which may have negatively influenced the
production process, the stockpiles were covered with tarps.
Both the fine and coarse RAP stockpiles were sampled at three locations; Fulton Hogan carried out grading
and binder content testing and ARRB performed the binder extraction and binder blend characterisation. The
binder blend in the RAP mix was designed to be equivalent to the binder in the control mix with 0% RAP, i.e.
C600 binder viscosity was targeted.
For design purposes the pre-plant binder viscosities were adopted; the rationale behind this methodology is
that most road agencies specify the virgin binder viscosities for the mix design phase. However, as
discussed later, the validation was carried out on post-plant properties. The input into the binder blend
calculation is summarised in Table 3.6. By using these input values the binder blend was calculated with a
viscosity of 708 Pa.s, which is slightly out of the specified viscosity range for C600 binder (500 to 700 Pa.s).
Since at the time of the design the virgin binder viscosities were not available the middle value of the C170
bitumen class, i.e. 170 Pa.s, was used for the calculations.
A sensitivity analysis was performed and it was found that with a virgin binder viscosity of 200 Pa.s (top end
of the specification) the binder blend viscosity would be 811 Pa.s; with 140 Pa.s (low end of the specification)
the binder blend viscosity was calculated to be 602 Pa.s. Since the use of rejuvenator oil was not considered
for this production, the binder supplier was contacted in advance to ensure that the C170 binder viscosity
would be between 140 and 170 Pa.s, if possible.
Table 3.6: Binder blend calculation input for the 40% RAP mix during the design phase
Binder Bitumen content (mass%) RAP % Complex viscosity @ 60 C, 1rad/s (Pa.s)

RAP #1 (fine) 4.80 10 89 393
RAP #2 (coarse) 2.30 30 105 650
Virgin binder 170
Based on the above, it was considered that the two grade bump approach seemed to be applicable for this
high RAP content mix. In order to highlight that the grade bump approach is not accurate enough for RAP
mixes, another scenario was calculated for this application.
As an example, it was considered that the asphalt mix contains 40% RAP. However, in this case the binder
blend viscosity was calculated based on 20% fine and 20% coarse RAP, without changing any of the other
parameters (i.e. binder content of binder viscosities) (Table 3.7).
Table 3.7: Alternative scenario (example) for the binder blend calculation input for the 40% RAP mix
Binder Bitumen content (mass%) RAP % Complex viscosity @ 60 C, 1rad/s (Pa.s)

RAP #1 (fine) 4.80 20 89 393
RAP #2 (coarse) 2.30 20 105 650
Virgin binder 170
By utilising a virgin binder viscosity of 170 Pa.s and the input from Table 3.7, the binder blend viscosity was
calculated as 978 Pa.s; this was originally 708 Pa.s when using 10% fine and 30% coarse RAP. The significant
binder blend viscosity increment is a result of changing the proportion of the fine and coarse RAP. It should be
noted that the mix still contains 40% RAP. The shift is a result of the increased amount of fine RAP.

Considering a virgin binder viscosity of 200 Pa.s (top end of the specification) for the 20% fine and 20%
coarse RAP scenario the binder blend would be 1112 Pa.s; with 140 Pa.s (low end of the specification) the
binder blend was calculated to be 839 Pa.s. By changing the fine and coarse RAP proportion of the mix, it
seems that the two grade bump approach is not suitable as the calculated binder blend viscosity was out of
the targeted specification limits of 500 to 700 Pa.s. In this scenario the stiffening effect of the RAP binder
may be counteracted by the use of proper rejuvenator (low viscosity) oil or by selecting a different RAP
content or fine/coarse RAP proportion.
The above example further supports the need for the binder blend characterisation. Also, it can be concluded that
the RAP proportion itself cannot indicate the final asphalt mix properties due to the many variables involved.
3.6.4 Asphalt Manufacture and Paving
Asphalt manufacturing, placement, quality assurance (QA), laboratory and in situ testing and collection of
bulk samples were carried out by Fulton Hogan. ARRB attended the production and paving operation from
start to finish. The RAP stockpiles were transferred from the quarry and stored separately. Production started
with DG20 (170) (40R) mix, followed by the DG20 (600) and DG20 (multi) mixes. The paving on site started
with DG20 (multi) mix (128 tonnes) followed by the DG20 (600) (146 tonnes) and DG20 (170) (40R) (178
tonnes) mixes. As-constructed chainages and the locality map are shown in Figure 3.17.
Figure 3.17: As-constructed chainages for the 40% RAP validation project
Source: nearmap (2015), QLD, map data, Nearmap, Sydney, NSW.
Full QA was performed during the paving; Fulton Hogan used an infrared and penetration thermometer for
capturing the temperatures. ARRB monitored the surface temperatures with an infrared (IR) camera. There
were no issues with manufacturing and placement of the DG20 (170) (40R) mix; some initial adjustments
were necessary at the asphalt plant to set the production temperature which remained stable throughout the
production of the high RAP content mix. The DG20 (170) (40R) mix arrived on site with discharge
temperatures ranging between 154 and 162 C; the temperatures behind the paver varied between 151 and
157 C (Table 3.8). These values correlated well with the IR camera readings and no thermal segregation
was observed for the 40R mix.

Table 3.8: Delivery and rolling temperatures
DG20(multi) DG20(600) DG20(170)(40R)
Chainage Discharge Rolling Chainage Discharge Rolling Chainage Discharge Rolling

start (m) temperature temperature start (m) temperature temperature start (m) temperature temperature
(C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C)
320 159 159 221 160 152 118 157 152
316 164 149 204 161 154 108 156 155
305 157 146 190 159 153 94 155 152
299 158 152 174 161 154 85 157 153
288 156 153 168 162 155 75 156 155
274 162 156 150 163 154 66 155 151
259 160 158 135 166 157 55 154 151
243 158 155 46 159 155
230 157 152 33 162 156
20 161 154
11 160 157
Source: Based on quality assurance data from Fulton Hogan.
3.6.5 Infrared Camera Pictures
The Testo model 875-1i thermal imager was used to monitor temperature variation throughout construction
of the trial. The Testo 875-1i is a reliable, high resolution thermal imager providing precise measurement for
regular quality control and production inspection. The temperature readings in Figure 3.18 to Figure 3.29
refer to surface temperatures; the in-mat temperatures are approximately 1822 C higher than the surface
temperatures. Temperature drops in the temperature cross-section graphs (Figure 3.18 to Figure 3.29) are
mainly related to water accumulation along the roller edges; water is cooler and has a different emissivity
than asphalt, which is recorded by the camera.
Figure 3.18: DG20(multi) behind the paver Figure 3.19: DG20(multi) behind the paver across
line P1

Figure 3.20: DG20(600) behind the paver Figure 3.21: DG20(600) behind the paver across
line P1
Figure 3.22: DG20(170)(40R) in front of the auger Figure 3.23: DG20(170)(40R) in front of the auger
relative temperature distribution within the marked area
Figure 3.24: DG20(170)(40R) behind the paver Figure 3.25: DG20(170)(40R) behind the paver
across line P1

Figure 3.26: DG20(170)(40R) breakdown rolling Figure 3.27: DG20(170)(40R) breakdown rolling
across line P1
Figure 3.28: DG20(170)(40R) multi-rolling (on the left- Figure 3.29: DG20(170)(40R) multi-rolling across
hand side only, breakdown rolling completed) line P1
3.6.6 Finished Surface and Cores
The finished base layer was inspected on 21 October 2015; Figure 3.30, Figure 3.32 and Figure 3.34 show
the finished surface. There is no difference in the visual appearance between the three base layer mixes.
Also, the pictures of the cores, extracted from the finished base layers (Figure 3.31, Figure 3.33 and
Figure 3.35) indicate that the 40% RAP mix is well compacted and shows identical characteristics to the
control mix.

Figure 3.30: Finished surface of DG20(multi) Figure 3.31: Cores from the DG20(multi) section
Figure 3.32: Finished surface of DG20(600) Figure 3.33: Cores from the DG20(600) section
Figure 3.34: Finished surface of DG20(170)(40R) Figure 3.35: Cores from the DG20(170)(40R) section

3.6.7 Laboratory Test Results, Binder Blend Validation
The binder viscosities are summarised in Table 3.9 and the volumetric properties of the mixes can be found
in Appendix A. Figure 3.36 shows the master curves of the binders virgin binder pre- and post-RTFO, RAP
binder, binder extracted from the asphalt mix for the DG20(C170)(40R) RAP mix and DG20(600) control
mixes.
The flexural modulus master curves for the two mixes were constructed using the methodology in Section
3.7.1 and they are shown in Figure 3.37. The flexural stiffness master curves indicate that the 40% RAP mix
has higher stiffness, while Table 3.9 indicates that the binder in the control mix has slightly higher viscosities.
This offset can be explained by the different air voids contents, binder contents and gradings of the mixes. It
is, however, important to note that the 40% RAP mix overall does not show compromised performance
compared to the control mix, as discussed in Section 3.7.
Table 3.9: DSR viscosities at 60 C and 1rad/s, all RAP mixes, DG20(C170)(40R) RAP mix and DG20(600)
control mix
Material and production date
Material 20/10/2015 20/10/2015

DG20(C170)(40R) DG20(C600)
89 393 (fine)
Extracted RAP binder (Pa.s) N/A
105 650 (coarse)
Bitumen from the pipelines (Pa.s) 176 622 (1)
Bitumen after RTFO (Pa.s) 375 N/A
Rejuvenator oil (Pa.s) N/A N/A
Binder extracted from the produced asphalt
1 319 1 771
Measured (post-plant) (Pa.s)
Estimated RAP binder viscosity after plant 178 787 (fine)
N/A
(2.0X as extracted) 211 300 (coarse)
Binder blend in the asphalt
1 416 N/A
Calculated (post-plant) (Pa.s) 2.0X
Estimated RAP binder viscosity after plant 134 090 (fine)
N/A
(1.5X as extracted) 158 475 (coarse)
Binder blend in the asphalt
1 347 N/A
Calculated (post-plant) (Pa.s) 1.5X
1 Based on laboratory data from Fulton Hogan, 60 C, capillary viscosity.

Figure 3.36: Master curves from sampling regime on 20/10/2015, DG20(C170)(40R) RAP mix and DG20(600)
control mix
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
1.0E+04
#3907_RAP(coarse3)_20/10
1.0E+03
#3910_RAP(fine3)_20/10
1.0E+02 #4055_C170_20/10
#4055_C170(RTFO)_20/10
1.0E+01 #4051_DG20(170)(40R)_20/10
#4050_DG20(600)_20/10
1.0E+00
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Figure 3.37: Flexural stiffness of asphalt mixes DG20(C170)(40R) RAP mix and DG20(600) control mix
10,000
DG20(600) - 20/10/2015 (#4064) - AV=4.3%
DG20(170)(40R) - 20/10/2015 (#4063) - AV=6.5%
1,000
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04

3.6.8 In situ Workability and in situ Air Voids Contents
The in situ workability of the 40% RAP and control mix was captured by using a nuclear density gauge on
site. The density was recorded after each roller pass at the same location. Although testing of the DG20 mix
with multigrade M1000 binder does not from part of the validation, the results are provided for general
comparison. The compaction was performed by two steel roller passes (static and vibration) followed by four
multi-tyres roller passes; the back-rolling was completed by one steel roller pass. One pass relates to one
forward and one back movement.
The compaction curves captured by the nuclear density gauge are shown in Figure 3.38; based on the figure
the 40% RAP mix shows excellent initial compaction compared to the control mix. The overall workability
(compactibility) of the 40% RAP mix seems to be similar to the control mix.
It should be noted that the multi-tyres roller has seemingly little impact on the compaction (Figure 3.38);
however, according to the experience of the construction crew, the application of this roller type ensures that
the final back-rolling further increases the density of the asphalt mat. Also, the drop in the compaction level is
due to the normal repeatability error of the test method and/or loss of sand during the rolling process; sand is
normally used to avoid the bias of the surface voids of the mat. Therefore Figure 3.38 provides only
indicative information.
Figure 3.38: Compaction curve of the asphalt mixes measured by the nuclear density gauge
95.0
94.0
93.0
Compaction (%)
92.0
91.0
90.0
89.0 DG20(multi) chainage 256 m

DG20(600) chainage 207 m
88.0
DG20(170)(40R) chainage 37 m
87.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Number of roller passes
Source: Based on quality assurance data from Fulton Hogan.
Following construction, cores were extracted from the pavement; the compaction values of the cores
measured by using the saturated surface dry (SSD) method are summarised in Table 3.10. Based on the
results, the 40% RAP mix shows very good compaction overall. As was expected, the incorporation of the
RAP does not have any adverse impact on the workability. In fact, the addition of RAP increases the
workability and this lines up with the overall experience in the asphalt industry.

Table 3.10: Compaction test results, measured on cores extracted from the pavement using the SSD method
DG20(multi) DG20(600) DG20(170)(40R)
Compaction Compaction Compaction

Chainage (m) Chainage (m) Chainage (m)
(SSD) (%) (SSD) (%) (SSD) (%)
314 95.1 207 93.6 101 96.1
306 95.1 203 94.1 98 95.3
294 94.4 186 94.0 65 94.6
283 93.9 172 96.0 57 94.7
268 91.6 155 95.4 37 95.0
256 92.3 146 94.7 35 97.9
246 93.5 132 95.7 14 95.9
Average 93.7 Average 94.8 Average 95.6
Std. 1.3 Std. 0.9 Std. 1.1
Source: Based on laboratory data from Fulton Hogan.
3.7 Performance-based Test Results

For the validation of the asphalt mix, performance-based test methods were utilised. The goal of utilising
these test methods was to ensure that the RAP would not have any adverse effect on the performance of the
asphalt mix.
3.7.1 Flexural Modulus
The flexural modulus was tested according to AGPT/T274. Flexural modulus tests were performed at 515
2530 C and a wide range of frequencies between 0.1 and 20 Hz. These test results, provided in Appendix
C, were used for the construction of the flexural modulus master curves of the different mixes (Figure 3.39
and Figure 3.40).

Figure 3.39: Flexural modulus master curves of C320 equivalent mixes
10,000
T171 - 28/1/2015 (#3479) - AV=5.3%
T320 - 28/1/2015 (#3475) - AV=5.4%
T171 - 27/5/2015 (#3896) - AV=4.3%
T171 - 23/7/2015 (#3898) - AV=2.4%
SA 50% RAP - 5/5/2015 (#4015) - AV=4.5%

1,000
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
Figure 3.40: Flexural modulus master curves of M1000 mixes with 15% RAP and C600 equivalent mixes
10,000
B771 - 5/3/2015 (#3628) - AV=4.3%

B771 - 22/4/2015 (#3630) - AV=4.4%
B771 - 24/6/2015 (#3897) - AV=2.5%
DG20(600) - 20/10/2015 (#4064) - AV=4.3%
DG20(170)(40R) - 20/10/2015 (#4063) - AV=6.5%
1,000
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04
The flexural modulus values at selected temperatures (15 and 25 C) are summarised in Table 3.11 and
Figure 3.41.

Table 3.11: Flexural modulus values at 15 and 25 C
Material and production date Flexural modulus (25 C, 10Hz) Flexural modulus (15 C, 10Hz)
28/1/2015 T171 5 818 11 184
28/1/2015 T320 6 807 12 290
27/5/2015 T171 4 139 8 447
23/7/2015 T171 6 392 12 545
5/05/2015 SA 50%RAP 5 949 12 393
5/3/2015 B771 6 642 11 013
22/4/2015 B771 7 097 11 763
24/6/2015 B771 8 908 15 413
20/10/2015 DG20(600) 4 463 9 618
20/10/2015 DG20(170) (40R) 6 533 12 831
Figure 3.41: Comparison of the flexural modulus values

16,000
Flexural modulus, 25 C, 10Hz

14,000
Flexural modulus, 15 C, 10Hz
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
-
5/3/2015
20/10/2015
28/1/2015
28/1/2015
27/5/2015
23/7/2015
SA 50%RAP
22/4/2015
24/6/2015
DG20(170)(40R)
DG20(600)
B771
B771
B771
T171
T320
T171
T171
20/10/2015
When analysing the stiffness master curves (Figure 3.39 and Figure 3.40) or the individual stiffness values at
selected temperatures (Figure 3.41) it should be remembered that the flexural stiffness is influenced by the
binder blend viscosity, the binder content, the air voids content and aggregate grading and source.
The low modulus of the T171 mix sampled on 27 May 2015 may be explained by the relatively high binder
content compared to the other T171 mixes. B771 mixes show high stiffness at 25 C, compared to the other
mixes; due to the nature of the multigrade binder at 15 C the stiffness of the B771 mixes is similar to the
other mixes, except for the mix sampled on 24 June 2015. The 40% RAP mix, despite the high RAP content
does not show any adverse effect in terms of stiffness. This shows that the binder blend design method can
be used effectively.

3.7.2 Wheel-tracking
The rut resistance of the mixes was assessed using the wheel-tracking test in accordance with Austroads
method AGPT/T231. The central rut depths at 10 000 passes and 60 C are summarised in Figure 3.42.
Figure 3.42: Wheel-tracking test results

4.0
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.8
Central rut detph (mm)
2.5
2.0
2.0 1.9
1.7
1.6
1.5 1.4
1.0 0.9
0.5
0.0
T171 - 28/1 T320 - 28/1 T171 - 27/5 T171 - 23/7 B771 - 5/3 B771 - 22/4 B771 - 24/6 SA 50% DG20 DG20
RAP (600) (170)(40R)
#3411 #3412 #3755 #3879 #3623 #3619 #3817 #3638 #4056 #4057
As expected, the B771 mixes returned the lowest rut depth. The C320 equivalent mixes (highlighted in red in
Figure 3.42) show in general the highest rut depth. The 50% RAP mix (C320 equivalent, highlighted in
brown) indicates slightly lower rut depth compared to the other C320 equivalent mixes. However, the flexural
stiffness values (Figure 3.41) do not indicate that the mix is excessively stiff. The 40% RAP mix (C600
equivalent) does not show any adverse effect on the rut depths.
3.7.3 Moisture Sensitivity
In this study the moisture sensitivity was performed according to AGPT/T232; the freeze-thaw option was not
used. The test results are summarised in Appendix D. The tensile strength and tensile strength ratio (TSR)
values are provided in Figure 3.43. For asphalt mix B771 sampled on 24 June 2015 there was not enough
material available; therefore the moisture sensitivity test could not be completed.
Based on Figure 3.43 it can be concluded that the RAP mixes in general show high TSR values, which
indicates good moisture resistance. Due to variability in the test method, TSR values may be higher than
100%; any value above this level does not represent superior moisture sensitivity. However, it indicates that
the asphalt mix is unlikely to fail for stripping.

It should be noted that the T171 mix with 15% RAP (#3411) shows better moisture sensitivity compared to
the control mix T320 with 0% RAP (#3412). A similar trend was found for the DG20(170)(40R) mix with 40%
RAP (#4057) and its control mix DG20(600) (#4056). The better moisture resistance of the RAP mixes
compared to the control mix with 0% RAP may be a result of the better adhesion between the bitumen and
the aggregate from the RAP source; it may be considered that pre-coated particles are incorporated into the
mix by the addition of RAP. Overall it can be concluded that the addition of RAP to the asphalt mix does not
have an adverse effect on the moisture sensitivity.
Figure 3.43: Moisture sensitivity test results

1800 120
Dry subset (kPa) Wet subset (kPa) TSR (%)
1600
110
1400
1200 100
Tensile strength (kPa)
TSR (%)
1000
90
800
600 80
400
70
200
0 60
T171 - T320 - T171 - T171 - B771 - 5/3 B771 - B771 - SA 50% DG20 DG20
28/1 28/1 27/5 23/7 22/4 24/6 RAP (600) (170)(40R)
#3411 #3412 #3755 #3879 #3623 #3619 #3817 #3638 #4056 #4057

4. Assessing the Variability by using the Monte

Carlo Simulation
In situations where many variables should be considered in an assessment, the Monte Carlo simulation
(MCS) is widely utilised to overcome such a difficulty (Petho 2012). MCS determines the variance of the
function f(x1, x2,xk) by generating random values for the different variables (i.e. x 1, x2,xk) using their
individual probability distributions. Hundreds or thousands of simulations may be required to calculate the
variance of the function f. The simulation starts with the input of the characterisation parameters for the
probability distribution of each stochastic variable. For example, if the variables follow a normal distribution,
then the mean and variance of the distribution would be necessary. The MCS is a powerful tool, especially
when the analysed property can be described by a closed form equation, like Equation 1. It should be noted
that for the MCS it would not present any limitations to include as many variables as needed.
Using the MCS, a sensitivity analysis was performed to gain a better understanding of the impact of the different
variables in the binder blend calculations and assess the range of the possible outcomes. It is envisaged that this
can provide a good risk assessment tool for both asphalt manufacturers and the road agency.
The parameters investigated included the following:

virgin binder type and viscosity
RAP binder source and viscosity
RAP binder content (for some calculations)
design mix binder content.
4.1 Input Data for the Sensitivity Analysis

Relative distributions for the virgin binder viscosities were adopted according to the data in Table 4.1 from a
major Australian bitumen supplier (personal email communication, September 2015); the analysis revealed
that the binder viscosities follow normal distribution and the parameters are summarised in Table 4.1.
Symmetric triangular distributions for the RAP variability were adopted according to Table 4.2; this
distribution with significant variation may represent a situation of incorporating RAP without an implemented
RAP management plan.
Table 4.1: Statistical analysis of binder viscosities input into MCS
Capillary viscosity at 60 C (Pa.s)

Binder
Statistical analysis 97.5 percentile, normal distribution
Number of test results 43 Average Std. Low High
C170 Viscosity @ 60 C 162 16 130 194
Viscosity @ 60 C after RTFO 314 52 212 416
C320 Viscosity @ 60 C 325 24 277 373
Viscosity @ 60 C after RTFO 758 134 496 1 020
C600 Viscosity @ 60 C 573 38 498 647
Viscosity @ 60 C after RTFO 1 404 164 1 082 1 725
M1000 Viscosity @ 60 C 1 245 137 977 1 513
Viscosity @ 60 C after RTFO 5 611 610 4 414 6 807
Source: Personal email communication, September 2015.

Table 4.2: RAP binder viscosity distribution input into MCS (60 C, 1 rad/s)
Minimum Most likely Maximum

Tested viscosity
Material Tested viscosity Tested viscosity +
(Pa.s) Tested viscosity
40% 40%
RAP1 5 359 3 200 5 350 7 500

RAP2 44 610 26 800 44 650 62 500
The parameters for the virgin binder were adopted as per Table 4.1 and for the RAP as per Table 4.2. The
sensitivity calculations were performed on pre-RTFO properties; depending on local circumstances similar
sensitivity analysis may be performed on post-RTFO properties. In all calculations the RAP binder content
was taken as a constant of 4.0%. In some sensitivity analysis (discussed later) the RAP binder content was
used as a variable (normal distribution); in this case a 0.2% standard deviation was applied, which changes
the binder content of the RAP approximately between 3.4% and 4.6%.
As already concluded in Section 3.4, the equation used for binder blend characterisation (Equation 1) is
considered valid for plant-produced asphalt mixes. On that basis Equation 1 can be confidently used for the
sensitivity analysis discussed below; the process is outlined in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1: Outline of the Monte Carlo simulation
0 0
frequency
frequency
0 0
0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0
virgin binder viscosity RAP binder viscosity
Binder blend viscosity calculation
0
frequency
0
0.0 50.0
binder blend viscosity
Input into mix design and/or

production control for risk assessment

4.2 Sensitivity Runs

An MCS was performed to assess the impact of the RAP binder viscosity and RAP proportions on the binder
blend. Initially C170 binder and 5.6% asphalt mix binder content were considered. The relative distributions
for this calculation are shown in Figure 4.2. As expected the application of a stiffer binder source (RAP2)
results in stiffer binder blends. More importantly, the stiffer binder source, represented by greater variation in
Table 4.2, indicates greater variability in the binder blend.
This variability increases with increasing RAP percentages. When applying low percentages of RAP, the
variability may remain within the specification ranges; with increasing RAP content (if uncontrolled) the
variability may be excessive. According to Figure 4.2, the binder blend viscosity varies in the 100 Pa.s range
when adding 15% RAP. When applying 30%, the range increases to approximately 200 Pa.s; with the
addition of 50% RAP the range increases to 400 Pa.s. It should be noted that these outcomes are
representative for the calculations provided in this example; for real production situations the range may be
lower or greater than this, depending on the circumstances.
It should be noted that the addition of a high percentage of RAP does not necessarily represent large
variation in the binder blend viscosity. With an implemented RAP management plan the variability of the
binder blend may remain low. The sensitivity analysis provided in this section rather highlights the scenarios
of uncontrolled RAP usage; uncontrolled refers to unknown characteristics with potentially excessive
variability.
Figure 4.2: MCS, the impact of different RAP proportions and different RAP sources
Figure 4.3 provides an MCS for relatively high RAP content (30%), where the asphalt mix binder content is
constant (5.6%) and different virgin binders are used. As expected, the binder blend viscosity increases with
higher virgin binder class. The range also increases; this is due to the specification requirements of the virgin
binders (C170, C320 and C600). A C170 binder varies between 140 and 200 Pa.s, with a 60 Pa.s range,
whereas the C320 binder varies between 260 to 380 Pa.s, with a range of 120 Pa.s. The range of the C320
binder compared to the C170 binder is not excessive; however, it may be amplified when using an
uncontrolled RAP source with large variability (Figure 4.3, yellow line).

Figure 4.3: MCS, the impact of the virgin binder and different RAP sources
Figure 4.4 provides an MCS analysis where the same RAP source is used (RAP1) with different RAP
contents and different asphalt mix binder contents. In this calculation two binder contents of 5.6% and 4.2%
were considered for the asphalt mix. The former may represent a wearing course type asphalt mix; the latter
is normally used for structural asphalt layers. According to Figure 4.4, when using the same RAP source and
RAP content, the lower asphalt mix binder content delivers greater variability and higher mean value for the
binder blend. In asphalt mixes with low binder content the RAP binder provides higher added binder content,
compared to asphalt mixes with high binder content, subject to the binder content of the RAP and the RAP
percentage are unchanged. On that basis, when considering only the binder blend viscosities, adding RAP to
higher binder content mixes represents lower risk in terms of variability. With increasing RAP content (30 or
50%) the variability may become excessive for low binder content mixes (Figure 4.4, red and dark-green
lines). Therefore the binder blend characterisation is critical for lower binder content mixes, such as structural
layers. According to Figure 4.5, not only the mean value will be greater for lower binder content mixes
compared to higher binder content mixes (with the same RAP application), but also the range increases.
Figure 4.5 is a cut-out of Figure 4.4 (30%RAP1 + C170 binder with 4.2% and 5.6% mix binder contents).
Figure 4.4: MCS, the impact of different RAP proportions and different design mix binder contents when using
C170 binder and RAP 1 (softer source)

Figure 4.5: MCS, lower design mix binder content increases the binder blend range (RAP proportion and source
unchanged)
Figure 4.6 provides an MCS analysis similarly to Figure 4.4; the difference is that Figure 4.6 uses C320
binder and RAP2 as input, while Figure 4.4 was completed with C170 binder and RAP1. The trends are
similar on these two figures; however, the binder blend viscosity increase on Figure 4.6 with C320 binder is
excessive. With moderate RAP proportion (30%) the binder blend viscosity increases well above the C600
binder class viscosity.
Figure 4.6: MCS, the impact of different RAP proportions and different design mix binder contents when using
C320 binder and RAP 2 (stiffer source)
In the MSC runs in Figure 4.2 to Figure 4.6 the binder content of the RAP was kept constant; the rationale
behind this was to keep the sensitivity analysis simple and highlight the impact of the variability of RAP
binder viscosity, RAP proportions and design mix binder content on the binder blend properties.

It is, however, well known that the binder content of the RAP sources may vary. A sensitivity analysis was
performed where the RAP binder content was taken as a variable; a mean value of 4.0% and a standard
deviation of 0.2% with normal distribution was used. Figure 4.7 uses exactly the same input as Figure 4.6
(C320 binder, RAP2 with different proportions); however, the RAP binder content is introduced as a variable.
The trends in Figure 4.7 are similar to the trends in Figure 4.6. It is important to note that the mean values of
the different distributions are the same in Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7; however, the range increases, especially
with high RAP percentages. This may provide useful information for either the road agency or the asphalt
supplier when assessing the risk in terms of variability.
Figure 4.7: MCS, the impact of different RAP proportions, RAP binder contents (4% and std. = 0.2%), different
design mix binder contents when using C320 binder and RAP 2 (stiffer source)
The benefit of using the MCS is that it can provide sensitivity charts, i.e. it shows the impact of each variable
on the calculated relative distribution (in this case binder blend viscosity). The sensitivity table of the relative
distributions of Figure 4.7 are summarised in Table 4.3 for 4.2% design mix binder content and in Table 4.4
for 5.6% design mix binder content. The trend is similar in both cases; the influence of the virgin binder
significantly decreases with increasing RAP percentage. The impact of the RAP binder viscosity is relatively
low at low RAP percentage; however, considering that the RAP binder content also has an impact on the
binder blend viscosity, the combined impact of adding 15% RAP is approximately 20% on the binder blend
viscosity (Table 4.3). This combined effect increases approximately to 90% when utilising 50% RAP. When
comparing Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 it is obvious that the RAP binder content has significantly higher impact
in mixes with low design mix binder contents.
Table 4.3: Sensitivity table for C320 viscosity, RAP2 binder content and RAP2 binder viscosity, design binder
content of 4.2% (in conjunction with Figure 4.7)
Impact of the variable on the binder blend viscosity (%)

RAP Binder content of the design mix 4.2%
percentage
C320 viscosity RAP2 binder content RAP2 binder viscosity Total
15% 80.3 14.6 5.1 100
30% 40.8 45.8 13.4 100
50% 11.2 68.4 20.4 100

Table 4.4: Sensitivity table for C320 viscosity, RAP2 binder content and RAP2 binder viscosity, design binder
content of 5.6% (in conjunction with Figure 4.7)
Impact of the variable on the binder blend viscosity (%)

RAP Binder content of the design mix 5.6%
percentage
C320 viscosity RAP2 binder content RAP2 binder viscosity Total
15% 88.4 8.7 2.9 100
30% 60.4 30.3 9.3 100
50% 25.7 57.6 16.7 100
Based on the above, the virgin binder viscosity may outweigh the RAP binder viscosity (even a stiff source)
at low percentage (15%). At increasing RAP content (30%) the RAP binder content and RAP binder viscosity
outweigh the impact of the virgin binder; this is more characteristic of lower design mix binder contents. At
high RAP content (50%) the RAP binder content and viscosity dominate the binder blend properties.
For completeness, an MCS was performed for C600 binder (Figure 4.8) and for M1000 binder (Figure 4.9);
the input parameters were adopted from Table 4.1 and Table 4.2. The design mix binder content was
selected as 4.2% and the RAP binder content was kept as a constant of 4.0%.
Figure 4.8: MCS, the impact of different RAP proportions and different RAP sources when using C600 binder

Figure 4.9: MCS, the impact of different RAP proportions and different RAP sources when using M1000 binder

5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Outcomes and Conclusions of the Plant Validation Study

In the final year of the study (201415), the aim was to focus on validating the binder blend design through
large-scale asphalt plant manufacturing. The scope of the study was as follows:
validate the binder blend viscosity design for plant-produced mixes with different RAP content and for
different asphalt plant types
provide insight into the impact of repeated recycling of asphalt
assess the variability within the RAP stockpile and the variability of RAP over time
design a high RAP content mix using the binder blend design method
provide insight into the binder blend variability through a sensitivity analysis for risk management
develop design guidelines for mixes containing RAP and propose updates to the Guide to Pavement
Technology Part 4B: Asphalt (Austroads 2014).
In this study different asphalt mixes, such as wearing course and base course, with different binder types
(C170, C320, C600, M1000) and RAP percentages (15204050%) produced in different asphalt plants
such as the counter-flow drum plant, parallel drum plant and double-barrel plant were tested. The asphalt
mixes were sampled from large-scale production runs. It was found that the binder blend calculation
according to AGPT/T193 is valid for a wide range of asphalt mixes. The characterisation process is validated
for plant-produced mixes, however, it may also be used for in situ hot recycling applications, since the
methodology would be identical.
A comprehensive laboratory test regime was carried out; this included systematic collection of virgin binder
from the pipelines during production, sampling of RAP sources and asphalt mixes from large-scale
productions. Performance-based tests, such as moisture sensitivity, wheel-tracking and flexural stiffness
were carried out to provide an insight into the performance of the RAP mixes. It was found that when
considering the RAP binder content and viscosity for the binder blend in the asphalt mix there is no
adverse effect when adding RAP to the mix.
As part of this study a DG20 structural base layer asphalt was produced with 40% RAP. The mix was
designed to be equivalent to the control mix with C600 binder. It was found that the binder blend
characterisation can be used with reasonable confidence for the design of a mix with such a high RAP
content without compromising the performance. It was also found that the addition of such a high percentage
RAP did not have an adverse effect on the manufacturing and paving process and the RAP mix, as
expected, showed better workability compared to the control mix. The successful application of such a high
percentage of RAP requires a RAP management plan, careful planning, plant and paving monitoring. These
were performed by the construction team for the demonstration project, which contributed to its success. It
should be noted that high RAP content mixes can only be successfully produced at plants that are
specifically designed to produce high RAP content mixes (which was the case for all mixes produced as part
of this project).
RTFO treatment and subsequent DSR testing on two sources of extracted RAP binders showed that the
recycling process further ages the already hard binder in the RAP source. The binder in the RAP can be
subjected to multiple recycling; however, after the second and third recycling, the binder blend
characterisation becomes increasingly important. The stiff binder does not present any problem in the
asphalt mix, subject to it being considered and treated properly in the mix design and production control
process.

Long-term monitoring (12 months) of a RAP source (representing approximately a total of 52 000 tonnes),
where appropriate RAP stockpile management practices have been implemented, concluded that there is
relatively little variation within a stockpile; on this basis one sample taken from the RAP stockpile can be
considered representative for the lot. It was also found that there is significant variation within stockpiles over
time in terms of RAP binder viscosity; this observation further supports that the assessment of the binder
viscosity in the RAP is critical for the final mix performance.
A comprehensive sensitivity study (Monte Carlo simulation) was performed as part of the validation process
to provide insight into the variability, impact and risk assessment for asphalt mixes containing RAP. Based
on the outcomes and discussion the following conclusions can be made:
Asphalt mixes with lower design binder content show more variability compared to asphalt mixes with
high design binder content (if the RAP percentage and RAP binder content are unchanged).
Binder blend characterisation, as outlined in this study, should be required for asphalt mixes with RAP
content greater than 15%.
Below 15% RAP content the impact of the RAP binder on the binder blend is normally negligible;
however, this is highly dependent of the RAP binder content, the RAP binder viscosity and the design mix
binder content. RAP binder characterisation below 15% RAP content would only be required in
exceptional cases based on a risk assessment of the RAP supply, production plant application.
The binder blend characterisation is essential for hard binders (M1000 and potentially EME2 binder)
where the grade bump approach cannot be defined.
At higher RAP percentages (above 30%) the RAP binder content and RAP binder viscosity dominate the
blend binder viscosity.
When utilising low RAP content (0% to 15%) the impact of the virgin binder variability may be greater than
the variability of the RAP binder viscosity.
At higher RAP content (above 30%), when combined with lower asphalt mix binder content, the variability
of the binder blend may be excessive; the RAP binder characterisation for structural base layers, where
lower binder contents are usually applied, is essential for risk management.
It is feasible to add high RAP percentages (above 30%) to asphalt mixes without compromising the
performance of the asphalt mix, subject to the binder blend being designed correctly and appropriate RAP
management practices have been implemented.
The usual question of how much RAP can be added to the asphalt mix should be changed to what are
the targeted binder blend properties for the asphalt mix and how much RAP can be added to achieve this
outcome consistently.
Correct and accurate RAP management is the first step to utilising high RAP percentages in asphalt
mixes; the binder blend characterisation is considered only the second step.
The method used in this study is suitable to include the rejuvenator in the binder blend design; this was
validated on a 50% RAP mix. However, it was out of scope for this study to investigate the appropriateness
and dosage of the rejuvenators used in asphalt recycling. Also, there is a large variety of products on the
market used as rejuvenator for hot mix asphalt recycling and the definition and application of the
rejuvenators also show a wide range. Therefore, further research is required to define the purpose and
usage of the rejuvenator, whether it is applied as softening agent or an additive to restore the rheological
properties of the RAP binder. Also, investigation is needed on how to select an appropriate rejuvenator agent
type, define properties and dosage for RAP applications in Australia, and what is the effect of these agents
on the performance of the asphalt in the long-term.

5.2 Proposed Implementation
5.2.1 RAP Management Plan
The importance of an implemented RAP management plan has been noted. A detailed RAP management
plan should be developed and implemented by the asphalt supplier, including but not limited to the following
considerations:
Detailed plan for sourcing, processing, transport and storage of RAP:
traceability of the RAP source
ensuring that the RAP does not contain road base material, concrete, coal tar, plastics, brick, timber,
scrap rubber etc. and must be free from dust, clay, dirt and other deleterious matter
processing and storage of the RAP at the processing site
determination of the maximum aggregate size and management of oversize material
handling and transport from the processing site to the asphalt plant
handling and storage at the asphalt plant.
A testing and inspection plan is required for determining binder content, grading and characterisation of
the RAP binder viscosity by using the DSR, if the design mix contains more than 15% RAP; it is
recommended that these tests should be carried out at least for every 1000 tonnes of processed RAP.
The binder blend viscosity of the asphalt mix containing RAP should be estimated by using the
calculations in AGPT/T193. It should be noted that the binder blend viscosity is influenced by the
following:
virgin binder viscosity
binder content of the design mix
RAP binder viscosity
proportion of the RAP source(s) in the asphalt mix
binder content of the RAP source(s).
When targeting specified binder blend viscosities in the asphalt mix, a strategy should be adopted on how
to incorporate RAP sources with changing RAP binder viscosities and/or binder contents. Such a strategy
may be based on the following:
changing the RAP percentage in the mix this can be achieved by developing asphalt mix designs
with different RAP percentages
altering the virgin binder class (commonly referred to as grade bump) in order to meet target binder
blend viscosities
adopting a strategy of using rejuvenator or low viscosity oil for counteracting the increased RAP binder
content and/or viscosity. The rejuvenator oil may be added on a needs basis; however, the road
agency may require separate mix design for asphalt mixes containing rejuvenator oil.
This approach requires constant monitoring of the RAP stockpiles. As an example, considering that the RAP
binder viscosity may decrease over time, the incorporation of a rejuvenator oil may excessively decrease the
binder blend viscosity, if a RAP source with softer binder is used.
By using the binder blend characterisation, the asphalt manufacturer has the tools to alter the production for
an optimum and specified asphalt performance. This, again, requires an implemented RAP management
plan, constant monitoring of the RAP stockpiles and alterations in the production process according to a pre-
defined strategy.

5.2.2 Proposed Update of Austroads Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4B:

Asphalt
The objective of the overall study was to develop improved and validated asphalt mix design guidelines for
mixes containing RAP by characterising the binder blend. Based on the outcomes of the study the following
changes are proposed for the update of the Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4B: Asphalt (Austroads
2014) to incorporate the binder blend characterisation and removal of inconsistent references to mix designs
containing RAP.
Section 4.4.1, General

Insert new item after fourth dot point:
5. select RAP content and characterise the binder blend in the design mix.
Insert new section after Section 4.5, Combining Component Materials

Section 4.6. Characterisation of RAP binder and the design of bituminous binder blends to a specified
viscosity value.
Improved guidelines for the design of asphalt mixes containing RAP have been developed recently
(Austroads 2015); the study reinforced the need to characterise the binder in the RAP to predict its
influence on asphalt mix performance. This is deemed relevant for mixes containing higher percentages
of RAP. Omitting to verify the viscosity of the binder blend in the asphalt production process will lead to
risks of reduced performance in a number of ways.
The general practice before the completion of Austroads (2015) was generally either limiting the
percentage of RAP allowed, or requiring compensation for the effects of RAP by using a softer binder
grade above 15% RAP. For mixes where the virgin binder is changed to a softer grade (grade bump)
without verifying the blend viscosity there is a risk that the RAP is too oxidised for the grade bump to be
completely effective. This may lead to reduced durability. In case a soft RAP source is used there is a risk
that the grade bump will lead to too soft a binder and therefore reduced mix stiffness and resistance to
rutting.
A series of test methods were developed for the extraction of binder from the RAP (AGPT/T191), the
characterisation of the viscosity of RAP binder using the dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) (AGPT/T192)
and for the design of bituminous binder blends to a specified viscosity value (AGPT/T193). The benefit of
using the DSR for the characterisation of the RAP binder is that the DSR test requires only a small
amount of extracted binder, which makes the process quick and cost-effective.
If the design mix contains more than 15% RAP, the properties of the binder blend (consisting of the RAP
binder, the virgin binder and rejuvenator if applicable), should be determined as follows:
1. Collect a representative sample of the RAP in accordance with AS 1141.3.1.
2. Determine the binder content of the RAP in accordance with AS/NZS 2891.3.1, AS/NZS 2891.3.2,
AS/NZS 2891.3.3 or other agreed method.
3. Extract the binder from a representative sample of RAP in accordance with AGPT/T191, or equivalent
method as specified by the road agency.
4. Determine the complex viscosity (*) of the RAP binder, the virgin binder and rejuvenator (where
applicable) by using the DSR at 60 C and 1 rad/s, in accordance with AGPT/T192.
5. Predict the viscosity of the blended binder according to AGPT/T193. It should be noted that the
viscosity of the binder blend is influenced by the viscosity of the virgin binder, the RAP binder and the
rejuvenator oil (if applicable), the binder content of the design mix, the binder content of the RAP
source and the amount of the rejuvenator oil (if applicable).
6. For risk assessment determine the variability of the binder blend viscosity, based on historical test
results (ranges of RAP binder content, RAP binder viscosity and virgin binder viscosity).
7. If the predicted viscosity is outside the desired range for the design, adjust the proportion of the binder
blend components iteratively and in line with production preferences.
8. Check the viscosity of the final laboratory design blend directly using the DSR (optional).

9. When the design mix is produced in a plant, extract the binder from the first production run and verify
that the binder blend design has been achieved.
Suitable results may be obtained by targeting the normal AS 2008 viscosity ranges when designing a
binder blend for:
equivalent Class 600 (C600) bitumen, with target viscosity between 500 and 700 Pa.s.
It should be noted that the above design procedure requires the following:
establishment and implementation of a proper RAP management plan
determination of binder content, grading and characterisation of the RAP binder, which should be
carried out at least for every 1000 tonnes of processed RAP
checking whether the RAP management plan may require that a stockpile consisting of processed
RAP does not exceed 1000 tonnes for better traceability
development of strategies for altering production when excessive RAP binder content variation and/or
RAP binder viscosity is encountered.
Using the Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), a sensitivity analysis may be performed to gain a better
understanding of the impact of the different variables in the binder blend calculations and assess the
range of the possible outcomes. Such an analysis can provide a good risk assessment tool for both
asphalt manufacturers and the road agency.
In order to ensure that the binder blend design process is followed correctly, it is recommended that RAP
mixes, sampled during production, are tested for resilient modulus and compared to the resilient modulus
of the original mix design to confirm the binder blend design is being achieved in production.
Section 4.7.6, Hot-in-place Recycling
Remove paragraphs 4 (starting with The process of determining the correct type and quantity...), 5, 6, 7 and
8 including Table 4.5 and Equation 4.
Insert new paragraph at the end of Section 5.3.3, Stockpiling and Handling of RAP
A testing and inspection plan is required for determining binder content, grading and characterisation of
the RAP binder viscosity by using the DSR, if the design mix contains more than 15% RAP; it is
recommended that these tests should be carried out at least for every 1000 tonnes of processed RAP.

References
AASHTO 2012, Standard method of test for determining the rheological properties of asphalt binder using a
dynamic shear rheometer (DSR), T 31512, AASHTO, Washington, DC, USA.
Austroads 2013a, Maximising the re-use of reclaimed asphalt pavement: binder blend characterisation,
AP-T245-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013b, EME technology transfer to Australia: an explorative study, AP-T249-13, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013c, Mastic performance assessment in stone mastic asphalt, AP-T219-13, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2014, Guide to pavement technology part 4B: asphalt, 2nd edn, AGPT04B-14, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2015, Maximising the re-use of reclaimed asphalt pavement: outcomes of year two: RAP mix
design, AP-T286-15, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Del Barco Carrin, AJ, Lo Presti, D & Airey, GD 2015, Binder design of high RAP content hot and warm
asphalt mixture wearing courses, Road Materials and Pavement Design, vol. 16, supplement 1, pp. 460-
74.
Karlsson, R & Isacsson, U 2002, Bitumen rejuvenator diffusion as influenced by ageing, Road Materials and
Pavement Design, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 167-82.
Petho, L 2012, Analysis of the stiffness variability in asphalt layers using the Monte Carlo simulation, ARRB
conference, 25th, Perth, Western Australia, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic, 18 pp.
Shen, J & Ohne, Y 2002, Determining rejuvenator content for recycling reclaimed asphalt pavement by
SHRP binder specifications, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 261-8.
Tran, NH, Taylor, A & Willis, R 2012, Effect of rejuvenator on performance properties of HMA mixtures with
high RAP and RAS contents, report number 12-05, National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn, AL,
USA.
World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our common future, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, UK.
Australian Standards
AS 1141.3.1-2012, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: sampling: aggregates.
AS 2008-2013, Bitumen for pavements.
AS/NZS 2341.10:2015, Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking products: determination of the
effect of heat and air on a moving film of bitumen (rolling thin film (RTFO) test).
AS/NZS 2891.3.1:2013, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: binder content and aggregate grading:
reflux method.
AS/NZS 2891.3.2:2013, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: binder content and aggregate grading:
centrifugal extraction method.

AS/NZS 2891.3.3-2013, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: binder content and aggregate grading:
pressure filter method.
Austroads Test Methods
AGPT/T191: 2015, Extractions of bituminous binder from asphalt.
AGPT/T192: 2015, Characterisation of the viscosity of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) binder using the
dynamic shear rheometer (DSR).
AGPT/T193: 2015, Design of bituminous binder blends to a specified viscosity value.
AGPT/T231: 2006, Deformation resistance of asphalt mixtures by the wheel tracking test.
AGPT/T232: 2007, Stripping potential of asphalt: tensile strength ratio.
AGPT/T274: 2015, Characterisation of flexural stiffness and fatigue performance of bituminous mixes.

Volumetric Properties of the Asphalt Mixes and Grading and

Binder Content of the RAP Sources
Asphalt T171 T320 B771 B771 T171 B771 T171 SA 50% DG20(170) DG20(170) DG20(600) DG20(600)
sample RAP (40R) (40R)
Sample ID YA151020 6 YA151020 6 YA151020 5 YA151020 5
E1501145 E1501146 E150345A E1504112A E1505213A E1506207A E1507176A AC #3638
A B A B
Date sampled 28/01/2015 28/01/2015 5/03/2015 22/04/2015 27/05/2015 24/06/2015 23/07/2015 5/05/2015 20/10/2015 20/10/2015 20/10/2015 20/10/2015
Maximum Not
2.486 2.507 2.502 2.505 2.469 2.497 2.490 2.612 2.602 2.649 2.650
density (t/m3) supplied
Bitumen
5.10 4.65 4.70 4.60 5.15 4.75 4.85 4.30 4.48 4.46 4.49 4.63
content (%)
Air voids (%) 5.0 5.5 Not tested 5.3 1.9 3.2 2.6 N/A 3.1 3.8 4.0 3.8
AS sieve (mm)
26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 97 100 98 98
13.2 100 100 92 94 100 93 100 94 85 86 84 85
9.5 93 93 72 72 94 75 92 83 67 67 73 74
6.7 78 80 58 55 79 62 77 72 58 57 64 67
4.75 63 67 48 44 62 51 61 53 47 46 54 55
2.36 45 49 35 31 43 37 44 36 34 33 39 39
1.18 32 35 26 23 32 28 33 29 26 26 29 29
0.600 25 26 21 18 25 22 26 23 19 19 20 19
0.300 16 17 14 12 16 16 18 16 12 12 12 12
0.150 8.9 9.5 8.4 6.4 8.9 9.2 10.5 9.5 7.9 7.9 7.6 7.6
0.075 6.5 6.9 6.4 4.7 6.8 6.9 8.0 7.7 5.8 5.7 5.2 5.3
Source: Based on laboratory data from BCC, ARRB and Fulton Hogan.

RAP sample FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC
Sample ID E150167.1 E150348 E150349 E1504127 E1504128 E1505235.1 E1505235.2 E1506215 E1506216 E1507184.1 E1507184.2
Asphalt mix
T171 B771 B771 T171 B771 T171
contains
Asphalt mix
28/01/2015 5/03/2015 22/04/2015 27/05/2015 24/06/2015 23/07/2015
produced
Bitumen content (%) 4.05 4.25 4.75 4.30 4.30 4.90 4.40 4.65 4.30 4.55 4.35
AS sieve (mm)
26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
13.2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9.5 93 93 96 95 94 94 93 96 91 90 91
6.7 77 81 87 80 79 82 79 83 75 78 78
4.75 62 66 75 65 65 68 66 71 62 64 65
2.36 45 46 56 48 47 52 47 53 44 47 48
1.18 33 35 43 36 35 39 34 41 34 35 37
0.600 27 28 34 28 27 31 27 33 27 28 29
0.300 19 20 24 20 19 22 20 23 20 19 21
0.150 12.0 11.9 14.9 13.0 11.0 13.9 12.7 15.0 13.0 10.7 12.7
0.075 9.0 8.8 11.5 9.7 7.7 10.6 9.7 11.4 9.5 7.3 9.4
Source: Based on laboratory data from BCC.

RAP sample FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC FRAP/BCC
Sample ID E1508238.1 E1508238.2 E1509207 E1509208 E1510205 E1510206 E1511194 E1511195 E1512203 E1512204
Date sampled 26/08/2015 26/08/2015 22/09/2015 22/09/2015 28/10/2015 28/10/2015 24/11/2015 24/11/2015 17/12/2015 17/12/2015
Bitumen content (%) 4.25 4.25 4.80 4.89 4.22 4.26 3.87 4.40 4.48 4.53
AS sieve (mm)
26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
13.2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9.5 92 91 96 94 93 93 90 94 93 95
6.7 76 75 84 82 79 80 71 79 80 84
4.75 62 61 71 70 64 66 56 64 66 70
2.36 46 46 53 54 46 47 39 46 48 51
1.18 36 36 39 41 35 35 29 34 35 38
0.600 29 29 31 33 28 28 23 27 28 30
0.300 20 21 21 23 20 20 16 20 20 22
0.150 12.7 12.6 14.0 15.0 13.0 13.2 10.7 12.7 13.0 14.0
0.075 9.5 9.3 10.3 11.0 10.0 10.1 8.0 9.4 9.4 10.3
Source: Based on laboratory data from BCC.

RAP sample South Australia South Australia Fulton Hogan Fulton Hogan Fulton Hogan Fulton Hogan Fulton Hogan Fulton Hogan
Sample ID 10 mm RAP 14 mm RAP
Fine RAP #1 Fine RAP #2 Fine RAP #3 Coarse RAP #1 Coarse RAP #2 Coarse RAP #3
#3636 #3639
Date sampled 5/05/2015 5/05/2015 18/08/2015 18/08/2015 18/08/2015 18/08/2015 18/08/2015 18/08/2015
Bitumen content (%) 3.60 3.40 4.85 4.75 4.80 2.45 2.25 2.20
AS sieve (mm)
26.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
13.2 100 89 100 100 100 95 95 93
9.5 92 63 97 99 95 47 42 38
6.7 68 49 82 85 83 24 19 18
4.75 46 36 66 65 66 15 13 12
2.36 29 27 45 46 45 12 11 10
1.18 24 22 34 35 34 10 10 9
0.600 20 18 27 27 27 9 9 8
0.300 16 13 20 21 20 8 7 7
0.150 10.9 9 13.0 13.0 13.0 5.5 5.1 5.0
0.075 8.3 6 10.0 10.0 9.5 4.2 3.8 3.9
Source: Based on laboratory data from ARRB and Fulton Hogan.

DSR Viscosity Test Results, 60 C, 1 RAD/s
Source Material Sample ID Sample description DSR viscosity at 60C, 1 DSR viscosity at 60C, 1
rad/s (Pa.s) rad/s average (Pa.s)
#3388_RAP(front)_28/01_set1 Stockpile 28/01/2015 front 71 570
BCC RAP 71 745
#3388_RAP(front)_28/01_set2 Stockpile 28/01/2015 front 71 920
#3389_RAP(back)_28/01_set1 Stockpile 28/01/2015 back 63 920
BCC RAP 62 830
#3389_RAP(back)_28/01_set2 Stockpile 28/01/2015 back 61 740
#3411_T171(20%RAP)_28/01_set1 C170 + 20% RAP of #3388/#3389 627
BCC Asphalt 619
#3411_T171(20%RAP)_28/01_set2 C170 + 20% RAP of #3388/#3389 610
#3412_T320(0%RAP)_28/01_set1 C320 binder + 0% RAP 1 209
BCC Asphalt 1 181
#3412_T320(0%RAP)_28/01_set2 C320 binder + 0% RAP 1 153
#3413_C170_28/01_set1 C170 virgin binder 189
BCC Bitumen 186
BCC Bitumen 376
#3413_C170(RTFO)_28/01_set1 C170 virgin binder after RTFO 340
BCC Bitumen 340
BCC Bitumen 841
#3620_RAP(front)_5/03_set1 RAP front of stockpile 80 930
BCC RAP 81 035
#3624_RAP(back)_5/03_set1 RAP back of stockpile 76 960
BCC RAP 77 990
#3623_B771(15%RAP)_5/03_set1 Extracted from B771 (5/3/2015) 9 785
BCC Asphalt 9 509
#3626_M1000_5/03_set1 M1000 (5/3/2015) 1 788
BCC Bitumen 1 794
#3626_M1000_5/03_set2 M1000 (5/3/2015) 1 800

#3626_M1000(RTFO)_5/03_set1 M1000 (5/3/2015) 6 236
BCC Bitumen 6 186
#3626_M1000(RTFO)_5/03_set2 M1000 (5/3/2015) 6 135
BCC RAP 48 480
BCC RAP 44 915
BCC Asphalt 6 002
#3627_M1000_22/04_set1 M1000 (22/4/2015) 946
BCC Bitumen 1 014
#3627_M1000_22/04_set2 M1000 (22/4/2015) 1 082
#3627_M1000(RTFO)_22/04_set1 M1000 (22/4/2015) 3 930
BCC Bitumen 3 824
#3627_M1000(RTFO)_22/04_set2 M1000 (22/4/2015) 3 717
#3756_RAP(front)_27/05_set1 RAP front of stockpile (2015/5/27) 27 080
BCC RAP 26 590
#3756_RAP(front)_27/05_set2 RAP front of stockpile (2015/5/27) 26 100
#3757_RAP(back)_27/05_set1 RAP back of stockpile (2015/5/27) 18 090
BCC RAP 18 255
#3757_RAP(back)_27/05_set2 RAP back of stockpile (2015/5/27) 18 420
#3754_C170_27/05_set1 C170 (2015/5/27) 196
BCC Bitumen 195
#3754_C170_27/05_set2 C170 (2015/5/27) 194
#3754_C170(RTFO)_27/05_set1 C170 RTFO treated (2015/5/27) 398
BCC Bitumen 395
#3754_C170(RTFO)_27/05_set2 C170 RTFO treated (2015/5/27) 392
#3755_T171(20%RAP)_27/05_set1 T171 extracted (2015/5/27) 923
BCC Asphalt 930
#3755_T171(20%RAP)_27/05_set2 T171 extracted (2015/5/27) 938
#3816_M1000_24/06_set1 M1000 (2015/6/24) 805
BCC Bitumen 804
#3816_M1000_24/06_set2 M1000 (2015/6/24) 804
#3816_M1000(RTFO)_24/06_set1 M1000 RTFO treated (2015/6/24) 3 439
BCC Bitumen 3 360
#3816_M1000(RTFO)_24/06_set2 M1000 RTFO treated (2015/6/24) 3 281
#3817_B771(15%RAP)_24/06_set1 B771 extracted (2015/6/24) 6 641
BCC Asphalt 6 693
#3817_B771(15%RAP)_24/06_set2 B771 extracted (2015/6/24) 6 744

#3818_RAP(front)_24/06_set1 Extracted RAP binder (2015/6/24) 13 310
BCC RAP 14 550
#3818_RAP(front)_24/06_set2 Extracted RAP binder (2015/6/24) 15 790
#3819_RAP(back)_24/06_set1 Extracted RAP binder (2015/6/24) 13 640
BCC RAP 13 615
#3819_RAP(back)_24/06_set2 Extracted RAP binder (2015/6/24) 13 590
#3877_C170_23/07_set1 Binder (2015/7/23) 192
BCC Bitumen 189
#3877_C170_23/07_set2 Binder (2015/7/23) 186
#3877_C170(RTFO)_23/07_set1 Binder RTFO treated (2015/7/23) 436
BCC Bitumen 425
#3877_C170(RTFO)_23/07_set2 Binder RTFO treated (2015/7/23) 414
#3879_T171(20%RAP)_23/07_set1 Extracted binder (2015/7/23) 1 308
BCC Asphalt 1 257
#3879_T171(20%RAP)_23/07_set2 Extracted binder (2015/7/23) 1 205
#3880_RAP(front)_23/07_set1 RAP front (2015/7/23) 12 750
BCC RAP 12 580
#3880_RAP(front)_23/07_set2 RAP front (2015/7/23) 12 410
#3881_RAP(back)_23/07_set1 RAP back (2015/7/23) 15 150
BCC RAP 14 940
#3881_RAP(back)_23/07_set2 RAP back (2015/7/23) 14 730
Fulton #3905_RAP(coarse1)_20/10_set1 40% RAP project 123 000
RAP 118 950
Hogan #3905_RAP(coarse1)_20/10_set2 40% RAP project 114 900
RAP 117 000
RAP 81 000
Fulton #3908_RAP(fine1)_20/10_set1 40% RAP project 92 090
RAP 107 395
Hogan #3908_RAP(fine1)_20/10_set2 40% RAP project 122 700
RAP 70 910
RAP 89 875
Fulton #4055_C170_20/10_set1 Binder (2015/10/20) 176
Bitumen 176
Hogan #4055_C170_20/10_set2 Binder (2015/10/20) 175

Fulton #4055_C170(RTFO)_20/10_set1 Binder RTFO treated (2015/10/20) 384
Bitumen 375
Hogan #4055_C170(RTFO)_20/10_set2 Binder RTFO treated ((2015/10/20) 365
Fulton #4051_DG20(170)(40R)_20/10_set1 Extracted binder (2015/10/20) 1 550
Asphalt 1 319
Hogan #4051_DG20(170)(40R)_20/10_set2 Extracted binder (2015/10/20) 1 087
Fulton #4052_C600_20/10_set1 Binder (2015/10/20) 1 125
Bitumen 1 124
Hogan #4052_C600_20/10_set2 Binder (2015/10/20) 1 122
Fulton #4050_DG20(600)_20/10_set1 Extracted binder (2015/10/20) 1 793
Asphalt 1 771
Hogan #4050_DG20(600)_20/10_set2 Extracted binder (2015/10/20) 1 749
South #3636_10mmRAP SA(front)_5/05_set1 Extracted from 10 mm RAP, SA 6 155
RAP 5 826
Australia #3636_10mmRAP SA(front)_5/05_set2 Extracted from 10 mm RAP, SA 5 496
South #3637_10mmRAP SA(back)_5/05_set1 Extracted from 10 mm RAP, SA 4 889
RAP 4 867
Australia #3637_10mmRAP SA(back)_5/05_set2 Extracted from 10 mm RAP, SA 4 844
South #3639_14 mm RAP SA(front)_5/05_set1 Extracted from 14 mm RAP, SA 6 352
RAP 6 505
Australia #3639_14 mm RAP SA(front)_5/05_set2 Extracted from 14 mm RAP, SA 6 657
South #3640_14 mm RAP SA(back)_5/05_set1 Extracted from 14 mm RAP, SA 5 762
RAP 5 845
Australia #3640_14 mm RAP SA(back)_5/05_set2 Extracted from 14 mm RAP, SA 5 927
South #3638_ 50% RAP SA_5/05_set1 Extracted from 50 % RAP mix, SA 855
Asphalt 869
Australia #3638_ 50% RAP SA_5/05_set2 Extracted from 50 % RAP mix, SA 884
South #3635_C170_5/05_set1 C170, SA 198
Bitumen 204
Australia #3635_C170_5/05_set2 C170, SA 211
South #3635_C170(RTFO)_5/05_set1 C170, SA 324
Bitumen 325
Australia #3635_C170(RTFO)_5/05_set2 C170, SA 327
South Rejuvenat Canola oil_set1 Canola oil_SA 0.02
0.02
Australia or Canola oil_set2 Canola oil_SA 0.02
#3975_RAP(front)_26/08_set1 Extracted RAP (2015/8/26) 30 100
BCC RAP 29 425
#3976_RAP(back)_26/08_set1 Extracted RAP (2015/8/26) 27 030
BCC RAP 27 535

BCC RAP 19 780
BCC RAP 18 575
BCC RAP 28 595
BCC RAP 14 255
BCC RAP 18 000
BCC RAP 28 420
BCC RAP 34 340
BCC RAP 36 945

Flexural Modulus Temperature-

Frequency Sweep Test Results
C.1 #3479 T171 28 January 2015
Temperature Frequency
Sample ID
(C) 0.1 Hz 0.5 Hz 1 Hz 3 Hz 5 Hz 10 Hz 15 Hz 20 Hz 1 Hz
5 3479-3C 8 051 Not 11 974 13 622 14 492 15 642 16 144 16 414 11 754
completed
3479-3D 7 396 Not 11 372 13 366 14 297 15 489 16 088 16 429 11 478
completed
Average 7 724 N/A 11 673 13 494 14 395 15 566 16 116 16 422 11 616
Std. 463 N/A 426 181 138 108 40 11 195
15 3479-3B 5 076 6 564 7 592 9 303 10 131 11 127 11 711 12 129 7 603
3479-3C 5 415 6 986 8 048 9 846 10 621 11 884 12 486 12 972 7 985
3479-3D 4 480 6 048 7 091 8 725 9 520 10 541 11 106 11 383 7 066
Average 4 990 6 533 7 577 9 291 10 091 11 184 11 768 12 161 7 551
Std. 473 470 479 561 552 673 692 795 462
25 3479-3B 1 978 2 636 3 257 4 485 5 083 5 921 6 374 6 596 3 229
3479-3C 1 887 2 590 3 224 4 631 5 281 6 234 6 720 7 075 3 229
3479-3D 1 452 2 148 2 711 3 903 4 491 5 298 5 744 6 070 2 680
Average 1 772 2 458 3 064 4 340 4 952 5 818 6 279 6 580 3 046
Std. 281 269 306 385 411 476 495 503 317
30 3479-3B 1 058 1 484 1 885 2 858 3 373 4 099 4 476 4 712 1 862
3479-3C 835 1 228 1 561 2 528 2 988 3 825 4 218 4 508 1 602
3479-3D 761 1 177 1 499 2 419 2 938 3 602 3 985 4 262 1 513
Average 885 1 296 1 648 2 602 3 100 3 842 4 226 4 494 1 659
Std. 155 165 207 229 238 249 246 225 181
C.2 #3475 T320 28 January 2015

Temperature Sample Frequency
(C) ID
0.1 Hz 0.5 Hz 1 Hz 3 Hz 5 Hz 10 Hz 15 Hz 20 Hz 1 Hz
5 34755A 9 570 12 336 13 386 15 099 15 968 16 967 17 880 18 303 13 369
34755B 8 760 10 852 11 947 13 473 14 275 15 286 15 915 16 471 11 933
34755C 9 541 11 761 12 766 14 410 15 082 16 327 16 923 17 436 12 806
34755D 8 694 11 222 12 308 13 987 14 755 16 081 16 688 17 042 12 345
Average 9 141 11 543 12 602 14 242 15 020 16 165 16 852 17 313 12 613
Std. 479 647 621 688 714 695 810 770 617


(C) ID
15 34755A 5 750 7 977 8 881 10 732 11 607 12 993 13 653 13 887 8 786
34755B 5 396 7 512 8 345 9 953 10 830 11 855 12 432 12 926 8 253
34755C 5 592 7 767 8 665 10 441 11 272 12 485 13 294 13 638 8 680
34755D 5 357 7 284 8 258 9 883 10 691 11 825 12 493 12 947 8 211
Average 5 524 7 635 8 537 10 252 11 100 12 290 12 968 13 350 8 483
Std. 183 302 288 405 419 559 602 488 293
25 34755A 1 850 3 090 3 825 5 195 5 791 6 742 7 236 7 603 3 782
34755B 1 777 3 002 3 695 4 982 5 560 6 380 6 989 7 271 3 669
34755C 2 004 3 348 4 113 5 484 6 212 7 199 7 799 8 060 4 087
34755D 1 940 3 206 3 897 5 251 5 900 6 906 7 429 7 823 3 862
Average 1 893 3 162 3 883 5 228 5 866 6 807 7 363 7 689 3 850
Std. 100 150 175 206 271 342 342 336 177
30 34755A 996 1 907 2 462 3 486 4 094 4 907 5 361 5 591 2 448
34755B 1 024 1 844 2 401 3 400 3 962 4 822 5 321 5 465 2 419
34755C 1 168 2 136 2 689 3 807 4 380 5 257 5 816 6 091 2 715
34755D 1 107 2 011 2 574 3 659 4 245 5 102 5 646 5 857 2 589
Average 1 074 1 975 2 532 3 588 4 170 5 022 5 536 5 751 2 543
Std. 79 128 127 181 181 196 236 279 137
C.3 #3896 T171 27 May 2015

(C) ID
5 38961 6 628 9 116 10 212 11 821 12 667 13 841 14 383 14 873 10 333
38966 7 721 10 283 11 380 13 106 13 980 15 203 15 937 16 435 11 379
Average 7 175 9 700 10 796 12 464 13 324 14 522 15 160 15 654 10 856
Std. 773 825 826 909 928 963 1 099 1 105 740
15 38961 2 605 4 379 5 069 6 472 7 190 8 049 8 624 8 994 4 969
38966 2 960 4 706 5 485 6 989 7 782 8 844 9 357 9 664 5 491
Average 2 783 4 543 5 277 6 731 7 486 8 447 8 991 9 329 5 230
Std. 251 231 294 366 419 562 518 474 369
25 38961 734 1 404 1 874 2 657 3 161 3 896 4 343 4 527 1 962
38966 896 1 634 2 154 2 989 3 581 4 382 4 815 5 048 2 199
Average 815 1 519 2 014 2 823 3 371 4 139 4 579 4 788 2 081
Std. 115 163 198 235 297 344 334 368 168
30 38961 492 829 1 174 1 724 2 132 2 701 3 008 3 205 1 191
38966 549 940 1 312 1 912 2 313 2 946 3 296 3 526 1 318
Average 521 885 1 243 1 818 2 223 2 824 3 152 3 366 1 255
Std. 40 78 98 133 128 173 204 227 90

C.4 #3898 T171 23 July 2015

(C) ID
5 38961 11 454 14 316 15 103 16 684 17 472 17 672 18 807 18 300 14 342
38962 11 546 14 488 15 568 17 267 18 129 19 130 20 384 21 124 15 508
38963 12 278 15 004 16 088 18 004 18 968 20 127 20 870 20 079 16 107
38964 11 795 14 552 15 615 17 364 18 341 19 357 20 024 19 403 15 650
Average 11 768 14 590 15 594 17 330 18 228 19 072 20 021 19 727 15 402
Std. 369 293 403 541 617 1 026 881 1 186 751
15 38961 5 410 7 888 8 750 10 347 11 222 12 218 12 430 12 326 8 375
38962 6 082 8 827 9 654 11 417 12 315 13 568 14 278 14 540 9 360
38963 5 747 8 162 9 029 10 832 11 705 12 819 13 434 13 928 8 831
38964 4 816 7 098 7 834 9 599 10 492 11 576 12 335 12 751 7 759
Average 5 514 7 994 8 817 10 549 11 434 12 545 13 119 13 386 8 581
Std. 540 716 756 770 771 850 919 1 025 680
25 38961 1 583 2 721 3 382 4 552 5 262 6 167 6 602 6 783 3 389
38962 1 784 2 927 3 642 4 880 5 616 6 667 7 176 7 554 3 612
38963 1 693 2 999 3 605 4 929 5 701 6 651 7 189 7 558 3 653
38964 1 414 2 564 3 224 4 455 5 180 6 081 6 611 6 929 3 265
Average 1 619 2 803 3 463 4 704 5 440 6 392 6 895 7 206 3 480
Std. 159 198 197 236 257 311 333 409 184
30 38961 966 1 837 2 325 3 284 3 868 4 708 5 187 5 457 2 308
38962 1 076 2 004 2 494 3 469 4 066 4 923 5 297 5 581 2 484
38963 1 091 1 917 2 453 3 330 3 942 4 817 5 267 5 634 2 431
38964 889 1 604 2 161 3 001 3 503 4 180 4 669 4 929 2 055
Average 1 006 1 841 2 358 3 271 3 845 4 657 5 105 5 400 2 320
Std. 96 172 150 196 242 330 294 323 191
C.5 #3628 B771 5 March 2015

(C) ID
5 36281.1 10 741 12 754 13 478 14 989 15 953 17 295 17 790 18 866 14 118
36281.2 11 299 13 508 14 072 15 585 16 740 17 321 17 621 17 494 14 820
36281.3 10 291 12 305 13 094 14 384 15 214 16 357 16 946 17 642 13 076
36281.4 10 308 12 706 13 528 14 953 15 911 16 720 17 681 17 278 13 529
Average 10 660 12 818 13 543 14 978 15 955 16 923 17 510 17 820 13 886
Std. 474 502 402 491 624 468 382 713 755
15 36281.1 5 974 7 705 8 361 9 564 10 196 11 369 11 854 12 523 8 429
36281.2 6 365 8 094 8 720 10 069 10 776 11 744 12 601 12 683 8 740
36281.3 5 717 7 248 7 859 9 025 9 693 10 735 11 387 12 067 7 996
36281.4 5 461 Not 7 794 8 969 9 462 10 202 10 720 11 429 7 622
completed
Average 5 879 7 682 8 184 9 407 10 032 11 013 11 641 12 176 8 197
Std. 386 423 438 517 583 682 792 562 490


(C) ID
25 36281.1 2 748 4 000 4 599 5 686 6 238 6 980 7 378 7 614 4 628
36281.2 2 863 4 018 4 618 5 601 6 143 6 829 7 251 7 435 4 628
36281.3 2 589 3 761 4 354 5 323 5 846 6 526 6 995 7 229 4 308
36281.4 2 425 3 531 4 050 5 040 5 564 6 232 6 600 6 919 4 123
Average 2 656 3 828 4 405 5 413 5 948 6 642 7 056 7 299 4 422
Std. 191 230 266 293 305 332 343 298 250
30 36281.1 2 003 2 960 3 479 4 325 4 880 5 564 6 000 6 146 3 455
36281.2 1 883 2 880 3 382 4 301 4 834 5 553 5 924 6 114 3 435
36281.3 1 814 2 685 3 230 4 093 4 577 5 273 5 706 5 870 3 183
36281.4 1 671 2 545 3 048 3 826 4 272 4 972 5 304 5 485 3 025
Average 1 843 2 768 3 285 4 136 4 641 5 341 5 734 5 904 3 275
Std. 139 188 188 232 280 280 312 305 207
C.6 #3630 B771 22 April 2015

(C) ID
5 36301 11 799 13 261 14 079 15 624 16 739 16 696 19 111 19 663 14 395
36302 12 534 14 231 15 108 16 761 17 763 18 770 19 118 19 749 15 366
36303 11 913 14 323 15 248 16 952 18 040 19 694 19 652 20 793 15 201
36304 11 634 13 549 14 300 15 528 16 183 16 836 17 649 17 858 14 370
Average 11 970 13 841 14 684 16 216 17 181 17 999 18 883 19 516 14 833
Std. 393 518 581 744 869 1 474 860 1 219 525
15 36301 6 463 8 256 8 991 10 389 11 184 12 403 13 168 13 031 8 987
36302 6 711 8 458 9 212 10 618 11 374 12 262 12 360 13 203 9 293
36303 5 810 7 524 8 109 9 313 9 928 10 656 11 320 11 448 8 096
36304 6 078 7 966 8 631 10 011 10 704 11 730 12 475 12 690 8 607
Average 6 266 8 051 8 736 10 083 10 798 11 763 12 331 12 593 8 746
Std. 400 405 482 571 645 793 763 793 516
25 36301 2 988 4 221 4 843 5 939 6 490 7 330 7 659 7 998 4 830
36302 3 184 4 522 5 106 6 173 6 672 7 504 7 884 8 168 5 144
36303 2 858 4 001 4 572 5 614 6 142 6 909 7 239 7 514 4 560
36304 2 647 3 775 4 375 5 381 5 932 6 643 7 059 7 295 4 350
Average 2 919 4 130 4 724 5 777 6 309 7 097 7 460 7 744 4 721
Std. 226 319 319 349 334 392 378 408 344
30 36301 1 912 2 902 3 356 4 292 4 768 5 447 5 877 6 013 3 359
36302 2 019 3 036 3 492 4 368 4 822 5 542 5 935 6 082 3 521
36303 1 540 2 363 2 841 3 599 4 021 4 662 5 025 5 147 2 834
36304 1 661 2 568 3 010 3 864 4 305 5 014 5 383 5 544 2 978
Average 1 783 2 717 3 175 4 031 4 479 5 166 5 555 5 697 3 173
Std. 221 307 301 363 383 407 431 437 321

C.7 #3897 B771 24 June 2015

(C) ID
5 38972 12 593 15 100 16 222 17 647 17 730 18 705 17 889 19 605 15 573
38973 12 089 14 754 15 524 17 210 18 142 18 549 19 447 18 061 14 949
38975 13 577 15 967 17 038 18 433 19 283 20 516 21 275 20 512 17 121
38976 11 618 13 951 15 025 16 480 17 774 17 876 18 707 18 746 14 731
Average 12 469 14 943 15 952 17 443 18 232 18 912 19 330 19 231 15 594
Std. 839 835 875 817 724 1 129 1 445 1 062 1 079
15 38972 7 884 10 047 10 878 12 681 13 830 14 924 14 784 13 098 10 977
38973 7 990 10 356 11 433 13 380 14 849 16 888 17 334 15 733 11 320
38975 8 843 10 828 11 714 13 198 13 929 14 919 16 139 18 044 11 762
38976 8 464 10 658 11 527 12 918 13 688 14 921 15 636 17 288 11 420
Average 8 295 10 472 11 388 13 044 14 074 15 413 15 973 16 041 11 370
Std. 444 344 360 308 526 983 1 066 2 185 323
25 38972 3 532 5 114 5 646 6 919 7 613 8 565 9 081 9 589 5 706
38973 3 524 5 193 5 720 7 178 7 895 8 905 9 482 9 925 5 731
38975 4 266 5 845 6 406 7 723 8 421 9 316 9 847 10 425 6 349
38976 3 992 5 609 6 084 7 414 8 023 8 846 9 216 9 568 6 091
Average 3 829 5 440 5 964 7 309 7 988 8 908 9 407 9 877 5 969
Std. 365 346 351 342 336 310 338 400 308
30 38972 2 278 3 414 4 020 5 062 5 589 6 439 6 856 7 049 3 969
38973 2 195 3 326 3 906 4 919 5 504 6 307 6 748 6 999 3 838
38975 2 691 3 837 4 434 5 548 6 178 6 953 7 359 7 620 4 467
38976 2 513 3 771 4 441 5 401 6 006 6 734 7 164 7 536 4 393
Average 2 419 3 587 4 200 5 233 5 819 6 608 7 032 7 301 4 167
Std. 226 255 278 292 325 291 280 322 310
C.8 #4015 SA50% RAP mix 5 May 2015

(C) ID
5 40151 7 449 10 148 11 604 13 724 14 724 16 171 16 742 16 948 11 633
40152 7 642 10 947 12 345 14 407 15 455 16 932 17 567 17 750 12 321
40153 8 633 11 661 13 027 15 284 16 437 18 133 18 771 19 054 13 101
40154 9 214 11 599 12 929 15 061 16 304 18 149 15 947 15 965 12 796
Average 8 235 11 089 12 476 14 619 15 730 17 346 17 257 17 429 12 463
Std. 834 705 655 703 799 969 1 207 1 306 640
15 40151 4 089 6 947 8 036 10 015 11 066 12 288 13 156 13 143 8 006
40152 3 869 6 753 7 865 9 740 10 703 11 970 12 718 12 919 7 755
40153 4 281 7 359 8 456 10 562 11 630 13 063 14 273 14 622 8 410
40154 4 206 7 118 8 166 10 063 11 129 12 252 12 857 13 069 8 006
Average 4 111 7 044 8 131 10 095 11 132 12 393 13 251 13 438 8 044
Std. 180 257 249 342 381 469 705 795 271


(C) ID
25 40151 885 1 944 2 685 4 122 4 906 6 046 6 634 6 942 2 791
40152 858 1 785 2 656 3 883 4 612 5 722 6 229 6 513 2 611
40153 1 040 2 087 2 736 4 081 4 967 6 001 6 552 6 869 2 793
40154 947 2 012 2 797 4 102 4 927 6 025 6 574 6 879 2 802
Average 933 1 957 2 719 4 047 4 853 5 949 6 497 6 801 2 749
Std. 81 129 62 111 163 152 182 195 92
30 40151 468 1 008 1 392 2 226 2 757 3 635 4 083 4 453 1 349
40153 531 1 153 1 632 2 546 3 097 4 074 4 640 4 936 1 660
40154 472 990 1 483 2 278 2 899 3 705 4 181 4 546 1 461
Average 490 1 050 1 502 2 350 2 918 3 805 4 301 4 645 1 490
Std. 35 89 121 172 171 236 297 256 158
C.9 #4063 DG20(170)(40R) 20 October 2015

(C) ID
5 #4063I 10 227 13 851 15 285 17 688 18 927 19 837 20 832 21 267 15 522
#4063J 9 116 12 634 13 696 15 287 15 825 16 457 16 934 17 099 13 010
#4063K 10 859 13 988 14 823 16 247 17 117 18 786 15 865 13 432 15 235
#4063L 8 420 11 853 13 053 14 652 15 430 15 752 16 109 15 866 12 053
Average 9 656 13 082 14 214 15 969 16 825 17 708 17 435 16 916 13 955
Std. 1 094 1 020 1 022 1 321 1 576 1 922 2 310 3 276 1 694
15 #4063I 5 781 8 121 9 156 11 008 12 120 13 501 13 627 13 556 9 259
#4063J 5 719 8 406 9 371 11 050 11 950 12 962 13 450 13 511 9 374
#4063K 4 887 7 413 8 285 9 992 10 724 11 714 12 401 12 968 8 222
#4063L 5 337 8 355 9 303 11 254 12 136 13 148 13 985 14 461 8 890
Average 5 431 8 074 9 029 10 826 11 733 12 831 13 366 13 624 8 936
Std. 412 458 504 566 678 778 681 619 519
25 #4063I 2 096 3 278 4 183 5 536 5 929 6 702 7 186 7 391 4 100
#4063J 2 031 3 207 4 108 5 438 5 906 6 664 7 144 7 374 4 103
#4063K 2 164 3 269 4 196 5 496 5 894 6 679 7 165 7 512 4 236
#4063L 1 775 2 871 3 771 4 933 5 345 6 086 6 585 6 869 3 757
Average 2 017 3 156 4 065 5 351 5 769 6 533 7 020 7 287 4 049
Std. 170 193 199 281 283 298 291 285 205
30 #4063I 843 1 726 2 389 3 428 4 105 5 081 5 645 5 969 2 399
#4063J 826 1 653 2 212 3 111 3 839 4 631 5 063 5 394 2 294
#4063K 899 1 718 2 363 3 251 3 896 4 740 5 196 5 532 2 378
#4063L 717 1 463 2 055 2 867 3 409 4 248 4 677 4 973 2 020
Average 821 1 640 2 255 3 164 3 812 4 675 5 145 5 467 2 273
Std. 76 122 154 237 292 343 399 411 175

C.10 #4064 DG20(600) 20 October 2015

(C) ID
5 #4064E 5 387 7 682 8 709 10 370 11 265 12 307 13 118 13 487 8 892
#4064F 7 851 10 360 11 231 12 884 13 634 14 717 15 271 15 340 11 273
#4064G 6 655 9 539 10 514 12 398 13 379 14 505 15 144 16 038 10 463
#4064H 6 014 9 537 10 558 12 423 13 728 14 784 13 920 15 111 10 145
Average 6 477 9 280 10 253 12 019 13 002 14 078 14 363 14 994 10 193
Std. 1 052 1 133 1 080 1 122 1 167 1 187 1 030 1 079 989
15 #4064E 3 195 5 149 5 916 7 907 8 917 9 509 9 484 9 909 5 861
#4064F 3 941 5 963 6 804 8 295 9 040 9 998 10 533 10 965 6 817
#4064G 3 208 5 297 6 147 7 746 8 513 9 491 10 043 10 591 6 230
#4064H 3 178 5 091 6 017 7 624 8 436 9 474 10 073 10 458 6 094
Average 3 381 5 375 6 221 7 893 8 727 9 618 10 033 10 481 6 251
Std. 374 401 400 292 297 254 429 437 407
25 #4064E 1 290 2 011 2 461 3 371 3 956 4 461 4 824 5 072 2 494
#4064F 1 500 2 225 3 013 3 943 4 404 4 936 5 343 5 615 2 954
#4064G 1 243 1 925 2 498 3 224 3 802 4 315 4 651 4 933 2 505
#4064H 1 136 1 813 2 160 3 116 3 656 4 138 4 482 4 715 2 369
Average 1 292 1 994 2 533 3 414 3 955 4 463 4 825 5 084 2 581
Std. 153 174 354 368 324 342 372 383 257
30 #4064E 575 1 073 1 500 2 096 2 565 3 284 3 673 3 847 1 465
#4064F 709 1 358 1 798 2 511 3 018 3 737 4 155 4 314 1 766
#4064G 558 1 024 1 418 2 055 2 473 3 175 3 620 3 852 1 499
#4064H 530 1 058 1 437 2 028 2 478 3 183 3 671 3 871 1 466
Average 593 1 128 1 538 2 173 2 634 3 345 3 780 3 971 1 549
Std. 80 155 177 227 260 266 251 229 146

Moisture Sensitivity Test Results
Dry Subset Web Subset

Sample ID Property TSR (%)
#1 #2 #3 Average #1 #2 #3 Average
#3411 Core number 34116 34117 34118 34112 34114 34115
T171 8.4 7.9 8.3 8.2 7.2 8.2 8.0 7.8
Air voids (%)
Degree of saturation (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 65.5 65.4 69.7 66.9
Swell (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2
Tensile strength (kPa) 1278.3 1221.0 1184.1 1227.8 1334.4 1213.4 1139.3 1229.0 100.1
Stripping observation Nil Nil Nil N/A Nil Nil Nil N/A
#3412 Core number 34126 34127 34128 34123 34124 34125
T320 8.3 8.4 8.2 8.3 8.5 7.9 7.5 8.0
Air voids (%)
Swell (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.4
#3755 Core number 37557 37558 37559 37554 37555 37556
T171 8.1 8.5 8.6 8.4 8.2 7.8 8.7 8.2
Air voids (%)
Swell (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
#3879 Core number 38793 38795 38797 38796 38798 38799
T171 7.5 7.0 7.2 7.2 8.2 7.0 7.1 7.4
Air voids (%)
Swell (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2
#3623 Core number 36237 36238 362310 36232 36235 36236
B771 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.4
Air voids (%)
Swell (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.4
#3619 Core number 36192 36194 36195 36198 36199 361910
B771 7.8 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.9 7.4 7.7 7.7
Air voids (%)
Swell (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2

Dry Subset Web Subset

Sample ID Property TSR (%)
#1 #2 #3 Average #1 #2 #3 Average
#3638 Core number 36387 36388 36389 36384 36385 36386
SA 50% 8.6 8.3 7.7 8.2 8.1 8.2 7.5 7.9
Air voids (%)
RAP
Swell (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1
#4056 Core number 40566 40569 405611 40561 40567 405610
DG20(600)
Air voids (%) 8.3 8.7 8.2 8.4 8.6 7.1 7.9 7.9
Swell (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1
#4057 Core number 40573 40578 40579 40574 40575 40577
DG20
Air voids (%) 8.8 8.4 7.7 8.3 7.9 7.3 8.4 7.9
(170)(40R)
Swell (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2


AP-R517-16-Maximising The Use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in Asphalt Mix Design Field Validation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AP-R517-16-Maximising The Use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in Asphalt Mix Design Field Validation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Research Report

Maximising the Use of Reclaimed

Abstract About Austroads

ISBN 978-1-925451-09-2 Austroads 2016

Austroads 2016 | page i

Austroads 2016 | page ii

Austroads 2016 | page iii

Austroads 2016 | page iv

Figure 3.29: DG20(170)(40R) multi-rolling across line P1..........................................................................27

Austroads 2016 | page v

1.1 Objectives and Scope

Austroads 2016 | page 1

1.2 Summary of Year 1 Binder Blend Characterisation in the

1.3 Summary of Year 2 Asphalt Mix Validation in the Laboratory

Austroads 2016 | page 2

1.4 Scope of Year 3 Asphalt Mix Validation in the Field

Austroads 2016 | page 3

2. Asphalt Plant Validation of the Binder Blend

2.1 Binder Blend Design

Austroads 2016 | page 4

2.2 Calculation of the Binder Blend Viscosity

= viscosity of th component (in Pa.s)

= viscosity blending index of th component

= viscosity blending index of the blend

= volume fraction of th component

= viscosity of the blend (in Pa.s).

2.3 Methodology of the Plant Validation Process

The schematics of the procedure are provided in Figure 2.1.

Austroads 2016 | page 5

Collect hot mix Extract

Austroads 2016 | page 6

2.4 The Role of Rejuvenator in Asphalt Recycling

Austroads 2016 | page 7

3. Sample Collection and Laboratory Testing

3.1 DSR Test Temperature-frequency Sweep

3.2 Repeated Recycling of RAP

Austroads 2016 | page 8

1.0E+03 MC-RAP1 #1866 (RTFO 1)

MC-RAP1 #1866 (RTFO 2)

MC-RAP2 #1872 (RTFO 1)

MC-RAP2 #1872 (RTFO 2)

Austroads 2016 | page 9

Figure 3.2: Viscosity of the RAP binders after RTFO treatments

DSR viscosity at 60 C, 1 rad/s - RAP1

Table 3.1: Viscosity increment of RAP binders after RTFO treatment

3.3 Variability of RAP

Austroads 2016 | page 10

Sampling location of Sampling date Viscosity at 60 C, 1 rad/s (Pa.s)

Austroads 2016 | page 11

RAP usage (cumulative tonnes)

1.0E+03 #3622_RAP(front)_22/04 #3621_RAP(back)_22/04

1.0E+01 #3977_RAP(front)_22/09 #3978_RAP(back)_22/09

Austroads 2016 | page 12

3.4 Asphalt Plant Validation of the Binder Blend Calculation in RAP

Table 3.3: Sampling schedule of RAP mixes

Asphalt mix and Sampling schedule in 2015

Austroads 2016 | page 13

Table 3.4: DSR viscosities at 60 C and 1rad/s, all RAP mixes

Material 5/05/2015 20/10/2015

Austroads 2016 | page 14

Binder viscosity extracted from asphalt - measured (Pa.s)

Binder viscosity extracted from asphalt - measured (Pa.s)

Austroads 2016 | page 15