Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/IJPRT

Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed

materials using new screenless separation equipment with a
vibration device
Milkos Borges Cabrera ⇑, Tomoaki Satomi, Hiroshi Takahashi
Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Tohoku University, 6-6-20, Aoba, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8579, Japan

Received 4 August 2016; received in revised form 23 January 2017; accepted 23 January 2017

Abstract

Waste asphalt blocks from construction sites are usually processed in the recycling plants to be used as recycled asphalt aggregates.
These blocks are usually fed into the grizzly to break them into small pieces and to remove the soil attached on their surfaces. At present,
the soil content of grizzly-under-materials does not satisfy the required standard value (Japan Road Association, 1992). Therefore, it is
necessary to reduce the amount of soils in the grizzly-under-materials, to be used as expensive recycled aggregates. In 2009, we developed
an equipment to remove the soils from grizzly-under-materials. This equipment was able to reduce the amount of soils in the grizzly-
under-materials, but the efficiency was not so high. In this study, this equipment was modified by adding a vibration device in order
to reduce the pipe inclination angle and to keep the long processing time. It was found through the experiments that the vibration device
worked well and efficiency to remove the amount of soils increased compared to the previous equipment. It was also found that, the
highest equipment capacity to reduce the initial soil content in the grizzly-under-materials was equal to 1.66% and it was achieved with
pipe inclination angle, amplitude, frequency and water content equal to 15°, 1 cm, 260 RPM and 5% respectively.
Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Waste asphalt blocks; Recycled asphalt aggregate; Grizzly under material; Experimental equipment; Soil content

1. Introduction cracking due to tensile stresses caused by temperature

Nowadays, every year many roads are damaged by
heavy traffic and weather. These are two main factors that
cause the emergence of cracks on the road surface. Heavy
traffic causes surface cracking due to fatigue of the material
by a great number of shear loadings of the pavement sur-
face by the tire, aging of bituminous materials plays an
important role here, too; and weather causes the thermal
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: combigra2013@gmail.com (M. Borges Cabrera),
satomi@mail.kankyo. tohoku.ac.jp (T. Satomi), htaka@mail.kankyo.
tohoku.ac.jp (H. Takahashi).
Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Society of Pavement
Engineering.
changes [1].
Usually governments of many countries dedicate large
amounts of money to support and guarantee reparation
actions over roads depending on the characteristics of dam-
age. There are five main types of asphalt pavement recy-
cling: full depth reclamation, hot in-place recycling, cold
in-place recycling, cold planning, and hot recycling [2].
Deteriorating roads are a constant problem for cities
and countries. That’s why engineers and public works
officials are turning to a process called full-depth reclama-
tion (FDR) with cement. It is an in-situ process that grinds
up the existing asphalt pavement and aggregate base course
and mixes both together and replaces it back on the sub-
grade soil. With FDR, all of the pavement section and in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
1996-6814/Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
2 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
some cases a predetermined amount of underlying mate-
rial, are mixed with asphalt emulsion to produce a stabi-
lized base course. Base problems can be corrected with
this construction [2].
Hot in-place recycling, is performed on-site, and the
pavement typically is processed to a depth of 3/4 to 1–
1/2 in. The asphalt pavement is heated, softened and scar-
ified to the depth specified. An asphalt emulsion or other
recycling agent is added, and with one of the processes,
new HMA is incorporated as required. The three hot in-
place recycling methods are heater-scarification, repaving
and remixing [2].
Cold in-place recycling (CIR) is defined as a rehabilita-
tion technique in which the pavement materials are reused
in the same place. For CIR, the existing asphalt pavement
typically is processed to a depth of 2–4 in. In this process
the materials are mixed in-place without the application
of heat. The pavement is pulverized and the reclaimed
material is mixed with an asphalt emulsion or emulsified
recycling agent, spread and compacted to produce a base
course. Cold recycled bases require a new asphalt surface.
The lower traffic pavement may use an asphalt emulsion
surface treatment while a higher traffic pavement uses a
modified emulsion surface treatment or an HMA surface
[2].
In cold planning, the asphalt pavement is removed to a
specified depth and the surface is restored to a desired
grade and cross slope with free of humps, ruts and other
surface imperfections. The depth of pavement removed is
usually between one and two inches. This pavement
removal or ‘‘milling” is completed with a self-propelled
rotary drum cold planning machine. The reclaimed asphalt
pavement (RAP) is transferred to trucks for removal and
stockpiled for hot or cold recycling [2].
In hot recycling, RAP is combined with new aggregate
and asphalt cement and/or recycling agent to produce
hot mix asphalt (HMA). Although batch type hot mix
plants are used, drum plants typically are used to produce
the recycled mix. Most of the RAP in this process is taken
from cold planning. The mix placement and compacting
equipment and procedures are those typical of HMA con-
struction [2].
Once removed and processed, the pavement material
becomes RAP, which contains valuable asphalt binder
and aggregate. With increased demand and limited aggre-
gate and binder supply, HMA producers have began using
reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) as a valuable compo-
nent in HMA. As a result, there has been renewed interest
in increasing the amount of RAP used in HMA. While sev-
eral factors influence the use of RAP in asphalt pavement,
the two primary factors are economic savings and environ-
mental benefits [3,4].
In general, there is little difference in designing asphalt
mixtures with RAP compared to virgin asphalt mixtures
until high RAP is used. However, the following issues
should be considered when increasing RAP use: additional
processing and quality control, characterizing RAP,
Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
changing the virgin binder grade, preparing materials for
mix design, blending/comingling the virgin and RAP bin-
der and performance [3]. The mix design procedure is
expected to be an adaptation of AASHTO R 35, Superpave
volumetric design for hot-mix asphalt. The mix analysis pro-
cedure is expected to include performance-related tests and
key criteria to address permanent deformation, fatigue
cracking, low-temperature cracking, and moisture suscepti-
bility and identify any promising method or procedure
developed to assess the durability of HMA [4]. An impor-
tant consideration in RAP management is when to keep
RAP from a new source separate and when to combine
RAP from different sources [3].
Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) may be obtained
from several sources. The most common method is through
‘‘pavement milling operations”, also known as cold plan-
ning (as mentioned before). Two other common sources
of RAP are ‘‘full-depth pavement demolition” and ‘‘waste
asphalt plant mix”[5,3].
Milling is an important part of pavement rehabilitation
used to remove any distressed upper layer(s) of existing
pavement to a given depth. The process involves machines
that grind, pick up, and load RAP into a truck for trans-
portation. Full-depth pavement removal involves the use
of heavy equipment to break the pavement structure into
slabs. The slabs are then transported to a processing loca-
tion where they are crushed and processed to a manageable
size for recycling. Asphalt mix material that is produced
and not used (i.e., ‘‘plant waste”) is typically added to
the unprocessed RAP stockpile or is kept in a separate
stockpile for future processing [3].
In the case of pavement milling operations or waste
asphalt plant mix are used commonly to produce a new
asphalt concrete, but in the case of RAP, obtained from
full-depth pavement demolition there is an amount of this
material that cannot be used to produce asphalt mix
because is contaminated by soil.
In Japan, RAP obtained from full-depth pavement
demolition is also known as ‘‘waste asphalt blocks”. Waste
asphalt blocks are usually transported to the processing
Waste asphalt blocks
Grizzly Less than 40mm
More than
40mm Vibrating screen
Crushing
machine 0 13mm
13 40mm
Grizzly-over- Materials Grizzly-under- Materials
Utilization as recycled Utilization as road
asphalt aggregates bed materials
(60%) (40%)
Fig. 1. Process inside the processing plant.
 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
plant and are crushed to use as recycled asphalt aggregates.
Fig. 1 [6] shows the treatment that is carried out by the pro-
cessing plant, over ‘‘waste asphalt blocks”, in an attempt to
reduce its size, with the goal to be reused it as recycled
asphalt aggregate.
First of all, waste asphalt blocks are fed into the grizzly,
and then over size asphalt blocks (greater than 40 mm) are
carried to the crushing machine. Crushed asphalt blocks
are called ‘‘Grizzly-over-materials” (GOM), and generally,
they can be used as recycled asphalt aggregates, because
they satisfy the required standard values for content of
asphalt (measured in % with respect to the total mass), nee-
dle penetration for asphalt (measured in 1/10 mm, that is,
every unit is ten times smaller than a millimeter) and
amount of soils (measured in % with respect to the total
mass) shown in Table 1 (JRA(Japan Road Association),
1992) [7].
Under size asphalt blocks (less than 40 mm) are carried
to the vibrating screen. Over size materials on the vibrating
screen are fed into the crushing machine and used as recy-
cled asphalt aggregates. Under size materials, which pass
through the screen, are called ‘‘Grizzly-under-materials”
(GUM) [8]. In the case of GUM, they cannot be used as
recycled asphalt aggregates to produce new asphalt con-
crete because most of them do not satisfy the required
value for amount of soils shown in Table 1. When pave-
ment rubble (RAP from full-depth demolition pavement)
is contaminated with underlying layers and soil, it is better
for this material to be crushed and used as a shoulder or
base material than used in an asphalt mixture [5]. There-
fore, the expensive substances in the GUM (aggregate
and asphalt binder) are reused inappropriately, because
they are used as if they were inexpensive materials. But,
if the soil content in GUM can be reduced to less than
5% (standard value), they can be used as recycled asphalt
aggregates to produce new asphalt concrete. Hence, is it
necessary to create an alternative procedure, to process
the recycled asphalt aggregates that cannot be used in
asphalt mix production, due to high soil content, avoiding
using them as a shoulder or base material in the road.
In Japan, every year a large amount of waste asphalt
blocks are generated from road reparation. For example,
in 2005 there were about 26,310,000 tons of stripped
asphalt blocks to process; 60% of this amount was GOM
and was used as recycled asphalt aggregates, but the
remaining 40% was GUM and was used as roadbed mate-
rial [9].
RAP is a useful alternative to virgin materials because it
reduces the use of virgin aggregate and the amount of vir-
gin asphalt binder required in the production of hot mix
Table 1
Quality of asphalt mixture.
Items Content of asphalt [%] Needle penetration for asphalt (25 °C) 1/10 mm
Value of standard More than 3.8 More than 20
Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
3
asphalt (HMA). The use of RAP also conserves energy,
lowers transportation costs required to obtain quality vir-
gin aggregate, and preserves resources. Ultimately, recy-
cling asphalt creates a cycle that optimizes the use of
natural resources and sustains the asphalt pavement indus-
try [3]. The most economical and optimal use of RAP is in
asphalt mixtures [3,10]. Therefore, the usage of GUM, as a
recycled asphalt aggregate to produce asphalt concrete,
constitutes the best option for this material.
One way to reduce more the amount of soils in GUM is
to decrease the mesh size of the vibrating screen. Nonethe-
less, at the same time, the reduction of mesh size in the
vibrating screen increases the possibility of clogging in a
short time. Consequently, most of the processing plants
in Japan use vibrating screens with 13 mm mesh size empir-
ically to avoid the clogging of the screen. From this situa-
tion, it is necessary to find another way or to create a
screenless equipment to reduce the soil content in the
asphalt material to process.
2. Objectives and scope
If GUM is washed in the water, it is easy to remove the
soils in GUM. However, in this case, a large amount of tur-
bid water is generated, and this is an industrial waste. Tur-
bid water should be processed and it costs much.
Therefore, we focused to use air flow to remove the soil.
Fig. 2, at left side, in the section ‘‘Method for experiment”,
shows the schematic diagram of equipment that we pro-
posed in the previous study [6]. GUM was fed from
upstream and soils were removed by the swirl air flow while
they were moving down in the pipe. The details of this
equipment are described later.
This equipment worked well and was able to remove the
soils in GUM. However, as the pipe inclination angle was
set to 40°, which was larger than the angle of repose of
GUM, they moved down quickly in the pipe and process-
ing time was less. Consequently, the efficiency of this equip-
ment was not so large. Therefore, the purposes of this
study are to modify the previous equipment by adding
the vibrating device and to confirm the usefulness of this
device. By adding the vibrating device, it will be possible
to decrease the pipe inclination angle and to increase the
processing time.
After finishing the treatment inside the equipment, it is
planning to obtain the physical and mechanical character-
istics of GUM after eliminating the soil. Table 2 shows the
physical and mechanical characteristics of GUM that will
be obtained in the laboratory. Those characteristics were
Amount of soils (less than 75 lm)
Less than 5
4 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of previous equipment (left) and newly proposed equipment (right).
Table 2
Physical and mechanical properties of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP).
Type of property RAP property
Physical properties Unit weight (kg/m3)
Moisture content (%)
Asphalt content (%)
Asphalt penetration (%)
Absolute viscosity or recovered
asphalt cement (poises – P) (Pascal – Pa)
(second – s) (1P = 0.1 Pa*s)
Mechanical properties Compacted unit weight (kg/m3)
California bearing ratio (CBR) (%)
selected taking into consideration the information obtained
from [11,2,12,13].
There are others important characteristics to take into
consideration in RAP. It is also important to measure the
following properties: bitumen content, particle size distri-
bution, water absorption and specific gravity [12].
3. Literature review
There are many researches around the world to demon-
strate the importance of increasing the usage of recycled
asphalt concrete in the planet.
In Japan, there are numerous researches related to the
topic of recycled asphalt aggregate. Kawakami et al. [14]
studied on CO2 emissions of pavement recycled method.
In this study, they compared CO2 emissions when virgin
aggregates and recycled aggregates are used with cut and
overlay, and showed that the total emissions were less when
recycled aggregates were used, because the necessary quan-
tity of asphalt and aggregates were reduced. This research
showed that if recycled aggregates are used to produce new
asphalt concrete, less fuel will be necessary to produce it
and less CO2 emission will occur.
Copeland [3] studied on reclaimed asphalt pavement
(RAP) in asphalt mixtures. She reported that RAP is a
Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
valuable, high-quality material that can replace more
expensive virgin aggregates and binder. State transporta-
tion departments and contractors are reassessing the eco-
nomic and environmental benefits of allowing higher
percentages of RAP in premium pavements and asphalt
surface while also maintaining well-performing pavement
infrastructure. Hence, it is important to use RAP for sub-
stituting the expensive virgin aggregates and the asphalt
cement to produce new asphalt concrete with maintaining
the good performance of the mixture and the pavement.
Zeng et al. [15] studied the mixing and compaction tem-
perature of reclaimed asphalt pavement. It is noted that
although the equi-viscous-volumetric principle was devel-
oped using warm mix asphalt (WMA) of 100% RAP and
Marshall compaction procedure (method for determining
mixing and compaction temperatures of WMA). It is
expected that the method should provide valuable refer-
ence for WMA with other percentages of RAP, other types
of WMA additive, or other procedures of compaction.
Warm mix asphalt is a very popular practice in the road
field because it is necessary less energy to produce it than
in the case of hot mix asphalt. So, it is very important to
consider the production of WMA using the RAP as a recy-
cled asphalt aggregate.
Molenaar et al. [16] studied on design of recycled
asphalt pavement. They concluded that it is advised that
the currently used mixture design procedure should be
modified such that preheating of the virgin aggregates to
(very) high temperatures is taken into account. Then, recy-
cled asphalt aggregates and virgin aggregates have different
characteristics, therefore, it is very important to consider
the specific properties of each material to design the asphalt
mixture to assure its good performance.
Carruth et al. [17] studied on hot in-place asphalt recy-
cling for small repairs on airfield in remote setting. One
alternative for small-sized repairs on aged asphalt concrete
(AC) airfields in remote locations is using hot in-place recy-
cling (HIR) techniques. Typically HIR uses some amount
 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
of virgin material, but the study described in this paper
deals specifically with the reuse of existing material and
eliminates the need to bring in or store any virgin repair
materials on-site. This new technique related with hot in-
place recycling is convenient to decrease even more the cost
of repairing road activities.
Copeland, A. et al. [3] studied the reclaimed asphalt
pavement in asphalt mixture and the state of the practice.
It was found in this research that National Center for
Asphalt Technology (NCAT) completed a study compar-
ing virgin and recycled asphalt pavements using data from
the Long-Term Pavement Performance program. Data
from 18 projects across North America were analyzed to
compare paired sections of virgin asphalt mix and recycled
asphalt mix containing 30% RAP. The projects ranged
from 6 to 17 years. The distress parameters that were con-
sidered were rutting, fatigue cracking, longitudinal crack-
ing, transverse cracking, block cracking, and raveling. An
analysis of variance test indicated that performance of
recycled and virgin sections were not statistically different
except for fatigue, longitudinal cracking, and transverse
cracking, where the virgin sections performed slightly bet-
ter overall than the RAP sections. Additional statistical
analyses using paired t-tests showed that the RAP mixes
performed better than or equal to virgin mixes for the
majority of the locations for each distress parameter.
McDaniel et al. [18] studied the use of reclaimed asphalt
pavement (RAP) under superpave specifications. In the
United States of America, a new method to design asphalt
concrete has been developed for many years. This method
is known as SUPERPAVE. In general, it was found in this
study that testing on the mixtures showed that the higher
the RAP content, the higher the mixture stiffness, due to
the effect of the hardened RAP binder, the usage of RAP
in the mix also causes the decreases of shear strain and
increasing of resistance to rutting.
Tabaković et al. [19] studied the influence of recycled
asphalt pavement on fatigue performance of asphalt con-
crete base courses. It was found in this study that the series
of binder course mixtures incorporating RAP were tested
and demonstrated improved mechanical properties relative
to the control (virgin materials). For example the mixture
containing 30% RAP and 4.5% binder displayed a 7%
increase in stiffness, a 90% reduction in crack area and a
33% increase in number of cycles to failure in ITFT when
compared to the control mix.
SU et al. [20] carried out a laboratory investigation of
possibility of re-recycling asphalt concretes. Re-recycling
asphalt concrete (RRAC – twice recycled asphalt concrete)
with straight asphalt is considered acceptable for use judg-
ing from its comparable and even superior performance to
new asphalt concrete (NAC) in terms of rutting, abrasion
and mechanical properties.
Gonzalo et al. [21] carried out an experimental study of
recycled asphalt mixtures with high percentages of
reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). In this study, it was
Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
5
found that, higher RAP contents lead to increased stiffness,
as shown by the results for stiffness modulus, dynamic
modulus and IRT, also it was discovered that the fatigue
laws of recycled mixtures and high modulus mixture are
very similar.
Hansen et al. [10] carried out an asphalt pavement
industry survey on recycled materials and warm-mix
asphalt usage. From this survey, it was found that the total
estimated amount of RAP used in asphalt mixture was
71.9 million tons in 2014, a 28% increase over the tons in
2009 (56 million tons). This is a 6% increase over the tons
used in 2013 (67.8 million tons). Assuming 5% liquid
asphalt in RAP, this represents over 3.6 million tons
(20 million barrels) of asphalt binder conserved. Use of
RAP also reduced the need for some 68 million tons of vir-
gin aggregate.
Praticò FG et al. [28] studied about permeable wearing
courses from recycling reclaimed asphalt pavement for
low-volume roads. They focused on obtaining permeable
pavements by recycling high percentages of RAP derived
from porous European mixes (PEMs) under realistic
assumptions about RAP variability. This study concluded
that, the recycled mixes exhibited volumetric properties,
mechanistic properties, and surface performance that sub-
stantially met the basic specification limits.
Praticò FG et al. [29] carried out studies related with
HMA sustainability, producing a recycled permeable mix
that performs as well as the original porous mix. They
examined the variability of RAP and a method for facing
its consequences was proposed. It was concluded that,
mechanical performance was adequate, recycling of porous
European mixes could be a proper way to achieve environ-
mental sustainability in pavement construction.
Praticò FG et al. [30] studied on pavement sustainabil-
ity, using permeable wearing courses by recycling porous
European mixes. They focused in strategies and procedures
for recycling PEMs back to permeable wearing courses. In
particular, a two-layer porous asphalt was considered to
mitigate some disadvantages like: clogging, appreciable
variation of volumetrics, noise, texture, friction, and per-
meability performance over time. Mixes with high RAP
contents were produced and tested. Design and construc-
tion features, including mix design and mixing procedures,
were addressed. Even if other experiments are needed,
mechanical and environmental properties are promising.
Praticò FG et al. [31] carried out studies related with the
issues that arise at the end of PEMs’s lifecycle, for example:
RAP variability, uncertainties on the potential for high
percentage recycling, potential for recycling a surface layer
back to a surface layer. Based on the above mentioned
facts, they concentrated the attention into the analysis of
the feasibility of a two-layer porous asphalt by recycling
from-PEM RAP, when highly variable RAP stockpiles
are involved. Material selection was followed by mixture
production. Traditional and advanced tests on RAP and
recycled mixes were carried out. RAP variability was
6 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
examined and several trials were carried out. Mechanical
performance was adequate and environmental compatibil-
ity was achieved. Functional performance resulted very
promising.
Praticò FG [32] studied on metrics for management of
asphalt plant sustainability. He focused on the design and
validation of a method for assessing the sustainability of
an asphalt plant. The method involves two levels of analy-
sis: analysis of the architecture of the overall system (long-
term analysis, based on lifecycle cost analysis, LCCA) and
an asphalt plant scoring system (short-term analysis). An
overall model was set up based on the synergistic consider-
ation of different factors and interactions (long-term anal-
ysis). It was found in this research that, assessing the
economic and environmental status of an asphalt produc-
tion facility is crucial and that qualification-based selection
systems are a feasible solution, the method described in this
study provides a tool to assess asphalt plant qualification at
different levels of complexity.
The authors of this study consider that, this last article
mentioned in the literature review is very important to
manage the way in which the RAP is collected and pro-
cessed in an asphalt plant, in an attempt to achieve the sus-
tainability in the production of asphalt concrete.
From the literature review, the researchers conclude that
the usage of recycled asphalt material is very important for
the environment and for the economy. Then, it is very
important to increase the usage of recycled asphalt materi-
als as recycled asphalt aggregate, guaranteeing its proper
quality.
On the other hand, few researches deal with the recy-
cling of GUM. Therefore, in this study, a new equipment
to recycle GUM is proposed by adding a vibrating device
and the efficiency to remove soils by this equipment is
described.
3.1. Previous equipment to remove soils in GUM
The previous proposed equipment to remove soils parti-
cle from GUM was made up by the main pipe, a large com-
pressor, a small compressor and a suction machine.
The main pipe was used to support the movement of the
GUM. The large compressor was used to blow the air into
the equipment in the same direction of the material move-
ment, to facilitate its transportation through the pipe. The
small compressor was used to produce a swirl air flow,
which was blown into the pipe from a tangential direction,
this swirl air flow was expected to separate the soil particles
from GUM. The suction machine was placed in the equip-
ment, with the goal to suck up the removed fine soil
particles.
Previous equipment was used to carry out experiments
with GUM of 1%, 3% and 5% water content, and from
those experimental results several conclusions were drawn,
for instance:
Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
1. Swirl air flow was effective to reduce the soil content in
GUM.
2. Increasing the processing time of the GUM inside the
equipment increases the equipment performance.
Even the previous equipment was able to reduce the soil
content in the GUM, it was necessary to increase its perfor-
mance, because the efficiency was not so high.
3.2. Newly proposed equipment by adding the vibration
device
In order to increase the performance, the processing
time, that is, the time for GUM to move in the pipe should
be increased. In order to increase the processing time, the
pipe inclination angle should be decreased. However, if
the pipe inclination angle is decreased less than angle of
repose, GUM cannot move in the pipe. Therefore, a vibra-
tion device was added to assist the movement of GUM in
the pipe. The newly proposed screenless separation equip-
ment was composed by a large compressor, a suction
machine, a vibration device and a main pipe. Fig. 2 shows
the schematic diagram of the screenless separation equip-
ment, at the left side is shown the previous equipment
and at the right side is shown the newly proposed equip-
ment. The main differences between both equipment are
the pipe inclination angle and the source that produce the
movement of GUM through the apparatus. Pipe inclina-
tion angle in previous equipment is bigger than the newly
proposed one. In the case of previous equipment, the
movement of GUM is possible due to the gravity and the
air force, but in the case of newly proposed equipment,
the movement of the material in question is possible
because of the effect of the vibration device on the main
pipe. Fig. 3 shows a schematic diagram of the vibration
device, which is composed by a cam and a motor.
The large compressor was used to blow the swirl air flow
into the pipe from a tangential direction with the purpose
to separate the fine soil particles from the GUM. The suc-
tion machine was used to suck the removed fine soil parti-
cles from the GUM. The vibration device (cam and motor)
was used to produce a controlled vibration in the equip-
ment, changing its amplitude and frequency. The main pipe
of the equipment was used to support the movement of the
GUM and the separation process of the fine soil particles
from GUM.
4. Method for experiment
The experiments on reduction of soil content in GUM
were carried out as follows:
1. Preparation of a large sample of GUM (11 kgs/
sample).
2. The large sample of GUM was divided into 4 small
samples.
 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 7

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the vibration device.

3. One of 4 samples was used to measure the initial soil
content of non-processed GUM in the equipment.
Soil content was measured taking into consideration
the Japanese Industrial Standard A 1103-2014 (JIS
A 1103-2014) (Method of Test for Amount of Mate-
rials Passing Standard Sieve 75 lm in Aggregates)
[22].
4. The slope of the pipe was set at an angle lower than
35°, which is the angle of repose of GUM.
5. The large compressor of the equipment was started.
6. The suction machine of the equipment was started.
7. The vibration device of the equipment was started.
The frequencies and the amplitudes were controlled
in the range of 240–280 RPM and 1–5 cm,
respectively.
8. Each of the other three samples was fed twice into the
equipment to simulate two suction places in the
apparatus.
9. Soil content in every processed aggregates by this
equipment was measured taking into consideration
JIS A 1103-2014 (Method of Test for Amount of
Material Passing Standard Sieve 75 lm in Aggre-
gates) [22].
10. The final soil content in the processed aggregates was
calculated by the average of the three soil contents
obtained in step 9.
11. Comparison of the initial soil content and the final
soil content after the processing to check the reduc-
tion of soil content in the GUM.
12. Repeat from step 1 to step 11 until every water con-
tent, frequency, amplitude and slope of the pipe.
To guarantee the success of reduction activity of soil
content in the GUM, there are several parameters to take
into consideration, at construction site. Therefore, it is
needed to control those parameters to check the equipment
performance in the laboratory. In this study, rate of suc-
tion, recovery and attached materials on the pipe inner sur-
face were measured to investigate the performance of the
equipment.
Rate of suction: It is the capacity that the screenless sep-
aration equipment has to reduce the initial soil content in
GUM, that is, the difference in percent between the initial
soil content before the process and final soil content after
the process inside the apparatus. This parameter will be
measured in %.
A detailed explanation for determining the rate of suc-
tion in the equipment will be carried out. Taking into con-
sideration the Japanese Industrial Standard A 1158-2014
(JIS A 1158-2014) (Method for reducing samples of aggre-
gate to testing size) [23], a sample of 11 kg of GUM was
obtained from laboratory stockpile. Then, that amount
of GUM was divided into 4 equal samples (2.75 kg); one
of them was considered the control sample to measure
the initial soil content in GUM, taking into consideration
the JIS A 1103-2014 [22]. A certain amount of water was
poured into each of the other three samples of GUM, to
achieve the decided water content depending on the test.
After the described previous process, every sample of
GUM was fed twice (through the sample feeder) into the
equipment to check the equipment performance, Figs. 5,
7, 11, 17 show the rate of suction values obtained from pre-
vious explained procedure (in Fig. 5, soil reduction = rate

Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
8 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
of suction). After processing in the equipment each of the
three samples to check the equipment performance, final
soil content in each processed GUM was measured taking
into consideration the JIS A 1103-2014 [22]. After obtain-
ing the three final soil contents, an average of those values
was obtained, to establish a comparison with the obtained
initial soil. The difference between the initial soil content
and final soil content, constitutes the rate of suction value
that corresponds to one specific experimental condition.
Therefore, 4 samples of GUM of 2.75 kg were used to
obtain every rate of suction value in this study. Eq. (1)
shows the formula used for determining the rate of suction
values.
Rs ¼ Isc  Fsc
where Rs = rate of suction (%); Isc = initial soil content in
GUM (%); Fsc = final soil content in GUM (%).
The explained experimental procedure was repeated
until finishing to carry out the tests in the laboratory with
every experimental condition. Therefore, every sample of
GUM of 11 kg, to start the test was obtained from the
same stockpile in the laboratory.
Rate of suction of the screenless separation equipment is
the most important property to check because the main
objective of this equipment is to decrease the soil content
in the GUM as much as possible. Therefore, while the rate
of suction of the equipment increases, the apparatus will be
able to reduce even more the initial soil content in GUM.
Recovery: It is the capacity that the screenless separation
equipment has to obtain at the end of the process, the lar-
gest possible amount of recycled asphalt aggregates. That
is, the percentage that represents the mass of the processed
materials that were obtained after the process in the equip-
ment with respect to the initial total mass of GUM that
was fed into the apparatus. This parameters will be mea-
sured in %.
Using the same described procedure to determine the
rate of suction, it is possible to determine the recovery at
the same time. In the process of adding each sample of
GUM with the decided water content into the equipment,
from the initial total mass of GUM to feed into the appa-
ratus there is a certain amount of material that it will
remain attached on the pipe inner surface, a certain
amount of material that it will be sucked by the suction
machine and a certain amount of processed aggregate that
it will be obtained at the end of the process in the equip-
ment. Therefore, the mass of processed aggregate will be
lower than the initial total mass of GUM that was fed into
the equipment. Hence, it is important to know which per-
centage of the initial total mass of GUM is obtained at
the end of the process in the apparatus, this fact decides
the recycled aggregate production at construction site.
The previous mentioned percentage constitutes the recov-
ery of GUM, that the equipment is able to obtain at the
end of the process. Eq. (2) shows the formula used for
determining the recovery values.
Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
 
Pm
Rec ¼  100 ð2Þ
Itm
where Rec = recovery (%); Pm = processed mass of GUM
obtained after the process in the equipment (gr); Itm = ini-
tial total mass of GUM that was fed into the equipment
(gr).
Recovery is also very important. This property shows
the capacity of the equipment to obtain at the end of the
process inside the apparatus, the higher amount of recycled
aggregate with respect to the initial total mass of GUM
that was fed into the apparatus. This parameter has a great
influence in the aggregate production at the construction
site. Hence, while the recovery of the equipment increases,
ð1Þ the apparatus will be able to obtain more recycled asphalt
aggregates at the end of the process, this fact is very impor-
tant for recycled aggregate production at construction site.
Attached material on the pipe inner surface: This param-
eter shows the percentage that represents the mass of the
materials that remain attached on the pipe inner surface
respect to the initial total mass of GUM that was fed into
the equipment. This parameter will be measured in %.
As it was explained before, in the process of adding each
sample of GUM with the decided water content into the
equipment, from the initial total mass of GUM to feed into
the apparatus, there is a certain amount of material that
will remain attached on the pipe’s inner surface. Using
the same described procedure to determine the rate of suc-
tion, it is possible to determine the attached material on the
pipe inner surface at the same time. It is very important to
check this phenomenon in detail, because if the amount of
material that remains attached on the pipe inner surface
increases, clogging of the pipe can occur very soon. This
fact will affect the production of recycled aggregate at con-
struction site. Eq. (3) shows the formula used for determin-
ing the attached material on the pipe inner surface values.
 
½Itm  ðPm þ SmÞ
Att ¼  100 ð3Þ
Itm
where Att = attached material on the pipe inner surface
(%); Itm = initial total mass of GUM that was fed into
the equipment (gr); Pm = processed mass of GUM
obtained after the process in the equipment (gr);
Sm = mass of material sucked by the suction machine.
Besides, attached materials on the pipe inner surface are
very important too. If the volume of attached materials
inside the equipment is large, clogging of the pipe will
occur very soon. This fact is bad for the equipment perfor-
mance and for equipment productivity. Therefore, it is nec-
essary to reduce the attached materials inside the pipe of
the apparatus as much as possible.
From the point of view of the researchers, the explained
parameters are very important for the success of reduction
activity of soil content in the GUM lower than 5%. For
that reason, those parameters will be checked in the labo-
ratory, changing the experimental conditions, to infer the
performance of full-scale equipment at construction site.
 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Every experimental condition, to carry out the test with
1%, 3% and 5% of water content in GUM was selected
after carry out an experimental study on movement of
GUM, to know how the recycled aggregate moves through
the pipe with those water contents. The time that the equip-
ment spent to process 150 g of GUM was taken into
consideration.
The GUM to carry out the validation test of the useful-
ness of the newly proposed equipment was different from
the GUM to carry out the test to investigate the effect of
water content in GUM. This fact is because after finishing
validation test in the laboratory, GUM was over and it was
necessary to go again to the asphalt plant for sampling the
recycled asphalt aggregate. Every experimental test result,
in this study was obtained using 4 samples of GUM
(2750 g). This mass was selected taking into consideration
the JIS A 1103-2014 [22], because it is necessary 2000 g
of GUM, to determine the amount of material passing
the standard sieve 75 lm (#200) in the recycled aggregate.
The experimental study on determination of Atterberg
Limits of soil included in GUM was carried out as follows:
1. Washing of GUM to collect the soils.
2. Determination of liquid limit of soil in GUM taking into
consideration JGS 0142-2000 (Test Method for Liquid
Limits of Soils by the Fall Cone Test) [24].
3. Determination of plastic limit of soil in GUM taking
into consideration JIS A 1205-2009 (Test Method for
Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit of Soil) [25].
5. Experimental specimens used in this study
To carry out several experiments on reduction of soil
content in GUM, actual GUM was used. They were
obtained from Sendai Asphalt Plant of Maeda Road Con-
struction Co., Ltd. In the preliminary experiment, it was
found that most of them did not match the required value
for Amount of Soil shown in Table 1 (JRA, 1992). GUM is
made up by coarse aggregate and fine aggregate and most
of the time, it is easy to watch soil particles attached on the
surface of the aggregate.
As mentioned before, soils to measure the Atterberg
Limits were collected by washing the GUM. The collected
soil has a brownish color.
6. Results and discussion
Validation experiments were conducted in an attempt to
confirm the usefulness of new equipment with a vibration
device. The pipe inclination angle (S) was set at 40°, 25°,
15° and 5°. In case of 40°, vibration was not added. That
is, this condition corresponds to the previous equipment
[6]. In the case of 25°, 15° and 5°, the frequency of vibra-
tion (F) was set to 260 RPM and the amplitude of vibra-
tion (A) was set to 1 cm. Water content (WC) was
adjusted to be 5%, to carry out those experiments.
Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
9
Fig. 4 shows the percent of soil contained in GUM
before and after the process inside the equipment, the fig-
ure in question is divided into two sections by a black
dashed line, section at the left side shows the performance
from previous equipment, section at the right side shows
the performance from the newly proposed one. Fig. 5
shows the soil reduction that were achieved by previous
and newly proposed equipment, the figure in question is
divided into two sections by a black dashed line, section
at the left side shows the performance from previous equip-
ment, section at the right side shows the performance from
the newly proposed one.
As shown in Figs. 4 and 5, the effect of adding vibration
is significant and soil reduction by the new proposed equip-
ment in this study was much lager than that by previous
one. That is, the usefulness of the new equipment was
confirmed.
The first experiment was conducted to investigate the
effect of water content of GUM. The pipe inclination angle
was set to 25° and amplitude of vibration was set to 1 cm.
The frequency of vibration was changed at 240, 260 and
280 RPM. The water content was adjusted to be 3% and
5%.
Fig. 6 shows the percent of soil contained in GUM
before and after the process inside the equipment, the fig-
ure in question shows the equipment performance when
dealing with 5% and 3% of water content in GUM, setting
in the apparatus the same pipe inclination angle (25°) and
vibration amplitude (1 cm). The first 3 blue and orange col-
umns (from left to right) correspond to 5% of water con-
tent in GUM, the others columns correspond to 3% of
water content in GUM.
Soil Reduction (WC=5%)
7
Previous New equipment proposed in this
study (F=260RPM, A=1cm)
6.5
Soil content (%)
6
5.5
5
4.5
S = 40° S = 25° S = 15° S = 5°
Pipe inclination angle
Before process After process
Fig. 4. Soil content before and after the process.
10 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Soil Reduction (WC=5%) though the final soil content in GUM when containing
3% of water content was less than 5% (required value).
1.2
New equipment proposed in this study Fig. 7 shows the rate of suction of the screenless separa-
Previos
(F=260RPM, A=1cm) tion equipment, the figure in question shows the equipment
1 performance when dealing with 5% and 3% of water con-
tents in GUM, setting in the apparatus the same pipe incli-
nation angle (25°) and vibration amplitude (1 cm).
Soil reduction (%)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 Fig. 8 shows the recovery of the screenless separation
S = 40°
Fig. 5. Soil reduction in the GUM.
From the experimental results shown in Fig. 6, it was
possible to conclude that the equipment was able to reduce
the soil content in GUM. However, even though the soil
content was reduced, the soil content did not satisfy the
required value under the experimental conditions of
S = 25° and A = 1 cm, when the water content was 5% as
shown in Fig. 6. On the other hand, when the water content
was 3%, although the soil contents in GUM before the pro-
It was confirmed from Fig. 7 that the equipment perfor-
mance for GUM of 5% water content was higher than the
equipment performance for GUM of 3% water content.
This result is due to the difference of shear strength and
stickiness of the soils in GUM. That is, it is considered that
the shear strength and stickiness of soil of 3% of water con-
tent are larger than those of soils of 5% water content.
Because the stickiness increases, it is difficult to remove
soils from the surface of aggregates. This will be investi-
gated experimentally later.
S = 25° S = 15° S = 5°
equipment, the figure in question shows the equipment per-
Pipe inclination angle
formance when dealing with 5% and 3% of water content in
Soil Reduction
GUM, setting in the apparatus the same pipe inclination
angle (25°) and vibration amplitude (1 cm).
It was confirmed from Fig. 8 that the recovery of the
processed materials inside the equipment also increased
with increasing the frequency regardless of the water con-
tent in GUM. Furthermore, it was found that the recovery
of GUM of 5% water content was higher than that of
S = 25° A = 1 cm
1.70
1.60
1.50
Rate of suction (%)

cess inside the equipment did not satisfy the required value 1.40
Rate of suction
1.30
(less than 5%), the soil content in the processed aggregates, 1.20 (WC=5%)
after the process inside the equipment was reduced less 1.10
than 5% and satisfied the required value as shown in 1.00 Rate of suction
0.90 (WC=3%)
Fig. 6. Even those experimental results, it is possible to 0.80
notice that the difference between soil content in GUM, 0.70
before process and after process inside the equipment is lar- 0.60
0.50
ger in the case of 5% of water content than 3% of water 240 260 280
content. This fact means, that the equipment was able to Frequency (RPM)
reduce more the initial soil content in GUM when con-
Fig. 7. Rate of suction (S = 25°, A = 1 cm).
taining 5% of water content than 3% of water content,

S = 25° A = 1cm
8.00
7.50
Soil Content (%)

7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
F=240RPM F=260RPM F=280RPM F=240RPM F=260RPM F=280RPM
WC = 5% WC = 5% WC = 5% WC = 3% WC = 3% WC = 3%
Experimental condition
Before process After process

Fig. 6. Soil content before and after the process (S = 25°, A = 1 cm).

Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 11

S =25° A = 1 cm in the apparatus the same pipe inclination angle (15°) and
92.00 vibration amplitude (1 cm). The first 3 blue and orange col-
umns (from left to right) correspond to 5% of water con-
Recovery (%)

89.00
86.00
83.00
80.00
240 260
Frequency (RPM)
Recovery (WC=5%)
Fig. 8. Recovery (A = 1 cm, S = 25°).
GUM of 3% water content. From the results shown in
Figs. 7 and 8, it was concluded that it was more difficult
to process the GUM of 3% water content than that of
5% water content.
Fig. 9 shows the attached material inside the main pipe
of the screenless separation equipment, the figure in ques-
tion shows the equipment performance when dealing with
5% and 3% of water content in GUM, setting in the appa-
ratus the same pipe inclination angle (25°) and vibration
amplitude (1 cm).
It was confirmed from Fig. 9 that the attached material
decreased with increasing the frequency regardless of water
content in GUM. The attached materials of 3% water con-
tent were higher than those of 5% water content. This
results show that the adhesion of soils that make up the
GUM of 3% water content was higher than that of 5%
water content.
In the case of second experiment, the pipe inclination
angle was set to 15° and amplitude of vibration was again
1 cm. Frequency of vibration was changed in the same way
as the first experiment and water content was adjusted
again to be 3% and 5%.
Fig. 10 shows the percent of soil contained in GUM
before and after the process inside the equipment, the fig-
ure in question shows the equipment performance when
dealing with 5% and 3% of water content in GUM, setting
S =25°
9.00
Attached material (%)
tent in GUM, the others columns correspond to 3% of
water content in GUM.
From the experimental results shown in Fig. 10, it was
possible to conclude again that the equipment was able
to reduce the soil content in GUM. This time, in the case
280 of 5% water content although the soil contents in the
GUM before the process inside the equipment did not sat-
Recovery (WC=3%) isfy the required value (less than 5%), the soil content in the
processed aggregates, after the process inside the apparatus
was reduced less than 5%, except under the experiment
conditions of S = 15°, A = 1 cm and F = 240 RPM that
the soil content in the processed aggregates after the pro-
cess inside the equipment was equal to 5.02%, even this
value is higher that 5%, it is very close to the standard spec-
ification of quality as shown in Fig. 10. On the other hand,
in the case of 3% water content, although the soil contents
in the GUM before the process inside the equipment did
not satisfy the required value (less than 5%), the soil con-
tent in the processed aggregates, after the process inside
the equipment was reduced less than 5% and satisfied the
required value as shown in Fig. 10. Even those experimen-
tal results, it is possible to notice that the difference
between soil content in GUM, before process and after
process inside the equipment is larger in the case of 5%
of water content than 3% of water content. This fact
means, that the equipment was able to reduce more the ini-
tial soil content in GUM when containing 5% of water con-
tent than 3% of water content. In this case, the final soil
content in GUM when containing 3% and 5% of water
contents was less than 5% (required value), except in the
case mentioned above.
Fig. 11 shows the rate of suction of the screenless sepa-
ration equipment, the figure in question shows the equip-
ment performance when dealing with 5% and 3% of
water content in GUM, setting in the apparatus the same
pipe inclination angle (15°) and vibration amplitude (1 cm).
It was confirmed from Fig. 11 that the equipment per-
formance for GUM of 5% water content was higher than
the equipment performance for GUM of 3% water content.
A = 1 cm This result is due to the difference of shear strength and
stickiness of the soil in GUM. That is, it is considered that
the shear strength and stickiness of soil 3% of water con-

tent are larger than those of soils of 5% water content.

7.00
Fig. 12 shows the recovery of the screenless separation
equipment, the figure in question shows the equipment per-
5.00 formance when dealing with 5% and 3% of water content in
GUM, setting in the apparatus the same pipe inclination
angle (15°) and vibration amplitude (1 cm).
3.00
240 260 280 It was confirmed from Fig. 12 that the recovery of the
Frequency (RPM)
processed materials inside the equipment also increased
with increasing the frequency regardless of the water con-
Attached materia Attached material tent in GUM. Furthermore, it was found that the recovery
(WC=5%) (WC=3%)
of GUM of 5% water content was higher than that of
Fig. 9. Attached material (A = 1 cm, S = 25°). GUM of 3% water content. From the results shown in

Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
12 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

S = 15° A = 1cm
7.00
6.50

Soil Content (%)

6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
F=240RPM F=260RPM F=280RPM F=240RPM F=260RPM F=280RPM
WC = 5% WC = 5% WC = 5% WC = 3% WC = 3% WC = 3%
Experimental condition
Before process After process

Fig. 10. Soil content before and after the process (S = 15°, A = 1 cm).

S = 15° A = 1 cm S =15° A = 1 cm
1.70 7.00

Attached material (%)

1.60
Rate of suction (%)

1.50
1.40 5.50
1.30
1.20 4.00
1.10
1.00
0.90 2.50
240 260 280 240 260 280
Frequency (RPM) Frequency (RPM)
Rate of suction Rate of suction Attached material Attached material
(WC=5%) (WC=3%) (WC=5%) (WC=3%)

Fig. 11. Rate of suction (S = 15°, A = 1 cm). Fig. 13. Attached material (A = 1 cm, S = 15°).

S =15° A = 1 cm
90.00
content in GUM. The attached materials of 3% water con-
tent were higher than those of 5% water content. This
Recovery (%)

83.00
76.00
69.00
240
Frequency (RPM)
Recovery (WC=5%)
Fig. 12. Recovery (A = 1 cm, S = 15°).
Fig. 11 and 12, it was concluded that it was more difficult
to process the GUM of 3% water content than that of 5%
water content as mentioned with the experiment conditions
of S = 25°.
Fig. 13 shows the attached material inside the main pipe
of the screenless separation equipment, the figure in ques-
tion shows the equipment performance when dealing with
5% and 3% of water content in GUM, setting in the appa-
ratus the same pipe inclination angle (15°) and vibration
amplitude (1 cm).
Fig. 13 shows the material attached inside the pipe.
It was confirmed from Fig. 13 that the attached material
decreased with increasing the frequency regardless of water
results shows that the adhesion of soils that make up the
GUM of 3% water content was higher than that of 5%
water content.
In the case of third experiment, the water content in
GUM was adjusted to be 1%. The pipe inclination angle
260 280 was set at 25° and 20°; amplitude of vibration was set at
1 cm, 3 cm and 5 cm. Frequency of vibration was changed
Recovery (WC=3%) at 130 RPM, 140 RPM, 150 RPM.
Fig. 14 shows the percent of soil contained in GUM
before and after the process inside the equipment, the fig-
ure in question shows the equipment performance when
dealing with 1% of water content in GUM, setting in the
apparatus the same vibration amplitude (1 cm). The first
3 blue and orange columns (from left to right) correspond
to 20° of pipe inclination angle, the others columns corre-
spond to 25° of pipe inclination angle.
Fig. 15 shows the percent of soil contained in GUM
before and after the process inside the equipment, the fig-
ure in question shows the equipment performance when
dealing with 1% of water content in GUM, setting in the
apparatus the same vibration amplitude (3 cm). The first
3 blue and orange columns (from left to right) correspond
to 20° of pipe inclination angle, the others columns corre-
spond to 25° of pipe inclination angle.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 13

WC = 1% A = 1cm
6.00

Soil content (%)

5.50

5.00

4.50

4.00
F = 130 F = 140 F = 150 F = 130 F = 140 F = 150
S = 20° S = 20° S = 20° S = 25° S = 25° S = 25°
Experimental condiition
Before process After process

Fig. 14. Soil content before and after the process (WC = 1%, A = 1 cm).

WC = 1% A = 3cm
5.60
5.40
Soil content (%)

5.20
5.00
4.80
4.60
4.40
4.20
4.00
F = 130 F = 140 F = 150 F = 130 F = 140 F = 150
S = 20° S = 20° S = 20° S = 25° S = 25° S = 25°
Experimental condition
Before process After process

Fig. 15. Soil content before and after the process (WC = 1%, A = 3 cm).

Fig. 16 shows the percent of soil contained in GUM
before and after the process inside the equipment, the fig-
ure in question shows the equipment performance when
dealing with 1% of water content in GUM, setting in the
apparatus the same vibration amplitude (5 cm). The first
3 blue and orange columns (from left to right) correspond
to 20° of pipe inclination angle, the others columns corre-
spond to 25° of pipe inclination angle.
From the experimental results shown in Figs. 14–16, it
was possible to conclude again that the equipment was able
to reduce the soil content in GUM. As it is shown in those
figures, in the case of 1% water content although the soil
contents in the GUM before the process inside the equip-
ment generally did not satisfy the required value (less than
5%), the soil content in the processed aggregates, after the
process inside the apparatus was reduced less than 5%.
From even those experimental results, it is possible to
notice that the difference between soil content in GUM,
before process and after process inside the equipment is lar-
ger in the case of 20° of pipe inclination angle than 25° of
pipe inclination angle, regardless of the amplitude. This
fact means, that the equipment was able to reduce more
the initial soil content in GUM when pipe inclination angle
was set at 20° than 25°.
Fig. 17 shows the rate of suction of the screenless sepa-
ration equipment, the figure in question shows the equip-
ment performance when dealing with 1% of water
content in GUM.
The experimental results that are shown in Fig. 17 prove
that the equipment performance (rate of suction) increases
with decreasing the pipe inclination angle regardless of the
amplitude and frequency of vibration. It is also possible to

WC = 1% A = 5cm
6.00
Soil content (%)

5.50

5.00

4.50

4.00
F = 130 F = 140 F = 150 F = 130 F = 140 F = 150
S = 20° S = 20° S = 20° S = 25° S = 25° S = 25°
Experimental condition
Before process After process

Fig. 16. Soil content before and after the process (WC = 1%, A = 5 cm).

Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
14 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx

Rate of suction (WC = 1%)

1.30
1.20
1.10 Rate of suction (S=20°, A=5cm)

Rate of suction (%)

1.00
Rate of suction (S=25°, A=5cm)
0.90
Rate of suction (S=20°, A=3cm)
0.80
Rate of suction (S=25°, A=3cm)
0.70
0.60 Rate of suction (S=20°, A=1cm)

0.50 Rate of suction (S=25°, A=1cm)

0.40
0.30
130 140 150
Frequency (RPM)

Fig. 17. Rate of suction (WC = 1%).

notice that the equipment generally achieved its highest
rate of suction with an amplitude equal to 1 cm regardless
of the pipe inclination angle and frequency of vibration.
Every experimental result that is shown in Fig. 17 was
obtained using samples of GUM containing 1% of water
content, then the moisture content in the soil contained
in GUM should be similar in each sample, therefore the
stickiness of the soil in every sample should be similar
too. Taking into consideration previous explanation, it is
believed that differences among the experimental results
were caused by different processing times for each sample,
because pipe inclination angle and amplitude of vibration
are two parameters with great influence in the processing
time for GUM inside the apparatus.
Fig. 18 shows the recovery of the screenless separation
equipment, the figure in question shows the equipment per-
formance when dealing with 1% of water content in GUM.
It was noticed from the experimental results shown in
Fig. 18, that recovery of processed material by the equip-
ment increases with increasing the frequency of vibration
regardless of the amplitude and pipe inclination angle. It
is also possible to realize that recovery of processed mate-
rial by the equipment increases with increasing the pipe
inclination angle, regardless of the amplitude and fre-
quency of vibration. Analyzing experimental results from
another point of view, it is also possible to notice that
recovery of processed material by the apparatus generally
increases with increasing the amplitude of vibration regard-
less of the frequency of vibration and pipe inclination
angle.
Fig. 19 shows the attached material of the screenless sep-
aration equipment, the figure in question shows the equip-
ment performance when dealing with 1% of water content
in GUM.
After analyzing the experimental results shown in
Fig. 19, it is possible to conclude that the attached material
decreases with increasing the frequency of vibration
regardless of pipe inclination angle and amplitude of vibra-
tion. It is also possible to notice that the attached material
generally decreases with increasing the pipe inclination
angle regardless of frequency and amplitude of vibration.
In the case of pipe inclination angle equal to 20°, the lowest
attached material values were obtained with amplitude
equal to 5 cm regardless of the frequency of vibration,
but in the case of pipe inclination angle equal to 25°, there
is no a clear tendency.
It is necessary to analyze in detail the experimental
results when GUM contains 3% and 5% of water contents,
to understand better the behavior of equipment perfor-
mance, because the experimental conditions were the same.

Recovery (WC = 1%)

83.00
82.00
81.00
80.00 Recovery (S=20°, A=5cm)
79.00 Recovery (S=25°, A=5cm)
Recovery (%)

78.00
77.00 Recovery (S=20°, A=3cm)
76.00 Recovery (S=25°, A=3cm)
75.00
74.00 Recovery (S=20°, A=1cm)
73.00 Recovery (S=25°, A=1cm)
72.00
71.00
70.00
130 140 150
Frequency (RPM)

Fig. 18. Recovery (WC = 1%).

Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 15

Attached material (A = 5 cm; WC = 1%)

0.95
Attached material (S=20°,
0.90 A=5cm)

Attached material (%)

0.85 Attached material (S=25°,
A=5cm)
0.80 Attached material (S=20°,
A=3cm)
0.75
Attached material (S=25°,
0.70 A=3cm)
Attached material (S=20°,
0.65 A=1cm)
0.60 Attached material (S=25°,
130 140 150 A=1cm)
Frequency (RPM)

Fig. 19. Attached material (WC = 1%).

It was confirmed from current experiments that the

Particle size distribution of soil
equipment performance for 5% water content was higher 100
90

Cumulative rate [%]

than that for 3% water content. This result will be
explained by soil characteristics. Soil consistency or soil
state is defined by Atterberg Limits and these limits have
a great influence on the soil behavior (shear strength and
stickiness). Fig. 20 shows the four possible states for soil,
when increasing the moisture content, from solid state, to
semisolid state, to plastic state, and to liquid state; the
water contents at the boundary of these states are known
as Atterberg limits; between the solid and semisolid states
is shrinkage limit, between semisolid and plastic states is
plastic limit, and between plastic and liquid states is liquid
limit.
In accordance with (JGS 0142, 2000) and (JIS A 1205),
fall cone test and plastic limit test were conducted to deter-
mine the liquid limit and plastic limit of soils attached on
the surface of GUM. It was found that liquid limit was
37%. But in the case of plastic limit, soil had a non-
plastic behavior, therefore there was no plastic state and
the plasticity index (PI) was 0.
It is also very important to determine the particle size
distribution of the soil contained in the GUM.
Most of the properties and chemical reaction in soils is
caused by the presence of clay. Clay particles have a vastly
great tendency to stick. The high reactivity of clay particles
results from their much greater specific surface area than
sand and silt particles because the secondary mineral spe-
Fig. 20. Atterberg limits and soil states.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle diameter [ m]
Particle size distribution of soil
Fig. 21. Particle size distribution of soil contained in GUM.
cies that comprise the clay fraction often have high surface
charge [26].
Fig. 21 shows a blue curve that represents the particle
size distribution of soil; the blue curve is plotted in a system
of coordinated axis, where the ‘‘y” axis represents the
cumulative rate in percent and ‘‘x” axis represents the par-
ticle diameter in lm.
Table 3 shows the percentage of clay, silt, sand and
gravel that makes up the soils contained in GUM. The
amount of every kind of particle was determined taking
into consideration the size particles defined in JIS A
1204:2009 (Test method for particle size distribution of
soils) [27].
It was confirmed from Table 3 and Fig. 21, that the
amount of clay in the soil contained in GUM was very
low. On the other hand, the amount of silt was very high.
As mentioned before, clay particles have a great tendency
to stick to each other, therefore this kind of elements cause
in the soil high stickiness, but in the case of silt particles,
they give a soapy and slippery feeling to the soil, when they
get wet. Therefore, when the water content increases in
GUM, the amount of water contained in the soils also
increases, then the stickiness of soils decreases, due to the
high percentage of silt contained in the soils. Since the
stickiness of soil decreases with increasing of water content
in the soil, hence, the equipment performance increases
with increasing the water content in the GUM.

Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
16 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Table 3
Consistency of the soil contained in GUM.
Soil contained in the GUM (%)
Clay (less than 5 lm) 1.2
Silt (5–75 lm) 93.59
Sand (75–2000 lm) 5.21
Gravel (more than) 0
Besides, as mentioned before, one way to increase the
equipment capacity to reduce the soil content in the mate-
rial to process, it is to increase the processing time of
GUM inside the apparatus, decreasing its pipe inclination
angle. Processing time for GUM inside the equipment is
higher, in the case of pipe inclination angle equal to 15° than
in the case of pipe inclination angle equal to 25°, if the
equipment processes the GUM with the same water content
and the same frequency in each pipe inclination angle. Even,
any sample of recycled asphalt aggregate to process, with
the same water content, should contain an amount of soil
with similar stickiness capacity (because the soil contained
in GUM has the same particle size distribution), the equip-
ment performance to reduce the soil content in GUM was
higher in the case of 15° than in the case of 25°, regardless
of the frequency of vibration. This fact means, even the par-
ticle size distribution of one specific soil, decided its sticki-
ness capacity, depending on the moisture contained in the
soil, it is possible to improve the rate of suction of the equip-
ment, setting the suitable characteristics for the process.
Furthermore, there was an interesting phenomenon in
the behavior of rate of suction, because from 240 RPM
to 260 RPM rate of suction increases but from 260 RPM
to 280 RPM this parameter decreases, for water content
equal to 5% and 3%, in each pipe inclination angle. This
phenomenon happened because processing time of GUM
inside the equipment can also be controlled by changing
the frequency, maintaining the same pipe inclination angle.
Therefore, while high frequency was increased with small
amplitude, the equipment was able to reduce more the soil
content in the grizzly under materials, because increasing
the frequency increases the vibration and the applied
energy over GUM, this fact helped the swirl air flow to sep-
arate soils particles from the recycled asphalt aggregate and
mitigate the stickiness capacity of soil that depends on par-
ticle size distribution and moisture. But at the same time,
while high frequency was increased with small amplitude,
the processing time inside the equipment decreased too,
then the apparatus has less chance to carry out the process
and the equipment performance decreased too. Therefore,
that is why the rate of suction of the equipment from
240 RPM to 260 RPM increased but from 260 RPM to
280 RPM it decreased. This fact means, that is it possible
to find the proper processing time for GUM and achieve
a balance between pipe inclination angle and frequency
of vibration, setting in the equipment the suitable
characteristics.
Previous analysis proves, that it is possible to face the
stickiness of the soil, due to its particle size distribution
Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
and moisture content, at construction site, if proper condi-
tion are set in the apparatus. That is very important for the
success of reduction activity of soil content in GUM lower
than 5%.
Of course, if the clay content in the soil is large, the dif-
ferent tendency may be obtained. Therefore, further inves-
tigations are still necessary by using several kinds of GUM.
7. Conclusions
In the specific case, when recycled asphalt aggregates are
collected from full-depth pavement demolition, after a
treatment in processing plant, this study constitutes one
of the first alternatives to reduce the soil content in the
recycled asphalt aggregate when they contain a high per-
centage of soil, in an attempt to avoid using them as
roadbed material. As explained before, the best usage for
recycled asphalt aggregate is in asphalt mix production.
It is still necessary to carry out several industrial tests,
taking into consideration the experiences from the newly
proposed screenless separation equipment in the labora-
tory, and then establish a comparison between the amount
of energy that is necessary to produce one ton of recycled
asphalt aggregate from GUM and the amount of energy
that is necessary to produce one ton of virgin aggregate.
Besides, to measure the amount of asphalt binder and
energy that is saved and if recycled asphalt aggregates from
GUM are used to produce asphalt mix. After that, the sus-
tainability of the proposed industrial process in this study
will be proved. Also, while the processed GUM matches
with the selected standard specification, authors have the
opinion that it is possible to use high percentages of
RAP, always matching with the standard specification.
Taking into consideration the experimental results and
analysis described above, the following main conclusions
were drawn from this study:
1. This study can be considered a turning point in recycling
of waste asphalt blocks because it was discovered that
the equipment performance depends on the soil charac-
teristics contained in the GUM instead of on the water
content in the GUM.
2. The highest rate of suction of the equipment when
GUM contains 5% of water content was equal to
1.66%, with S = 15°, F = 260 RPM, A = 1 cm.
3. The highest rate of suction of the equipment when
GUM contains 3% of water content was equal to
1.17%, with S = 15°, F = 260 RPM, A = 1 cm.
4. The highest rate of suction of the equipment when
GUM contains 1% of water content was equal to
1.26%, with S = 20°, F = 130 RPM, A = 1 cm.
5. Particle size distribution of soil contained in the GUM
has a great influence in the equipment performance.
6. To determine the Atterberg Limits and particle size dis-
tribution of soil contained in the GUM will help to infer
the equipment performance at construction site in the
near future.
 M. Borges Cabrera et al. / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
7. The rate of suction increased with decreasing the slope
of the pipe, regardless of the water content in the GUM.
8. The recovery of processed materials mainly increased
with increasing the frequency in the equipment, regard-
less of the water content in the GUM.
9. The attached materials inside the pipe decreased with
increasing the frequency in the equipment, regardless
of the water content in the GUM.
References
[1] Mattias Hjort, Mattias Haraldsson, Jan M. Jansen, Road Wear from
Heavy Vehicles - an overview, Report nr. 08/2008 NVF committee
Vehicles and Transports, Börlange, Sweden, 2008, pp.13-18.
[2] Vijay Krishna Ganna, Long-term Durability Studies on Chemically
Treated Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Materials, Thesis of
Master of Science in Civil Engineering, Faculty of the Graduate
School of The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, USA,
2009, pp. 17-25.
[3] A. Copeland, Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in Asphalt Mixtures:
State of the Practice Report No. FHWA-HRT-11-021, Federal
Highway Administration, McLean, USA, 2011, pp. 1–20, 39–41.
[4] <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Pavement/recycling/rap/index.cfm>.
[5] West Randy C., Best Practices for RAP and RAS Management
Report No. QIP 129, National Asphalt Pavement Association,
Lanham, USA, 2015, pp. 9-22.
[6] H. Takahashi, Sh. Aoki, H, Kawada, Study on Development of new
equipment for high-level utilization of waste asphalt blocks contain-
ing roadbed materials, Proceedings of the Joint 9th Asia-Pacific
ISTVS Conference and Annual Meeting of Japanese Society for
Terramechanics, CD-ROM, Sapporo, Japan, 2010
[7] Japan Road Association (JRA), Engineering guidelines of plant re-
pavement. (Japanese), 1992, p. 33.
[8] Hiroshi Takahashi, Shota Aoki, Tomoaki Satomi, Study on Devel-
opment of New Equipment to Recycle the Waste Asphalt Blocks
Containing Roadbed Materials, Proceeding of the 5th International
Symposium on Advanced Science and Technology in Experimental,
CD-ROM, Kyoto, Japan, 2010.
[9] Ministry of land, infrastructure, transport and tourism (MLIT), On
the Survey of Construction waste in 2005 (Japanese), 2006, [Online].
Available: <http://www.ijprt.org.tw/files/Preparation_of_Manu-
scripts.pdf>.
[10] Kent R. Hansen, Audrey Copeland, Asphalt Pavement Industry
Survey on Recycled Materials and Warm-Mix Asphalt Usage: 2014
Information Series 138, National Asphalt Pavement Association,
Lanham, USA, 2014, pp. 5–16.
[11] W.H. Chesner, R.J. Collins, M.H. Mackay, User Guidelines for
Waste and By-product Materials in Pavement Construction Report
No. FHWA-RD-97-148, Chesner Engineering, P. C. Office of
Engineering Research and Development. Federal Highway Admin-
istration, McLean, USA, 1998, pp. 13-1–13-8.
[12] Shiran Pradeep Jayakody, Investigation on Characteristics and
Performance of Recycled Concrete Aggregates as Granular Materials
for Unbound Pavements (Thesis of Doctor of Philosophy), Science
and Engineering Faculty. Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia, 2014, pp. 105-110.
[13] Derya Deniz, Erol Tutumluer, John S. Popovics, Expansive Charac-
teristics of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Used as Base
Materials, Report No. FHWA-ICT-09-055. Illinois Center for
Transportation University of Illinois at Urban Champaign. Illinois
Department of Transportation Bureau of Materials and Physical
Research, Illinois, USA, 2009, pp. 12-18.
[14] Atsushi Kawakami, Hiroyuki Nitta, Takashi Kanou, Kazuyuki
Kubo, Study on CO2 Emissions of Pavement Recycled Method,
Please cite this article in press as: M. Borges Cabrera et al., Study on recycling of waste asphalt blocks containing roadbed materials using new screenless
separation equipment with a vibration device, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.01.006
17
Pavement Research Team – Public Works Research Institute,
Tsukuba, Japan, 2009, pp. 1–10.
[15] Menglan Zeng, Wu Chaofan, Jisen Zhang, Determine Mixing and
Compaction Temperatures of EvothermÒWarm Mix Asphalt Using
100% Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement”, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol.
7 (6) (2014) 389–396.
[16] A.A. André, Molenaar, Mohamad Mohajeri, Martin F.C. van de
Ven, Design of Recycled Asphalt Mixtures, 2015, [Online]. Available:
<https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/31971112/s1d3-0950-
andre-mole-aapaqorg>.
[17] William D. Carruth, Mariely Mejı́as-Santiago, Hot In-Place Asphalt
Recycling for Small Repairs on Airfield in Remote Settings, Int. J.
Pavement Res. Technol. 8 (6) (2015) 395–402.
[18] Rebecca S. McDaniel, Hamid Soleymani, Ayesha Shah, Use of
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Under Superpave Specifications
Report No. FHWA/IN/JTRP-2002/6, Joint Transportation Research
Program. Indiana Department of Transportation, West Lafayette,
USA, 2002, pp. 19–36.
[19] Amir Tabaković, Amanda Gibney, Ciaran McNally, Michael D.
Gilchrist, Influence of the recycled asphalt pavement on fatigue
performance of asphalt concrete base courses, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 22
(6) (2010) 643–650.
[20] S.U. Kai, Yoshitaka Hachiya, Ryota Maekawa, Laboratory investi-
gation of possibility of re-recycling asphalt concretes, Proceeding of
6th International Conference on Road and Airfield Pavement Tech-
nology, Sapporo, Japan, 2008, pp. 435–442
[21] Valdés Gonzalo, Pérez-Jiménez Félix, Miró Rodrigo, Martı́nez
Adriana, Botella Ramón, Experimental study of recycled asphalt
mixtures with high percentages of reclaimed aspahlt pavement (RAP),
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (3) (2011) 1289–1297.
[22] Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) A 1103–2014, Method of Test for
Amount of Material Passing Standard Sieve 75 lm in Aggregates, 2014.
[23] Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) A 1158–2014, Method for
reducing samples of aggregate to testing size, 2014.
[24] Japan Geotechnical Society (JGS) 0142–2000, Test Method for
Liquid Limits of Soils by the Fall Cone, 2000.
[25] Japan Industrial Standard (JIS) A 1205–2009, Test Method for
Liquid Limit and Plastic Limit of Soil, 2009.
[26] Daniel G. Strawn, Hinrich L. Bohn, George A. O’Connor, Miner-
alogy and Weathering Processes in Soils, Soil Chemistry, 4th., John
Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, 2015, pp. 145–184.
[27] Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) A 1204–2009, Test method for
particle size distribution of soils, 2009.
[28] F.G. Praticò, R. Vaiana, T. Iuele, Permeable wearing courses from
recycling reclaimed asphalt pavement for low-volume roads. opti-
mization procedures, Transp. Res. Rec., 0361-1981 2474 (2015) 65–
72, http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2474-08.
[29] F.G. Praticò, R. Vaiana, T. Iuele, A.J. Puppala, HMA sustainability:
Producing a recycled permeable mix that performs as well as the
original porous mix. In: (a cura di): Massimo Losa and Tom
Papagiannakis, Sustainability, Eco-efficiency, and Conservation in
Transportation Infrastructure Asset Management, Boca raton: CRC
Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Pisa, 2014, p. 641–646, ISBN: 978-1-
138-00147-3, April 22-25 2014, doi: 10.1201/b16730-92.
[30] F.G. Praticò, R. Vaiana, M. Giunta, Pavement sustainability:
permeable wearing courses by recycling porous european mixes, J.
Archit. Eng., 1076-0431 (2013), DOI: 0.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-
5568.0000127.
[31] F.G. Praticò, R. Vaiana, M.c. Giunta, T. Iuele, A. Moro, Recycling
PEMs back to TLPAs: is that possible notwithstanding RAP
variability?, Sustainable Development of Urban Infrastructure
Applied Mechanics And Materials, 253-255, Zurich: Trans Tech
Publications, Guilin, China, 2012, pp. 376–384, http://dx.doi.org/
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.253-255.376, ISSN: 978-3-03785-
564-5, 1660-9336.
[32] F.G. Praticò, Metrics for Management of Asphalt Plant Sustainabil-
ity, J. Constr. Eng. Manage. (2016), http://dxdoi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CO.1943-7862.0001253, 04016116.