See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314014212

Structural Coefficients of Cold Central-Plant Recycled Asphalt Mixtures

Article  in  Journal of Transportation Engineering Part A Systems · February 2017

DOI: 10.1061/JTEPBS.0000005

CITATIONS READS
6 267

3 authors, including:

David Timm Brian Diefenderfer

Auburn University Government of Virginia
113 PUBLICATIONS   1,115 CITATIONS    81 PUBLICATIONS   813 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design and Analysis of Cold Recycled Foamed Asphalt Mixtures with High RAP Content View project

Field Performance and Economic Analysis of Pavement Sections with Highly Polymer-Modified Asphalt Overlays View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brian Diefenderfer on 28 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structural Coefficients of Cold Central-Plant
Recycled Asphalt Mixtures
M. A. Díaz-Sánchez 1; D. H. Timm, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE 2; and
B. K. Diefenderfer, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE 3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Virginia Department of Transportation on 08/28/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Two full-scale pavement sections built in 2012 at the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) Test Track were used to
assess the structural contribution of cold central-plant recycling (CCPR) with 100% reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) and foamed asphalt as
a recycling agent (CCPR-foam). The two test sections performed effectively, presenting no evidence of pavement damage during a two-year
period of accelerated traffic loading in which 10 million equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs) were applied. Furthermore, ride quality was not
significantly affected with the application of traffic. Frequent deflection testing over the duration of the study revealed that CCPR-foam
exhibited a similar response to temperature as that observed for conventional asphalt concrete (AC). A procedure based on backcalculated
modulus data was followed to determine the structural layer coefficients for the CCPR-foam layers. The layer coefficients were found to
vary from 0.14 to 0.15 cm−1 (0.36–0.39 in:−1 ). Quantifying the structural coefficient allows this material to be effectively used in the
AASHTO empirical method of pavement thickness design currently employed by many U.S. states. DOI: 10.1061/JTEPBS.0000005.
© 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction This momentary expanded state allows optimizing the mixing

With the ever increasing global demand for construction and
rehabilitation of transportation infrastructure, a collective necessity
for pavement structures capable of meeting the needs of present
road users, without compromising future generations, becomes
evident. The pavement engineering community is challenged with
developing innovative technologies and construction methods that
take into account environmental, economic, and social indicators
that target sustainable development. In that way, sustainable
pavements must systematically minimize the consumption of non-
renewable resources, maximizing the reuse of existing materials,
while generating minimal pollutants and directly benefiting society,
in the most cost-effective manner.
Multiple pavement recycling techniques, using common
recycling agents, meet these requirements. One innovative alterna-
tive, known as cold central-plant recycling (CCPR) using foamed
asphalt as a recycling agent (CCPR-foam) constitutes an environ-
mentally friendly and cost-effective solution that allows reuse of
stockpiles of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) as an enhanced
base layer for a new pavement (Wirtgen Group 2012). Asphalt
foaming is a physical-chemical process that involves heat and
energy transfer to generate a temporary expansion of the effective
surface of the binder and a temporary state of reduced viscosity.
1
Graduate Research Assistant, Auburn Univ., Harbert Engineering Cen-
ter, Auburn, AL 36849 (corresponding author). E-mail: mad0022@auburn.
edu
2 a drainage coefficient (mi ), which account for the layer-specific
Brasfield and Gorrie Professor of Civil Engineering, Auburn Univ.,
Harbert Engineering Center, Auburn, AL 36849. E-mail: timmdav@
auburn.edu
3
Senior Research Scientist, Virginia Center for Transportation
Innovation and Research, Charlottesville, VA 22903. E-mail: brian.
diefenderfer@vdot.virginia.gov
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 20, 2016; approved on
September 2, 2016; published online on February 24, 2017. Discussion
period open until July 24, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation
Engineering, Part A: Systems, © ASCE, ISSN 2473-2907.
process at ambient temperatures. The result is a pavement layer
with improved mechanical properties and enhanced structural
performance when compared with a conventional base layer
(Jenkins and Van de Ven 2001). In that way, the use of CCPR-foam
containing increased high-quality RAP materials constitutes an ad-
equate alternative to conventional AC base mixtures (Diefenderfer
and Link 2014).
Although cold recycling with foamed asphalt is a widely used
technique around the world (Mohammad et al. 2003; Chen et al.
2006; Menendez et al. 2013; Saleh 2004; Fernandez 2013; Loizos
et al. 2007), the available literature addressing the structural char-
acteristics of CCPR-foam materials is limited. In common practice,
three structural design methods are accepted for asphalt-stabilized
materials: the American structural number method (Wirtgen Group
2012), the South African pavement number method (Asphalt
Academy 2009), and the deviator stress ratio design method sug-
gested in Germany for higher traffic levels (Wirtgen Group 2012).
The predominantly used method is the structural number (SN)
design method, in which the design of a pavement structure is based
on empirical correlations, between pavement thicknesses and traffic
loadings, obtained from the AASHO Road Test between 1958 and
1960 near Ottawa, Illinois (AASHTO 1993). Heuristic equations
associate specified traffic loadings to a corresponding SN, which
in turn defines the structural capacity required for the pavement.
The SN of a pavement structure can then be determined as the
mathematical summation of the individual thicknesses of each layer
multiplied by two empirical coefficients, a layer coefficient (ai ) and
structural contribution and the drainage capabilities, respectively.
In the same way, the SN can also be used to represent the structural
capacity of each layer in the pavement cross section as the product
of the layer thickness and the corresponding layer and drainage
coefficients. According to the “AASHTO Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures” (AASHTO 1993), a direct correlation may
be established between the structural layer coefficient and the
measured elastic modulus of each layer. Based on such correlation,
the structural layer coefficient may be used to empirically describe

© ASCE 04017019-1 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(6): 04017019

 the structural contribution of a specific pavement layer under
traffic loads.
Though AASHTO has recently endorsed a newly developed
mechanistic-empirical design methodology known as the mechani-
sitc-empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG) and an accompa-
nying design program, the AASHTO ware pavement ME design, it
has not yet gained widespread use and many agencies continue
to use the 1993 AASHTO design guide mentioned previously.
A recent survey of departments of transportation (DOTs) in
the United States showed that 28 states currently use the 1993
AASHTO guide, or earlier versions whereas 11 DOTs use both
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Virginia Department of Transportation on 08/28/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
approaches (Pierce and McGovern 2014). Although many DOTs
have plans to implement the new AASHTO ME design process,
half or more are at least two to five years from implementation
and only Indiana has fully adopted the new process for pavement
design practice (Pierce and McGovern 2014). Given the current
state of pavement design practice, and the pressing need to incor-
porate innovative sustainable materials in pavement structures,
quantifying the structural coefficient of CCPR for use in the
1993 AASHTO design guide is warranted.
The structural contribution of CCPR-foam fluctuates between
that of a granular base and that of conventional asphalt concrete
(AC) (Khosravifar et al. 2013). Commercial manuals suggest
considering resilient modulus values ranging between 1,000
(145) and 2,000 MPa (290 ksi), with corresponding structural layer
coefficients from 0.08 to 0.15 cm−1 (0.20–0.38 in:−1 ) (Wirtgen
Group 2012). However, as mentioned by Khosravifar et al.
(2013), the modulus for foamed asphalt recycled materials, includ-
ing RAP and quality aggregates, ranged from 690 (100) to
5,517 MPa (800 ksi), even though lower values in the vicinity
of 276 MPa (40 ksi) have also been reported by Jenkins and
Van de Ven (2001). In any case, the obtained resilient moduli
are much greater than typical values used for granular base materi-
als [138–276 MPa (20–40 ksi)]. Triaxial testing has shown that
foamed asphalt recycled materials may exhibit a behavior similar
to that of an unbound granular material in terms of stress depend-
ency (Jenkins and Van de Ven 2001). However, because of the
rheological characteristics of the asphalt binder, the stiffness of
such materials is temperature sensitive, decreasing with increasing
temperature (Khosravifar et al. 2013). Master curves developed by
Kim et al. (2009) for cold-in-place recycling (CIR) using foamed
asphalt as the recycling agent (CIR-foam) were relatively flat
compared with those of conventional AC mixtures. Considering
that CIR and CCPR behave similarly (Apeagyei and Diefenderfer
2013), the smooth curves support the fact that even if foamed
asphalt mixtures behave as temperature-dependent materials,
they may not behave exactly like typical AC. More recently,
Diefenderfer and Link (2014) determined the dynamic modulus
of laboratory-prepared CCPR-foam specimens validating very sim-
ilar trends in terms of frequency and temperature as those observed
for conventional AC mixtures.
A number of structural layer coefficients for materials recycled
with foamed asphalt have been proposed in the literature over the
years. Tia and Wood (1983) suggested using structural layer
coefficients ranging from 0.10 to 0.16 cm−1 (0.25–0.40 in:−1 )
for an artificially aged paving mixture recycled with foamed as-
phalt. Similarly, based on pavement deflection measurements in
two road projects in Indiana, Van Wyk et al. (1983) and Van Wijk
and Wood (1983) estimated the average layer coefficient of
CIR-foam between 0.10 and 0.15 cm−1 (0.26 and 0.37 in:−1 ), with
values as low as 0.04 cm−1 (0.10 in:−1 ) and as high as 0.17 cm−1
(0.43 in:−1 ). Marquis et al. (2003) determined that the layer
coefficient varied from 0.09 to 0.14 cm−1 (0.22–0.35 in:−1 ) for
three foamed asphalt recycling projects in Maine. Sebaaly et al.
© ASCE 04017019-2
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(6): 04017019
(2004) recommended a layer coefficient of 0.10 cm−1
(0.26 in:−1 ) for CIR-foam layers in Nevada. Based on the results
of full-scale accelerated pavement testing (APT) in Kansas,
Romanoshi et al. (2004) recommended a structural layer coefficient
of 0.07 cm−1 (0.18 in:−1 ) for full-depth reclamation (FDR) using
foamed asphalt (FDR-foam). Loizos and Papavasiliou (2006) and
later Loizos et al. (2007) followed an analytical approach based on
multilayer elastic analysis to estimate a structural layer coefficient
at approximately 0.10 cm−1 (0.25 in:−1 ) for a CIR-foam con-
structed on a major highway in Greece. More recently, Diefenderfer
and Apeagyei (2014) used deflections testing and laboratory
measurements of the resilient modulus and indirect tensile strength
of CCPR-foam field cores to estimate a layer coefficient ranging
from 0.14 to 0.19 cm−1 (0.36–0.48 in:−1 ). However, the deflection
measurements were also affected by an underlying FDR layer.
In general, layer coefficient values ranging between the layer
coefficients of a granular base (0.02–0.06 cm−1 ) and those of
AC (0.14–0.21 in:−1 ) have been recommended for CIR-foam
and CCPR-foam. However, this range is wide and the values se-
lected may be under- or overestimating the true structural capacity
of a CCPR-foam layer, resulting in nonoptimized thickness
designs. Furthermore, only two of the studies found in the literature
specifically considered CCPR materials (Diefenderfer and Link
2014; Diefenderfer and Apeagyei 2014), even though most of
the research addressed other in-place recycling techniques
(e.g., CIR and FDR). Although it has been suggested that CCPR
performs similarly to CIR in the field (Apeagyei and Diefenderfer
2013), it is still necessary to determine the specific structural
properties of CCPR-foam. Considering the asphalt paving indus-
try’s inclination for higher RAP usage and longer-lasting
pavements, it is essential to determine a CCPR-foam layer coeffi-
cient that represents the structural capacity of such layers more
accurately. To be consistent with the original layer coefficient cor-
relations established at the AASHO Road Test (AASHTO 1993), it
was decided to preserve U.S. customary units throughout this
investigation as presented in this paper.
Objectives and Scope of Work
The primary objective of this study was to compute the structural
layer coefficient for materials from CCPR using 100% RAP and
CCPR-foam as a recycling agent. To accomplish this objective,
the performance of two full-scale test sections, built in 2012 at
the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) Pavement
Test Track, was studied. The layer coefficient of the CCPR-foam
layer was determined using the results from repeated deflection
testing for a two-year period during which the sections were
subjected to accelerated traffic loadings.
Facility, Sections, and Testing
Two full-scale pavement sections containing a CCPR-foam layer
were built as part of the fifth reconstruction cycle at the NCAT Test
Track during the summer of 2012. The NCAT Test Track is a
2.7-km (1.7-mi) closed-loop full-scale flexible pavement test
facility located in Opelika, Alabama. Multiple 200-ft test sections
are loaded with approximately 10 million ESALs over a two-year
period. Frequent measurements of pavement response, deflection,
and performance are completed during this period. Additionally,
precise climate records and traffic data, applied by a fleet of tractor
triple-trailers, are kept during the test cycle. Traffic operations for
the fifth research cycle began in October 2012.
The two pavements were built in adjacent sections on the north
tangent of the Test Track. Sections N3 and N4 were part of a larger
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.
 N3 - 6"AC N4 - 4"AC
0
Pb = 6.1% Pb = 6.0%
2 Va = 4.7%
4 Va = 4.3%
6 Pb = 4.6%
Pb = 4.6%
8 Va = 7.4%
Va = 7.1%
10
12 Pb = 4.4%
Va = 6.4%
14
16
Depth, cm

18
20
22
24
26
28
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Virginia Department of Transportation on 08/28/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

30
32
34
36
38
40
Track Subgrade
Crushed Granite Base
Fig. 2. Variation in IRI with applied traffic
100% RAP CCPR with 2% Foamed PG67-22 and 1% Type II Cement
19.0 mm Superpave Mixture with 30% RAP and PG67-22
19.0 mm SMA with 12.5% RAP and PG76-22

Fig. 1. Pavement cross sections and as-built properties
study sponsored by the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) in an effort to evaluate the use of CCPR-foam under
accelerated traffic conditions. As shown in Fig. 1, Section N3
consisted of approximately 15.25 cm (6 in.) of AC over a
12.70-cm- (5-in.-) thick CCPR-foam layer, whereas Section N4
consisted of approximately 10.16 cm (4 in.) of AC over a
12.70-cm- (5-in.-) thick CCPR-foam layer. Each section featured
a stone-matrix asphalt (SMA) surface layer over one (N4) or
two (N3) layers of a Superpave dense-graded mixture (SDG).
The binder (Pb ) and air void (V a ) contents of each AC layer are
shown in the figure. In both sections, the CCPR-foam layer was
constructed on top of a two-layer system consisting of a
crushed-granite base layer over the local subgrade found at the Test
Track, previously classified as an A-4 soil (Taylor and Timm 2009).
The thickness for each layer was determined from survey data at
multiple random locations in each section. Therefore, the average
as-built thicknesses presented in Fig. 1 reflect the natural variation
attributed to standard construction practices. Temperature probes
were installed at an intermediate depth in the combined AC and
CCPR layers, as described by Timm (2009). Diefenderfer and Link
(2014) documented the laboratory characterization of the same
CCPR-foam mixture, and the field performance of the test sections
was described by Timm et al. (2015). Extensive laboratory testing
of the AC materials were also conducted, but the results are beyond
the scope of this investigation.
The sections were opened to traffic on October 23, 2012, and a
program of regular falling-weight deflectometer (FWD) testing and
performance monitoring began. Each section was subjected to
FWD testing, several times per month, in the inside and outside
wheelpaths and between the wheelpaths at four previously selected
longitudinal stations. Testing was conducted using a Dynatest 8000
FWD with a 15-cm- (5.91-in.-) radius split plate and nine deflection
sensors, spaced at 0, 20, 30, 46, 61, 91, 122, and 183 cm (0, 8, 12,
18, 24, 36, 48, and 72 in.) from the load center. Although three
replicates at four load levels ranging from 2,721 to 7257 kg
(6,000 to 16,000 lb) were obtained through the research cycle,
only the data obtained for the second load level [approximately
4,082 kg (9,000 lb)] were used for this study. Furthermore, a
corresponding middepth temperature was recorded during each
FWD test.
Rut depth and ride quality measurements were made with a high
speed automated road analyzer (ARAN) van. Both sections
exhibited excellent performance over the research period, with
maximum rut depths of 7.37 mm (0.29 in.) for Section N4 and
6.35 mm (0.25 in.) for Section N3, after approximately 10.05 mil-
lion ESALs. Ride quality, expressed as the international roughness
index (IRI), was determined for each test section. As shown in
Fig. 2, both test sections maintained IRI values well below the
maximum threshold of 270 cm=km (170 in:=mi) recommended
by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2015). These sec-
tions would be categorized as “good” in terms of ride quality for an
interstate pavement by VDOT (2014). Furthermore, the small slope
of the linear trendlines and the low coefficients of determination
(R2 ) observed in Fig. 2 suggest that the IRI remained relatively con-
stant over the research period. Ride quality was not significantly
affected by the application of traffic, supporting the adequate per-
formance described by Timm et al. (2015).
A procedure for determining the structural layer coefficient,
based on the variations in IRI with applied traffic at the Test
Track, was proposed by Peters-Davis and Timm (2011). This
method considered using the traffic and performance data in
conjunction with the traffic equations developed at the AASHO
Road Test and the AASHTO flexible pavement design equation
to determine the predicted and calculated ESALs during one or
more research cycles. The procedure relied on defining a significant
variation in the IRI over the research cycle to estimate the change in
serviceability (ΔPSI), which in turn allowed obtaining the struc-
tural layer coefficients of the AC layers based on a least-squares
regression based on the SN corresponding to each individual test
section. However, this procedure was not applicable for Sections
N3 and N4 included in this study because it depended on having
a significant increase in the IRI to estimate the magnitude of the
ΔPSI used as input in the design equations. Although some in-
crease in the IRI may be observed for Section N3, the correspond-
ing change in serviceability was relatively small, approximately
16 cm=km (10 in:=mi) and prevented determining the layer
coefficient of the CCPR-foam using this technique. Therefore, a
different approach based on backcalculated moduli data to quantify
the structural contribution of the CCPR-foam was used and is
discussed in the following sections.

© ASCE 04017019-3 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(6): 04017019

 Methodology SNAC=CCPR ¼ DAC=CCPR × a ð2Þ

The structural performance and functional characterization of the
two test sections over the two-year research cycle were used to
determine the structural contribution of the CCPR-foam in terms
of a layer coefficient. As previously mentioned, the structural layer
coefficient is used in the SN design method to empirically describe
the structural contribution of a specific pavement layer under
traffic loads.
FWD Backcalculated Pavement Modulus
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Virginia Department of Transportation on 08/28/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where SNAC=CCPR = AC layer coefficient determined for the first
approach; a = layer coefficient of the AC/CCPR layer from
Eq. (1); and DAC=CCPR = AC/CCPR thickness (N3 = 9.84 in.;
N4 = 8.17 in.):
SNAC ¼ 0.54 × DAC ð3Þ
where SNAC = structural number for the AC layer; and DAC = AC
thickness (N3 = 5.81 in.; N4 = 3.59 in.):

From periodic FWD testing, layer moduli were backcalculated
using Evercalc 5.0. Each section was considered as a three-layer
structure, where the top layer was defined as the combination of
the AC and the CCPR-foam; the aggregate base and the subgrade,
as the second and third layers, respectively. Previous research had
demonstrated that the CCPR-foam would exhibit a behavior similar
to that of AC (Kim et al. 2009), so it seemed rational to combine the
AC and CCPR-foam layers for the backcalculation process. Later
testing of the CCPR-foam performed by VDOT confirmed the use
of the combined layer for backcalculation purposes (Diefenderfer
and Link 2014).
Using the FWD testing results for the 4,082-kg (9,000-lb) load
level, the raw deflection data were corrected to account for the
variation in temperature through the two-year testing period.
The modulus values were then normalized to a reference temper-
ature of 20°C (68°F) following previously established procedures
used in prior research at the Test Track (Vargas and Timm 2013).
The normalization process allowed plotting the modulus over time
as an indicator of possible pavement damage (at the same temper-
ature, damage could be observed by noting a reduction in modu-
lus). By the time of completion of this study, there was no evidence
of pavement damage in the backcalculated data, nor was any
damage observed through routine pavement distress surveys
(Timm et al. 2015).
Determination of the Structural Coefficient for the
CCPR Layer
The layer coefficient was determined using the correlation pre-
sented in Eq. (1), originally reported by Schwartz and Khosravifar
(2013). As reported by Diefenderfer and Apeagyei (2014), this re-
lationship (for English units) was based on graphical correlations
between the layer coefficient and the elastic modulus of AC from
the AASHO Road Test
a ¼ 0.1665 × lnðEÞ − 1.7309 ð1Þ
ðSNAC=CCPR − SNAC Þ
aCCPR ¼ ð4Þ
DCCPR
where aCCPR = layer coefficient for the CCPR-foam; and DCCPR =
CCPR thickness (N3 = 4.03 in.; N4 = 4.58 in.).
Results and Discussion
Elastic Modulus for the Combined AC/CCPR
The effects of middepth pavement temperature on the backcalcu-
lated modulus of the combined AC/CCPR layer are illustrated in
Fig. 3. The exponential regression equation and the relatively high
coefficients of determination (R2 ) demonstrate that temperature has
a substantial impact on the AC/CCPR layer modulus. The exponen-
tial regression curve corresponding to the asphalt concrete modulus
of Section N5 at the Test Track, built using Superpave asphalt mix-
tures and containing conventional RAP contents, was included in
the figure for comparison. The composite AC/CCPR material
seems to have a similar response to temperature as that observed
for other AC materials at the Test Track (Vargas and Timm 2013).
In that way, the modulus of the CCPR-foam layer appears to be
affected by the viscosity of the binder, which changes with temper-
ature. A more detailed discussion of this variation with temperature
was presented by Timm et al. (2015). Within the scope of this study,
it is sufficient to indicate that this behavior justifies combining the
AC and CCPR-foam layers to backcalculate an average composite
field modulus. In fact, the higher modulus observed for Section N3
at colder temperatures may be attributed to the presence of a greater
AC thickness; the similar modulus values observed at warmer
temperatures confirmed the temperature-dependent behavior of
the CCPR-foam.
Mid-Depth Temperature (°F)
32 42 52 62 72 82 92 102 112 122
14,000
Backcalculated AC/CCPR Modulus, EAC/CCPR (MPa)

2,000 Backcalculated AC/CCPR Modulus, EAC/CCPR (ksi)

where a = layer coefficient for AC (English units); E = elastic 13,000
N3-6"AC
Expon. (N3-6"AC)
N4-4"AC
Expon. (N4-4"AC)
N5-AC
1,800
modulus of the AC (ksi). 12,000 E = 3,391e-0.026*T E = 1,720.6e-0.019*T
The temperature-normalized modulus values obtained for the 11,000 R² = 0.645 R² = 0.785 1,600
10,000
combined AC/CCPR layer on each testing date were considered 1,400
9,000
as the E parameter in Eq. (1). Subsequently, using the layer 8,000 1,200
coefficient (a) computed from Eq. (1), the AC/CCPR layer SN 7,000 1,000
was calculated according to Eq. (2). The SN for the AC layer 6,000
800
was then determined from Eq. (3), with an AC layer coefficient 5,000
of 0.21 cm−1 (0.54 in:−1 ), as determined in a previous layer coef- 4,000 600

ficient calibration performed at the Test Track (Peters and Timm 3,000 400
2,000
2011). The layer coefficient for the CCPR-foam layer was finally 200
1,000
calculated using Eq. (4). Notably, using 0.21 cm−1 for the hot-mix 0 0
AC layers was conservative relative to using 0.17 cm−1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
(0.44 in:−1 ) because more structural capacity is attributed to these Mid-Depth Temperature (°C)

layers and less to the CCPR. Had 0.17 cm−1 been used for the AC
Fig. 3. Backcalculated modulus versus temperature
layers, the CCPR structural coefficient would have been greater.

© ASCE 04017019-4 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(6): 04017019

 12,000 0.40 1.0
N3-6"AC N4-4"AC N3-6'' AC N4-4'' AC
Backcalculated Modulus at 20°C (MPa)

Backcalculated Modulus at 68°F (ksi)

1,600
0.35 Linear (N3-6'' AC) Linear (N4-4'' AC) 0.9

CCPR Layer Coefficient, aCCPR (cm-1)

CCPR Layer Coefficient, aCCPR (in.-1)

Linear (N3-6"AC) Linear (N4-4"AC)
10,000 R² = 0.001 R² = 0.036
R² = 0.0001 R² = 0.0349 1,400 0.8
0.30
1,200 0.7
8,000
0.25
0.6
1,000
6,000 0.20 0.5
800
0.15 0.4
4,000 600
0.3
0.10
400 0.2
2,000 0.05
200 0.1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Virginia Department of Transportation on 08/28/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.00 0.0
0 0

10/1/2012
10/31/2012
11/30/2012
12/30/2012
1/29/2013
2/28/2013
3/30/2013
4/29/2013
5/29/2013
6/28/2013
7/28/2013
8/27/2013
9/26/2013
10/26/2013
11/25/2013
12/25/2013
1/24/2014
2/23/2014
3/25/2014
4/24/2014
5/24/2014
6/23/2014
7/23/2014
8/22/2014
9/21/2014
10/21/2014
10/1/2012
10/31/2012
11/30/2012
12/30/2012
1/29/2013
2/28/2013
3/30/2013
4/29/2013
5/29/2013
6/28/2013
7/28/2013
8/27/2013
9/26/2013
10/26/2013
11/25/2013
12/25/2013
1/24/2014
2/23/2014
3/25/2014
4/24/2014
5/24/2014
6/23/2014
7/23/2014
8/22/2014
9/21/2014
10/21/2014
Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
Fig. 5. Structural layer coefficient versus date
Fig. 4. Normalized AC/CCPR modulus versus date

The regression equations presented in Fig. 3, and corresponding 0.40 1.0

to the English units analysis, were used to normalize the modulus
0.35 Random Location 1 Random Location 2 0.9
values to a reference temperature of 20°C (68°F). Fig. 4 depicts the

CCPR Layer Coefficient, aCCPR (cm-1)

CCPR Layer Coefficient, aCCPR (in.-1)

normalized modulus values for the duration of the study. Although Random Location 3 Random Location 4 0.8
0.30
a slight variation may be observed, the relatively minor slope of the 0.7
linear trendlines and the low magnitude of their corresponding R2 0.25
0.6
clarify that the moduli are not significantly increasing or decreasing 0.20 0.5
over time. Therefore, the average value obtained for all the dates 0.4
0.15
should provide a convenient indication of the modulus of the AC/
0.3
CCPR-composed layer for the duration of the study. In the case of 0.10
0.2
Section N3, the average temperature-normalized modulus of the 0.05
0.1
AC/CCPR composed layer was 4,162.64 MPa (603.74 ksi),
whereas the average modulus of the AC/CCPR-composed layer 0.00 0.0
10/1/2012
10/31/2012
11/30/2012
12/30/2012
1/29/2013
2/28/2013
3/30/2013
4/29/2013
5/29/2013
6/28/2013
7/28/2013
8/27/2013
9/26/2013
10/26/2013
11/25/2013
12/25/2013
1/24/2014
2/23/2014
3/25/2014
4/24/2014
5/24/2014
6/23/2014
7/23/2014
8/22/2014
9/21/2014
10/21/2014
in Section N4 was 3,242.40 MPa (470.27 ksi). No significant
evidence suggested that the aging of the test sections may be mask-
ing the observed differences. As mentioned before, the higher value
Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
obtained for Section N3 may be attributed to the 5-cm (2-in.)
increase in AC thickness in comparison with Section N4. Fig. 6. Structural layer coefficient versus date for Section N3

Layer Coefficient of the CCPR-Foam

The procedure described previously was followed to determine
individual layer coefficients for every testing date at every testing Although the average layer coefficient was lower for Section
location by normalizing the measured modulus to a reference tem- N4, the lowest values corresponded to Section N3, approaching
perature. The results for both test sections are presented in Fig. 5. zero in some cases. This explained the greater standard deviation
As expected, the layer coefficients show certain variations with obtained previously for the latter section. Further investigation re-
time, similar to that observed before for the backcalculated modu- vealed that the lower values found for Section N3 corresponded to
lus. Once again, the insignificant slope of the linear trendlines and one specific random longitudinal location. As shown in Fig. 6, most
the low magnitude of their corresponding R2 clarify that the layer of the lower results could be attributed to Location 4. Certain low
coefficients are not significantly increasing or decreasing over time values can also be seen for more recent dates in Location 3. These
and the average values may be used in the analysis. two random locations (3 and 4) are in close proximity to the array
The average layer coefficients were determined as 0.15 cm−1 of instruments embedded in the pavement. In fact, Location 4 is in
(0.39 in:−1 ) for Section N3 and 0.14 cm−1 (0.36 in:−1 ) for Section the middle of the gauge array whereas Location 3 is approximately
N4, with corresponding standard deviations of 0.05 cm−1 15 ft downstream from the gauge array. Because no distress was
(0.13 in:−1 ) and 0.02 cm−1 (0.06 in:−1 ), respectively. These values observed in these areas, the lower moduli and corresponding struc-
are in the range described in the available literature and they tural coefficients could be attributed to disturbed or nonuniform
adequately represent the structural capacity of the CCPR- areas caused by gauge installation activities during construction.
foam. Although a statistical analysis (t-test) revealed that these If Location 4 is not considered in the analysis, the average layer
two values were different at a 95% confidence level (α ¼ 0.05, coefficient for Section N3 is 0.17 cm−1 (0.43 in:−1 ), with a corre-
p-value ¼ 0.000), it was reasoned that the difference was not sponding standard deviation of 0.03 cm−1 (0.08 in:−1 ). This rela-
necessarily significant for practical purposes. Furthermore, the tively high layer coefficient approaches the value of 0.17 cm−1
relatively constant layer coefficient values suggest that the CCPR (0.44 in:−1 ) recommended by AASHTO for conventional AC
may withstand relatively high levels of traffic without a significant (AASHTO 1993). Although testing location has a significant effect
reduction in the structural capacity of the material. on the calculated layer coefficient for Section N3, this behavior

© ASCE 04017019-5 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(6): 04017019

 may also be attributed to natural variations in common construction
practices. Therefore, it was decided to consider the spatial
variability in the analysis, and include Random Location 4, as it
would provide a more conservative layer coefficient from a struc-
tural design perspective.
Conclusions and Recommendations
A study was conducted on two full-scale test sections consisting
of different AC thicknesses over similar CCPR-foam layers and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Virginia Department of Transportation on 08/28/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
built as part of the fifth research cycle at the NCAT Test Track.
Performance and structural response data collected on a routine
basis over a two-year period were used to compute the structural
layer coefficient of the CCPR-foam layer. Based on the data
presented, the following conclusions and recommendations were
reached:
• A mathematical procedure was used to estimate layer coefficient
values for CCPR-foam from backcalculated modulus data; in
both cases, the resulting layer coefficients were relatively
similar, varying from 0.14 to 0.15 cm−1 (0.36–0.39 in:−1 ) at
a reference temperature of 20°C (68°F); these values were
also in the range reported in the literature for cold-recycling
materials with foamed asphalt;
• The relatively constant layer coefficient values obtained over the
research period demonstrate that a service life of 10 million
ESALs can be achieved without a significant reduction in the
structural capacity of the CCPR layer;
• The backcalculated modulus for a combined layer composed of
AC and CCPR-foam exhibited significant susceptibility to
temperature variation, similar to that observed for AC materials;
this behavior was consistent with previous findings that charac-
terized the CCPR-foam as a temperature-dependent material,
supporting the fact that it could be treated as an AC layer from
a structural design perspective;
• It was considered that the backcalculated modulus values used
throughout this study were acceptable, since the numerous re-
plicates provided an adequate representation of the variability
observed in the field during traffic loading;
• Additional research is warranted to fully validate the layer
coefficient of CCPR, aCCPR . Continued traffic over the test sec-
tions may allow observing a meaningful change in roughness,
and consequently serviceability, which would enable an alterna-
tive approach to determining the magnitude of the layer
coefficient; furthermore, the obtained layer coefficients repre-
sent the local weather conditions observed at the Test Track and
additional validation is required for additional climates or
regions; and
• Additional research is also warranted to investigate the design of
CCPR-foam layers from a mechanistic-empirical perspective;
more detailed modeling may assist in understanding the
relatively complex nature of CCPR-foam materials and better
explain their influence on pavement performance.
Acknowledgments
This study was sponsored by the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation. Special recognition goes to Trenton Clark and Richard
Schreck from the Virginia Asphalt Association, David Stowell from
Slurry Pavers, Marlin Hewitt from B&S Contractors, Mike Mar-
shall from Wirtgen America, and Richard Ferron. Dr. Buzz Powell
and Jason Nelson from NCAT deserve special recognition for their
contribution to this investigation.
© ASCE 04017019-6
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(6): 04017019
References
AASHTO. (1993). “AASHTO guide for the design of pavement structures.”
Washington, DC.
Apeagyei, A. K., and Diefenderfer, B. K. (2013). “Evaluation of cold in-
place and cold central-plant recycling methods using laboratory testing
of field-cored specimens.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)MT
.1943-5533.0000717, 1712–1720.
Asphalt Academy. (2009). Bitumen stabilised materials, a guideline for the
design and construction of bitumen emulsion and foamed bitumen sta-
bilised materials. 2nd Ed., Asphalt Academy, Pretoria, South Africa.
Chen, D., Bilyeu, J., Scullion, T., Nazarian, S., and Chiu, C.
(2006). “Failure investigation of a foamed-asphalt highway project.”
J. Infrastruct. Syst., 10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2006)12:1(33), 33–40.
Diefenderfer, B. K., and Apeagyei, A. K. (2014). “I-81 in-place pavement
recycling project.” Final Rep. 15-R1, Virginia Center for Transportation
Innovation and Research, Charlottesville, VA.
Diefenderfer, B. K., and Link, S. D. (2014). “Temperature and confinement
effects on the stiffness of a cold central-plant recycled mixture.” Proc.,
12th Int. Society for Asphalt Pavements Conf. on Asphalt Pavements,
International Society for Asphalt Pavements, St. Paul, MN.
Evercalc [Computer software]. Washington State DOT Materials Lab, WA.
Fernandez-Almanza, J. (2013). “Un Nuevo Modelo de Conservación de
Carreteras: Experiencias e Innovaciones Tecnológicas.” Proc., Octavo
Congreso Mexicano Del Asfalto, Mexican Association of Asphalt
(AMAAC).
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (2015). “Pavement smooth-
ness.” 〈http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Pavement/smoothness/index.cfm〉
(May 15, 2015).
Jenkins, K., and Van de Ven, M. (2001). “Guidelines for the mix design and
performance prediction of foamed bitumen mixes.” Proc., 20th South
African Transport Conf., Document Transformation Technologies.
Khosravifar, S., Schwartz, C. W., and Goulias, D. G. (2013). “Mechanistic
structural properties of foamed asphalt stabilized base materials.”
Proc., 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Kim, Y., Lee, H. D., and Heitzman, M. (2009). “Dynamic modulus and
repeated load tests of cold-in-place recycling mixtures using foamed
asphalt.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:6
(279), 279–285.
Loizos, A., and Papavasiliou, V. (2006). “Evaluation of foamed asphalt cold-
in-place pavement recycling using nondestructive techniques.” J. Transp.
Eng, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2006)132:12(970), 970–978.
Loizos, A., Papavasiliou, V., and Plati, C. (2007). “Early life performance
of cold-in-place pavement recycling with foamed asphalt technique.”
Transp. Res. Rec., 2005, 36–43.
Marquis, B., Peabody, D., Mallick, R., Soucie, T. (2003). “Determination of
structural layer coefficient for roadway recycling using foamed
asphalt.” Final Rep. Project 26 Recycled Materials Resource Center,
Univ. of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.
Menendez, J. R., Thenoux, G., and Gonzalez, M. (2013). “Premature
cracking in foamed asphalt pavement: Peru Brazil highway case study.”
Proc., 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Mohammad, L., Abu-Farsakh, M., Wu, Z., and Abadie, C. (2003).
“Louisiana experience with foamed recycled asphalt pavement base
materials.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1832, 17–24.
Peters-Davis, K., and Timm, D. H. (2011). “Recalibration of the asphalt
layer coefficient.” J. Transp. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436
.0000189, 22–27.
Pierce, L., McGovern, G. (2014). “Implementation of the AASHTO
mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide and software.”
NCHRP Synthesis 457, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, DC.
Romanoschi, S. A., Hossain, M., Gisi, A., and Heitzman, M. (2004).
“Accelerated pavement testing evaluation of the structural contribution
of full-depth reclamation material stabilized with foamed asphalt.”
Transp. Res. Rec., 1896, 199–207.
Saleh, M. (2004). “New Zealand experience with foam bitumen stabiliza-
tion.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1868, 40–49.
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.
 Schwartz, C. W., and Khosravifar, S. (2013). “Design and evaluation of
foamed asphalt base materials.” Final Rep., Project No. SP909B4E,
Maryland Dept. of Transportation, State Highway Administration,
Baltimore.
Sebaaly, P. E., Bazi, G., Hitti, E., Weitzel, D., and Bemanian, S. (2004).
“Performance of cold in-place recycling in Nevada.” Transp. Res.
Rec., 1896, 162–169.
Taylor, A. J., and Timm, D. H. (2009). “Mechanistic characterization of
resilient moduli for unbound pavement layer materials.” Rep. No.
09-06, National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn Univ., Auburn,
AL.
Tia, M., and Wood, L. E. (1983). “Use of asphalt emulsion and foamed
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Virginia Department of Transportation on 08/28/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
asphalt in cold-recycled asphalt paving mixtures.” Transp. Res. Rec.,
898, 315–322.
Timm, D. H. (2009). “Design, construction, and instrumentation of the
2006 test track structural study.” Rep. No. 09-01, National Center for
Asphalt Technology, Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL.
© ASCE 04017019-7
View publication stats J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(6): 04017019
Timm, D. H., Diaz-Sanchez, M., and Diefenderfer, B. K. (2015).
“Field performance and structural characterization of full-scale CCPR
pavements.” Proc., 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Van Wijk, A., and Wood, L. E. (1983). “Use of foamed asphalt in recycling
of an asphalt pavement.” Transp. Res. Rec., 911, 96–103.
Van Wyk, A., Yoder, E. J., and Wood, L. E. (1983). “Determination of
structural equivalency factors of recycled layers by using field data.”
Transp. Res. Rec., 898, 122–132.
Vargas-Nordcbeck, A., and Timm, D. H. (2013). “Physical and structural
characterization of sustainable asphalt pavement sections at the NCAT
test track.” Rep. No. 13-02, National Center for Asphalt Technology,
Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL.
VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) Maintenance Division.
(2014). State of the Pavement Rep., Wirtgen, Richmond, VA.
Wirtgen Group. (2012). Wirtgen cold recycling manual, 1st Ed., Wirtgen,
Windhagen, Germany.
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.