Feasibility Study on Use of Washed-Reclaimed Asphalt as

a Partial Replacement of Natural Aggregate in Dry-Lean

Concrete as Base Course for Rigid Pavement
Manpreet Singh, Ph.D. 1; Anuj Adhikari 2; Manish Kumar Maurya 3;
Anshuman Srivastava, Ph.D. 4; and Rishi Singh Chhabra 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Dry-lean concrete (DLC) lies below the wearing course of the rigid pavement section to overcome the major reasons for its failure,
such as improper base support, seepage of underground water, and frost action. DLC is generally manufactured with a huge aggregate-to-
cement ratio, which lies below the wearing course of the rigid pavement section. In this study, reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), a waste
material, derived from the milling process of flexible pavement wearing course, has been used as a partial replacement of natural coarse
aggregates in DLC made from portland pozzolana cement (PPC). Initially, the feasibility of using washed reclaimed asphalt pavement
(WRAP) and comparing the results with dirty reclaimed asphalt pavement (DRAP) as a partial replacement of natural coarse aggregate
has been investigated. It was found that WRAP gave better results as compared to DRAP for satisfying DLC conditions. The reason is
demonstrated using SEM images showing variation in formation of CSH gel due to the presence of dust particles. Further, strength and
durability properties (acidic environment, water absorption, and alkalinity) were determined to check its durability of WRAP-incorporated
concrete (WRAPC). The percentage of WRAP and DRAP was varied from 0%–50% by weight of natural aggregate. Also, nondestructive
tests like ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) and rebound hammer test were performed to determine the quality and dynamic young’s modulus of
WRAPC. It was found that the optimal curing period and optimum WRAP addition were 21 days and 20% respectively. An equation has been
developed to determine the optimum moisture content (OMC) for varying percentage of moisture and RAP content. The equation was
validated with the results of researchers and a variation of only 3.3% was found. It was observed that 20% WRAP incorporated in
DLC gives optimal results in terms of strength and durability. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003339. © 2020 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Portland pozzolana cement (PPC); Dry-lean concrete (DLC); Optimum moisture content (OMC); Reclaimed asphalt
pavement (RAP); Washed reclaimed asphalt pavement (WRAP); Washed reclaimed asphalt pavement incorporated concrete (WRAPC).

Introduction
Natural aggregates (NA) are getting exploited and due to their lim-
ited availability in today’s market, the use of waste materials that
have the potential of replacing natural aggregate is increasing rap-
idly (Olawale et al. 2014; Wagih et al. 2013). The increasing de-
mand of aggregates around the world has compelled researchers to
find alternate solutions. On the other hand, in the past decade,
global production of solid waste from the demolition of construction
(roads and buildings related structures) has reached its height and
its disposal has become a world-wide problem (Kabir et al. 2016;
1
Assistant Professor, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Patiala, Punjab 147004, India (corresponding author). ORCID: https://
orcid.org/0000-0001-5845-840X. Email: manpreetsingh2@thapar.edu
2
M.Tech. Student, School of Civil Engineering, Lovely Professional
Univ., Phagwara, Punjab 144411, India. Email: anuz.dot.dot@gmail.com
3
M.Tech. Student, School of Civil Engineering, Lovely Professional
Univ., Phagwara, Punjab 144411, India. Email: manishmaurya603@gmail
.com
4
Associate Professor, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani,
Rajasthan 333031, India. Email: anshu@pilani.bits-pilani.edu
5
Research Scholar, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee,
Uttarakhand 247667, India. Email: rishi.chhabra@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 15, 2019; approved on
February 27, 2020; published online on July 2, 2020. Discussion period
open until December 2, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561.
Montepara and Tebaldi 2000). RAP is one such solid waste product
that can be utilized as aggregate in highway construction. RAP is a
by-product obtained during the milling process of distressed flexible
pavement (Arulrajah et al. 2014; Farina et al. 2017). About 80% of
the total road networks in the world are comprised of asphalt pave-
ment and India has the 2nd largest road network after the United
States. As per the Federal Highway Administration, in the United
States, 91 million metric tons of RAP aggregate gets accumulated
because of resurfacing flexible pavement roads (Xiao et al. 2009).
Unfortunately, these valuable aggregate gets landfilled, causing
environment problems (Arulrajah et al. 2013).
Looking at the Indian scenario, the total road network is about
4.69 million km. Out of that, 2.53 million km of roads are of flex-
ible pavement as per MORTH (2012). Cardoso et al. (2016) found
that flexible pavements consist of 90% NA, and once this flexible
pavement ages and deteriorates these aggregates are thrown away
as solid waste. Considering the issues and availability of aggregate
in flexible pavement, these recycled aggregates can be used in vari-
ous forms of road construction like sidewalks, driveways, gutter,
etc. (Delwar et al. 1997). RAP aggregates generally contain huge
amounts of dust, agglomerate particles, and aged asphalt, which do
not allow binder material to bind with them; hence, a mechanical
roughening process like abrasion and attrition, or chemical solvents
like turpentine, can be employed to remove these contaminants
(Al-Mufti and Fried 2017; Singh et al. 2017). Moreover, removal
of asphalt content in aggregate can be removed by using a bitumen
extractor; however, this requires a huge amount of energy and

© ASCE 04020266-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266

 Fig. 1. Sectional view of rigid pavement with DLC as base course.
capital cost. These agglomerated particles are the combination of
dust and aged asphalt formed from the oxidation process during
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
stockpiling (De Lira et al. 2015).
Many studies have been conducted on the incorporation of RAP
aggregate in flexible pavement in partial form, and incorporating
them in flexible pavement is currently a common practice due
to environmental and economic considerations. On-the-spot utiliza-
tion of RAP for concrete pavements would not only offset the trans-
portation cost of the materials but would also immensely help in
reducing carbon footprint. It also reduces the energy consumption
and green house emission (Yan et al. 2016). One common practical
example is the Jalandhar-Chandigarh highway in India, where 10%
of RAP is incorporated with NA in flexible pavement construction.
Stabilization of base course plays a vital role and in recent years
several material and methods have been adopted to stabilize the
base course in flexible pavement because it lies near to the wearing
section (Wahhab et al. 2012; Montepara et al. 2012). This can be a
reason for why the base course must possess higher resistance to
load as compared to lower subsequent layers of pavement. Thus,
stronger base is always a basic requirement for better stability.
When RAP is used in surface course, texture plays an important
role because it governs frictional resistance and safety of a driver
(Praticò and Vaiana 2015). Hence, RAP is encouraged to be used
in base/subbase course material but RAP alone cannot meet the
desired strength; therefore, blending them with some stabilizing
agents like cement or lime improves the overall strength and
durability properties (Puppala et al. 2011; Sireesh et al. 2016; Taha
et al. 1999). Moreover, RAP aggregate alone in base/subbase
course undergoes permanent deformation under traffic loading
(Thakur et al. 2012). This loss in strength is due to the presence
of dust and agglomerated particles present around the periphery
of RAP aggregate (Huang et al. 2006). Moreover, the findings of
Huang et al. (2005, 2006) stated that at 100% coarse RAP replace-
ment to NA the reduction in strength was up to 75%, for a binder
content of 396 kg=m3 . Also, a decrease in flexural strength and
splitting tensile strength was reported by Abraham and Ransinchung
(2018) and Hossiney et al. (2010) for all curing ages. Moreover,
reduction in durability properties was reported by Abraham and
Ransinchung (2018) and Singh et al. (2018b), where the addition
of RAP at a higher percentage contributed to a reduction in
durability property.
The strength in base/subbase course can also be achieved by
using DLC by using either PPC, ordinary portland cement (OPC),
or portland slag cement (PSC) as per [IRC SP-49 (BIS 2014)], as
shown in Fig. 1. Moreover, it has been found that the use of PPC
poses higher strength compared to OPC. Also, the cement aggre-
gate ratio for PPC was significantly lower compared to OPC. How-
ever, the density of the DLC mix gets reduced on manufacture with
PPC (Kumar 2016).
In today’s road construction practice, the construction of rigid
pavement structure requires a layer of DLC as base/subbase course
over which pavement quality concrete layers rest. As per IRC
© ASCE 04020266-2
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266
SP-49 (BIS 2014), PPC can be used for the construction of
DLC but does not specify the concrete mix proportion. However,
DLC should have a maximum aggregate-to-cement ratio of 12∶1
and cement content should not be less than 140 kg=m3 . DLC pro-
vides uniform and strong support, high resistance to deformation,
and reduction in depth of pavement slabs, making positive impact
in terms of economic consideration.
The initial investigation of addition of RAP on concrete roads
was done by Delwar et al. (1997). It was observed that the density
of hardened concrete reduces during the addition of RAP in cement
concrete. The incorporation of RAP in cement concrete has
increased its workability but has reduced the hardening properties.
This increase in workability is because of the asphalt present in the
surface area of aggregates (Brand and Roesler 2014). Due to scar-
city of NA this study focuses on the use of RAP aggregate in DLC
in partial form. However, the addition of RAP in DLC or in roller-
compacted concrete was found to lose its mechanical and durability
properties (Debbarma et al. 2020; Settari et al. 2015; Singh et al.
2018b). Keeping in mind the points of view of the previous liter-
ature, an effort has been made to increase the utility of RAP
aggregate and replacement of base/subbase course with DLC. A
study was carried out on RAP and inferred that if these aggregates
are properly selected, processed, and compacted, then they may
provide a property comparable to NA (Vieira and Pereira 2015).
It was found that the nominal size and particle size distribution
of RAP and NA is not the same; this might affect the mechanical
and durability property of concrete (Abed et al. 2018). Hence, an
attempt was made to match the particle size distribution of RAP and
NA in the present study as per the gradation chart given in IRC
SP-49 (BIS 2014). The presence of aged asphalt, dust, and agglom-
erated particles would also affect the slump value and workability
of fresh concrete by absorbing water, so the RAP aggregate was
washed and dried to bridge the gaps found in the literature.
The aggregate was dried at room temperature for 72 h before batch-
ing and the same water was used (after sedimenting) during the
curing process to reduce environmental impacts. With this gap in
mind, RAP was collected from the stockpile after being crushed
and screened from the milling machine. Trial mixes were per-
formed with varying moisture content (5.0%, 5.5%, 6.0%, 6.5%,
and 7.0%) in order to obtain OMC. NA was partially replaced by
WRAP and DRAP up to 50% (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and
50%). The slump value was determined to obtain workability of
concrete for various percentages of WRAP and DRAP. Compres-
sive strength, flexural strength, and splitting tensile strength tests
were performed in order to determine the mechanical property
of aggregate. WRAP showed better mechanical results, and hence
acidic environment, water absorption, and alkalinity tests were per-
formed on WRAPC in order to check the durability property of
concrete. So far, none of the past researchers have developed a re-
lation to determine OMC, compressive, flexural, and splitting ten-
sile strength with varying percentages of RAP aggregates, which
has been studied in this paper.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Table 1. Physical properties of cement Material and Mix Design
Observed Recommended values
S. No Property of cement valuesa as per BIS PPC conforming to IS 1489 Part 1 (BIS 1991) with a specific grav-
ity of 2.9 was used in this study. Table 1 presents physical proper-
1 Soundness 4 mm Less than 10 mm ties of cement. Natural river sand from the RMC plant, Phagwara,
2 Standard consistency 35% Not less than 15% and
India, conforming to grading zone III as per IS:2720 Part 4 (BIS
not more than 35%
3 Fineness 3.5 Not more than 10
1970) was used for the preparation of mixes. The distribution
4 Specific gravity 2.9 2.9–3.0 of particle size of the fine aggregate used in this study is shown
a
in Fig. 2. Coarse aggregate was obtained from the RMC plant,
These values are determined experimentally. BIS = Bureau of Indian Phagwara, India, with a specific gravity and water absorption of
Standards.
2.9% and 0.64%. 15-year-old RAP aggregate was obtained from
G.R. Infrastructure, Banga Road, Phagwara, India, with a specific
gravity and water absorption of 2.5% and 0.61%. The bitumen con-
Research Significance tent in the RAP aggregate was found to be 2.5%. The comparison of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The presence of dust particles in RAP aggregate due to stockpiling
is reported as the primary cause for reducing the overall RAP added
concrete properties. Washing them before incorporating in a mix
can be a factor that may increase the fresh concrete property as well
as the overall mix of concrete. Moreover, the nominal size and gra-
dation is not the same, which influences the strength characteristics.
Matching the size distribution using Indian standard sieves nullifies
the effect. The experimental investigation is done in three parts. The
first part deals with the fresh properties of WRAPC and Dirty
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Incorporated Concrete (DRAPC).
The second part deals with mechanical properties like compressive,
flexural, and splitting tensile strength of WRAPC and DRAPC. On
the basis of compressive strength, the optimal curing period and
optimal RAP addition was determined. WRAPC in comparison
with DRAPC showed better mechanical properties, which satisfied
the DLC conditions given in IRC SP-49 (BIS 2014). Hence, the
third part deals with the nondestructive test of concrete and durable
properties like acidic environment, water absorption, and alkalinity
for WRAPC. Finally, an equation has been developed to determine
the OMC for varying percentages of moisture and RAP content.
Also, a relation has been established to determine compressive
strength, flexural strength, and splitting tensile strength with vary-
ing percentages of WRAP.
the particle size distribution between NA and RAP was made as per
IRC SP-49 (BIS 2014), as shown in Fig. 3. Because the gradation of
RAP and NA was not similar, these aggregate nominal sizes were
matched in reference to IRC SP-49 (BIS 2014). Table 2 presents the
physical properties of aggregate and RAP. Potable water conform-
ing to IS 456 (BIS 2000) was used for the preparation of trial mixes
and concrete mixes. The same water used for washing the aggre-
gates was used for mixing and curing purposes (after sedimenting)
to reduce environmental impact.
Trial mixes were made as per IRC SP-49 (BIS 2014) in order to
determine the OMC. A nominal mix of 1∶3∶6 proportions was used
during the study. The proportion of materials used during study is
shown in Table 3. The quantity of coarse RAP was varied from 0%
to 50% with water content varying from 5% to 7% of the total mix
comprising of cement, sand, and aggregates. Cubes of standard size
(150 × 150 × 150 mm) were casted and demolded after 24 h. They
were weighed after demolding. Five samples each were made for
each varying percentage of water as per IRC SP-49 (BIS 2014). The
relation between bulk density, dry density, and water content is de-
termined by the Eq. (1) and the procedure is followed as done
by Singh (2001)
γb
γd ¼ ð1Þ
1þw

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of fine aggregate.

© ASCE 04020266-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Particle size distribution of coarse aggregate.

Table 2. Physical properties of aggregate and WRAP

S. No Property Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate WRAP Recommended values as per IRC
1 Specific gravity 2.9 2.4 2.5 —
2 Water absorption 0.64% 3 0.61% Course aggregate: 0.6%
Fine aggregate: 3%
3 Impact value 16.7% — 10.29% Not more than 30%
4 Abrasion value 19.48% — 14.8% Not more than 30%
Note: IRC= Indian Road Congress.

Table 3. Material mix design

% RAP Coarse DRAP Coarse WRAP Water Coarse NA Fines Cement
S. No addition Mix type (kg=m3 ) (kg=m3 ) (kg=m3 ) (kg=m3 ) (kg=m3 ) (kg=m3 )
1 0 DRAP — — 152.71 1,549.62 773.34 222.23
WRAP — —
2 10 DRAP 154.96 — 152.71 1,394.72 773.34 222.23
WRAP — 154.96 152.71
3 20 DRAP 309.92 — 152.71 1,239.69 773.34 222.23
WRAP — 309.92 152.71
4 30 DRAP 464.88 — 165.47 1,084.74 773.34 222.23
WRAP — 464.88 165.47
5 40 DRAP 619.84 — 165.47 929.77 773.34 222.23
WRAP — 619.84 165.47
6 50 DRAP 774.81 — 165.47 774.81 773.34 222.23
WRAP — 774.81 165.47

where γd = dry density; γb = bulk density; and w = moisture
content.
The difference between DRAP and WRAP is shown in Fig. 4.
Experimental Program
Trial mixes were made to determine the optimal moisture content.
The optimal water content determined during trial mix is used
to calculate fresh property (workability and density), mechanical
property (compressive, flexural, and splitting tensile strength), non-
destructive property (ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound hammer),
and durability property (acidic environment, water absorption, and
alkalinity of concrete for same proportion of mix). Five samples each
are casted for percentage of water determined during trial mix as
per IRC SP-49 (BIS 2014) for the compressive strength test. Further,
to test all the other properties, three samples each for 7- and 28-day
curing were casted and tested according to the IS codes.

© ASCE 04020266-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Showing: (a) DRAP; and (b) WRAP.
Workability
Workability was measured by using slump cone in accordance with
ASTMC143/C143M (ASTM 2015).
Compressive Strength
The compressive strength of concrete was determined by using
150 × 150 × 150-mm cube specimen for 7, 14, 21, and 28 days in
accordance with IS:516 (BIS 1959). Five samples each were casted
to determine the average compressive strength.
As per IRC SP-49 (BIS 2014), the average 7-day compressive
strength of 5 cube samples of the same proportion must not be less
than 7 MPa, while the individual compressive strength of samples
must not be less than 5.5 MPa. Moreover, a 10-MPa compressive
strength is taken as the benchmark for the 28-day sample.
The optimum curing period is the curing time taken by the
concrete sample to achieve its desired strength. The curing of a
DLC sample is done as per IRC SP-49 (BIS 2014). The sample
after demolding was kept under jute bags under moist condition
for 7, 14, 21, and 28 days.
The optimum RAP addition is the maximum quantity of RAP
that can be incorporated in DLC mixes. The optimum compressive
strength that satisfies DLC criteria as per IRC SP-49 (BIS 2014) is
taken as the optimum RAP addition.
Flexural Strength
Flexural strength was measured on a 100 × 100 × 500-mm beam
for 7 and 28 days in accordance with IS:516 (BIS 1959) equivalent
to ASTMC78/C78M-18 (ASTM 2018b).
Splitting Tensile Strength
Tensile strength was determined by using 150 × 300-mm cylinders
as per IS 5816 (BIS 1999), equivalent to ASTMC1583/C1583M-13
(ASTM 2013b) for 7 and 28 days.
Nondestructive Test
To assess the quality, uniformity, and density of concrete, an ultra-
sonic pulse velocity (UPV) test is done. This test was done for the
28-day cured concrete samples as per IS-13311 Part 1 (BIS 1992a).
The pulse velocity was determined using PUNDIT version 2.4.4
software (Portable Ultra Sonic Nondestructive Digital Indicating
Tester), which is connected to the ultrasonic transmitter and
receiver.
© ASCE 04020266-5
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266
The dynamic Young’s modulus of elasticity (E ) of a sample is
determined by using relation
ρð1 þ μÞð1 − 2μÞ
E ¼ × V2 ð2Þ
ð1 − μÞ
where E = dynamic Young’s modulus of elasticity (MPa); ρ =
density (kg=m3 ); and V = pulse velocity (m=s). The value of
μ in this study is taken as 0.2 as per Neville (1995).
The principle behind the rebound hammer is that an elastic mass
gets rebounded by an amount depending upon the hardness of the
surface it impacts (IAEA 2002). The amount of hardness present in
the concrete sample indicates the quality of the concrete sample.
The higher the rebound, the higher the quality of the concrete
will be. The test was done on a standard specimen of 150 × 150 ×
150 mm as per IS13311 (Part 2) (BIS 1992b).
Acidic Environment
RAP is a used aggregate that has already undergone extreme envi-
ronmental conditions as a part of the wearing course. Moreover,
this test is done to check its feasibility against an acidic environ-
ment. Concrete with a specimen size of 150 × 150 × 150 mm was
casted and cured in water for 28 days and the test was measured
as per ASTMC267-01 (ASTM 2012), similar to the procedure fol-
lowed by Sokołowska and Woyciechowski (2013). After 28 days of
curing, the specimen was dried at 20  5°C room temperature to a
state of constant mass. Further, the concrete was placed in an oven
at 60  °C and immersed in water for 24 h along with Hydrochloric
Acid (HCl) with a concentration of 2.5% and 3.0% of the total
volume of water, at room temperature. After this, the concrete
was cleaned with distilled water, positioned in the oven at a con-
stant temperature of 60  5°C for 72 h, and weighed. Lastly, the
loss in weight of the concrete is calculated.
Alkalinity Test
The degradation level of concrete is given by its pH value. Concrete
having a pH value less than 9 will affect the bonding properties of
cement. Generally, a durable concrete possess a pH value in the
range of 12–13. The 28-day cured concrete was tested per the
procedure explained by Singh et al. (2017). The test is done in
accordance with ASTM D4262-05 (ASTM 2018a). 20 g of con-
crete powder, which passes through a 1.18 mm IS sieve, is taken
and mixed with 100 mL of distilled water. The sample is mixed
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 vigorously and then it is made to stand for 72 h. After 72 h, alka-
linity is measured by using a pH meter.
Water Absorption
The water absorption of the concrete sample was determined on
150 × 150 × 150-mm concrete cubes, which were cured for 28 days
as per ASTMC642-13 (ASTM 2013a). The specimen is then im-
mersed in water for 24 h at room temperature and the saturated
weight is taken after 24 h (Ms ). Then, the specimen is placed in
an oven at 105  5°C for 24 h and the dry weight is taken (M d )
as per the procedure followed by De Schutter and Audenaert
(2004). The loss in weight is calculated and finally the coefficient
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of sorptivity is calculated from Eq. (3)
Q
K¼ ð3Þ
½A × ðtÞ0.5 
p tion property. In the present study, the OMC value increased after
where K = sorptivity coefficient (cm= s); Q = total amount of
water absorbed in 24 h (cm3 ); A = area of exposed surface
(cm2 ); and t = time(s).
Results and Discussions
Moisture-Density Relation
The moisture-density relation for the calculation of the OMC and
maximum dry density (MDD) for DRAP and WRAP is given
in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. DLC trial mixes were made for
5%, 5.5%, 6%, 6.5%, and 7% water content for varying percentages
(0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%) of RAP content. A MDD
that achieves its corresponding water content is considered
the OMC.
The control mix with NA is found to have the highest dry
density value (2277.57 kg=m3 ) corresponding to its water content
of 6%. The density decreased after the addition of DRAP and
WRAP, but the water content (6%) remained the same up to
20%. For 10% and 20% of the DRAP and WRAP addition, the
Fig. 5. Moisture density relation of DRAP.
© ASCE 04020266-6
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266
MDD achieved was found to be 2,236.48; 2,132.64; 2,254.64;
and 2,235.075 kg=m3 , respectively. However, the OMC for
30%, 40%, and 50% DRAP and WRAP changed. It was found that
after the addition of DRAP in cement concrete, the OMC increased
to 6.5% with a corresponding MDD value of 2110.23; 2124.16; and
2186.17 kg=m3 , respectively, while the OMC value remained 6%
for 30% of WRAP addition with a dry density of 2203.2 kg=m3 .
However, these values got reduced on further addition of WRAP
to a moisture content of 5.5% with a corresponding dry density of
2,195.54 and 2,154.78 kg=m3 , respectively, for 40% and 50% of
WRAP addition. This reduction in dry density after incorporation
of DRAP and WRAP is due to the lower specific gravity of RAP
aggregates as compared to NA, whereas the increase in water
content after addition of DRAP is because of the agglomerated par-
ticles and dust present in the surface of the aggregate.
Contrary to the findings from Settari et al. 2015, the OMC de-
creases after addition of RAP aggregate due to lower water absorp-
addition of DRAP, and this is because of the high water absorbing
dust and agglomerated particles present in the DRAP aggregate.
However, a similar trend was found in Settari et al. (2015), in
the case of WRAP additions, while Singh et al. (2018b) found
an increase in OMC after further addition of old coarse RAP aggre-
gate. Moreover, it was also discoverd that an increase in OMC was
found more in fine RAP compared to coarse RAP aggregates. The
amount OMC and MDD varies with the amount of dust particles
present within the aggregate surface in the form of clusters or dust,
the specific gravity of aggregates, and gradation of aggregates.
The results obtained from the experimental procedure were used
to formulate a model relating bulk density, dry density, and water
content for RAP addition in DLC. No such model has been reported
in the literature to date.
A new relation for bulk density, dry density, and water content is
given according to Eq. (4)
log yd ¼ a1 þ a2 log y − a3 logð1 þ wÞ ð4Þ
where yd = dry density in kg=m3 ; y = bulk density kg=m3 ; w =
water content in %; and a1, a2 and a3 are constants derived from
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Moisture density relation of WRAP.
linear regression. The results were analyzed statistically by the
principle of least squares, and Eq. (5) was derived
  
y
log yd ¼ 1.413 þ 0.57 log ð5Þ
ð1 þ wÞ0.117
The value of the correlation coefficient was 0.763. The standard
error was 0.031 at the 95% confidence interval. The equation was
derived for varying water content of 5%–7% and RAP content of
0%–50%.
Checking the Validity of Models with Results of Other
Researchers
To verify the equation, the results of dry density obtained by Singh
et al. (2018b), the results of two different water content, and RAP
content were checked with the proposed equation in the paper. On
comparing the results for the 6.5% water content and 50% RAP, the
variation in result obtained was 3.3%; also, for the 7% water con-
tent and 50% RAP, the variation obtained was 2.15%. Also, com-
paring the results of Settari et al. (2015) for the 5.5% and 6% water
content with 50% replacement of NA with RAP shows only 2.47%
and 3.22% variation in results, respectively. No other studies have
used only RAP as a replacement of NA in DLC, thus validating the
equation.
Workability
Generally, DLC is zero slump concrete. However, the incorporation
of RAP in DLC increases the slump value. It was observed that the
slump value of 50% RAP concrete was more than 100% NA con-
crete. The increment in the slump value for DRAP and WRAP is
shown in Fig. 7 for the mixes containing 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and
50% DRAP and WRAP content. On comparing DRAP and WRAP,
WRAP showed higher slump value as shown in Fig. 6. This in-
crease in slump value is due to the absence of water absorbing dust
in WRAP aggregates. However, the overall increase in slump value
in comparison with NA concrete is due to the presence of asphalt
coating (Brand and Roesler 2014). In India, the milling of RAP
© ASCE 04020266-7
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266
aggregates is done by an uncontrolled milling technique using a
bulldozer, which causes huge dust particles to accumulate in cluster
form. Moreover, these dust particles get further added in layers dur-
ing stockpiling from the vicinity of the landfill area. The present
study indicates that with the use of WRAP aggregate the workabil-
ity increases to some extent, which increases the travel time of mix
to the sites.
Compressive Strength
It was found that the compressive strength of the sample decreased
with an increase in RAP content. At 7 days of curing, the sample
showed an overall compressive strength more than 7 MPa, up to
20% of WRAP addition, which is the recommended benchmark
value per IRC SP-49 (BIS 2014), and was not found in DRAPC.
The overall reduction percentage in compressive strength for 30%,
40%, and 50% of the 7-day sample was about 40%, 60%, 64%, 38%,
58%, and 60% for DRAP and WRAP, respectively, as compared to
Natural Aggregate Incorporated Concrete (NAC). However, the
individual cube strength for 30% WRAPC was found to be more
than 5.5 but less than 7.0 MPa. Also, for a 28-day sample, the bench-
mark strength of 10 MPa was attained by 20% WRAP addition
whereas 30%, 40%, and 50% showed its strength than 10 MPa.
The values obtained for all the compressive strength corresponding
to the curing days is shown in Fig. 8. Table 4 presents the change in
compressive strength after addition of DRAP and WRAP in concrete
for 7, 14, 21, and 28 days. From the values obtained, it is evident
that compressive strength decreased by 50%–60% as compared
to NAC. The findings of Huang et al. (2005, 2006) stated that at
100% coarse RAP replacement to NA, the reduction in strength
was up to 75% for a binder content of 396 kg=m3 . However, Abraham
and Ransinchung (2019) found that the reduction of strength was
4.85% for 25% RAP addition for a water-cement ratio of 0.44. This
variation of strength reduction depends upon the amount of dust
and asphalt content and age of the RAP aggregates. Moreover, the
compressive strength of the concrete can be increased by increasing
its density. The best method of increasing the density of RAPC is by
adding or increasing the cement content (Singh et al. 2018b);
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Slump value of DLC mixes.

Fig. 8. Compressive strength of mixes with various percentages of RAP addition for various curing days.

Table 4. Change in compressive strength with addition of RAP for various curing days
% of coarse aggregate added
S. No Aggregate Day 0 10 Δ 20 Δ 30 Δ 40 Δ 50 Δ
1 DRAP 7 9.57 6.70 30 6.02 38 5.90 40 3.88 60 3.47 64
2 14 10.89 8.54 22 7.92 28 7.01 36 4.96 55 4.54 59
3 21 12.04 9.04 21 8.76 21 7.03 37 5.82 48 4.98 55
4 28 12.86 10.25 21 9.89 21 8.76 32 7.90 39 6.31 51
5 WRAP 7 9.57 7.33 23 7.24 25 5.98 38 4.04 58 3.92 60
6 14 10.89 8.59 22 8.24 25 7.04 36 5.94 46 5.20 53
7 21 12.04 9.92 18 9.06 24 7.78 36 6.63 45 6.23 49
8 28 12.86 12.08 7 11.03 15 9.16 29 8.32 36 7.21 44

however, it was not possible in this study due to economic consid-
eration because DLC itself is a lean concrete that does not allow
higher cement ratio with aggregate content.
From Fig. 8 it is evident that the optimum compressive strength
attained by the WRAP mix is 20%. At 21 days of 20% of WRAP
mix, the compressive strength attained was 9.7 MPa, which is al-
most equal to the benchmark of 10 MPa. Hence, 21 days is taken as
the optimum curing period.
The maximum 28-day compressive strength attained by
WRAPC is 12.08 for 10% of WRAP addition. But it is evident that

© ASCE 04020266-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266

 Table 5. Change in flexural strength with addition of WRAP
% of coarse aggregate added
S. No Aggregates Day 0 10 Δ 20 Δ 30 Δ 40 Δ 50 Δ
1 DRAP 7 2.650 1.41 47 0.98 64 0.76 72 0.68 75 0.42 85
2 28 4.550 2.96 35 2.08 55 1.43 69 1.01 78 0.96 79
3 WRAP 7 2.650 1.80 33 1.73 35 1.33 50 1.28 52 1.16 57
4 28 4.550 3.85 16 3.56 22 3.06 33 2.21 52 1.56 56
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Flexural strength of mixes at various percentages of WRAP addition.

even 20% of WRAPC also attends the benchmark of 10 MPa.
Hence, the optimum WRAP addition is taken as 20%.
Flexural Strength
Similar to the compressive strength, 100% NAC gave a maximum
flexural strength of 2.65 MPa, but as the RAP addition increased,
the flexural strength decreased. On comparing DRAP and WRAP,
for the 7-day cured sample the flexural strength attained by the
WRAP was found to be 33%, 35%, 50%, 52%, and 57%, while
DRAPC showed 47%, 64%, 72%, 75%, and 85% less than NAC
for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%, respectively. Similarly, the
28-day flexural strength attained by the WRAP sample was found
to be 16%, 22%, 33%, 52%, and 56%, while DRAPC showed
35%, 55%, 69%, 78%, and 79% less than NAC (4.67 MPa) for
10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%, respectively, as shown in Table 5.
A decrease in flexural strength was reported by Abraham and
Ransinchung (2018) for all curing ages. The reduction of strength
varied in the range of 6%–25%. Moreover, for 20% of RAP
addition, Hossiney et al. (2010) found that the variation in reduc-
tion of flexural strength was 20%–22% with the control mix. The
reason for the reduction of strength is same as the reduction in com-
pressive strength. The asphalt present in WRAP does not allow the
cement to form a bond with aggregates, thus failing at lower loads.
However, in the present study, WRAPC showed better results com-
pared to DRAPC, as shown in Fig. 9.
Eq. (6) is the best-fitting equation considering WRAP-
incorporated DLC and shows the relationship between compressive
strength and flexural strength
y ¼ −0.0155x2 þ 0.7158x − 2.4098 ð6Þ
where x = compressive strength in MPa; and y = flexural strength
in MPa. This equation has been derived from data obtained from
five varying water contents (5%–7%) with varying percentages
of WRAP (0%–50%) concrete mixes. The R2 value obtained
was 0.9618.
Splitting Tensile Strength
At 7 days of curing the tensile strength attained by the DRAPC was
found to be 27%, 32%, 44%, 54%, and 63%, while WRAPC was
found to be 15%, 22%, 31%, 47%, and 50% less than 100%
(0.65 MPa) NAC for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% DRAP
and WRAP addition, respectively.
Similarly, the 28-day splitting tensile strength attained by the
WRAP sample was found to be 6%, 17%, 29%, 35%, and 40%,
while for DRAP it was found to be 23%, 25%, 40%, and 58% less
than 100% (0.9 MPa) NAC for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%
RAP replacement, as shown in Table 6 and Fig. 10. Similar to com-
pressive strength, Huang et al. (2005, 2006) found a reduction in
splitting tensile strength as well. The percentage of reduction was
found to be 79.1% and 49.5%, respectively, for the water- cement
ratio of 1∶2. However, according to the findings in Abraham and
Ransinchung (2019), the splitting tensile strength had a greater re-
duction compared to the findings in compressive and flexural
strength. The reason behind the reduction in tensile strength of
WRAPC is similar to that of the flexural and compressive strength.
However, with WRAP, the results obtained were better than tensile
strength with DRAP aggregates.

© ASCE 04020266-9 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266

 Table 6. Change in tensile strength with addition of WRAP
% of coarse aggregate added
S. No Aggregates Day 0 10 Δ 20 Δ 30 Δ 40 Δ 50 Δ
1 DRAP 7 0.69 0.51 27 0.47 32 0.39 44 0.32 54 0.26 63
2 28 0.90 0.70 23 0.68 25 0.54 40 0.45 50 0.38 58
3 WRAP 7 0.69 0.59 15 0.54 22 0.48 31 0.37 47 0.35 50
4 28 0.90 0.85 6 0.75 17 0.64 29 0.59 35 0.54 40
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Splitting tensile strength of mixes at various percentages of RAP addition.

Eq. (7) is the best-fitting equation considering WRAP-
incorporated DLC and shows the relationship between compressive
strength and splitting tensile strength
y ¼ 0.0028x2 –0.0127x þ 0.5127 ð7Þ
where x = compressive strength in MPa; and y = splitting tensile
strength in MPa. This equation has been derived from data obtained
from five varying water contents (5%–7%) with varying percent-
ages of WRAP (0%–50%) concrete mixes. The R2 value obtained
was 0.9755.
The other reason for overall reduction in mechanical strength is
the stress concentration, which is induced in the soft asphalt binder
and causes microcracking within the cement concrete matrix. This
mechanism of failure is explained by Huang et al. (2004), who in-
corporated rubber as an aggregate in cement concrete. The trend
interfacial transition zone (ITZ) of reduction in mechanical strength
was found to be similar; however, less variation was found in the
reduction for RAP aggregate in terms of mechanical strength.
Moreover, the reduction in strength is because of the ITZ built be-
tween aggregate and cement matrix, as shown in Fig. 11. The zone
built with RAP aggregate is found to be larger than the compared
NA because of the asphalt present in aggregate. Findings from pre-
vious studies suggest that the concrete with RAP aggregates has
more large and porous ITZ, which is the major reason behind initial
crack initiation. It was also observed that the amount of calcium
hydroxide (CH) formation within the asphalt cement paste interface
was less compared to overall CH formation in the sample
(Sebastian 2015). Although the addition of RAP in cement aggre-
gate initiates initial crack formation, it also improves toughness by
resisting crack propagation (Huang et al. 2006). However, in the
present study, WRAP showed less variation in the formation of
the transition zone as compared to DRAP. Also, more ettringite for-
mations are seen in the DRAP sample as compared to the WRAP
sample. The same concept has been demonstrated by Abraham and
Ransinchung (2018) using the mercury intrusion porosimetry
(MIP) technique in which more CH concentration is found in fresh
RAP or clean RAP as compared to the aged RAP.
Acidic Environment
Fig. 12 shows the condition of the sample after being exposed to
2.5% and 3% HCl solution. Fig. 13 shows the loss in weight of
various concrete mixes after being exposed to a concentrated
HCl solution. The loss in weight of concrete when exposed to 2.5%
of concentrated HCl was noted as 3.53%, 4.75%, 4.94%, 4.96%,
5.76%, and 6.88% for mixes containing 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%,
and 50% WRAP. Further, when exposed to 3.0% of concentrated
HCl, the loss in weight was noted as 4.95%, 5.25%, 5.40%, 6.60%,
8.1%, and 9.31% for mixes containing 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%,
and 50% WRAP. Thus, it is noted that with the incorporation of
WRAP the loss in weight of concrete increases. This increase in
weight loss with increase in WRAP is due to the increase in water
absorption (i.e., formation of permeable voids). A similar trend was
also observed by Singh et al. (2017), where the loss in mass when
exposed to 2.5% HCl was found to be 14.10% for 25% of ARAPC
(abrasion and attrition). Also, it was observed that the presence of
dust in RAP-incorporated concrete results in an increase in weight
loss (Singh et al. 2018a), and as per research findings, it was ob-
served that a loss in mass for a 100% RAP-incorporated mix was

© ASCE 04020266-10 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Surface demonstration of 20%: (a) WRAP; and (b) DRAP.

Fig. 12. 28-day specimen exposed to (a) 2.5% HCl; and (b) 3.0% HCl.

Fig. 13. Loss in weight of concrete mixes after being exposed to HCl.

© ASCE 04020266-11 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. 28-day compressive strength of concrete mixes after being exposed to concentrated HCl.

Fig. 15. 28-day water absorption value with increase in WRAP content.

found to be 19% as compared to the control mix, while a loss in mass
with fine RAP-incorporated concrete was found to be 46% when the
sample was fully saturated. The 25% ARAPC showed comparable
performance when the sample was fully dried. However, for 20%
WRAPC, the loss in weight when exposed to 2.5% HCl was found
to be much less compared to the preceding research studies.
Fig. 14 shows the loss in compressive strength after being
exposed to the concentrated HCl solution. The reduction in com-
pressive strength for the 2.5% and 3.0% concentrated HCl solution
as compared to the 28-day compressive strength was noted to be
2.06% and 3.34%; 11.02% and 11.67%; 10.17% and 14.85%;
14.76% and 20.13%; 3.63% and 4.12%; and 2.98% and 4.36%
for mixes containing 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% WRAP.
Water Absorption
Fig. 15 shows the water absorption value of various varying con-
crete mixes after 28 days of curing. It was found that with the
incorporation of WRAP the water absorption of concrete mixes
ncreases significantly. Increments in the water absorption value
compared to the control mixes were noted to be 40.74%, 69.81%,
76.81%, 78.08%, and 78.6% for mixes containing 10%, 20%, 30%,
40%, and 50% WRAP. A similar increase in water absorption was
observed by Singh et al. (2017); however, the absorption rate de-
creased when 75% of abrasion-treated RAP was added in a mix. On
the contrary, Settari et al. (2015) found comparable water absorp-
tion for 50% RAP and 50% fine RAP with respect to reference mix,
while the addition of fine RAP in concrete showed 20%–60% of
water absorption. Hence, we can conclude that from the above find-
ings the dusts present within the RAP aggregate are a major source
that increases water absorption. Increasing the water absorption of
various varying concrete mixes leads to a reduction in the compres-
sive, flexural, and tensile strength of concrete. The water present
in the concrete will evaporate when exposed to atmosphere and
form voids, which in turn will be responsible for the reduction

© ASCE 04020266-12 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 16. Coefficient of sorptivity after 28 days of curing.
of strength. Higher water absorption of concrete reduces resistance
to sulphate attack.
Eq. (8) is the best-fitting equation considering WRAP-
incorporated DLC and shows the relationship between compressive
strength and water absorption
y ¼ 0.0003x3 –0.0091x2 þ 0.0894x–0.1978 ð8Þ
where x = compressive strength in MPa; and y = water absorption
in %. This equation has been derived from data obtained from
five varying water contents (5%–7%) with varying percentages
of WRAP (0%–50%) concrete mixes. The R2 value obtained
was 0.9756.
Coefficient of Sorptivity
The coefficient of sorptivity increases with the addition of WRAP
aggregate as compared to the NAC after 28 days of curing period,
as shown in Fig. 16. The increase in the value of the coefficient of
sorptivity is due to the increase in the value of water absorption.
Eq. (9) is the best-fitting equation considering WRAP-
incorporated DLC and shows the relationship between compressive
strength and coefficient of sorptivity
y ¼ −0.0997x2 þ 0.9732x þ 7.5241 ð9Þ
where x = compressive strength in MPa; and y = coefficient of
sorptivity. This equation has been derived from data obtained from
five varying water contents (5%–7%) with varying percentages
of WRAP (0%–50%) concrete mixes. The R2 value obtained
was 0.9586.
Alkalinity
The pH of a concrete signifies its deterioration level. The pH of
a concrete for rigid pavement should not be less than 9.0 and
for durable concrete it should lie between 12.0 and 13.0. The
pH of concrete greater than 9.0 can withstand salting in winter and
other variable climatic conditions. Table 7 represents the pH value
of various concrete mixes.
With the incorporation of WRAP the pH increased up to 50%
WRAPC as compared to NAC. The increase in the pH is noted the
© ASCE 04020266-13
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266
same as the 10% mix to NAC. However, the values increased the
addition of WRAP further, as shown in Table 7. Singh et al. (2017)
found the same results. Comparing the results of present study with
Singh et al. (2017), the value of 50% treated RAP aggregate was
found to be 1.3%.
Nondestructive Tests
Nondestructive tests on concrete were done using two methods.
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) Test
The test was done on a 28-day cured concrete sample. The normal
concrete with 0% WRAP showed the highest velocity of all sam-
ples with 3.8 km=s. However, the UPV value of a concrete sample
slightly varied until 30% of WRAP-added concrete with 3.4 km=s
for 10%, 3.2 km=s for 20%, and 3.0 km=s for 30%. The increase in
the percentage of WRAP after 30% showed significant change in
UPV value. For 40% and 50%, the UPV values determined were
2.4 and 2.1 km=s, respectively. Similar UPV results were obtained
by Al-Mufti and Fried (2017), and it was found that up to 25%
of RAP addition in UPV travelling through concrete remained un-
affected, while during higher addition the UPV value decreased.
However, the value increased when the addition was made in
mechanically-treated form for longer hours of treatment, whereas
the UPV value did not show much influence for the aggregate
treated with chemical solvent. This reduction in value is due to
the nonbonding of the cement matrix and aggregates, which is a
major factor for the ultrasonic pulse to take a longer route to travel
the concrete sample.
Dynamic Young’s modulus of elasticity was calculated using
Eq. (2). From the values obtained, it was found that NA possessed
Table 7. Alkalinity of various concrete mixes after 28 days of curing
% of incorporated aggregates in concrete Observed pH values
100NAC 12.07
10WRAPC 12.07
20WRAPC 12.22
30WRAPC 12.44
40WRAPC 12.75
50WRAPC 12.93
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Table 8. Rebound Number variation with varying % of WRAP after
28 days curing
% of incorporated aggregates in concrete Observed RN values
100NAC 32
10WRAPC 32
20WRAPC 29
30WRAPC 26
40WRAPC 25
50WRAPC 23
higher values of modulus of elasticity (2.95 × 104 MPa) as com-
pared to any other mix. However, there was a slight variation be-
tween 10%, 20%, and 30% of WRAPC with values of 2.35 × 104 ,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2.05 × 104 , and 1.79 × 104 MPa. At 40% and 50% of WRAP in-
corporation, the modulus of elasticity values reduced drastically to
1.14 × 104 and 0.87 × 104 MPa, respectively. This reduction in
dynamic modulus of elasticity in the mix is due to the variation
of density, given that WRAP has a lower specific gravity as com-
pared to NA.
Rebound Hammer Test
Table 8 shows the effect of the replacement of WRAP after 28 days
curing. After 28 days of curing, no effect on the hardness of con-
crete has been noticed for 10% WRAPC. Further, increasing the
replacement of WRAP by 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% resulted in
a reduction of rebound number (RN) surface hardness after 28 days
of curing. Al-Mufti and Fried (2017) observed that for 7-day
curing, 25% of RAP addition had no effect on surface hardness.
Beyond that, there was slight reduction compared to control mix.
Moreover, an increase in the addition of RAP aggregate decreased
the surface hardness with age. The replacement of NA with WRAP
having lower water absorption will not allow NA to obtain moisture
from the surrounding cement matrix, which will thus result in
reduction of stiffness and lower surface hardness.
Discussion and Recommendations
An attempt was made to enhance the properties of DLC by washing
the RAP aggregates as studied from the literature, and the dust
present in RAP was the major reason for decrease in strength.
The results from the present study indicate that washing RAP
aggregate played a pivotal role with the fresh properties of RAP in-
clusive concrete. Because water-absorbing dust was washed away,
the WRAP mix showed better workable characteristics compared
to DRAP. The incorporation of WRAP in DLC performed better
in terms of mechanical and durability aspects compared to DRAP.
IRC SP-49 (BIS 2014) recommends a minimum benchmark of
7 MPa for 7 days of curing. The 20% optimum WRAP addition cal-
culated in this study is mainly focused on higher quality pavement
base course, like national highways and express ways, while for low-
volume roads a higher dosage of WRAP aggregate can be added.
Moreover, the benchmark for 10 MPa was attained by 20% in 21 days
of curing; hence, this means further construction like the PQC layer
can be started after 21 days of curing the DLC course. This DLC can
be used as subbase for road pavements or other projects such as traf-
fic pavements for rural roads and large areas of pedestrians.
Taking into account the environmental aspect of using water to
wash the RAP before using in DLC, according to the Ecoinvent
database (version 3.0), approximately 657 L=m3 of water is used
in mining crushing and the procurement of coarse aggregates. Also,
170 L=m3 of water is used in truck wash-off/transportation-related
activities in addition to the water used for the concrete mix (Nisbet
et al. 1997). The authors had used approximately 190 L=m3 of
© ASCE 04020266-14
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266
water for washing RAP aggregate and the same water has been
used for washing and curing purposes, as mentioned previously.
Therefore, looking at the broader perspective, the use of around
800 L=m3 of water in the cradle to gate stages of coarse aggregates
is being reduced by replacing them with RAP up to 50%. Also, the
use of 170 L=m3 water that is already used at the concrete mix
plant has only been used in washing of the RAP aggregates in order
to obtain better-performing DLC.
Conclusion
The present study describes a possible way to use RAP in DLC.
RAP obtained from a stockpile that had gone through the oxidation
process were used to study the fresh and mechanical properties to
satisfy the DLC criteria as given in IRC SP-49 (BIS 2014). Given
that WRAPC satisfied the DLC conditions of achieving a 7-MPa
benchmark for a 7-day curing period compared to DRAPC, the
durable property of WRAPC was investigated. Some inferences
experimentally investigated in the present study are as follows:
• With the incorporation of WRAP, the workability of concrete
increased compared to DRAPC and NAC. This implies that
the concrete containing WRAP will not settle rapidly and thus
increases travel time of mix to site.
• Density decreased due to the lower specific gravity of RAP. How-
ever, WRAPC showed higher density as compared to DRAPC.
Thus, this decrease in density of concrete decreased the compres-
sive, flexural, and splitting tensile strength of concrete.
• With the increase in the WRAP content, the mechanical prop-
erty (compressive, flexural, and splitting tensile strength) tends
to decrease gradually. 50% replacement of NA by WRAP and
DRAP shows a maximum reduction in strength compared to
10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% WRAP and DRAP addition. The
most noticeable part of the present study was that when 20%
WRAP aggregate was used, the reduction in the mechanical
property was found to be less than 25% after 28 days of curing.
It was also noted that 20% replacement of NA by WRAP pro-
duces a 11.039-MPa compressive strength, which is more than
the benchmark for the construction of DLC as per IRC SP-49
(BIS 2014); however, this was not achieved by DRAPC.
• With the incorporation of WRAP, the loss in weight of concrete
and compressive strength tends to decrease significantly. The
water absorption of the concrete increased with the addition
of WRAP, which reduced resistance to sulphate attack. Simi-
larly, the alkalinity of concrete also increased, which signifies
concrete can withstand salting in winter and other variable
climatic conditions.
• From the present study it has been investigated that 20% of
WRAP replacement can be used for construction of DLC in
rigid pavement without affecting the mechanical and durable
property of hardened concrete.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data sheets related to experimental results and models
developed, or codes that support the findings of this study are avail-
able from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Abed, A., N. Thom, and D. Lo Presti. 2018. “Design considerations of high
RAP-content asphalt produced at reduced temperatures.” Mater. Struct.
51 (4): 91. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-018-1220-1.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Abraham, S. M., and G. D. R. N. Ransinchung. 2018. “Influence of RAP
aggregates on strength, durability and porosity of cement mortar.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 189 (Nov): 1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2018.09.069.
Abraham, S. M., and G. D. R. N. Ransinchung. 2019. “Effects of reclaimed
asphalt pavement aggregates and mineral admixtures on pore structure,
mechanical and durability properties of cement mortar.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 216 (Aug): 202–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2019.05.011.
Al-Mufti, R. L., and A. N. Fried. 2017. “Improving the strength properties
of recycled asphalt aggregate concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater.
149 (Sep): 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.056.
Arulrajah, A., M. M. Disfani, S. Horpibulsuk, C. Suksiripattanapong, and
N. Prongmanee. 2014. “Physical properties and shear strength re-
sponses of recycled construction and demolition materials in unbound
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
pavement base/subbase applications.” Constr. Build. Mater. 58 (May):
245–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.025.
Arulrajah, A., J. Piratheepan, M. M. Disfani, and M. W. Bo. 2013.
“Geotechnical and geoenvironmental properties of recycled construc-
tion and demolition materials in pavement subbase applications.” J. Ma-
ter. Civ. Eng. 25 (8): 1077–1088. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT
.1943-5533.0000652.
ASTM. 2012. Standard test methods for chemical resistance of mortars,
grouts, and monolithic surfacings and polymer concretes. ASTMC267-
01. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2013a. Standard test method for density, absorption, and voids in
hardened concrete. ASTMC642. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2013b. Standard test method for tensile strength of concrete sur-
faces and the bond strength or tensile strength of concrete repair and
overlay materials by direct tension (pull-off method). ASTMC1583/
C1583M. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2015. Standared test method for slump of hygraulic-cement
concrete. ASTMC143/C143M. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2018a. Standard test method for ph of chemically cleaned or etched
concrete surfaces. ASTM D4262-05. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2018b. Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete
(using simple beam with third-point loading). ASTMC78/C78M. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1959. Methods of tests for strength of
concrete. IS: 516. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1970. Specification for coarse and
fine aggregate from natural sources for concrete. IS:2720(Part4).
New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1991. Portland Pozzolana cement-
specification (part-1). IS 1489 Part-1. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1992a. Non-destructive testing of con-
crete -methods of tests. IS13311 (Part1). New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1992b. Non-destructive testing of
concrete-methods of tests. IS13311 (Part 2). New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 1999. Splitting tensile strength of
concrete-method of test. IS 5816. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2000. Plain and reinforced concrete-
code of practice. IS 456. New Delhi, India: BIS.
BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards). 2014. Guidelines for the use of dry lean
concrete as subbase for rigid pavement. IRC SP-49. New Delhi, India:
BIS.
Brand, A. S., and J. R. Roesler. 2014. “Ternary concrete with fractionated
reclaimed asphalt pavement.” ACI Mater. J. 112 (1): 155–163.
Cardoso, R., R. V. Silva, J. de Brito, and R. Dhir. 2016. “Use of recycled
aggregates from construction and demolition waste in geotechnical
applications: A literature review.” Waste Manage. 49 (Mar): 131–145.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.12.021.
Debbarma, S., G. D. Ransinchung, S. Singh, and S. K. Sahdeo. 2020.
“Utilization of industrial and agricultural wastes for productions of sus-
tainable roller compacted concrete pavement mixes containing re-
claimed asphalt pavement aggregates.” Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
152 (Jan): 104504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104504.
Delwar, M., M. Fahmy, and R. Taha. 1997. “Use of reclaimed asphalt pave-
ment as an aggregate in portland cement concrete.” ACI Mater. J. 94 (3):
251–256.
© ASCE 04020266-15
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266
De Lira, R. R., D. D. Cortes, and C. Pasten. 2015. “Reclaimed asphalt
binder aging and its implications in the management of RAP stock-
piles.” Constr. Build. Mater. 101 (Dec): 611–616. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.125.
De Schutter, G., and K. Audenaert. 2004. “Evaluation of water absorption
of concrete as a measure for resistance against carbonation and
chloride migration.” Mater. Struct. 37 (9): 591. https://doi.org/10
.1007/BF02483288.
Farina, A., M. C. Zanetti, E. Santagata, and G. A. Blengini. 2017. “Life
cycle assessment applied to bituminous mixtures containing recycled
materials: Crumb rubber and reclaimed asphalt pavement.” Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 117 (Feb): 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.resconrec.2016.10.015.
Hossiney, N., M. Tia, and M. J. Bergin. 2010. “Concrete containing RAP
for use in concrete pavement.” Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 3 (5):
251–258.
Huang, B., G. Li, S. S. Pang, and J. Eggers. 2004. “Investigation into waste
tire rubber-filled concrete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 16 (3): 187–194. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2004)16:3(187).
Huang, B., X. Shu, and E. G. Burdette. 2006. “Mechanical properties of
concrete containing recycled asphalt pavements.” Mag. Concr. Res.
58 (5): 313–320. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.2006.58.5.313.
Huang, B., X. Shu, and G. Li. 2005. “Laboratory investigation of portland
cement concrete containing recycled asphalt pavements.” Cem. Concr.
Res. 35 (10): 2008–2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2005.05
.002.
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). 2002. Guidebook on non
destructive testing of concrete structures. IAEA-TCS-17. Vienna,
Austria: IAEA.
Kabir, S., A. Al-Shayeb, and I. M. Khan. 2016. “Recycled construction
debris as concrete aggregate for sustainable construction materials.”
Procedia Eng. 145: 1518–1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng
.2016.04.191.
Kumar, R. 2016. “A comparative study on dry lean concrete manufactured
with OPC vis-a-vis PPC to be used for the construction of concrete
roads.” Indian Concr. J. 90: 70–76.
Montepara, A., and G. Tebaldi. 2000. “Use of crushed waste aggregates for
DBM road bases.” Waste Mater. Constr. 1: 996–1007.
Montepara, A., G. Tebaldi, A. Marradi, and G. Betti. 2012. “Effect on pave-
ment performance of a subbase layer composed by natural aggregate
and RAP.” Procedia–Social Behav. Sci. 53 (Oct): 980–989. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.947.
MORTH (Ministry of Road Transport and Highway). 2012. National high-
ways development project. New Delhi, India: MORTH.
Neville, A. 1995. Properties of concrete. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
Nisbet, M., M. G. Van Geem, J. Gajda, and M. L. Marceau. 1997. “Envi-
ronmental life cycle inventory of portland cement and concrete.” World
Cem. 28 (4): 3.
Olawale, A., W. Salim, and G. Oyeti. 2014. “Use of recycled polypropylene
grains as partial replacement of fine aggregate in reinforced concrete
beams.” Eng. Struct. Technol. 6 (4): 184–190.
Praticò, F., and R. Vaiana. 2015. “A study on the relationship between
mean texture depth and mean profile depth of asphalt pavements.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 101 (Dec): 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2015.10.021.
Puppala, A. J., L. R. Hoyos, and A. K. Potturi. 2011. “Resilient moduli
response of moderately cement-treated reclaimed asphalt pavement
aggregates.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (7): 990–998. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000268.
Sebastian, A. B. 2015. Interfacial transition zone composition and bonding
in cementitious material with asphalt- coated particles. Champaign, IL:
Univ. of Illinois.
Settari, C., F. Debieb, E. H. Kadri, and O. Boukendakdji. 2015. “Assessing
the effects of recycled asphalt pavement materials on the performance of
roller compacted concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater. 101 (Dec): 617–621.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.039.
Singh, O. 2001. Parametric study of dry lean concrete as a base course
materials. Roorkee, India: Univ. of Roorkee.
Singh, S., G. D. R. N. Ransinchung, and P. Kumar. 2017. “Feasibility study
of RAP aggregates in cement concrete pavements.” Road Mater.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Pavement Des. 20 (1): 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629
.2017.1380071.
Singh, S., G. D. R. N. Ransinchung, and P. Kumar. 2018a. “Performance
evaluation of RAP concrete in aggressive environment.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 30 (10): 4018231. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533
.0002316.
Singh, S., G. D. R. N. Ransinchung, K. Monu, and P. Kumar. 2018b.
“Laboratory investigation of RAP aggregates for dry lean concrete
mixes.” Constr. Build. Mater. 166 (Mar): 808–816. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.131.
Sireesh, S., A. Deepti, and J. S. C. Prasad. 2016. “Utilization of reclaimed
asphalt pavements in indian low-volume roads.” J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 28 (2): 4015107. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533
.0001374.
Sokołowska, J., and P. Woyciechowski. 2013. “Effect of acidic environ-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Liverpool on 07/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ments on cement concrete degradation.” In Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on
Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies. Kyoto, Japan:
Japan Concrete Institute.
Taha, R., G. Ali, A. Basma, and O. Al-Turk. 1999. “Evaluation of reclaimed
asphalt pavement aggregate in road bases and subbases.” Transp.
Res. Rec. 1652 (1): 264–269. https://doi.org/10.3141/1652-33.
Thakur, J. K., J. Han, S. K. Pokharel, and R. L. Parsons. 2012. “Perfor-
mance of geocell-reinforced recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) bases
© ASCE 04020266-16
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(9): 04020266
over weak subgrade under cyclic plate loading.” Geotext. Geomembr.
35 (Dec): 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2012.06.004.
Vieira, C., and P. Pereira. 2015. “Use of recycled construction and demo-
lition materials in geotechnical applications: A review.” Resour. Con-
serv. Recycl. 103 (Oct): 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec
.2015.07.023.
Wagih, A. M., H. Z. El-Karmoty, M. Ebid, and S. H. Okba. 2013. “Re-
cycled construction and demolition concrete waste as aggregate for
structural concrete.” HBRC J. 9 (3): 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.hbrcj.2013.08.007.
Wahhab, H. I. A. A., M. G. Baig, I. A. Mahmoud, and H. M. Kattan. 2012.
“Study of road bases construction in Saudi Arabia using foam asphalt.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 26 (1): 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2011.05.010.
Xiao, F., S. N. Amirkhanian, J. Shen, and B. Putman. 2009. “Influences of
crumb rubber size and type on reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) mix-
tures.” Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2): 1028–1034. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.conbuildmat.2008.05.002.
Yan, C., W. Huang, and Q. Lv. 2016. “Study on bond properties between
RAP aggregates and virgin asphalt using Binder Bond Strength test
and Fourier Transform Infrared spectroscopy.” Constr. Build. Mater.
124 (Oct): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.024.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.