Carvalho, Shirazi, Ayres, Selezneva 1 1 PERFORMANCE …docs.trb.org/prp/10-2209.pdf · Carvalho,...
-
Upload
vuongquynh -
Category
Documents
-
view
228 -
download
2
Transcript of Carvalho, Shirazi, Ayres, Selezneva 1 1 PERFORMANCE …docs.trb.org/prp/10-2209.pdf · Carvalho,...
Carvalho, Shirazi, Ayres, Selezneva 1
PERFORMANCE OF RECYCLED HOT MIX ASPHALT OVERLAYS IN 1 REHABILITATION OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS 2
3
By 4
Regis L. Carvalho (Corresponding author) 5
Applied Research Associates 6
7184 Troy Hill Dr. Suite N, Elkridge MD 21075, (410) 540-9949, [email protected] 7
8
Hamid Shirazi 9
Applied Research Associates 10
7184 Troy Hill Dr. Suite N, Elkridge MD 21075, (410) 540-9949, [email protected] 11
12
Manuel Ayres Jr., PhD 13
Applied Research Associates 14
7184 Troy Hill Dr. Suite N, Elkridge MD 21075, (410) 540-9949, [email protected] 15
16
Olga Selezneva, PhD 17
Applied Research Associates 18
7184 Troy Hill Dr. Suite N, Elkridge MD 21075, (410) 540-9949, [email protected] 19
20
21
Number of words: 3335 22
Number of figures: 12 23
Number of tables: 2 24 25
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Carvalho, Shirazi, Ayres, Selezneva 2
ABSTRACT 1 The most frequent application of recycling materials in pavements is the reuse of 2
reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) to produce recycled hot mix asphalt. When designed 3 properly, RAP mixes have demonstrated quality comparable to virgin HMAs in laboratory tests. 4 Despite all the information available about the quality of RAP mixes, obstacles still exist to make 5 them more frequently used in pavement engineering. This study investigates short and long term 6 field performance of RAP mixes when compared to virgin hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlays used 7 in flexible pavements. Data from the 18 Specific Pavement Studies-5 (SPS-5) sites from the 8 Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program located across the United States and Canada 9 were used. Performance data was collected during periods ranging from 8 to 17 years. Repeated 10 Measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was the statistical analysis tool chosen, pairing 11 distress measurements with survey dates to compare performance and response. The results 12 suggest that in the majority of scenarios RAP mixes have performance statistically equivalent to 13 virgin HMA mixes. Deflections were also statistically equivalent, suggesting that RAP overlays 14 can provide structural improvement equivalent to virgin HMA overlays. 15
16 17
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Carvalho, Shirazi, Ayres, Selezneva 3
INTRODUCTION 1 The growing demand for materials to rehabilitate the highway infrastructure in the U.S., and the 2 increasing need of sustainable and environment friendly alternatives have made the demand for 3 recycling materials in pavements increase substantially. The most frequent application of 4 recycling materials in pavements is the reuse of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). RAP is any 5 removed or reprocessed pavement material that contains asphalt and aggregates. The biggest 6 source of RAP is rehabilitation of existing asphalt pavement by milling or full-depth removal. 7 RAP can be combined with virgin aggregates, new binder and/or recycling agents to produce a 8 recycled hot mix, which is the most frequent use of RAP. 9
The incorporation of RAP in recycled hot mixtures is not new. Recycling technologies 10 have been developed since 1970’s (1). The latest major survey with state agencies reports a 33% 11 reuse of RAP in hot mix asphalt (HMA) production (2). Since then this number is likely to have 12 increased with the effort by federal and state agencies promoting RAP use, as well as 13 advancements in pavement recycling technology (3). 14
Several researches have been done to evaluate properties and performance of mixes with 15 RAP in the laboratory and are documented in the literature (4). When designed properly, RAP 16 mixes have demonstrated, in the laboratory, quality comparable to virgin HMAs. However, 17 despite all the information available, obstacles still exist to make RAP mix more frequently used 18 in pavement engineering. The major difficulty is the belief that recycled materials are inferior in 19 quality to virgin materials (2). Most of this is based on judgment instead of engineered 20 performance evaluations. Assumptions such as RAP high variability, poor properties of binder in 21 the RAP mix, and inferior long term performance (i.e., cracking and durability) are usually 22 associated with RAP HMA. 23
Limited long term field performance of RAP mixes was available until early to mid 24 1990’s. A few state agencies that conducted field experiments reported equivalent performance 25 in sections overlaid with RAP and virgin HMA (2, 5, 6, 7). The lack of performance indicators, 26 but mostly the lack of a systematic comparison, prompted the Strategic Highway Research 27 Program (SHRP) to initiate a study on HMA performance, including RAP and virgin mixes 28 through the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program. The study was called 29 Rehabilitation of Flexible Pavements, Specific Pavement Studies-5 (SPS-5). Since its initiation, 30 few data analyses were done to evaluate performance at the early stages of SPS-5 pavement 31 monitoring (8, 9). Very limited analysis of full term performance has been done. Now that the 32 most of the SPS-5 sections had over 15 years of service, a new investigation could bring up 33 interesting findings for both short term and long term performance of RAP and virgin mixes. 34
This study investigated short and long term field performance of RAP mixes when 35 compared to virgin hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlays used in flexible pavements. The effects of 36 overlay thickness, environment (climatic region) and surface condition prior to rehabilitation 37 were also investigated. Data from the SPS-5 sites of the LTPP program were used. Performance 38 was evaluated through measurements of roughness, rutting and fatigue cracking. The structural 39 performance of the overlaid sections was also evaluated through the analysis of deflection data. 40
LTPP SPS-5 EXPERIMENT 41 The LTPP SPS-5 experiment was conceptually designed to provide quality data for developing 42 improved methodologies and strategies for flexible pavement rehabilitation. Techniques 43
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Carvalho, Shirazi, Ayres, Selezneva 4
commonly used in the United States and Canada were applied to test sections in a continuous 1 highway site. Sections of each site were subjected to same climate condition, subgrade, 2 pavement structure and traffic. The factors considered in the experiment included surface 3 condition before overlay, environment, and traffic loading, as well as the different treatment 4 options. 5
SPS-5 experiment data provide means for the comparison of rehabilitated HMA 6 pavement performance with different surface preparation intensity, overlay thickness, and 7 overlay mixture. They can also be used to determine the appropriate timing of rehabilitation, and 8 to evaluate life cycle cost of different rehab actions. 9
Experiment Design 10 The experiment was designed to compare the effect of the climatic, structural and material 11 variations on performance of rehabilitated pavements. These design features were defined as 12 follows: 13
• Climate: Wet versus dry, and freeze versus non-freeze. 14 • Existing Pavement Condition: Fair versus poor. 15 • Surface preparation: Intense (milling) versus minimum (no milling). 16 • Overlay material: Recycled versus virgin HMA. 17 • Overlay thickness: Thin, 51 mm (2 in) versus thick, 127 mm (5 in). 18
Variation of surface preparation alternatives, overlay material, and overlay thickness lead 19 to eight design combinations at each SPS-5 project site, as shown in TABLE 1. The amount of 20 RAP targeted in this experiment was 30% of the mix. In addition, one section was assigned as a 21 control section and did not receive any overlay, except for routine maintenance, adding up to 22 nine experimental sections at each SPS-5 project site. 23
TABLE 1. Core Sections of SPS-5 Experiment 24 SHRP ID Overlay Type
0501 Control—no treatment. 0502 Thin overlay (51 mm)—recycled HMA mix. 0503 Thick overlay (127 mm)—recycled HMA mix. 0504 Thick overlay—virgin mix. 0505 Thin overlay—virgin mix. 0506 Thin overlay—virgin mix— with milling. 0507 Thick overlay—virgin mix—with milling. 0508 Thick overlay—recycled mix—with milling. 0509 Thin overlay—recycled mix—with milling.
All test sections were designed to be 152.4 m (500 ft) long over fine-grained subgrade 25 with minimum annual traffic over the test sections of 85,000 equivalent single axes load (ESAL). 26 This paper will focused specifically on overlay material and the impact of RAP vs. virgin overlay 27 on performance of flexible pavements, considering roughness, rutting and fatigue cracking. 28
Final Factorial of SPS-5 Experiment 29 A total of 18 SPS-5 projects were constructed between 1989 and 1998, as shown in 30
TABLE 2. All projects are located in the appropriate cells based on the actual environmental data 31 and surface condition prior to rehabilitation. This distribution was set to be balanced when sites 32 are grouped by the design factors. A total of 162 core test sections of the experiment were 33
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Carvalho, Shirazi, Ayres, Selezneva 5
analyzed. Most of the sites have been in service for 15 or more years. Some were discontinued 1 from the experiment and rehabilitated again. This study considered the performance data only 2 while the site was part of the experiment. Distress surveys were obtained and summarized from 3 all experiment sections to compare performance. Some sites have survey data for up to 12 4 inspections. 5
TABLE 2. Constructed SPS-5 Sites for the Experimental Factorial 6 Pavement Condition
Climate, Moisture-Temperature Wet-Freeze Wet-No-Freeze Dry-Freeze Dry-No-Freeze
Fair GA (15.2) NJ (16.0)
CO (16.9) AB (17.9) MT (17) MN (17.9)
NM (11.9) OK (11.1) TX (16.8)
Poor ME (13.1) MD (16.2) MO (9)
FL (13.3) AL (16.7) MS (17.9)
MB (19) CA (16.3) AZ (18.2)
Note: The numbers in parentheses indicate approximate age of the project as of January 2009. 7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 8 The main purpose of this study was to identify general trends in performance and response 9 associated with pavements subjected to different designs, surface preparation, site factors and 10 rehabilitation features. The ideal approach would be the analysis of all sites simultaneously. 11 However, given the number of different conditions and the inherent variability associated with 12 pavement materials and construction techniques normally observed in field experiments, the 13 results from this approach could produce no meaningful results. 14
The alternative was to consider every site individually and use all sections available to 15 statistically compare performance and response. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance 16 (ANOVA) was chosen, pairing distress measurements with survey dates. This approach was 17 possible because the surveys at each site were done on the same day for all 9 sections for each 18 survey date recorded in the database. Moreover, all sections within each site have the same in 19 situ conditions (pavement structure, traffic and climate). Therefore the performance distribution 20 over time was considered a repeated measure and the trends, grouped by design features, were 21 analyzed simultaneously for each site at a time. 22
Statistical difference between performance of RAP and virgin overlays was defined at 23 95% confidence level. FIGURE 1 is an example showing evaluation of pavement performance 24 with respect to rutting. In this case, all measurements for each survey date were grouped by mix 25 type. The line represents the average value among each group and the vertical bars the 95% 26 confidence interval. In this example, there is a statistical difference (p < 0.05) between rutting 27 performance of both mixtures, in which RAP outperforming virgin overlay over the period of 6 28 surveys, corresponding to 9 years of monitoring. 29
The results from the ANOVA tests for each site were compiled and the number of sites 30 for which one mix performed statistically better than the other was computed. If no statistical 31 difference was found, the performance was considered equivalent between the two mixes. Short 32 term and long term performance were considered separately. Short term was defined as a period 33 less than 5 years of service after rehabilitation and long term was performance above 5 years. 34
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Carvalho, Shirazi, Ayres, Selezneva 6
Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals (p=.00001)
mix RAP mix Virgin
s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6
Survey
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30Ru
tting
(in)
1 FIGURE 1. Rutting performance vs. mix type for SPS-5 (Colorado). 2
RESULTS 3 At first the data were analyzed separately for each design feature (mix type, overlay thickness 4 and surface preparation). The objective was to look for differences in performance trends when 5 comparing alternatives within each design feature for short and long term performances. 6 Secondly, the data was analyzed in pairs to look for cross-dependency between the design 7 features. This paper only reports the findings for mix type and cross-dependency with overlay 8 thickness. 9
The charts in FIGURE 2 compile the results of the statistical analysis for all sites. The 10 bars on the right side of each plot in the figure represent the percentage of sites that showed no 11 statistical difference in performance between the two mixtures (RAP and virgin) and the bars on 12 the left side of each plot show the percentage of sites where one mix type outperformed the 13 other. FIGURE 2a indicates there was no statistical difference in roughness performance in 94% 14 of the 18 sites for short term and 78% for long term. RAP outperformed virgin mixtures in 6% of 15 the sites and in 17% virgin mixtures were better in the long term. The results suggest that RAP 16 and virgin mixture overlays had statistically equivalent performances in the great majority of the 17 sites evaluated. 18
FIGURE 2b presents the results for rutting. The results again indicate no statistical 19 difference in rutting performance in 83% and 78% of sites for short and long term performances. 20 In 11% of sites RAP or virgin mixtures performed statistically better in the long term. Virgin 21 mixtures outperformed RAP in short term, with 17% of sites. 22
A slight advantage is observed in favor of virgin mixes when fatigue cracking was 23 considered, as shown in FIGURE 2c. Although the great majority of sites had equivalent 24 performance between both mixes, virgin HMA overlays were better than RAP in larger number 25 of sites when performance was different. There was no site in which RAP outperformed virgin 26 mixes in the short term. In the long term, 22% of sites had virgin mix sections performing better 27 than RAP sections, comparing to 6% otherwise. 28
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9
10
11 12
13 14
15 16
Carvalho
Ssurveys. RAP mixdeflectioncomparisFIGUREimprovem
TIn this ca
0
20
40
60
80
100
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
o, Shirazi, Ay
tructural resFIGURE 2d
x are not as sns alone are son, given th
E 2d suggest ment as equi
FIGURE 2
The impact oase, instead o
0%6
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
RAP
slo
0%6
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
RAP
yres, Selezn
sponse was ed presents thestrong as secnot a measu
he all the methat RAP m
ivalent as vir
(a)
(c)
2. ANOVA rfatigue c
f overlay thiof looking at
6%6%17
P virgin
shortong
11%6%
22
P virgin
shortlong
eva
evaluated usie results. Thctions overlaurement of stasurements w
mix overlays crgin HMA.
results for Scracking, anickness on pt performanc
94%
%
78%
n no differenc
89%
%
72%
n no differenc
ing the maxihe notion seeaid with a virtiffness, theywere taken acould provid
SPS-5 expernd (d) maximerformance ce in the sho
%
ce
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
%
ce
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
imum deflecems to be thargin mix. Evy can providat same condde, at least qu
riment: (a) rmum deflecof both mix
ort and long t
0%11%
%
%
%
%
%
%
RAP
shlon
0% 0%%
%
%
%
%
%
RAP
shlo
ction values fat sections ovven though, mde an interestditions. The ualitatively,
(b)
(d)
roughness, (ction.
types was aterms, an av
17%% 11%
virgin
ortng
0%% 0%
virgin
hortong
7
from FWD verlaid with maximum ting point ofresults in structural
(b) rutting,
also investigaerage value
83%
%
78%
no difference
100%100%
no difference
f
(c)
ated. was
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15 16
Carvalho
considerethe SPS-5or virgin differenc
Tthe overlvirgin mithin. Howperforma
t
0
20
40
60
80
100
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
o, Shirazi, Ay
ed for the en5 experimenmixtures fo
ce.
The results inay was thin ixes tend to pwever, it is inance reduced
FIGUREthickness for
0%6
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
RAP
thth
yres, Selezn
ntire data colnt where the r thin and th
n FIGURE 3 or thick for perform bettnteresting to
d and more s
(a)
E 3. Cross-er SPS-5 site
28%
6% 6%
P virgin
hinhick
1
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
eva
llection perioaverage perf
hick overlays
suggest thatboth mixes fter in a sligh
o note that wsites exhibite
)
evaluation oes: (a) rough
72%
%
89%
n no differenc
0%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
00%
RA
od. FIGUREformance was, as well as
t there was nfor the majo
htly higher nuwhen thick oved “no statist
(c)
of performahness, (b) ru
%
ce
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
11%0%
AP virg
thinthick
E 3 describesas better in ssites where
no statisticalrity of sites.umber of sitverlays weretical differen
ance betweenutting, and (
6% 6%
%
%
%
%
%
%
RAP
thithi
89%
6%
94
gin no differen
s the percentsections overthere was no
l difference i According t
tes when the e applied, thence” in perfo
(b)
n mix type a(c) fatigue c
11%% 6%
virgin
inick
4%
nce
8
tage of sites rlaid with RAo statistical
in performanto the resultsoverlay was
e difference ormance.
and overlaycracking.
83%89%
no difference
in AP
nce if s, s in
y
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11
12
13 14
15 16 17
Carvalho
Tfair condthan 0.25more thastill prevwas poorperformaThis wasconsidereconditionfavor of v
0
20
40
60
80
100
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
o, Shirazi, Ay
The sites werdition was de5 inches. Pooan 0.25 incheailed in the ar, the numbeance was sms observed foed, the numbn was poor. Wvirgin HMA
FIGUR
0%1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
RAP
slo
yres, Selezn
re also groupefined as a paor condition es. FIGURE analysis resur of sites whaller and a sor roughnessber of sites wWhen the co
A overlays w
(a)
RE 4. Effects
0%1% 11
P virgin
shortong
eva
ped by surfacavement witwas defined4 to FIGUR
ults, it is imphere sectionslight advant
s and rutting with equivaleondition wasas noted.
s of (a) fair aperforman
100%
%
78%
n no differenc
ce condition th less than 1d as fatigue cRE 6 present portant to pos with RAP atage could beperformanc
ent performa fair, the dif
and (b) poonce of SPS-5
%
ce
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
prior to the 10% of fatigcracking morthe results. A
oint out that wand virgin ove seen in fav
ce. When fatiance was higfferences inc
r surface co5 sites.
0% 0%%
%
%
%
%
%
RAP
sholon
rehabilitatiogue cracking re than 10%Although, thwhen the pavverlay had e
vor of virgin igue crackingher when sureased and a
(b)
onditions on
11%%
22%
virgin
ortng
9
on. In this stuand rutting
% and rutting he no-differevement surfquivalent HMA overl
ng was urface initialan advantage
n roughness
89%
%
78%
no difference
udy, less
ence face
ays.
l e in
s
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
1 2
3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15
Carvalho
Omix overto two cland no-frthe perceperforma
0
20
40
60
80
100SP
S-5
site
s (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
o, Shirazi, Ay
FIGUR
FIGURE 6
Other importarlays are envimate variabreeze, and wentage of siteance and the
0%
22
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
RAP
shlo
0%1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
RAP
slo
yres, Selezn
(a) RE 5. Effec
(a)
6. Effects of
ant factors tovironmental cbles (tempera
wet and dry ges which RAamount whe
11%2%
0%
P virgin
hortong
11%1%
33
P virgin
shortong
eva
cts of (a) fairperforman
(a) fair andperforman
o consider inconditions. Iature and pre
groups accordAP and virginere one was
89%
%
78%
no difference
89%
%
56%
n no differenc
r and (b) ponce of SPS-5
d (b) poor sunce of SPS-5
n the evaluatIn this studyecipitation). ding to theirn overlays habetter than t
e
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
%
ce
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
oor surface 5 sites.
urface cond5 sites.
tion of perfo, the SPS-5 sThe sites w
r location. FIad statisticalthe other.
0% 0%%
%
%
%
%
%
RAP
shorlong
0% 0%%
%
%
%
%
%
RAP
shlon
(b)
conditions o
(b)
ditions on fa
ormance of Rsites were grere divided bIGURE 7 to lly no differe
22%
%
22%
virgin
rtg
11%%
11%
virgin
ortng
10
on rutting
)
tigue crack
RAP and virgrouped accorbetween freeFIGURE 9
ence in
78% 78%
no difference
89%
%
89%
no difference
0
king
gin rding eze show
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9
10
11 12
13 14 15
16
Carvalho
Thigher wroughnesperformaperformalikely to
Wequivalensuggest twhen rou
0
20
40
60
80
100
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
o, Shirazi, Ay
The results inhen the loca
ss and ruttingance indicatoance, FIGURperform bett
When sites wnt performanthe number oughness and
FIGURE 7.
0%1
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
RAP
shlo
yres, Selezn
ndicate that tation was in tg, making frors were conRE 9 suggestter.
were groupednce were fouof sites wherfatigue crac
(a)
. Effects of (
0%0% 10
P virgin
hortong
eva
the number othe freeze zo
reeze or no-fnsidered. In tts virgin mix
d by locationund for wet tre virgin ovecking was co
(a) freeze anperforman
100%
%
80%
n no differenc
of sites with one. The varfreeze not a cthe case of faxes placed as
n with low anthan for dry erlays were bonsidered.
nd (b) no-frnce of SPS-5
%
ce
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
equivalent priation was ncritical desigatigue crackis overlay in n
nd high precizones. FIGU
better was sli
reeze surfac5 sites.
0% 0%%
%
%
%
%
%
RAP
sholon
performancenot significangn factor if thing and longno-freeze zo
ipitation, moURE 10 throuightly higher
(b)
ce condition
13%
%
25%
virgin
ortng
11
e was slightlynt in terms ohese g term ones were mo
ore sites withugh FIGUREr in the dry z
s on roughn
88%
%
75%
no difference
y of
ore
h E 12 zone
ness
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
1 2
3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10
Carvalho
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%SP
S-5
site
s (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
o, Shirazi, Ay
FIGURE
FIGURE
0%10
%
%
%
%
%
%
RAP
shlo
0% 00%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
RAP
slo
yres, Selezn
(a)
8. Effects o
(a)
9. Effects ocra
20%% 10%
virgin
hortong
10%0%
20
P virgin
shortong
eva
of (a) freeze performan
of (a) freezecking perfo
80%
%
80%
no differenc
90%
%
80%
n no differenc
and (b) no-nce of SPS-5
and (b) no-ormance of S
%
e
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
%
ce
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
-freeze surfa5 sites.
-freeze surfaSPS-5 sites.
0%
13%
%
%
%
%
%
%
RAP
shlon
0%
13%
%
%
%
%
%
%
RAP
sholon
(b)
ace conditio
(b)
ace conditio
13%% 13%
virgin
hortng
13%%
25%
virgin
ortng
12
ons on ruttin
)
ons on fatigu
88%
%
75%
no difference
88%
%
63%
no difference
2
ng
ue
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
1 2
3 4 5
6 7
8 9
10
Carvalho
0
20
40
60
80
100SP
S-5
site
s (%
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
o, Shirazi, Ay
FIGUR
FIGUR
0% 00%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
RAP
shlo
0% 00%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
RAP
shlo
yres, Selezn
(a)
RE 10. Effect
(a)
RE 11. Effe
0%0% 0%
P virgin
hortong
13%
0%
13
P virgin
hortong
eva
ts of (a) wetperforman
ects of (a) wperforman
100%
%
100%
n no differenc
88%
%
88%
n no differenc
t and (b) drynce of SPS-5
et and (b) dnce of SPS-5
%
ce
0
20
40
60
80
100
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
%
ce
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
y surface co5 sites.
dry surface c5 sites.
0%10
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
RAP
shlon
0%
20%
%
%
%
%
%
%
RAP
sholong
(b)
onditions on
(b)
conditions o
10%0%
30%
P virgin
hortng
20%%10%
virgin
ortg
13
n roughness
on rutting
90%
%
60%
no difference
80%
%
70%
no difference
3
e
e
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
1 2
3 4
5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Carvalho
CONCLThis studpavemenrecent yenotion ofto contribplaced atexperimemeasuresranging fRAP mixindicatorsuggestinoverlays.
Oboth mixsections wsection, t
Sperformamixes whfound for
Tprecipitatperformasites whe
0
20
40
60
80
100SP
S-5
site
s (%
)
o, Shirazi, Ay
FIGURE 1
LUSIONS dy investigatnt overlays. Tears pushed bf inferior quabute to knowt same condient was useds and deflectfrom 8 to 17 xes have perrs used. Deflng that RAP .
Overlay thickxes. The numwere rehabilthe likelihoo
urface initiaance. Althouhen the data r fair than fo
The investigation suggest
ance are slighere virgin HM
0% 00%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
RAP
shlo
yres, Selezn
(a)
12. Effects o
ted the impacThere has beby the FHWality of RAP
wledge base bitions and sud in the studytion was the years after r
formance staections wereoverlays can
kness influenmber of sites litated with t
od of an equi
al condition pugh the major
was groupedor poor cond
ation of the ints that these ahtly higher iMA overlays
13%
0%
25
P virgin
hortong
eva
of (a) wet anperforman
ct of reclaimeen a signific
WA and state P mixtures wby statistical
ubjected to say. Roughnesstructural parehabilitationatistically eqe also statistin provide str
nced the outcwhere no stathick overlayivalent perfo
prior to reharity of sites d in fair andition.
nfluence of are not criticin no-freeze s perform be
88%
%
75%
n no differenc
nd (b) dry sunce of SPS-5
med asphalt pcant increaseDOTs. One
when comparlly evaluatiname traffic as, rutting andarameter. Sitn. The result
quivalent to vically equivaructural imp
come of comatistical diffeys. If a thick
ormance betw
abilitation hastill exhibite
d poor surfac
location on pcal factors. Sand dry con
etter than RA
%
ce
0
20
40
60
80
100
SPS-
5 si
tes (
%)
urface cond5 sites.
pavement one in incorporof the main
red to virgin ng performanand environmd fatigue crates were mots suggest thvirgin HMAalent in all 1
provement eq
mparison betwference was fk overlay is dween RAP an
ad higher imped equivalence conditions
performanceSites with standitions. In thAP is higher.
0%10
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
RAP
shlo
(b)
ditions on fa
n performancrating RAP iobstacles haHMA. This
nce of RAP ament. The LTacking were nitored over
hat in great mA mixes for a
8 monitoredquivalent to v
ween the perfound increadesigned for nd virgin mi
pact on longnt performans, higher num
e in terms ofatistical diffehese cases, th.
10%0%20%
P virgin
hortong
14
)
tigue cracki
ce of flexiblen HMA mixas been the study attem
and virgin mTPP SPS-5 the perform
r a period of majority of call performand sites, virgin HMA
rformances oased when th
a pavementixes is highe
g term ce between b
mber of sites
f temperatureerence in he number o
90%
%
70%
no difference
4
ing
e xes in
mpted mixes
mance f time ases nce
A
of he t er.
both s was
e and
of
e
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.
Carvalho, Shirazi, Ayres, Selezneva 15
Considering roughness, rutting and fatigue cracking performances of overlay mixes in 1 flexible pavements, RAP and virgin HMA overlays have statistically equivalent performances in 2 the great majority of SPS-5 sites evaluated in this study. The surface condition prior to 3 rehabilitation, overlay thickness and the site environmental condition have minor effects, but did 4 not change the general outcome of this analysis. 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6 The authors would like to acknowledge the FHWA LTPP program for sponsoring this study 7 conducted under LTPP Data Analysis project. 8
REFERENCES 9 1. Newcomb, D. E., E. R. Brown, and J. A. Epps. Designing HMA Mixtures with High RAP 10
Content – a Practical Guide. Quality Improvement Series 124, National Asphalt 11 Pavement Association, Lanham, MD, 2007 12
2. Sullivan, J. Pavement Recycling Executive Summary and Report, FHWA Report SA-95-13 060, Washington, DC, 1996. 14
3. Federal Highway Administration, “FHWA Recycling Policy,” website: 15 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycling/index.cfm, visited June 2009. 16
4. McDaniel, R. and R. M. Anderson. Recommended Use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in 17 the Superpave Mix Design Method: Technicians Manual. NCHRP Report 452. 18 Transportation Research Record, Washington, DC, 2001. 19
5. Hossain, M., D. G. Metcalf, and L. A. Scofield. Performance of Recycled Asphalt 20 Concrete Overlays in South Western Arizona. Transportation Research Record, Journal 21 of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1427, Transportation Research Board of the 22 National Academies, Washington, DC, 1993, pp. 30-37. 23
6. Kandahl, P. S., S. S. Rao, D. E. Watson, and B. Young. Performance of Recycled Hot-24 Mix Asphalt Mixtures in Georgia. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the 25 Transportation Research Board, No. 1507, Transportation Research Board of the 26 National Academies, Washington, DC, 1995, pp. 67-77. 27
7. Rogge, D. F., W. P. Hislop, and R. L. Dominic. “Hot In-Place Recycling of Asphalt 28 Pavements: the Oregon Experience.” Transportation Research Record, Journal of the 29 Transportation Research Board, No. 1545, Transportation Research Board of the 30 National Academies, Washington, DC, 1996, pp. 67-77. 31
8. Von Quintus, H. L., A. L. Simpson, and A. A. Eltahan. Rehabilitation of Asphalt 32 Concrete Pavements: Initial Evaluation of the SPS-5 Experiment, FHWA Report RD-01-33 168, Washington, DC, 2001. 34
9. Hall, K. T., C. E. Correa, A. L. Simpson. LTPP Data Analysis: Effectiveness of 35 Maintenance and Rehabilitation Options, NCHRP Web Document 47 (Project 20-36 50[3/4]): Contractor’s Final Report, June 2002. 37
38
TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal.