Construction and Building Materials 155 (2017) 37–44

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Experimental study on the use of rejuvenators and plastomeric polymers

for improving durability of high RAP content asphalt mixtures
Alessandra Bonicelli a,⇑, Paolo Calvi b, Gilberto Martinez-Arguelles a, Luis Fuentes a, Filippo Giustozzi c
a
Universidad del Norte, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Km 5 via Puerto Colombia, Barranquilla, Colombia
b
Politecnico di Milano, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering – Transportation Infrastructures, Piazza Leonardo Da Vinci 32, Milan 20133, Italy
c
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT University), Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 376-392 Swanston St., Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s

High RAP mixes, with rejuvenator and polymer, can achieve good mechanical properties.

The optimal proportioning of additives depends on weather and binder properties.

The optimal mix selection should depend on a cost/performance analysis.

A statistical analysis of the results was conducted.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The use of RAP (Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement) in new asphalt pavements could potentially generate envi-
Received 10 March 2017 ronmental footprint reduction especially in terms of raw-material consumption. This investigation aims
Received in revised form 2 August 2017 to evaluate the effectiveness of the addition of rejuvenator and plastomeric polymer on the performance
Accepted 3 August 2017
of high RAP content (40%) asphalt mixture. Six combinations, varying proportion of rejuvenator and poly-
mer, were studied. Mechanical and long-term performance was evaluated through laboratory investiga-
tions analyzing the physical properties and rheology of the binder and measuring stiffness modulus and
Keywords:
permanent deformations (rutting) of recycled asphalt mixes.
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
Rejuvenator
Outcomes showed that a proper calibration of rejuvenation agent and polymer can enhance the overall
Plastomeric polymer durability of high RAP content mixes. Statistical analysis of results was also conducted to determine the
Creep significance of variables involved.
Recycling Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and background
The use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) material, in the
production of new asphalt pavements, leads to considerable eco-
nomic and environmental benefits by transforming waste materials
into a valuable resource. As a result, lower consumption of raw
materials and areas for storage are needed, as well as considerable
reduction of energy supplies and emissions during disposal and
landfill operations. Recently, the European Union financed several
research projects focused on the use of RAP in asphalt pavements
within the Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007–2013) [1]. The
objective of the European policy is to achieve a minimum of 50%
RAP content in asphalt pavements by 2020. In the U.S., the use of
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: abonicelli@uninorte.edu.co (A. Bonicelli), paolo1.calvi@mail.
polimi.it (P. Calvi), garguelles@uninorte.edu.co (G. Martinez-Arguelles), lfuente-
s@uninorte.edu.co (L. Fuentes), filippo.giustozzi@rmit.edu.au (F. Giustozzi).
RAP in asphalt pavements is limited to percentages between 15%
and 45% in most of States [2] even though it is possible to produce
hot-mixed recycled asphalt pavement with equal or greater quali-
tative properties than a traditional asphalt pavement [3]. The use
of rejuvenators commonly fosters an increase in the amount of
RAP that could be used, up to 100% recycled pavements [4].
High RAP content asphalt mixtures (RAP contents between 25
and 100% [4]), can present some critical aspects: (i) from logistic
point of view, planning, storage and transport of RAP material to
the working site, (ii) in bitumen properties, higher stiffness and
brittleness of the binder, (iii) in mixture characteristics, water sen-
sitivity and long term performance, and (iv) from an economical
evaluation due to the cost of the additives [5–9].
To date, asphalt production plants can only include between
30% and 50% of recycled material into asphalt mixtures without
introducing significant changes to the traditional production
equipment [7,8]; limitations are mostly related to technical prob-
lems in RAP warming and mixing time.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.08.013
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
38 A. Bonicelli et al. / Construction and Building Materials 155 (2017) 37–44
Moreover, asphalt mixtures with high RAP content need
different mix-design procedures compared to traditional asphalt
concrete. In 2000, the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) published guidelines to design asphalt mixtures
with high RAP content and adjust SuperPave mix-design proce-
dures, accordingly [10]. In fact, asphalt binder in RAP commonly
retains poor mechanical characteristics, due to aging occurred dur-
ing construction and operational phases [11].
As the influence of the aged asphalt on the properties of the
final mixture is considerable, two methods are used to obtain sim-
ilar performance for virgin asphalt; the ‘‘bumping grade” method
and the addition of rejuvenator additives [6]. In particular, the
‘‘bumping grade” technique consists in mixing the aged asphalt
with a lower PG virgin binder (i.e. one or two grades lower than
the objective designed PG) in order to achieve a mixed binder with
the desired properties. Blending charts and prediction formulas are
commonly used for selecting the appropriate virgin binder consid-
ering the viscosity values of the designed final product or the final
penetration value [2,10]. The use of rejuvenator additives, gener-
ally low-viscosity oils, allows improving the chemical composition
of the aged asphalt by increasing the maltenic fraction and provid-
ing a softening effect and an increase of ductility [2,12]. For an
appropriate use of rejuvenators in asphalt mixtures there are sev-
eral factors to be considered. Chemical compatibility is required
between the rejuvenator and the binder to guarantee that the reju-
venator will form a low-viscosity layer around the aggregate,
which is coated with oxidized RAP binder, and thus penetrate
and diffuse to soften RAP binder. Also, emissions associated with
the use of rejuvenators need to be taken into great account since
different types of rejuvenator agents will contain variable amount
of aromatic oils, which are also source of emission of a number of
volatile substances [13,14]. Rejuvenator is commonly acknowledge
for reducing the performance grade of asphalt at both high and low
temperatures [15] but the correct proportioning of this additive
and the interaction with other admixtures can turn this property
in a positive feature. In fact, stiffness reduction, due to rejuvenator
addition, provides improved workability during mixing and help to
extend fatigue life [16]. However, some concerns have been raised
about the resistance to permanent deformation after rejuvenator
addition due to the analysis of long term performance of the reju-
venated layers in different roads [17]. It has been demonstrated
that rutting issues do not always occur if the amount of rejuvena-
tor is proportioned appropriately and proper diffusion-time (time
that the rejuvenator needs to establish a stable chemical bond with
asphalt binder) is waited before re-opening to traffic [4,14,18]. In
fact, the diffusion process of rejuvenators starts by forming a thin
film around aggregates that are covered by aged binder, and grad-
ually penetrates the asphalt binder layer reducing its thickness.
When the rejuvenator is totally adsorbed by the aged binder, the
equilibrium condition is reached [19,20]. Further investigations
studied the timing of the diffusion process [21,22]. Instead, it has
been demonstrated that by increasing the mixing temperature,
the eventual addition of oils and an optimized storage time [23],
lead to an enhancement of the beneficial effect of rejuvenators.
In conclusion, general good practice for optimal diffusion of rejuve-
nators is (i) to increase mixing and compaction temperature and
(ii) to extend the storage time. The increase of mixing temperature
and storage time can produce an acceleration of early aging of the
bitumen although this procedure can better simulate mixing and
hauling time in real applications.
Combined with the use of rejuvenators, the addition of plas-
tomeric polymers (i.e. High Density Poly-Ethylene) increases the
performance of asphalt materials, particularly at high temperature;
the softening point of the binder is improved as well as resistance
to permanent deformation and moisture and fatigue damage [24].
Plant manufacturing and laying operations do not reflect any
particular inconvenient after the use of polymers in high RAP con-
tent asphalt mixtures [25].
As already mentioned, high RAP contents produce an increase in
stiffness between 25% and 60%, compared to mixtures with no RAP
[26]. Despite of the reduction of ductility, some studies proved that
mixtures with more than 40% RAP present greater fatigue resis-
tance than standard hot-mix asphalt [6,27]. Possible explanations
for this phenomenon could be the reduction of deformations due
to improved stiffness under a stress-controlled test. Other studies
affirm that the formation of a protective layer around RAP aggre-
gates help to prevent moisture damage [28]. The above could also
be used to explain why high RAP content mixtures exhibit the
same or greater moisture-damage resistance than traditional mix-
tures [6,14,21].
2. Research objectives
The current research work focused on the mechanical behavior
of high RAP content asphalt mixtures for an intermediate asphalt
binder layer. The effect of rejuvenator and plastomeric polymer
on long term performance of high RAP content asphalt mixtures
was investigated.
3. Materials and methods
All mixtures contained 40% RAP and 60% virgin materials (aggregate and virgin
binder); proportioning of rejuvenator and plastomeric polymer is described in the
following section.
3.1. Material properties
RAP was collected by milling 50 mm-thick pavement material from the surface
of the old road pavement during a renovation work of a Colombian highway located
in tropical climate. The hot climate (above 28 °C throughout the entire year),
humidity and general weather conditions of tropical regions, contributed to asphalt
oxidation. It should also be considered that hot mix asphalts (HMA) during mixing,
transportation and placing phases suffer the short term aging while long term aging
takes place during the pavement service life. As expected, after extraction and
recovery operations, conducted according to EN 12697-1 [29] and EN 12697-3
[30], RAP binder resulted much stiffer than the virgin binder which presented
60/70 penetration grade, according to EN 1426 [31]. The bitumen extracted from
RAP had a penetration value of 30 (1/10 mm). The selection of the virgin binder
60/70 was related to the Colombian National construction standards, which are
based on bitumen penetration, average annual temperature and traffic level.
After the extraction procedure, 5.6% asphalt binder content was estimated in
RAP; this could be considered quite a high bitumen content compared to typical
mix design, probably due to aggregate absorption characteristics and to the fact
that it was applied on a wearing course layer.
Sieve size distribution curves of RAP, pre-extraction and RAP ‘‘white” aggregates
(post-extraction), were compared (EN 933-1) [32] as shown in Fig. 1.
From the analysis of Fig. 1, one can observe that the filler content in RAP is
around 6%. The rejuvenator consisted of a compound of modified polyamines and
vegetal oils that aimed to provide the reconstitution of the equilibrium between
Fig. 1. RAP sieve size distribution curves before and after extraction.
 A. Bonicelli et al. / Construction and Building Materials 155 (2017) 37–44 39

performance. The maximum and minimum recommended dosages in the range

provided by the supplier were selected and compared to the control mix (without
additive addition). In this way, the effect of each additive could be studied as well as
their combined behavior. According to the producer’s recommendations, tests were
conducted after 10 ± 1 days from specimen mixing and compaction to guarantee
homogenous diffusion of rejuvenator in the mixes. Table 2 shows the experimental
matrix. Two combinations (0% rejuvenator-8% polymer and 0.4% rejuvenator-0%
polymer) were not considered in this research due to poor practical relevance.

3.3. Specimen preparation

Fig. 2. Final aggregate size distribution curve. Note: ‘‘MDC-25”refers to Colombian
standards for intermediate layers (INV E-450).
asphaltene and maltene phases in the aged binder. The rejuvenator’s density and
viscosity at 25° were 0.91 ± 0.02 g/cm3 and 60 ± 10 cP, respectively. Rejuvenator
was proportioned according to two different dosages and following supplier’s rec-
ommendations; i.e. between 0.2 and 0.4% by weight of the RAP (0.076–0.152% by
weight of the mix, respectively). Comparisons with zero-rejuvenator control mix
were also conducted. Rejuvenator was added directly to the virgin binder at
120 °C and uniformly mixed with a bitumen stirrer.
The polymer was a compound of thermoplastic polymers manufactured in
small chips of 1–4.5 mm. Polymer’s softening point was 160 °C and its melting tem-
perature was about 180 °C. Its density ranged between 0.4 and 0.6 g/cm3. Polymers
were added directly into the mixer together with hot aggregates during the mixing
phase and before the addition of the virgin binder in order to promote melting and
improve diffusion. The purpose of plastomeric polymer addition was to reduce per-
manent deformation rate by enhancing stiffness at high temperature but at the
same time, conserving similar stiffness at low temperatures. Polymer was propor-
tioned according to the supplier recommended dosages, ranging between 4 and
8% by weight of the total binder in the mix (virgin binder plus RAP binder), which
is equal to 0.2% and 0.4% by weight of the mix, respectively.
Virgin aggregates (passing at 9.5 mm) and sand (0–2 mm) were proportioned
according to the technical specification INV E-450 [33]. Mixtures were designed
for containing approximately 6% filler (below 0.075 mm) considering both the
amount contained in RAP material and sand fraction. Aggregates’ physical and
chemical requirements complied with Colombian specifications INV E-450 [33].
The final aggregate distribution curve is shown in Fig. 2.
The final sieve size distribution curve of the material was manufactured in
accordance to Colombian standard E-450 [33] by adding 40% RAP, 30% gravel
19 mm and 30% of sand as reported in Table 1.
Virgin binder 60/70 was selected after being characterized by softening point,
penetration grade and rheology; the rejuvenator was expected to counterbalance
high stiffness due to oxidation of aged RAP binder. All mixtures were designed with
5% asphalt binder content, considering both the asphalt binder from RAP and the
virgin binder as active binders. Optimum binder content was selected using the
Marshall mix-design method in agreement with Colombian’s mix-design standards.
According to this, the total amount of virgin binder to be provided, calculated by
difference with the completely re-used RAP-binder, was 2.7% of mixture total
weight; thus saving 46% of virgin binder consumption.
3.2. Experimental plan
Mixing was conducted with a standard asphalt laboratory mixer for six minutes
to achieve a uniform spread of the additives. RAP and aggregates were pre-heated at
135 °C and 180 °C, respectively, before batch-mixing.
The rejuvenator was mixed with the bitumen through an overhead stirrer for
30 s at 135 °C and rotational speed of 200 rpm.
The mixing process started with only virgin aggregates and polymer chips in the
mixer, RAP was then added and finally the virgin binder and rejuvenator were
included. The ‘‘dry-method” of mixing polymers with aggregates before the addi-
tion of the other components of the mixture was applied because polymer melting
point was about 180 °C and it was not possible to mix it with the wet method with-
out incurring into excessive aging of the bitumen.
The final mixing temperature was about 160 °C. The mixture was then main-
tained for 2 h in oven and samples were compacted at 150 °C according to EN
12697-31 [34].
3.4. Test standards and procedures
In the present research various volumetric and mechanical properties of the
material were studied.
The studied volumetric properties of the mixtures were: theoretical maximum
specific gravity (GMM) ASTM D2041 [35] using the ‘‘Rice machine”, bulk specific
gravity (Gsb) AASHTO T 166 [36], void content, and aggregate voids (VMA and
VFB) according to EN 12697-8 [37].
Strength and durability were evaluated in terms of indirect tensile strength,
stiffness modulus, and resistance to permanent deformations and fatigue.
In particular, stiffness modulus was measured using the indirect tensile strength
configuration (ITSM) according to EN 12697-26 [38]. Tests were conducted at three
different temperatures (0 °C, 20 °C and 40 °C) and four loading frequencies (0.5, 1, 2,
4 Hz). Based on experimental data, master curves were constructed at the reference
temperature of 20 °C. Unconfined dynamic creep tests were also conducted to eval-
uate the susceptibility to permanent deformation according to EN 12697-25 [39]. A
cyclic uniaxial load of 1000 kPa was applied to specimens at 50 °C. The magnitude of
the load was preliminary defined as to clearly identify the transition point (flow
number) between the secondary and tertiary stage of development of permanent
deformation by the end of the test (3600 loading cycles).
4. Results and discussion
The experimental research had the objective to find a relation-
ship between additive proportioning and recycled asphalt mixture
performance.
In this section, results of volumetric and mechanical character-
ization of the material are presented.
4.1. Volumetric properties

The same aggregate size distribution curve, RAP content (40%) and asphalt bin-
The following volumetric properties of the mixes were
der content (5%, as a combination of rejuvenated and neat binder) were used for all measured during the experimental phase: theoretical maximum
mixes. Different additive proportioning was used to evaluate its effect on the mix specific gravity, bulk specific gravity, void content, voids in the

Table 1
Aggregate proportioning and sieve size distribution compared to INVIAS specifications [33].

RAP Gravel ¾ Sand DESIGN MIX MDC-25

40% 30% 30% 100%
ASTM mm – – – – –
100 25 100% 100% 100% 100% 100–100
3/400 19 100% 100% 100% 100% 80–100
1/200 12.5 95% 45% 100% 82% 67–85
3/800 9.5 87% 18% 99% 70% 60–77
n4 4.75 69% 1% 75% 50% 43–59
n 10 2 51% 1% 49% 35% 29–45
n 40 0.425 24% 1% 26% 18% 14–25
n 80 0.18 11% 1% 17% 10% 8–17
n 200 0.075 5% 0% 12% 6% 4–8
40 A. Bonicelli et al. / Construction and Building Materials 155 (2017) 37–44

Table 2 and four loading frequencies were considered. Three specimens of

Investigation matrix. each mixture were tested on two perpendicular diameters, at each
Tested Additives combinations Polymer proportioning test condition. Results, including the standard deviation, are shown
0% 5% 8% in Table 4.
It should be noticed that typical stiffness modulus for Colom-
Rejuvenator proportioning 0% 0R_0P 0R_5P –
0.2% 0.2R_0P 0.2R_5P 0.2R_8P
bian intermediate asphalt layers with similar polymer content
0.4% – 0.4R_5P 0.4R_8P are roughly around 6500 MPa at 20 °C and 2 Hz for mixes with
100% virgin aggregates [40]. Results in Table 4 allow identifying
Note. ID ‘‘R” and ‘‘P” are referred to rejuvenator and plastomeric polymer,
respectively.
the stiffening effect when high RAP content is included and the
interaction of both rejuvenator and polymers content.
Stiffness experimental data were depicted as master curves
according to time-temperature superposition principles [41]. Mas-
mineral aggregate (VMA) and voids filled with binder (VFB). Table 3
ter curves were built according to Hirsch-Bonaquist sinusoidal
shows the volumetric characteristics of the above mentioned
model [42] that showed a good fit to the experimental data. Master
mixes.
curves are presented in Fig. 3 for a reference temperature of 20 °C.
The resulting values of Gmm and Gsb were not affected by the
As expected, mixes containing high RAP proportions generally
presence of polymer, characterized by a lower density, because of
present higher stiffness values at all temperatures [2,41] compared
the small amount on the total mix.
to traditional mixtures. However, the main purpose was to
A constant 6% void content target was achieved that complied
evaluate the differential effect of the rejuvenator and plastomeric
with Colombian acceptability requirements (INV E-450) [33] for
polymer addition (and their combinations) into the recycled mixes.
intermediate pavement layers.
By the observation of mixtures characterized by the same
polymer content, at high temperature, higher rejuvenator dosages
4.2. Stiffness produced considerable stiffness reductions when less amount of
polymer was proportioned. At low temperatures, instead, the
Stiffness modulus was measured at 0 °C, 20 °C and 40 °C, accord- reduction of stiffness due to rejuvenator was found to be indepen-
ing to test conditions described in the standard EN 12697-26 [38] dent from polymer dosage. The use of polymer at high temperature

Table 3
Volumetric properties of the mixtures.

Mix Gmm [kg/m3] Gsb [kg/m3] Air Voids [%] VFA [%] VFB [%]
0.2R_5P 2437 2292 5.9 16.9 64.8
0.2R_8P 2439 2296 5.9 16.8 65.1
0.2R_0P 2430 2287 5.9 16.8 65.0
0.4R_5P 2427 2290 5.6 16.6 66.0
0.4R_8P 2443 2295 6.1 17.0 64.3
0R_5P 2436 2295 5.8 16.7 65.5
0R_0P 2454 2297 6.4 17.4 63.2
Norma INVIAS – – 4–8% >15% 65–75

Table 4
Stiffness modulus registered for mixtures at different temperatures: (a) 0 °C, (b) 20 °C and (c) 40 °C.

Stiffness Modulus at 0 °C [MPa]

4 Hz St.Dv. 2 Hz St.Dv. 1 Hz St.Dv. 0,5 Hz St.Dv.
0R_0P 21,730 524 20,489 335 19,369 297 18,423 164
0R_5P 22,708 668 21,554 601 20,346 577 19,304 575
0.2R_0P 19,256 694 18,027 688 16,852 665 15,844 698
0.2R_5P 19,149 36 18,172 401 16,900 470 15,961 214
0.2R_8P 20,316 522 18,659 684 17,342 555 16,284 585
0.4R_5P 16,983 709 16,235 753 14,674 416 13,698 330
0.4R_8P 16,830 538 16,034 304 15,103 234 14,329 338
Stiffness Modulus at 20 °C [MPa]
0R_0P 9383 172 8130 68 7085 78 6240 125
0R_5P 9850 216 8563 184 7426 126 6668 166
0.2R_0P 7506 761 6378 741 5459 714 4727 628
0.2R_5P 8907 203 7814 107 6848 120 6121 158
0.2R_8P 9254 532 8091 413 7060 377 6241 336
0.4R_5P 7281 112 6306 133 5384 129 4604 30
0.4R_8P 7766 451 6742 348 5912 318 5238 321
Stiffness Modulus at 40 °C [MPa]
0R_0P 2348 177 1928 170 1517 153 1231 167
0R_5P 2640 136 2174 120 1740 118 1468 124
0.2R_0P 1595 90 1292 79 1007 65 800 41
0.2R_5P 2316 68 1860 50 1500 49 1220 33
0.2R_8P 2310 151 1845 96 1482 87 1224 73
0.4R_5P 1725 10 1392 15 1116 20 913 8
0.4R_8P 2255 316 1877 292 1518 276 1250 224
 A. Bonicelli et al. / Construction and Building Materials 155 (2017) 37–44
Fig. 3. Master curves at Tref 20 °C.
led to an increase in stiffness thus demonstrating their effective-
ness in contrasting the excessive softening provided by the rejuve-
nator. The control mix with no additives exhibited excessive
stiffness at low temperature while mixtures with rejuvenator only
showed a noticeable lack of stiffness at high temperature. Accord-
ing to the stiffness analysis, the mixture that showed the correct
proportioning of rejuvenator and polymer had 0.2% rejuvenator
and 5% polymer content. In fact, it provided a superior performance
reducing stiffness at higher frequencies and lower temperatures
and, at same time, increased stiffness at low frequencies and higher
temperatures. In particular, a correct use of additives allowed
reducing stiffness at low temperature and high loading frequen-
cies, and, at same time, increasing stiffness at high temperature
and low loading frequencies.
Tables 5 and 6 highlight the single effect of adding rejuvenator
and polymer on the stiffness of the mixes, respectively.
In Table 5, the variation in stiffness produced by the addition of
different polymer contents was analyzed for constant levels of
rejuvenator.
As shown, the effect of polymer was not significant at low tem-
peratures (i.e. 0 °C); in fact, less than 6% variation in stiffness was
recorded. This result was somehow expected considering that, at
low temperatures, asphalt mixes behave as a solid. At intermediate
temperatures (i.e. 20 °C), the effect of the polymer was significant
and stiffness was increased up to 32% with respect to the control
mix with no polymer addition. It was also observed that polymer
addition was more effective at low frequencies, when the stiffness
of traditional asphalt mixes is usually smaller.
The effect on the addition of the same amount of polymer (i.e.
from 5% to 8%) was much more evident when a higher content of
rejuvenator was included into the mixes (i.e. from 0.2% to 0.4%),
as clearly identified by the last two rows in Table 5.
At a high temperature (i.e. 40 °C), plastomeric polymer addition
confirmed its strengthening behavior and led up to a 53% increment
in stiffness. However, for a constant content of rejuvenator (i.e.
0.2%), the addition of 5% polymer or 8% polymer provided similar
results, thus suggesting optimal polymer content was around 5%.
In other words, a significant increase in stiffness due to polymer
addition was registered at the common critical conditions for
asphalt, as viscoelastic material; namely, high temperatures and
low frequency of load. For these reasons, plastomeric polymer
proved to be efficient to prevent permanent deformations, which
are usually produced at high temperatures and slow moving loads.
41
According to the observed results, the addition of polymer pro-
duced more significant effects in increasing the stiffness at inter-
mediate values of rejuvenator. When no rejuvenator was added
in the mix, the mixture was already stiff and the stiffening effect
of polymer was less relevant; on the other hand, when greater
amount of rejuvenator was included, the addition of polymer led
to an increase of stiffness that was less significant but still appre-
ciable, probably due to the prevalent effect of the rejuvenator.
One of the main goals of rejuvenator addition was to restore
the maltenic fraction of the oxidized asphalt binder and cope with
the excessive high-RAP mixes’ brittleness at low temperatures.
Results showed that the rejuvenator affected positively the mix-
ture behavior at a low temperature (i.e. 0 °C), registering signifi-
cant reductions in stiffness for higher rejuvenator contents
(Table 6).
A possible drawback, however, is the stiffness reduction at
intermediate and high temperatures; an excessive reduction (up
to 54%) was observed when polymer was not included into the
mix; this to possibly produce susceptibility to permanent deforma-
tions. However, when at least 5% of polymer was added to the mix,
stiffness reduction due to rejuvenator sensibly decreased; showing
a better behavior of the material at higher temperature. High tem-
perature stiffness increased because of the high polymer content,
despite of the presence of the rejuvenator. As expected, the content
of rejuvenator allowed softening the material at lower
temperatures.
A high amount of polymer (i.e. 8%) was needed to balance the
softening effect of the rejuvenator and even provide a slight
increase in stiffness at high temperatures.
4.3. ANOVA and linear model
A linear model was used to interpolate the analytical results of
the stiffness modulus and predict the values of modulus with vari-
able amount of rejuvenator and polymer. The ANOVA test was con-
ducted to study the statistical significance of the parameters
involved in the model. For each of the seven mixtures, six modulus
measurements were collected for twelve frequency-temperature
combinations with a total amount of 504 registered data.
The goal of the statistical analysis was to create a suitable
model for pavement-material design that allows knowing stiffness
modulus value depending on additive proportioning.
42 A. Bonicelli et al. / Construction and Building Materials 155 (2017) 37–44

Table 5
Variation of stiffness depending on polymer contents for fixed values of rejuvenator.

Note. Higher color intensities underline greater stiffness increments.

Table 6
Variation of stiffness depending on rejuvenator contents for fixed values of polymer.

The validity interval of the model was defined to include three
polymer contents (between 0% and 8%) and three rejuvenator
dosages (between 0% and 0.4%).
For each temperature/frequency combination, a linear model
was created with the following formula (1):
M r ðf ; TÞ ¼ b0 þ b1  REJ þ b2  POL
where:
b0 , b1 , b2 ðf ; TÞ = parameters of the model
REJ; POL = variables of the model; quantities of rejuvenator and
polymer, respectively.
The statistical analysis allowed to determine the statistical rel-
evance of each parameter (using the p-value) and to define the sig-
nificance of the model in terms of the Coefficient of Determination
(R2). In fact, R2 was used to evaluate variability of the data. Such
variability was significantly higher at higher temperatures (R2
ranging from 0.59 to 0.68 at 40 °C). Results showed high signifi-
cance of the three parameters of the model, as reported in Table 7.
The significance of b0 , b1 , b2 parameters was evaluated using the
p-value; a p-value lower than 0.05 would imply that the effect of
that specific parameter was statistically significant for a 95% confi-
dence level.
As expected, parameter b1 resulted with a negative sign from
the analysis output. Indeed, this parameter defined the relation-
ship between rejuvenator content and stiffness. With the observa-
tion of R2, the model showed an accuracy of 90% at low
ð1Þ temperatures and precision decreased at intermediate (80% of
accuracy) and high temperatures.
4.4. Permanent deformation
Permanent deformation resistance was evaluated at 50 °C with
dynamic creep test under unconfined conditions [39]. Three spec-
imens for each mixture were tested. The deformation curves
against the uniaxial loading cycles of 1000 kPa are plotted in
Fig. 4. The test terminated after 3600 loading cycles.
As shown in Fig. 4, the average rutting potential of the mixtures
containing plastomeric polymer, even in the presence of rejuvena-
tor, was dramatically reduced compared to the control mix; flow
number was increased and the inflection point was moved towards
the right end side of Fig. 4. It can be observed that, for this load and
 A. Bonicelli et al. / Construction and Building Materials 155 (2017) 37–44 43

Table 7
Parameters of the statistical linear regression.

T [°C] FREQ [Hz] b0 p-value b1 p-value b2 p-value R2

0 4 21,929.1 2.00E16 14,494 2.16E10 121.28 0.0459 0.9101

2 20,658.8 2.00E16 13,193.1 6.39E10 97.69 0.0929 0.8998
1 19,466.4 2.00E16 13,431 4.51E11 100.81 0.0485 0.9254
0.5 18,446.3 2.00E16 13,121.9 4.54E11 99.65 0.0463 0.9253
20 4 9159.08 2.00E16 7090.74 6.26E08 185.87 0.000191 0.8113
2 7904.6 2.00E16 6363.9 7.30E08 180.7 9.16E05 0.8092
1 6845.23 2.00E16 5716.15 2.02E07 169.7 0.000121 0.7876
0.5 6042.73 2.00E16 5541.57 1.10E07 170.95 0.00005 0.8026
40 4 2193.54 8.66E15 2200.54 1.95E05 94.05 9.95E05 0.6839
2 1789.19 6.30E14 1804.86 6.80E05 76.44 3.33E04 0.6336
1 1407.34 4.85E13 1436.34 2.11E04 65.8 4.39E04 0.5975
0.5 1146.85 1.46E12 1267.1 1.82E04 59.75 2.87E04 0.6107

Fig. 4. Cumulative creep curves of high RAP content mixes, 1000 kPa cyclic uniaxial load at 50 °C.

The lowest Flow Number was identified in the mix that used
only the rejuvenator (no polymer), which exhibited a steep transi-
tion (passage from secondary linear phase to tertiary phase of rut-
ting development) after almost 800 cycles. As a general trend, the
higher the polymer content, the higher the resistance to perma-
nent deformation. In fact, 0.2R_8P (0.2% rejuvenator and 8% plas-
tomeric polymer) and 0.4R_8P (0.4% rejuvenator and 8%
plastomeric polymer) showed higher flow numbers, on average,
compared to the same mixes with 5% polymer.
It should be further noted that for a constant amount of
polymer (either 5% or 8%), there was very small change in the flow
number between mixes with different amount of rejuvenator
(i.e. 0%, 0.2% and 0.4%); thus, the use of polymer can be effective
in counterbalancing the negative effect of rejuvenator on resis-
tance to permanent deformation.

Fig. 5. Average flow numbers [FN] calculated for all mixtures.

5. Conclusions

The experimental analysis, conducted to determine the effect of

temperature, there are slight differences between mixtures con-
taining additive in various proportions with curves often
overlapping.
In addition, mixes that did not contain polymer showed the
lowest resistance to permanent deformations; in particular, the
mix containing rejuvenator only resulted, by far, to be the weakest.
In Fig. 5, the flow number values are graphically represented for
all tested mixtures. The results proportioned in Fig. 5 are the aver-
age values of the flow numbers calculated for all the specimens of
each mixture; this result is different from the flow number that can
be calculated from the cumulative curve presented in Fig. 4.
different additives in the mechanical properties and durability of
pavement material with high RAP content, led to the following
conclusions.
1. Selected additives and mixing procedure allowed to produce
and compact pavement material containing high RAP content,
which complied with the volumetric requirements of an inter-
mediate asphalt layer.
2. The correct proportioning of the rejuvenator and plastomeric
polymer allowed achieving satisfactory mechanical perfor-
mance. After a comprehensive analysis of the results deriving
44 A. Bonicelli et al. / Construction and Building Materials 155 (2017) 37–44
from the laboratory investigation, the mixtures that presented
the best results in terms of stiffness and resistance to perma-
nent deformations were the 0.2R_8P and 0.2R_5.P. The first
one, that contained 8% polymer presented similar resistance
to permanent deformation compared to the one containing 5%
polymer. Various dosages of polymer have to be selected and
evaluated taking into consideration multiple aspects, including
fatigue behavior and cost/benefit evaluation.
3. Stiffness was considerably influenced by additive proportion-
ing. At low temperature, the use of rejuvenator allowed to
appropriately soften the material (stiffness reduction of 15%),
possibly avoiding thermal cracking and brittleness. At high tem-
perature, the use of plastomeric polymers increased stiffness up
to +50%, which could help prevent permanent deformations.
4. A mathematical model associating additive proportion and stiff-
ness was found for the studied interval of dosage of the addi-
tives. This model is valid for the mixtures, materials and
stiffness test configuration used in this paper.
5. The use of plastomeric polymer contributed to balance the soft-
ening effect of rejuvenator and guaranteed a consistent increase
in permanent deformation resistance with polymer dosages.
References
[1] http://www.transport-research.info/project/re-road-end-life-strategies-
asphalt-pavements. Last accessed 15 January 2017.
[2] A.W. Ali, Y.A. Mehta, A. Nolan, T. Bennert, Investigation of impact of aging and
amount of reclaimed asphalt pavement on effectiveness of rejuvenators,
Constr. Build. Mater. 110 (2016) 211–217.
[3] R. Izaks, V. Haritonovs, I. Klasa, M. Zaumanis, Hot mix asphalt with high RAP
content, Procedia Eng. 114 (2015) 676–684.
[4] H.M.R.D. Silva, J.R.M. Oliveira, C.M.G. Jesus, Are totally recycled hot mix
asphalts a sustainable alternative for road paving?, Resour Conserv. Recycl. 60
(2012) 38–48.
[5] A. Copeland, Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in Asphalt Mixtures: State of the
Practice. Report No. FHWA-HRT-11-021, FHWA, McLean, Virginia, 2011.
[6] I.L. Al-Qadi, L. Imad, Q. Aurangzeb, S.H. Carpenter, J. Pine William, & J.
Trepanier, Impact of High RAP Content on Structural and Performance
Properties of Asphalt Mixtures.Technical Report. Illinois Center for
Transportation No. 12-002 (2012).
[7] R. Bonaquist, Can I run more RAP?, HMAT: Hot Mix Asphalt Technol 12 (5)
(2007) 11–13.
[8] C. Van Winkle, H. Lee, R.C. Williams, S. Schram, Laboratory and field evaluation
of HMA with high content of recycled asphalt pavement, in: Transportation
Research Board 94th Annual Meeting (No. 15-5175), 2015.
[9] M. Zaumanis, R.B. Mallick, Review of very high-content reclaimed asphalt use
in plant-produced pavements: state of the art, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 16 (1)
(2015) 39–55.
[10] R.S. McDaniel, H. Soleymani, R.M. Anderson, P. Turner, R. Peterson,
Recommended use of reclaimed asphalt pavement in the Superpave mix
design method. NCHRP Web document, 30, 2000.
[11] G.R. Kemp, N.H. Predoehl, A comparison of field and laboratory environments
on asphalt durability, in: Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists
Proceedings, vol. 50, 1981. pp. 492–537.
[12] N.H. Tran, A. Taylor, R. Willis, Effect of Rejuvenator on Performance Properties
of HMA Mixtures with High RAP and RAS Contents, Publication Report No.
NCAT 12-05, National Center for Asphalt Technology, Alabama, 2012.
[13] J.A. Epps, D.N. Little, R.J. Holmgreen, R.L. Terrel, Guidelines for Recycling
Pavement Materials. NCHRP Report, 224, 1980.
[14] R. Karlsson, U. Isacsson, Material-related aspects of asphalt recycling-state-of-
the-art, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 18 (February) (2006) 81–92.
[15] J. Shen, B. Huang, Y. Hachiya, Validation of performance-based method for
determining rejuvenator content in HMA, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 5 (2) (2004)
103–109.
[16] H. Lehtimäki, M.S. Tech, Rejuvenating RAP with light oil products and a new
mixing method for hot in-plant recycling. Via Nordica, Congress Reykjavik
(2012) 1(8).
[17] J. Potter, J. Mercer, Full-scale performance trials and accelerated testing of hot-
mix recycling in the UK, in: Eighth International Conference on Asphalt
Pavements – ISAP, 1997. pp. 593–607.
[18] F. Giustozzi, M. Crispino, E. Toraldo, E. Mariani, Mix design of polymer-
modified and fiber-reinforced warm-mix asphalts with high amount of
reclaimed asphalt pavement: achieving sustainable and high-performing
pavements, Transp. Res. Rec. (2523) (2015) 3–10, http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/
2523-01.
[19] S.H. Carpenter, J. Wolosick, Modifier influence in the characterization of hot-
mix recycled material, Transp. Res. Rec. (777) (1980) 15–22.
[20] M. Zaumanis, R.B. Mallick, R. Frank, Use of rejuvenators for production of
sustainable high content RAP hot mix asphalt,in: XXVIII International Baltic
Road Conference, 2013, pp.1–10.
[21] N. Tran, A. Taylor, R. Willis, Effect of rejuvenator on performance properties of
HMA mixtures with high RAP AND RAS Contents, NCAT Report 12–05, 2012.
[22] T.-C. Lee, R.L. Terrel, J.P. Mahoney, Test for efficiency of mixing of recycled
asphalt paving mixtures, Tansp. Res. Rec. 911 (1983) 51–60.
[23] D. Kuang, Z. Feng, J. Yu, X. Chen, B. Zhou, A new approach for evaluating
rejuvenator diffusing into aged bitumen, J. Wuhan Univ. Technol. Mater. Sci.
Ed. 26 (1) (2011) 43–46.
[24] L.P.F. Abreu, J.R.M. Oliveira, H.M.R.D. Silva, P.V. Fonseca, Recycled asphalt
mixtures produced with high percentage of different waste materials, Constr.
Build. Mater. 84 (2015) 230–238.
[25] E. Community & S.F. Programme, Re-Road – Summary Report, 2013.
[26] R. West, J.R. Willis, M. Marasteanu, Improved Mix Design, Evaluation, and
Materials Management Practices for Hot Mix Asphalt with High Reclaimed
Asphalt Pavement Content (NCHRP Report 752), 2013.
[27] B. Huang, W.R. Kingery, Z. Zhang, Laboratory study of fatigue characteristics of
HMA mixtures containing RAP, in: International Symposium on Design and
Construction of Long Lasting Asphalt Pavements, Auburn, Alabama, USA, 2004,
pp. 501–522.
[28] J. Shen, S. Amirkhanian, J.A. Miller, Effects of rejuvenating agents on superpave
mixtures containing reclaimed asphalt pavement, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (2007)
376–384.
[29] European Standard EN 12697-1, Bituminous Mixtures: Test Methods for Hot
Mix Asphalt. Part 1: Soluble Binder Content, 2012.
[30] European Standard EN 12697-3, Bituminous Mixtures – Test Methods for Hot
Mix Asphalt - Part 3: Bitumen Recovery: Rotary Evaporator, 2005.
[31] European Standard EN 1426, Bitumen and Bituminous Binders: Determination
of the Needle Penetration, 2015.
[32] European Standard EN 933-1, Tests for Geometrical Properties of Aggregates –
Part 1: Determination of Particle Size Distribution – Sieving Method, 2012.
[33] Instituto Nacional de Vías Especificaciones Generales de Construcción de
Carreteras INV E-450.
[34] European Standard EN 12697-31, Bituminous Mixtures. Test Methods for Hot
Mix Asphalt. Specimen Preparation by Gyratory Compactor, 2007.
[35] ASTM International ASTM D 2041, Standard Test Method for Theoretical
Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures, 2011.
[36] American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AASHTO T
166, Bulk Specific Gravity of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures Using Saturated
Surface-Dry Specimens, 2016.
[37] European Standard EN 12697-8, Bituminous Mixtures. Test Methods for Hot
Mix Asphalt. Determination of Void Characteristics of Bituminous Specimens,
2003.
[38] European Standard EN 12697-26, Bituminous Mixtures. Test Methods for Hot
Mix Asphalt. Stiffness, 2012.
[39] European Standard EN 12697-25, Bituminous Mixtures. Test Methods for Hot
Mix Asphalt. Cyclic Compression Test, 2016.
[40] J. Preciado, G. Martinez-Arguelles, M. Dugarte, A. Bonicelli, J. Cantero, D. Vega,
Y. Barros, Improving mechanical properties of hot mix asphalt using fibers and
polymers in developing countries, in: World Multidisciplinary Civil
Engineering – Architecture – Urban Planning Symposium. Prague, 2017. To
be published in Procedia Journal.
[41] P.C. Boriack, S.W. Katicha, G.W. Flintsch, C.R. Tomlinson, Laboratory Evaluation
of Asphalt Concrete Mixtures Containing High Contents of Reclaimed Asphalt
Pavement (RAP) and Binder (No. FHWA/VCTIR 15-R8), Virginia Center for
Transportation Innovation and Research, 2014.
[42] D.W. Christensen, T.K. Pellinen, R.F. Bonaquist, Hirsch model for estimating the
modulus of asphalt concrete, J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 72 (2003). 97
12.