Hajj2009 PDF

This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]
On: 05 October 2014, At: 22:28

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
Laboratory Evaluation of Mixes Containing Recycled

Asphalt Pavement (RAP)
a a b
Elie Y. Hajj , Peter E. Sebaaly & Raghubar Shrestha
a
Pavements/Materials Program, Dept of Civ. & Env. Engineering MS257 , University of
Nevada , Reno, NV, 89557, United States E-mail:
b
Terracon Consulting Engineers and Scientists , Roseville, California, 48066, United
States E-mail:
Published online: 19 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Elie Y. Hajj , Peter E. Sebaaly & Raghubar Shrestha (2009) Laboratory Evaluation of Mixes Containing
Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP), Road Materials and Pavement Design, 10:3, 495-517
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2009.9690211
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
Laboratory Evaluation of Mixes Containing
Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP)
Elie Y. Hajj* — Peter E. Sebaaly* — Raghubar Shrestha**

Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 22:28 05 October 2014
* Pavements/Materials Program, Dept of Civ. & Env. Engineering MS257

University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, United States
elieh@unr.edu
psebaaly@unr.edu
** Terracon Consulting Engineers and Scientists, Roseville, California 48066
United States
rshrestha@terracon.com
ABSTRACT. This paper presents the findings of a laboratory-based research project that
evaluated the impact of three RAP sources at three levels of RAP content (0, 15, and 30%) on
the mechanical properties of the final mix. Two asphalt binder grades were targeted for the
final mix. The binder grade for the new asphalt binder was selected using appropriate
blending charts for high and low temperatures. Overall the addition of RAP to a mixture
resulted in an acceptable moisture resistance, however a reduction in the unconditioned and
conditioned tensile strength was observed. In most of the cases, the addition of RAP to a
mixture resulted in an equivalent or better rutting resistance than the virgin mix (0% RAP).
Depending on the RAP source and content, the addition of RAP to a mixture with an
unmodified target asphalt binder resulted in either a better or worse fatigue resistance. On
the other hand the addition of RAP to a mixture with a polymer modified target asphalt binder
resulted in a worse fatigue resistance regardless of the RAP source and content. Finally, the
addition of RAP to a mix resulted in a similar or better resistance to thermal cracking than
the virgin mix and reasons for that were proposed.
KEYWORDS: RAP, Recycling, Reclaimed, Moisture, Rutting, Fatigue, Thermal.
DOI:10.3166/RMPD.10.495-517 © 2009 Lavoisier, Paris
Road Materials and Pavement Design. Volume 10 – No. 3/2009, pages 495 to 517
496 Road Materials and Pavement Design. Volume 10 – No. 3/2009
1. Introduction
Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is formed by cold milling, heating/softening

and removal of the existing aged asphalt pavement, full depth removal, or plant
waste hot mixed asphalt (HMA) materials. The first sustained efforts to recover and
reuse old asphalt paving materials were conducted during 1974 in Nevada and Texas
(NCHRP, 1978). The materials present in old asphalt pavements may have value,
even when the pavements have reached the end of their service lives. Recognizing
the value of those existing aggregate and asphalt resources increased the use of RAP
in new asphalt pavements. Additionally, the interest in the use of RAP has increased
dramatically since the recent price increases in crude oil and energy in general. By
reusing aggregate and asphalt from deteriorated pavements, the need for new
materials is appreciably reduced and the overall cost of the improved pavement will
be less. Furthermore, several studies showed that asphalt mixes containing RAP can
have equivalent performance to virgin mixes. On the other hand, processing the
RAP in HMA facilities raised some environmental concerns as to the different levels
of hydrocarbon and dust emissions. The concern over limiting the amount of
hydrocarbon vapors, or “blue smoke” as it is commonly called, led to the
development of new drying and processing technologies, such as the counter flow
drum mixer, in an effort to process high percentages of RAP without negative
impact on the emissions from a hot-mix facility (Decker, 1999). Hence, since the use
of RAP has proven to be economical and environmentally sound, different agencies
and contractors have made extensive use of RAP in constructing highway
pavements.
The properties of RAP are largely dependent on the properties of the constituent
materials, i.e., aggregate and recovered binder properties. The RAP composition is
also affected by the previous maintenance activities that were applied to the existing
pavement. Additionally, sometimes RAP from several projects are mixed in a single
stockpile where deleterious materials or lower quality materials are also present.
Consequently, a high variability is introduced in the RAP materials affecting the
RAP properties and most likely resulting in a variable HMA mix. Some research has
shown that the variability of RAP can be controlled and may not be as great as
expected (Nady, 1997) while others show that the high variability in RAP material
greatly affects the variability of the asphalt content and gradation of the production
mix, especially at higher percentages of RAP (Solaimanian et al., 1995). Using low
quality and/or highly variable RAP materials will mostly lead to premature failure of
the HMA pavement. All these issues may limit the use of RAP in highway
pavements and require the implementation of an effective quality control program.
The overall goal of the mix design process of HMA is to recommend a mix that
can withstand the combined actions of traffic and environment. Therefore, it is
critical to assess the impact of the various mix components on the performance of
the constructed pavement, i.e., resistance to rutting, fatigue, and thermal cracking.
The existence of RAP in the mix presents a challenge to the design engineer due to
Laboratory Evaluation of Mixes Containing RAP 497
the complex interaction among the new and recycled components of the mix. In the
RAP containing HMA mixes, the virgin and the recycled asphalt binders may not be
completely mixed (Oliver, 2001). The inclusion of RAP materials in the HMA mix
can improve its resistance to rutting while it may greatly jeopardize its resistance to
fatigue and thermal cracking. In general, several studies on laboratory produced
mixtures concluded that the effect of low RAP content, i.e., 15% to 20%, on the
stiffness and strength of the mix at low and high temperature was not significant (Li
et al., 2008, McDaniel et al., 2000, 2002, 2007). However the increase in RAP
content beyond 20% increased the mixture stiffness and strength resulting in an
increase in rutting resistance (Li et al., 2004, 2008, McDaniel et al., 2002, 2007,
Xiao, 2007). For higher RAP contents (>40%), McDaniel et al. (2000, 2002)
showed a significant increase in the stiffness of the mix at high, intermediate, and
low temperatures when no change to the virgin binder grade was made. The key to
successfully include RAP in the HMA mix is to be able to assess its impact on the
pavement’s performance while recognizing the uniqueness of each project with
respect to both materials and loading conditions. In 2001, guidelines for designing
Superpave mixes containing RAP have been developed under the NCHRP Project 9-
12 (McDaniel et al., 2001).
One of the main concerns in RAP HMA mixes is the effect of the RAP material
on the mix durability. Moisture susceptibility is regarded as the main cause of poor
mix durability. Moisture susceptibility can be evaluated by performing laboratory
tests on unconditioned and moisture conditioned specimens. However, two recent
research studies did not support the concerns of the durability of RAP containing
HMA mixes. Stroup-Gardner and Wagner (1999) showed that the inclusion of
coarse RAP decreased the moisture susceptibility of HMA mixes. Sondag et al.
(2000) used the tensile strength ratio to evaluate the moisture sensitivity of 18
different mix designs incorporating three different asphalt binders, two sources of
RAP and varying amounts of RAP. Sondag concluded that the addition of RAP to a
mix had no positive or negative influence on the mixture’s moisture susceptibility.
Recognizing the fact that RAP usage conserves natural resources and can reduce
disposal problems and associated costs, along with the identified concerns
associated with the use of RAP in HMA pavements, the Regional Transportation
Commission (RTC) of Washoe County, Nevada, decided to assess the feasibility of
using RAP in RTC projects using current techniques and RTC mix design practices.
2. Research objective
The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of RAP source and content
on the properties of the final mixes in terms of moisture sensitivity, resistance to
rutting, resistance to fatigue cracking, and resistance to thermal cracking using the
current techniques and RTC practices.
3. Experimental program
In order to achieve the objectives of the research, the following experimental

program was established.
– Identify three local RAP sources to cover a wide range of properties.
– Extract/recover the binder from the selected RAP materials and evaluate their
PG grades.
– Identify the required virgin binder grade to produce the specified grade of the
blended binder.
– Determine the properties of the RAP aggregates.
– Identify the virgin aggregate gradations to produce the specified gradation of
the final blended mix.
– Conduct a mix design to identify the optimum binder content (OBC) of the
final blended mix following the RTC’s Marshall mix design method.
– Measure the moisture sensitivity properties of the final blended mixes at the
OBC using the AASHTO T283 test method: Resistance of Compacted HMA to
Moisture Induced Damage.
– Measure the rutting resistance of the final blended mixes at the OBC using the
asphalt pavement analyzer (APA).
– Measure the fatigue resistance of the final blended mixes at the OBC using the
flexural beam fatigue test.
– Measure the thermal cracking resistance of the final blended mixes at the OBC
using the thermal stress restrained specimen test (TSRST).
It should be noted that RTC will continue to use the Marshall mix design method
for the next 5 years.
4. Materials
This study used three sources of RAP, one source of virgin aggregates, and one
source of virgin asphalt binders to design HMA mixes with two target asphalt binder
grades.
4.1. Target asphalt binder grades
Currently, the RTC specifies two binder grades for all HMA mixes: PG64-22
and PG64-28. The PG64-22 is a neat asphalt binder mostly used in the bottom and
middle lifts of the HMA layer. The PG64-28 is a polymer-modified binder mostly
used in the top and middle lifts of the HMA layer.
4.2. RAP sources and properties
The three RAPs used in this study were selected from three different local
sources.
– Source I: plant waste from Granite Construction Company’s Lockwood quarry
located approximately ten miles east of Reno, Nevada, along Interstate 80.
– Source II: reclaimed asphalt from a 15-year old HMA pavement located at
Flint Street in Reno, Nevada.
– Source III: reclaimed asphalt from a 20-year old HMA pavement located at
Keitzke Lane in Reno, Nevada.
All of the RAPs were extracted in accordance with the AASHTO T164
(AASHTO, 2006) test method using the centrifuge apparatus and trichloroethylene
as a solvent. The extracted aggregates were sieved according to the ASSHTO T30
test method. Once the RAP binders were extracted, they were recovered using the
rotary evaporator according to the ASTM D5404 (ASTM, 2006) testing procedure.
The RAPs from sources I, II, and III had recovered asphalt binder contents of 4.6,
5.4, and 5.8% by weight of RAP mix, respectively.
4.3. Virgin aggregates
Each mix will have a virgin aggregate portion and a RAP aggregate portion
except for the mix containing 0% RAP (control mix) which will only have virgin
aggregates. The virgin aggregates came from the Lockwood quarry. The RTC Type
2C dense gradation was used for all the mixes developed in this study.
4.4. Types of mixes
The laboratory experiment evaluated two distinct types of mixes: a PG64-

22/Type 2C and a PG64-28/Type 2C. Each mix was evaluated at three RAP contents
of 0, 15, and 30% using the three different RAP sources. The testing matrix
consisted of six RAP mixes and one control mix (0% RAP) for each of the target
binders of PG64-22 and PG64-28. The control mixes C-22 and C-28 were produced
with binder grades of PG64-22 and PG64-28, respectively.
Each RAP mix was identified by the source of the RAP (SI, SII, SIII), the low
performance temperature of the target binder grade (-22, -28), and the RAP content
(15, 30). For example the SI-22-15 and SI-28-15 mixes represent the 15% of Source
I RAP mixes produced with the required virgin binder grades to meet the target
grades of PG64-22 and PG64-28, respectively.
5. Binders evaluation
This task covers three separate steps: a) identifying the grade of the binders
recovered from the RAP sources, b) identifying the required grades of the virgin
binders to achieve the target binder grades and c) identifying the grade of the
blended binders.
5.1. Identifying the grades of recovered RAP binders
The recovered RAP binders were graded according to the Superpave PG system
by testing the RAP binders as original, after short-term aging through the Rolling
Thin Film Oven (RTFO), and after long-term aging through the Pressure Aging
Vessel (PAV). Table 1 summarizes the critical temperatures and the PG grades of
the recovered RAP binders. Critical temperatures are the temperatures at which a
binder just meets the appropriate specified Superpave criteria. All three recovered
RAP binders were graded as PG82-16.
Table 1. Superpave performance PG grading of recovered RAP asphalt binders
Critical temperature [°C]

Superpave
Original* RTFO RTFO+PAV PG of
RAP
Description recovered
source G*/sinδ G*/sinδ G*sinδ S-value m-
RAP
≥ 1.0 ≥ 2.2 ≤ 5000 ≤ 300 value
binder
[kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [MPa] ≥ 0.3
SI Plant waste 83.5 82.0 26.1 -12.3 -9.7 PG82-16

material
SII 15-year old 82.2 82.2 32.2 -8.6 -6.7 PG82-16
pavement
SIII 20-year old 83.5 82.0 30.1 -12.0 -8.7 PG82-16
pavement
* Recovered RAP binder tested as original binder.
Additionally, the recovered RAP binders were graded according to the guidelines
provided by the NCHRP Research Results Digest No. 253 (McDaniel et al., 2001).
According to NCHRP, the critical high temperature of the binder is determined by
testing the recovered unaged RAP binder in the DSR at high temperature. The
critical intermediate temperature is determined by testing the RTFO-aged RAP
binder in the DSR and the critical low temperature is determined by testing the
RTFO-aged RAP binder in the BBR. The NCHRP recommended process differs
from the Superpave PG system by not subjecting the recovered RAP binders to the
long-term aging through the PAV. Following the NCHRP recommended process,
the recovered RAP binders from sources II and III were graded as PG82-16
similarly to the Superpave PG system. On the other hand, the recovered RAP binder
from source I was graded according to NCHRP as PG82-22 resulting in one grade
softer than the Superpave PG system (i.e. PG82-16) on the low performance
temperature.
It should be noted that RAP binders from sources II and III had already
experienced short-term aging during plant mixing and long-term aging during the
pavement in-service life (15 to 20 years) which made them less susceptible to the
long-term aging process in the PAV. Consequently, the PG grades of the RAP
binders from sources II and III were the same according to the Superpave system
and the NCHRP process. On the other hand, the RAP binder from source I which is
a plant waste material, has been through short-term aging during plant mixing
process but had not experienced any long-term aging. Accordingly, the RAP binder
from source I was susceptible to the long-term aging process in the PAV which
resulted in a different PG grade when following the NCHRP process and the
Superpave system. Therefore, the Superpave PG grades for all three RAP binders
were used in the rest of this study.
5.2. Identifying the required grades for virgin binders
The NCHRP Project 9-12 (McDaniel et al., 2001) provides guidelines for
selecting virgin asphalt binder grade based on RAP content and RAP binder
properties. Since the recovered binders from all three sources were graded as PG82-
16, the NCHRP guideline for a recovered binder grade of PGxx-16 would apply.
The NCHRP recommendations are as follows.
– Less than 15% RAP by weight of total mix: no asphalt binder grade adjustment
is made to compensate for the stiffness of the asphalt binder in the RAP.
– 15 to 25% RAP by weight of total mix: the selected binder grade for the
asphalt binder is one grade lower than the grade required for a virgin asphalt binder
at both high and low temperature.
– More than 25% RAP by weight of total mix: The binder grade for the new
asphalt binder is selected using appropriate blending charts for high and low
temperatures.
The blending chart process is based on the following equation:
[1]
Where, TBlend is the critical temperature of the blended asphalt binder, TVirigin is
the critical temperature of the virgin asphalt binder, TRAP is the critical temperature
of the recovered RAP binder, and %RAPbinder is the percent RAP binder in the
RAP expressed as a decimal.
Table 2 summarizes the required virgin asphalt binder grades according to the
NCHRP 9-12 process. Two binder grades are listed for the 15% RAP content since
the 15% is the percentage limit between the two RAP content categories <15% and
15-25%. Therefore, both the <15% and the 15-25% grades are listed. Moreover, the
NCHRP recommendations were interpolated from the research data that were
generated at 0%, 10%, 20%, and 40% RAP, i.e., no data generated for the 15%
RAP. Therefore, the 15% RAP can also be considered in the 15-25% group and,
hence the required virgin asphalt binder grade needs to be one grade softer than the
target binder grade.

In this research, the required virgin binder grades for the 15 and 30% RAP
contents were identified using the blending chart technique in order to achieve the
target binder grades of PG64-22 and PG64-28. Table 2 summarizes, for each source
of RAP material and at the desired RAP percent, the required virgin asphalt binder
grades identified by the blending chart technique. Except for the target binder grade
of PG64-22 with RAP source I, table 2 shows that the required virgin binders for the
15% RAP are one grade softer on the low temperature than the target binder grades.
The recommended PG grades from the blending chart contradicts the NCHRP
recommended PG grades indicating that directly applying the NCHRP
recommendations for all RAP sources may not be effective.
Table 2. Required virgin binders grades for the various RAP sources and contents.
Recovered Required Virgin Binder Grade

RAP RAP
Process Target Binder: PG64-22 Target Binder: PG64-28
Source Binder
Grade 15% RAP 30% RAP 15% RAP 30% RAP
PG64-22 Blending PG64-28 Blending
I, II, or NCHRP 9-
PG82-16 or Chart: or Chart:
III 12
PG58-28 PG58-28 PG58-34 PG58-34
I PG82-16 PG64-22 PG58-28 PG64-34 PG58-34
Blending
II PG82-16 Chart PG64-28 PG58-28 PG64-34 PG58-34
Technique
III PG82-16 PG64-28 PG58-28 PG64-34 PG58-34
The asphalt binder grades determined with the blending chart technique were
selected for the remaining part of this research. All asphalt binders were supplied by
Paramount Petroleum Company, Nevada.
5.3. Grading the recovered binder from the final blended mix
This effort measured the grades of the binders recovered from the final blended
mixes. The process consisted of extracting/recovering the binders from the final
blended mixes for each of the twelve mixes and identifying their PG. These
extracted/recovered binders were tested and compared to the target binder grades.
This effort is aimed to check the entire process from the point of identifying the
required grade of the virgin binder through the mixing of the various mixes. In other
words, this process assumes that if the grades of the binders recovered from the final
blended mixes coincide with the target grades, then the entire process is effective.
Table 3 summarizes the grades of the binders recovered from the various final
blended mixes. The recovered binder was considered as RTFO-aged since it has
already been through the mix short term aging. Therefore, the recovered binders
were only subjected to the PAV test to simulate long term aging condition. Test
results in table 3 show that all blended binders significantly exceeded the target
binder grades of PG64-22 and PG64-28 indicating that the blending chart process
may be a conservative approach to identify the required PG of the virgin binder.
Table 3. Superpave performance PG grading of asphalt binders
Critical temperature [°C]
Target Original Recovered

RTFO RTFO+PAV
binder Mix binder binder PG
grade G*/sinδ G*/sinδ G*sinδ S-value grade
m-value
≥ 1.0 ≥ 2.2 ≤ 5000 ≤ 300
≥ 0.3
[kPa] [kPa] [kPa] [MPa]
SI-22-15# NA 74.1 27.5 -12.0 -11.8 PG70-22
SI-22-30 NA 75.5 27.0 -13.5 -12.5 PG70-22
SII-22-15 NA 75.6 24.1 -15.4 -12.3 PG70-22

PG64-22
SII-22-30 NA 71.7 23.5 -15.4 -15.2 PG70-22
SIII-22-15 NA 76.3 20.4 -14.0 -14.8 PG76-22
SIII-22-30 NA 76.6 25.0 -14.5 -12 PG76-22

#
SI-28-15 NA 67.2 7.0 -29.3 -30.8 PG64-34
SI-28-30 NA 71.9 10.0 -25.6 -25.8 PG70-34
SII-28-15 NA 71.8 7.0 -27.8 -29.5 PG70-34

PG64-28
SII-28-30 NA 71.9 12.6 -24.0 -24.0 PG70-34
SIII-28-15 NA 74.7 7.7 -26.5 -31.5 PG70-34
SIII-28-30 NA 75.5 8.8 -26.5 -26.0 PG70-34

#
SI-22-15 and SI-28-15: represent the 15% of Source I RAP mixes produced with the
required virgin binder grades to meet the target grades of PG64-22 and PG64-28NV,
respectively.
6. Mix design
The various blends for each source of RAP material meet the RTC Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction for Type 2C dense gradation. All
gradations are uniform and close to each other.
The specific gravities of the extracted aggregates and the individual virgin
aggregate stockpiles were measured in the laboratory in accordance with AASHTO
T84 and T85. A maximum difference of 0.24 was found between the various
specific gravities. If component specific gravities were to differ by 0.30 or more

then the weight gradations would need to be converted to volume gradations to
ensure that blend gradation specifications are met. In this case, no conversions were
required for these aggregate sources.
The current RTC Marshall mix design method was used to design all fourteen
mixes. The heated RAP and virgin aggregate samples were mixed with various
amounts of asphalt binder so that at least two were above and at least two were
below the expected optimum asphalt content. All mixes were treated with 1.5% of
hydrated lime by the dry weight of the virgin aggregates following RTC’s
specifications. The samples were compacted with 75 blows on each side with the
standard automated Marshall hammer.
The optimum binder content was selected for air-voids between 3 and 5%. The
selected binder content was then used to determine the corresponding values for
Marshall stability and flow, voids in mineral aggregate (VMA), voids filled with
asphalt binder (VFA), and unit weight of the mix from the appropriate relationships.
Table 4. Mixes’ optimum binder contents by total weight of mix
Target binder grade PG64-22 Target binder grade PG64-28

Optimum binder content Optimum binder content
Mix Mix
[%] [%]
C-22 4.5 C-28 4.7
SI-22-15 4.4 SI-28-15 4.3
SI-22-30 4.5 SI-28-30 4.5
SII-22-15 4.4 SII-28-15 4.2
SII-22-30 4.5 SII-28-30 4.3
SIII-22-15 4.2 SIII-28-15 4.2
SIII-22-30 4.4 SIII-28-30 4.4
Table 4 summarizes the optimum binder contents for the various mixes. For each
mix, the VMA was calculated using the combined aggregate bulk specific gravity
which is calculated using the bulk specific gravity of each aggregate stockpile,
including the RAP aggregates.
7. Impact of RAP on mixture properties
The objective of this task is to evaluate the impact of the RAP source and content
on the properties of the final produced mixes including moisture sensitivity, rutting
resistance, fatigue cracking resistance, and thermal cracking resistance.

For each binder grade, the various performances of the RAP mixes are compared
to the performance of the control mixes that are manufactured with 100% virgin
aggregates. In addition to simply comparing the properties of the various mixes, a
statistical analysis was performed to evaluate the significance of the differences
among the properties of the various mixes. The statistical analysis was conducted at
a 5% significance level (α = 0.05) which means that for each comparison reported as
being significantly different or not, there is only a 5% chance that is not true.
7.1. Moisture sensitivity
Moisture sensitivity of HMA mixes is defined as the reduction in the internal

strength of the mix due to moisture damage. The AASHTO T283 test method was
used to evaluate the moisture sensitivity of the various mixes with the exception of
using five samples at both the unconditioned and conditioned stages. The following
represents a summary of the major steps of the AASHTO T283 test procedure.
– Compact a total of 10 samples to air-voids of 6.5 to 7.5%.
– Measure the tensile strength (TS) of 5 unconditioned samples at 25°C.
– Subject a set of 5 samples to 70-80% saturation.
– Subject the saturated samples to a freeze-thaw cycle; freezing at -18°C for 16
hours followed by 24 hours thawing at 60°C and 2 hours at 25°C.
– Measure the TS of the 5 samples after conditioning.
– Calculate the tensile strength ratio (TSR) as the ratio of the average TS of the
conditioned samples over the average TS of the unconditioned samples.
Table 5 summarizes the moisture sensitivity properties of the various mixes. The
RTC specifies a minimum value for the unconditioned TS at 25°C of 448 kPa and a
minimum TSR of 70% for the Reno area. All mixes met the RTC specification for
moisture sensitivity except for the SI-28-15 mix which failed to meet the minimum
TSR value of 70%. This indicates that except for the mix SI-28-15, all mixes would
have acceptable resistance to moisture damage. In practice, additional lime will have
to be added for the SI-28-15 mix.
Table 5. Moisture sensitivity of the various mixes
Tensile strength, TS at 77°F [kPa] Tensile

Target strength ratio,
binder Mix Unconditioned conditioned TSR [%]
grade
Mean CV* [%] Mean CV* [%]
C-22 1,338 7 1,158 5 86

SI-22-15 1,544 8 1,200 8 78
SI-22-30 1,234 9 931 7 76

PG64-22 SII-22-15 1,082 9 958 3 89
SII-22-30 738 5 579 10 78
SIII-22-15 1,241 5 1,103 10 89
SIII-22-30 1,269 5 889 4 70
C-28 1,151 8 945 9 82
SI-28-15 517 5 345 8 66
SI-28-30 627 7 476 3 76

PG64-28 SII-28-15 545 8 434 9 80
SII-28-30 1,241 9 1,007 10 81
SIII-28-15 593 10 490 6 83
SIII-28-30 903 8 648 8 72
* Coefficient of Variation defined as the ratio of standard deviation over TS times 100.
7.2. Resistance to rutting
This research evaluated the resistance of HMA mixes to rutting using the asphalt
pavement analyzer (APA) which subjects the mix to repeated wheel loads and
measures the resulting permanent deformation at elevated temperatures. The APA
test is standardized under AASHTO TP63-03. Four 150-mm diameter cylindrical
samples were compacted from each mix using the Superpave Gyratory Compactor
to a height of 75 mm and target air-voids of 7±0.5%. The samples were tested in the
dry condition at 60°C under 8,000 cycles.
Table 6 summarizes the rut depths of the various mixes. All mixes met the
Nevada DOT APA rut depth criterion of 8 mm under 8,000 cycles at 60°C with two
mixes from the target binder of PG64-22 being close to the failure criterion.
Table 6. Rutting resistance of the various mixes
APA rut depth at 140°F Statistical ranking

Target binder grade Mix
[mm] based on rut depths*
C-22 4.6 3/--+
SI-22-15 5.8 4/--

SI-22-30 6.1 4/--

PG64-22 SII-22-15 2.3 2/--
SII-22-30 na 5/--
SIII-22-15 1.5 1/--
SIII-22-30 2.0 2/--
C-28 2.0 --/1
SI-28-15 2.0 --/1
SI-28-30 3.0 --/2

PG64-28 SII-28-15 2.0 --/1
SII-28-30 2.3 --/1
SIII-28-15 2.0 --/1
SIII-28-30 2.0 --/1

+
* Lower rank number corresponds to a significantly better performance. First and second
No. are relative ranking of PG64-22 and PG64-28 mixes, respectively.
The various mixes for each target binder grade are ranked statistically in terms of
their resistance to rutting (from best to worst) based on their APA rut depth at 60°C
(table 6). In the case of the target binder of PG64-22, the RAP mixes from source III
exhibited significantly better rutting resistance than the control mix (C-22). On the
other hand, except for the SII-22-15 mix, RAP mixes from sources I and II exhibited
significantly lower rutting resistance than the C-22 mix. In the case of the target
binder of PG64-28, the RAP mixes exhibited rutting resistance similar to the control
mix (C-28).
Additionally, the APA data show that mixes with the target binder of PG64-28
have significantly better or equivalent resistance to rutting than mixes with the target
binder of PG64-22. This observation supports RTC’s recommendation to use the
PG64-28 grade in the top lift where rutting potential is very high.
All mixes are expected to perform well in rutting except for the SI-22-15 and SI-
22-30 mixes which have rut depths that are close to NDOT’s maximum criterion of
8 mm under 8,000 cycles.
7.3. Resistance to fatigue cracking
The resistance of the mixes to fatigue cracking was evaluated at 22°C using the
flexural beam fatigue test in a strain-controlled mode of testing. The 63.5 by 50 by

380 mm beam specimen is subjected to a 4-point bending with free rotation and
horizontal translation at all load and reaction points. The initial flexural stiffness was
measured at the 50th load cycle. Fatigue life or failure is defined as the number of
cycles corresponding to a 50% reduction in the initial stiffness. The following model
was used to characterize the fatigue behaviour of the HMA mixes:
[2]
where Nf is the fatigue life, εt is the applied tensile strain, and k1 and k2 are
experimentally determined coefficients. Figures 1 and 2 show the fatigue
relationships for the various mixes tested in this study. By comparing the fatigue
relationships the following observations can be made:
– In the case of target binder grade of PG64-22, except for the case of SI-22-15
and SII-22-30 mixes, both the 15% and the 30% RAP mixes exhibited similar or
better laboratory fatigue resistance than the control mix (C-22). The SI-22-15 mix
exhibited a lower number of cycles to failure at a strain level higher than 500
microns whereas the SII-22-30 mix exhibited lower number of cycles to failure at
300 microns.
– In the case of target binder grade of PG64-28, the 30% RAP mix exhibited
lower laboratory fatigue resistance than the control mix (C-28). On the other hand
the 15% RAP mix exhibited a better laboratory fatigue resistance than the control
mix only at a strain level of 700 microns.
In other words, the addition of 15 and 30% RAP to a mix with a target binder
grade of PG64-22 had no effect or improved the laboratory fatigue resistance in four
mixes out of six. On the other hand, the addition of RAP to a mix with a target
binder grade of PG64-28 reduced the laboratory resistance of the mix to fatigue at
low strain levels for the 15% RAP material and at all strain levels for the 30% RAP
material. However, a better laboratory fatigue resistance will not necessarily
translate to a better fatigue performance in the field as the fatigue life of an asphalt
pavement is highly dependent on pavement structure, the modulus, and the fatigue
characteristics of the HMA mix and their interactions. In a mechanistic pavement
analysis, an HMA layer with a higher stiffness will show a lower laboratory fatigue
life but on the other hand it will produce a lower tensile strain under field loading.
10,000
Flexural Strain (microns)
1,000
100
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Cycles to Failure
C-22 SI-22-15 SI-22-30
10,000
1,000
100
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Cycles to Failure
C-22 SII-22-15 SII-22-30
10,000
1,000
100
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Cycles to Failure
C-22 SIII-22-15 SIII-22-30
Figure 1. Fatigue relationships at 22°C of mixes with target binder of PG64-22

10,000
1,000
100
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Cycles to Failure
C-28 SI-28-15 SI-28-30
10,000
1,000
100
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Cycles to Failure
C-28 SII-28-15 SII-28-30
10,000
1,000
100
100 1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
Cycles to Failure
C-28 SIII-28-15 SIII-28-30
Figure 2. Fatigue relationships at 22°C of mixes with target binder of PG64-28

Therefore, depending on the magnitude of strain reduction, the HMA layer with
the higher stiffness may result in a longer fatigue life in the field or vise versa.
Therefore, a mechanistic analysis was conducted to effectively evaluate the
impact of RAP on the fatigue performance of a HMA pavement. The mechanistic-
empirical analysis was used in conjunction with the resilient modulus (Mr) at 25°C
and fatigue characteristics data that were measured on all fourteen mixes to assess
the fatigue performance of an HMA pavement. The pavement structure consists of
100 mm of HMA on top of 250 mm of a granular base course representing a typical
section in the Reno area.

The mechanistic-empirical method of design is based on the multi-layer elastic
solution that relates an input, such as a wheel load, to pavement responses, such as
stresses, strains, and deflections. In this analysis, the axle load was assumed at 98
kN/single axle and tire inflation pressure of 860 kPa. These conditions represent the
legal load limits in Nevada. The modulus properties of the base course and subgrade
were assumed at 207 and 69 MPa, respectively. The repeated-load indirect tension
test at 25°C was used to determine the resilient modulus of the various HMA mixes
(Table 7). The Poisson’s ratio of the HMA mix was assumed at a constant value of
0.35. The Poisson’s ratio of the base course and subgrade were assumed at 0.40 and
0.45, respectively.
First, the tensile strain at the bottom of the HMA is calculated under the tire load.
Second, the calculated tensile strain is input into the corresponding fatigue
relationship to calculate the number of load repetitions to fatigue failure. Finally, the
numbers of load repetitions to fatigue failure from each structure are compared.
Table 7 summarizes the number of load repetitions to fatigue failure for all the
mixes covered in this study. The impact of using RAP was evaluated in terms of the
ratio of fatigue life of the RAP mix over the control mix. A fatigue life ratio greater
than one indicates a better fatigue life for the RAP mix.
In the case of target binder grade of PG64-22, the addition of 15% RAP to the
mix resulted in similar or higher fatigue life regardless of the RAP source. On the
other hand, the addition of 30% RAP from source I and II resulted in a reduction in
fatigue life while the RAP mix from source III resulted in improved fatigue
resistance by a ratio of 2.25.
In the case of the target binder grade of PG64-28, a significant reduction in
fatigue life was found due to the addition of RAP to the mix regardless of the RAP
source and content. It should be noted that the low numbers for the fatigue life ratio
were due to the significantly high number of repetitions to fatigue failure (27.6
millions) for the C-28 control mix when compared to the RAP mixes.
Table 7. Number of load repetitions to fatigue failure in the HMA layer
Tensile strain at Number of

Target Resilient Ratio of
bottom of HMA repetitions to
binder Mix modulus at fatigue
layer, 100 mm fatigue failure,
grade 25°C [MPa] life
depth, [microns] Nf
C-22 7,520 264 337,000 --
SI-22-15 7,490 264 1,280,000 3.80
SI-22-30 2,705 458 61,000 0.18

PG64-22 SII-22-15 5,035 333 338,000 1.01
SII-22-30 2,345 488 25,500 0.08
SIII-22-15 6,020 301 537,000 1.60
SIII-22-30 4,635 349 757,000 2.25
C-28 4,605 350 27,600,000 --
SI-28-15 1,455 587 592,000 0.02
SI-28-30 2,040 517 556,000 0.02
PG64-28 SII-28-15 1,925 530 2,920,000 0.11
SII-28-30 5,855 306 11,570,000 0.42
SIII-28-15 1,720 554 567,000 0.02
SIII-28-30 3,560 401 444,400 0.02
On the other hand, the control mix C-28 showed significantly higher fatigue life
than the control mix C-22 by a ratio of 82. The use of the polymer-modified asphalt
binder PG64-28 in the control mix offered significant advantage in fatigue life over
the PG64-22 control mix.
7.4. Resistance to thermal cracking
The Thermal Stress Restrained Specimen Test (TSRST) was used to determine
the low-temperature cracking resistance of the various HMA mixes. The test cools
down a 50 by 50 by 254 mm beam specimen at a rate of 10°C/hour while restraining
it from contracting. While the beam is being cooled down, tensile stresses are
generated due to the ends being restrained. The HMA mix would fracture as the
internally generated stress exceeds its tensile strength. The temperature at which
fracture occurs is referred to as “fracture temperature” and represents the field
temperature under which the pavement will experience thermal cracking. Table 8
summarizes the resistance to thermal cracking of the various mixes along with their
statistical ranking from best to worst.
In the case of target binder of PG64-22, RAP mixes exhibited colder fracture
temperatures than the control mix (C-22) in four out of six mixes. The two
remaining RAP mixes had fracture temperatures practically equivalent to the control
mix. The most significant improvement occurred with the 15% RAP mix from
source II (SII-22-15). For the target binder of PG64-28, the addition of RAP to all of
the mixes resulted in a significantly colder fracture temperature than the control mix
(C-28), hence an increase in thermal cracking resistance. In most cases the addition
of RAP materials necessitated a change in the virgin binder grade from the target
grade (see Table 2). A virgin binder grade that has a colder low performance
temperature was used. This change in the virgin binder grade had impact on the
thermal cracking resistance of the final mix.
On the other hand, the mixes with the target binder grade of PG64-28 exhibited
significantly colder fracture temperature than the corresponding mixes with the
target binder grade of PG64-22.
Table 8. Thermal cracking resistance of the various mixes
Target binder TSRST fracture Statistical ranking based on

grade Mix
temperature [°C] fracture temperature*
C-22 -18 4/--+
SI-22-15 -17 4/--
SI-22-30 -26 2/--

PG64-22 SII-22-15 -29 1/--
SII-22-30 -22 3/--
SIII-22-15 -16 4/--
SIII-22-30 -23 3/--
C-28 -24 --/4
SI-28-15 -39 --/1
SI-28-30 -35 --/2

PG64-28 SII-28-15 -40 --/1
SII-28-30 -40 --/1
SIII-28-15 -39 --/1
SIII-28-30 -28 --/3

+
* Lower rank number corresponds to a significantly better performance. First and second
No. are relative ranking of PG64-22 and PG64-28 mixes, respectively.
8. Summary of findings
The performance of the control and RAP mixes were evaluated in terms of their
resistance to moisture damage, rutting, fatigue, and thermal cracking. Based on the
data generated from this experiment, the following conclusions can be made and are
summarized in Table 9. While reviewing the findings and conclusions, it should be
well recognized that in most cases the addition of RAP materials necessitated a
change in the virgin binder grade from the target grade (see table 2). This change in
the virgin binder grade had impact on the measured performance properties of the
final mix. Therefore, the findings and conclusions listed below should be assessed
while keeping in mind the changes in the virgin binder grades.
– Impact of RAP on moisture resistance:
– PG64-22 mixes:
- The addition of 15 or 30% RAP to a mix resulted in an acceptable
resistance to moisture damage regardless of the source of the RAP.
- The addition of 15 or 30% RAP to a mix resulted in a reduction in the
unconditioned and conditioned tensile strengths.
- The 15% RAP mixes had higher resistance to moisture damage than the
30% RAP mixes.
– PG64-28 mixes:
- The addition of 15 or 30% RAP to a mix resulted in an acceptable
resistance to moisture damage regardless of the source of the RAP.
- The addition of 15 and 30% RAP to a mix resulted in a reduction in the
unconditioned and conditioned tensile strengths.
- The 15% RAP mixes had lower resistance to moisture damage than the 30%
RAP mixes.
– Impact of RAP on rutting resistance:
– PG64-22 mixes:
- The addition of 15% RAP to a mix resulted in better resistance to rutting
than the virgin mix when RAP from a 15 to 20-year old HMA pavement is used.
- The addition of 30% RAP to a mix resulted in a better resistance to rutting
than the virgin mix only in the case of RAP from a 20-year old HMA pavement
(source III).
- The addition of 15 or 30% RAP from the plant waste to a mix resulted in a
worse resistance to rutting than the virgin mix.
– PG64-28 mixes:
- The addition of 15% and 30% RAP to a mix resulted in a rutting resistance
equivalent to the virgin mix and significantly lower than the APA failure criteria
regardless of the source of the RAP.
– Impact of RAP on fatigue resistance:
– PG64-22 mixes:
- The addition of 15% RAP to a mix resulted in either a better or equivalent
resistance to fatigue cracking than the virgin mix regardless of the source of the
RAP.
- The addition of 30% RAP to a mix resulted in a better resistance to fatigue
cracking than the virgin mix only in the case of RAP from a 20-year old HMA
pavement (source III).
– PG64-28 mixes:
- The addition of 15 or 30% RAP to a mix resulted in a significant reduction

in fatigue resistance regardless of the source of the RAP.
– Impact of RAP on thermal cracking resistance:
– PG64-22 mixes:
- The addition of 15 or 30% RAP to a mix resulted in either better or
equivalent resistance to thermal cracking regardless of the source of the RAP.
– PG64-28 mixes:
- The addition of 15 or 30% RAP to a mix resulted in a significantly better
resistance to thermal cracking regardless of the source of the RAP.
Table 9. Overall summary of the findings from the laboratory evaluation
Target RAP Impact of RAP on resistance to

RAP
binder content Thermal
source Moisture Rutting Fatigue
grade [%] cracking
15 Pass Worse Better Same
I
30 Pass Worse Worse Better
PG64- 15 Pass Better Same Better
II
22 30 Pass Worse Worse Better
15 Pass Better Better Same
III
30 Pass Better Better Better
15 Fail Same Worse Better
I
30 Pass Same Worse Better
PG64- 15 Pass Same Worse Better
II
28 30 Pass Same Worse Better
III
9. Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations were made
to the RTC.
– When a PG64-22 mix is used in the bottom or middle lift:
- Allow the use of 15% RAP without changing the grade of the virgin binder.
– When a PG64-22 mix is used in the top lift:
- Allow the use of 15% RAP from plant waste without changing the grade of
the virgin binder.
- Allow the use of 15% RAP from a 15 to 20-year old HMA pavement with
changing the grade of the virgin binder to PG64-28.
– Do not allow the addition of RAP to mixtures with a polymer-modified target
asphalt binder grade (i.e. PG64-28) without changing the grade of the virgin binder
as identified by the testing of the recovered blended binder.
The second phase of this research effort is to validate the above listed
recommendations and to implement the mix design method and the QC/QA program
on two RTC projects. The research team will develop the mix designs for the two
projects and conduct the performance-based portion of the QA testing on field mixes
from the two projects, which will include the resistance of the mixes to moisture
damage, fatigue, rutting, and thermal cracking.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Regional
Transportation Commission of northern Nevada, the Nevada Department of
Transportation, the Granite Construction Company, and the Paramount Petroleum
Co. for their support of this important research effort.
10. Bibliography
AASHTO, Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing, Washington, D.C., 26th edition, 2006.
ASTM, Annual book of ASTM Standards, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2006.
Decker D., “Handling RAP in an HMA facility”, Roads & Bridges,
http://www.roadsbridges.com/Handling-RAP-in-an-HMA-Facility-article1324, 1999.
Li X., Clyne T.R., Marasteanu M.O., “Recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) effects on binder
and mixture quality”, Report No. MN/RC – 2005-02, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Research Services Section, 2004.
Li X., Marasteanu M.O., Christopher W., Clyne T.R., “Effect of RAP (proportion and type)
and binder grade on the properties of asphalt mixtures”, Transportation Research
Records: Components of Bituminous Paving Mixtures, Vol. 2051, TRB, National

Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2008.
McDaniel R.S., Soleymani H., Anderson R.M., Turner P., Peterson R., “Incorporation of
reclaimed asphalt pavement in the Superpave System”, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program NCHRP 9-12, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.
McDaniel R., Anderson R.M., “Recommended use of reclaimed asphalt pavement in the
superpave mix design method: guidelines”, Transportation Research Records: National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Research Results Digest, No. 253, TRB,
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.

McDaniel R.S., Soleymani H., Slah A., “Use of reclaimed asphalt (RAP) under Superpave
specifications”, Final Report, a Regional Pooled Fund Project, 2002.
McDaniel R.S., Slah A., Huber G.A., Gallivan V., “Investigation of properties of plant-
produced RAP mixtures”, Transportation Research Records: Bituminous and
Nonbituminous Materials of Bituminous Paving Mixtures, Vol. 1998, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2007.
Nady R.M., The quality of random RAP: separating fact from supposition, hot-mix asphalt
technology, National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, Md, 1997.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), “Recycling Materials for
Highways”, Transportation Research Records, Synthesis of Highway Practice, Report
No. 54, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1978.
Olivier J., “The influence of the binder in RAP on recycled asphalt properties”, Road
Materials and Pavements Design, Vol. 2/3, 2001, p. 311-325.
Solaimanian M., Kennedy T.W., “Production variability analysis of hot-mix asphalt concrete
containing reclaimed asphalt pavement”, Center for Transportation Research, Bureau of
Engineering Research, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 1995.
Sondag M.S., Chadbourn B.A., Drescher A., “Investigation of recycled asphalt pavement
(RAP) mixtures”, Report MN/RC-2002-15, 2000, University of Minnesota.
Stroup-Gardiner M., Wagner C., “Use of RAP in superpave HMA applications”,
Transportation Research Records: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.
1681, 1999, p. 1-9.
Xiao F., Amirkhanian S., Juang C.H.M., “Rutting resistance of rubberized asphalt concrete
pavements containing reclaimed asphalt pavement mixtures”, Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 6, June 1, 2007, p. 475-483.
Received: 24 November 2007

Accepted: 9 December 2008

Hajj2009 PDF

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

Hajj2009 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]

On: 05 October 2014, At: 22:28

Road Materials and Pavement Design

Laboratory Evaluation of Mixes Containing Recycled

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2009.9690211

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Elie Y. Hajj* — Peter E. Sebaaly* — Raghubar Shrestha**

* Pavements/Materials Program, Dept of Civ. & Env. Engineering MS257

DOI:10.3166/RMPD.10.495-517 © 2009 Lavoisier, Paris

Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is formed by cold milling, heating/softening

In order to achieve the objectives of the research, the following experimental

4.1. Target asphalt binder grades

4.2. RAP sources and properties

4.3. Virgin aggregates

4.4. Types of mixes

The laboratory experiment evaluated two distinct types of mixes: a PG64-

5.1. Identifying the grades of recovered RAP binders

Table 1. Superpave performance PG grading of recovered RAP asphalt binders

Critical temperature [°C]

SI Plant waste 83.5 82.0 26.1 -12.3 -9.7 PG82-16

5.2. Identifying the required grades for virgin binders

target binder grade.

Recovered Required Virgin Binder Grade

Table 3. Superpave performance PG grading of asphalt binders

Critical temperature [°C]

Target Original Recovered

SI-22-15# NA 74.1 27.5 -12.0 -11.8 PG70-22

SI-22-30 NA 75.5 27.0 -13.5 -12.5 PG70-22

SII-22-15 NA 75.6 24.1 -15.4 -12.3 PG70-22

SIII-22-15 NA 76.3 20.4 -14.0 -14.8 PG76-22

SIII-22-30 NA 76.6 25.0 -14.5 -12 PG76-22

SI-28-30 NA 71.9 10.0 -25.6 -25.8 PG70-34

SII-28-15 NA 71.8 7.0 -27.8 -29.5 PG70-34

SIII-28-15 NA 74.7 7.7 -26.5 -31.5 PG70-34

SIII-28-30 NA 75.5 8.8 -26.5 -26.0 PG70-34

specific gravities. If component specific gravities were to differ by 0.30 or more

Table 4. Mixes’ optimum binder contents by total weight of mix

Target binder grade PG64-22 Target binder grade PG64-28

7. Impact of RAP on mixture properties

resistance, fatigue cracking resistance, and thermal cracking resistance.

7.1. Moisture sensitivity

Moisture sensitivity of HMA mixes is defined as the reduction in the internal

Table 5. Moisture sensitivity of the various mixes

Tensile strength, TS at 77°F [kPa] Tensile

C-22 1,338 7 1,158 5 86

SI-22-15 1,544 8 1,200 8 78

SI-22-30 1,234 9 931 7 76

SII-22-30 738 5 579 10 78

SIII-22-15 1,241 5 1,103 10 89

SIII-22-30 1,269 5 889 4 70

C-28 1,151 8 945 9 82

SI-28-15 517 5 345 8 66

SI-28-30 627 7 476 3 76

SII-28-30 1,241 9 1,007 10 81

SIII-28-15 593 10 490 6 83

SIII-28-30 903 8 648 8 72

7.2. Resistance to rutting

Table 6. Rutting resistance of the various mixes

APA rut depth at 140°F Statistical ranking

C-22 4.6 3/--+

SI-22-15 5.8 4/--

SI-22-30 6.1 4/--

SIII-22-15 1.5 1/--