Piratheepan Unr 0139M 10902 2

University of Nevada, Reno
Designing Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA) and Cold-In-Place

Recycling (CIR) Using SUPERPAVE Gyratory
Compactor
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Civil and Environmental Engineering
by
Murugaiyah Piratheepan
Elie Y. Hajj, Ph.D., P.E.
Thesis Advisor
December 2011
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
We recommend that the thesis

prepared under our supervision by
MURUGAIYAH PIRATHEEPAN
entitled
Designing Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA) And Cold-In-Place Recycling (CIR) Using
SUPERPAVE Gyratory Compactor
be accepted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Elie Y. Hajj, Ph. D., Advisor
Peter E. Sebaaly, Ph. D., Committee Member
Jaak Daemen, Ph. D., Graduate School Representative
Marsha H. Read, Ph. D., Associate Dean, Graduate School
December, 2011
i
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to develop a performance related mix design procedure
for both cold mix asphalt (CMA) and cold-in-place Recycling (CIR) using the Superpave
Gyratory compactor (SGC) and evaluate the performances of the mixes using the proposed mix
design method.
Two types of aggregate gradations (coarse and fines) according to Superpave specifications and
two types of emulsions (CSS-1 and engineered emulsion) were used for the mix design of CMA.
The mix designs were conducted following two different methods: a modified Proctor method
and a mix design method using the Superpave gyratory compactor. The modified Proctor method
was useful in identifying the total fluid content required to achieve maximum dry density of the
CMA, but it did not help to obtain the required amounts of water and emulsion separately. The
mix design method using the Superpave gyratory compactor was successful in identifying both
optimum emulsion content and water content of CMA mixes.
The designed CMA mixes using the Superpave gyratory compactor were evaluated for their
moisture susceptibility and raveling performance. The mixes did not perform well in both tests.
As a mitigation measure for moisture susceptibility problem, hydrated lime was added to the
CMA mixes and the mix designs were conducted again. The identified mix design method for
designing CMA mixes was not successful in achieving the target air void of 10.0±1.0%
suggesting that the mix design needs to be studied further.
For the mix design of CIR, two types of RAP gradations were evaluated; a graded RAP according
to Pacific Coast Conference on Asphalt Specifications (PCCAS), and a non-graded RAP passing
1 inch sieve and two types of emulsions (CMS-2s and engineered emulsion) were used. The mix
designs for CIR were conducted following two different methods: a modified Proctor method and
ii
a mix design method using the Superpave gyratory compactor. The modified Proctor test method
resulted in higher water content to achieve the maximum dry density of the CIR mixes, but it is
not practical in the field. Therefore, the modified Proctor method was not evaluated further. The
mix design method using the Superpave gyratory compactor was successful in identifying both
optimum emulsion content and water content of CIR mixes.
The designed CIR mixes using the Superpave gyratory compactor were evaluated for their
moisture susceptibility and raveling performance. The mixes did not perform well in both tests.
As a mitigation measure for moisture susceptibility problem, hydrated lime was added to the CIR
mixes and the mix designs were conducted again. The CIR mixes with lime were evaluated for
their performances and they showed significant improvement. The CIR mixes were evaluated
further for their rutting resistance using the repeated load triaxial (RLT) test and they performed
well. The dynamic modulus of the CIR mixes were measured and the master curves were
developed using a modified equation given in AASHTO PP61 and they were found to be
equivalent to that of hot mix asphalt.

iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my dad; late S.Murugaiyah, mom, sister, brother and a cousin
for all of their love and support.

iv
ACKNOWLEDMENTS
First, I would like to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Elie Y. Hajj for all of his guidance and
persistence throughout the course of study.
I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Peter E. Sebaaly for all of his guidance and assistance
during the research.
I also extend sincere thanks to Dr. Jaak Daemen for his guidance and support.
I would like to express sincere thanks Dr. Peter E. Sebaaly and Dr. Raj V. Siddharthan for giving
me an opportunity to study in the Pavements/Materials Engineering Program at the University of
Nevada, Reno. I am very grateful for the financial support throughout the studies.
I also acknowledge the University of Nevada, Reno especially the Pavements/Materials Program
for allowing me to use their facilities.
Finally, I am really grateful to my friends for all their help and moral support in accomplishing
this study.
v
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................... i
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ iii
ACKNOWLEDMENTS ................................................................................................................. iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ viii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Objective .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Research Approach and Experimental Plan ..................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA) ........................................................................................ 2
1.3.2 Cold-in-place Recycling (CIR) ................................................................................ 3
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA) ................................................................................................ 5

2.1.1 Benefits of Cold Mix Asphalt .................................................................................. 6
2.1.2 Material Characterization ......................................................................................... 7
2.1.3 Mix Design Procedure for Cold Mix. .................................................................... 11
2.1.4 Laboratory Tests on Cold Mix Asphalt.................................................................. 14
2.1.5 Field Performances of Cold Mix ............................................................................ 18
2.2 Cold-In-place Recycling (CIR) ...................................................................................... 20

2.2.1 Material Evaluation ................................................................................................ 22
2.2.2 Mixing, Compacting, and Curing of CIR Specimens ............................................ 24
2.2.3 Selection of Optimum Emulsion Content and Water Content ............................... 26
2.2.4 Tests on Compacted Samples ................................................................................ 29
Chapter 3: Mix Design Procedure for Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA) ................................................. 34
3.1 Mix Design of CMA Using Modified Proctor Test ....................................................... 34

3.1.1 Selection of Aggregate ........................................................................................... 34
3.1.2 Mix Design............................................................................................................. 34

vi
3.2 Mix Design of CMA Using Superpave Gyratory Compactor ........................................ 36

3.2.2 Selection of Emulsified Asphalt ............................................................................ 37
3.2.3 Determination of Mixing Time and Coating Ability ............................................. 38
3.2.4 Determination of Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravities (Gmm) for Cold Mix
Asphalt (AASHTO-T209) ..................................................................................................... 39
3.2.5 Determination of Required Number of Gyrations to Prepare Compacted Sample 40
3.2.6 Determination of Curing Time for Compacted CMA Samples ............................. 41
3.2.7 Determination of Optimum Emulsion Content (OEC) .......................................... 42
3.2.8 Determination of Optimum Water Content (OWC)............................................... 42
Chapter 4: Mix Design Procedure for Cold-in-place Recycling (CIR).......................................... 43
4.1 Mix Design of CIR Using the Modified Proctor Test. ................................................... 43
4.1.2 Mix Design............................................................................................................. 43
4.2 Mix Design of CIR Using the Superpave Gyratory Compacted Samples. .................... 44
4.2.1 Selection of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) ................................................. 45
4.2.2 Selection of Emulsified Asphalt ............................................................................ 45
4.2.3 Determination of Mixing Time .............................................................................. 46
4.2.4 Determination of Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravities (Gmm) (AASHTO-

T209) 46
4.2.5 Determination of Required Number of Gyrations to Prepare Compacted Sample 47
4.2.6 Determination of Curing Time for Compacted CIR Samples ................................ 48
4.2.7 Determination of Optimum Emulsion Content (OEC) and Optimum Water Content
(OWC) 49
Chapter 5: Evaluations of Mix Design Procedures for Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA) and Cold-in-
place Recycling (CIR).................................................................................................................... 51
5.1 Evaluations of Mix Design Procedures for Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA).......................... 51
5.1.1 Moisture Sensitivity Test (AASHTO T283) .......................................................... 51
vii
5.1.2 Raveling Test (ASTM D 7196) .............................................................................. 51
5.1.3 Cohesion Test (ASTM D3910 with Modification) ................................................ 52
5.2 Evaluations of Mix Design Procedures for Cold-in-place Recycling (CIR) .................. 53
5.2.1 Dynamic Modulus Test .......................................................................................... 54
5.2.2 Repeated Load Triaxial Test (RLT) ....................................................................... 56
Chapter 6: Test Results and Discussion ......................................................................................... 59
6.1 Cold Mix Asphalt ........................................................................................................... 59

6.1.1 Moisture Susceptibility of Cold Mix Asphalt ........................................................ 60
6.1.2 Raveling Performance of CMA Mixes .................................................................. 61
6.2 Cold-in-place Recycling ................................................................................................ 62

6.2.1 Moisture Susceptibility of CIR Mixes ................................................................... 63
6.3 CIR Mixes with Lime .................................................................................................... 64

Chapter 7: Findings and Recommendations .................................................................................. 67
7.1 Findings ......................................................................................................................... 67

7.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 69
References ...................................................................................................................................... 70
Tables ............................................................................................................................................. 72
Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 94
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 135

viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Grades of emulsions which has specifications from AASHTO....................................... 72
Table 2: Recommended aggregate gradation for EAM base by Asphalt Institute ......................... 72
Table 3: Properties of aggregate recommended by U.S Navy guidelines for EAM (19) .............. 73
Table 4: Guidelines for EAM stabilization, recommended by Dunning.et.al (18) ........................ 73
Table 5: Selected gradation for cold mix by Jack N Dybalski.et.al (10) ....................................... 73
Table 6: Recommended gradation for cold patching by TXDOT.................................................. 73
Table 7: Gradation for CIR mix design (% retained) used by KDOT (8)...................................... 74
Table 8: Gradation for CIR mix design used by Todd Thomas and Arlis Kadrmas (11) .............. 74
Table 9: Gradation for CIR mix design used by UDOT and PCCAS (12&13) ............................. 74
Table 10: Gradation for CIR mix design used by MDT (14)......................................................... 74
Table 11: Specification for recycling agent used by KDOT (7) and Todd Thomas.et.al. (11) ...... 75
Table 12: Superpave aggregate gradation control points (AASHTO M323-table 3) .................... 75
Table 13: The maximum %passing through PCS for Superpave coarse gradations (AASHTO
M323-table 4) ................................................................................................................................ 75
Table 14: Selected gradation for coarse graded cold mix asphalt according to AASHTO M323 . 76
Table 15: Selected gradation for fine graded cold mix asphalt according to AASHTO M323 ..... 76
Table 16: The optimum moisture contents of the cold mix asphalt from modified Proctor test ... 77
Table 17: Number of gyrations used for mix design of CIR mixes ............................................... 77
Table 18: The modified Proctor test (method D) results of coarse graded aggregate. ................... 78
Table 19: The modified Proctor test (method B) results of fine graded aggregate. ....................... 79
Table 20: Specific gravities and absorption of coarse graded aggregate of CMA ......................... 80
Table 21: Degree of particle coating for CMA mixes.................................................................... 80
Table 22: Specific gravities and absorption of fine graded aggregate of CMA............................. 81
Table 23: An example of selecting the locking point to prepare CMA mix design samples ......... 82
Table 24: The modified Proctor test (method D) results for graded RAP. .................................... 83
Table 25: The modified Proctor test (method D) results for non-graded RAP. ............................. 84
Table 26: : The optimum moisture contents of the CIR from modified Proctor test ..................... 85
Table 27: List of mix design parameters for all CMA mixes ........................................................ 85
Table 28: Theoretical maximum specific gravities (Gmm) of the CIR mixes ................................. 85
Table 29: An example of selecting number of gyration to prepare mix design samples ............... 86
Table 30: List of design emulsion contents and water contents for all CIR mixes ........................ 87
ix
Table 31: Summary of tensile strengths for each CMA mixes ...................................................... 87
Table 32: Raveling performance of CMA mixes ........................................................................... 87
Table 33: The cohesion test results for cold mix asphalt ............................................................... 88
Table 34: Summary of tensile strengths for each CIR mixes......................................................... 89
Table 35: Comparison of tensile strength ratios for two different conditioning methods ............. 89
Table 36: TSR and raveling performance of Graded CIR mix with CMS-2s ................................ 90
Table 37: Theoretical maximum specific gravity of the CIR mixes with lime .............................. 90
Table 38: The number of gyrations required to prepare mix design samples (Ndesign) for CIR mixes
....................................................................................................................................................... 90
Table 39: List of design emulsion and water contents for CIR mixes with lime ........................... 91
Table 40: Tensile strength ratios of CIR mixes with lime ............................................................. 91
Table 41: Raveling performance of CIR mixes. ............................................................................ 91
Table 42: The coefficients of MEPDG models for permanent deformation .................................. 92
Table 43: Determination of locking point for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion and lime
....................................................................................................................................................... 92
Table 44: Determination of locking point for fine graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion and lime . 93
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: The experimental plan for cold mix asphalt (CMA) ...................................................... 94
Figure 2: The experimental plan for Cold-in-place recycling (CIR) ............................................. 95
Figure 3: Classification of asphalt mixes by temperature and fuel usage (FHWA-PL-08-007) .... 96
Figure 4: Schematic diagram of Nynas test equipment ................................................................. 96
Figure 5: The flow chart for the comparison of cold mix and hot mix asphalt mix design (31) ... 97
Figure 6: CAEMs Dynamic Creep test results at 40°C, compared to HMA.................................. 98
Figure 7: SGC density versus number of gyrations for different vertical pressures. ..................... 98
Figure 8: SGC density versus number of gyrations for different gyration angles. ........................ 99
Figure 9: Selected gradation of coarse graded cold mix asphalt. ................................................... 99
Figure 10: Selected gradation of fine graded cold mix asphalt. ................................................... 100
Figure 11: Moisture density curve for coarse graded asphalt. ..................................................... 100
Figure 12: Moisture density curve for fine graded asphalt. ......................................................... 101
Figure 13: the perforated mold used in CMA and CIR mix design ............................................. 101
Figure 14: Temperature-Viscosity relationship for emulsions..................................................... 102
Figure 15: Temperature-Viscosity relationship for engineered emulsions .................................. 102
Figure 16: Variation of Gmm with emulsion content for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
..................................................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 17: Variation of Gmm with emulsion content for fine graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
..................................................................................................................................................... 103
Figure 18: Curing curve at 60°C for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion ........................ 104
Figure 19: Curing curve at 60°C for fine graded CMA with CSS-1 ............................................ 104
Figure 20: Curing curve at 60°C for coarse graded CMA with engineered emulsion for CMA . 105
Figure 21: Curing curve at 60°C for fine graded CMA with engineered emulsion for CMA ..... 105
Figure 22: Variation of bulk specific gravity with emulsion content for coarse graded CMA with
CSS-1 emulsion ........................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 23: Variation of bulk specific gravity with emulsion content for fine graded CMA with
CSS-1 emulsion ........................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 24: Variation of bulk specific gravity with emulsion content for coarse graded CMA with
Engineered emulsion for CMA .................................................................................................... 107
Figure 25: Variation of bulk specific gravity with emulsion content for fine graded CMA with
engineered emulsion for CMA..................................................................................................... 107
xi
Figure 26: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content for coarse graded CMA with
CSS-1 emulsion ........................................................................................................................... 108
Figure 27: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content for fine graded CMA with CSS-1
emulsion ....................................................................................................................................... 108
Figure 28: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content for coarse graded CMA with
Engineered emulsion for CMA .................................................................................................... 109
Figure 29: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content for fine graded CMA with
engineered emulsion for CMA..................................................................................................... 109
Figure 30: Gradation of graded RAP used in CIR mix design .................................................... 110
Figure 31: Gradation of non-graded RAP used in CIR mix design ............................................. 110
Figure 32: Moisture-Density curve for graded RAP from the modified Proctor test. ................. 111
Figure 33: Moisture-Density curve for non-graded RAP from the modified Proctor test. .......... 111
Figure 34: Variation of Gse with emulsion content for graded RAP with CMS-2s...................... 112
Figure 35: Variation of Gmm with emulsion content for graded RAP with CMS-2s emulsion .... 112
Figure 36: Curing curve at 60°C for graded RAP with CMS-2s emulsion .................................. 113
Figure 37: Variation of bulk specific gravities with emulsion content for changes in design
parameters. ................................................................................................................................... 113
Figure 38: Variation of bulk specific gravities with water content and emulsion content for graded
RAP with CMS-2s ....................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 39: Variation of percent air void with water content and emulsion content for graded RAP
with CMS-2s ................................................................................................................................ 114
Figure 40: Variation of bulk specific gravities with water content and emulsion content for Non-
graded RAP with CMS-2s ........................................................................................................... 115
Figure 41: Variation of percent air void with water content and emulsion content for Non-graded
RAP with CMS-2s ....................................................................................................................... 115
Figure 42: Variation of bulk specific gravities with water content and emulsion content for graded
RAP with Engineered emulsion for CIR ..................................................................................... 116
with Engineered emulsion for CIR .............................................................................................. 116
Figure 44: Variation of bulk specific gravities with water content and emulsion content for Non-
graded RAP with Engineered emulsion for CIR .......................................................................... 117
Figure 45: Typical cumulative permanent strain with number of cycles for HMA ..................... 118
Figure 46: Modified coarse gradation for CMA with lime .......................................................... 118
xii
Figure 47: Modified coarse gradation for CMA with lime .......................................................... 119
Figure 48: Variation of tensile strength ratio (TSR) with emulsion temperature for coarse graded
CMA with CSS-1 emulsion ......................................................................................................... 119
Figure 49: Variation of tensile strength ratio (TSR) with emulsion temperature for fine graded
CMA with CSS-1 emulsion ......................................................................................................... 120
Figure 50: Variation of VMA with emulsion temperature for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1
emulsion ....................................................................................................................................... 120
Figure 51: Variation of VMA with emulsion temperature for fine graded CMA with CSS-1
emulsion ....................................................................................................................................... 121
Figure 52: Variation of VFA with emulsion temperature for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1
emulsion ....................................................................................................................................... 121
Figure 53: Variation of VFA with emulsion temperature for fine graded CMA with CSS-1
emulsion ....................................................................................................................................... 122
Figure 54: The experimental setup of the cohesion tester............................................................ 122
Figure 55: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content and emulsion content for graded
RAP with CMS-2s and lime ........................................................................................................ 123
with CMS-2s and lime ................................................................................................................. 123
Figure 57: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content and emulsion content for graded
RAP with Engineered emulsion and lime .................................................................................... 124
with Engineered emulsion and lime ............................................................................................. 124
Figure 59: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content and emulsion content for non-
gradd RAP with CMS-2s and lime .............................................................................................. 125
Figure 60: Variation of percent air void with water content and emulsion content for non-graded
RAP with CMS-2s and lime ........................................................................................................ 125
Figure 61: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content and emulsion content for non-
graded RAP with Engineered emulsion and lime ........................................................................ 126
Figure 62: Variation of percent air void with water content and emulsion content non-graded RAP
with Engineered emulsion and lime ............................................................................................. 126
Figure 63: Tensile strengths of CIR mixes with and without lime .............................................. 127
Figure 64: Tensile strength ratios of CIR mixes with and without lime ...................................... 127
Figure 65: Raveling performance of CIR mixes with lime .......................................................... 128
xiii
Figure 66: Measured dynamic modulus (|E*|) of CIR mixes....................................................... 128

Figure 67: Dynamic modulus |E*| master curve at 20°C for graded CIR with lime and CMS-2s
..................................................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 68: Dynamic modulus (|E*|) master curve at 20°C for graded CIR mix with lime and
engineered emulsion .................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 69: Dynamic modulus (|E*|) master curve at 20°C for non-graded CIR with lime and
CMS-2s ........................................................................................................................................ 130
Figure 70: Dynamic modulus (|E*|) master curve at 20°C for non graded CIR with lime and
engineered emulsion .................................................................................................................... 130
Figure 71: Dynamic modulus master curves for CIR mixes at 20°C........................................... 131
Figure 72: εp/εr relationship with temperature for graded CIR with lime and CMS-2s ............... 131
Figure 73: εp/εr relationship with temperature for graded CIR with lime and engineered emulsion
..................................................................................................................................................... 132
Figure 74: εp/εr relationship with temperature for non-graded CIR with lime and CMS-2s........ 132
Figure 75: εp/εr relationship with temperature for non-graded CIR with lime and engineered
emulsion ....................................................................................................................................... 133
Figure 76: Flow number of CIR mixes at 58°C ........................................................................... 133
Figure 77: Flow number of CIR mixes at 45°C ........................................................................... 134
Figure 78: Change in percent air void with time in CIR pavements from the literature (State of
Iowa) (30) .................................................................................................................................... 134
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background
Hot mix asphalts (HMA) play a main role in providing good quality ride to the public. But the
production of HMA contributes considerably to air pollution. The contaminants are discharged to
the air from the burning of fuels used for heating and drying aggregate, from dust produced
during subsequent handling of dry aggregate prior to mixing, and from the burning of fuels used
for mixing and compaction at elevated temperatures (275- 350°F). The production cost of hot
mix asphalt and warm mix asphalt is also increasing the price of energy. Therefore people are
looking for an environmentally friendly asphalt mix to provide a good ride at an affordable price
for long periods of time. Researchers have been developing and modifying specifications for
HMA and warm mix asphalt (WMA) in recent years to meet public needs. Nowadays, researchers
focus on a new product called cold mix asphalt (CMA) as one of the options available. Even
though a few studies were conducted on developing a mix design for cold mix asphalt mixes, they
were neither well elaborated nor implemented.
On the other hand, the growing demand on our nation’s roadways over the past couple of
decades, decreasing budgetary funds, and the need to provide a safe, efficient, and cost effective
roadway system have led to a dramatic increase in the need to rehabilitate our existing pavements
(15). Many studies have shown that the proper maintenance and rehabilitation of the pavement
save a lot of money versus constructing a new pavement after it is fully deteriorated. It has been
known for many years that Cold In-place Recycling (CIR) is a cost effective, environmentally
friendly rehabilitation method for deteriorated asphalt pavements. Even though it has been used
by many agencies, there is no universally acceptable mix design procedure. Each of the agencies
uses their own mix design method for designing CIR and they are not performance related,
2
therefore several CIR projects experienced raveling, thermal cracking, compaction problems, low
early strength, and extended curing time.
This suggests that there is a necessity to develop a standardized performance related mix design
procedure for cold mix asphalt and cold-in-place Recycling to tackle most of the problems.
1.2 Objective
The objective of this research was to develop a performance related mix design procedure for
both cold mix asphalt (CMA) and cold-in-place Recycling (CIR) using the Superpave Gyratory
Compactor (SGC) and evaluate the performances of the mixes using the proposed mix design
method.
1.3 Research Approach and Experimental Plan

The research was planned to propose a new mix design method for cold mix asphalt (CMA) and
Cold-In-place recycling (CIR) using the Superpave gyratory compactor. The experimental plan
was drafted from the knowledge gained in the literature review, researchers suggestions and the
field experience from the contractors.
1.3.1 Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA)

For the purpose of developing a mix design for CMA, the aggregate was obtained through
Granite Construction Inc from Lockwood, Nevada. This aggregate was crushed and sieved from
an andesite ignitious type rock. Even though few researchers recommended suitable gradations
for CMA, the research team preferred to use the gradations recommended in the Superpave mix
design method as a beginning point with the intention of modifying it later for CMA. Two types
of aggregate gradations were planned to be used in the research; coarse and fine gradation with
the nominal maximum aggregate size of ½”. Two types of emulsions also were planned for use.
A Cationic Slow Setting emulsion (CSS-1) from Paramount Asphalt Company and an Engineered
Emulsion for CMA provided by Road Science Inc.

3
Two types of mix design approaches were planned for this study. The first method consists of
obtaining the total fluid content from the modified Proctor test (AASHTO-T180-B/D). The water
content and emulsion content were changed in such a way that they summed up to the total fluid
content obtained from the modified Proctor test or slightly less (<0.5%) to get the maximum dry
density. The second method consists of obtaining the optimum emulsion content and optimum
water content from the density curves prepared using the 6” samples compacted using SGC. The
number of gyrations required to prepare the SGC samples were decided based on the locking
point concept.
Once the optimum emulsion content and water content were selected, the performance tests, such
as coating test, moisture susceptibility test, raveling test, cohesion test, dynamic modulus (E*)
test and Repeated Load Triaxial (RLT) test, were planned. The performance of the CMA mixes
with the mixing emulsion temperature also was planned to be evaluated. The hierarchical order of
the experimental plan for CMA is shown in Figure 1.
1.3.2 Cold-in-place Recycling (CIR)

For the purpose of developing a mix design for CIR, a single source of RAP material was
obtained from the millings of McCarran Street in Reno, Nevada. Two types of gradations of RAP
material were planned for use in the mix design process. One gradation was selected to satisfy the
requirements of coarse gradation recommended in the Pacific Coast Conference on Asphalt
Specifications (PCCAS) and the other gradation was a Non-graded RAP material passing 1inch
sieve as obtained from the millings. Two types of emulsions also were planned for use, cationic
medium setting emulsion (CMS-2s) from Paramount Asphalt Company an engineered emulsion
for CIR provided by Road Science Inc.
Two types of mix design approaches were planned for this study. The first method consists of
obtaining the total fluid content from the modified Proctor test (AASHTO-T180-D). The water
4
content and emulsion content were changed in such a way that they summed up to the total fluid
content obtained from the modified Proctor test or slightly less (<0.5%) to get the maximum dry
density. The second method consists of obtaining the optimum emulsion content and optimum
water content from the density curves prepared using the 6 inches samples compacted using SGC.
Once the optimum emulsion content and water content were selected, the performance tests, such
as moisture susceptibility test, raveling test, cohesion test, dynamic modulus (E*) test and
Repeated Load Triaxial (RLT) test were planned. The performance of the CIR mixes with the
mixing emulsion temperature also was planned to be evaluated. The hierarchical order of the
experimental plan for CIR is shown in Figure 2.

5
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
This chapter presents the literature on mix design procedures developed by researchers using the
SGC and the performances of both cold mixes and Cold-In-place recycling.
2.1 Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA)
CMA, a mixture of unheated aggregate and emulsified or cutback (not commonly used) asphalt,
is mixed and compacted at ambient temperatures. The cold mix asphalt is used to construct new
low to medium volume roads and rural roads. it is also used on high volume roads with the help
of engineered emulsions. The properties of the CMA mainly depend on the type of aggregate,
property of base binder, gradation and additives. The cold mix asphalts can be classified into
various categories depending on the aggregate gradation (dense or open), the place where mixing
takes place (plant mix or In-place mix) and the type of asphalt used (emulsified or cutback
asphalt). The literature on cold mix asphalt can be presented under the following topics;
• Benefits of cold mix asphalt
• Types of cold mix asphalt
• Material requirements to prepare CMA
 Aggregate
 Emulsions/ cutbacks
 Additives
• Available mix design procedures
• Performance of CMA in short term and long term period
• Tests on cold mixes in the lab

6
2.1.1 Benefits of Cold Mix Asphalt
The available types of asphalt mixtures can be classified according to their mixing and
compacting temperatures from cold mix to hot mix as shown in Figure 3;
• Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA): manufactured at ambient temperature using emulsified asphalt or
cutback asphalts.
• Half-Warm Mix Asphalt (HWMA): manufactured at temperatures below 212°F (100°C).
• Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA): manufactured at temperatures ranging from 248°F to 284°F
(120°C to 140°C).
• Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA): manufactured at temperatures within the range of 302°F to 356°F
(150°C to 180°C).
From the above classifications, it is evident that the use of cold mix asphalt technologies results
in a drastic reduction in energy consumption when compared to other kind of asphalt mixes, so
they emit less dust and fumes to the environment.
The cold asphalt mixes are readily available in the plants or they can be produced at the work site
with the help of movable pug mills. This reduces the transportation of raw material and mix cost.
Considering energy consumption and hauling charges these mixes are very cost effective. CMA
reduces the material cost of the pavements too, by using higher percentages of recycled asphalt
pavement (RAP).
The workability of cold mixtures depends on a number of factors: aggregate internal friction,
water content, bitumen consistency, and above all the breaking behavior of the emulsion. Water
based emulsions, cutbacks and foamed asphalts mix easily with aggregates and stay workable and
pliable for long time. The conventional hot mix asphalts cool down while they are placed and
compacted in the field, thus making the mix stiff. But in the case of cold mix, this is completely
avoided since all those production processes are done at ambient temperatures.
7
As it is mentioned earlier, the cold mixes can be produced in large amounts and be stock piled for
later usage. This avoids the delays in the progress of work and consequently the penalty. The
production and the paving of cold mixes give a better esthetic environment to the workers, since
there is no dust and heat.
Although it might sound surprising in the present environmental context, the usage of cold mix
asphalt remains rare in the world. In fact, this technology lacks a good overall understanding
which would permit a standard well-known mix design procedure.
2.1.2 Material Characterization
The characterization of cold mixes is similar to that of conventional hot mix asphalt. Several
parameters need to be considered in the mix design to optimize the material requirements to yield
their higher performance. A conceptual framework for cold mix design procedure relative to hot
mix asphalt design assists in highlighting some of the focus areas that are required for the design
of cold mixes and at the same time underlines intrinsic difference between the two material types.
Figure 5 illustrates a simplified flowchart for asphaltic mix design, for both hot and cold mixes.
This also serves as frame of reference for reviewing the current literature on cold mixes as it
provides perspective on the characteristics and function of the mix. Even though it is obvious that
some of the aspects of mix design process, such as material selections, are similar, some
fundamental differences in the composition and preparation of these mixes occur. In particular,
the binder characteristics differ significantly between hot and cold mix asphalt. In addition, the
inclusion of the water in cold mixes introduces a more complicated volumetric composition.
2.1.2.1 Selection of Asphalt Emulsion

Selection of the proper type and grade of asphalt material for a particular job is the most
important in the mix design. There are, mainly, three types of asphalts used in the production of
cold mix asphalt. They are emulsified asphalt, foamed asphalt and cutbacks.
8
The emulsified asphalt is an emulsion of asphalt-cement and water that contains a small amount
of emulsifying agent, a heterogeneous system containing two normally immiscible phases-
asphalt and water in which water forms the continuous phase of the emulsion, and minute
globules of asphalt form the discontinuous phase. Emulsified asphalt can be either anionic
(negatively charged) or cationic (positively charged) depending on the emulsifying agent. This
can be further classified according to their setting time, whether rapid, medium or slow and can
be graded accordingly (eg CMS-2 means cationic medium setting emulsion and 2 indicates that
it’s more viscous than CMS-1). If the grade is without the first letter ‘C’ that means it is an
anionic emulsion. ASTM and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) have developed standard specifications for the grades of emulsions shown
in Table 1. The "h" that follows certain grades simply means that harder base asphalt is used. The
"HF" preceding some of the MS grades indicates high-float, as measured by the Float Test
(ASTM D 139 or AASHTO 50). High-float emulsions have a quality, imparted by the addition of
certain chemicals that permits a thicker asphalt film on the aggregate particles with minimum
probability of drainage. Some agencies specify an additional cationic sand-mixing grade
designated CMS-2s, which contains more solvent than other cationic grades. Some of the high
float emulsions have a numerical suffix to indicate their minimum penetration at 25°C in dmm
(tenth of a millimeter). For example, HFE 300 means high float emulsion with the minimum
penetration value of 300 dmm (30 mm) at 25°C. The higher the penetration value the softer the
emulsion is. Some emulsion producers use the suffix letter ‘P’ to indicate a polymer modified
emulsion. All grades in this lengthy list of emulsions may not be stocked by most producers.
Communication and planning between user and producer helps facilitate service and supply of a
given grade. The specifications for emulsified asphalts (ASTM D 977 and AASHTO M 140)
make no mention of a solvent in the emulsion. CRS- and CMS- cationic emulsion specifications
(ASTM D 2397, AASHTO M 208), on the other hand, permit solvent but restrict the amount.
9
There are many factors that affect the production, storage, use, and performance of an asphalt
emulsion. It would be hard to single out any one as being the most significant. But, among the
variables having a significant effect are;
• Chemical properties of the base asphalt cement
• Hardness and quantity of the base asphalt cement
• Asphalt particle size in the emulsion
• Type and concentration of the emulsifying agent
• Manufacturing conditions such as temperatures, pressures, and shear
• The ionic charge on the emulsion particles
• The type of equipment used in manufacturing the emulsion
The above factors can be varied to suit the available aggregates or to suit construction conditions.
It is always advisable to consult the emulsion supplier with respect to a particular asphalt-
aggregate combination as there are few absolute rules that will work the same under all
conditions.
Foamed asphalt is produced through the injection of small percentage of cold water (typically
2%), as a fine mist, in to the hot bitumen in an expansion chamber. In this manner bitumen can be
mixed while it is foaming with mineral aggregates at ambient temperatures and at in situ moisture
contents. Foamed bitumen is also referred to as expanded bitumen. The foamed bitumen is
characterized in terms of expansion ratio and half-life. The expansion ratio of the foam is defined
as the ratio between the maximum volume achieved in the foam state and the final volume of the
binder once the foam has dissipated. The half-life is the time, in seconds, between the moment the
foam achieves maximum volume and the time it dissipates to half of the maximum volume. The
expanded asphalt is getting more attention in the asphalt industry.

10
Cutback asphalt is asphalt cement that has been liquefied by blending with petroleum solvents
(also called diluents). The solvents leave the asphalt to set when they are exposed to the
atmosphere. Cutback asphalts are graded by the type and amount of solvent used to make them
liquid, thereby enabling them to be handled at lower temperatures. For example rapid curing (RC)
asphalts are produced by blending with naphtha type solvent while medium curing (MC) asphalts
are produced by blending with kerosene type solvent and slow curing (SC) asphalts are produced
by blending with light oil. Cutback asphalts are not commonly used in the asphalt industry.
2.1.2.2 Selection of Aggregate

The type of aggregate used in the design of cold mixtures should be chosen based on material
availability in the area of the project, cost for hauling, and its properties should confirm
AASHTO M323/ASTM D692. The use of rounded, uncrushed aggregate should be discouraged
due to potential stripping, durability and stability considerations. Good quality angular aggregates
(crushed rock or crushed gravel) generally provides higher stability, while rounded aggregates
tend to increase mixture workability, but at a significant loss of stability. Depending on the type
of mix, various agencies recommend various gradations of aggregate to meet their required
properties.
Field experience on cold emulsified asphalt has shown that a wide range of aggregates can be
successfully used in emulsified asphalt mix (EAM). Use of substandard aggregates has made
satisfactory EAM bases on low volume roads. Only the aggregates containing excessive amounts
of clay and poor coating ability have caused problems in cold EAMs. Excessive clay results in
difficulty in mixing due to severe ball up of the emulsified asphalt, a longer time period required
for gaining strength, and a relatively large amount of residual asphalt content required for
strength and durability requirements. Certain aggregates are difficult to coat with residual asphalt.
The amount of coating achieved during mixing and the retention of the asphalt aggregate bond
11
depend on surface texture and surface electro charge. Cationic emulsions are compatible with
most types of aggregates while anionic emulsions are not compatible with certain quartzite and
granites (17). The aggregate gradations for EAM base courses recommended by Asphalt
Institution are given in Table 2. Even though some of the properties are similar to the
recommendation of asphalt institute, some other properties vary for various agencies. Table 3 and
Table 4 show the recommended gradations by U.S Navy guidelines and Dunning et.al (18)
respectively. Dybalski et.al (20) studied the mix properties of laboratory prepared cold mix and
hot mix asphalt. They used the gradation specified by the Illinois Department of Transportation
that are listed in Table 5.
The field and laboratory observations also showed that relatively open gradations demonstrated
desirable strength and tend to be very workable for cold patching mixes. Table 6 presents the
recommended range of aggregate proportions by TxDOT for cold patching mix. Actual target
aggregate proportions may vary slightly from district to district. Local experience with locally
available materials may, in some cases, override the recommendations in Table 6.
2.1.3 Mix Design Procedure for Cold Mix.

Much of the early work on cold mix was done by agencies such as the Asphalt Institute, Asphalt
Emulsion Manufacturers Association (AEMA), US Forest Service, and companies such as Akzo
Nobel. In the late 1970s’ both Hveem mix design, which was used in California, and Marshall
Mix Design, developed by Illinois Department of Transportation, were used widely. The second
edition of the AEMA manual in 1986 followed a report under the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) on the subject of cold mix and included updated versions of the
above methods as well as a method used by McConnaughay, an emulsion producer active in the
Mid-West and North East USA. These design approaches are still widely used. As laboratories in
the USA gradually move away from the Hveem and Marshal Compactors for hot mix design,
12
there is a demand to use the Superpave gyratory compactor to prepare cold mix specimens for
determination of optimum emulsion and water contents. Therefore, the performance related mix
designs (Superpave technology) are discussed in this literature review. There are very few studies
found in the literature which use the Superpave technology. A summarized mix design procedure
for cold mix used in the literature is described as follows:
• The standard practice for sampling aggregates, AASHTO T 2 (ASTM D75) was used to
sample aggregate from the stock piles and moisture content of the aggregate was
determined according to AASHTO T 255.
• Pre determined amount of water was added to the aggregate and mixed at room
temperature until the aggregates were fully coated but no longer than 1 min. The amount
of water added to the aggregate was determined from the experience as a starting point of
mix design (2-5%). A few researchers determined optimum fluid content by compacting
specimens at a range of water contents either using the Marshall Hammer or compactors
suitable for soils (Standard/Modified Proctor) and fluid content which gives maximum
density was considered as optimum fluid content. In another approach, the Marshall
stabilities of specimens prepared at various water contents were measured and the
optimum water content was determined in the same manner. The amount of water
required for the mix was selected such that the sum of emulsion content and water
content equals the total fluid content obtained from the above tests, or 0.5% less (3).
• The required amount of asphalt emulsion was added to the moistened aggregate and
mixed again until fully coated but no longer than 1min. In North America, initial asphalt
emulsion content is calculated from the gradation of the aggregate. ASTM procedure for
13
cold mix design (ASTM D7229) uses the following equations 1 and 2 for base mixtures
and surface mixtures to find out the initial asphalt emulsion content.
For base mixtures;
(0.06𝐵+0.01𝐶)∗100
𝐸= …………………………………………………………… (1)
𝐴
For surface mixtures;
(0.07𝐵+0.03𝐶)∗100
𝐸= …………………………...……………………….…….... (2)
𝐴
Where,
A = Percent residue of the emulsion by distillation or other suitable procedure;
B = Percent of dry aggregate passing the 4.75mm sieve;
C = (100-B) = Dry aggregate retained on the 4.75mm sieve and above; and
E = Percent emulsified asphalt based on dry weight of aggregate.
The number of gyrations to simulate the density of the mixture after lay down and
compaction of the mixture and the number to simulate the maximum density after
trafficking are not assured yet. The gyratory compactor was used to compact the mix to
approximately 11% air voids expected to represent the road material after compaction.
Between 25 and 57 gyrations were required with the materials tested (21).
In another approach, the concept of locking point was applied (22). Samples with
different asphalt contents were first compacted to 200 gyrations, representing maximum
possible density after trafficking. The molds were perforated to allow moisture to escape
if necessary. Then, the curve of height vs. gyrations was examined and the locking point
14
was determined. As the height of the specimen is decreased by each gyration, it comes to
a point where aggregate – aggregate contact prevents further consolidation and the height
does not decrease rapidly. A locking point was defined as the first 3 consecutive
measurements at which there was no change in height followed by 3 more consecutive
height measurements at the next lowest height. Typical values were between 40 and 75
gyrations for the materials studied. High values represent mixes which will require more
compaction effort in the field. The target of the researcher was to achieve a density of 90
± 1% of theoretical maximum at the locking point, which was meant to represent the
density of the mix immediately after field compaction.
In the Superpave approach for hot mix asphalt, the optimum asphalt content is determined by the
volumetric properties of the mix. Depending on the expected traffic level and temperatures, the
gyrations needed to produce a specimen representative of material at design or after long term
trafficking are specified. Implicit is an assumption that 4% air voids for a dense graded mix is a
target. In the case of cold mix asphalt, there are no such guidelines or any other procedures.
2.1.4 Laboratory Tests on Cold Mix Asphalt
2.1.4.1 Compactability Test

Compactability of the cold mix asphalt was measured by Hillgren et.al. (24) using a Gyratory
compactor. They used slotted compaction molds for compaction to allow any excess water to
escape and to reach maximum density. A test sample was compacted with a target of 215
gyrations and the compaction curve was used to determine the compactability. The density after
200 gyrations was taken as the target density. According to the researchers, 96% of this target
density should be reached after 35-70 gyrations for a good compactability mix. A value less than
35 shows a tender mix, difficult to compact with a vibratory roller and greater than 70 represents
a stiff mix. The specimens were extruded immediately after compaction. Compactability and
15
workability are related for a particular mix and it could be that a compactability test at different
storage times could provide a measure of workability. The density at 200 gyrations was taken as
the target density and the number of gyrations to reach 96% of this target density is a measure of
compactability.
2.1.4.2 Workability Test

Mixture workability can be assessed using the Nynas facility. The basic principle of the test is to
measure the maximum force developed when a given mass of the loose mixture is subjected to a
shearing effort. The facility (Figure 4) is similar to a shear box, as used in soil mechanics.
Immediately after mixing, the loose material (about 11 kg) is molded into a rectangular box and
trimmed to a height of 100 mm. Two opposite half walls (50 mm high) are then removed so as to
allow the volume above the median horizontal plane to be pushed at a constant speed of 1 cm/s
over a 220 mm length (this speed is close to that of a paver in action). The force exerted is
recorded over time. Its peak value, called “cohesive strength”, is an indicator of the mixture
workability. Several such boxes are prepared in advance and stored in an oven for variable
lengths of time under controlled temperature and hygrometry. This allows determination of the
evolution of cohesion over storage time and as a function of climatic conditions (24).
2.1.4.3 Cohesion Development Test

To get the best performance in the field as a wearing course material the mix must develop
cohesion quickly after compaction. The company Icopal in Norway has developed a novel
method for measuring this cohesion development in the field. A spiked plate is driven into the
roadway, and a torque wrench is used to measure the resistance of the surface to shearing forces.
The wrench is only turned through a few degrees - not enough to destroy the surface. Akzo
Nobel's Stockholm laboratory have taken this concept and remodeled the ISSA cohesion tester
used to test cold mixes and slurry. The equipment consists of a double acting, double end
16
pneumatic cylinder fitted in a frame which houses the pressure gage and valves. A hand torque
wrench is also supplied. The set is complete with 6 and 10 mm moulds, spare foot, calibration
sand and paper, felt squares and miscellaneous supplies. In the laboratory cohesion tester a spiked
plate is driven into the surface of a 6 inch specimen which has been air cured for different times.
Low values in this test may indicate too low (added) binder content or too slow curing emulsion.
A minimum cohesion of 30 Nm is reckoned if the surface is to be opened to traffic.
In another approach, the ISSA uses a ¼ inch diameter neoprene foot (no spikes) with the pressure
of 200 kpa. The torque is applied by means of a torque wrench and the torque is measured with
the time. The time required to reach the torque of 20 kgcm in this cohesion test is considered to
be the time required to allow the traffic after construction.
2.1.4.4 The Cyclic Triaxial Test

Hornych et.al (25) used a cyclic triaxial test to determine the mechanical property of gravel
emulsion mixes with various curing period. The test was performed on a cylindrical specimen,
diameter of 160 mm and height of 320 mm, placed in a cell and applied sinusoidal vertical
deviator stress (σ1) and varying confining pressure (σ3). This test simulates more closely in situ
loading conditions than tests with a constant pressure and it was used to study both the resilient
behavior and permanent deformations of gravel emulsion mixes and unbound granular materials.
Maximum loading frequency of sinusoidal load was 10 Hz for constant confining pressure and 2
Hz for varying confining pressure.
The test specimens were compacted using a vibrocompression method, used for the compaction
of unbound granular materials, and cement-treated materials. The specimen was compacted in
one layer, by applying simultaneously a vertical load and a horizontal vibration. This method was
fast (less than 45 seconds) and produces homogeneous densities. The specimens had been
compacted at a void content of 15%, and tested in two conditions: at young age (after
17
conservation for 24 h in a closed PVC mould), and after a period of curing of 14 days, at 35°C
and 20% RH, which aim was to simulate the long term behavior of the material on site. After
compaction, the water content of the gravel-emulsion was close to 5% (due to a loss of water
during compaction), and it decreased to about 2% after curing. The specimens were tested at
these water contents (unsaturated), and in drained conditions. This test was conducted on
different types of material and the resilient behavior of those materials was compared.
2.1.4.5 Tests for Mechanical Properties

Thanaya (28 & 29) investigated the performance of cold asphalt emulsion mixes (CAEM). He
prepared three different cold mixes (CAEM, 1% cement + CAEM, and 2% cement + CAEM) and
compared mechanical properties with conventional HMA, composed of the same materials. He
conducted the indirect tensile stiffness modulus (ITSM) test at 20 °C, dynamic creep test at 40
°C, and fatigue test at 20 °C to assess the mechanical behavior of the CAEM.
The ITSM tests were conducted on both CAEM and HMA samples. The researcher used two
times the effort of compaction used to prepare the HMA samples to prepare the CAEM samples.
He was able to achieve an air void of 9-10% even at those higher levels of compaction. He found
out that the stiffness of the CAEMs, even without addition of cement, at full curing conditions did
meet the minimum stiffness target of 2000 MPa. The addition of one or two percent of cement by
weight of aggregate significantly increased the resultant stiffness and it was comparable to HMA.
The dynamic creep tests were carried out with the pulse width of 1 s and pulse period of 2 s at
40°C. The conditioning stress of 10 kpa and loading stress of 100 kpa were applied. The test was
terminated after either strain reached 100000 micro strain or 3600 pulses. The creep slopes of
CAEMs were compared with the dense bitumen macadam (DBM) as shown in Figure 6.These
creep slopes of CAEM matched the typical laboratory creep slopes of the medium trafficked
pavement, which shows that cold mixes are suitable for low to medium trafficked pavement. Two
18
percent cement with CAEM showed very low creep slope and it can be used for heavily trafficked
pavement.
The fatigue performances of the cold mixes were compared with two different asphalt mixes
(DBM and HMA) at their optimum asphalt content. The fatigue relationship of the mixes
indicates that incorporating cement significantly improves the performance of CAEMs, in
particular at low strain levels. However, when compared with HMA, the fatigue performance of
the cold mixes with added two percent cement were relatively comparable. But, without cement,
the cold mixes were inferior. This is logical, in particular when considering the air void (porosity)
values of the CAEMs which in general were much higher than those of hot mixes.
2.1.5 Field Performances of Cold Mix

The performance of cold mix asphalt is, in several ways, very specific and different from that of
conventional hot mixes. The performance in the sense describes the presence of water and
properties developing over the time (curing & consolidation). Some of the studies in the field
have been carried out during past few years to see the real performance and correlate them to the
lab results and their findings in the field are summarized below. In general, cold mixes perform
well except in a few properties.
Scrimsher and Doty (26) monitored the performance of four cold mix sections paved in California
in 1972 and came up with the following;
• Open graded cold mix asphalt concrete surfacing has the potential of providing adequate
in service performance if proper emulsion formulation can be developed. It should be
considered a potentially viable alternative to hot mix, particularly in remote locations.
• When the pavement opened to heavy traffic after less than 24 hours, few raveling spots
were observed, but they suspect that because of localized problems. After 90 days it had
19
not deteriorated greatly from the initial observation. There were a few instances of tearing
in the bends of a few sections subjected to heavy traffic in the early age.
Hicks et.al (27) studied the experience of open graded cold mix for 25 years. They came up with
the following findings:
• Overall performance including ride quality, type and severity of distress was ‘good’ to
‘very good’ in their rating and very few are rated fair.
• The ride quality of open graded emulsion mix (OGEM) pavement was as smooth as
HMA pavements. However if proper construction practices are not followed, the mix can
prematurely stiffen, producing a rough surface during lay down.
• Mix modulus increased with pavement age, however data were scattered due to variation
in core density, void content, asphalt content, climate and surface seal conditions.
• Structural layer coefficients calculated from the survey indicate OGEM pavements have a
thickness equivalency of 0.9 to 1.0 when compared to hot laid asphalt pavement. The
thickness equivalency factor of 0.85 for HMA was used in some of the Washington state
cold mix projects.
• In some projects OGEMs perform better than HMA pavements. Specifically, OGEM
provides better resistance to fatigue and thermal cracking and stripping problems. Even
though, high volume roads with low emulsion content experienced poor performance.
• OGEM pavements gave 25 percent longer average service life than Asphalt concrete
pavement (HMA) and tolerate 25 percent more strain than HMA. Therefore the shift
factor for fatigue damage is adjusted to allow 25 percent more strain than is used with
HMA.
20
• The main type of distress noted was minor pitting or raveling of the surface. This is
normally corrected with chip seal.
Some of the mix properties studied by these researchers over the study period are listed below:
• Core densities range from about 111 to 137 pcf.
• Air void ranges from about 13 to 30 percent
• Extracted asphalt contents range from about 3.0 to 5.8 percent.
• Percent passing no.200 ranges from 2 to 5 percent with the percentage passing no.8
ranging from 10 to 20 percent; indicates increase in passing no.200 from 0 to 2 percent to
2 to 5 percent.
• In most cases, modulus values tended to increase with pavement age, but in some cases
they were extremely low.
The process of developing cold mix which performs well in the field is an emerging technology.
Most of the resent studies show the potential advantages of these types of materials. But no
consistent performance related or empirical mix design procedure exists. Therefore there is a need
to develop a consistent performance based mix design procedure for cold mixes.
2.2 Cold-In-place Recycling (CIR)

CIR is an on-site pavement recycling process to a typical treatment depth of 2 to 5 inches (50 to
125 mm), using a train of equipment (tankers, trucks, milling machines, crushing and screening
units, mixers, a paver and rollers). An additive or combination of additives (asphalt emulsions,
rejuvenating agents, foamed asphalt, lime, fly ash and cement) may be used. The process
generates and re-uses 100 % RAP, with the resulting recycled pavement usually opened to traffic
at the end of the work day (15).
The CIR process can be described by the following steps:

21
• Preparation of the construction area
• Milling the existing pavement and crushing
• Addition of a recycling agent and new materials if necessary
• Lay down and compaction
• Placement of the surface course
CIR has the following benefits over the other types of rehabilitation methods:
• Mitigate all the distresses in the asphalt pavement layer; significant pavement structural
improvements may be achieved without changes in horizontal and vertical geometry and
without shoulder reconstruction
• Reuse valuable materials (aggregate and asphalt)
• Reduce overall cost for good quality pavement (hauling and production)
• Environmentally desirable
Even if CIR has lot of benefits, it also has the following issues during construction:
• Curing is required for strength gain
• The rate of strength gain and the speed of construction depends on climatic conditions,
including temperature and moisture
• Placement of a wearing surface is required
After reviewing the literature, the mix design process of CIR using the SGC in the laboratory can
be described in the following 5 steps:
• Obtain representative samples of the Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) material either
by coring or milling.
• Material characterization
22
• Mixing, compacting, and curing
• Selection of optimum emulsion content and water content
• Tests on compacted samples
2.2.1 Material Evaluation
2.2.1.1 Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP)

The RAP for mix design purposes is obtained either by coring to a specified depth and crushing
it down to representative samples (1) or by sampling directly from the milling (conveyer belt or
windrow) according to AASTO T168. The RAP is dried to a constant mass at 60°C to remove the
existing moisture, some researchers used 40°C to dry the RAP before using it to the mix design
(8). The RAP is separated into various particle sizes (31.75mm, 25.0mm, 19.1mm, 12.5mm,
9.5mm, 4.75mm, 2.36mm, and 1.18mm) by sieving and re-crushing the material retained on the
31.75mm sieve (2). Some researchers re-crush the materials greater than 25.4mm (1.0 in) (4).
Some researchers crush the cores down to three different gradations of RAP (coarse, medium, and
fine) to accommodate the variations in the field. The Kansas Department of Transportation
(DOT) recommends medium gradation and coarse/fine gradation for the CIR mix design. Utah
DOT (12) and PCCAS (13) recommend either coarse or medium gradation or both. They do not
have fine gradation in their specification. Some of the gradations used by the researchers/state
agencies are listed in Tables 7 through 10.
After selecting a suitable gradation of the RAP, some researchers conducted tests on the RAP
material. Cross (2) conducted research on determining the compaction effort required for CIR
mix design. He evaluated the fineness modulus, surface area and the percentage of flaky particles
of RAP. The fineness modulus was obtained from the RAP gradation and the surface area of RAP
was determined from the surface area factor presented in the Asphalt Institute’s MS-2 manual:
Mix design method for asphalt concrete. The percentage of flaky particles in the RAP was
23
determined by comparing the largest dimension with the smallest dimension according to ASTM
D4791.
Cross also evaluated the asphalt binder content using the ignition oven, in accordance with
AASHTO T308. Salomon et.al. (8) used extraction and ignition oven methods to determine the
asphalt binder content and found that the binder content was similar in both methods. Salomon
also evaluated the gradation, fineness modulus, surface area, crushed face count of coarse
particles (ASTM D5821) and the fine particle angularity (AASHTO T304) of the extracted
aggregate. All researchers who evaluated the properties of the RAP compared the performance of
the CIR, but they did not set any specifications for most of the evaluated properties.
2.2.1.2 Recycling Agent

Recycling agents can be categorized into: chemical-based and asphalt-based. The purpose of the
chemical-based recycling agent in the CIR process is to react with the asphalt binder in the RAP
to restore some of its workability, stability and flexibility (8). Asphalt-based recycling agents
used are typically the conventional emulsion such as Cationic slow setting (CSS) and medium
setting (CMS) emulsion. Engineered Emulsions (EE) are widely used now because of its
improved performance. The production and the types of emulsions are elaborated in section
2.1.2.1. The specifications for recycling agents of CIR used by most state agencies and
researchers are given in Table 11.
2.2.1.3 Water
The moisture content of the RAP was determined by drying the RAP at 110°C and obtaining the
mass loss. If the moisture was not enough for mixing, additional water (typically 1.0%-3.0%) was
added to the mix. In the lab mix design, RAP was dried to a constant mass at 40°C (104°F) and
the required amount of water is added to the dry RAP to ensure the exact amount of moisture in
the RAP.
24
2.2.2 Mixing, Compacting, and Curing of CIR Specimens
2.2.2.1 Mixing
First the RAP material is sieved and a representative portion of it is mixed with the required
amount of water (1.0%-3.0%) for not more than 1 minute and then a pre-determined amount of
emulsion is added to the moistened RAP. Mixing with emulsion should not be longer than 2
minutes, but few researchers mentioned that mixing emulsion for more than 1 minute would
make the emulsion break before compaction even occurs. The process of separating the asphalt
and water is called breaking. The asphalt emulsion is typically brown in color. If the emulsion
mixture turns black, this is an indication that the emulsion is beginning to break. Generally the
mixing time depends on the emulsion type: if the emulsion is rapid set, it is not advised to mix the
RAP material with emulsion for more than 1 minute. If the aggregates are not uniformly coated
even after 1 minute, the initial water content should be increased or an alternative emulsion type
should be used. The mixing temperature shall be 25±2°C for the RAP and mixing water. The
mixing temperature of emulsion varies depending on its type and may be obtained from
manufacturers. If the emulsion is heated up to a different temperature than the atmospheric
temperature (25±2°C) then the utensils used for mixing are also heated to the emulsion
temperature, but the temperature of RAP still remains at atmospheric temperature. The emulsion
and utensils are kept in the oven at the required temperature for at least an hour before mixing.
2.2.2.2 Compaction
Typically the compaction of loose CIR material (RAP + water + emulsion) is done right after the
mixing, even though some researchers allowed the loose mixture to cure for 1-2 hours before
compaction (9). Croos (2) found that if the compaction is done before the emulsion breaks, the
compaction effort would be less when compared to the compaction effort after breaking (30
gyrations vs. 35 gyrations to achieve the same field density). Typically the compaction is done at
atmospheric temperature (25±2°C). If the emulsion is heated up to a different temperature than

25
the atmospheric temperature then the utensils used for compaction are also heated to the emulsion
temperature, but the temperature of RAP still remains at atmospheric temperature.
The compaction mold can be either 4 inches or 6 inches in diameter. While most researchers use
standard Superpave molds, some use perforated Superpave molds to allow the excess water to
escape. The compaction pressure is usually 600 kPa at an angle of 1.25°. Army Corps of
Engineers used a modified gyratory compactor with the gyration angle of 1° and the compaction
pressure of 620 kPa (90 psi) to prepare the CIR samples (8). The number of gyrations required to
prepare the samples varies among researchers from 8 to 75. Lee et.al (1) prepared two trial
specimens and obtained the height of the specimen for each gyration during the compaction
process from the SGC. This information, along with the mass of the mix, is used to estimate the
specific gravity of the specimen after every gyration. A correction factor, the ratio of the
measured to estimated bulk specific gravity, is then applied to the estimated specific gravity to
arrive at the corrected specific gravity for each gyration. Then the number of gyrations is chosen
to achieve the field density.
Adriana et.al. (3) studied the variation of compaction effort through the changes in compaction
pressure and gyration angle. They found that the increase in both compaction pressure and
gyration angle increased the density of the CIR within the range of parameters that they studied.
Their findings are shown in Figures 7 and 8.
2.2.2.3 Curing
The process by which the emulsion expels water and dries to an integral film or layer on the
RAP/aggregate surface is called curing. In the laboratories, specimens are mixed, compacted and
extruded from molds immediately after compaction and then placed in 140oF (60oC) forced draft
ovens with ventilation on the sides and top. The curing temperature used varies from atmospheric
temperatures to 140oF (60oC). Each specimen was placed in a small container to account for
26
material loss from specimens. Specimens for Rice Specific Gravity should be dried to constant
mass (less than 0.05% mass loss in 2 hours). Care should be taken not to over dry the specimens.
Compacted specimens were cured to constant mass but no more than 48 hours and no less than 16
hours. Curing times depended on the curing temperature and vary among researchers from 18 hrs
to 7 days for the same curing temperature. Constant mass is defined as no more than 0.05%
change in mass in 2 hours. After curing, specimens are cooled at an ambient temperature for 2
hours. If the samples are cured for performance tests, they should be allowed to cool for 16±8
hours (7).
2.2.3 Selection of Optimum Emulsion Content and Water Content
2.2.3.1 Selection of Optimum Emulsion Content (OEC)

Selecting the optimum emulsion content is a critical step in designing CIR. Most researchers used
the emulsion content which meets the field density after compaction as the optimum emulsion
content (OEC). Other researchers used the density versus emulsion content curve to determine the
OEC as it is described below:
• A minimum of two specimens are prepared at each emulsion content (minimum of 4
emulsion contents) by weight in 0.5% or 1% increments while keeping the mixing water
content (WC) constant at 3%. The WC can vary depending on field experience. An
additional loose sample is prepared at each emulsion content to determine Gmm. Some
researchers and agencies determine Gmm at the highest emulsion content in the design and
back-calculate for the lower emulsion contents (7) by assuming the effective specific
gravity (Gse) of the mixture remains constant. A sufficient amount of RAP (4000 g) is
weighed into individual pans based on the gradation to fabricate specimens 150 mm (6”)
in diameter and 115 mm (4.5”) in height. If 4” samples are used, weight needs to be
adjusted accordingly.
27
• The RAP samples are mixed with water and emulsion and then compacted to specified
number of gyrations.
• After curing the compacted samples for the specified curing time, bulk specific gravities
are measured according to AASHTO T166/ASTM D2726 if the absorption of water is
greater than 2% by volume, otherwise use section 10.4 of ASTM D2726. If the
compacted samples are losing fines even after curing, it is advised to use the parafilm
method (ASTM D1188) to determine the bulk specific gravities of compacted samples.
Cross (2) used the CoreLok procedure (replacement for AASHTO T275-using paraffin
coating) when percent air void was above 8% for measuring the bulk specific gravities. It
was observed that the CoreLok device yielded bulk specific gravities that were not
significantly different from those obtained by use of AASHTO T166 from the statistical
t-test.
The CoreLok device also was used to determine theoretical maximum specific gravity
(Gmm). The CoreLok Gmm procedure involves placing a dry sample into a plastic, puncture
resistant bag which is placed inside another plastic bag. The sample is then placed into
the CoreLok chamber. Closing the chamber door will automatically start the vacuum
process. In approximately 2 minutes, the sample is vacuumed to 29.7 in Hg. The sample
is now sealed within the bag in a vacuumed state. The sample is then completely
immersed in water and the bag is open. This allows the water to enter the bag and
subsequently fill all void spaces completely saturating the material. Once water has
completely filled the bag, the sample and bag are weighed under water. Knowledge of the
weight of the bag, sample, and the combined weight of the bag and sample under water
allows for calculation of the maximum specific gravity.

28
• The unit weight versus emulsion content and percent air void versus emulsion content
curves are plotted. The OEC is the emulsion content at which the unit weight is at its
maximum value. If the maximum unit weight is not achieved, the OEC is the emulsion
content at which the unit weight is similar to that found in the field.
• Adriana et.al (3) conducted the Modified Proctor test for optimum moisture content and
calculated the emulsion content from the Modified Proctor optimum moisture as follows:
Emulsion content + water = Proctor moisture - 0.5
2.2.3.2 Selection of Optimum Water Content (OWC)

Most of the agencies use the optimum water content (OWC), typically 1.5 to 2.5 percent, as the
moisture content that is expected to be added at the milling head in the CIR process and it is
decided upon based on experience. Some researchers repeated the above procedure for
determining the OEC with the following exception:
• Two specimens are prepared at the OEC at four water contents, around the WC
used before (3%).
• The unit weight versus water content and percent air void versus water content
plots are prepared.
• The OWC is the water content at which the unit weight is at its maximum value.
If the maximum unit weight is not achieved, the OWC is the water content at
which the unit weight is similar to that found in the field.
• If the OWC is more than 1.0% above or below the mixing water content used to
determine the OEC, the procedure to determine the OEC is repeated. If the new
29
OEC is different from the previous OEC, OWC is determined again using the
new OEC.
2.2.4 Tests on Compacted Samples
2.2.4.1 Moisture Sensitivity Test

The moisture sensitivity test is conducted on compacted CIR samples according to AASHTO T
283. Minimum of six samples are prepared at the optimum emulsion and water content, three for
a dry set and three for a wet set. The sample conditioning for wet sets may be done in 2 different
ways. One method of conditioning is according to AASHTO T 283 in which samples are vacuum
saturated to 70-80% and frozen at -18°C for a minimum of 18 hours, submerged in a 60°C bath
for 24±1 hrs, and then kept at 25±1°C for 2 hours and tested. The other method for conditioning
by means of PCCAS, the samples are vacuum saturated to 55-75%, submerged in a water bath at
25°C for 23 hours, and placed for 1 hour in a 40°C water bath and then tested. The percent
retained strength is calculated from either indirect tensile test or Marshall stabilities before and
after the conditioning. Some researchers specified minimum percent retained Marshall stability
and Marshall Stability of the dry set, although they did not specify their target air void.
2.2.4.2 Raveling Test (ASTM D 7196)

Raveling test is conducted by all researchers and agencies who are designing CIR mixes to ensure
the raveling resistance of the CIR pavement right after opening the pavement to traffic. This test
is conducted according to ASTM D 7196. Gyratory compacted specimens were subjected to a
new test adapted from the wet track abrasion test, where a specimen was mounted on a Hobart
mixer and subjected to abrasion by a rubber hose. The method differs from wet track abrasion in
that there is no ring weight on the raveling test’s abrasion head, so that the total head will weigh
600±15g. At ambient temperature, 150 mm diameter and 70 ± 5 mm height specimens were
prepared by compacting to 20 gyrations using the SGC. If the sample height is not 2.75 ± 0.2
30
inches (70 ± 5mm) after 20 gyrations, the weight of RAP is changed and new specimens are
prepared. Samples are cured at ambient laboratory conditions for 4 hours. ASTM standard did not
specify any particular conditions for curing the samples even though it recommends ambient
conditions. Some researchers cure the compacted samples at 10°C and 50% humidity for 4 hrs
assuming it is the critical condition in the field. The test is conducted dry and the hose is allowed
to float free over the sample for 15 minutes. Weight of the sample before and after is measured
and the mass loss during the test is determined. Most of the agencies and researchers specified
that the mass loss should not exceed 2.0%, but few others just reported the mass loss even if it is
higher than 2.0%. Sometimes it is very hard to keep the mass loss less than 2.0% with regular
emulsion. Typical air voids of the raveling samples were observed to be slightly higher than the
voids measured in the field (9-14%).
2.2.4.3 Indirect Tensile Test (IDT) (AASHTO T 322)

The Indirect Tensile Test (IDT) is used to determine the creep compliances and indirect tensile
strengths of asphalt mixtures at low and intermediate pavement temperatures. These
measurements can be used in performance prediction models, such as Superpave, to predict the
thermal cracking potential and fatigue cracking potential of asphalt pavements. The Indirect
tensile test is conducted according to AASHTO T 322. Cored samples are taken from the
pavement to be recycled, crushed by a laboratory jaw crusher, blended to the medium field
gradation, pre-wet and mixed at the design emulsion content, which is determined by volumetric
properties. The mixes are then compacted damp in 150-mm diameter molds to ± 1% of design air
voids (the design air voids are very similar to the voids measured in the field) using the
Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC). For a more accurate comparison of test results and test
repeatability, the specimens are cured at 60°C for 48 hours, and then checked every 2 hours until
there is no more than 0.05% change in mass. Samples are tested at 10°C intervals bracketing the
LTPPBind specification temperature for the climate and depth in the pavement structure. A
31
minimum of two specimens are tested at each of three temperatures bracketing the critical
cracking temperature. The critical cracking temperature is the intersection of the calculated
pavement thermal stress curve (derived from the tensile creep test) and the tensile strength line
(derived from the results of the tensile strength test). To meet the specification, the cracking
temperature predicted by the IDT must be less than or equal to the pavement temperature given
for that climatic area and pavement depth by LTPPBind.
2.2.4.4 Determination of Fracture Energy (ASTM D 7313)

In a proposed mix design method for CIR by Utah Department of Transportation this test method
is included to ensure the cracking resistance of the CIR pavement. The test is conducted
according to ASTM 7313. A SGC is used to fabricate specimens 150 mm in diameter and 115
mm in height with ± 1 percent of design air voids at design emulsion percentages. Specimens are
dried to constant weight at 60°C from 48 to 72 hours and two 50 mm specimens are cut from each
compacted specimen. The fracture energy at Tc in °C which is the temperature determined using
LTPPBind 3.1 for the single station closest to the project location for the CIR Mid Layer Depth
and 98% Reliability is determined. Fracture energy is reported based on the average of at least 4
replicates. If the coefficient of variation is greater than 25 percent, high and low values are
removed and 2 new specimens are tested. The fracture energy from the test should be greater than
125 J/m2 to pass the mix design criteria.
2.2.4.5 The Incremental Static Dynamic Creep Test (ISDCT)

Lee et.al.(1) conducted the incremental static dynamic creep test (ISDCT) to obtain creep
compliance and permanent deformation properties of a 100 mm diameter and 200 mm high
specimen for rutting and fatigue cracking analysis using VESYS. Specimens were prepared
according to ASTM D1561 (AASHTO T247- by means of California kneading compactor) at
optimum emulsion and water content with the exception of height to diameter ratio 2:1. To ensure
32
good compaction in the lab, emulsion was heated up to 60°C for 1 h before mixing. The
aggregates were dried and weighed out to 3800g according to the gradation. After mixing, the
mixture was oven cured at 60°C for 1 h before compaction. Compaction foot of kneading
compactor and molds were preheated to 60°C. Specimens were compacted in 4 layers with 10,
20, 30 and 40 blows per layer respectively with 500-600 psi static load depending on degree of
compaction. Immediately after compaction specimens were extracted from the mold and oven
cured at 60°C for 24 h. Then specimens were tested using ISDCT and rutting performance and
fatigue cracking resistance were predicted from VESYS
2.2.4.6 Frequency Sweep Test at Constant Height (FSCH) (AASHTO TP 7)

The Frequency Sweep Test at Constant Height (FSCH) (AASHTO TP7, Procedure E) was
conducted by Lee et.al. (1) to determine the complex shear modulus of CIR mixtures using a
Superpave Shear Tester (SST). The FSCH test is a constant strain test (as opposed to a constant
stress test). Test specimens are 150 mm (6 inches) in diameter and 50 mm (2 inches) tall. To
conduct the test the CIR sample is glued to two plates and then inserted into the SST. Horizontal
strain is applied at a range of frequencies (from 10 to 0.1 Hz) using a haversine loading pattern,
while the specimen height is maintained constant. Samples were cured at 60°C for two days
before testing. Test was conducted at two different temperatures 25°C and 40°C.
2.2.4.7 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) (AASHTO TP 63)

Cross (2) analyzed the permanent deformation of different CIR mixes using the Asphalt
Pavement Analyzer (APA). The CIR samples of 6 inches in diameter and 3 inches in height are
prepared at optimum emulsion and water content using SGC. The test temperature was selected to
resemble 85% reliability of the anticipated maximum pavement temperature for each mix. He
compared the rut depths of different mixes, but did not specify the criteria for good performance
of mix.
33
Various mix design methods are outlined by various agencies and researchers. They seem to
perform well for their climatic and environmental conditions. Some of them are not well defined
and the field performances of new mix design for CIR are not well known. Therefore, a need still
exists for developing universally acceptable lab mix design procedure for good performance of
CIR in the field.

34
Chapter 3: Mix Design Procedure for Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA)
As mentioned in the experimental plan, two different types of mix designs procedures were
followed to design the cold mixes. The first method uses the modified Proctor test to find out the
optimum moisture content of the selected aggregate and then compute the amount of emulsion
and water content from the optimum moisture content of the aggregate. The second method
determines the optimum emulsion content and water content through two different density curves:
one with varying emulsion content and the other one with varying water content. These density
curves were prepared from the 6” samples compacted using the Superpave gyratory compactor.
3.1 Mix Design of CMA Using Modified Proctor Test
3.1.1 Selection of Aggregate

The aggregates which satisfy the Superpave criteria were obtained from Lockwood, Nevada. Two
types of gradation of aggregate were chosen for this study; coarse gradation and fine gradation.
These gradations were chosen according to the Superpave guide lines for nominal maximum
aggregate size of ½ inch. They are shown in Tables 12 & 13. The coarse gradation and the fine
gradation of the cold mixes are shown with the stock pile gradation in Table 14 & 15 and they are
plotted in Figures 9 & 10 respectively. The coarse graded aggregate was sieved through ¾ inch
sieve and the fine graded aggregate was sieved through No. 4 sieve to perform the Proctor test.
3.1.2 Mix Design

Two types of Proctor tests are available to determine the optimum moisture content of the soil at
which the maximum dry density occurs. The suitable Proctor test method (standard or modified)
is chosen based on the gradation of the soil and the load it is going to experience in the field. Both
Proctor procedures have 4 different methods and the suitable method is chosen based on the
gradation of the soil mixture. If the soil mixtures have 40% or less retained on the 4.75 mm (No.
4) sieve, Method A or B is used. If the soil mixtures have 30% or less retained on the 19.0 mm
35
(3/4-in.) sieve, Method C or D is used. The material retained on these sieves shall be defined as
oversize particles (coarse particles). If the test specimen contains oversize particles, corrections
are made according to AASHTO T 224.
For the purpose of the research, modified Proctor test method B for fine graded aggregate and
method D for coarse graded aggregate were selected based on the gradation of the CMA
aggregate. This method uses 6” mold with a 4.54-kg (10-lb) rammer dropped from a height of
457 mm (18 in.). The modified Proctor test method D uses passing ¾ inch sieve material while
method B uses passing 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve material.
Representative samples of CMA aggregates were batched and mixed thoroughly with sufficient
water to dampen it to approximately four percentage points below optimum moisture content. The
dampened loose aggregate samples were placed in a 6 inch Proctor mold (with collar attached)
and spread into a layer of uniform thickness and lightly tamped prior to compaction until it is not
in a loose or fluffy state. Compaction was continued in five approximately equal layers to give a
total compacted depth of about 125 mm (5 in.). Following compaction of each of the first four
layers, any material adjacent to the mold walls that had not been compacted or extended above
the compacted surface was trimmed using a knife before starting the next layer. Each layer was
compacted by 25 uniformly distributed blows from the rammer dropping free from a height of
457 mm (18 in.) above the surface of the material. After completing compaction of 5 layers, the
extension collar was removed. The excess material above the mold was carefully trimmed using a
flat knife. The mass of the mold and compacted material was determined. The compacted
material was removed from the mold and sliced vertically through the center. Two representative
samples of the material were taken from each of the cut faces and weighed immediately. Finally,
the samples were dried in an oven at 230°F and the moisture contents were computed in
accordance with AASHTO T 265 and averaged. This procedure was continued for 5 different
36
levels of moisture content with the new material each time. We suspected that the heavy
compaction might break the aggregate passing ¾”, therefore new material was used each time.
The moisture contents of the samples and the corresponding dry densities are shown in Tables 18
and 19. The dry densities of CMA aggregates were plotted against the moisture contents as shown
in Figures 11 & 12. The optimum moisture contents of the CMA aggregates were obtained from
the Figures 11 & 12 and the corrections were made for oversize particles according to AASHTO
T 224 and they are tabulated in Table 16.
The optimum water content and emulsion content of the CMA mixes were selected based on the
best performing combination of water and emulsion contents from the performance tests such as
moisture susceptibility, and raveling. This is because if one combination does not perform well in
one test it might perform well in another. The combination of water content and emulsion content
were changed in such a way that they sum up to the total fluid content (moisture content)
obtained from the modified Proctor test to get the maximum dry density. But in this method,
numerous combinations of water and emulsion contents can be created. Performing all the
performance tests on those combinations were expensive and time consuming. The results
obtained in this mix design procedure would be helpful to judge the results obtained in the mix
design method that uses Superpave gyratory compactor. Therefore we focused on designing cold
mixes with the help of gyratory compactor.
3.2 Mix Design of CMA Using Superpave Gyratory Compactor

In the second approach of mix design for cold mixes, the Superpave gyratory compactor was used
with little modification in the Superpave gyratory compactor (SGC) and the compaction mold. In
the cold mix design, cold mixes were prepared with different emulsion content and water content,
therefore, if excess water is in the mix, it should be allowed to escape. The 6” SGC mold was
perforated and wrapped with screen net as shown in Figure 13, so that only the excess water will
37
escape through the holes. The electronic circuit underneath the gyratory compactor base also was
covered well to ensure no water will get in to the circuit and mess up the gyratory compactor.

The same aggregate gradations used in Section 3.1.1 were used in this mix design approach:
coarse gradation and fine gradation. These gradations were chosen according to the Superpave
guidelines for nominal maximum aggregate size of ½ inch. They are shown in Tables 12 & 13.
The coarse gradation and the fine gradation of the cold mixes are shown with the stock pile
gradation in Tables 14 & 15. They are plotted in Figures 9 & 10 respectively. The specific
gravities and absorptions of the coarse aggregate and fine aggregate of both gradations are
tabulated in Tables 20 and 22.
3.2.2 Selection of Emulsified Asphalt

As it is mentioned in the experimental plan, two types of emulsions were used in the research.
One is CSS-1 from Paramount Asphalt Company and the other one is an Engineered Emulsion
for cold mix asphalt from Road Science Inc. The CSS-1 was stored in a cool dry place at room
temperature and the Engineered Emulsion was stored at 120°F-140°F in an oven. The emulsions
were stirred every other day to avoid breaking. Thermal cycling of emulsion also was avoided as
much as possible. The Engineered emulsion has a Shelf life of approximately 30 days while CSS-
1 has approximately 6 months. Variations of viscosities with temperatures were measured using
the rotational viscometer to see the proper handling and mixing temperatures according to
AASHTO T 316. Proper rotational speed and RV spindles were selected. The emulsions were
heated up to the test temperature and kept at that temperature for less than 2 hours to avoid the
loss of water from the emulsion. The changes in viscosities with temperature are shown in
Figures 14 and 15 for both CSS-1 and Engineered Emulsion for CMA respectively. CSS-1 was
used at room temperature and Engineered Emulsion was used at 140°F for mixing.
38
3.2.3 Determination of Mixing Time and Coating Ability

The mixing of aggregate with water and emulsion was done separately. The regular mechanical
mixing utensils were used for this purpose. These utensils were kept at the temperature of the
emulsion for 2 hrs before mixing. The CSS-1 emulsion was mixed at room temperature and
engineered emulsion for cold mix was mixed at 140°F. Water was added to the aggregate first
and mixed until uniformly dispersed, but no longer than 1 minute. Then the dampened aggregate
was mixed with emulsion until uniformly dispersed but no longer than 1 minute. After mixing,
coating ability of the mixture was checked to ensure a good coating of the mixture and
compatibility of the emulsion to the aggregate. If the mixture has less water to dampen the
aggregate or the emulsion is not compatible with the aggregate, the fines will start balling up
while mixing. If it is happened the water content should be increased first and if it does not help
different emulsion should be used.
The coating tests were conducted on cold mix asphalts according to ASTM D2489 & ASTM
D6998 to ensure the good coating of emulsion. Even though these are two different procedures to
determine the coating ability of the mixes they both can be used for cold mix asphalt.
ASTM D6998 evaluates the aggregate Coating using Emulsified Asphalts only. This procedure
was followed to ensure that the grade of emulsified asphalt is stable enough and otherwise
possesses the ability to mix with aggregate for the prescribed time (1min), and coat it uniformly
and thoroughly. The aggregates from both gradations were sieved through 19.0 mm (¾ inch) and
6.3 mm (¼ inch) sieves. A 465.0 g of aggregate sample passing ¾ inch and retained in ¼ inch
was weighed in to a pan and 35.0 g of emulsion was added to the aggregate. The mixture was
mixed vigorously for 3 minutes with a spoon. Mixture was evaluated carefully after mixing for
coating ability and 100% of coating was observed for all mixes.
39
ASTM D2489 estimates the degree of particle coating of bituminous-aggregate mixtures. This
procedure was slightly modified for cold mixes as explained below. The aggregate was mixed
with design water content and design emulsion content first and then the mixture was sieved
through 3/8 inch sieve. The sample was large enough to yield between 200 and 500 coarse
particles retained on the 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) sieve. Sample was divided in to two portions and
sieved to avoid overloading the sieves. The sieving was done manually and slowly to prevent
recoating of uncoated particles. The particles retained on the 3/8 inch sieve were placed on a clean
surface in a one-particle layer and counted immediately for uncoated and coated particles. The
particles were carefully examined under fluorescent light. If even a tiny speck of uncoated stone
is noted, the particle was classified as “partially coated.” If completely coated, the particle was
classified as “completely coated”. When this procedure was followed, it was very hard to
differentiate the particles which are coated only with water and water and emulsion. They were
all fully coated except few spots on few aggregates. Therefore particles retained on the 3/8 inch
sieve were dried in the oven for 24h at 60°C and then examined the coating carefully. The
degrees of coating for both gradations are shown in Table 21.
3.2.4 Determination of Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravities (Gmm) for Cold Mix
Asphalt (AASHTO-T209)
Required amount of aggregate (1500g) was prepared according to Table 3 in AASHTO T 209 and
mixed with water (4.0%) at 25°C for 1 minute and then mixed with emulsion at mixing
temperature for another 1 minute. The mixed samples were cured at 60°C until they reach
constant mass. The particles of the CMA sample were separated by hand, so that the particles of
the fine aggregate portion are not larger than 6.3 mm (1/4 in.). The CMA particles were very easy
to separate than HMA sample. The prepared samples were weighed for dry weight of the sample
and placed in a clean pycnometer. The entrapped air in the sample was removed by applying
gradually increased vacuum until the residual pressure manometer reads 3.7 ± 0.3 kPa (27.5 ± 2.5
40
mmHg). This residual pressure was maintained for 15 ± 2 min. The mechanical agitation method
was used to agitate the sample while vacuuming in process. At the end of the vacuum period, the
vacuum was released by increasing the pressure at a rate not to exceed 8 kPa (60 mmHg) per
second. Then the container and contents were suspended in the water bath at 25 ± 1°C (77 ± 2°F)
and the mass was determined after a 10 ± 1 min immersion in water. Finally the empty
pycnometer was suspended in water bath at 25 ± 1°C (77 ± 2°F) and the mass was determined.
The theoretical specific gravities of the CMA mixtures were determined using the equation 3.
𝐴
Theoretical specific gravity (Gmm) = …………………………….. (3)
[𝐴−(𝐷−𝐵)]
Where,
A- Mass of oven dry sample in the air, g
B- Mass of empty pynometer under water at 25 ± 1°C (77 ± 2°F), g
D- Mass of pycnometer and sample under water at 25 ± 1°C (77 ± 2°F), g
Theoretical maximum specific gravity of HMA was calculated at one binder content first and the
theoretical maximum specific gravities at other binder contents were calculated assuming a
constant effective specific gravity (Gse). But there was a question if the same process can be
applied for emulsion mixes. The theoretical specific gravities were measured at different
emulsion contents. They also were calculated assuming constant effective specific gravity (Gse)
from Gmm at one emulsion content. These measured and calculated Gmms were plotted against
emulsion content as shown in Figures 16 and 17.
3.2.5 Determination of Required Number of Gyrations to Prepare Compacted

Sample
In the Superpave approach for hot mix asphalt, the gyrations needed to produce a specimen
representative of material at design or after long term trafficking are specified depending on the
expected traffic level in AASHTO R35 Table 1. In the case of cold mix asphalt, there are no such
41
guide lines or any other standard procedures available at all. So we decided to use the locking
point concept to decide the number of gyrations for preparing the mix design samples.
The amount of aggregate to prepare SGC compacted samples (6.0 inches) was determined based
on Gmm, target air void of 10.0±1.0% and target specimen height of 115±5 mm. Samples were
prepared with the same water content (4.0%) and at least two different emulsion contents using
SGC. The water content was selected based on the literature and experience. The emulsion
content was selected based on the equation given in the ASTM D7229 procedure. The samples
were compacted to 150 gyrations or until the locking point is achieved. Then the locking point
was evaluated from the SGC data output after the samples were cured to the constant mass at
60°C. Bulk specific gravities of the compacted samples were determined according to AASHTO
T 166 and corrected as mentioned in AASHTO R 35. A locking point is the no of gyrations
required to bring the specimen height down to a constant value. The constant height is considered
as the first 3 consecutive measurements at which there is no change in height followed by 3 more
consecutive height measurements at the next lowest height. This concept can be easily explained
in the example shown in Table 23. The locking points (Ndesign) obtained for each CMA mixes are
tabulated in Table 24. If the target air void and specimen height are not achieved at locking point,
the weight of the mixture is adjusted.
3.2.6 Determination of Curing Time for Compacted CMA Samples

The compacted samples were prepared at initial water content with different emulsion contents
(at least 2 levels). The compacted samples were removed immediately from the mold and kept
them in the oven at 60°C. The weights of the samples were monitored continuously to determine
the time required to reach constant mass. When the mass loss reached 0.025%/hour, it was
considered that the samples reached constant mass. From the plots rate of mass loss against time
as shown in Figures 18 through 21, the coarse graded samples took 30hrs and fine graded samples
42
took 36hrs to reach constant mass with both types of emulsions. This time was computed based
on 6 hours increment of time, so that the process of curing will be easy and smooth with day and
night shift.
3.2.7 Determination of Optimum Emulsion Content (OEC)

After completing all the requirements in sections from 3.2.1 through 3.2.6, the samples were
prepared at initial water content (4.0%) and different emulsion contents (4 levels). The loose
samples were compacted immediately after mixing to the number of gyrations decided in section
3.2.5 as shown in Table 24. Then the compacted samples were cured at 60°C for the specified
times mentioned in section 3.2.6. After the curing, the bulk specific gravities of compacted
samples were measured according to AASHTO T166 and plotted against emulsion content. The
optimum emulsion content (design emulsion content) was obtained from the density curves
shown in figures 22 through 25 and the results (design emulsion contents) are tabulated in Table
24.
3.2.8 Determination of Optimum Water Content (OWC)

The procedure described in section 3.2.7 was repeated with the following exception. The samples
were mixed at optimum emulsion content with different water contents (at least 3 levels),
bracketing the initial water content. The loose samples were compacted to design gyrations
decided in section 3.2.5. The bulk specific gravities were plotted against the water content and the
optimum water content was obtained from the density curves shown in figures 26 to 29. If the
optimum emulsion content is within the allowable limit (initial water content ± 1.0%), It is
accepted otherwise the OEC and OWC have to be determined again using the obtained OWC as
the initial water content. The design water content of each cold mix asphalt determined from the
density curves are tabulated in Table 24.

43
Chapter 4: Mix Design Procedure for Cold-in-place Recycling (CIR)
As indicated in the experimental plan, two different mix design procedures were used in the
research to determine the optimum emulsion content and water content of the CIR mixtures. The
first method uses the modified Proctor test (AASHTO-T180) to identify the optimum moisture
content of the Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) material and compute the optimum emulsion
content and water content from the modified Proctor test results (optimum moisture content). The
second method determines the optimum emulsion content and optimum water content from
density curves obtained using the Superpave gyratory compactor.
4.1 Mix Design of CIR Using the Modified Proctor Test.

The RAP material was obtained from the millings of McCarran Street in Reno, Nevada.
Representative sample was obtained by quartering a bucket of RAP. Two RAP gradations were
chosen; a graded RAP which satisfies the coarse gradation requirements of the Pacific Coast
Conference on Asphalt Specification (PCCAS) and a non-graded RAP which is used as it is
obtained from the millings but passing the 1 inch sieve. The dry sieve analysis was conducted on
quartered sample. It was observed that the millings have too much fines and oversized material to
satisfy the PCCAS. It was decided to crush the millings down to bring the gradation closer to the
PCCA specification and to avoid the wastage. The small jaw crusher in the Pavement/Materials
laboratory at UNR was used for crushing the RAP. The gradation of the RAP after crushing and
the selected coarse gradation for the study which satisfies the PCCA Specification are shown in
Figure 30. Figure 31 shows the gradation of the non-graded RAP used in the CIR mix design.
4.1.2 Mix Design

The mix design using the modified Proctor test was conducted according to AASHTO T180,
similar to the cold mix asphalt described in section 3.1.2. Both RAP gradations have less than
44
30.0% material retained in the ¾ inch sieve, therefore method D of the AASHTO T180 procedure
was followed to determine the optimum moisture contents. The RAP was sieved through the ¾
inch sieve and the Proctor test was conducted. The moisture content of the samples after the test
were determined by drying the RAP samples in the oven at 60°C until a constant mass. Then the
dry densities of the material (tabulated in Tables 24 and 25 ) were plotted against the moisture
content as shown in Figures 30 and 31 for graded RAP and non-graded RAP respectively. The
optimum moisture contents of the material were determined and corrected for oversize particles
according to AASHTO T224. The optimum moisture contents and the relevant corrections are
tabulated in Table 26.
Adriana et.al (3) used the Modified Proctor test for optimum moisture content and calculated the
emulsion content and water content from the Modified Proctor optimum moisture as follows;
Emulsion content + water = Proctor moisture - 0.5%
If the same concept is used in this study to calculate the optimum emulsion content and water
content, both emulsion and water content would be higher than 4.0%. Such high values are not
practical in the field and the mixes may not perform well because of higher moisture in the CIR.
Therefore this method was not continued in this study for further evaluations of the mix design.
4.2 Mix Design of CIR Using the Superpave Gyratory Compacted

Samples.
This mix design approach used the Superpave gyratory compactor with little modifications of the
compaction mold as described in section 3.2, so that the excess water can escape during
compaction. The mix design procedure using the Superpave gyratory compactor for CIR consists
following steps;
• Selection of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP)

45
• Selection of emulsified asphalt
• Determination of mixing time
• Determination of theoretical maximum specific gravity (Gmm)
• Determination of required no of gyrations to prepare compacted sample
• Determination of curing time
• Determination of Optimum Emulsion Content (OEC)
• Determination of Optimum Water Content (OEC)
4.2.1 Selection of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP)

The RAP material was obtained from the millings of McCarran Street in Reno, Nevada as
mentioned in section 4.1.1. The gradation of the RAP after crushing and the selected coarse
gradation for the study which satisfies the PCCA Specification are shown in Figure 30. Figure 31
shows the gradation of the non-graded RAP used in the CIR mix design.
As part of the process of evaluating RAP, the asphalt content of the RAP was determined from
the Asphalt extraction method (AASHTO T164) and Ignition oven method (AASHTO T308).
Asphalt content obtained from Ignition oven method yielded higher asphalt content (6.4%) than
that of extraction method (5.6%). This difference may be due to burning of the fines in the
Ignition oven method. A correction factor should be applied, if the ignition oven method is used
to obtain the binder content of asphalt, unfortunately the information about aggregate source
could not be obtained to make the corrections for the asphalt content.
4.2.2 Selection of Emulsified Asphalt

Two types of emulsions were used in this research; a CMS-2s from Paramount Asphalt Company
and an Engineered Emulsion from Road Science Inc. The CMS-2s was stored at a cool dry place
at room temperature and the Engineered Emulsion was stored in an oven at 120°F-140°F. The
emulsions were stirred every other day to avoid breaking. Thermal cycling of emulsion was
46
avoided as much as possible. The engineered emulsion for CIR has a shelf life of 30 days while
the CMS-2s has approximately 6 months. Variations of Viscosities with temperatures were
measured using the rotational viscometer to identify the proper handling and mixing temperatures
according to AASHTO T 316. The proper rotational speed and RV spindles were selected. The
emulsions were heated up to the test temperature and kept at that temperature for less than 2
hours to avoid the loss of water from the emulsion. The changes in viscosities with temperatures
are shown in Figures 14 and 15 for both CMS-2s and engineered emulsion for CIR respectively.
The CMS-2s was used at room temperature and the engineered emulsion was used at 140°F for
mixing.
4.2.3 Determination of Mixing Time

The mixing time of RAP with water and emulsion was determined from the literature review.
First the RAP material was mixed with the required amount of water (1.0%-4.0%) for 1 minute
and then a pre-determined amount of emulsion is added to the moistened RAP and mixed for 1
minute. Two minutes (1min with water and 1min with emulsion) of mixing time was found to be
satisfactory for good coating of RAP with emulsion. Satisfactory coating was observed by just
looking at the CIR mixture. Even though there are standard methods to determine the percentage
of coating of aggregate, the standard procedure could not be followed because of the color of the
RAP.
4.2.4 Determination of Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravities (Gmm) (AASHTO-

T209)
The theoretical maximum specific gravities of the CIR mixes were determined according to
AASHTO T209. The graded/non-graded RAP was mixed with predetermined water (4.0%) at
25°C for 1 minute and then mixed with emulsion at mixing temperature for another 1 minute. The
mixed samples were cured at 60°C until they reach constant mass. The theoretical specific
gravities of the CIR mixtures were computed as described in section 3.2.4.

47
Typically, the theoretical maximum specific gravities of HMA are measured at one binder content
first and calculated at other contents, assuming a constant effective specific gravity (Gse). this
procedure was also used for CIR in this research. The theoretical specific gravities were measured
at different emulsion contents as described in section 3.2.4. The effective specific gravities (Gse)
were computed at each emulsion contents and they were plotted against emulsion content as
shown in figure 34. The specific gravities of the CIR mixtures were also calculated assuming
constant effective specific gravity (Gse) from Gmm at one emulsion content. The measured and
calculated Gmms are plotted against emulsion content as shown in figure 35. It is observed that the
Gse of the RAP is constant up to a certain level (4.0%) of emulsion content and then decreases
with increasing emulsion content as shown in figure 34. It also was found that the relationship
between Gmm and emulsion content is linear. The measured and calculated Gmm (assuming
constant Gse) are very close as shown in figure 35.
Based on the above findings, it was concluded that if the emulsion content is less than 4.0%, the
Gmm of the RAP mixtures can be calculated at one emulsion content (typically at higher level) and
then back-calculated for mixtures at other emulsion contents by assuming a constant Gse. The
calculated Gmm for all the RAP mixtures used in the research are summarized in Table 28.
4.2.5 Determination of Required Number of Gyrations to Prepare Compacted

Sample
The amount of RAP material to prepare SGC compacted samples (6.0 inches) was determined
based on the theoretical specific gravity, target air void of 13.0±1.0% and target specimen height
of 115±5mm. The target air void of 13.0±1.0% was selected for the study to represent the real
situation in the field following construction. Typical emulsion content (1-4%) and water content
(1-4%) used in the past CIR projects were chosen from the literature as a starting point for the
mix design.
48
At the beginning, the locking point concept described in section 3.2.5 was used to evaluate the
required no of gyrations for mix design. A locking point was not achieved at the target air void of
13±1% and 115±5mm height. Therefore, this concept could not be used to decide on the number
of gyrations required to prepare compacted samples. Another concept was used to determine the
number of gyrations as described below.
The prepared RAP material was mixed with water and emulsion (at least 2 levels) and compacted
using the SGC to 100 gyrations. The required number of gyrations was selected to reach the
target air void and specimen height. If the target specimen height is not achieved at the target air
void, the weight of the mixture is adjusted. An example of the above process is shown in Table
29. In this particular example, 10 gyrations were selected as Ndesign. If 15 gyrations are selected
for the mix design, the air voids are lower than the target, but the sample heights are within the
limit. If 10 gyrations are selected, both target air void and specimen heights are within the limits,
but this is not the case always. Sometimes the air voids of all samples may not fall within the
limit, but still the numbers of gyrations have to be selected depending on the trial experimental
matrix. The trial experimental matrix composed of 4 emulsion contents and 4 water contents (i.e.
16 samples) for one mix design. This process will be discussed in detail in section 4.2.7. The no
of gyrations used to prepare the mix design samples for all the RAP mixtures used in the research
are listed in Table 30.
4.2.6 Determination of Curing Time for Compacted CIR Samples

CIR samples were prepared at initial water content with different emulsion contents (2-3 levels)
targeting 115±5mm height and 13±1% air void. The compacted samples were removed
immediately from the mold and kept in the oven at 60°C. The curing temperature of 60°C
(140°F) was selected as the effective curing temperature from the literature review. The weights
of the samples were monitored continuously to determine the time required to reach constant
49
mass. When the mass loss reached 0.025%/hour, it was considered that the samples reached
constant mass. It was observed that the compacted CIR samples took 24hrs to reach constant
mass as shown in the curing curves in Figure 36.
4.2.7 Determination of Optimum Emulsion Content (OEC) and Optimum Water

Content (OWC)
At the early stage of research, samples were prepared at initial water content (4.0%) and different
emulsion contents targeting 10.0% air void. Later, the target air void was changed to 13.0±1.0%
based on field experience. The graded CIR samples were compacted to 25 gyrations, determined
as described in section 4.2.5 (targeting 10.0% air void) and cured for 24hrs at 60°C. After curing,
the bulk specific gravities of the compacted samples were measured using the parafilm method
(ASTM D1188) and plotted against emulsion content. The bulk specific gravities were increasing
constantly with the increasing amount of emulsion, therefore optimum point was not achieved.
The following parameters were changed to see if an optimum point can be achieved;
• The number of gyrations to prepare the compacted sample was increased from 25 to 50
• The initial water content was changed from 4.0% to 5.0%
• The compaction pressure was reduced from 600kpa to 267kpa
But, none of the changes helped to identify optimum emulsion content as shown in Figure 37.
None of the two methods discussed above were useful to identify either the optimum emulsion
content or the optimum water content for the CIR mix design. Therefore it was decided to
perform a trial experimental matrix composed of 4 emulsion contents and 4 water contents (16
samples) for one mix design. Whichever the best 2 combinations of emulsion content and water
content out of 16 combinations meet the target air void of 13.0±1.0% and target specimen height
of 115±5mm were selected for further experiment towards the mix design. While selecting the
combination of emulsion and water content, moisture change of ± 0.5% in the field was
50
considered. The moisture susceptibility test and the raveling tests were conducted on the selected
2 combinations of emulsion and water contents. The optimum emulsion and water content were
selected such that the selected combination of emulsion and water content performs the best in
both performance tests. The variation of specific gravities and air voids with emulsion content
and water content are shown in Figures 38 - 46.
Two combinations of emulsion and water content were selected for each type of CIR mixes from
Figures 38 - 46 are summarized in Table 30. These combinations were evaluated further for the
design emulsion content and water content.

51
Chapter 5: Evaluations of Mix Design Procedures for Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA)
and Cold-in-place Recycling (CIR)
5.1 Evaluations of Mix Design Procedures for Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA)
The mix design for cold mix asphalt was evaluated by conducting performance tests such as
moisture sensitivity test, raveling test, cohesion test, dynamic modulus (|E*|) test and repeated
load triaxial (RLT) test on compacted samples prepared using designed mixes. After the
completion of mix design process, moisture sensitivity test and raveling test were conducted. If
both moisture sensitivity test and raveling test meet the criteria, other performance tests such as
dynamic modulus (|E*|) test and repeated load triaxial (RLT) test were conducted.
5.1.1 Moisture Sensitivity Test (AASHTO T283)

The moisture sensitivity test was conducted on CMA samples to predict the striping susceptibility
of the CMA mixes and to see how they lose their strength when they subject to freeze and thaw.
The moisture susceptibility test was conducted on 6 inches CMA samples according to AASHTO
T 283. Minimum of Six samples were prepared at design (optimum) emulsion content and water
content targeting 10±1% air void, three for dry set and three for wet set. The conditioning for wet
set was done according to AASHTO T 283 in which samples were vacuum saturated to 70-80%
and frozen them at -18°C for minimum of 16 hours and submerged in 60°C bath for 24±1 hrs and
then kept at 25±1°C for 2 hours and tested. The dry set of samples also were kept at 25±1°C oven
for 2 hours and tested. The percent retained strength is calculated from indirect tensile test of dry
set and wet set. The tensile strength of dry, wet set and percent retained strength after 1 freeze
thaw cycle for all cold mixes used in the study are listed in Table 31.
5.1.2 Raveling Test (ASTM D 7196)

Raveling test measures the resistance to raveling characteristics of bituminous emulsion and field
aggregates or Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) mixtures by simulating an abrasion similar to

52
early return to traffic. The required amount of aggregates were mixed at design emulsion content
and water content and compacted to prepare raveling test samples, 150mm in diameter and 70±5
mm in height. The samples were prepared at ambient temperature by compacting to 20 gyrations
using the SGC. If the sample height is not 2.75-in. (70 mm) ±0.2 inches (5 mm) after 20
gyrations, the weight of the material used for compaction was adjusted. Specimens were allowed
to cure at ambient laboratory conditions for 4 hours according to the recommendations in ASTM
D 7196. The raveling test specimen was placed on the raveling test adapter base in such a way
that a minimum of 10 mm of the specimen above the raveling test adapter base was available for
abrasion. Care was taken that the specimen is centered and well supported. The abrasion head
was checked so that the area of hose to be in contact with the specimen had not been previously
used. Then the sample was allowed to abrade for 15 minutes. After the test was completed, the
specimen was removed carefully from the base and brushed with the brush to remove any loose
material and weighed immediately. The percent raveling was calculated from the mass loss of the
specimen after the test and reported in Table 32.
Most of the agencies and researchers require a mass loss of less than 2.0% in the raveling test for
the better raveling performance of the mix.
5.1.3 Cohesion Test (ASTM D3910 with Modification)

When performing the raveling test, we found that the raveling test criteria were not achieved for
none of the mixes. We suspected that the cohesion was not fully developed before testing.
Therefore we decided to perform the cohesion test to see how fast the cohesion is developed. The
cohesion test is typically conducted on slurry seals and chip seals to measure the curing time, but
we used it in evaluating the mix design with little modification. This test method determines the
time required to allow the traffic after construction. A cohesion testing device shown in Figure 54
was used for the purpose. The raveling test samples (150mm in diameter and 70±5 mm in height)
were prepared by applying 20 gyrations using SGC. The compacted sample was placed beneath
53
the pneumatically actuated rubber foot (25.4 mm (1 in.) in diameter) of the cohesion tester. A
pressure of 193 kPa (28 psi) is considered to be equivalent to that exerted by an average
automobile was applied on the foot. The rubber foot was twisted by an angle of 90°-120° by
means of a hand torque wrench. The torque procedure was repeated at 30 min intervals until the
torque reads 20kgcm. Care was taken not to break the sample by doing cohesion test at the very
early age. This test was conducted after 4 hours of curing at ambient conditions. An undisturbed
site on the sample was selected for each time-interval test. The time required to reach 20kgcm
torque is considered as the time required allowing the traffic. The time required to allow the
traffic for each mixes are shown in Table 33.
After completing the above two test, it was realized that the CMA mixes have moisture sensitivity
problem. The mitigation method to overcome the problem and their results are discussed in
chapter 6.
5.2 Evaluations of Mix Design Procedures for Cold-in-place Recycling

(CIR)
The mix design procedure for cold-in-place recycling was evaluated by conducting performance
tests such as moisture sensitivity test, raveling test, cohesion test, dynamic modulus (|E*|) test
and repeated load triaxial (RLT) test on compacted samples prepared using designed mixes. Right
after the completion of the mix design process, the moisture sensitivity test was conducted as
described in section 5.1.1 except the target air void of 13.0±1.0% for CIR mixes. The tensile
strength ratio, which evaluates the moisture susceptibility of the CIR mixes are shown in Tables
34.
By evaluating the tensile strength ratios of the graded CIR mixes, it was observed that the
increasing amount of water (including water from emulsion) presence in the CIR mixes reduces
tensile strength ratios. Therefore moisture sensitivity test was not conducted for the 2
54
combinations of the non-graded mixes with engineered emulsion as shown in Table 34 which will
result in lower tensile strength ratio than the other combinations. All the CIR mixes used in this
study had severe moisture sensitivity problem therefore the raveling test and other performance
tests were not conducted on these mixes. As a mitigation method for moisture sensitivity
problem, 1.5% of lime was added to all the CIR mixes and then evaluated for performance.
If both moisture sensitivity test and raveling test meet the criteria the other performance tests such
as dynamic modulus (|E*|) test and repeated load triaxial (RLT) test would follow. Even if the
raveling test does not meet the criteria, the dynamic modulus test and RLT test were conducted.
For some of the mixes, raveling performance cannot be improved by changing the mix design
parameters for cold-in-place recycling mixes, it can be simply avoided by placing an overlay on
top of the CIR layer.
5.2.1 Dynamic Modulus Test

Dynamic modulus tests are conducted on asphalt specimens to develop dynamic modulus master
curves, which can be used for mixture evaluation and for characterizing the modulus of asphalt
mixes for mechanistic-empirical pavement design. The dynamic modulus test was conducted
according to AASHTO T342 with few modifications for CIR mixes. Dynamic modulus tests are
conducted by applying axial harversine (positive sinusoidal) load of fixed magnitude and cycle
duration to a test specimen. CIR samples, 150mm in diameter and180mm in height, were
compacted using SGC targeting to air void of 12.0%. The compacted samples were cured for 48
hours at 60°C. The 48 hours of curing time was required to core the sample without collapsing.
Cured CIR samples were cored to get a 100mm diameter and 150mm height sample with the air
voids of 10.0±1.0%. The target air void of 10.0±1.0% was chosen from the field data available in
literature as shown in Figure 78. Test specimens were bulked using the parafilm method to
determine the exact air void of the specimen as described in ASTM D1188. Then they were tested
55
at three different temperatures (4°C, 20°C and 45°C) and three different loading frequencies
(10Hz, 1Hz and 0.1Hz) for the first two temperatures and four different frequencies (10Hz, 1Hz,
0.1Hz and 0.01Hz) for the last temperature as mentioned in AASHTO PP61 Table 2. The
temperature, frequencies, phase angle, and dynamic modulus of each sample were obtained. The
dynamic modulus values for each CIR mix at test temperatures are shown in Figure 66.
After completing the dynamic modulus test, the master curve at a reference temperature was
prepared using the time-temperature superposition principle. Even though the new AMPT method
is used to test the dynamic modulus of the CIR mixtures, the master curve cannot be developed
using the equation given in the standard. Therefore the equation in the AASHTO PP61 was
modified in such a way that can handle the CIR mixes as shown below. In the equation given in
AASHTO PP61, parameter (Max-δ) is used instead of α in Equation 4. The parameter ‘Max’ is
calculated based on the VMA and VFA of the mixes, but these are complicated to compute for
CIR mixes. The |E*| master curves for CIR mixes can be represented by the sigmoidal function
as shown in Equation 4. The shift factor which is used to estimate the reduced frequency at
reference temperature was calculated using the Arrhenius equation as shown in Equations 5 and
6.
𝛼
log(|𝐸 ∗ |) = 𝛿 + ………………………………………….. (4)
1+𝑒 𝛽+𝛾log (𝑓𝑟 )
𝑓𝑟 = 𝑓 ∗ 𝑎(𝑇), Thus, log(𝑓𝑟 ) = log(𝑓) + log[𝑎(𝑇)] …………………… (5)
∆𝐸𝑎 1 1
log[𝑎(𝑇)] = � − �…………………………………………... (6)
19.14714 𝑇 𝑇𝑟
Where,
|E ∗ | = the dynamic modulus, psi;

δ, β, and γ = the fitting parameters;
56
fr = the reduced frequency at reference temperature, Hz;
𝑓 = the loading frequency at the test temperature, Hz;
∆Ea = the activation energy (treated as a fitting parameter);
𝑎(𝑇) = the shift factor at temperature T;
𝑇 = the test temperature, °K; and
𝑇𝑟 = the reference temperature.
After selecting the reference temperature of 20°C for the dynamic modulus master curve, the
numerical optimization was performed using the “Solver” function in Microsoft Excel to compute
all the fitting parameters. As initial estimates the following values recommended in AASHTO
PP61 were used: α = 2.5, δ = 0.5, β = –1.0, γ = –0.5, and ΔEa = 200 000. Finally “Goodness of
Fit” was computed according to AASHTO PP61. The developed master curves for each CIR
mixes are shown in Figures 67 through 70.
5.2.2 Repeated Load Triaxial Test (RLT)

The repeated load triaxial test was conducted on CIR samples to evaluate the permanent
deformation characteristics of CIR mixtures and prepare the performance model (rutting) for
MEPDG input. CIR samples, 150mm in diameter and180mm in height, were compacted using
SGC targeting an air void of 12.0%. The compacted samples were cured for 48 hours at 60°C.
The 48 hours of curing time was required to core the sample without collapsing. Cured CIR
samples were cored to get a 100mm diameter and 150mm height sample with the air voids of
10.0±1.0%. The target air void of 10.0±1.0% was chosen from the field data as mentioned in
Section 5.2.1. RLT tests were conducted by applying an axial harvesine deviator stress of 70kpa
for 0.1s followed by 0.6s rest. The confining stress of 10kpa also was applied during the test to
simulate the real state of stress in the field. The axial deformation (permanent and resilient) of the
57
sample was recorded over the middle 100 mm of the sample using LVDTs. The axial permanent
strain was calculated as the ratio of the permanent deformation over the 100 mm gauge length
times 100. This test was conducted at three different temperatures (58°C, 45°C and 30°C) with at
𝜀𝑝
least two replicates. The relationship of the CIR mixes with number of cycles was plotted as
𝜀𝑟
shown in Figures 72-75. Using the regression analysis, the MEPDG model for rutting shown in
Equation 7 was derived for all CIR mixes. The regression coefficients obtained from the analysis
are shown in Table 42.
𝜀𝑝
= 𝑘1 ∗ 𝑁𝑘2 ∗ 𝑇𝑘3 ………………………………..……………….. (7)
𝜀𝑟
Where,
𝜀𝑝 = the permanent deformation;
𝑁 = the number of loading cycles;
T = the test temperature; and
𝑘1 , 𝑘2 , and 𝑘3 = the regression constant.
The cumulative permanent strain can be defined by the primary, secondary, and tertiary zones
(see Figure 45). These zones/stages are described below;
Primary stage- high initial level of rutting with a decreasing rate of plastic deformations
predominantly associated with increase in volume.
Secondary stage- small rate of rutting exhibiting a constant rate of change of rutting associated
with increase in volume. However, as shear deformations increase at increasing rate the tertiary
creep zone is reached.
Tertiary stage- High level of permanent axial strain predominantly associated with plastic or
shear deformations under no volume change conditions, which mean the specimen starts to flow
(deform rapidly).
58
Even though there are many ways to compute the flow number (FN), the Francken model shown
in Equation 8 was used in this research. The Francken method was developed based on triaxial
repeated load tests under various temperatures and stress levels and is a combination of a power
law function with an added exponential function. The model is obtained through a complex
regression mathematical analysis. After computing the regression constants, the second derivative
of the equation was obtained with respect to N. The value of N (number of cycles) at which the
tertiary stage is reached, or flow number (FN), is computed at the point where the sign of second
derivative of the model with respect to N changes from negative to positive. These flow numbers
were used to compare the permanent deformation behavior of each CIR mixes. The flow number
tests need to be conducted at the design temperature at 50 % reliability as determined using LTPP
Bind Version 3.1. The design temperature is computed at 20 mm depth for surface course. It was
determined that 58°C as the design temperature for Reno, Nevada area with 3 to 10 million ESAL
fast moving traffic. Even though 58°C is the flow number testing temperature, the flow number
also was computed at 45°C. The flow numbers obtained for all CIR mixes at 58°C and 45°C are
shown in Figures 76 and 77 respectively.
𝜀𝑝 (𝑁) = 𝐴𝑁 𝐵 + 𝐶(𝑒 𝐷𝑁 − 1)………………………….…………….. (8)
Where,
𝜀𝑝 = the permanent deformation;
𝑁 = the number of loading cycles;
T = the test temperature; and
A, B, C and D = the regression constant.
In this approach, the secondary stage of permanent deformation is modeled from the RLT test
results and the primary stage model is extrapolarated from the secondary stage model. Therefore
this model does not show the true plastic deformation.

59
Chapter 6: Test Results and Discussion
6.1 Cold Mix Asphalt

The evaluation test results of CMA mixes and the reason behind them are discussed in this
chapter. As it is mentioned in the mix design procedure, the coating ability of the emulsions is
very important to get a good performance mix. All the CMA mixes have good coating ability and
they were greater than 80% as shown in Table 21, these values are higher than the typical
expected values for cold mixes. The cold mix asphalt with regular emulsion showed good coating
ability than the engineered emulsion; this is may be due to the different temperatures of aggregate
and emulsion during the mixing.
The theoretical maximum specific gravities (Gmm) of the CMA mixes also can be calculated using
the method described in AASHTO T209 for hot mix asphalts with few modifications. In the
modified procedure, the water added to the mixture and the water coming from the emulsion are
assumed to be fully evaporated after the curing. The measured theoretical maximum specific
gravities of CMA mixes are found to be very similar to the calculated values as shown in Figures
16 and 17.
In the mix design method using the modified Proctor test, the optimum moisture contents do not
comply with the reality that the fine graded aggregates need more water than coarse graded
aggregate to reach higher dry density. This might have happened due to the correction for large
amount of oversized particles in fine graded aggregate. The addition of designed emulsion
content and water content of coarse graded aggregate using the second method (gyratory)
matches with the optimum moisture content obtained in modified Proctor method.
In the mix design method using Superpave gyratory compactor, the design (optimum) emulsion
contents for coarse graded CMA mixes are reasonable and they are similar to the design binder
60
content of the HMA mixes for the same aggregate. It also was observed that the coarse graded
CMA mixes needed less engineered emulsion than the conventional emulsion. The fine graded
CMA mixes needed too much emulsion (9.2%) for design; these values seem to be not realistic
therefore the designed fine graded CMA mixes need to be evaluated for its performance in the
field before implementing the new mix design procedure for fine graded CMA mixes.
6.1.1 Moisture Susceptibility of Cold Mix Asphalt

The fine and coarse graded cold mix asphalts produced using CSS-1 showed severe moisture
damage while CMA mixes with engineered emulsion showed less moisture damage as shown in
Table 31. The variations of tensile strength ratios (TSR) of CMA mixes with emulsion
temperatures were evaluated for identifying any improvement in TSR. The coarse and fine graded
CMA mixes with CSS-1 emulsion were used for this evaluation. The tensile strength ratios of
both mixes were little higher at the emulsion temperature of 120°F as shown in Figures 48 and 49
but, they were not big enough to satisfy the requirement.
The change in voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) and void filled with asphalt (VFA) with
temperature also was assessed for those two mixes and the results are plotted in Figures 50
through 54. The VMA and VFA were calculated based on the assumption that the water in the
mix was fully evaporated after curing. While the VMA decreases with increasing emulsion
temperature the VFA increases. Even though the VMAs in coarse graded aggregates are similar
to that of HMA, the VFAs are very low.
It was realized that the moisture damage is caused mainly by a weak bonding between aggregate
and emulsion. Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) recommends addition of 1.5% of
lime for all HMA mixes used in Nevada as a mitigation method for moisture damage. Therefore,
it was decided that the addition of 1.5% (by weight) of lime to the CMA mixes might improve the
moisture susceptibility problem. The addition of lime for the CMA mixes was similar to that of
61
emulsion. Lime was added to the moistened aggregate just before the addition of emulsion and
mixed for 1 minute. The rest of the procedure was similar to that of CMA without lime.
When the lime is added to the previously used aggregate gradations, the target air void of
10.0±1.0% was not achieved at the locking point and target specimen height. Therefore the
aggregate gradation was modified in such a way that the new aggregate gradation take in to
account the filler material coming from lime as shown in Figures 46 and 47. Even after modifying
the aggregate gradation, the target air void was not achieved at the locking point (see Tables 43
and 44). The reason behind this is; by adding lime to the mixes the compactability of the mixes
increases, so that the locking point is obtained at lower air void (5.0-8.0%) than the target air
void. If the target air void is adjusted to 7.0±1.0%, the same mix design method would be valid
and the new target air void also need to be verified if it can be achieve in the field. Therefore we
did not evaluate the CMA mixes with lime.
6.1.2 Raveling Performance of CMA Mixes

The raveling performance of the cold mix asphalts is also as important as tensile strength ratios of
the mix. The amount of raveling after 4 hours of curing time at ambient temperature in the lab
decides the amount of raveling in the field after the new pavement is trafficked. All the CMA
mixes studied showed very bad raveling performance (>2.0%). This may be due to the
insufficient amount of curing time; which means the presence of too much water in the mix at the
time of testing.
The cohesion tester was used to test if the bad raveling performance is due to the insufficient
amount of curing time. The cohesion tester results show the time required to allow the traffic after
laying the mix as shown in Table 33. From the cohesion test results, it was found that the mixes
need more than 4 hours of curing time before testing for raveling.
62
6.2 Cold-in-place Recycling

As it is mentioned earlier, two RAP gradations were used in this study. The non graded RAP has
more fines (mastics) than the graded RAP. The mix design method using the modified Proctor
test yielded very high amount of optimum moisture content to reach maximum dry density and
they are not practical in the field. Therefore the mix design using the modified Proctor method
was not evaluated.
The theoretical maximum specific gravities (Gmm) of the CIR mixes also can be calculated using
the method described in AASHTO T209 for hot mix asphalts with few modifications as
mentioned earlier in section 6.1.1. The effective specific gravities (Gse) of the CIR mixes are
constant up to 3.0% and then changes as shown in Figure 34. The measured theoretical maximum
specific gravities of CIR mixes are found to be very similar to the calculated values for the
emulsion content less than 3.0% as shown in Figure 35.
The number of gyrations required to prepare the mix design samples were between 30 and 75.
These numbers are similar to the number of gyration required to achieve the density in the field
found in literature. The CIR mixes with engineered emulsion required less number of gyrations to
prepare mix design samples than the conventional emulsion, therefore it can be concluded that the
CIR mixes with engineered emulsion have good compactability than the others.
When the Figures 38 through 46 are evaluated, it was observed that there were no optimum points
in the bulk specific gravity/percent air void in most of the curves. Even if it is found in some
curves, the emulsion content and water content were not realistic, which means they were too
high for field application. The optimum emulsion content and water content were selected as
discussed in section 4.2.7. After the selection of emulsion content and water content, the CIR
mixes were evaluated for their performance.

63
6.2.1 Moisture Susceptibility of CIR Mixes

All the CIR mixes used in this study showed severe moisture damage as shown in Table 34. By
evaluating the tensile strength ratios (TSR) of the mixes, there was a suspect that the conditioning
of wet set according to AASHTO T283 was severe for the samples with higher air voids
(13±1%). Therefore it was decided to conduct a small study on graded CIR mixes with CMS-2s
emulsion. The conditioning of wet set was changed to most of the researchers did in the past
including PCCAS for CIR mixes. In this conditioning process, samples were vacuum saturated to
55-75%, submerged in a water bath at 25°C for 23 hours, and placed for 1 hour in a 40°C water
bath and then tensile strengths were tested. The tensile strengths of both sets at different emulsion
content and water content are tabulated in Table 35. In this method, the tensile strength of both
dry set and wet set were lower than that of AAHSTO T283, but there were no change in the
tensile strength ratios. It was decided that there will not be any changes in TSR by changing the
conditioning method of wet set to the PCCAS method. It also was concluded that all the CIR
mixes have severe moisture sensitivity problems.
By evaluating the TSR and raveling performance of the graded CIR mixes with CMS-2s, it also
was observed that the performance of CIR mixes reduces with the amount of total water
(including the water coming from emulsion) presence in the mix as shown in Table 36. Therefore
the moisture sensitivity test was conducted only on the mixes with less amount of total water,
even though two combinations of emulsion and water contents were selected at the beginning.
After the above study, it was realized that the moisture damage is caused mainly by a weak
bonding between RAP and emulsion. Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)
recommends addition of 1.5% of lime for all CIR mixes used in Nevada as a mitigation method
for moisture damage. Therefore, 1.5% (by weight) of lime was added to all CIR mixes and the
mix designs were performed again.

64
6.3 CIR Mixes with Lime

The mix designs of CIR mixes with lime also were conducted in a similar way to that of CIR
mixes without lime with the following exceptions in the mixing process:
• After preparation of required amount of RAP material, samples were mixed with water
for 1minute first. Then the moistened RAP material was mixed with 1.5% of lime for
1minute and finally the mixture (RAP + water + lime) was mixed with predetermined
amount of emulsion. Then the rest of the procedures described in section 4.2 were
followed.
In the mix design process, all the CIR mixes met the target air void of 13.0±1.0% and the
specimen height of 115±5mm. If the air void and/or specimen height do not reach the target
values, the gradations need to be modified to take into account the fines coming from lime.
Theoretical maximum specific gravities of the CIR mixes with lime are listed in Table37. The
numbers of gyrations used for the mix design of CIR mixes with lime are tabulated in Table38.
The plots of bulk specific gravities and the air voids of the CIR mixes with lime used for the
selection of design emulsion content and water content are shown in Figures 55 - 62. The selected
combinations of design emulsion content and water content for the CIR mixes with lime are
tabulated in Table 39.
After the mix designs were completed, the CIR mixes were evaluated for their performance. The
tensile strength ratios (TSR) of the CIR mixes with lime are tabulated in Table 40 and they were
compared with the TSR of the CIR mixes without lime as shown in Figures 63 and 64.The
addition of lime (1.5%by DWA) to the CIR mixes improved the TSR ratios by more than 250%.
The TSRs of the CIR mixes with lime were more than 70% except one mix which has a TSR
slightly less than 70%. By evaluating the tensile strength ratios of the CIR mixes, it was observed
65
that the non-graded mixes which has more fines (asphalt mastics) than graded mixes performed
better in moisture susceptibility. It also was observed that the CIR mixes with engineered
emulsion performed significantly better than the CIR mixes with conventional emulsion (CMS-
2s).
The raveling performance of the CIR mixes with lime was evaluated after the evaluation of
moisture susceptibility of the mixes and they are tabulated in Table 41. The raveling of more than
2.0% is not recommended in the CIR mixes by most of the agencies. Three out of four CIR mixes
studied did not meet the criteria. We suspected that too much raveling is caused by shorter (4hrs)
curing time.
The cohesion tester was used to test the time required to allow the traffic after the mix is laid
down. A 20kgcm of torque is typically used for slurry seals before allowing the traffic. The time
required to reach the 20kgcm of torque in cohesion tester for CIR mixes were tested and the
results are tabulated in Table 41. The raveling tests also were conducted on CIR samples after the
time required for reaching the cohesion criteria and the results are tabulated in Table 41. The non-
graded CIR mixes raveled more when compared to the graded CIR mixes because of more fines
in the mix.
By analyzing the cohesion test results and raveling test results, it was found that the raveling of
less than 2.0% is achieved if the raveling test is conducted after the cohesion is developed fully
(i.e. 20kgcm of torque in cohesion tester) as shown in Figure 65.
The dynamic modulus tests were conducted on the CIR mixes and the master curves were
developed as described in section 5.2.1. When dynamic modulus curves are analyzed, it was
found that the dynamic modulus of all CIR mixes with lime are similar to each other as shown in
66
Figure 71 and they are comparable with the dynamic modulus of HMA mixes. It also was
observed that the non graded CIR mixes look little stiffer than the graded CIR mixes.
The repeated load triaxial (RLT) tests were conducted as described in section 5.2.2 at three
different temperatures (30°C, 45°C and 58°C) and the MEPDG models for permanent
deformation were obtained. The εp/εr relationship for all the CIR mixes are shown in Figures 72
through 75 and the coefficients (k1, k2, and k3) of the MEPDG models are tabulated in Table
42.The flow numbers of the mixes at 45°C also were analyzed using the Francken model and they
are shown in Figure 76. The non-graded CIR with lime and engineered emulsion showed better
performance in rutting resistance.

67
Chapter 7: Findings and Recommendations
7.1 Findings
• In the mix design process of cold mixes, the modified Proctor method was useful to find
the total fluid required in the mix. Finding out the specific amount of emulsion and water
to be used in the design is very hard and time consuming, if it is performance related.
• The locking point concept in the mix design process using Superpave gyratory compactor
was successful in finding out the Ndesign for the cold mixes without lime; however Ndesign
was not achieved for the CMA mixes with lime. The compactability of the CMA mixes
with lime increased and resulted in lower air void than the target at locking point. If the
target air void was lowered to 7.0-8.0%, the locking point concept would have been
successful in finding out Ndesign for the CIR mixes with lime, but lowering the target air
void cannot be done without the field information.
• Superpave gyratory compactor was successfully used in the mix design of CMA mixes.
The optimum emulsion content and water content obtained from the mix design were
reasonable for coarse graded CMA and little higher for fine graded mixes. This suggests
that the fine gradation recommended in AASHTO for HMA mixes needs to be modified
for cold mix asphalts.
• In the cold-in-place recycling process, the modified Proctor method was not successful in
finding out the optimum emulsion content and water content at this time. It might need
more investigation on how the total fluid content obtained from the modified Proctor test
can be used to find out the optimum emulsion and water content for CIR mixes.
• The locking point concept using the Superpave gyratory compactor also was not
successful in designing the CIR mixes. The locking point was observed at very low air
68
void (<5.0%) because of the mastics (asphalt +fine) and the binder present in the CIR
mixes.
• The Ndesign which reaches the target air void and specimen height was decided from the
compacted trial samples. When the Ndesign for CIR mixes was used in a similar way to the
CMA, the optimum point was not observed in some cases and if there is an optimum
point that was not realistic; however the study was helpful to find out how the design
parameters such as emulsion content, water content, number of gyrations and compaction
pressure affect the bulk specific gravity/air void of compacted CIR mixes.
• The trial experimental matrix that we used in the mix design of CIR mixes was successful
in deciding the design emulsion and water content for the CIR mixes.
• All the CIR mixes from Reno Nevada showed severe moisture damage without lime;
however they were improved well by adding 1.5% of lime by weight of RAP.
• The raveling performance of CIR mixes with lime was not good, but it can be improved
with longer curing time or an overlay on top of it.
• The non-graded CIR mixes which have more fines (mastics) performed better than the
graded CIR mixes in moisture susceptibility, but their performance in raveling was
opposite. All the CIR mixes with lime have similar dynamic modulus and they were
comparable to that of HMA. All the CIR mixes also showed good resistance to
permanent deformation.
• The non-graded mixes showed big variations in the test results. The graded CIR mixes
are recommended to avoid the variability.
• In a nutshell, the mix design method used in the study for CIR mixes can be used
successfully for designing performance related CIR mixes.

69
7.2 Recommendations
• The addition of lime to the CMA mixes needs to be studied further with the interaction of
field knowledge.
• The curing time of CMA mixes after mixing and before compacting need to be evaluated
to represent the moisture losses in the field while hauling and compacting.
• Several other sources of aggregate need to be studied to implement a suitable gradation
for the CMA mixes.
• The performance of the designed CMA mixes needs to be evaluated.
• The CIR mix design needs to be verified for its performance in the field.
• The curing time of dynamic modulus/RLT samples needs to be standardized to represent
either early or the later part of the CIR pavement life.
• Fatigue performance and low temperature performance of CIR mixes need to be
evaluated.
• Several other sources of RAP need to be studied to incorporate more fines in the CIR
mixes which performed better in the study.

70
References
1. K.Wayne Lee, Todd E.Braton and Milton Huston ‘Development of performance based
mix design procedure for cold in place recycling (CIR) of bituminous pavement
based on fundamental properties’ Research report findings, FHWA-CIR-02-01, Sep
2002.
2. Stephen A.Cross ‘Determination of Superpave Gyratory Compactor design
compactive effort for Cold in place recycled mixtures’ final report, RMRC Research
Project No. 15, April 2002.
3. Adriana H. Martínez, Rodrigo Miró, and Félix Pérez-Jiménez ‘Spanish experience with
gyratory compactor and indirect tensile test in design and control of cold recycled
asphalt pavement’ Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 2001, 2007, pp. 163–168.
4. Al Forsberg, Erland Lukanen and Todd Thomas ‘Blue Earth County CSAH 20 – An
Engineered Cold In-Place Recycling Project’ TRB 2002 Annual Meeting CD-ROM.
5. Todd Thomas and Arlis Kadrmas ‘Performance-Related Tests and Specifications for
Cold In-Place Recycling: Lab and Field Experience’ TRB 2003 Annual Meeting CD-
ROM.
6. Catherine A.Lauter and Michael A.Corbett ‘Developing gyratory compactor guidelines
for use with cold in place recycled material’ the proceeding of the 43rd Annual
conference of Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, Vancouver, British Columbia,
1998.
7. ‘Mix design procedure for Cold in place recycling material’ used by Kansas
Department of Transportation (KDOT).
8. Atenea Salomon and David.E Newcomb ‘Cold in place recycling literature review and
preliminary mixture design procedure’ final report 2000-21, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Aug 2000.
9. Todd E Brayton, K.Wayne Lee, Jason Harington and Edward J Kearney
‘Characterization of cold in-place recycling asphalt mixtures’ Proceedings of the
Construction Institute Sessions at the ASCE 2001 Civil Engineering Conference,
Construction and Materials Issues 2001.
10. Yongjoo Kim and Hosin David Lee ‘Performance evaluation of cold in place recycling
mixtures using emulsified asphalt’ TRB 2010 Annual Meeting CD-ROM.
11. Todd Thomas and Arlis Kadrmas ‘Cold in place recycling of bituminous material’
SemMaterial, L.P, Tulsa, OK (US), 2003.
12. Proposed mix design procedure for Cold in-place recycling material for Utah Department
of Transportation (UDOT), 2010.
13. ‘Cold-In-place recycling (CIPR) Draft Guidelines for Laboratory Mix Design’
Pacific Coast Conference on Asphalt Specifications (PCCAS), Feb 16 2008.
14. ‘Contract plans special provisions’ Montana Department of Transportation (MDT),
Added in Sep 2008 and revised in Mar 2010.
15. ‘Asphalt recycling manual’ Asphalt recycling and reclaiming association (ARRA).
http://www.pavementpreservation.org/toolbox/links/1-124-BARM1.pdf
16. D’Angelo, J., Harm, E., Bartoszek, J., Corrigan, M., Cowsert, J., Harman, T., Jamshidi,
M., Jones, W., Newcomb, D., Prowell, B. D., Sines, R., and Yeaton, B. (2008). ‘Warm
Mix Asphalt: European Practice’ Report FHWA-PL-08-007, US Department of
transportation, FHWA, in corporation with American Association of State Highways and
Transportation Officials and National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
71
17. ‘Design and construction of surfacing seals’, Technical recommendation for highways
(TRH3), May 2007, Republic of South Africa.
18. Dunning.R.L and F.E Turner ‘Asphalt emulsion stabilized soils as a base material in
roads’ Proceedings; AAPT vol- 35, 1964.
19. ‘Mix design method for liquid asphalt mixtures’ The asphalt institute, MISC- 74-2,
Feb 1974.
20. K.J.Jenkins, ‘Mix design considerations for Cold and Half Warm bituminous mixes
with emphasis on foamed bitumen’, Phd Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch,
South Africa.
21. Michel.I.Darter, Steven.R.Ahlfield, Patric.L.Wilkey, and Richard.G.Wasill
‘Development of Emulsified asphalt- aggregate cold mix design procedure’ Project
IHR-505, University of Illinois,Feb 1978.
22. Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry LLC, ‘Cold Mix Design in north America’,
http://www.e-asfalto.com.ar/ingles/akzo/technical_paper/CME-02-
Cold%20Mix_Design.pdf.
23. ‘Design and construction of surfacing seals’, Technical recommendation for highways
(TRH3), May 2007, Republic of South Africa.
24. Gunnar Hillgren, Alan James Tomas Sevenson and Thomas Wallin, ‘In- Plant cold
Recycling and Cold mix In Sweden- Developments in Laboratory testing.
http://www.viastrade.it/letteratura/emulsioni/aema98.pdf
25. P.Hornych, V.Gaudefroy, J.L.Geffard and S.Goyer, ‘Study of mechanical behavior of
gravel emulsions using triaxial tests,’ Advanced testing and characterization of
bituminous materials, 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-55854-9,
P 639-649.
26. T.Scrimsher and R.N.Doty, ‘Cold mix Asphalt concrete Surfacing’, Report prepared in
cooperation with US Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration,
Aug 1977, FHWA-CA-TL-3542-77-23.
27. R.G.Hicks, Emory S. Richardson, I.J.Huddleston and Newton C.Jackson, ‘Open Graded
Emulsion Mixtures: 25 Years of Experience’, Sixth International conference on low
volume roads, Vol 2, June 1995, Minneapolis,MN, P 302-315.
28. I.N.A.Thanaya, ‘Evaluating and improving the performance of cold asphalt emulsion
mixes’ Civil Engineering Dimension, vol.9, No.2, Sep 2007, ISSN 1410-9530, P64-69.
29. I.N.A.Thanaya, S.E.Zoorob and J.P.Forth, ‘A laboratory study on cold mix, cold lay
emulsion mixes’, Proceeding of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Transport 162, Feb
2009 issue TRI, P 47-55.
30. Don Chen, and Charles Jahren ‘Evaluation of Long Term Field Performance of Cold
In-Place Recycled Roads (TR-502)’ Final report May 2007. IHRB Project TR-502.
http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/research/detail.cfm?projectID=1063747601
31. K.J.Jenkins, ‘Mix design considerations for Cold and Half Warm bituminous mixes
with emphasis on foamed bitumen’, Phd Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch,
South Africa, September 2000.
72
Tables
Table 1: Grades of emulsions which has specifications from AASHTO
EMULSIFIED CATIONIC EMULSIFIED

ASPHALT ASPHALT
RS-1 CRS-1
RS-2 CRS-2
MS-1 ---
MS-2 CMS-2
MS-2h CMS-2h
HFMS-1 ---
HFMS-2 ---
HFMS-2h ---
HFMS-2s ---
SS-1 CSS-1
SS-1h CSS-1h
Table 2: Recommended aggregate gradation for EAM base by Asphalt Institute

73
Table 3: Properties of aggregate recommended by U.S Navy guidelines for EAM (19)
Properties of aggregate Requirements

% passing no.200 sieve 25 max
Sand equivalent 30 min
Plasticity Index 5 max
Sand equivalent X % passing no.200 sieve 71 max
Table 4: Guidelines for EAM stabilization, recommended by Dunning.et.al (18)
Requirements
Test
Good Fair Poor
% passing #200 sieve 3-20 0-30, 20-30 >30
Sand equivalent >25 15-25 <15
Plasticity index <5 5-7 >7
Table 5: Selected gradation for cold mix by Jack N Dybalski.et.al (10)
Sieve Size Base Course Surface Course

III-B Selected IV-B Selected
Specification Gradation Specification Gradation
3/4" 100 100 100 100
1/2" 75-100 89 80-100 89
3/8" 60-85 78 70-90 79
#4 35-55 47 50-70 59
#8 20-35 25 35-50 44
#30 10-22 - 18-29 -
#40 8-18 13 16-26 24
#100 4-12 7 8-16 12
#200 2-8 4 4-10 8
Table 6: Recommended gradation for cold patching by TXDOT
Sieve Size Percent Passing (%)
3/8 in (9.5 mm) 95-100
No. 4 (4.75 mm) 40-85
No. 8 (2.36 mm) 15-40
No. 16 (1.18 mm) 6-25
No. 200 (0.075 mm) 1-6

74
Table 7: Gradation for CIR mix design (% retained) used by KDOT (8)
Table 8: Gradation for CIR mix design used by Todd Thomas and Arlis Kadrmas (11)
Table 9: Gradation for CIR mix design used by UDOT and PCCAS (12&13)
Sieve Size Suggested Target

Medium Coarse gradation
25-mm (1”) 100 100
19-mm (¾”) 95 ± 2 85 ± 2
4.75-mm (No. 50 ± 2 40 ± 2
600-µm (No. 10 ± 2 5±2
75-µm (No. 0.8 ± 0.3 0.3 ± 0.3
Table 10: Gradation for CIR mix design used by MDT (14)
Percent Passing
Sieve
Medium Coarse
1.25” (31.5 mm) 100 100

No. 4 (4.75 mm) 40-50 28-38
No. 30 (0.6 mm) 7-12 4-10
No. 200 (0.075mm) >1 >1
75
Table 11: Specification for recycling agent used by KDOT (7) and Todd Thomas.et.al. (11)
Table 12: Superpave aggregate gradation control points (AASHTO M323-table 3)
Table 13: The maximum %passing through PCS for Superpave coarse gradations (AASHTO M323-table 4)
76
Table 14: Selected gradation for coarse graded cold mix asphalt according to AASHTO M323
DESIGN
Stock pile gradations, % Passing TOTAL CONTROL
Sieve size (mm) POINTS (SP)
BLEND
3/4 1/2 3/8 Rock dust Wade sand Min. Max.
25.0 mm (1 in) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 _ _
19.0 mm (3/4 in) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 _
12.5 mm (1/2 in) 45.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.4 90 100
9.5 mm (3/8 in) 11.0 47.0 99.0 100.0 100.0 81.6 _ 90
4.75 mm (No. 4) 2.0 1.0 23.0 93.0 98.8 45.5 _ _
2.36 mm (No. 8) 1.0 1.0 2.0 63.0 97.4 30.3 28 39
2.00 mm (No. 10) 1.0 1.0 1.0 56.0 96.5 28.1 _ _
1.18 (No. 16) 1.0 1.0 1.0 41.0 93.0 23.9 _ _
600 um (No. 30) 1.0 1.0 1.0 28.0 75.0 18.1 _ _
425 um (No. 40) 1.0 1.0 1.0 23.0 52.8 13.8 _ _
300 um (No. 50) 1.0 1.0 1.0 19.0 30.4 9.6 _ _
150 um (No. 100) 1.0 1.0 0.0 15.0 6.7 4.9 _ _
75 um (No. 200) 0.8 0.4 0.4 11.3 1.6 3.3 2 10
Table 15: Selected gradation for fine graded cold mix asphalt according to AASHTO M323
DESIGN
Stock pile gradations, % Passing TOTAL CONTROL
Sieve size (mm) POINTS
BLEND
3/4 1/2 3/8 Rock dust Wade sand Min. Max.
25.0 mm (1 in) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 _ _
19.0 mm (3/4 in) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 _
12.5 mm (1/2 in) 45.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.6 90 100
9.5 mm (3/8 in) 11.0 47.0 99.0 100.0 100.0 87.4 _ 90
4.75 mm (No. 4) 2.0 1.0 23.0 93.0 98.8 66.2 _ _
2.36 mm (No. 8) 1.0 1.0 2.0 63.0 97.4 54.6 28 58
2.00 mm (No. 10) 1.0 1.0 1.0 56.0 96.5 52.4 _ _
1.18 (No. 16) 1.0 1.0 1.0 41.0 93.0 47.4 _ _
600 um (No. 30) 1.0 1.0 1.0 28.0 75.0 37.1 _ _
425 um (No. 40) 1.0 1.0 1.0 23.0 52.8 27.0 _ _
300 um (No. 50) 1.0 1.0 1.0 19.0 30.4 17.1 _ _
150 um (No. 100) 1.0 1.0 0.0 15.0 6.7 6.5 _ _
75 um (No. 200) 0.8 0.4 0.4 11.3 1.6 3.5 2 10
77
Table 16: The optimum moisture contents of the cold mix asphalt from modified Proctor test
Description Coarse graded CMA Fine graded CMA
Maximum dry density (kg/m3) 2425.3 2135.4

Maximum dry density (pcf) 151.4 133.3
Optimum moisture content 11.3% 14.8%
Percentage of oversize particles 0.0% 33.8%
Corrected moisture content 11.3% 10.5%
Table 17: Number of gyrations used for mix design of CIR mixes
Number of gyrations used for mix

Type of mix Type of emulsion
design
CMS-2s 75
Graded
Engineered emulsion for CIR 30
CMS-2s 55
Non graded
Engineered emulsion for CIR 40
78
Table 18: The modified Proctor test (method D) results of coarse graded aggregate.
Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5
Wt of empty Proctor mold (g) 6877 6877 6877 6877 6877

3
Volume of the mold (m ) 0.002124 0.002124 0.002124 0.002124 0.002124
Wt of empty Proctor mold + Sample(g) 11437 11722 11991 12020 11925
Wt of wet sample (g) 4560 4845 5114 5143 5048
3
Wet density (kg/m ) 2146.9 2281.1 2407.7 2421.4 2376.6
3
Dry density (kg/m ) 2145.8 2279.5 2405.5 2418.7 2373.6
Sample no. 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B 4A 4B 5A 5B
Water content (expect), % 5% 7% 9% 11% 14%
Mass of empty, clean can + lid (g) 88 87.6 87.9 87.9 87.9 87.5 87.7 87.9 87.9 87.8
Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 531.2 520.1 604.3 567 595.1 585.5 606.9 593.6 547.1 560.3
Mass of can, lid, and dry soil (g) 509.3 499.1 570.8 536.4 553.6 541.8 556.7 543.3 490.6 510.6
Mass of soil solids (g) 421.3 411.5 482.9 448.5 465.7 454.3 469 455.4 402.7 422.8
Mass of pore water (g) 21.9 21 33.5 30.6 41.5 43.7 50.2 50.3 56.5 49.7
Water content, % 5.2% 5.1% 6.9% 6.8% 8.9% 9.6% 10.7% 11.0% 14.0% 11.8%
Actual water content (average), % 5.2% 6.9% 9.3% 10.9% 12.9%
Remarks
79
Table 19: The modified Proctor test (method B) results of fine graded aggregate.
3
Wt of wet sample (g) 4355 4475 4542 4478 4451
Wet density (kg/m3) 2050.4 2106.9 2138.4 2108.3 2095.6
3
Dry density (kg/m ) 2048.2 2104.2 2135.3 2104.7 2091.8
Water content (expect), % 11% 13% 15% 17% 18%
Mass of empty, clean can + lid (g) 45.1 44.9 45 44.9 44.7 45.3 44.9 45.3 45.1 44.8
Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 223.8 236.7 218.9 244.9 196.1 233 251.3 242.1 269.1 250.2
Mass of can, lid, and dry soil (g) 206.1 218.2 199.1 222.1 176.7 209 221.3 213.4 234.9 219.1
Mass of soil solids (g) 161 173.3 154.1 177.2 132 163.7 176.4 168.1 189.8 174.3
Mass of pore water (g) 17.7 18.5 19.8 22.8 19.4 24 30 28.7 34.2 31.1
Water content, % 11.0% 10.7% 12.8% 12.9% 14.7% 14.7% 17.0% 17.1% 18.0% 17.8%
Remarks
80
Table 20: Specific gravities and absorption of coarse graded aggregate of CMA
Coarse graded aggregate of CMA

Coarse aggregate (AASHTO T85) 1 2
mass of oven-dry test sample in air, g 2465.8 2368.7
mass of saturated-surface-dry test sample in air, g 2515.3 2416.5
mass of saturated test sample in water + bucket, g 2449.3 2387.1
mass of saturated test sample in water, g 1565.0 1502.8
Bulk specific gravity 2.595 2.592
Apparent specific gravity 2.737 2.736
Absorption 2.0% 2.0%
Average absorption 2.0%
Percent of coarse aggregate in the blend 54.5%
Fine aggregate (AASHTO T84) 1 2

mass of pycnometer filled with water, g 660.5 660.5
mass of saturated test sample + water to the mark + pycnometer, g 968.5 972.0
Percent of fine aggregate in the blend 45.5%
Bulk specific gravity of the blend 2.567
Apparent specific gravity of the blend 2.744
Table 21: Degree of particle coating for CMA mixes
Coarse graded Fine graded

Coarse graded Fine graded
CMA with CMA with
CMA with CSS- CMA with CSS-
Description engineered engineered
1 emulsion 1 emulsion
emulsion emulsion
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Optimum water content,(%) 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.0 3.0
Optimum emulsion content,(%) 6.7 6.7 9.2 9.2 6.4 6.4 9.2 9.2
Total no of particles 736 744 477 465 354 320 275 285
No of completely coated particles 698 703 441 436 277 261 222 231
Percentage of coating 94.8% 94.5% 92.5% 93.8% 78.2% 81.6% 80.7% 81.1%
Average percentage of coating 94.7% 93.1% 79.9% 80.9%
81
Table 22: Specific gravities and absorption of fine graded aggregate of CMA
Fine graded CMA

Coarse aggregate (AASHTO T85) 1 2
mass of saturated test sample in water + bucket, g 2446.5 2435.7
mass of saturated test sample in water, g 1562.2 1551.4
Percent of coarse aggregate in the blend 33.8%
Fine aggregate (AASHTO T84) 1 2

mass of pycnometer filled with water, g 660.6 660.6
mass of saturated test sample + water to the mark + pycnometer, g 971.2 971.5
Percent of fine aggregate in the blend 66.2%
Bulk specific gravity of the blend 2.566
Apparent specific gravity of the blend 2.742
82
Table 23: An example of selecting the locking point to prepare CMA mix design samples
Specimen height/(mm) % Airvoid

10.0% 9.0% 7.0% 10.0% 9.0% 7.0%
Emulsion Emulsion Emulsion Emulsion Emulsion Emulsion
No of (4.0% (4.0% (4.0% (4.0% (4.0% (4.0%
gyrations Water) Water) Water) Water) Water) Water)
30 115.2 116.6 118.3 10.8% 12.7% 13.9%
31 115.1 116.5 118.2 10.7% 12.6% 13.8%
32 115.0 116.4 118.1 10.6% 12.5% 13.8%
53 113.5 114.8 116.5 9.4% 11.3% 12.6%
54 113.5 114.7 116.5 9.4% 11.2% 12.6%
55 113.4 114.7 116.4 9.3% 11.2% 12.5%
56 113.4 114.6 116.4 9.3% 11.1% 12.5%
57 113.3 114.6 116.3 9.3% 11.1% 12.4%
58 113.3 114.5 116.3 9.3% 11.1% 12.4%
59 113.3 114.5 116.2 9.3% 11.1% 12.4%
60 113.2 114.4 116.2 9.2% 11.0% 12.4%
61 113.2 114.4 116.1 9.2% 11.0% 12.3%
62 113.1 114.4 116.1 9.1% 11.0% 12.3%
63 113.1 114.3 116.0 9.1% 10.9% 12.2%
64 113.0 114.3 116.0 9.0% 10.9% 12.2%
65 113.0 114.2 116.0 9.0% 10.8% 12.2%
66 113.0 114.2 115.9 9.0% 10.8% 12.1%
67 112.9 114.1 115.9 8.9% 10.8% 12.1%
68 112.9 114.1 115.8 8.9% 10.8% 12.1%
69 112.9 114.1 115.8 8.9% 10.8% 12.1%
70 112.8 114.0 115.8 8.9% 10.7% 12.1%
71 112.8 114.0 115.7 8.9% 10.7% 12.0%
72 112.8 113.9 115.7 8.9% 10.6% 12.0%
73 112.7 113.9 115.7 8.8% 10.6% 12.0%
74 112.7 113.9 115.6 8.8% 10.6% 11.9%
75 112.7 113.8 115.6 8.8% 10.5% 11.9%
76 112.6 113.8 115.5 8.7% 10.5% 11.8%
77 112.6 113.8 115.5 8.7% 10.5% 11.8%
78 112.6 113.7 115.5 8.7% 10.4% 11.8%
79 112.5 113.7 115.4 8.6% 10.4% 11.8%
80 112.5 113.7 115.4 8.6% 10.4% 11.8%
81 112.5 113.6 115.4 8.6% 10.4% 11.8%
82 112.5 113.6 115.4 8.6% 10.4% 11.8%
83 112.4 113.6 115.3 8.5% 10.4% 11.7%
83
Table 24: The modified Proctor test (method D) results for graded RAP.
3
Wt of wet sample (g) 4290 4468 4652 4629 4659
Wet density (kg/m3) 2019.8 2103.6 2190.2 2179.4 2193.5
3
Dry density (kg/m ) 2018.8 2102.1 2188.0 2176.6 2191.0
Water content (expect), % 5% 7% 10% 12.5% 11.4%
Mass of empty, clean can + lid (g) 87.9 87.5 87.8 87.8 87.6 88 87.8 87.8 88 87.6
Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 524.7 577.2 583.4 545.8 553.9 543.3 552.6 569.3 647.8 688.8
Mass of can, lid, and dry soil (g) 504.3 556.6 549.8 515.3 510.6 500.8 498.3 516.4 589.1 627.1
Mass of soil solids (g) 416.4 469.1 462 427.5 423 412.8 410.5 428.6 501.1 539.5
Mass of pore water (g) 20.4 20.6 33.6 30.5 43.3 42.5 54.3 52.9 58.7 61.7
Water content, % 0.049 0.044 0.073 0.071 0.102 0.103 0.132 0.123 0.117 0.114
Remarks
84
Table 25: The modified Proctor test (method D) results for non-graded RAP.

3
Wt of wet sample (g) 4394 4622 4689 4682 4613
3
Wet density (kg/m ) 2068.7 2176.1 2207.6 2204.3 2171.8
Dry density (kg/m3) 2067.6 2174.4 2205.4 2201.8 2168.9
Water content (expect), % 5% 8% 10% 11.5% 13.5%
Mass of empty, clean can + lid (g) 88 87.5 87.7 87.7 87.5 87.2 87.6 87.6 87.8 87.8
Mass of can, lid, and moist soil (g) 518.2 532.6 537.2 546.6 538 534.3 556.1 593 553.2 562.5
Mass of can, lid, and dry soil (g) 496.3 509 504.5 513.1 489.1 493.4 507 541.3 496.9 505.8
Mass of soil solids (g) 408.3 421.5 416.8 425.4 401.6 406.2 419.4 453.7 409.1 418
Mass of pore water (g) 21.9 23.6 32.7 33.5 48.9 40.9 49.1 51.7 56.3 56.7
Water content, % 0.054 0.056 0.078 0.079 0.122 0.101 0.117 0.114 0.138 0.136
Remarks
85
Table 26: : The optimum moisture contents of the CIR from modified Proctor test
Description Graded RAP Non-graded RAP
Maximum dry density (kg/m3) 2193.9 2206.7

Maximum dry density (pcf) 137.0 137.8
Optimum moisture content 11.3% 10.4%
Percentage of oversize particles 0.161 0.197
Corrected moisture content 9.8% 8.9%
Table 27: List of mix design parameters for all CMA mixes
Type of No of gyration for Design Emulsion Design water

Type of Emulsion
Mixes Mix Design content, % content, %
Coarse CSS-1 100 6.7 4.6

graded
Engineered
CMA 100 6.4 4.2
emulsion for CMA
CSS-1 75 9.2 4.2

Fine graded
CMA Engineered
75 9.2 3.0
emulsion for CMA
Table 28: Theoretical maximum specific gravities (Gmm) of the CIR mixes
Water content, Emulsion

Type of mix Type of emulsion Gmm
% content, %
CMS-2s 3.0% 2.0% 2.442

Graded
Engineered emulsion
3.0% 2.0% 2.407
for CIR
CMS-2s 3.0% 2.0% 2.432

Non graded
Engineered emulsion
3.0% 2.0% 2.449
for CIR
86
Table 29: An example of selecting number of gyration to prepare mix design samples
Specimen height/(mm) % Air void

1.0% 2.0% 2.5% 1.0% 2.0% 2.5%
(2.0% (3.0% (4.0% (2.0% (3.0% (4.0%
No of gyrations Water) Water) Water) Water) Water) Water)
11 120.6 119.2 119.6 18.1% 15.7% 15.0%
12 120.2 118.7 119.1 17.9% 15.3% 14.6%
13 119.8 118.3 118.7 17.6% 15.0% 14.3%
14 119.4 117.9 118.4 17.3% 14.8% 14.1%
15 119.1 117.5 118.0 17.1% 14.5% 13.8%
16 118.8 117.1 117.7 16.9% 14.2% 13.6%
17 118.5 116.8 117.4 16.7% 14.0% 13.4%
18 118.2 116.5 117.1 16.5% 13.7% 13.2%
19 118.0 116.2 116.8 16.3% 13.5% 12.9%
20 117.7 115.9 116.6 16.1% 13.3% 12.8%
21 117.5 115.7 116.3 16.0% 13.1% 12.6%
22 117.3 115.4 116.1 15.8% 12.9% 12.4%
23 117.1 115.2 115.9 15.7% 12.8% 12.3%
24 116.9 115.0 115.6 15.5% 12.6% 12.0%
25 116.7 114.7 115.4 15.4% 12.4% 11.9%
26 116.5 114.5 115.2 15.2% 12.2% 11.7%
27 116.3 114.3 115.0 15.1% 12.1% 11.6%
28 116.1 114.1 114.9 15.0% 11.9% 11.5%
29 116.0 113.9 114.7 14.9% 11.8% 11.3%
30 115.8 113.8 114.5 14.7% 11.7% 11.2%
31 115.7 113.6 114.4 14.7% 11.5% 11.1%
32 115.5 113.4 114.2 14.5% 11.4% 11.0%
33 115.4 113.3 114.0 14.4% 11.3% 10.8%
34 115.2 113.1 113.9 14.3% 11.1% 10.7%
35 115.1 113.0 113.8 14.2% 11.1% 10.6%
36 115.0 112.8 113.6 14.1% 10.9% 10.5%
37 114.8 112.7 113.5 14.0% 10.8% 10.4%
38 114.7 112.5 113.3 13.9% 10.7% 10.2%
39 114.6 112.4 113.2 13.8% 10.6% 10.2%
40 114.5 112.3 113.1 13.8% 10.5% 10.1%
87
Table 30: List of design emulsion contents and water contents for all CIR mixes
Type of No of gyration for Design Emulsion Design water

Type of Emulsion
Mixes Mix Design content, % content, %
75 2.0 2.0
CMS-2s
CIR- 75 1.5 3.0
Graded Engineered 30 1.5 3.0
emulsion for CIR 30 2.0 3.0
55 2.0 2.0
CMS-2s
CIR-Non- 55 2.0 3.0
Graded Engineered 40 2.5 2.0
emulsion for CIR 40 2.5 3.0
Table 31: Summary of tensile strengths for each CMA mixes
Design Design
Types No of Tensile Tensile
Types of Emulsion water TSR,
of gyration strength(Dry) strength(Wet),
emulsion content, content, %
mixes for MD , psi psi
% %
CSS-1 100 6.7 4.6 29.6 8.9 30.1%

Coarse
graded Engineered
CMA emulsion 100 6.4 4.2 38.4 24.3 63.3%
for CMA
CSS-1 75 9.2 4.2 39.0 9.3 23.8%
Fine
graded Engineered
CMA emulsion 75 9.2 3.0 41.5 28.1 67.7%
for CMA
Table 32: Raveling performance of CMA mixes
No of Design Design
Type of mix Type of emulsion gyration Emulsion water Raveling, %
for MD content, % content, %
Coarse graded CSS-1 100 6.7 4.6 25.8

Engineered
CMA 100 6.4 4.2 24.1
emulsion for CMA
Fine graded CSS-1 75 9.2 4.2 14.6
CMA Engineered
emulsion for CMA
75 9.2 3.0 9.9
88
Table 33: The cohesion test results for cold mix asphalt
Torque
Design Design Time
in
Type of Emulsion water Time, require to
Type of emulsion cohesion
mix content, content, hrs allow the
tester,
% % traffic, hr
kgcm
6.5 14.0
7.0 17.0
CSS-1 6.7 4.6 8.0 18.0 10
Coarse 8.5 19.0
graded 10.0 20.0
CMA 6.5 18.0
7.0 19.0
Engineered emulsion for CMA 6.4 4.2 8
7.5 19.0
8.0 20.0
5.5 15.0
6.0 18.0
CSS-1 9.2 4.2 6.5 19.0 8
Fine 7.0 19.0
graded
8.0 20.0
CMA
4.5 18.5
Engineered emulsion for CMA 9.2 3.0 5.0 19.0 5.5
5.5 20.0
89
Table 34: Summary of tensile strengths for each CIR mixes
Design
Design Tensile Tensile
Type of Type of water TSR,
Emulsion strength(Dry), strength(Wet),
Mixes Emulsion content, %
content, % psi psi
%
2.0 2.0 64.3 12.8 19.9%

CMS-2s
1.5 3.0 62.9 8.9 14.1%
CIR-
Graded Engineered 1.5 3.0 48.0 10.9 22.7%
emulsion for
CIR 2.0 3.0 46.9 12.0 25.6%
2.0 2.0 63.9 10.3 16.1%

CMS-2s
CIR- 2.0 3.0 Not performed
Non-
Graded Engineered 2.5 2.0 59.5 16.6 27.9%
emulsion for
CIR 2.5 3.0 Not performed
Table 35: Comparison of tensile strength ratios for two different conditioning methods
Design Design
Type Tensile Tensile
Wet Emulsion water TSR,
of strength(Dry), strength(Wet),
conditioning content, content, %
Mixes psi psi
% %
2.0 2.0 64.3 12.8 19.9%

CIR- AASHTO T283
Graded 1.5 3.0 62.9 8.9 14.1%
with
CMS- 2.0 2.0 43.1 8.1 18.8%
2s PCCAS
1.5 3.0 54.9 7.8 14.2%
90
Table 36: TSR and raveling performance of Graded CIR mix with CMS-2s
Design Tensile Tensile

Design
Emulsio strengt strengt
water TSR Raveling
Type of Mixes n h h
content ,% ,%
content, (Dry), (Wet),
,%
% psi psi
2.0 2.0 64.3 12.8 19.9 2.7
Graded RAP Lime 1.5 3.0 62.9 8.9 14.1 10.0
with CMS-2s 1.5 3.0 40.9 28.7 70.2 4.4
without lime 1.5 4.0 40.8 27.2 66.7 16.2
Table 37: Theoretical maximum specific gravity of the CIR mixes with lime
Water Emulsion
Type of mix Type of emulsion Gmm
content, % content, %
CMS-2s 3.0% 2.0% 2.354

Graded RAP with 1.5%
lime Engineered emulsion 3.0% 2.0% 2.297
for CIR
CMS-2s 3.0% 2.0% 2.325
Non-graded RAP with
1.5% lime Engineered emulsion 3.0% 2.0% 2.332
for CIR
Table 38: The number of gyrations required to prepare mix design samples (Ndesign) for CIR mixes
Number of gyrations used

Type of mix Type of emulsion
for mix design
CMS-2s 30
Graded RAP with 1.5% lime Engineered emulsion for
10
CIR
CMS-2s 35
Non-graded RAP with 1.5% lime Engineered emulsion for
20
CIR
91
Table 39: List of design emulsion and water contents for CIR mixes with lime
Design
No of Design
water
Type of Mixes Type of Emulsion gyration for Emulsion
content,
Mix Design content, %
%
30 1.5 3.0
CMS-2s
Graded RAP with 1.5% 30 1.5 4.0
lime Engineered emulsion 10 2.0 3.0
for CIR 10 2.0 4.0
35 2.0 2.0
CMS-2s
Non-graded RAP with 35 2.0 3.0
1.5% lime Engineered emulsion 20 2.0 3.0
for CIR 20 2.5 3.0
Table 40: Tensile strength ratios of CIR mixes with lime
Type of mix TS Dry TS wet TSR

Graded CIR with CMS-2s emulsion 40.9 28.7 70.2%
Graded CIR with engineered emulsion 46.0 32.1 69.8%
Non-graded CIR with CMS-2s emulsion 43.5 34.9 80.2%
Non-Graded CIR with engineered emulsion 49.9 43.4 87.0%
Table 41: Raveling performance of CIR mixes.
Time Raveling
required after
to reach the
Raveling Temp Humidity
Type of mix cohesio cohesio
,% , °C ,%
n n
criteria, criteria,
hrs %
Graded CIR with CMS-2s emulsion 4.4% 5 2.4% 21.1 24.6
Graded CIR with engineered emulsion 1.6% 4.5 1.6% 24.3 5.2
Non-graded CIR with CMS-2s emulsion 6.8% 5.5 1.8% 23.3 17.3
Non-Graded CIR with engineered
emulsion 3.9% 4.5 1.1% 23.3 17.7
92
Table 42: The coefficients of MEPDG models for permanent deformation
𝜀𝑝
= 10𝑘1 ∗ 𝑇𝑘2 ∗ 𝑁𝑘3
𝜀𝑟
Type of mix
k1 k2 k3 R2
Graded CIR with CMS-2s -17.2142 9.5391 0.6358 89.4%
Graded CIR with engineered
-8.8024 4.7298 0.6306 93.3%
emulsion
Non-graded CIR with CMS-2s -9.6981 5.0322 0.7599 94.9%
Non-graded CIR with engineered
-10.8131 5.3929 0.7821 94.6%
emulsion
Table 43: Determination of locking point for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion and lime

5.0% 7.0% 5.0%
7.0% Emulsion
Emulsion Emulsion Emulsion
(4.0% Water)
No of gyrations (4.0% Water) (4.0% Water) (4.0% Water)
0 134.4 132.3 22.0% 20.2%
80 113.3 111.1 7.5% 5.0%
81 113.3 111.1 7.5% 5.0%
82 113.2 111.0 7.4% 4.9%
83 113.2 111.0 7.4% 4.9%
84 113.2 111.0 7.4% 4.9%
85 113.1 110.9 7.3% 4.8%
86 113.1 110.9 7.3% 4.8%
87 113.0 110.8 7.2% 4.7%
88 113.0 110.8 7.2% 4.7%
89 113.0 110.8 7.2% 4.7%
90 112.9 110.7 7.1% 4.7%
91 112.9 110.7 7.1% 4.7%
92 112.9 110.7 7.1% 4.7%
93 112.8 110.6 7.0% 4.6%
94 112.8 110.6 7.0% 4.6%
95 112.8 110.5 7.0% 4.5%
96 112.7 110.5 7.0% 4.5%
97 112.7 110.5 7.0% 4.5%
98 112.7 110.4 7.0% 4.4%
99 112.6 110.4 6.9% 4.4%
100 112.6 110.4 6.9% 4.4%
93
Table 44: Determination of locking point for fine graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion and lime

6.0% 8.0% 8.0% 10.0%
Emulsion Emulsion Emulsion Emulsion (4.0%
No of gyrations (4.0% Water) (4.0% Water) (4.0% Water) Water)
0 132.0 129.3 19.1% 17.6%
60 114.8 112.9 7.0% 5.6%
61 114.8 112.9 7.0% 5.6%
62 114.7 112.8 6.9% 5.5%
63 114.7 112.8 6.9% 5.5%
64 114.6 112.7 6.8% 5.5%
65 114.6 112.7 6.8% 5.5%
66 114.6 112.7 6.8% 5.5%
67 114.5 112.6 6.8% 5.4%
68 114.5 112.6 6.8% 5.4%
69 114.5 112.5 6.8% 5.3%
70 114.4 112.5 6.7% 5.3%
71 114.4 112.5 6.7% 5.3%
72 114.3 112.4 6.6% 5.2%
73 114.3 112.4 6.6% 5.2%
74 114.3 112.4 6.6% 5.2%
75 114.2 112.3 6.5% 5.1%
76 114.2 112.3 6.5% 5.1%
77 114.2 112.2 6.5% 5.0%
78 114.2 112.2 6.5% 5.0%
79 114.1 112.2 6.4% 5.0%
80 114.1 112.1 6.4% 4.9%
94
Figures
Moisture
susceptibility test
Raveling test
With CSS-1
Cohesion test
emulsion
Dynamic modulus
(E*) test
Coarse gradation
Repeated triaxial
test (RLT)
without lime
With Engineered Same as with CSS-
emulsion for CMA 1 emulsion
Mix design using
Superpave
Same as coarse
Gyratory Fine gradation
gradation
compactor
Same as without
Cold Mix With lime
lime
Asphalt (CMA)
Coarse gradation
Mix design using
Modified Proctor Without lime
test
Fine gradation
Figure 1: The experimental plan for cold mix asphalt (CMA)

95
Moisture
susceptibility test
Raveling test
With CMS-2s
Cohesion test
emulsion
Dynamic modulus
(E*) test
Graded RAP
Repeated triaxial
test (RLT)
without lime
With Engineered Same as with CMS-
emulsion for CIR 2s emulsion
Mix design using

Superpave
Same as Graded
Gyratory Non-graded RAP
RAP
compactor
Same as without
Cold-In-place With lime
lime
Recycling (CIR)
Graded RAP
Mix design using
Modified Proctor Without lime
test
Non-graded RAP
Figure 2: The experimental plan for Cold-in-place recycling (CIR)

96
Figure 3: Classification of asphalt mixes by temperature and fuel usage (FHWA-PL-08-007)
Figure 4: Schematic diagram of Nynas test equipment

97
Figure 5: The flow chart for the comparison of cold mix and hot mix asphalt mix design (31)
98
Figure 6: CAEMs Dynamic Creep test results at 40°C, compared to HMA
Figure 7: SGC density versus number of gyrations for different vertical pressures.
99
Figure 8: SGC density versus number of gyrations for different gyration angles.
Figure 9: Selected gradation of coarse graded cold mix asphalt.

100
Figure 10: Selected gradation of fine graded cold mix asphalt.
Moisture-Density curve for coarse graded cold mix asphalt

2450.0
2400.0
2350.0
R² = 1.00
Dry density (kg/m3)
2300.0
2250.0
2200.0
2150.0
2100.0
2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0%
Moisture content, %
Figure 11: Moisture density curve for coarse graded asphalt.

101
Moisture-Density curve for fine graded cold mix asphalt

2140.0
2130.0
2120.0
2110.0
Dry density (kg/m3)
2100.0
2090.0
2080.0
R² = 1.00
2070.0
2060.0
2050.0
2040.0
10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0%
Moisture content, %
Figure 12: Moisture density curve for fine graded asphalt.
Figure 13: the perforated mold used in CMA and CIR mix design
102
Figure 14: Temperature-Viscosity relationship for emulsions
Figure 15: Temperature-Viscosity relationship for engineered emulsions

103
Variation of Gmm with emulsion content for coarse graded CMA with CSS-
1 emulsion
Theoretical maximum specific gravity 2.600
2.580
2.560
2.540
2.520 R² = 0.9981
2.500
2.480
R² = 0.9995
2.460
3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Emulsion content, % DWA
Measured Gmm Calculated Gmm
Figure 16: Variation of Gmm with emulsion content for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
Variation of Gmm with emulsion content for fine graded CMA with CSS-1
emulsion
2.580
Theoritical maximum specific gravity
2.560
2.540
2.520
2.500
R² = 0.9993
2.480
2.460
R² = 0.9962
2.440
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Emulsion content, %DWA
Figure 17: Variation of Gmm with emulsion content for fine graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
104
Curing curve at 60°C for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
0.50%
0.45%
0.40%
0.35%
Percent weight loss/hr
0.30%
0.25%
0.20%
0.15%
0.10%
0.05%
0.00%
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
Time, (hr)
3.0% emulsion 5.0% emulsion 7.0% emulsion 9.0% emulsion Target
Figure 18: Curing curve at 60°C for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
Curing curve at 60°C for fine graded CMA with CSS-1

0.45%
0.40%
0.35%
0.30%
0.25%
0.20%
0.15%
0.10%
0.05%
0.00%
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Time, (hr)
5.0% emulsion 7.0% emlsion 9.0% emulsion Target
Figure 19: Curing curve at 60°C for fine graded CMA with CSS-1
105
Curing curve at 60°C for coarse graded CMA with engineered

emulsion for CMA
0.60%
0.55%
0.50%
0.45%
0.40%
0.35%
0.30%
0.25%
0.20%
0.15%
0.10%
0.05%
0.00%
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Time, (hr)
5.0% emulsion 7.0% emulsion Target
Figure 20: Curing curve at 60°C for coarse graded CMA with engineered emulsion for CMA
Curing curve at 60°C for fine graded CMA with engineered emulsion
for CMA
0.65%
0.60%
0.55%
0.50%
0.45%
0.40%
0.35%
0.30%
0.25%
0.20%
0.15%
0.10%
0.05%
0.00%
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Time, (hr)
8.0% emulsion 10.0% emulsion Target
Figure 21: Curing curve at 60°C for fine graded CMA with engineered emulsion for CMA
106
Variation of bulk specific gravity with emulsion content for

coarse graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
2.280
2.275
2.270
Bulk specific gravity
2.265
2.260
2.255
R² = 0.9572
2.250
2.245
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Figure 22: Variation of bulk specific gravity with emulsion content for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
Variation of bulk specific gravity with emulsion content for fine

graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
2.220
2.215
2.210
2.205
2.200
2.195
2.190
2.185 R² = 0.974
2.180
2.175
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0
Figure 23: Variation of bulk specific gravity with emulsion content for fine graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
107
Variation of bulk specific gravity with emulsion content for

coarse graded CMA with Engineered emulsion for CMA
2.300
2.290
2.280
2.270
2.260
2.250
2.240
2.230 R² = 0.9922
2.220
2.210
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Figure 24: Variation of bulk specific gravity with emulsion content for coarse graded CMA with Engineered
emulsion for CMA
Variation of bulk specific gravity with emulsion content for fine

graded CMA with engineered emulsion for CMA
2.224
2.222
2.220
2.218
2.216
2.214
2.212
R² = 0.959
2.210
2.208
6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0
Figure 25: Variation of bulk specific gravity with emulsion content for fine graded CMA with engineered
emulsion for CMA
108
Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content for coarse

2.280
2.270
2.260
2.250
2.240
2.230
2.220
2.210
2.200
2.190
R² = 1
2.180
2.170
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Moisture content, %DWA
Figure 26: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content for fine

2.215
2.210
2.205
2.200 R² = 1
2.195
2.190
2.185
2.180
2.175
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Figure 27: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content for fine graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
109
Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content for coarse

graded CMA with Engineered emulsion for CMA
2.300
2.290
2.280
2.270
2.260
2.250
2.240 R² = 1
2.230
2.220
2.210
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Figure 28: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content for coarse graded CMA with Engineered
emulsion for CMA
Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content for fine

graded CMA with engineered emulsion for CMA
2.224
2.223
2.222
2.221
2.220
2.219 R² = 0.9847
2.218
2.217
2.216
2.215
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Figure 29: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content for fine graded CMA with engineered emulsion
for CMA
110
Figure 30: Gradation of graded RAP used in CIR mix design
Figure 31: Gradation of non-graded RAP used in CIR mix design

111
Moisture-Density curve for graded RAP

2220.0
2200.0
2180.0
2160.0
Dry density (kg/m3)
R² = 1.00
2140.0
2120.0
2100.0
2080.0
2060.0
2040.0
2020.0
2000.0
3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 9.0% 11.0% 13.0% 15.0%
Moisture content (%)
Figure 32: Moisture-Density curve for graded RAP from the modified Proctor test.
Moisture-Density curve for Non-graded RAP

2220.0
2200.0
2180.0
2160.0
Dry density (kg/m3)
R² = 1.00
2140.0
2120.0
2100.0
2080.0
2060.0
3.0% 5.0% 7.0% 9.0% 11.0% 13.0% 15.0%
Moisture content (%)
Figure 33: Moisture-Density curve for non-graded RAP from the modified Proctor test.
112
Variation of Gse with emulsion content for graded RAP with CMS-
2s
2.490
2.488
Average Gse
2.486
Effective specific gravity
2.484
2.482
2.480
2.478
2.476
2.474
2.472
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Figure 34: Variation of Gse with emulsion content for graded RAP with CMS-2s
Variation of Gmm with emulsion content for graded RAP with

CMS-2s emulsion
Theoretical maximum specificgravity
2.480
2.460
2.440
2.420
2.400
R² = 0.9993
2.380
2.360 R² = 0.9997
2.340
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Figure 35: Variation of Gmm with emulsion content for graded RAP with CMS-2s emulsion
113
Curing curve at 60°C for graded RAP with CMS-2s emulsion

0.20%
0.15%
0.10%
0.05%
0.00%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Time, (hr)
E-2.0%,W-4.0% E-3.0%,W-4.0% E-4.0%,W-4.0% Target
Figure 36: Curing curve at 60°C for graded RAP with CMS-2s emulsion
Variation of bulk specific gravities with emulsion content for

changes in design parameters.
2.300
2.250
2.200
2.150
2.100
2.050
2.000
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Emulsion content,(%)
Water content-4.0% with 25 gyrations and 600psi Water content-4.0% with 50 gyrations and 600psi
Water content-4.0% with 25 gyrations and 267psi Water content-6.0% with 25 gyrations and 600psi
Figure 37: Variation of bulk specific gravities with emulsion content for changes in design parameters.
114
Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content and

emulsion content for graded RAP with CMS-2s
2.200
R² = 0.9539
R² = 0.9773
2.150
R² = 0.9673
2.100
R² = 0.9413
2.050
2.000
1.950
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Total water content, %DWR
Emulsion-1.0% Emulsion-1.5% Emulsion-2.0% Emulsion-3.0%
Figure 38: Variation of bulk specific gravities with water content and emulsion content for graded RAP with
CMS-2s
Variation of percent air voids with water content and emulsion

content for graded RAP with CMS-2s
21.0%
19.0%
17.0%
Percent airvoid
15.0%
R² = 0.9413
13.0%
R² = 0.9673
R² = 0.9773
11.0%
R² = 0.9539
9.0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Figure 39: Variation of percent air void with water content and emulsion content for graded RAP with CMS-2s
115
Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content and

emulsion content for Non-graded RAP with CMS-2s
2.200
2.180 R² = 0.9571
2.160
2.140
R² = 0.819
2.120 R² = 0.9882
2.100 R² = 0.9742
2.080
2.060
2.040
2.020
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Figure 40: Variation of bulk specific gravities with water content and emulsion content for Non-graded RAP
with CMS-2s
Variation of percent airvoid with water content and emulsion

content for Non-graded RAP with CMS-2s
18.0%
17.0%
16.0%
15.0%
Percent airvoid
14.0%
R² = 0.9882
13.0% R² = 0.9742
12.0% R² = 0.819
11.0%
10.0%
R² = 0.9571
9.0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Figure 41: Variation of percent air void with water content and emulsion content for Non-graded RAP with
CMS-2s
116
Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content and emulsion

content for graded RAP with Engineered emulsion for CIR
2.120
R² = 0.9998
2.110
R² = 0.9553
2.100
R² = 0.986
2.090
R² = 0.9897
2.080
2.070
2.060
2.050
2.040
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Figure 42: Variation of bulk specific gravities with water content and emulsion content for graded RAP with
Engineered emulsion for CIR

content for graded RAP with Engineered emulsion for CIR
17.0%
16.0%
15.0%
Percent airvoid
14.0% R² = 0.9897
13.0% R² = 0.986
R² = 0.9553
12.0% R² = 0.9998
11.0%
10.0%
9.0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Figure 43: Variation of percent air void with water content and emulsion content for graded RAP with
117

content for Non-graded RAP with Engineered emulsion for CIR
2.180
2.160
R² = 0.9522
2.140
R² = 0.8936
2.120
2.100 R² = 0.8248
2.080
2.060 R² = 0.9925
2.040
2.020
2.000
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Figure 44: Variation of bulk specific gravities with water content and emulsion content for Non-graded RAP
with Engineered emulsion for CIR

21.0%
content for Non-graded RAP with Engineered emulsion
19.0%
17.0%
Percent airvoid
15.0% R² = 0.9925
R² = 0.8248
13.0% R² = 0.8936
R² = 0.9522
11.0%
9.0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Figure 17: Variation of percent air void with water content and emulsion content for Non-graded RAP with
118
Figure 45: Typical cumulative permanent strain with number of cycles for HMA
Figure 46: Modified coarse gradation for CMA with lime

119
Figure 47: Modified coarse gradation for CMA with lime
Variation of tensile strength ratio (TSR) with emulsion

temperature for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
50.0% 35.0
45.0%
Indirect tensile strength, psi

30.0
Tensile strength ratio, %
40.0%
35.0% 25.0
30.0%
25.0% 20.0
20.0%
15.0% 15.0
10.0% 10.0
5.0%
0.0% 5.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0
Emulsion temperature, °F
TSR ratio Tensile strength (Dry) Tensile strength (Wet)
Figure 48: Variation of tensile strength ratio (TSR) with emulsion temperature for coarse graded CMA with
CSS-1 emulsion
120
Variation of tensile strength ratio (TSR) with emulsion

temperature for finegraded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
35.0% 45.0
Indirect tensile strength, psi

Tensile strength ratio, % 30.0% 40.0
25.0% 35.0
30.0
20.0%
25.0
15.0%
20.0
10.0% 15.0
5.0% 10.0
0.0% 5.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0
Emulsion temperature, °F
TSR ratio Tensile strength (Dry) Tensile strength (Wet)
Figure 49: Variation of tensile strength ratio (TSR) with emulsion temperature for fine graded CMA with CSS-1
emulsion
Variation of VMA with emulsion temperature for coarse

18.5%
18.0%
17.5%
17.0%
VMA
16.5%
16.0%
15.5% R² = 0.9517
15.0%
14.5%
40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0
Emulsion temperature, (°F)
Figure 50: Variation of VMA with emulsion temperature for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
121
Variation of VMA with emulsion temperature for fine graded

CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
18.5%
18.0%
17.5%
R² = 0.9671
17.0%
VMA
16.5%
16.0%
15.5%
15.0%
14.5%
40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0
Figure 51: Variation of VMA with emulsion temperature for fine graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
Variation of VFA with emulsion temperature for coarse

44.0%
42.0%
40.0%
R² = 0.9497
38.0%
VFA
36.0%
34.0%
32.0%
30.0%
40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0
Figure 52: Variation of VFA with emulsion temperature for coarse graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
122
Variation of VFA with emulsion temperature for fine graded

CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
46.0%
44.0%
R² = 0.9661
42.0%
40.0%
VFA
38.0%
36.0%
34.0%
32.0%
30.0%
40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0
Figure 53: Variation of VFA with emulsion temperature for fine graded CMA with CSS-1 emulsion
Figure 54: The experimental setup of the cohesion tester

123

content for graded RAP with CMS-2s and lime
2.140
R² = 1
2.120
2.100 R² = 0.9049
2.080 R² = 0.9999
R² = 0.9923
2.060
2.040
2.020
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Figure 55: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content and emulsion content for graded RAP with
CMS-2s and lime
Variation of percent air void with water content and emulsion

content for graded RAP with CMS-2s and lime
15.0%
14.0%
13.0%
Percent airvoid
R² = 0.9923
R² = 0.9999
12.0%
11.0% R² = 0.9049
10.0%
R² = 1
9.0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Figure 56: Variation of percent air void with water content and emulsion content for graded RAP with CMS-2s
and lime
124

content for graded RAP with Engineered emulsion and lime
2.030
2.020
R² = 0.6905
2.010
R² = 0.9827
2.000
1.990 R² = 0.9772
1.980
1.970
1.960
1.950 R² = 0.8513
1.940
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Figure 57: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content and emulsion content for graded RAP with
Engineered emulsion and lime

content for graded RAP with Engineered emulsion and lime
17.0%
16.0%
R² = 0.8513
15.0%
Percent airvoid
14.0%
R² = 0.9772
13.0%
R² = 0.9827
12.0%
R² = 0.6905
11.0%
10.0%
9.0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Figure 58: Variation of percent air void with water content and emulsion content for graded RAP with
125

content for non-gradd RAP with CMS-2s and lime
2.140
2.120 R² = 0.6162
2.100
R² = 0.8732
2.080
2.060 R² = 0.779
2.040
2.020 R² = 0.9946
2.000
1.980
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Emulsion-1.0% Emulsion-2.0% Emulsion-2.5%
Figure 59: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content and emulsion content for non-graded RAP with
CMS-2s and lime

content for non-graded RAP with CMS-2s and lime
16.0%
15.0%
14.0%
Percent airvoid
13.0%
R² = 0.9946
12.0%
11.0% R² = 0.779
10.0% R² = 0.8732
R² = 0.6162
9.0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Figure 60: Variation of percent air void with water content and emulsion content for non-graded RAP with
CMS-2s and lime
126

content for non-graded RAP with Engineered emulsion and lime
2.080
R² = 0.9993
2.070
2.060
2.050 R² = 0.653
R² = 0.929
2.040
2.030
2.020 R² = 0.9402
2.010
2.000
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Figure 61: Variation of bulk specific gravity with water content and emulsion content for non-graded RAP with

content non-graded RAP with Engineered emulsion and lime
15.0%
14.0%
R² = 0.9402
13.0%
Percent airvoid
R² = 0.929
12.0%
R² = 0.653
11.0%
R² = 0.9993
10.0%
9.0%
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Figure 62: Variation of percent air void with water content and emulsion content non-graded RAP with
127
Tensile strengths of CIR mixes with and without lime

70.0
60.0
Tensile strengths, psi
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Graded CIR with Graded CIR with Non-graded CIR with Non-Graded CIR with
CMS-2s emulsion engineered emulsion CMS-2s emulsion engineered emulsion
Type of CIR mixes
TS Dry without lime TS Dry with lime TS wet without lime TS wet with lime
Figure 63: Tensile strengths of CIR mixes with and without lime
Tensile strength ratios of CIR mixes with and without lime

100.0%
87.0%
90.0%
80.2%
Tensile strength ratio (TSR)
80.0%
70.2% 69.8%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
25.6% 27.9%
30.0%
19.9%
20.0% 16.1%
10.0%
0.0%
Graded CIR with Graded CIR with Non-graded CIR Non-Graded CIR
CMS-2s emulsion engineered with CMS-2s with engineered
emulsion emulsion emulsion
Type of CIR mixes
TSR without lime TSR with lime
Figure 64: Tensile strength ratios of CIR mixes with and without lime
128
Raveling performance of CIR mixes with lime

8.0%
6.8%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0% 4.4%
Raveling, %
3.9%
4.0%
3.0% 2.4%
1.6% 1.6% 1.8%
2.0%
1.1%
1.0%
0.0%
Graded CIR with Graded CIR with Non-graded CIR with Non-Graded CIR with
CMS-2s emulsion engineered emulsion CMS-2s emulsion engineered emulsion
Type of mix
Ravelling, after 4hrs Ravelling after 20kgcm of torque in cohesion tester
Figure 65: Raveling performance of CIR mixes with lime
Measured dynamic modulus (|E*|) of CIR mixes

900.0 801.2
Dynamic modulus (|E*|) at 10Hz, ksi
800.0 740.8
700.0 633.7 596.5
600.0
500.0 446.2
383.8
400.0 336.2 344.7
300.0 188.2
200.0 136.8 142.3 156.0
100.0
0.0
Graded CIR with Graded CIR with Non-graded CIR with Non-graded CIR with
CMS-2s engineered emulsion CMS-2s engineered emulsion
Type of CIR mixes

4°C 20°C 40°C
Figure 66: Measured dynamic modulus (|E*|) of CIR mixes

129
Dynamic modulus (|E*|) master curve at 20°C for graded CIR with
lime and CMS-2s
Dynamic Modulus |E*|, ksi 1.00E+04
1.00E+03
1.00E+02
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E-08 1.00E-06 1.00E-04 1.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.00E+02 1.00E+04 1.00E+06
reduced frequency, Hz
Predicted E* Actual E* at 4°C Actual E* at 20°C Actual E* at 40°C
Figure 67: Dynamic modulus |E*| master curve at 20°C for graded CIR with lime and CMS-2s
Dynamic modulus (|E*|) master curve at 20°C for graded CIR with
lime and engineered emulsion
1.00E+03
1.00E+02
Dynamic Modulus (|E*|), ksi
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E-08 1.00E-06 1.00E-04 1.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.00E+02 1.00E+04 1.00E+06
Figure 68: Dynamic modulus (|E*|) master curve at 20°C for graded CIR mix with lime and engineered
emulsion
130
Dynamic modulus (|E*|) master curve at 20°C for non-graded

CIR with lime and CMS-2s
1.00E+04
1.00E+03
1.00E+02
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E-08 1.00E-06 1.00E-04 1.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.00E+02 1.00E+04 1.00E+06
Figure 69: Dynamic modulus (|E*|) master curve at 20°C for non-graded CIR with lime and CMS-2s
Dynamic modulus (|E*|) master curve at 20°C for non graded

CIR with lime and engineered emulsion
1.00E+04
1.00E+03
1.00E+02
1.00E+01
1.00E+00
1.00E-08 1.00E-06 1.00E-04 1.00E-02 1.00E+00 1.00E+02 1.00E+04 1.00E+06
Figure 70: Dynamic modulus (|E*|) master curve at 20°C for non graded CIR with lime and engineered
emulsion
131
Dynamic modulus master curves for CIR mixes at 20°C

10000.000
1000.000
100.000
10.000
1.000
1E-08 0.000001 0.0001 0.01 1 100 10000 1000000
Graded CIR with CMS-2s Graded CIR with engineered emulsion
Non-graded CIR with CMS-2s Non-graded CIR with Engineered emulsion
Figure 71: Dynamic modulus master curves for CIR mixes at 20°C
εp/εr for graded CIR with lime and CMS-2s

1,000
100
10
εp/εr
0
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Number of cycles
58ºC 45ºC 30ºC
Figure 72: εp/εr relationship with temperature for graded CIR with lime and CMS-2s
132
εp/εr for graded CIR with lime and engineered emulsion

1,000
100
εp/εr
10
0
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Number of cycles
58ºC 45ºC 30ºC
Figure 73: εp/εr relationship with temperature for graded CIR with lime and engineered emulsion
εp/εr for non-graded CIR with lime and CMS-2s

1,000
100
εp/εr
10
0
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Number of cycles
58ºC 45ºC 30ºC
Figure 74: εp/εr relationship with temperature for non-graded CIR with lime and CMS-2s
133
εp/εr for non-graded CIR with lime and engineered emulsion

1,000
100
εp/εr
10
0
10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000
Number of cycles
58ºC 45ºC 30ºC
Figure 75: εp/εr relationship with temperature for non-graded CIR with lime and engineered emulsion
Flow number of CIR mixes at 58°C

500
400
Flow number
320
296
300
220
195
200
100
0
Graded CIR with CMS- Graded CIR with Non-graded CIR with Non-graded CIR with
2s engineered emulsion CMS-2s engineered emulsion
Type of mix
Figure 76: Flow number of CIR mixes at 58°C

134
Flow number of CIR mixes at 45°C

5000
4000 3795
3000 2697
Flow number
1995
2000
1595
1000
0
Graded CIR with CMS- Graded CIR with Non-graded CIR with Non-graded CIR with
2s engineered emulsion CMS-2s engineered emulsion
Figure 77: Flow number of CIR mixes at 45°C
Change in percent airvoid with time in CIR

pavements from the literature (State of Iowa)
(30)
16
14
12
Percent airvoid, %
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Age of the pavement/ yrs
High volume traffic Low volume traffic
Figure 78: Change in percent air void with time in CIR pavements from the literature (State of Iowa) (30)
135
Appendix A
Determination of number of gyrations for designing graded CIR mixes with CMS-2s
Specimen height, mm % Air void

No of 1.5% 1.5% 2.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% 2.0% 2.0%
gyratio Emulsio Emulsio Emulsio Emulsio Emulsio Emulsio Emulsio Emulsio
n n (2.0% n (6.0% n (2.0% n (6.0% n (2.0% n (6.0% n (2.0% n (6.0%
Water) Water) Water) Water) Water) Water) Water) Water)
0 140.7 134.7 141.6 135.3 28.5% 27.8% 28.3% 27.8%
65 117.7 112.0 118.2 112.1 14.5% 13.1% 14.1% 12.8%
66 117.7 111.9 118.1 112.0 14.5% 13.1% 14.1% 12.7%
67 117.6 111.8 118.1 111.9 14.4% 13.0% 14.1% 12.7%
68 117.5 111.8 118.0 111.8 14.4% 13.0% 14.0% 12.6%
69 117.4 111.7 117.9 111.8 14.3% 12.9% 13.9% 12.6%
70 117.4 111.6 117.8 111.7 14.3% 12.8% 13.8% 12.5%
71 117.3 111.6 117.7 111.6 14.2% 12.8% 13.8% 12.4%
72 117.2 111.5 117.7 111.5 14.1% 12.8% 13.8% 12.4%
73 117.2 111.4 117.6 111.5 14.1% 12.7% 13.7% 12.4%
74 117.1 111.3 117.5 111.4 14.1% 12.6% 13.6% 12.3%
75 117.0 111.3 117.3 111.2 14.0% 12.6% 13.5% 12.1%
76 117.0 111.2 14.0% 12.5%
77 116.9 111.1 13.9% 12.4%
78 116.8 111.1 13.9% 12.4%
79 116.8 111.0 13.9% 12.4%
80 116.7 110.9 13.8% 12.3%
136
Determination of number of gyrations for designing graded CIR mixes with engineered emulsion

1.0% 2.0% 2.5% 1.0% 2.0% 2.5%
No of gyrations Emulsion Emulsion Emulsion Emulsion Emulsion Emulsion
(2.0% (3.0% (4.0% (2.0% (3.0% (4.0%
Water) Water) Water) Water) Water) Water)
0 131.1 131.8 130.9 24.7% 23.7% 22.3%
15 119.1 117.5 118.0 17.1% 14.5% 13.8%
16 118.8 117.1 117.7 16.9% 14.2% 13.6%
17 118.5 116.8 117.4 16.7% 14.0% 13.4%
18 118.2 116.5 117.1 16.5% 13.7% 13.2%
19 118.0 116.2 116.8 16.3% 13.5% 12.9%
20 117.7 115.9 116.6 16.1% 13.3% 12.8%
21 117.5 115.7 116.3 16.0% 13.1% 12.6%
22 117.3 115.4 116.1 15.8% 12.9% 12.4%
23 117.1 115.2 115.9 15.7% 12.8% 12.3%
24 116.9 115.0 115.6 15.5% 12.6% 12.0%
25 116.7 114.7 115.4 15.4% 12.4% 11.9%
26 116.5 114.5 115.2 15.2% 12.2% 11.7%
27 116.3 114.3 115.0 15.1% 12.1% 11.6%
28 116.1 114.1 114.9 15.0% 11.9% 11.5%
29 116.0 113.9 114.7 14.9% 11.8% 11.3%
30 115.8 113.8 114.5 14.7% 11.7% 11.2%
31 115.7 113.6 114.4 14.7% 11.5% 11.1%
32 115.5 113.4 114.2 14.5% 11.4% 11.0%
33 115.4 113.3 114.0 14.4% 11.3% 10.8%
34 115.2 113.1 113.9 14.3% 11.1% 10.7%
35 115.1 113.0 113.8 14.2% 11.1% 10.6%
36 115.0 112.8 113.6 14.1% 10.9% 10.5%
37 114.8 112.7 113.5 14.0% 10.8% 10.4%
38 114.7 112.5 113.3 13.9% 10.7% 10.2%
39 114.6 112.4 113.2 13.8% 10.6% 10.2%
40 114.5 112.3 113.1 13.8% 10.5% 10.1%
41 114.4 112.2 113.0 13.7% 10.4% 10.0%
42 114.2 112.0 112.9 13.5% 10.3% 9.9%
43 114.1 111.9 112.7 13.5% 10.2% 9.8%
44 114.0 111.8 112.6 13.4% 10.1% 9.7%
45 113.9 111.7 112.5 13.3% 10.0% 9.6%
137
Determination of number of gyrations for designing non-graded CIR mixes with CMS-2s

1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0%
(2.0% (3.0% (4.0% (2.0% (3.0% (4.0%
0 136.9 136.0 134.2 28.3% 26.4% 24.8%
40 117.4 115.9 115.0 16.4% 13.7% 12.3%
41 117.3 115.7 114.8 16.3% 13.5% 12.1%
42 117.1 115.6 114.7 16.2% 13.4% 12.0%
43 117.0 115.5 114.6 16.1% 13.4% 12.0%
44 116.9 115.3 114.5 16.0% 13.2% 11.9%
45 116.7 115.2 114.3 15.9% 13.1% 11.7%
46 116.6 115.1 114.2 15.8% 13.1% 11.7%
47 116.5 114.9 114.1 15.8% 12.9% 11.6%
48 116.4 114.8 114.0 15.7% 12.8% 11.5%
49 116.3 114.7 113.9 15.6% 12.8% 11.4%
50 116.1 114.6 113.8 15.5% 12.7% 11.3%
51 116.0 114.5 113.7 15.4% 12.6% 11.3%
52 115.9 114.4 113.6 15.3% 12.5% 11.2%
53 115.8 114.3 113.5 15.2% 12.5% 11.1%
54 115.7 114.1 113.4 15.2% 12.3% 11.0%
55 115.6 114.0 113.3 15.1% 12.2% 11.0%
56 115.5 113.9 113.2 15.0% 12.1% 10.9%
57 115.4 113.8 113.1 15.0% 12.1% 10.8%
58 115.3 113.7 113.0 14.9% 12.0% 10.7%
59 115.2 113.6 113.0 14.8% 11.9% 10.7%
60 115.1 113.6 112.9 14.7% 11.9% 10.6%
61 115.0 113.5 112.8 14.7% 11.8% 10.6%
62 114.9 113.4 112.7 14.6% 11.8% 10.5%
63 114.8 113.3 112.6 14.5% 11.7% 10.4%
64 114.7 113.2 112.5 14.4% 11.6% 10.3%
65 114.7 113.1 112.5 14.5% 11.5% 10.3%
66 114.6 113.0 112.4 14.4% 11.4% 10.2%
67 114.5 112.9 112.3 14.3% 11.4% 10.2%
68 114.4 112.8 112.2 14.2% 11.3% 10.1%
69 114.3 112.8 112.2 14.1% 11.3% 10.1%
70 114.3 112.7 112.1 14.1% 11.2% 10.0%
138
Determination of number of gyrations for designing non- graded CIR mixes with engineered emulsion

1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0%
(2.0% (3.0% (4.0% (2.0% (3.0% (4.0%
0 138.3 131.7 131.4 29.8% 24.9% 23.5%
25 120.3 115.4 115.1 19.3% 14.3% 12.7%
26 120.1 115.2 114.9 19.2% 14.1% 12.6%
27 119.9 115.0 114.7 19.1% 14.0% 12.4%
28 119.6 114.8 114.5 18.9% 13.8% 12.3%
29 119.4 114.6 114.3 18.7% 13.7% 12.1%
30 119.2 114.4 114.1 18.6% 13.5% 12.0%
31 119.0 114.3 114.0 18.5% 13.4% 11.9%
32 118.8 114.1 113.8 18.3% 13.3% 11.7%
33 118.6 113.9 113.7 18.2% 13.1% 11.6%
34 118.4 113.8 113.5 18.1% 13.1% 11.5%
35 118.3 113.6 113.4 18.0% 12.9% 11.4%
36 118.1 113.5 113.2 17.8% 12.8% 11.3%
37 117.9 113.4 113.1 17.7% 12.7% 11.2%
38 117.8 113.2 113.0 17.6% 12.6% 11.1%
39 117.6 113.1 112.9 17.5% 12.5% 11.0%
40 117.5 113.0 112.7 17.4% 12.4% 10.9%
41 117.3 112.9 112.6 17.3% 12.4% 10.8%
42 117.2 112.7 112.5 17.2% 12.2% 10.7%
43 117.0 112.6 112.4 17.1% 12.1% 10.6%
44 116.9 112.5 112.3 17.0% 12.0% 10.5%
45 116.8 112.4 112.2 16.9% 12.0% 10.5%
46 116.6 112.3 112.1 16.8% 11.9% 10.4%
47 116.5 112.2 112.0 16.7% 11.8% 10.3%
48 116.4 112.1 111.9 16.6% 11.7% 10.2%
49 116.3 112.0 111.8 16.6% 11.7% 10.1%
50 116.1 111.9 111.7 16.4% 11.6% 10.1%
51 116.0 111.8 111.6 16.4% 11.5% 10.0%
52 115.9 111.7 111.5 16.3% 11.4% 9.9%
53 115.8 111.6 111.4 16.2% 11.3% 9.8%
54 115.7 111.5 111.4 16.1% 11.3% 9.8%
55 115.6 111.5 111.3 16.1% 11.3% 9.7%
139
Determination of number of gyrations for designing graded CIR mixes with CMS-2s with lime

1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0%
(3.0% (4.0% (5.0% (3.0% (4.0% (5.0%
0 135.9 135.5 135.1 24.3% 23.1% 22.0%
15 123.5 121.7 120.8 16.7% 14.3% 12.7%
16 123.2 121.3 120.5 16.5% 14.0% 12.5%
17 122.9 121.0 120.1 16.3% 13.8% 12.2%
18 122.6 120.7 119.8 16.1% 13.6% 12.0%
19 122.3 120.4 119.5 15.9% 13.4% 11.8%
20 122.0 120.1 119.2 15.7% 13.2% 11.6%
21 121.8 119.9 119.0 15.6% 13.0% 11.4%
22 121.5 119.6 118.7 15.4% 12.8% 11.2%
23 121.3 119.4 118.5 15.2% 12.7% 11.0%
24 121.1 119.1 118.3 15.1% 12.5% 10.9%
25 120.9 118.9 118.0 14.9% 12.3% 10.7%
26 120.7 118.7 117.8 14.8% 12.2% 10.5%
27 120.5 118.5 117.6 14.6% 12.0% 10.4%
28 120.3 118.3 117.4 14.5% 11.9% 10.2%
29 120.1 118.2 117.2 14.4% 11.8% 10.0%
30 119.9 118.0 117.1 14.2% 11.6% 10.0%
31 119.7 117.8 116.9 14.1% 11.5% 9.8%
32 119.6 117.6 116.7 14.0% 11.3% 9.7%
33 119.4 117.5 116.6 13.9% 11.3% 9.6%
34 119.3 117.3 116.4 13.8% 11.1% 9.4%
35 119.1 117.2 116.3 13.6% 11.0% 9.3%
36 119.0 117.0 116.1 13.6% 10.9% 9.2%
37 118.8 116.9 116.0 13.4% 10.8% 9.1%
38 118.7 116.8 115.8 13.4% 10.7% 9.0%
39 118.5 116.6 115.7 13.2% 10.6% 8.9%
40 118.4 116.5 115.6 13.1% 10.5% 8.8%
41 118.3 116.4 115.5 13.1% 10.4% 8.7%
42 118.2 116.2 115.3 13.0% 10.3% 8.6%
43 118.0 116.1 115.2 12.8% 10.2% 8.5%
44 117.9 116.0 115.1 12.8% 10.1% 8.4%
45 117.8 115.9 115.0 12.7% 10.0% 8.3%
140
Determination of number of gyrations for designing graded CIR mixes with engineered emulsion with lime

1.0% 1.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0% 2.0%
(2.0% (3.0% (4.0% (2.0% (3.0% (4.0%
0 127.2 127.9 128.1 20.5% 20.2% 20.1%
1 124.9 125.7 125.9 19.0% 18.8% 18.7%
2 123.4 124.2 124.4 18.1% 17.8% 17.7%
3 122.2 123.0 123.1 17.2% 17.0% 16.8%
4 121.2 122.0 122.1 16.6% 16.3% 16.2%
5 120.4 121.1 121.1 16.0% 15.7% 15.5%
6 119.6 120.3 120.3 15.4% 15.2% 14.9%
7 118.9 119.6 119.6 15.0% 14.7% 14.4%
8 118.3 119.0 118.9 14.5% 14.2% 13.9%
9 117.8 118.4 118.3 14.2% 13.8% 13.5%
10 117.3 117.9 117.8 13.8% 13.4% 13.1%
11 116.8 117.4 117.3 13.4% 13.1% 12.7%
12 116.4 117.0 116.9 13.1% 12.8% 12.4%
13 116.0 116.6 116.5 12.8% 12.5% 12.1%
14 115.6 116.2 116.1 12.5% 12.2% 11.8%
15 115.2 115.9 115.7 12.2% 11.9% 11.5%
16 114.9 115.6 115.4 12.0% 11.7% 11.3%
17 114.6 115.3 115.0 11.8% 11.5% 11.0%
18 114.3 115.0 114.7 11.5% 11.3% 10.8%
19 114.0 114.7 114.5 11.3% 11.0% 10.6%
20 113.8 114.4 114.2 11.1% 10.8% 10.4%
21 113.5 114.2 113.9 10.9% 10.6% 10.1%
22 113.3 113.9 113.7 10.7% 10.4% 10.0%
23 113.0 113.7 113.4 10.5% 10.2% 9.7%
24 112.8 113.5 113.2 10.4% 10.1% 9.6%
25 112.6 113.3 113.0 10.2% 9.9% 9.4%
141
Determination of number of gyrations for designing non-graded CIR mixes with CMS-2s with lime
No of gyrations 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0%

(2.0% (4.0% (4.0% (2.0% (4.0% (4.0%
0 137.3 132.4 136.1 25.9% 21.6% 23.7%
20 122.8 119.8 119.9 17.1% 13.3% 13.4%
21 122.6 119.6 119.7 17.0% 13.2% 13.3%
22 122.3 119.3 119.4 16.8% 13.0% 13.0%
23 122.0 119.0 119.1 16.6% 12.7% 12.8%
24 121.8 118.8 118.9 16.5% 12.6% 12.7%
25 121.6 118.6 118.6 16.3% 12.5% 12.5%
26 121.3 118.4 118.4 16.1% 12.3% 12.3%
27 121.1 118.2 118.2 16.0% 12.2% 12.2%
28 120.9 118.0 118.0 15.8% 12.0% 12.0%
29 120.7 117.8 117.8 15.7% 11.9% 11.9%
30 120.5 117.6 117.6 15.6% 11.7% 11.7%
31 120.3 117.4 117.4 15.4% 11.6% 11.6%
32 120.1 117.2 117.2 15.3% 11.4% 11.4%
33 120.0 117.0 117.0 15.2% 11.3% 11.3%
34 119.8 116.9 116.9 15.1% 11.2% 11.2%
35 119.6 116.7 116.7 14.9% 11.0% 11.0%
36 119.5 116.6 116.5 14.9% 10.9% 10.9%
37 119.3 116.4 116.4 14.7% 10.8% 10.8%
38 119.2 116.3 116.2 14.6% 10.7% 10.6%
39 119.0 116.1 116.1 14.5% 10.6% 10.6%
40 118.9 116.0 116.0 14.4% 10.5% 10.5%
41 118.7 115.9 115.8 14.3% 10.4% 10.3%
42 118.6 115.7 115.7 14.2% 10.3% 10.3%
43 118.5 115.6 115.6 14.1% 10.2% 10.2%
44 118.3 115.5 115.5 14.0% 10.1% 10.1%
45 118.2 115.4 115.3 13.9% 10.0% 9.9%
46 118.1 115.2 115.2 13.8% 9.9% 9.9%
47 118.0 115.1 115.1 13.8% 9.8% 9.8%
48 117.8 115.0 115.0 13.6% 9.7% 9.7%
49 117.7 114.9 114.9 13.6% 9.6% 9.6%
50 117.6 114.8 114.8 13.5% 9.6% 9.6%
142
Determination of number of gyrations for designing non-graded CIR mixes with engineered emulsion with lime
No of gyrations 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0%

(2.0% (4.0% (4.0% (2.0% (4.0% (4.0%
0 132.9 133.1 133.0 23.5% 22.5% 19.9%
5 125.7 125.8 125.1 19.2% 18.0% 14.8%
6 124.9 124.9 124.2 18.6% 17.4% 14.2%
7 124.2 124.1 123.4 18.2% 16.9% 13.7%
8 123.5 123.4 122.7 17.7% 16.4% 13.2%
9 123.0 122.8 122.1 17.4% 16.0% 12.8%
10 122.4 122.2 121.5 17.0% 15.6% 12.3%
11 121.9 121.7 121.0 16.6% 15.3% 12.0%
12 121.5 121.2 120.5 16.4% 14.9% 11.6%
13 121.1 120.8 120.1 16.1% 14.6% 11.3%
14 120.7 120.4 119.7 15.8% 14.3% 11.0%
15 120.3 120.0 119.3 15.5% 14.1% 10.7%
16 119.9 119.6 118.9 15.2% 13.8% 10.4%
17 119.6 119.2 118.6 15.0% 13.5% 10.2%
18 119.3 118.9 118.3 14.8% 13.3% 10.0%
19 119.0 118.6 118.0 14.6% 13.0% 9.7%
20 118.7 118.3 117.7 14.4% 12.8% 9.5%
21 118.5 118.0 117.5 14.2% 12.6% 9.3%
22 118.2 117.7 117.2 14.0% 12.4% 9.1%
23 118.0 117.5 117.0 13.9% 12.2% 9.0%
24 117.8 117.2 116.8 13.7% 12.0% 8.8%
25 117.5 117.0 116.6 13.5% 11.9% 8.6%
26 117.3 116.8 116.4 13.4% 11.7% 8.5%
27 117.1 116.6 116.2 13.2% 11.6% 8.3%
28 116.9 116.3 116.0 13.1% 11.3% 8.2%
29 116.7 116.1 115.8 12.9% 11.2% 8.0%
30 116.6 115.9 115.6 12.8% 11.0% 7.9%
31 116.4 115.8 115.5 12.7% 10.9% 7.8%
32 116.2 115.6 115.3 12.5% 10.8% 7.6%
33 116.0 115.4 115.2 12.4% 10.6% 7.5%
34 115.9 115.2 115.0 12.3% 10.5% 7.4%

Piratheepan Unr 0139M 10902 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Piratheepan Unr 0139M 10902 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Nevada, Reno

Designing Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA) and Cold-In-Place

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Science in

Civil and Environmental Engineering

Elie Y. Hajj, Ph.D., P.E.

We recommend that the thesis

be accepted in partial fulfillment of the

Elie Y. Hajj, Ph. D., Advisor

Peter E. Sebaaly, Ph. D., Committee Member

Jaak Daemen, Ph. D., Graduate School Representative

Marsha H. Read, Ph. D., Associate Dean, Graduate School

optimum emulsion content and water content of CMA mixes.

suggesting that the mix design needs to be studied further.

optimum emulsion content and water content of CIR mixes.

equivalent to that of hot mix asphalt.

for all of their love and support.

persistence throughout the course of study.

during the research.

me an opportunity to study in the Pavements/Materials Engineering Program at the University of

for allowing me to use their facilities.

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ iii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ viii

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. x

Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.3.2 Cold-in-place Recycling (CIR) ................................................................................ 3

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Cold Mix Asphalt (CMA) ................................................................................................ 5

2.1.2 Material Characterization ......................................................................................... 7

2.1.3 Mix Design Procedure for Cold Mix. .................................................................... 11

2.1.4 Laboratory Tests on Cold Mix Asphalt.................................................................. 14

2.1.5 Field Performances of Cold Mix ............................................................................ 18

2.2 Cold-In-place Recycling (CIR) ...................................................................................... 20

2.2.2 Mixing, Compacting, and Curing of CIR Specimens ............................................ 24

2.2.3 Selection of Optimum Emulsion Content and Water Content ............................... 26

2.2.4 Tests on Compacted Samples ................................................................................ 29

3.1 Mix Design of CMA Using Modified Proctor Test ....................................................... 34

3.1.2 Mix Design............................................................................................................. 34

3.2 Mix Design of CMA Using Superpave Gyratory Compactor ........................................ 36

3.2.2 Selection of Emulsified Asphalt ............................................................................ 37

3.2.3 Determination of Mixing Time and Coating Ability ............................................. 38

3.2.5 Determination of Required Number of Gyrations to Prepare Compacted Sample 40

3.2.6 Determination of Curing Time for Compacted CMA Samples ............................. 41

3.2.7 Determination of Optimum Emulsion Content (OEC) .......................................... 42

3.2.8 Determination of Optimum Water Content (OWC)............................................... 42

Chapter 4: Mix Design Procedure for Cold-in-place Recycling (CIR).......................................... 43

4.1.2 Mix Design............................................................................................................. 43

4.2.2 Selection of Emulsified Asphalt ............................................................................ 45

4.2.3 Determination of Mixing Time .............................................................................. 46

4.2.4 Determination of Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravities (Gmm) (AASHTO-

4.2.5 Determination of Required Number of Gyrations to Prepare Compacted Sample 47

4.2.6 Determination of Curing Time for Compacted CIR Samples ................................ 48

5.1.2 Raveling Test (ASTM D 7196) .............................................................................. 51

5.1.3 Cohesion Test (ASTM D3910 with Modification) ................................................ 52

5.2.2 Repeated Load Triaxial Test (RLT) ....................................................................... 56

Chapter 6: Test Results and Discussion ......................................................................................... 59

6.1 Cold Mix Asphalt ........................................................................................................... 59

6.1.2 Raveling Performance of CMA Mixes .................................................................. 61

6.2 Cold-in-place Recycling ................................................................................................ 62

6.3 CIR Mixes with Lime .................................................................................................... 64

7.1 Findings ......................................................................................................................... 67

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 135