XXTD

This article was downloaded by: [Swinburne University of Technology]
On: 30 August 2014, At: 12:52

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Road Materials and Pavement Design

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20
Evaluating the effect of rejuvenators

on the degree of blending and
performance of high RAP, RAS, and RAP/
RAS mixtures
a a a
Walaa S. Mogawer , Abbas Booshehrian , Siavash Vahidi &
a
Alexander J. Austerman
a
University of Massachusetts Highway Sustainability Research
Center , 151 Martine Street, Fall River , MA , 02723 , USA
Published online: 23 Sep 2013.
To cite this article: Walaa S. Mogawer , Abbas Booshehrian , Siavash Vahidi & Alexander J.
Austerman (2013) Evaluating the effect of rejuvenators on the degree of blending and performance
of high RAP, RAS, and RAP/RAS mixtures, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 14:sup2, 193-213,
DOI: 10.1080/14680629.2013.812836
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2013.812836
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 12:52 30 August 2014
Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2013
Vol. 14, No. S2, 193213, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2013.812836
Evaluating the eect of rejuvenators on the degree of blending and

performance of high RAP, RAS, and RAP/RAS mixtures
Walaa S. Mogawer*, Abbas Booshehrian, Siavash Vahidi and Alexander J. Austerman
University of Massachusetts Highway Sustainability Research Center, 151 Martine Street, Fall River,
MA 02723, USA
The objective of this study was to examine if asphalt rejuvenators can oset the stiness
attributed by the hardened binder from reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) and reclaimed
asphalt shingles (RAS) in mixtures that incorporate high RAP and RAS content without adverse
impact on the performance of the mixtures. Also, to assess, if rejuvenators can help the hard-
ened binder from the RAP/RAS comingle with the virgin binder. Overall, the results showed
that asphalt rejuvenators can mitigate the stiness of the resultant binder. The cracking charac-
teristics of the mixture improved by the addition of the rejuvenators, however, the rutting and
moisture susceptibility were adversely impacted at the dosage and the testing conditions used.
Also, the tests results at 4 C generally showed that there was blending of the rejuvenated and
virgin binder, however, no conclusion could be made at the higher temperatures.
Keywords: rejuvenators; blending; softening; RAP; RAS
1. Introduction
Since the 1970s, reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) has been used in asphalt mixtures at percent-
ages ranging from 10% to 20% in the top lift (Mogawer et al., 2012; Mallick, Tao, OSullivan,
& Frank, 2010; Swiertz, Mahmoud, & Bahia, 2011). The resulting pavements have generally
performed as well as pavements made solely with virgin materials. Because of the increasing
price of asphalt binder, there has been a continuous increase in the price of hot mix asphalt
(HMA). Correspondingly, the HMA industry has been searching for methods to decrease the
costs of materials without compromising performance. One method is to use higher percentages
of RAP. A survey conducted as part of a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored
State of the Practice report for RAP in HMA showed that many state transportation agencies
specications allow up to 30% RAP in the surface layers, nevertheless, the majority of these
states are only using RAP percentages of 1020% (Copeland, 2011).
Another valuable source of recycled materials is reclaimed asphalt shingles (RAS). Approxi-
mately, 11 million tons of asphalt shingle waste is generated in the USA each year (Hansen, 2009).
This waste comprising approximately 1 million tons of scraps from asphalt shingle manufacturers,
and 10 million tons of construction scraps from installations and tear-os from re-roong (U.S.
EPA Oce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 2012). It has been estimated that recycling
one ton of shingles is equivalent to avoiding the use of one barrel of asphalt binder (Owens
Corning Forms, 2012). Heavily aged, hard binder in RAS does not allow the engineers to manu-
facture high percentage RAS mixtures without justication. Most states that specify RAS in new
pavements allow up to 5% RAS by weight because the previous studies indicated that mixes that
*Corresponding author. Email: wmogawer@umassd.edu
2013 Taylor & Francis

194 W.S. Mogawer et al.
contained up to 5% RAS by weight performed equally well as traditional HMA pavements in the
eld (Swiertz et al., 2011).
In addition to the possible variability and inconsistency of RAP and RAS resources (Mallick
et al., 2010), one reason for the reluctance of state transportation agencies to use more RAP and
RAS is the concern that the resultant mixtures will be too sti, and consequently less workable,
dicult to compact, and may lead to mixtures more prone to eld failures (cracking, rutting,
etc.). Another reason is that it is unknown if adequate blending occurs between the reclaimed and
new materials (Al-Qadi, Elsei, & Carpenter, 2007; Huang, Vukosavljevic, Shu, & Egan, 2005).
However, even with the reluctance to use more RAP and RAS and questions concerning mixture
stiness and blending, the recent increases in the cost of asphalt binder as well as diminishing
supplies of quality aggregates has made using higher contents of these materials in HMA mixtures
a priority for the industry as a method to optimise the use of available resources (Copeland, 2011;
Mogawer et al., 2012). The industry has been addressing the stiness and blending concerns by
using softer binders when using higher RAP/RAS contents. However, several studies have shown
that asphalt rejuvenator agents can allow more reclaimed materials to be incorporated in asphalt
mixtures than using softer binders (Al-Qadi et al., 2007; Shen, Amirkhanian, & Miller, 2007;
OSullivan, 2011).
Signicant weathering and oxidation of reclaimed materials reduce the ratio of maltenes to
asphaltenes resulting in a dry and brittle pavement (Boyer, 2000; Karlsson, 2002). Asphalt reju-
venating agents are manufactured to restore the rheological properties of the RAP and RAS binder
by diusing into it and restore its colloidal structure and reconstitute its chemical components
(Brownidge, 2010; Shen, Amirkhanian, & Lee, 2005). Rejuvenators have been extensively used
in pavement preservation to revive the hard and oxidised top layer by penetrating into the pave-
ment and uxing with the aged binder to balance the maltenes to asphaltenes ratio (Brownidge,
2010). However, for recycling purposes, rejuvenators are not encouraged by some of the state
agencies in the USA because of the potential rutting-related concerns while dealing with recycled
mixtures containing a rejuvenator (Shen, Amirkhanian, & Tang, 2007).
In an attempt to address the mentioned concern of the industry, this study focused on eval-
uating the eects of multiple rejuvenators with dierent chemical bases and compositions on
the rheological properties of a neat binder and how these properties might impact the perfor-
mance of high RAP/RAS mixtures. The use of rejuvenators can eliminate the need for a softer
binder which is typically used with the high RAP/RAS contents, and allows the engineers to
aim for higher RAP/RAS percentages. The main focus of the study presented herein was to
evaluate the eects of rejuvenators on the performance of binders and high RAP/RAS content
mixtures.
Besides, to address one important concern in dealing with high RAP/RAS content, the
eect of each rejuvenator on the degree of blending between the RAP, RAS, and virgin
binders was evaluated by comparing the dynamic modulus of mixtures to a dynamic modulus
predicted using the complex modulus of the recovered binders and the Hirsch model (Bonaquist,
2005).
2. Objectives
The main objective of this research was to study if asphalt rejuvenators can be used with high RAP
and RAS mixtures to oset the stiness attributed by the aged binder from the RAP and RAS
without negatively impacting the performance of the mixtures, especially, in terms of rutting.
Also, to assess, if rejuvenators can help the hardened binder from the recycled materials comingle
with the virgin binder.
Road Materials and Pavement Design 195
3. Experimental plan
In order to achieve the objectives of the study, an experimental plan was developed as shown in
Figure 1. Three dierent rejuvenators were added to a virgin binder and performance grading and
viscosity tests were conducted. Furthermore, the eect of these rejuvenators on the performance
of the virgin binder was evaluated in terms of fatigue using the linear amplitude sweep (LAS) test
and rutting in terms of the multiple stress creep recovery (MSCR).
A typical Superpave 9.5 mm was designed with virgin materials. This mixture was the desig-
nated control mixture. Three additional mixtures were designed: the control mixture plus 40%
RAP, the control mixture plus 5% RAS, and the control mixture with 35% RAP plus 5% RAS.
Each rejuvenator was added to the virgin asphalt binder, a PG 58-28 (PG, Performance Grade), at a
dosage recommended by the manufacturers of the rejuvenators. The rejuvenator modied asphalt
binders were used to fabricate the control mixture with 40% RAP, 5% RAS, and 35% RAP plus
Reclaimed Materials: Neat Binder Rejuvenating Agents:

1. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) PG 58-28 1. BituTech RAP
2. Reclaimed Asphalt Shingles (RAS) 2. SonneWarmix RJT
3. SonneWarmix RJ
9.5 mm
SuperPave Binder + Rejuvenators
Mixture
Control RAP 40% RAP 0% RAP 35% Binder

RAS 0% RAS 5% RAS 5% Performance
Performance
Mixture Degree of Blending Grade
Performance Between Virgin
and RAP/RAS Kinematic
Viscosity
Reflective Cracking
Overlay Tester Extract/Recovered Fatigue
Binder from Mixture Linear Amplitude
Moisture Susceptibility Sweep (LAS)
& Rutting Construct Binder
Hamburg Wheel Master Curve Rutting
Tracking Device Multiple Stress
Creep Recovery
Low Temperature Compare R, Td, c (MSCR)
Cracking
Thermal Stress Predict |E*| Using
Restrained Specimen Hirsch Model
Test (TSRST)
Mixture Stiffness Compare Measured Determine

Dynamic Modulus |E*| |E*| and Predicted Quality of
|E*| Blending
Figure 1. Experimental plan.

5% RAS. In total, 13 mixtures were investigated in this study including the control mixture. In
order to evaluate the restoration of the rheological properties of RAP and RAS binders, the perfor-
mance characteristics of the mixtures were evaluated. The stiness of the mixtures was obtained
by measuring the dynamic modulus; fatigue characteristics using the Texas Overlay Tester (OT);
low temperature cracking using the thermal stress restrained specimen test (TSRST), and rutting
and moisture damage using the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device (HWTD).
To have a more comprehensive understanding of the rejuvenators impact, the mixtures with
35% RAP and 5% RAS, as the stiest mixtures, were selected and rheological properties of the
extracted and recovered binders were measured by constructing a master curve for each binder
using the ChristensenAnderson model (CAM) (Christensen & Anderson, 1992). MSCR and LAS
were also conducted to study the rutting and fatigue properties of the extracted/recovered binders.
Furthermore, the eect of each rejuvenator on the degree of blending between the RAP, RAS,
and virgin binders in the mixtures with 35% RAP plus 5% RAS was evaluated. The blending was
evaluated by comparing the dynamic modulus of each mixture with the predicted dynamic modu-
lus using the complex modulus of the recovered binders and the Hirsch model (Bonaquist, 2005).
4. Materials
4.1. Asphalt binder
A PG 58-28 was selected to be used in this study since it is one of the readily available binders.
Based on the viscosity of the binder, the mixture mixing temperature was 150 C (302 F) and the
compaction temperature was 137 C (279 F).
4.2. Rejuvenators
Three locally used rejuvenators with dierent chemical compositions were selected in this study.
BituTech RAP is manufactured by Engineered Additives.

SonneWarmix RJT is produced by Sonneborn Inc.
SonneWarmix RJ is another product manufactured by Sonneborn Inc. It is a combination
of wax and rejuvenator which allows for lower mixing and compacting temperature, and at
the same time serves as a rejuvenator. Accordingly, for mixtures containing SonneWarmix
RJ, the mixture mixing temperature was reduced to 130 C (265 F) and the compaction
temperature was 119 C (245 F).
The dosages used for each rejuvenator was the one recommended by the manufacturer of each
rejuvenator. The manufacturers recommendation for 40% RAP mixtures was 0.5% by weight of
total RAP. Since the main purpose of rejuvenators is to revive the oxidised binder in recycled mate-
rials, the percentage of rejuvenators by weight of RAP/RAS binder (oxidised binder introduced to
the mixture) was selected as the base ratio which equals to 9.28% [0.5/5.39 100 = 9.28%] for
the RAP mixtures. As it is shown in Table 1, this ratio was held constant for mixtures containing
5% RAS, and 35% RAP plus 5% RAS. Thus, proportionally to the weight of the aged binder in
each mixture, the dosage of rejuvenator in RAP/RAS and total mixture could be calculated.
4.3. Aggregates, RAP, RAS, and mix gradation

The aggregates utilised were from a crushed stone source in Wrentham, Massachusetts. Three
aggregate stockpiles were used: 9.5 mm crushed stone, stone sand, and natural sand. The RAP
was obtained from the same contractor.
Table 1. Dosage of rejuvenators in dierent mixtures.
Total Replaced Rej by replaced Rej by recycled Rej by total

Mixture binder (%) binder (%) binder (%) material (%) mix (%)
40% RAPa 6 2.16 9.28 0.50 0.200

5% RASb 6 0.89 9.28 1.64 0.082
5% RAS+35% RAP 6 2.77 9.28 0.64 0.257
a RAP binder content: 5.39%.
b RAS binder content: 17.7%.
Table 2. Average virgin aggregate/RAP/RAS stockpile properties and mixtures.

Sieve size Stone Natural Mixtures 9.5 mm Superpave

(mm) 9.5 mm sand sand RAS RAP gradation specication
19 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

12.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 min.
9.5 100.0 10.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.1 90100
4.75 74.1 99.8 99.7 100.0 74.1 66.8 90 max.
2.36 57.8 83.7 98.3 99.1 57.8 47.8 3267
1.18 45.5 54.3 93.3 84.6 45.5 33.5
0.6 34.4 33.8 73.3 65.9 34.4 23.0
0.3 22.4 19.0 29.7 58.7 22.4 13.3
0.15 13.5 9.4 4.8 43.8 13.5 7.1
0.075 9.1 4.3 0.9 26.4 9.1 4.4
Bulk specic gravity (Gsb ) 2.638 2.644 2.624 2.629 2.638
Absorption (%) 0.76 0.53 0.45 0.60 0.76
Note: , Not applicable.
The RAS was provided by Recycle America Enterprise. The RAS from manufacturing defects
was utilised in this study. Using tear-o shingles presents several potential challenges that do
not exist with the use of manufacturing waste shingles. Tear-o shingles have aged because of
weathering exposure, possibly causing more brittleness that could aect the durability of the
pavement. In addition, asbestos was used in domestic shingles in small amounts prior to the
mid-1980s (Maupin, 2010).
Each aggregate stockpile and the RAP and RAS was tested to determine their properties which
are shown in Table 2. To be able to generate the same aggregate skeleton for dierent mixes,
selective sieving was utilised to separate the 9.5 mm crushed stone and stone sand into dierent
sieve sizes. As a result, similar gradation for all mixtures was obtained as indicated in Table 2.
5. Evaluation of binder properties

In order to study the rejuvenators eect on the virgin PG 58-28 binder, rejuvenators were added
directly into the binder. To calculate the additives dosage, as mentioned in Section 4.2, the mixture
incorporating 40% RAP was selected as the reference mixture. The authors assumed that the binder
in the mixtures with additives is consisted of two components: (1) the oxidised sti binder from
the RAP and (2) the combination of the virgin binder and added rejuvenator. Then, the two binders
would commingle and produce the resultant balanced binder in the mixture. Accordingly, on the
one hand, by having an understanding about the properties of the aged binder, and on the other
hand, by evaluating the properties of the combination of virgin binder and rejuvenator, a rough
prediction of the performance of the resultant binder in the mixture would be achievable.
Based on this assumption, the rejuvenators dosage added to the virgin binder was calculated
by assuming an arbitrary weight of mixture with 40% RAP. For this studys RAP, the per cent of
rejuvenator by weight of the virgin binder equals to 5.218% [9.276% 2.16%/(6 2.16)% =
5.218%]. The virgin binder was heated to mixing temperature 150 C (302 F), and then rejuvenator
was added to the binder and mixed for 5 min. Next, the following tests were conducted on the
binders.
5.1. Performance grading

The binders were tested to determine their continuous and performance grade in accordance
with AASHTO R29 Grading or Verifying the Performance Grade of an Asphalt Binder and
AASHTO M320 Standard Specication for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder (AASHTO,
2010). Kinematic viscosity was also conducted in accordance with AASHTO T316 Standard
Method of Test for Viscosity Determination of Asphalt Binder Using Rotational Viscometer, to
investigate the inuence of rejuvenators on the viscosity of virgin binder. The results of the PG
grading and kinematic viscosity test are shown in Table 3.
Based on the data presented in Table 3, the rejuvenators did drop the high end continuous
PG, and intermediate temperature of the control binder by approximately 6 C and the low-end
continuous PG increased by 6 C. Furthermore, the viscosity of the dierent rejuvenators plus
the neat binder dropped similarly relative to the neat binder. These data indicate the considerable
softening eect of the rejuvenators to the virgin binder, which is a required phenomenon when
high RAP/RAS mixtures are used in order to substitute the need to use softer binders.
5.2. Performance testing

5.2.1. Resistance to rutting-MSCR
The MSCR test is designed to more accurately characterise the resistance to permanent defor-
mation (rutting) of asphalt binders (FHWA, 2011). Testing was conducted in accordance with
AASHTO TP70-10 MSCR test of asphalt binder using a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR)
(AASHTO, 2010).
Table 3. Binder performance grading and kinematic viscosity.
Continuous grade
Performance
grading Binder Low Mid High PG-grade High-low
PG 58-28 28.5 16.6 59.7 58-28 88.11

PG 58-28 + BituTech 34.9 9.2 52.5 52-34 87.33
PG 58-28 + Sonne RJT 34.4 10.1 53.6 52-34 87.98
PG 58-28 + Sonne RJ 33.4 11.6 54.2 52-28 87.60
Viscosity Viscosity Mixing Compaction
at 135 at 150 temperature temperature
Kinematic
viscosity Binder cP cP C C
PG 58-28 324.7 168.3 150.0 137.0

PG 58-28 + BituTech 221.5 118.2 142.5 127.5
PG 58-28 + Sonne RJT 224.5 120.8 143.0 127.0
PG 58-28 + Sonne RJ 216.9 116.4 142.0 126.0
The test was run on the binders aged by rolling thin lm oven test (RTFOT) to simulate the
rutting happens at the beginning of the pavement service life. DSR 25-mm parallel plate geometry
with 1-mm gap was utilised to test the samples at the continuous high grade of each binder. Ten
cycles of creep (1 s) and recovery (9 s) at two dierent stress levels (0.1 and 3.2 kPa) were applied
to the sandwiched disk. Equations (1a) and (1b) were used to calculate per cent recovery and
non-recoverable creep compliance for each cycle at dierent stress levels.
[(c 0 ) 10 ]
r = 100, (1a)
c 0
10
Jnr = , (1b)
c
where r is the per cent recovery for each cycle, c is the strain value at the end of the creep
portion of each cycle, 0 is the strain value at the beginning of the creep portion of each cycle,
10 is the strain value at the end of the recovery portion of each cycle, Jnr is the non-recoverable
creep compliance for each cycle, and c is the stress value.
r and Jnr were used to calculate average per cent recovery (R0.1 and R3.2 ) and average non-
recoverable creep compliance (Jnr0.1 or Jnr3.2 ) at stress levels of 0.1 and 3.2 kPa. The results are
shown in Table 4.
The relationship of the MSCR test specication parameter Jnr to actual rutting has been
extensively evaluated. The Jnr is the non-recoverable creep compliance (Jnr ) it is a measure of
the amount of residual strain left in the specimen after repeated creep and recovery, relative to the
amount of stress applied. The lower the Jnr the better resistant to rutting the binder will be. The
MSCR test was tested at the continuous PG high temperature. At that temperature the G / sin
value is constant and equal to 2.2 kPa.
Based on the results in Table 4, the Jnr at the two stress levels was higher for the virgin binder
with each rejuvenator than the virgin binder used. This was an indication that, as expected, the
rejuvenators softened the virgin binder. The higher the per cent recovery, , the more resistant to
rutting the binder will be. The results for 3.2 conrms the softening eect of the rejuvenators,
whereas, it was decreased for rejuvenator-modied binders. The results for 0.1 illustrated similar
trend. Softening a binder is a function of rejuvenators and dierent rejuvenators show various
softening impacts. However, to determine whether this increase in the Jnr and decrease in might
cause any rutting problem, a rutting performance test on the mixtures containing rejuvenators was
performed which is explained later.
5.2.2. Resistance to fatigue-LAS

The LAS test indicates the asphalt binders resistance to fatigue damage by cyclic loading employ-
ing a linearly ramping amplitude sweep test. It is conducted using the DSR at the continuous
intermediate temperature of the performance grade of the asphalt binder (MARC, 2012).
Table 4. MSCR test results.
Continuous PG temperature 0.1 3.2 diff Jnr0.1 Jnr3.2

Binder C (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
PG 58-28 59.7 4.19 1.76 57.89 2.41 2.12

PG 58-28 + BituTech 52.5 2.74 0.93 65.84 3.59 3.91
PG 58-28 + Sonne RJT 53.6 4.56 1.20 73.52 3.29 3.69
PG 58-28 + Sonne RJ 55.9 4.44 1.40 68.58 3.11 3.52
The binders were initially short-term aged by RTFOT, and then aged using pressure-aged vessel
(PAV) to simulate the ageing for in-service asphalt pavements. The sample is tested using the DSR
8-mm parallel plate geometry with a 2-mm gap. First, a frequency sweep test is conducted on the
sample to measure the undamaged rheological properties of binder. Next, at a constant frequency
of 10 Hz, a series of systematically increasing oscillatory load cycles is applied on the sample to
accelerate the damage (Hintz, Velasquez, Johnson, & Bahia, 2011). Using regression model, the
parameters A and B for the binder fatigue performance model can be calculated. Equation (2) can
be used to obtain the number of cycles to failure (Nf ) at maximum strain amplitude.
Nf = A(max )B , (2)
where A, B is the regression parameters and max is the maximum expected binder strain for a
given pavement structure.
The results for LAS are shown in Table 5.
The number of cycles improved at both strain levels for all the rejuvenators. This was expected
as the rejuvenators did soften the virgin binder as illustrated by the MSCR test. It should be noted
that the improvement with respect to neat binder varied depending on the type of rejuvenators.
5.3. Performance grading of the extracted binders

In order to investigate the direct eect of rejuvenators on the aged binders, the mixtures containing
35% RAP plus 5% RAS were extracted. These mixtures were selected because they contain the
highest amount of oxidised binders. For comparison purposes, the control mixture binder was
extracted as well. Besides, the RAP and RAS binders were extracted to specify the stiness of
binders introduced into the mixtures while using these two recycled materials.
To do so, appropriate mass of mixtures were used to extract and then recover the binders
(combination of new and aged binder) according to AASHTO T164 Standard Method of Test
for Quantitative Extraction of Asphalt Binder from Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) (AASHTO, 2010),
and AASHTO T170 Standard Method of Test for Recovery of Asphalt Binder from Solution by
Abson Method (AASHTO, 2010).
Next, the performance grading was conducted on all the above-mentioned extracted and recov-
ered binders in accordance with AASHTO R29 Grading or Verifying the Performance Grade
of an Asphalt Binder and AASHTO M320 Standard Specication for Performance-Graded
Asphalt Binder (AASHTO, 2010). The recovered binders were assumed to be already short-
term aged due to the ageing encountered by the binder during the mixture mixing and ageing
process. Table 6 outlines the test results for the extracted and recovered binders.
Table 6 illustrated that the RAP and RAS stiened the virgin binder as evident by the increase
in the high temperature continuous PG from 60.6 C to 74.2 C and changing the low temperature
continuous PG from 31.1 C to 25.2 C. The rejuvenators helped to mitigate the stiening
eect due to the presence of RAP and RAS by changing the continuous PG of the RAP/RAS
Table 5. LAS test results.
Continuous intermediate
Binder Temp. ( C) A B Nf at 2.5% Nf at 5.0%
PG 58-28 16.7 9.58E+06 5.98 39,805 629

PG 58-28 + BituTech 9.2 1.55E+07 5.53 98,136 2130
PG 58-28 + Sonne RJT 10.1 5.10E+07 6.38 147,138 1764
PG 58-28 + Sonne RJ 11.6 1.16E+08 6.57 283,087 2981
Table 6. Performance grading of the extracted/recovered binders, and RAP/RAS properties, and
ChristensenAnderson master curve parameters.
35% RAP + 5% RAS

100% RAP
Properties Unit Control No add. BituTech Sonne RJT Sonne RJ binder
High grade Delta 84.51 80.78 81.66 80.28 80.55 81.44

Temp C 60.91 74.21 68.35 68.87 69.06 77.38
Int. temp. Delta 41.69 36.88 38.53 34.18 35.35 41.16
Temp C 16.20 21.11 17.48 15.89 17.83 23.69
m-Value Temp C 31.13 25.21 27.53 26.50 26.20 23.49
Stiness Temp C 32.49 31.54 31.99 31.71 31.68 28.78
Continuous grade 60.9 74.2 68.4 68.9 69.1 77.4
PG grade 31.1 25.2 27.5 26.5 26.2 23.5

5828 7022 6422 6422 6422 7622
R 109 1.990 2.682 2.122 2.521 2.524 2.545
c at ( C) rad/s 1310.4 12.3 361.3 88.8 72.8 13.9
Td Temp C 9.46 2.38 8.99 3.72 1.71 2.90
Recovered RAS Temp G / sin Phase angle Temp Stiness m-Value
binder C kPa C MPa
118 8.329 54.91 12 123.0 0.244
124 5.765 57.04 6 74.4 0.260
130 3.616 59.63 0 42.7 0.282
mixture from a PG 74.2-25.2 to a PG 68.5-26.8 (based on averaging the continuous PG of the three
extracted binders with rejuvenators). These temperatures illustrated that the three rejuvenators at
the dosage selected reduced the stiness of the resultant binder in the RAP/RAS mixture.
A worthy observation is the dierence for low temperature grading based on the stiness
versus m-value of the binders containing RAP and RAS binders. The m-value is an indicator
of the relaxation capacity of the binder at low temperatures. The control binder indicated that
there was a slight dierence between the two temperatures (32.49 for stiness and 31.13 for
m-value). For binders containing RAP and RAS, the m-value showed lower relaxation capacity
while binders stiness gave fairly similar low temperature grade to the control mixture. The
reason might be related to the ability of the rejuvenators to merely soften the binders. It might be
concluded that another additive would be helpful to revive the relaxation capacity of the binder.
5.4. Binder master curve

The master curve is a relationship between the binder stiness (G ) and reduced frequency using
the CAM (3). To construct the master curves, G of the as-recovered binders was measured
at multiple positive temperatures (above 0 C) and frequencies using DSR device. Stiness of
the binders at the negative temperatures (below 0 C) was obtained by running bending beam
rheometer and the values were converted into G and frequency. The collected points were
combined by shifting them to a reference temperature (Anderson, Christensen, & Bahia, 1991;
Christensen & Anderson, 1992). As a result, these master curves make it possible to predict
viscoelastic properties over a wide frequency range and also to predict viscoelastic properties at
any temperature. For comparison purposes, all the binder master curves were shifted to a single
reference temperature. In this study, a reference temperature of 25 C was used.
log 2/R R/ log 2
c
G () = Gg 1 + , (3)
r
where G () is the complex shear modulus, Gg is the glass modulus assumed equal to 1 GPa, r
is the reduced frequency at the dening temperature, rad/s, c is the cross over frequency at the
dening temperature, rad/s, is the frequency, rad/s, and R is the rheological index.
The CAM is a very useful tool because the master curve parameters (c , R, and Td ) have
specic physical signicance. The cross-over frequency, c , is a measure of the overall hardness
of the binder. As the cross-over frequency increases, the hardness of the binder decreases which is
desirable for rejuvenated binders. The rheological index, R, is an indicator of the rheological type.
It is dened as the dierence between the log of the glassy modulus and the log of the dynamic
modulus at the cross-over frequency. As the value of R increases, the master curve becomes
atter indicating a more gradual transition from elastic behaviour to steady-state ow. Normally,
R is higher for oxidised asphalt. The dening temperature, Td , is related to the glass transition
temperature of the binder, and is an indicator of the temperature dependency of the material.
The temperature dependency increases as Td increases (Anderson et al., 1991; Christensen &
Anderson, 1992). Table 6 shows the rheological properties of extracted/recovered binders.
Generally, the rheological properties agreed with the data from the MSCR and LAS tests. The
recovered binder from the RAP/RAS mixtures had a higher c relative to the same mixtures with
incorporation of the rejuvenators. This indicated that the rejuvenators reduced the hardness of the
binders. The R-value increased as the oxidation level increased. R for Control mixture is about
0.68 109 smaller in comparison with mixture with RAP and RAS. The addition of rejuvenators
reduced the dierence depending on the type of the rejuvenator.
In order to make the physical parameters more meaningful, Figure 2 schematically compares the
master curves of the extracted binders. As depicted in this gure, adding the rejuvenators softens
the RAP/RAS binder and moved the curve closer to the control binder. It is worthy of mention
that these extracted/recovered binders master curves are the main requirement to evaluate the
degree of blending described in Section 8.
Control 58 -28 35%RAP+5%RAS

35%RAP+5%RAS+BituTech 35%RAP+5%RAS+Sonne RJT
35%RAP+5%RAS+Sonne RJ Extracted RAP Binder
1.0E+09
1.0E+08
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
10
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
6
Log Shift Factor
1.0E+04 4
2
1.0E+03 0
-2
1.0E+02
-4
-6
1.0E+01 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Temperature (C)
1.0E+00
1.0E-06 1.0E-04 1.0E-02 1.0E+00 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 1.0E+06 1.0E+08
Reduced Frequency at 25 C (rad/sec)
Figure 2. Comparison of extracted/recovered binder master curves.

Table 7. PAV-aged extracted/recovered MSCR test results.
PAV-aged extracted/recovered binder 0.1 (%) 3.2 (%) diff (%) Jnr0.1 (%) Jnr3.2 (%)
Control 18.26 13.06 28.47 0.473 0.508

35%RAP + 5%RAS 51.15 50.34 1.588 0.043 0.042
35%RAP + 5%RAS + BituTech 40.13 37.21 7.284 0.108 0.112
35%RAP + 5%RAS + Sonne RJT 48.05 45.34 5.659 0.080 0.083
35%RAP + 5%RAS + Sonne RJ 52.27 49.38 5.532 0.064 0.067
5.5. MSCR on PAV-aged extracted/recovered binders

In order to study the eects of the rejuvenator on the performance of extracted/recovered binders
in terms of rutting, MSCR was conducted on the PAV-aged binders at the same temperature
(58 C). Table 7 outlines the MSCR test results. Based on the non-recoverable creep compliance
(Jnr ) and in conformance with the previous binder data, the binder extracted from RAP/RAS
mixture exhibits the best resistance to rutting and the addition of rejuvenators slightly impacted
the binders in terms of rutting. Obviously, the control mixture showed the least rutting resistance.
6. Mix design procedure

A control mixture and control mixtures incorporating 40% RAP, 5% RAS, and 35% RAP plus 5%
RAS were designed using the PG58-28. Each mixture had the same aggregate gradation (Table 2)
and was developed to meet the requirements for a 9.5 mm Superpave mixture in accordance with
AASHTO M323 Superpave Volumetric Mix Design and AASHTO R35 Superpave Volumetric
Design for Hot Mix Asphalt (AASHTO, 2010). The volumetrics of the mixtures with recycled
materials and rejuvenators were veried, however, only the 40% RAP mixture data are presented
in the paper as the 35% RAP, the 5% RAS, and the 35% RAP and 5% RAS showed similar results.
The design equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) for this project was selected as 0.3 to <3
million which is consistent with surface course mixtures in New England. All specimens were
fabricated using the Superpave gyratory compactor. The design Superpave gyratory compactive
eort for this ESALs level was Ndesign = 75 gyrations.
RAP was air dried until a constant mass was achieved. To minimise the hardening of the aged
binder in RAP and heating the high RAP percentage up to the mixing temperature, two hours prior
to mixing, it was added on top of the heated aggregate. Generally, the RAS binder is too sti and
care must be taken to have minimal extra oxidation while dealing with this material. Therefore,
RAS was put 5 min prior to mixing on the heated aggregate, and since the RAS dosage is limited
to 5% by total mix, it can rapidly achieve the mixing temperature. The binder was added to the
aggregates and RAP/RAS, if applicable, and at this stage, rejuvenating agent was added to the
binder in the mixing bowl.
The volumetric properties for each mixture are shown in Table 8. Note that all mixtures met
the Superpave specication volumetric targets except for the per cent air voids. The per cent air
voids for the control mixture was 3.5% it increased to 4.3% when RAP was incorporated, 4.6%
when RAS was incorporated, and 4.7% when RAP and RAS were used. This increase in the air
voids might be an indication that the hardened binders of the RAP and RAS are not blending
completely with the virgin binder resulting in a mixture with less total binder content. The use
of rejuvenators appeared to mitigate the increase in the air voids. This might be attributed to the
rejuvenators diusion in the hardened binder and allowing it to commingle with the virgin binder
leading to mixtures meeting the total binder content.
Table 8. Mixture volumetric properties.
Properties Control 40% RAP 5% RAS 35% RAP 5% RAS
Total binder content (%) 6 6 6 6

Virgin binder added (%) 6 3.84 5.12 3.23
Air voids (%) 3.5 4.3 4.6 4.7
VMA (%) 16.2 16.7 17.1 17
VFA (%) 78.4 74.3 73.1 72.4
Dust to binder ratio 0.75 0.76 0.75 0.76
Properties 40% RAP 9.5 mm Superpave
Bitutech Sonne RJT Sonne RJ specication
Total binder content (%) 6 6 6
Virgin binder added (%) 3.84 3.84 3.84

Air voids (%) 4.1 3.6 3.7 4.00%
VMA (%) 16.6 16.2 16.6 15% min.
VFA (%) 75.3 77.8 77.7 6578
Dust to binder ratio 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.61.2
Notes: , Not applicable; VMA, voids in mineral aggregate; VFA, voids lled with asphalt.
7. Mixture performance testing

7.1. Mixture stiness
As the main stiness indicator, complex dynamic modulus |E | testing was conducted to determine
changes in mixture stiness due to the incorporation of rejuvenators with RAP and/or RAS. Three
gyratory specimens were fabricated for each mixture. Each specimen was subsequently prepared
for dynamic modulus testing in accordance with AASHTO PP60 (AASHTO, 2010). The nal
test specimens had an air void content of 7.0 1.0%. Test specimens were placed in the asphalt
mixture performance test device and subjected to a sinusoidal (haversine) axial compressive stress
at the dierent temperatures and frequencies. The resultant recoverable axial strain (peak-to-peak)
was measured, and consequently the dynamic modulus was calculated.
Dynamic modulus testing was conducted in accordance with TP62 (AASHTO, 2010). All the
specimens were tested at temperatures of 4 C, 20 C, and 35 C (39 F, 68 F, and 95 F) and loading
frequencies of 25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, 0.1, and 0.01 Hz (35 C only) in accordance with AASHTO
PP61(AASHTO, 2010). Three frequencies were added to the AASHTO PP61 to increase the
precision of the resultant master curve.
In order to develop the mixture master curve, 15 C (59 F) was selected as the reference temper-
ature to model the intermediate temperature of the Northeast. Figures 35 illustrate a comparison
between dierent mixtures.
Figure 3 illustrated the master curves for the control mixture, control mixture with 40% RAP,
and the control mixture with 40% RAP and each rejuvenator. The control mixture with 40%
RAP was stier than the control mixture with no RAP. Incorporating the rejuvenators dropped
the stiness of the RAP mixture closer to the control mixture. This is an indication that the
rejuvenators did soften the resultant binder of the 40% RAP mixture causing the overall stiness
of the mixture to get closer to the stiness of the control mixture. This agrees with the binder
testing, in particular, the binder master curves. Similar observations apply to Figures 4 and 5;
however, the drop in stiness for the RAS and RAP/RAS mixtures was not as much as it was
for the RAP mixtures. This might be attributed to the RAS binder being stier than the RAP
binder suggesting that the dosage of rejuvenators for mixtures containing RAS might need some
justication.
1,000
Dynamic modulus E*, ksi

100
Control
40% RAP + BituTech
10
40% RAP + SonneWarmix RJT
40% RAP + SonneWarmix RJ
40% RAP
1
1.0E-06 1.0E-04 1.0E-02 1.0E+00 1.0E+02 1.0E+04
Reduced frequency, Hz
Figure 3. Mixture master curve comparison of PG 58-28 and 40% RAP mixtures.
1,000
100
Control
5% RAS + BituTech
10
5% RAS + SonneWarmix RJT
5% RAS + SonneWarmix RJ
5%RAS
1
1.0E-06 1.0E-04 1.0E-02 1.0E+00 1.0E+02 1.0E+04
Figure 4. Mixture master curve comparison of PG 58-28 and 5% RAS mixtures.
1,000
100
Control
35%RAP 5%RAS + BituTech
10 35%RAP 5%RAS + SonneWarmix RJT
35%RAP 5%RAS + SonneWarmix RJ
35%RAP 5%RAS
1
1.0E-06 1.0E-04 1.0E-02 1.0E+00 1.0E+02 1.0E+04
Figure 5. Mixture master curve comparison of PG 58-28 and 35% RAP plus 5% RAS mixtures.
7.2. Rutting and moisture susceptibility

Since the rejuvenators did soften the binder based on the binder testing of the virgin and extracted
binder, it was essential to determine the eect of these rejuvenators on the cohesiveness of the
mixtures. Testing was conducted using the HWTD in accordance with AASHTO T324 (AASHTO,
2010). The rut depth versus numbers of passes of the wheel is plotted to determine the stripping
inection point (SIP) at which the test specimen begins to exhibit stripping (moisture damage).
The compacted and trimmed specimens had an air void content of 7.0 1.0% as required by
AASHTO T324.
The test was conducted at a temperature of 45 C (113 F). The termination criteria was either
20,000 passes or until visible stripping was noted. In addition to SIP, the rut depths at 10,000 and
20,000 passes (if applicable) were measured.
Table 9 presents the data from the HWTD tests. The control mixture performed poorly in
terms of rutting and moisture damage. The 40% RAP, 35% RAP, and 5% RAS mitigated the poor
performance. These mixtures had minimal rutting and no SIP while the 5% RAS showed relatively
less improvement. The reason might be related to the RAS sti binder not blending suciently
with the virgin binder and, consequently, the inuence is not as evident. The incorporation of the
rejuvenators to the 35% RAP plus 5% RAS slightly reduced the mixtures resistance to rutting
and moisture damage (although no SIP was observed prior to the 20,000 passes). Contrary to the
RAP/RAS mixture, the incorporation of the rejuvenators to the 40% RAP and 5% RAS mixtures
increased the mixtures susceptibility to rutting and moisture damage. The rut depths were greater
than 20 mm and a SIP was observed prior to the completion of the tests. This might indicate that
these two mixtures did not have enough sti binder to balance the impact of the rejuvenators.
7.3. Reective cracking

The OT device is designed to evaluate the fatigue and reective cracking potential of asphalt
mixtures (TxDOT, 2009). The device applies tension loading to test specimens while recording
load, displacement, temperature and time (TxDOT, 2009). Research studies have been conducted
that outline the use of this device for evaluation of asphalt mixture cracking susceptibility (Zhou
et al., 2007; Zhou, Chen, & Scullion, 2007).
Table 9. HWTD test results.
Rut depth at 10,000 Rut depth at 20,000

Mixture SIP # passes passes (mm) passes (mm)
Control 5590 N/A N/A

40% RAP No additive None 1.37 2.79
BituTech 12,270 6.25 N/A
SonneWarmix RJT 11,550 3.45 N/A
SonneWarmix RJ 10,550 4.73 N/A
5%RAS No additive 8230 7.27 N/A
BituTech 7210 11.43 N/A
SonneWarmix RJT 5190 16.90 N/A
SonneWarmix RJ 6690 12.53 N/A
35%RAP + 5%RAS No additive None 0.80 1.03
BituTech None 1.58 3.29
SonneWarmix RJT None 1.80 3.74
SonneWarmix RJ None 1.51 2.85
Note: N/A, Test termination happened before 10,000 or 20,000 passes.
For this study, the Texas Department of Transportation specication (Tex-248-F) for testing
bituminous mixtures with the OT (TxDOT, 2009) was followed. Five specimens were fabricated,
trimmed and tested for this test to cope the OT potential high variability. The air void level of the
trimmed specimens was 7.0 1.0%. All mixtures for this study were tested with a joint opening
(displacement) of 0.06 cm (0.025 in.), test temperature 15 C (59 F), and a failure criteria of 93%
reduction in the load measured during the rst cycle or 2000 cycles (whichever occurs rst).
The 15 C (59 F) was selected because it represents a typical intermediate temperature for the
northeast. It was also used as the reference temperature for the mixtures master curves.
The average results and standard deviation of the ve specimens are shown in Figure 6. Gen-
erally, mixtures exhibiting more cycles to failure exhibit more cracking resistance. The RAP,
RAS, and RAP/RAS mixtures exhibited a signicant drop in the number of cycles to failure
relative to the control mixture. This is expected because of the hardened binder in the RAP and
RAS. The incorporation of the rejuvenators improved the cracking performance of the RAP, RAS,
and RAP/RAS mixtures. However, this improvement was relatively lower for SonneWarmix RJ,
although, it was shown in the binder section that this rejuvenator can enhance the fatigue proper-
ties of the virgin binder. This observation is possibly related to the lower mixing and compaction
temperature. This less amount of energy introduced to the mixture might not be appropriate for
the mixtures containing sti recycled materials (Mogawer et al., 2012) resulting in less available
binder content and more brittle mixtures. The other two rejuvenators performed very similarly.
7.4. Low temperature cracking

The low temperature cracking of each mixture was assessed by the TSRST device in accordance
with AASHTO TP10-93 (AASHTO, 1993). In the TSRST, the asphalt specimen is placed in an
environmental chamber and pre-cooled at 4 C for 30 min. Next, the chamber is cooled down at a
constant rate of 10 C/h. In the meanwhile, the specimen length is held constant by the TSRST
OT TSRST
40% RAP 5% RAS 35% RAP + 5% RAS
2000 -30.00
-27.40 -27.07
27 07 -27.36 -27.90 -27.26
-27 26
-26.28 -26.19
1800 -25.24 -25.25
-24.45
-23.54 -23.43 -23.26 -25.00
1600
OT number of cycles to failure
TSRST cracking temperature (C)
1400
-20.00
1200
1000 -15.00
800
-10.00
600
400
-5.00
200
0 0.00
Control
No Additive
BituTech
SonneWarmix RJT
SonneWarmix RJ
No Additive
BituTech
SonneWarmix RJT
No Additive
BituTech
SonneWarmix RJ
SonneWarmix RJT
SonneWarmix RJ
Figure 6. OT and TSRST results.

device. As the test specimen cools down, it tries to contract but cannot. Gradually, the resultant
thermal stress is accumulated until it exceeds the tensile capacity of the specimen resulting in
specimen fracture and test termination. The temperature at which this fracture occurs is reported
as the low temperature cracking of the mixture.
Three gyratory specimens (185 mm (7.3 in.) tall by 150 mm (5.9 in.) in diameter) were fabricated
for each mixture. TSRST specimens were cored and cut to reach the nal height of 160 mm tall
(6.3 in.) by 54 mm (2.1 in.) in diameter and the air voids of 7 1%. The results for this test are
depicted in Figure 6.
The low temperature cracking of the control mixture lost approximately 1.7 C when RAP
was incorporated and 2 C when RAS or RAP plus RAS were incorporated in the mixture. The
three rejuvenators helped to mitigate the loss in the low temperature cracking. The incorporation
of the rejuvenators to the mixtures with the recycled materials interestingly improved the low
temperature cracking relative to the control mixture (almost 2 C). These data agreed with the
rheological properties obtained using the CAM, particularly, the R parameter.
8. Degree of blending
The degree of blending/mixing between the RAP/RAS and the virgin binders will have a signif-
icant impact on the volumetric and performance of HMA mixtures (Copeland, 2011). The degree
of blending was assessed by comparing the measured dynamic modulus (E ) of the mixtures with
predicted dynamic modulus from binder testing of as-recovered binders (Bonaquist, 2005, 2007).
Since the |E | is highly sensitive to the stiness of the binder (G ) in the mixture, it represents the
real blending of the virgin binder with RAP/RAS, and the extracted binder is assumed to show
the fully blended condition.
The degree of blending between the RAP and RAS and virgin binders was evaluated using
the binder master curves mentioned in Section 5.4. The estimated G from the master curve is
then substituted into the Hirsch model (Equations (4) and (5)) to calculate a predicted dynamic
modulus |E |. The dynamic modulus of a mixture is highly sensitive to the stiness of the binder
Temperature = 4C & Frequency = 10Hz
1000
Dynamic modulus (ksi)
100
10
1
trol
Control RAP+RAS RAP+RAS + RAP+RAS + RAP+RAS +
BituTec
T h
BituTech SonneWarmix SonneWarmix
SonneWarm
r
Measured E* Predicted E* RJT RJ
Figure 7. Degree of blending at a temperature 4 C and frequency of 10 Hz.

in the mixture (Christensen, Pellinen, & Bonaquist, 2003)

VMA VFA VMA
|E |mix = Pc 4,200,000 1 + 3|G |binder
100 10,000
1 Pc
+ , (4)
[(1 VMA/100)/4,200,000 + VMA/3VFA|G |binder ]
(20 + (VFA 3|G |binder )/VMA)0.58
Pc = , (5)
650 + (VFA 3|G |binder /VMA)0.58
where |E |mix is the mixture dynamic modulus, psi, VMA is the voids in mineral aggregates, %,
and VFA is the voids lled with asphalt, %.
1000
100
10
1
Control
trol RAP+RAS RAP+RAS + RAP+RAS + RAP+RAS +
BituTech
BituTec
T h SonneWarmix SonneWarmix
SonneWa
W rm
r
Figure 8. Degree of blending at a temperature 4 C and frequency of 1.0 Hz.
1000
100
10
1
trol
BituTec
T h
BituTech SonneWarmix SonneWarm
r
SonneWarmix

1000
100
10
1
trol
BituTec
T h
BituTech SonneWarmix SonneWarm
r
SonneWarmix
Figure 10. Degree of blending at a temperature 20 C and frequency of 1.0 Hz.
1000
100
10
1
Control
trol RAP+RAS RAP+RAS + RAP+RAS + RAP+RAS +
BituTech
BituTec
T h SonneWarmix
SonneWarm
r ix SonneWa
W rm
r
SonneWarmix
The condence intervals at a level of signicance = 0.05 is calculated for the measured and
the predicted |E |. If the two condence intervals overlap, it is concluded that a good degree of
blending exists. Figures 711 illustrate the degree of blending bar charts for selective frequencies
(1 Hz for slow trac and 10 Hz for high speed) at the |E | test temperature range (4 C, 20 C, and
35 C).
The gures show that all predicted E were greater than the measured E . Even so, the tests
results at 4 C generally showed that there was blending of the rejuvenated and virgin binder in
the 35% RAP plus 5% RAS mixture. However, as the temperature increased, the predicted E for
the control mixture became signicantly greater than that of the measured, especially at 35 C.
Therefore, no conclusion regarding the degree of blending on E at the higher temperatures could
be made. Why the predicted E were greater than the measure E needs to be determined.
The control mixture and its bars were considered as the reference for full blending, and then the
other mixtures were compared. The gures illustrate that the addition of the rejuvenators to the
35% RAP and 5% RAS mixtures adjusted the predicted and measured values of the RAP/RAS
mixture similar to the control mixture. Therefore, it can be concluded that the addition of the
rejuvenators can help to alleviate the high stiness caused by the addition of RAP and RAS
binder.
9. Summary and conclusions

This study focused on evaluating the eects of three dierent asphalt rejuvenators on mitigating
the increase in stiness of laboratory mixtures having high RAP and RAS contents without
adversely impacting the performance of the mixtures. The study also assessed if rejuvenators can
help hardened binder from RAP and RAS comingle with virgin binder. Based on the data and the
analysis of the data, the following conclusions were made:
1. The addition of the rejuvenators to the virgin binder, a PG 58-28, decreased the viscosity
of the virgin binder. This showed the softening eect of the rejuvenators on the virgin
binder.
2. The MSCR test illustrated, at the two stress levels used, that the non-recoverable creep
compliance of the virgin binder increased due to the addition of the rejuvenators. Again,
this was an indication that these rejuvenators had a softening eect on the virgin binder.
3. The results from the LAS test illustrated that the rejuvenators increased the number of
cycles to failures of the virgin binder at the two strain levels used for testing. This also
showed the softening eect.
4. The rheological properties of the master curves of the extracted and recovered binders
agreed with the data from the MSCR and LAS tests. The recovered binder from the
RAP/RAS mixture had a lower c relative to the recovered binders from same mixtures
with rejuvenators. This indicated that the rejuvenators reduced the hardness of the binders
since c is a measure of the overall hardness of the binder.
5. The per cent air voids for the control mixture increased by 0.81.2% when RAP and/or
RAS was incorporated. Since the binder content for all mixtures was the same, it was
assumed that the increase in the air voids indicated that the hardened binders of the RAP
and RAS were not blending completely with the virgin binder, resulting in a mixture
with less total eective binder content. The use of rejuvenators appeared to mitigate the
increase in the air voids. This might be attributed to the rejuvenators diusing into the
hardened binder and allowing it to commingle with the virgin binder.
6. Based on the dynamic modulus data, the rejuvenators did soften the resultant binder of the
40% RAP mixture causing the overall stiness of the mixture to get closer to the stiness
of the control mixture. However, the drop in stiness for the RAS and RAP/RAS mixtures
was not as great as for the 40% RAP mixture. This might be attributed to the RAS binder
being stier than the RAP binder.
7. The HWTD showed that the rejuvenators increased the rutting and moisture susceptibility
of the 40% RAP and 5% RAS.
8. The data from the Texas OT showed that the RAP, RAS, and RAP/RAS mixtures exhibited
a signicant drop in the number of cycles to failure relative to the control mixture. The
incorporation of the rejuvenators improved the cracking performance of the RAP, RAS,
and RAP/RAS mixtures.
9. The TSRST data showed that the rejuvenators helped mitigate the loss in the low tempera-
ture cracking of the mixtures due to the incorporation of RAP and RAS. These data agreed
with the rheological properties obtained using the CAM, particularly, the R parameter.
10. The tests results at 4 C generally showed that there was blending of the rejuvenated and
virgin binder in the 35% RAP plus 5% RAS mixture. However, no conclusion regarding
the degree of blending on E at the higher temperatures could be made.
Overall, the data and data analysis showed that asphalt rejuvenators can be used to mitigate the
stiness of the resultant binder in a high RAP content and RAS mixtures. Based on the results
from the HWTD, it is recommended to revisit the dosage used and develop a rational procedure
for determining the proper dosage of asphalt rejuvenators. Furthermore, the use of a polymer in
addition to a rejuvenator should be investigated as a way to balance the softening eect of an
asphalt rejuvenator.
References
AASHTO. (1993). American association of state highway and transportation ocials. AASHTO provisional
standards. Washington, DC: Author.
AASHTO. (2010). Standard specications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing
(30th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Al-Qadi, L. I., Elsei, M., & Carpenter, H. S. (2007). Reclaimed asphalt pavement a literature review
(FHWA-ICT-07-001). Illinois Center of Transportation.
Anderson, D., Christensen, D., & Bahia, H. (1991). Physical properties of asphalt cement and the develop-
ment of performance related specications. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists,
60, 437532.
Bonaquist, R. (2005). Laboratory evaluation of hot mix asphalt (HMA) mixtures containing recycled
or waste product materials using performance testing (Publication FHWA-PA-2005-006+98-32(19)).
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Oce of Planning and Research.
Bonaquist, R. (2007). Can I Run More RAP? HMAT: Hot Mix Asphalt Technology, 12(5), 1113. National
Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD.
Boyer, E.R. (2000, August). Asphalt rejuvenators-fact or fable. Asphalt Institute, Prepared for Presentation
at the Transportation Systems 2000 (TS2K) Workshop, San Antonio, Texas, February 28March 3.
Brownidge, J. (2010). The role of an asphalt rejuvenator in pavement preservation: Use and need for asphalt
rejuvenation. Compendium of papers from First International conference on pavement preservation,
Chapter 5, 351364. Newport Beach, California, April 1315.
Christensen, D., & Anderson, D. (1992). Interpretation of dynamic mechanical test data for paving grade
asphalt. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 61, 67116.
Christensen, D., Pellinen, T., & Bonaquist, R. (2003). Hirsch model for estimating the modulus of asphalt
concrete. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, 72, 97121.
Copeland, A. (2011, April). Reclaimed asphalt pavement in asphalt mixtures: state of the practice (Pub-
lication No. FHWA-HRT-11-021). McLean, VA: Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, Federal
Highway Administration.
FHWA-HIF-11-038. (2011). The multiple stress recovery (MSCR) procedure. Retrieved July 2012, from
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/materials/pubs/hif11038/tb00.cfm
Hansen, K. R. (2009). Guidelines for use of reclaimed asphalt shingles in asphalt pavements [Information
Series 136]. Lanham, MD: National Asphalt Pavement Association.
Hintz, C., Velasquez, R., Johnson, C., & Bahia, H. (2011). Modication and validation of the linear amplitude
sweep test for binder fatigue specication. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2207, 99106.
Huang, B., Li, G., Vukosavljevic, D., Shu, X., & Egan, K. B. (2005). Laboratory investigation of mixing
hot-mix asphalt with reclaimed asphalt pavement (Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1929). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, 3745.
Karlsson, R. (2002). Investigations of binder rejuvenation related to asphalt recycling (Doctoral disserta-
tion). Royal Stockholm, Sweden: Institute of Technology.
Mallick, R., Tao, M., OSullivan, K., & Frank, R. (2010). Why not (use rejuvenator for) 100% RAP recycling?
Proceedings of the 89th TRB Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: TRB.
Modied Asphalt Research Center [MARC]. (2012). Draft standard method of test for estimating fatigue
resistance of asphalt binders using the linear amplitude sweep. University of Wisconsin. Retrieved July
2012, from http://uwmarc.wisc.edu/linear-amplitude-sweep.php
Maupin, G. W. (2010). Investigation of the use of tear-o shingles in asphalt concrete (FHWA/VTRC
10-R23). Charlottesville, VA: Virginia Transportation Research Council.
Mogawer, W. S., Bennert, T., Daniel, J., Bonaquist, R., Austerman, A. J., & Booshehrian, A. (2012).
Performance characteristics of plant produced high RAP mixtures. Journal of the Association of Asphalt
Paving Technologist (AAPT ), 81, 403440.
OSullivan, K. (2011). Rejuvenation of reclaimed asphalt pavement (rap) in hot mix asphalt recycling with
high rap content. A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the WPI in Partial Fulllment of the requirement
for the M.Sc. in Civil Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA.
Owens Corning Forms. (2012). Owens corning forms alliance with earth911 to expand footprint of nations
leading shingle recycling program. Retrieved July 2012, from http://owenscorning.mediaroom.com/
index.php?s=2370&item=66527
Shen, J. A., Amirkhanian, S. J., & Lee, S. J. (2005). The eects of rejuvenating agents on recycled aged
CRM binders. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 6(4), 273279.
Shen, J., Amirkhanian, S., & Miller, J. (2007). Eects of rejuvenating agents on superpave mixtures
containing reclaimed asphalt pavement. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19(5), 376384.
Shen, J. A., Amirkhanian, S. J., & Tang, B. M. (2007). Eect of rejuvenator on performance-based properties
of rejuvenated bitumen binder and mixtures. Construction and Building Materials, 21(2), 958964.
Swiertz, D., Mahmoud, E., & Bahia, H. (2011). Estimating the eect of recycled asphalt pavements and
asphalt shingles on fresh binder, low-temperature properties without extraction and recovery. Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, 2208, 4855.
TxDOT. (2009). Test procedure for overlay test. Texas Department of Transportation, TxDOT Designation
Tex-248-F.
U.S. EPA Oce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (2012). Tear-o asphalt shingles recycling.
Retrieved July 2012, from http://www.epa.gov/oswer/iwg/pilots/docs/2005_0520_asphalt_formatted_
nal.pdf
Zhou, F., Hu, S., Scullion, T., Chen, D., Qi, X., & Carlos, G. (2007). Development and verication of the
overlay tester based fatigue cracking prediction approach. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving
Technologist, 76, 627662.
Zhou, F. S., Chen, D., & Scullion, T. (2007). Overlay tester: A simple performance test for fatigue cracking
[Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2001]. Washington,
DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, pp. 18.

XXTD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

XXTD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Swinburne University of Technology]

On: 30 August 2014, At: 12:52

Road Materials and Pavement Design

Evaluating the effect of rejuvenators

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2013.812836

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Evaluating the eect of rejuvenators on the degree of blending and

*Corresponding author. Email: wmogawer@umassd.edu

2013 Taylor & Francis

Reclaimed Materials: Neat Binder Rejuvenating Agents:

Control RAP 40% RAP 0% RAP 35% Binder

Mixture Stiffness Compare Measured Determine

Figure 1. Experimental plan.

BituTech RAP is manufactured by Engineered Additives.

4.3. Aggregates, RAP, RAS, and mix gradation

Table 1. Dosage of rejuvenators in dierent mixtures.

Total Replaced Rej by replaced Rej by recycled Rej by total

40% RAPa 6 2.16 9.28 0.50 0.200

Table 2. Average virgin aggregate/RAP/RAS stockpile properties and mixtures.

Sieve size Stone Natural Mixtures 9.5 mm Superpave

19 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

5. Evaluation of binder properties

5.1. Performance grading

5.2. Performance testing

Table 3. Binder performance grading and kinematic viscosity.

PG 58-28 28.5 16.6 59.7 58-28 88.11

PG 58-28 324.7 168.3 150.0 137.0

5.2.2. Resistance to fatigue-LAS

Table 4. MSCR test results.

Continuous PG temperature 0.1 3.2 diff Jnr0.1 Jnr3.2

PG 58-28 59.7 4.19 1.76 57.89 2.41 2.12

5.3. Performance grading of the extracted binders

Table 5. LAS test results.

PG 58-28 16.7 9.58E+06 5.98 39,805 629

35% RAP + 5% RAS

High grade Delta 84.51 80.78 81.66 80.28 80.55 81.44

PG grade 31.1 25.2 27.5 26.5 26.2 23.5

5.4. Binder master curve

Control 58 -28 35%RAP+5%RAS

Figure 2. Comparison of extracted/recovered binder master curves.

Table 7. PAV-aged extracted/recovered MSCR test results.

Control 18.26 13.06 28.47 0.473 0.508

5.5. MSCR on PAV-aged extracted/recovered binders

6. Mix design procedure

Table 8. Mixture volumetric properties.

Properties Control 40% RAP 5% RAS 35% RAP 5% RAS

Total binder content (%) 6 6 6 6

Virgin binder added (%) 3.84 3.84 3.84

7. Mixture performance testing

Dynamic modulus E*, ksi

Figure 4. Mixture master curve comparison of PG 58-28 and 5% RAS mixtures.

7.2. Rutting and moisture susceptibility

7.3. Reective cracking

Table 9. HWTD test results.

Rut depth at 10,000 Rut depth at 20,000

Control 5590 N/A N/A

7.4. Low temperature cracking

TSRST cracking temperature (C)

Figure 6. OT and TSRST results.

Temperature = 4C & Frequency = 10Hz

Figure 7. Degree of blending at a temperature 4 C and frequency of 10 Hz.

in the mixture (Christensen, Pellinen, & Bonaquist, 2003)

Temperature = 4C & Frequency = 1Hz