Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

The effect of mix design method on performance of asphalt

mixtures containing reclaimed asphalt pavement and recycling
agents: Superpave versus balanced mix design
Hassan Ziari a, *, Mojtaba Hajiloo b
a
School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran 13114-16846, Iran
b
School of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran 13114-16846, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The balanced mix design (BMD) is an alternative method to determine the Optimum Binder
Balanced mix design (BMD) Content (OBC) of asphalt mixtures that considers both volumetric and performance properties.
Superpave mix design (SMD) However, the feasibility of using this method for designing asphalt mixtures with high reclaimed
Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), Recycling
asphalt pavement (RAP) materials (e.g., 25% and 50%) without and with different types of
agents (RAs)
recycling agents (RAs) needs to be further investigated. To this end, the OBC of asphalt mixtures
was first determined through Superpave Mix Design (SMD) by considering volumetric properties.
Then mixtures using OBC and OBC ± 0.6% were prepared. Three mechanical tests, including
Hamburg Wheel Tracking (HWT), Illinois Flexibility Index (I-FIT), and Indirect Tensile Strength
(ITS) in dry and wet conditions, were utilized for high-temperature rutting, mid-temperature
cracking, and moisture damage resistance characterization, respectively. The results showed
that the RAP-blended mixtures with and without RAs prepared with the OBCs could pass rutting
and moisture damage resistance criteria while the cracking resistance of these mixtures was lower
than the accepted threshold, except control mixture (i.e., C). Although introducing the RAs to the
RAP blended mixtures improved their cracking resistance, an increase in OBC is still needed in
RAP mixtures in order to meet the cracking resistance requirement. It was concluded that the
SMD might not be an appropriate method for designing the mixtures containing high-RAP ma-
terials with and without RAs and these mixtures need to be designed using the BMD method.
Among the three RAs evaluated in this study, the aromatic extract RA had the most influence on
the rutting performance regardless of the RAP content, while mixtures treated by the aromatic
extract RA showed the best cracking resistance.

1. Introduction

Given the increasing volume of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) materials and its economic and environmental advantages,
using the RAP has remarkably increased over recent years [1–4]. A high-RAP mixture is defined as mixtures containing more than 25%
RAP [5,6], and 50% RAP is usually recommended as the highest percentage of RAP for use in asphalt mixtures [7,8]. The high per-
centage of RAP can significantly decrease the cracking resistance of the asphalt mixtures due to the high amount of aged binder of RAP
[9–12]. There are some ways to address this concern, including Separately storing and using the RAP [13], Increasing preheating

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: h.ziari@iust.ac.ir (H. Ziari), m_hajiloo@civileng.iust.ac.ir (M. Hajiloo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e01931
Received 25 November 2022; Received in revised form 8 January 2023; Accepted 13 February 2023
Available online 16 February 2023
2214-5095/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
H. Ziari and M. Hajiloo Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

temperature of RAP and mixing time [14], and using Recycling Agents (RAs) or softer binders. In a study, it was shown that the use of
RA is more suitable than the use of a softer binder, especially when high percentages of RAP are used [15]. Recycling Agents (RAs) are
introduced and used to soften the aged RAP binder and consequently improve the mechanical properties of RAP-blended asphalt
mixtures [16–20]. However, selecting a proper mix design method and its requirements for these types of mixtures are vital to produce
durable mixtures.
Currently, the Optimum Binder Content (OBC) of RAP-blended asphalt mixtures with and without RAs is usually designated ac-
cording to the Superpave Mix Design (SMD) method and volumetric properties of the asphalt mixtures [21–23]. However, the accuracy
of the SMD method is questionable as it is highly dependent on the specific gravity of aggregates and mixtures, and with the incor-
poration of RAP, this concern is intensified [24]. However, the use of various additives, such as RAP and rejuvenators, questions the
effectiveness of the design method based on volumetric parameters in the SMD method [25]. In other words, it can be said that the SMD
method cannot guarantee the proper performance of the RAP-blended asphalt mixture. Therefore, the balanced mix design (BMD) can
be considered as an alternative method for determining the OBC of asphalt mixtures containing RAP and foreign additives.
The BMD method is defined as “asphalt mixture design using performance tests on appropriately conditioned specimens that address
multiple modes of distress taking into consideration mixture aging, traffic, climate, and location within the pavement structure [26].” This
method considers volumetric parameters as an initial criterion and the rutting and cracking performances of the asphalt mixture as the
ultimate criterion for determining the appropriate range for the OBC [27]. Previous studies on the BMD method have shown that this
method is applicable to hot and cold mix asphalt [12,28,29] and determines the OBC more accurately than the SMD method [30,31].
Some researchers have employed the BMD method for designing the RAP mixtures [32–35]. It has been reported that the BMD
method can be used for determining the OBC of asphalt mixtures containing different RAP contents [32–35]. For instance, Meroni et al.
[32]. Determined the OBC of asphalt mixtures with 30% and 45% RAP using the BMD and SMD methods. Several mixtures with
different asphalt binder contents (i.e., 5.5%, 6%, 6.5%, and 7%) were prepared regardless of their volumetric properties, and the OBC
of mixtures were determined based on their cracking and rutting resistance. Although the obtained OBC from the SMD was lower than
BMD, the RAP-blended asphalt mixture prepared using SMD could not perform satisfactorily at low and high temperatures [32].
Although recent studies have efforted to fill the knowledge gap in designing durable and stable RAP-blended asphalt mixtures with
and without RAs, a few studies compared the effect of different mix design methods (i.e., SMD and the BMD) on the performance of
these mixtures. Therefore, it is believed that more experimental data are still needed for better designing these complex mixtures,
especially with and without different types of RAs, in order to engineer recycling practices more effectively.

2. Objectives

The three main objectives of this study are as follows:

1. Determine the OBC of different asphalt mixtures containing 25% and 50% of RAP contents with and without different RAs,
including vegetable, paraffinic, and aromatic extract oils, for each mixture through SMD and BMD methods.
2. Evaluate the mechanical performance of asphalt mixtures, including moisture damage, rutting, and cracking resistance of the
mixtures using Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS), Hamburg Wheel Tracking (HWT), and Illinois Flexibility Index (I-FIT) tests,
respectively.
3. Compare the performance of asphalt mixtures designed using SMD and BMD methods to determine which design method may
result in more durable asphalt mixtures and is suitable for designing RAP-blended asphalt mixtures with and without RAs.

3. Materials

3.1. Asphalt binder

In this study, a penetration grade of 60/70 was used as a virgin asphalt binder. The RAP asphalt binder was extracted from the RAP
materials pursuant to AASHTO T164 [36]. After that, the RAP asphalt binder was recovered from the solvent (Trichloroethylene) using
rotary evaporation)ASTM D5404 [37]( and Abson (ASTM D1856 [38]) methods. The properties of the RAP and virgin asphalt binders

Table 1
The asphalt binder properties (RAP and virgin binder).
Test Standard Results

Virgin RAP
Binder Binder

Specific gravity ASTM D70 [39] 1.03 1.04

Penetration (0.1 mm) ASTM D5 [40] 66 29
Softening point (ºC) ASTM D36 [41] 50 61
Loss of heating (%) ASTM D1754 [42] 0.75 0.75
Ductility (cm) @ 25 ºC ASTM D113 [43] > 100 34
Flash point (ºC) ASTM D92 [44] 305 280
Rotational viscosity @ 135 ºC (Pa.s) AASHTO T316 [45] 0.360 2.783

2
H. Ziari and M. Hajiloo Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

are summarized in Table 1.

3.2. Aggregates

The physical characteristics of the virgin and the RAP aggregates are presented in Table 2. The virgin and RAP aggregates used in
this study were limestone. The virgin aggregates were obtained from the local quarries, and the RAP materials were collected by
milling a 10-year-old asphalt overlay. The aggregates gradation of RAP-blended asphalt mixtures is presented in Fig. 1.

3.3. RAs

Three different RAs, including one aromatic extract, one paraffinic oil, and one vegetable oil, were used to restore the properties of
the RAP binder towards the virgin/target binder, i.e., PG 64–22. Table 3 shows the physical characteristics of used RAs.
To determine the optimum dosage of RAs, two different blends, including 25% RAP binder + 75% virgin binder and 50% RAP
binder + 50% virgin binder, were prepared at 138 ± 3 ◦ C for 10 min. Then the RAs were added to each blend at different dosages. The
dosage needed to recover the penetration (ASTM D5 [40]) and softening point (ASTM D36 [41]) of the binder blends to the point that
they meet the penetration grad (66 (0.1 mm)) and softening point (48–51 ◦ C) of virgin binder was selected as an optimum dosage.
Table 4 shows the optimum dosage of RAs for six different blends.

4. Experimental plan

The SMD was first conducted on control and eight different RAP-blended asphalt mixtures to determine the OBC. Two different
Percentages of RAP (25% and 50%) and three different RAs (vegetable, paraffinic, and aromatic extract oils) are used. Then, the BMD
was carried out by conducting the HWT and I-FIT tests on the mixtures containing three different asphalt contents: OBC and OBC
± 0.6%. The effect of the asphalt binder content on the moisture susceptibility of mixtures was also considered in the BMD method. The
flowchart of the experimental plan is illustrated in Fig. 2.

5. Mix design

5.1. SMD

In this study, nine different mixtures were designed using the SMD method according to AASHTO M323 [53] and AASHTO R35
[54]. According to AASHTO T308 [55], the RAP binder was determined 5.6% (based on the total weight of RAP). The volumetric
properties of the different mixtures are shown in Table 5. As can be seen in Table 5, using 25% and 50% of the RAP materials results in
10% and 19% increase in the OBC of the mixtures without RA, respectively. The reason is that some of the RAP asphalt binder does not
participate in the asphalt mixture, which results in an increase in the OBC. However, it can be observed that the OBC decreases where
an RA was introduced to the RAP-blended mixtures which could be related to the softening effect of the RA and consequently better
blending between RAP binder and virgin binder. Since the optimum dosage of RAs was introduced to the blends, which theoretically
results in the same asphalt binder in the blends, and considering the same aggregate source and gradation were used in all mixtures, no
significant variation in OBC with different recycling agents was observed.

5.2. BMD

The OBC based on BMD was determined per AASHTO PP 105 [26]. According to AASHTO P105 [26], there are four BMD ap-
proaches: 1) Volumetric Design with Performance Optimization, 2) Volumetric Design with Performance Verification, 3)
Performance-Modified Volumetric Mix Design, and 4) Performance Design. In this study, the Volumetric Design with a Performance
Optimization approach was selected to design the asphalt mixtures. According to AASHTO PP105 [26], the initial binder content is
determined based on the SMD method described in AASHTO-R35 [54], and at least two more binder contents with intervals of ± 0.3 to

Table 2
Physical characteristics of aggregates.
Physical Properties Standard Values (%) Specification Limit (%)

Virgin RAP
Aggregates Aggregates

Coarse aggregate specific gravity ASTM C127 [46] 2.659 2.593 -

Fine aggregate specific gravity ASTM C128 [47] 2.639 2.464 -
Los Angeles abrasion (%) ASTM C131 [48] 21.5 23.5 < 30
Water absorption (%) ASTM C128 [47] 0.7 0.8 < 2.5
Fractured particles in one face ASTM D5821 [49] 98 97 > 50
Fractured particles in two faces and more ASTM D5821 [49] 95 94 > 80
Sand equivalent AASHTO T176 [50] 72 69 > 50

3
H. Ziari and M. Hajiloo Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

Fig. 1. Aggregates gradation of RAP and combined aggregates.

Table 3
Physical characteristics of the RAs.
Property Standard RA

Vegetable Oil (V) Paraffinic Oil (P) Aromatic Extract Oil (A)

Kinematic viscosity at 100 ◦ C (cSt) ASTM D445 [51] 15.5 13 60

Flashpoint (◦ C) ASTM D92 [44] 290 250 300
Color - Clear yellow Brown Dark green
Specific gravity at 15 ◦ C ASTM D1298 [52] 0.925 0.900 0.995

Table 4
The RAs optimum dosage.
RA ID RA Type 25% Virgin binder + 75% RAP binder 50% Virgin binder + 50% RAP binder

V Vegetable oil 4.5* 5.2

A Aromatic extract oil 9.7 12.9
P Paraffinic oil 5.5 7.2
*
Unit: Percentage relative to the total binder blend

± 0.6 need to be considered for mechanical performance characterization. In this study, the binder contents were chosen with an
interval of ± 0.6%. In other words, the OBC based on BMD is defined as a binder content that satisfies the rutting, cracking, and
moisture susceptibility criteria (described in Table 6) while is in the range of SMD OBC - 0.6% and SMD OBC + 0.6%.

6. Asphalt mixture mixing and compaction

For mixing and compaction of the asphalt mixtures, the RAP materials were heated in an oven at 160 ◦ C temperature for 2 h and
then mixed with the optimum dosage of RAs (Table 4). The virgin aggregates were heated at the same temperature (i.e., 160 ◦ C) for
12 h. The hot virgin aggregates and virgin asphalt binder were added to the RAP materials modified with RAs and mixed for 4 min at
160 ◦ C as recommended by Rathore and Zaumanis [59]. The resultant mixtures were placed at the compaction temperature (135 ℃)
for 4 h to simulate the short-term aging condition according to AASHTO R30 [60]. In order to simulate the long-term aging, the
mixtures were kept at 95 ℃ in the oven for three days [61]. The mixtures were poured into cylindrical molds and compacted using a
gyratory compactor. The short-term aged mixtures were used for HWT and ITS tests, while long-term aged mixtures were utilized for
I-FIT test. The target air void in all compacted samples was 7 ± 0.5%, as described in HWT [56], I-FIT [57], and ITS [58] standard
specifications.

7. Laboratory tests

7.1. HWT test

The HWT was conducted for the high temperature performance of asphalt mixtures in the BMD. The tests were carried out at 50 ℃.
In total, 54 samples (two replicates of each mixture) were tested according to AASHTO T324 [56], and the average value of the Rut

4
H. Ziari and M. Hajiloo Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

Fig. 2. The experimental plan.

Table 5
The Superpave mix design of different mixtures.
Mixture ID Mixture Composition OBC Gmm Gmb VMA VFA D/B

C 100% Virgin aggregate 4.91 2.484 2.385 14.37 72.16 0.89

R25 75% Virgin aggregate + 25% RAP 5.42 2.438 2.340 15.35 73.94 0.80
R25V 75% Virgin aggregate + 25% RAP +V 5.29 2.437 2.340 15.27 73.80 0.81
R25P 75% Virgin aggregate + 25% RAP +P 5.33 2.437 2.340 15.30 73.86 0.80
R25A 75% Virgin aggregate + 25% RAP +A 5.35 2.438 2.340 15.29 73.83 0.81
R50 50% Virgin aggregate + 50% RAP 5.86 2.413 2.316 15.57 74.32 0.78
R50V 50% Virgin aggregate + 50% RAP +V 5.42 2.416 2.319 15.07 73.46 0.81
R50P 50% Virgin aggregate + 50% RAP +P 5.51 2.413 2.316 15.26 73.79 0.80
R50A 50% Virgin aggregate + 50% RAP +A 5.60 2.412 2.316 15.38 73.98 0.79

Gmb: Bulk specific gravity, Gmm: Theoretical maximum specific gravity, VMA: Voids in the Mineral Aggregate, D/B: Dust/Binder, VFA: Void Filled
with Asphalt Binder,
SMD thresholds: Air voids (Va)= 4%, VMA ≥ 14%, VFA= 65–75%, D/B= 0.6–1.2

Table 6
The details of the tests conducted in the BMD procedure.
Test Property Temperature (◦ C) Threshold Standard method

HWT Rutting 50 Rut Depth (RD) @ 20,000 Passes ≤ 12.5 mm AASHTO T324 [56]
SCB Cracking 25 Flexibility Index (FI) ≥ 5 AASHTO PP105 [57]
ITS Moisture Susceptibility 25 Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) ≥ 80% AASHTO T 283 [58]

Depth (RD) was reported. It should be noted that the HWT test was performed in dry conditions, and the test temperature was
controlled during the test using air heating chamber. The maximum RD of 12.5 mm at 20,000-wheel passes was used as an acceptance
criterion in the BMD method according to the literature [29,33,62,63]. The HWT test device and the image of some samples after the
test are shown in Fig. 3.

7.2. Illinois flexibility index test (I-FIT)

The I-FIT was used to investigate the cracking performance of asphalt mixtures at mid temperature. The tests were conducted at

5
H. Ziari and M. Hajiloo Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

25 ℃. In total, 108 samples (four replicates of each mixture) were tested according to AASHTO TP124 [57], and the average value of
the Flexibility Index (FI) was reported. The testing setup and the geometry of the SCB specimens are shown in Fig. 4. The FI was
calculated using Eq. (1). The minimum acceptable value of the FI parameter was selected as five according to the previous literature
[61,64,65].
Gf
FI = ∗0.01 (1)
|m|

Where Gf is the fracture energy (J/m2), and m is the slope of the post-peak load versus displacement curve at the inflection point.

7.3. ITS test

The ITS test was conducted to evaluate the moisture susceptibility of different mixtures according to AASHTO T 283 [58]. A total of
162 cylindrical specimens were prepared, and the average value of three replicates for each wet and dry set was reported. As described
in the standard method [58], three dry and three wet specimens were prepared to conduct the moisture sensitivity tests. The wet
specimens were first water-saturated (70–80% saturation) and then placed in a plastic bag in a refrigerator for 16 h at − 18 ℃. Af-
terward, the samples were kept in a 60 ℃ water bath for 24 h, followed by 25 ℃ water bath for two hours before testing. The dry
specimens were surrounded with plastic bags and were placed in a 25 ℃ water bath for two hours before testing. The images of the
freezer, water bath, and loading device are shown in Fig. 5.
The ITS and TSR parameters were calculated using Eq. (2) and Eq. (3), respectively. The minimum acceptable TSR value in this
research is 80%.
2000P
ITS = (2)
πtd

ITSwet
TSR = × 100 (3)
ITSdry

Where P is the maximum load (N), d is the specimen diameter (mm), and t is the mean thickness of the test specimen (mm).

8. Results and discussions

8.1. HWT

One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) at a 95% confidence level is used to evaluate the interactions between the RD and in-
dependent variables, including the RAP content, type of the RAs, and binder content. The ANOVA results of RD shown in Table 7 reveal
that the p-values of all independent variables are less than the α-level (i.e., 0.05), meaning that the asphalt mixtures are statistically
different in this test.
Using RAP materials in the asphalt mixtures results in an improvement in the rutting performance owing to the high stiffness of the
aged binder of RAP materials [66]. The RD of the different mixtures at 20,000 passes of the wheel is shown in Fig. 6. As can be seen, the
RD of RAP-blended mixtures is lower than the control mixture (i.e., C), regardless of the asphalt binder content. For example, at the
OBC, the RD of the R25 and R50 mixtures decreases by 44% and 60%, respectively, with respect to the C mixture. As expected, an
increase in the RAP content results in a decrease in the RD. In addition, the results indicate that the RAs soften the RAP materials since
the RD of these mixtures increases. Although the RAs have a negative effect on the rutting resistance of the RAP-blended asphalt
mixtures, the RD of modified mixtures with RAs is still lower than the C mixture. In addition, Fig. 6 shows that the effect of aromatic

Fig. 3. HWT test: (a) HWT test device, and (b) Some samples after the test.

6
H. Ziari and M. Hajiloo Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

Fig. 4. I-FIT: (a) SCB sample geometry, and (b) tests setup.

Fig. 5. ITS test: (a) Freezer, (b) Water bath, and (c) ITS test device.

extract RA is more pronounced on increasing the RD of the RAP-blended mixtures at three different binder contents evaluated in this
study, i.e., OBC-0.6, OBC, and OBC+ 0.6. Mixtures with OBC-0.6% binder content are stiffer than those containing OBC, which leads to
lower rut depth [7,67]. In other words, decreasing the binder content results in an increase in the friction between the aggregates,
subsequently, a decrease in the RD [68]. This trend has been reported by other studies [31,63,68,69].
As can be seen in Fig. 6, a 0.6% increase in the OBC of asphalt mixtures has an adverse effect on the rutting performance of the
mixtures. However, RAP mixtures with and without RAs meet the rutting criterion (i.e., RD @ 20,000 passes ≤ 12.5 mm), except the
R25A mixture with OBC+ 0.6.

7
H. Ziari and M. Hajiloo Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

Table 7
The ANOVA results of RD.
Source Type III Sum of Squares degree of freedom (df) Mean Square F-values p-values

Corrected Model 532.577 26 20.484 269.156 0.000

Intercept 3550.713 1 3550.713 46656.244 0.000
RAP 188.193 2 94.096 1236.423 0.000
RAs 78.624 3 26.208 344.372 0.000
binder content 257.198 2 128.599 1689.784 0.000
Error 2.055 27 0.076
Total 4081.461 54
Corrected Total 534.632 53

R Squared = 0.996 (Adjusted R Squared =0.992)

Fig. 6. The RD of asphalt mixtures.

8.2. Illinois flexibility index (I-FIT)

The FI of asphalt mixtures is presented in Fig. 7, and the results of one-way ANOVA of FI values are shown in Table 8. As can be
seen, the p-values of independent variables (RAP content, type of the RAs, and binder content) are less than 0.05, meaning that the FI
values of asphalt mixtures are statistically different.
The results show that the FI decreases by 27% and 59%, where 25% and 50% of the RAP materials are added to the mixtures,
respectively. The brittleness property of the aged binder of the RAP has reduced the FI [70]. The addition of RAs to the asphalt mixtures
with RAP results in a higher FI value. This could be related to the softening effect of the RAs on the RAP materials [71]. A comparison
between the RAs reveals that the aromatic extract RA has the most noticeable effect on the cracking behavior of the recycled asphalt
mixtures, followed by vegetable and paraffinic RAs. It should be noted that at the same asphalt binder content, the FI values of mixtures
containing RAP materials and modified with RAs are lower than C mixture. This performance shows that the RAs used in this study
cannot fully restore the properties of the RAP binder, which could be attributed to several factors, including good distribution of RA
and its diffusion into the RAP binder, good RAP homogeneity, and good blending of all the materials [72].

Fig. 7. FI of different mixtures.

8
H. Ziari and M. Hajiloo Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

Table 8
The ANOVA results of FI.
Source Type III Sum of Squares degree of freedom (df) Mean Square F-values p-values

Corrected Model 215.157 26 8.275 51.273 0.000

Intercept 1363.237 1 1363.237 8446.455 0.000
RAP 43.549 2 21.774 134.912 0.000
RAs 27.724 3 9.241 57.258 0.000
binder content 142.274 2 71.137 440.756 0.000
Error 8.715 54 0.161
Total 1633.041 81
Corrected Total 223.873 80

R Squared = 0.961 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.942)

It is also observed that the FI increases by increasing the asphalt binder content, which indicates that the cracking performance of
the asphalt mixtures can be improved by increasing the asphalt binder content. The results of I-FIT show that the RAP mixtures with
and without the RAs, prepared using the OBC, which are determined through the SMD method, cannot meet the FI criterion.

8.3. ITS

Similar statistical analyses to those for HWT and I-FIT are performed on ITS test results. As can be seen in Table 9, the ITS test results
of the asphalt mixtures are statistically different since the p-values of independent variables are less than 0.05. The dry and wet ITS test
results are shown in Fig. 8. The results show that the asphalt mixtures with RAP have higher both dry and wet ITS values than the C
mixture, which could be related to the higher stiffness of the aged binder of RAP.
As can be seen in Fig. 8, modifying the RAP mixtures with the RAs leads to a reduction in ITS in both dry and wet conditions, which
is due to the softening effect of the RAs. The RAP mixtures modified by aromatic extract RA exhibit the lowest dry ITS value among the
modified RAP-blended mixtures with RAs. As expected, increasing the asphalt binder content decreases both ITS values. The mixtures
with OBC-0.6% binder content are stiffer than those containing OBC, which leads to higher Pmax and, consequently, higher ITS value.
However, the mixtures with OBC-0.6% are more sensitive to moisture conditions as they have less binder content and film thickness
[73–75]. Therefore, the ITS of wet samples are higher in the mixtures with OBC+ 0.6 binder content than those with OBC-0.6.
The TSR values are shown in Fig. 9. The results show that the mixtures produced with OBC and OBC+ 0.6% satisfy the moisture
damage resistance requirement (TSR ≥ 80%). The reason is that both virgin and RAP aggregates are limestone which have less
sensitive to moisture damage. On the other hand, the TSR value of mixtures with OBC-0.6% is lower than the 80%, which could be
attributed to an insufficient coating of aggregates with the binder. Although the ITS of RAP-blended mixtures without RAs (R25 and
R50) are higher than that of with RAs and C mixtures, the TSR value of the R25 and R50 mixtures with declines by 3.5% and 5.7% with
respect to the C mixture, respectively, where OBC is used in the mixtures. These findings could be related to the cohesion failure caused
by using RAP asphalt binder, which leads to a higher moisture sensitivity [76]. Moreover, it is reported that the aged asphalt binder in
the RAP materials reduces the bonding between the RAP and the virgin aggregates [77]. Using RAP increases the stiffness of the
mixtures, and higher stiffness results in higher ITS values in both wet and dry conditions [7]. Although the magnitude of ITS is higher
in these mixtures, their TSR value is less than the control mixture, which could be related to the bonding between RAP with virgin

Table 9
The ANOVA results of: (a) Dry ITS, and (b) Wet ITS methods.
Source Type III Sum of Squares degree of freedom (df) Mean Square F-values p-values

(a) Dry ITS

Corrected Model 758465.208 26 29171.739 50.663 0.000
Intercept 33200658.155 1 33200658.155 57660.161 0.000
RAP 471956.628 2 235978.314 409.828 0.000
RAs 425832.354 3 141944.118 246.517 0.000
binder content 90470.479 2 45235.239 78.561 0.000
Error 31093.142 54 575.799
Total 44020066.461 81
Corrected Total 789558.350 80
R Squared = 0.961 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.942)
(b) Wet ITS
Corrected Model 432461.082 26 16633.119 27.512 0.000
Intercept 22207802.001 1 22207802.001 36732.254 0.000
RAP 222942.194 2 111471.097 184.376 0.000
RAs 284749.804 3 94916.601 156.994 0.000
binder content 42827.048 2 21413.524 35.418 0.000
Error 32647.637 54 604.586
Total 29049992.753 81
Corrected Total 465108.719 80

R Squared = 0.930 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.896)

9
H. Ziari and M. Hajiloo Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

Fig. 8. ITS results, (a) dry samples and (b) wet samples.

Fig. 9. TSR results.

materials [77]. The same findings are reported by other researchers in previous studies [7,78]. As a result, relying on just TSR for
moisture damage characterization can be misleading if the magnitude of ITS is not taken into account. This is why AASHTO-MP46
2020 [79] proposed thresholds for both ITS and TSR.
On the other hand, the effect of RAs is source dependent. Although all evaluated mixtures in this study could pass the TSR criterion,
the results show that the vegetable oil RA has a negative effect on the moisture damage resistance of the RAP-blended mixtures, while
paraffinic and aromatic extract RAs improve this characteristic. This inferior performance of vegetable oil RA could be related to
chemical functional groups in this oil which are susceptible to moisture [80]. The superior effect of the aromatic extract and paraffinic
oil RAs on the moisture damage resistance of asphalt mixtures has also been reported by Haghshenas et al. [81]. Fig. 9 shows that an
increase in the asphalt binder content increases the TSR value. However, the results of the mixtures with aromatic extract RA show a
slight decrease in the TSR value where OBC+ 0.6% is used.

9. Comparison between BMD and SMD

In the SMD method, the OBC is obtained based on the volumetric properties of the mixtures. However, the BMD considers the
performances of the mixtures along with the volumetric properties. In this study, the feasibility of designing RAP-blended asphalt
mixtures with and without RAs through the BMD method is evaluated, and the results are compared with the SMD method. As can be
seen in Fig. 10, the appropriate range of the asphalt binder content for the C mixture is 4.74–4.94%, which is slightly lower than the
OBC obtained from the SMD method. However, in the mixtures containing RAP with and without RAs, the OBC obtained from the BMD

10
H. Ziari and M. Hajiloo Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

method is higher than the SMD method. As shown in Fig. 10, the OBC based on BMD for the R25, R25V, R25P, R50V, R50P, and R50A
are 5.94%, 5.45%, 5.66%, 5.76%, 5.94%, and 5.73%, respectively. The RD of these mixtures is less than the acceptance threshold
(12.5 mm). Thus, the OBC can be determined just based on the cracking acceptance threshold, estimated by FI, in these mixtures.
However, the OBC of the R25A mixture is determined in the range of 5.36–5.78 based on both rutting and cracking criteria, as the RD of

Fig. 10. The BMD of the asphalt mixtures: (1) C, (2) R25, (3) R25V, (4) R25P, (5) R25A, (6) R50, (7) R50V, (8) R50P, (9) R50A mixtures.

11
H. Ziari and M. Hajiloo Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

this mixture is 13.1 mm at OBC + 0.6% (Fig. 6). The results of the R50 mixture show that the selected range of asphalt binder based on
SMD (i.e., OBC + 0.6% to OBC – 0.6%) is not sufficient for satisfying the cracking criterion, and therefore the OBC based on BMD for
this mixture is determined by extrapolation.
The results indicate that the rutting does not impose a limit on the OBC of asphalt mixtures, except C and R25A with OBC+ 0.6%, in
which the RD value is higher than 12.5 mm at 20,000-wheel passes. The TSR of all mixtures with OBC is higher than the acceptance
threshold based on AASHTO T283; 80%. Therefore, the TSR results are not included in Fig. 10 and can be excluded from the BMD
method. As a result, it can be inferred that the OBC of the RAP-blended mixtures can be determined based on the cracking criterion.
A comparison between the OBC obtained based on SMD, and BMD is presented in Table 10. The highest discrepancies between
these design methods are observed where 25% and 50% of the RAP materials are used in the mixtures. However, the discrepancies
reduce when RAs are introduced to the mixtures. It can be concluded that the RAP-blended mixtures designed according to the SMD
method may not result in durable mixtures and meet the performance requirements. Although introducing the RAs to the RAP blended
mixtures improved their cracking resistance, an increase in OBC is still needed in RAP mixtures in order to meet the cracking resistance
requirement. As a result, it is recommended that the BMD method be employed for designing the asphalt mixtures containing RAP
materials with and without RAs.

10. Conclusions

In this study, the SMD method was used for determining the OBC of asphalt mixtures containing RAP materials and three different
types of RAs. Since the SMD method did not consider the performance characteristics of asphalt mixtures for determining the OBC, the
feasibility of using the BMD method for estimating the OBC was evaluated by considering three asphalt contents: OBC (determined
based on the SMD), OBC+ 0.6%, and OBC-0.6. To examine the performance of the mixture produced using three asphalt binder
contents, rutting, cracking, and moisture damage performance of mixtures were investigated by employing HWT, I-FIT, and ITS tests.
The most important conclusions are highlighted as follows:

• The HWT and ITS test results showed that all mixtures prepared using OBC, estimated by the SMD method, could pass the rutting
(RD @ 20,000 passes ≤ 12.5 mm) and moisture susceptibility (TSR ≥ 80%) criterion while they did not meet the cracking resistance
requirement (FI ≥ 5), except control mixture (i.e., C).
• An increase in the RAP content from 25% to 50% resulted in a significant reduction in the cracking performance of the mixtures.
Although introducing the RAs to the RAP blended mixtures improved their cracking resistance, an increase in OBC is still needed in
RAP mixtures in order to meet the cracking resistance requirement.
• Among the three RAs evaluated in this study, the aromatic extract RA had the most influence on the rutting performance regardless
of the RAP content, while mixtures treated by the aromatic extract RA showed the best cracking resistance, followed by the
vegetable and paraffinic oils.
• A comparison between OBC determined based on the BMD and SMD revealed that the SMD might not be an appropriate method for
designing the mixtures containing high-RAP materials with and without RAs, and these mixtures need to be designed using the
BMD method.

Funding

This research study has no funds.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Table 10
Comparison between the OBC determined based on the SMD and the BMD methods.
Mixture Code OBC Percentage of Change in OBC

SMD BMD

C 4.91 4.74–4.94 - 3.46

R25 5.42 5.94 + 9.59
R25V 5.29 5.45 + 3.02
R25P 5.33 5.66 + 6.19
R25A 5.35 5.36–5.78 + 0.19
R50 5.86 7.16–7.56 + 22.18
R50V 5.42 5.76 + 6.27
R50P 5.51 5.94 + 7.80
R50A 5.60 5.73 + 2.32

12
H. Ziari and M. Hajiloo Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Hamzeh F. Haghshenas at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for his invaluable
assistance and technical discussions during this study.

References

[1] J. Ma, et al., Brittleness progression for short-and long-term aged asphalt binders with various levels of recycled binders, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 22 (11) (2021)
1399–1409.
[2] Y. Zhang, et al., Prediction and evaluation of rutting and moisture susceptibility in rejuvenated asphalt mixtures, in: J. Cleaner Prod., 333, 2022, 129980.
[3] Haghshenas, H., et al., Research on High-RAP Asphalt Mixtures with Rejuvenators-Phase II. 2019, Nebraska Department of Transportation Research Reports. 217:
Nebraska - Lincoln.
[4] A. Abdelaziz, et al., Study of the quantification of recycled binder activity in asphalt mixtures with RAP, Constr. Build. Mater. 309 (Nov) (2021), 125189.
[5] R. Izaks, et al., Hot mix asphalt with high RAP content, Procedia Eng. 2015 (114) (2015) 676–684.
[6] 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.
[7] Al-Qadi, I.L., et al., Impact of high RAP contents on structural and performance properties of asphalt mixtures, Report No: FHWA-ICT-12–002 2012, Illinois Center for
Transportation, Rantoul, IL.
[8] S. Saride, D. Avirneni, S.C.P. Javvadi, Utilization of reclaimed asphalt pavements in Indian low-volume roads, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28 (2) (2016) 04015107.
[9] A. Obaid, et al., Effect of RAP source on cracking resistance of asphalt mixtures with high RAP contents, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31 (10) (2019) 04019213.
[10] G. Nsengiyumva, et al., Mechanical-chemical characterization of the effects of type, dosage, and treatment methods of rejuvenators in aged bituminous
materials, Transp. Res. Rec. 2674 (3) (2020) 126–138.
[11] F. Kaseer, A.E. Martin, E. Arámbula-Mercado, Relationship between rheological indices and cracking performance of virgin, recycled, and rejuvenated asphalt
binders and mixtures, Transp. Res. Rec. 2675 (9) (2021) 93–109.
[12] Z. Zhou, et al., Rutting and fatigue cracking performance of SBS-RAP blended binders with a rejuvenator, Constr. Build. Mater. 203 (Apr) (2019) 294–303.
[13] J. Gao, et al., Reducing the variability of multi-source reclaimed asphalt pavement materials: a practice in China, Constr. Build. Mater. 278 (apr) (2021),
122389.
[14] J. Gao, et al., Migration behavior of reclaimed asphalt pavement mastic during hot mixing, J. Clean. Prod. 376 (Nov) (2022), 134123.
[15] S.K. Pradhan, U.C. Sahoo, Influence of softer binder and rejuvenator on bituminous mixtures containing reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) material, Int. J.
Transp. Sci. Technol. 11 (2020) 1.
[16] Martin, A.E., E. Arambula-Mercado, and A. Abdelaziz, Binder Availability in Recycled Materials: Review of Literature and Available Quantification Methods,Technical
Report 0–7062-R1B. 2021, TEXAS A&M TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS.
[17] F. Yin, et al., Characterising the long-term rejuvenating effectiveness of recycling agents on asphalt blends and mixtures with high RAP and RAS contents. Road
Materials and Pavement Design, 18(sup4) (2017) 273–292.
[18] H.F. Haghshenas, et al., Effect of softening additives on the moisture susceptibility of recycled bituminous materials using chemical-mechanical-imaging
methods, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (9) (2018) 04018207.
[19] A. Bajaj, et al., Evaluation and classification of recycling agents for asphalt binders, Constr. Build. Mater. 260 (Nov) (2020), 119864.
[20] H.F. Haghshenas, et al., Evaluation of long-term effects of rejuvenation on reclaimed binder properties based on chemical-rheological tests and analyses, Mater.
Struct. 51 (5) (2018) 1–13.
[21] S. Yu, et al., Effect of partial blending on high content reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) mix design and mixture properties, Transp. Res. Rec. 2672 (28) (2018)
79–87.
[22] A.S.M. Asib, P. Romero, F. Safazadeh, An equivalence between methods of aging for determining the low-temperature performance of hot-mix asphalt concrete
mixtures containing reclaimed asphalt pavement, Constr. Build. Mater. 223 (Oct) (2019) 198–209.
[23] A. Yousefi, et al., Performance evaluation of asphalt mixtures containing warm mix asphalt (WMA) additives and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), in:
Construction and Building Materials, 268, 2021, 121200.
[24] G. Nsengiyumva, Y.-R. Kim, J. Hu, Feasibility and Implementation of Balanced Mix Design in Nebraska.NDOT Research Report SPR-P1(19) M080, Nebraska
Department of Transportation Research Reports, Omaha, Nebraska, 2020.
[25] M. Zaumanis, L. Poulikakos, M. Partl, Performance-based design of asphalt mixtures and review of key parameters, Mater. Des. 141 (Mar) (2018) 185–201.
[26] AASHTO-PP105, Standard Practice for Balanced Design of Asphalt Mixtures. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO,
Washington, DC, 2020.
[27] D. Newcomb, F. Zhou, Balanced design of asphalt mixtures, MN/RC 2018-22, Minnesota Department of Transportation Research Services & Library, Minnesota,
2018.
[28] W. Dong, S. Charmot, Proposed tests for cold recycling balanced mixture design with measured impact of varying emulsion and cement contents, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 31 (2) (2018) 04018387.
[29] U.M. Ali, et al., Three-dimensional balanced mix design for asphalt concrete, in Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019: Design, Construction. Condition Evaluation, and
Management of Pavements, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2019, pp. 178–188.
[30] A. Saidi, et al., A balanced mix design method for selecting the optimum binder content of cold in-place recycling asphalt mixtures, Transp. Res. Rec. 2673 (3)
(2019) 526–539.
[31] M. Sabouri, Evaluation of performance-based mix design for asphalt mixtures containing Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP), Constr. Build. Mater. 235 (Feb)
(2020), 117545.
[32] F. Meroni, et al., Application of balanced mix design methodology to optimize surface mixes with high-RAP content, Materials 13 (24) (2020) 5638.
[33] H. Al-Khayat, et al., Evaluation of the minnesota asphalt mixtures based on balanced mix-design approach. Journal of transportation engineering, Part B:
Pavements 147 (3) (2021) 04021045.
[34] L. Barros, et al., Implications of including reclaimed asphalt pavement materials to performance of balanced asphalt concrete mixes, Transp. Res. Rec. 2673
(2019) 12.
[35] M. Zaumanis, et al., Performance-based design of 100% recycled hot-mix asphalt and validation using traffic load simulator, J. Clean. Prod. 237 (Nov) (2019),
117679.
[36] AASHTO-T164, Standard Method of Test for Quantitative Extraction of Asphalt Binder from Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA). American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2014.
[37] ASTM-D5404, Standard Practice for Recovery of Asphalt from Solution Using the Rotary Evaporator. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2012.

13
H. Ziari and M. Hajiloo Case Studies in Construction Materials 18 (2023) e01931

[38] ASTM-D1856, Standard Test Method for Recovery of Asphalt from Solution by Abson Method. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2021.
[39] ASTM-D70, Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity and Density of Semi-Solid Bituminous Materials (Pycnometer Method). American Society for Testing and
Materials, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[40] ASTM-D5, Standard Test Method for Penetration of Bituminous Materials. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
[41] ASTM-D36, Standard Test Method for Softening Point of Bitumen (Ring-and-Ball Apparatus). American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
[42] ASTM-D1754, Standard Test Method for Effect of Heat and Air on Asphaltic Materials (Thin-Film Oven Test). American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
[43] ASTM-D113, Standard Test Method for Ductility of Asphalt Materials. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2018.
[44] ASTM-D92, , Standard Test Method for Flash and Fire Points by Cleveland Open Cup Tester. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2018.
[45] AASHTO-T316, Standard Method of Test for Determining the Flexural Creep Stiffness of Asphalt Binder Using the Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR). American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2019.
[46] ASTM-C127, Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate. American Society for Testing and Materials,
ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[47] ASTM-C128, Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of Fine Aggregate. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[48] ASTM-C131, Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine. American
Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
[49] ASTM-D5821, Standard Test Method for Determining the Percentage of Fractured Particles in Coarse Aggregate. American Society for Testing and Materials,
ASTM,, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[50] AASHTO-T176, Standard method of test for plastic fines in graded aggregates and soils by use of the sand equivalent test. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2008.
[51] ASTM-D445, Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity). American Society for
Testing and Materials, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2021.
[52] ASTM-D1298, Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density, or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method.
American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[53] AASHTO-M323, Standard Specification for Superpave Volumetric Mix Design. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO,
Washington, DC, 2017.
[54] AASHTO-R35, Standard Practice for Superpave Volumetric Design for Asphalt Mixtures. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2015.
[55] AASHTO-T308, Standard Method of Test for Determining the Asphalt Binder Content of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) by the Ignition Method. American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2016.
[56] AASHTO-T324, Standard Method of Test for Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures. American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2017.
[57] AASHTO-TP124, Standard Method of Test for Determining the Fracture Potential of Asphalt Mixtures Using Semicircular Bend Geometry (SCB) at Intermediate
Temperature. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2016.
[58] AASHTO-T283, Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced Damage. American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2014.
[59] M. Rathore, M. Zaumanis, Impact of laboratory mixing procedure on the properties of reclaimed asphalt pavement mixtures, Constr. Build. Mater. 264 (Dec)
(2020), 120709.
[60] AASHTO-R30, Standard Practice for Mixture Conditioning of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA). American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2015.
[61] I.L. Al-Qadi, et al., Development of long-term aging protocol for implementation of the Illinois flexibility index test (I-FIT).FHWA-ICT-19-009, Ill. Cent. Transp.
/Ill. Dep. Transp., Urbana (2019).
[62] A.F. Espinoza-Luque, I.L. Al-Qadi, H. Ozer, Optimizing rejuvenator content in asphalt concrete to enhance its durability, Constr. Build. Mater. 179 (Aug) (2018)
642–648.
[63] S. Im, P. Karki, F. Zhou, Development of new mix design method for asphalt mixtures containing RAP and rejuvenators, Constr. Build. Mater. 115 (Jul) (2016)
727–734.
[64] Mohamed Ali, U., Flexibility index threshold optimization for various asphalt mixes and geographic locations, in Civil & Environmental Eng. 2019: University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
[65] West, R., et al., NCAT Report PHASE VII (2018–2021) NCAT Test Track Findings. National Center for Asphalt Technology at Auburn University, Alabama, US,
2021.
[66] Y. Zhang, H.U. Bahia, Effects of recycling agents (RAs) on rutting resistance and moisture susceptibility of mixtures with high RAP/RAS content, Constr. Build.
Mater. 270 (Feb) (2021), 121369.
[67] Witczak, M.W., Specification criteria for simple performance tests for rutting.NCHRP report 580. 2007: Transportation Research Board.
[68] Abu Abdo, A.M. and S. Jung, Effects of asphalt mix design properties on pavement performance: a mechanistic approach. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2016.
2016.
[69] S. Lee, C. Baek, J.-J. Park, Performance-based mix design of unmodified and lime-modified hot mix asphalt, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 39 (7) (2012) 824–833.
[70] Z. Zhou, et al., Investigation of the oxidation ageing of RAP asphalt blend binders and mixtures, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 23 (3) (2022) 571–587.
[71] H. Nabizadeh, et al., Effects of rejuvenators on high-RAP mixtures based on laboratory tests of asphalt concrete (AC) mixtures and fine aggregate matrix (FAM)
mixtures, Constr. Build. Mater. 152 (Oct) (2017) 65–73.
[72] M. Zaumanis, M.C. Cavalli, L.D. Poulikakos, Effect of rejuvenator addition location in plant on mechanical and chemical properties of RAP binder, Int. J.
Pavement Eng. 21 (4) (2020) 507–515.
[73] S. Caro, et al., Moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures, Part 1: Mech. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 9 (2) (2008) 81–98.
[74] A. Mehrara, A. Khodaii, A review of state of the art on stripping phenomenon in asphalt concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 38 (Jan) (2013) 423–442.
[75] A. Varveri, J. Zhu, N. Kringos, Moisture damage in asphaltic mixtures, in Advances in asphalt materials, Elsevier, 2015, pp. 303–344.
[76] A.F. Mirhosseini, et al., Performance evaluation of asphalt mixtures containing high-RAP binder content and bio-oil rejuvenator, Constr. Build. Mater. 227 (Dec)
(2019), 116465.
[77] L. Devulapalli, S. Kothandaraman, G. Sarang, Evaluation of rejuvenator’s effectiveness on the reclaimed asphalt pavement incorporated stone matrix asphalt
mixtures, Constr. Build. Mater. 224 (Nov) (2019) 909–919.
[78] N.H. Tran, A. Taylor, R. Willis, Effect of rejuvenator on performance properties of HMA mixtures with high RAP and RAS contents, NCAT Rep. 1 (2012), 12-05.
[79] AASHTO-MP46, Standard Specification for Balanced Mix Design. AASHTO MP 46. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2020.
[80] H.F. Haghshenas, et al., Chemical characterization of recycling agents, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 32 (5) (2020) 06020005.
[81] H.F. Haghshenas, et al., Effect of recycling agents on the resistance of asphalt binders to cracking and moisture damage, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 33 (10) (2021)
04021292.

14