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

net/publication/352133546

Performance Characteristics of Asphalt Mixes Containing High Percentage of

RAP Material

Conference Paper · June 2021

DOI: 10.1061/9780784483503.019

CITATIONS READS
3 198

3 authors:

Gargi Jagad Ambika Behl

Indian Institute of Technology Patna Central Road Research Institute
1 PUBLICATION 3 CITATIONS 26 PUBLICATIONS 244 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sanjay Dave
Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda
27 PUBLICATIONS 375 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gargi Jagad on 29 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021 186

Performance Characteristics of Asphalt Mixes Containing High Percentage of RAP

Material

Gargi P. Jagad1; Ambika Behl, Ph.D.2; and Sanjay M. Dave, Ph.D.3

1
Research Scholar, Master of Engineering, Flexible Pavement Division, CSIR-Central Road
Research Institute, New Delhi, Delhi, India. Email: [email protected]
2
Head and Principal Scientist, Flexible Pavement Division, CSIR-Central Road Research
Institute, New Delhi, Delhi, India. Email: [email protected]
3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Gargi Jagad on 06/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Maharaja Sayajirao Univ. of Baroda, Vadodara,
Gujarat, India. Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Major challenges of using reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) in asphalt pavement are the
stiffness of RAP because of oxidation of asphalt binder with the age and lack of performance data
containing a high percentage (>30%) of RAP in hot mix asphalt (HMA). This research paper is
aimed to investigate the feasibility of high percentage 60% RAP in asphalt mixes in the surface
course of pavement. Designed mixes were developed for control mix and RAP mixes with two
different rejuvenators to evaluate the performance parameters like indirect tensile strength,
susceptibility to moisture damage, stiffness, cracking resistance, rutting, and fatigue. From the
study, it is concluded that RAP mix with tall oils rejuvenator was better in terms of moisture
resistance and rutting performance, while RAP mix with aromatic extract rejuvenator was better
in terms of fatigue cracking. However, fatigue performance was better in control mix than RAP
mixes.

KEYWORDS: Recycled Asphalt Pavement; High RAP; Rejuvenator; Performance

1. INTRODUCTION

Asphalt Recycling Techniques is more than 40 years old. In India, 90% of the pavements in
India are flexible pavements but the usage of Recycled Asphalt Pavement infield is still in the
embryonic stage. The energy and power required for producing asphalt, transportation of aggregate
and bitumen should be minimized by adopting the asphalt recycling technique. It is preferable that
RAP should not be used in non-bituminous surfaces like granular base and GSB. Considering the
economic parameter, RAP leads great savings in money in terms of a decrease in requirement of
new material, savings in fuels in transportation at a large scale. The one-time cost of modifying a
bituminous batch plant to do hot mix recycling in India is only 2.0 to 2.5 million Rs.
(Kandhal,2015) which is a very less amount compared to savings from recycling asphalt pavement.
A variety of research work has been done for the performance of RAP with containing it in
different percentages in HMA, which gives a variety of results of a mix. With a high percentage
of RAP (>30%), it is difficult to handle it in terms of stiffness, aging, design. If a mix containing
a high percentage of RAP is not properly designed, it deteriorates and results in a loss of energy
and money. The need to study raises as variations in performance results are observed, as some of
the investigations found conflicting with some other researchers. One study suggests Optimum
binder content (OBC) in mix designs remains the same, even if % RAP increases in the mix. (Singh

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021 187

et al 2015) whereas according to another investigation done by Harun-Or-Rashid et al (2018) &

Kamil et al (2018) OBC of the mix decreases as the percentage of RAP increases in the mix. As
per a study by Veeraragavan (2016) the test results of 50% RAP mixed with Waste vegetable oil
and Sylvaroad rejuvenator are not inferior in comparison with 20% RAP mixes. While a study by
Nam Tran et al (2015) showed a similar performance of 50% RAP mix compare to the virgin
control mix.
Research by Taleb Al-Rousan et al (2008) concluded that mixtures containing RAP may have
shorter fatigue life due to aged asphalt that exists in the mix through RAP usage & Walaa et al
(2015) states that the fatigue testing results showed that the addition of 40% RAP to the control
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Gargi Jagad on 06/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

mix resulted in a mixture that was more susceptible to cracking, which is likely related to the
increased mixture stiffness due to the incorporation of RAP. A research done by Rouzbeh et al
(2015) showed that the Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) values of the asphalt mix tested were found
to be greater than 0.9 for 0% RAP and 25% RAP & increases as to 1.03 as RAP % increases to
40% in the mix. Veeraragavan (2016) stated that presence of high RAP content (50%) with Waste
vegetable oil and Sylvaroad rejuvenator in a mix tends to increase the tensile strength compared
to a mix with low RAP content. While research by Kamil et al (2018) showed that The ITS and
TSR value of the mixture decreases as the RAP content increases from 0% to 15%, 25%, and 35%
gradually.
In terms of rutting performance of the mix, Kamil et al (2018) investigated that as RAP %
increases (from 0% to 35%) in asphalt mix, resistance to rutting becomes lower. While according
to research by Rouzbeh et al (2015) based on the Hamburg Wheel Tracking (HWT) test results, it
was found that the resistance of the asphalt mixes to rutting and moisture-induced damage
increases with an increase in the amount of RAP respectively from 0%, 25%, and 40%. Martins et
al (2014) evaluated performance of 100% RAP in to asphalt mix with different types of
rejuvenators, in which overall performance of RAP mixes got similar or good results than virgin
mix. Organic oils performed better in all fatigue, rutting, and workability criteria. However, 100%
recycling of asphalt mix is not possible in every case as its existing properties vary with its source.
In the present study laboratory investigation of performance characteristics like Indirect
Tensile Strength, resistance to moisture damage, Resilient Modulus, Cracking Resistance, rutting
performance were carried out on 60% RAP mixes and control mix.

2. OBJECTIVE & SCOPE:

Indian Road Congress specifications IRC 120:2015 does not allow the use of RAP content
more than 30% for pavement construction. In this study an attempt is made to evaluate the
performance of high RAP mixes in comparison to control HMA mix, by using two different
rejuvenators. The main objective of this study is to explore the suitability of using high RAP
contents in asphalt mixes and also to evaluate that which type of rejuvenator gives better
performance. To achieve this objective, the scope of the study was as follows:
 Evaluation of the RAP properties & virgin aggregate and binder properties.
 To evaluate the performance tests of RAP mixes & control mix such as Indirect Tensile
Strength, Moisture Induced Sensitivity Test, Tensile Strength Ratio, Resilient Modulus,
Texas Overlay Tester, Dynamic Creep.
 Comparison of the effect of rejuvenators on the performance characteristics.
 Comparison of the high RAP mixes with the control mix.

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021 188

3. MATERIALS INVESTIGATED:

RAP material was brought from the site of Chandigarh in India which was milled and crushed
from BC layer of nearly 7 years old road. Binder content of RAP and RAP gradation were derived.
Binder was extracted from RAP which and found 2.7% by weight of the RAP. Sieve analysis of
RAP material was carried out to check deficiency in gradation properties. Three types of mixes
were prepared for the study as shown in Table 1. Where RA 1 is an Aromatic Extract obtained
from Refined crude oil products and RA 2 is Tall Oils obtained from Paper industry by-product.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Gargi Jagad on 06/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1: Mixes prepared for the study

Aggregate Virgin RAP Rejuvenating

SN Gradation Binder Content Agent (RA)
1 VG 40 0% No
2 BC 2 VG 10 60% RA 1
3 VG 10 60% RA 2

3.1 Gradation of RAP material & mixes

Bituminous Concrete (BC-II) grading was selected as per the specifications of Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH, 2013). RAP material gradation was not within the limits
(Figure 1) which was analyzed and blended with the natural aggregates to meet the standards.
Figure 1 shows the gradation of control mix, 60% RAP mix within BC II gradation limits, as given
by MoRTH, 2013.

100.00

80.00
% PASSING

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
SIEVE SIZE, MM
RAP 60% RAP Control mix lower limit upper limit

Figure 1: Gradation of RAP material, 60% RAP, 0% RAP and BC 2

3.2 Determination of dosage of Rejuvenators

Once the relative aggregate proportions were determined, a trial total asphalt demand was
calculated. VG-10 grade of binder was selected to restore the aged asphalt and provide a final
binder that meets the specifications while satisfying the asphalt demand of the mix. The
approximate asphalt demand of the combined aggregates is determined by the empirical formula
given by Asphalt Institute Manual MS-20. Binder blending exercise was carried out as per MS-2,

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021 189

to determine the dosage of rejuvenating agents. Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) test was
conducted to take high critical temperature as criteria to select dosages.

Table 2: DSR test results

Virgin Failure temperature, ℃ Aged Failure temperature, ℃

Binder (G*/sinδ = 1.0 Kpa) Binder (G*/sinδ = 2.2 Kpa)
VG 10 60 RAP Bitumen 102.5
VG 40 71.5 RAP + 10% RA 1 96
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Gargi Jagad on 06/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

RAP + 5% RA 2 97.5

RPBR (RAP pavement binder ratio) is a RAP binder present in a mix by the total approximate
binder demand of the mix (MS 2). From the data, RBPR obtained was 30.4 %. Dosage of
rejuvenators in the RAP mix was estimated according to RBPR, dosage of was found 10% and
dosage of RA 2 in RAP mix was found 5% of RAP binder in the mix. Further mix design and
testing were done with these dosages considering it as optimum dosage.

4. MIX DESIGN

Marshall mix design method was followed for mix design. Optimum binder content was
derived from Marshall parameters for three mixes as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Mix properties at OBC of different mixes

Total Bulk
binder Stability Specific Air voids Flow VFB
Mix Type
content (KN) gravity (%) (mm) (%)
(%) (gm/cc)
Control Mix 5.2 18.1 2.46 4 3.95 75
60% RAP+RA 1 4.9 25.1 2.475 3.6 3.9 71
60% RAP+RA 2 4.4 26 2.46 3.85 4.1 70

From the above results, there is a decrease in OBC for RAP mixes. OBC of control mix,
RAP+Aromatic Extract, and RAP+Tall Oils were 5.2%, 4.9%, and 4.4% respectively. Other
Marshall parameters at OBC were similar for 3 mixes, except stability of both RAP mixes were
higher than control mix. Increase in stability may be due to stiffness of the RAP and a decrease in
OBC may be due to chemical composition, and source of the rejuvenators and gradation of the
RAP mixes.

5. PERFORMANCE TESTING AND RESULTS

For the two proposed mixes of RAP, following performance tests were conducted to assess the
suitability of high percentage of RAP and compare it with the control mix.

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021 190

5.1 Indirect Tensile Strength

Indirect Tensile Strength is a measure of the potential of resistance to the low-temperature
cracking of specimen. ITS test was conducted at 25°C as per ASTM D 6931. From the results in
Figure 2, it can be analyzed that tensile strength of both 60% RAP mix with rejuvenators are higher
than the control mix. This shows that after addition of the RAP, it increases the strength of the mix
and shows better resistance to the rutting.

Indirect Tensile 2500

Strength (kPa)
2000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Gargi Jagad on 06/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1500
1000
500
0
Control mix R + RA 1 R + RA 2
Series1 1733.2 2189 2081.1

Figure 2: Results of Indirect Tensile Strength

5.2 Fracture Energy

Fracture energy is the indicator to understand the fracture performance of the mix. High
fracture energy shows more resistance to cracking as it requires more energy to damage the sample.
Following Equation was used to calculate the Fracture Energy at the failure of the samples of
different mixes.

E= 0.5Pd (1)

Where, E= Fracture Energy, P= Ultimate load at failure, d= Vertical deformation at the ultimate
load

25
20
Load (KN)

15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deformation (mm)
Control Mix RAP+RA1 RAP+RA2

Figure 3: Load v/s Deformation curve from Indirect Tensile Strength Test

Here the fracture energy increased in the RAP mix as shown in the Figure 3. The shape Load
vs Displacement curves for both RAP mixes were almost identical with slightly narrow peaks than
the control mix. Narrow peak shape indicated the brittleness of the mix. It can be concluded that
RAP mixes were more resistant to fracture crack and slightly brittle in performance compared to
the control mix.

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021 191

5.3 Modulus of Resilient

Modulus of resilient of the mix was performed at two temperatures, 25°C, and 45°C. As
Modulus of Resilient is ratio of the repeated applied stress to the recoverable horizontal strain on
the mix, it gives results on how much the mix can recover its deformation happened due to the
traffic load in the pavement. Test was performed as per ASTM D 7369.
MR value at 25°C showed a similar result of both RAP mixes compared to the control mix.
Whereas MR value of the RAP+RA 2 mix shown a 50% higher value than control mix at 45°C.
which shows, stiffness of the RAP+RA 2 mix even at the high temperature. Figure 4 shows the
MR results.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Gargi Jagad on 06/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

7000
Resilient Modulus (MPa)

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Control mix R + RA 1 R + RA 2
25℃ 5816.3 6146.7 5842.3
45℃ 953.3 1007 1426.7

Figure 4: Result of Resilient Modulus at 25°C, and 45°C

5.4 Moisture Susceptibility

Moisture damage of all mixes was evaluated by measuring the reduction in the tensile strength
of mix after moisture damage applied to it. The Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) of wet conditioned
sample to the dry conditioned sample was measured with two different approaches: Only TSR
(ASTM D 4867) and TSR after Moisture Induced Sensitivity Test (MIST) (ASTM D 7850).

5.4.1 TSR
As per the specification given by the MoRTH, a minimum 80% TSR must be achieved to
ensure no moisture damage in the pavement. Results of the TSR test on the mixes are shown in
Figure 5.

100 88.3 90.4 100

82.7 85.4 86.5
Tensile Strength Ratio after

80.8
Tensile Strength Ratio

80 80 80
80

60 60
MIST

40 40

20 20

0 0
Control mixR + RA 1 R + RA 2 Control mixR + RA 1 R + RA 2

Figure 5: Results of TSR Figure 6: Results of TSR after MIST

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021 192

The control mix and RAP mixes satisfactorily passed the requitement of moisture susceptibility
test s their TSR values were higher than the specified value of 80%. Further the TSR of RAP mixes
shown improvement than the control mix. RAP+RA 1 TSR value was 7% higher than the control
mix, while RAP+RA 2 TSR value was 9% higher than the control mix. The higher value of the
TSR for the RAP mix indicated more resistance to moisture damage due to its stiffness.

5.4.2 TSR after MIST

In this method, TSR was calculated after the MIST on the wet conditioned sample. MIST was
performed to exert the pore water pressure on the sample to simulate the pressure of the vehicle
tire on the wet pavement. This test can simulate the actual field condition. The results of the TSR
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Gargi Jagad on 06/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

after MIST are shown in Figure 6.

All results of TSR value for mixes are greater than 80%. However, TSR value after MIST
shows a reduction of 2% to 4% in the values compared to TSR without MIST. This reveals that
MIST which simulates the actual pavement moisture damage condition leads the TSR value
slightly lower.

5.5 Texas Overlay Tester

Overlay Tester is used to measure and simulate the fatigue or reflective cracking occurring on
a pavement in the field. This test is performed according to TxDOT: Tex-248-F. Overlay Tester is
an electro-hydraulic system that exerts repeated direct tension loads to samples that simulate the
repeated traffic load on the pavement. The test was done at 25ºC. The load that is exerted to cause
0.60 mm displacement on sample in the first cycle is a Peak load which is reported. The test further
runs until 93% load drop of peak load occurs or 1000 cycles, whichever comes first. More cycles
to reach 93% load drop shows more resistance to fatigue and cracking.
Damage of the sample in first cycle and the remaining cycle pattern indicates the resistance to
fatigue and reflective cracking.

5
4
3
2
Load, KN

Control mix
1
RAP+RA 1
0
RAP+RA 2
-1
-2
-3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Displacement, mm

Figure 7: Shape of the hysteresis loop of first cycle of mixes from TOT test
Figure 7 describes the shape of the hysteresis loop of first cycle when initial loading is applied
to take place 0.6 mm deformation. After the first cycles, load gradually decreases, this can be seen
by Figure 8. From the graph, it is visible that the control mix takes higher failure cycles. Whereas
RAP+RA 1 and RAP+RA 2 mixes have respectively 52% and 62% lower failure cycles
corresponding to the control mix. This indicates the lower resistance of the RAP mix to fatigue
cracking compared to the control mix.

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021 193

After the first cycle, how further the crack propagates is also an important factor to be
considered. For this parameter, the Crack Propagation Rate (CPR) term is defined, which is
calculated from the load reduction curve. The high value of the CPR indicated the rapid
propagation of the crack and low resistance to the cracking and vice versa. The table shows the
CPR value of all three mixes. From the Figure 9 CPR values of control mix is lower value which
indicates slow propagation of the crack in the mix.

4
Control mix
3.5
Peak Load of cycles (KN)

RAP+RA 1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Gargi Jagad on 06/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3
RAP+RA 2
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5 155
58 74
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Number of Cycles

Figure 8: Load reduction curve to corresponding cycles to failure

There are two important parameters, Critical Fracture Energy (CFE) and CPR which is
combined to understand the fatigue and cracking property of the mix. To understand this, Design
Interaction Plot by CFE vs CPR is developed. (Garcia et al., 2017) Line was drawn at 0.5 CPR to
delineate the crack resistant and crack susceptible mix. Control mix characterized better in fatigue
and cracking resistance. But all three mixes showed a similar initial CFE with marginal variation
in CFE.

Control mix RAP+RA 1 RAP+RA 2

300
Critical Fracture Energy,

250
200
J/m˄2

150
100
50
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Crack Propagation Rate

Figure 9: Design Interaction plot of TOT data

5.6 Dynamic Creep
To simulate the rutting behaviour of the bituminous mix in the field, the Dynamic Creep test
is performed. This test applies the repeated uni-axial stress on the Marshall specimens and records
the permanent deformation on the sample. Each load pulse of Haversine exerted 200 kPa of
deviator stress and 11 kPa of seating stress (contact stress) to the sample. Results of dynamic creep
test at 35°C, and 50°C were analyzed to evaluate the rutting characteristics of the mix. The
permanent deformation strain % vs cycles graph for both the temperature is shown in Figure 10.

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021 194

Figure 10 describes the permanent deformation strain caused in the mix due to loading cycles.
From the results, it was concluded that the control mix and RAP+RA 1 mix has similar rutting
performance at 35°C but RAP+RA 2 mix has a 52% lower permanent strain. While at higher
temperature 50°C, reduction in the strain value is 48% and 80% respectively for RAP+RA 1 and
RAP+RA 2 mix compared to control mix. Temperature effect on the control mix was higher as
strain increases 81% from 35°C to 50°C in control mix. Less strain in RAP mixes indicates high
resistance to the rutting.

2.8 2.8
Control mix Control mix
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Gargi Jagad on 06/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Deformation Strain %

2.4

Deformation Strain %
RAP+RA 1 2.4 RAP+RA 1
2 RAP+RA 2 2 RAP+RA 2
1.6 1.6
1.2 1.2
0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

0 0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600 0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 3600

Cycles Cycles

Figure 10: Permanent deformation strain % vs Cycles at 35°C & 50°C

6. OUTCOMES AND CONCLUSIONS:

 ITS and Fracture Energy of both RAP mixes showed higher results than the control mix.
This strength is due to the stiffness of the RAP material.
 Resilient modulus of the mixes at a low temperature of 25°C obtained similar values. While
at a high temperature of 45°C, a high value of MR by 50% observed in RAP+Tall oils mix
compared to Control mix which may be due to the stiffness of RAP, chemical composition,
and source of the rejuvenator.
 Results showed that RAP mixes have better moisture resistance capacity.
 Texas Overlay Tester results of all mixes proved that fatigue life of both the RAP mixes is
low compared to control mix. Early cracking observed in RAP mixes. However, initial
cracking propagation pattern observed same for all three mixes. RAP+ RA 1 mix
performed slightly better than the RAP+ RA 2. Detailed chemical analysis may be carry
out to understand this performance.
 The rutting result showed that at 35°C control mix and RAP+RA 1 have similar rutting
performance while RAP+RA 2 has more resistant to rutting. At 50°C, both RAP mixes
proved better resistant to rutting than control mix, among which RAP+Tall Oils mix
showed best performance to rutting.
From the laboratory study and overall performance testing of the mixes. Dosage of Tall oils
rejuvenator found optimum at the half dosage of the Aromatic extract rejuvenator. it can be
concluded that RAP mixes performed better or equivalent to control mixes and hence higher RAP
content shall be adopted for road construction.

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021 195

REFERENCES

A. A. Mamun, and H. I. Al-Abdul Wahhab. (2018) “Evaluation of Waste Engine Oil-

Rejuvenated Asphalt Concrete Mixtures with High RAP Content” published in Hindawi,
Advances in Materials Science and Engineering Volume 2018, Article ID 7386256, 8 pages
Ahmad Kamil Arshad, Haryati Awang, Ekarizan Shaffie, Wardati Hashim, and Zanariah Abd
Rahman. (2018) Performance Evaluation of Hot Mix Asphalt with Different Proportions of
RAP Content EDP Sciences.
I. L. Al-Qadi, M. Elseifi, and S. H. Carpenter. (2007), “Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement- A
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Gargi Jagad on 06/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Literature Review”, Research Report FHWA-ICT-07-001, Illinois Centre for Transportation.

ASTM D 2172. Standard Test Methods for Quantitative Extraction of Asphalt Binder from
Asphalt Mixtures, American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM D 4123. Standard Test Method for Indirect Tension Test for Resilient Modulus of
Bituminous Mixtures, American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM D 4867. Standard Test Method for Effect of Moisture on Asphalt Concrete Paving
Mixtures, American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM D 6931. Standard Test Method for Indirect Tensile (IDT) Strength of Asphalt Mixtures,
American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM D 6931. Standard Test Method for Determining the Resilient Modulus of Bituminous
Mixtures by Indirect Tension Test, American Society for Testing and Materials.
ASTM D 7870. Standard Practice for Moisture Conditioning Compacted Asphalt Mixture
Specimens by Using Hydrostatic Pore Pressure, American Society for Testing and Materials.
J. A. Epps, D. N. Little, R. J. Holmgreen, and R.L. Terrel. (1980). “Guidelines for Recycling
Pavement Materials”, NCHRP Report No. 224, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC.
G. M. Harun-Or-Rashid, Bulbul Ahmed, Mohd. Abdus Sobhan, and Nafiur Rahman. (2018),
Marshall Characteristics of Bituminous Mixes Using Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement,
American Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Vol. 3, No. 4.
J. Richard Willis, Pamela Turner, Grant Julian, Nam Tran, and Flavio de Goes Padula. (2013),
“Alternative Methods for Increasing the Durability of RAP Mixtures”, NCAT Report 13-08,
Auburn University, US.
Jashanjot Singh, and A. K. Duggal. (2015) “An Experimental Study on Reclaimed Asphalt
Pavement in Bituminous Concrete”, International Journal of Modern Trends in Engineering
and Research (IJMTER) Volume 02, Issue 08.
Junan Shen, and Yoshio Ohne. (2002) “Determining Rejuvenator Content for Recycling
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement” by SHRP Binder Specifications, International Journal of
Pavement Engineering, 3:4, 261-268.
Martins Zaumanis, and Rajib B. Mallick. (2014) “Evaluation of different recycling agents for
restoring aged asphalt binder and performance of 100 % recycled asphalt” Article in
Materials and Structures
McDaniel Rebecca, and R. Michael Anderson. (2001) “Recommended Use of Reclaimed
Asphalt Pavement in the Superpave Mix Design Method: Technician’s Manual”
Transportation Research Board, NCHRP report 452 National Academy Press Washington,
D.C.
MoRTH. (2013). Ministry of road transport and highways. Specifications for Road and Bridge
Works, 5th Revision, Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi, India.

© ASCE

Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021

 Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021 196

MS-2 The Asphalt Institute Manual Series No. 2. Mix design methods for asphalt concrete and
other hot-mix types, 7th (2014), Asphalt Institute, USA.
MS-20 The Asphalt Institute Manual Series No. 20. Asphalt Hot Mix Recycling, Second Edition
(1986), Asphalt Institute, USA.
Nam Tran, Adam Taylor, Pamela Turner, Christopher Holmes and Laurent Porot. (2017) “Effect
of Rejuvenator on Performance Characteristics of High RAP Mixture” published in journal
Road materials and Pavement Design, Volume 18
D. Newcomb, E. R. Brown, and J.A. Epps. (2007). Quality Improvement Series 124: Designing
HMA Mixtures with High RAP Content: A Practical Guide, National Asphalt Pavement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Gargi Jagad on 06/22/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Association, Lanham, MD, US.

Ram Kumar Veeraragavan. (2016) “An Investigation of the Performance of Hot Mix Asphalt
(HMA) Binder Course Materials with High Percentage of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
(RAP) and Rejuvenators”, A report submitted to the Faculty of the Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, MA, US.
Rebecca McDaniel, and R. Michael Anderson. (2001) “Recommended Use of Reclaimed
Asphalt Pavement in the Superpave Mix Design Method: Guidelines” NCHRP Report No.
253, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Robert Karlsson1, and Ulf Isacsson. (2006) “Material related aspects of Asphalt Recycling”,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering © ASCE.
Rouzbeh Ghabchi, Dharamveer Singh, Musharraf Zaman, and Zahid Hossain. (2015)
“Laboratory characterisation of asphalt mixes containing RAP and RAS” International
Journal of Pavement Engineering Vol. 17, No. 9, 829–846,
Taleb Al-Rousan, Ibrahim Asi, Omar Al-Hattamleh, and Husam Al-Qablan. (2008),
“Performance of Asphalt Mixes Containing RAP”, Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering,
Volume 2, No. 3.
V. Garcia, A. Miramontes, J. Garibay, I. Abdallah, and S. Nazari. (2017) Improved Overlay
Tester for Fatigue Cracking Resistance of Asphalt Mixtures, Research Report 0-6815-1
Conducted for Texas Department of Transportation.
Walaa S. Mogawer, Ellie H. Fini, Alexander J. Austerman, Abbas Booshehrian, and Boubacar
Zada. (2015), “Performance characteristics of high reclaimed asphalt pavement containing
bio-modified”, Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2016 Vol. 17, No. 3.

© ASCE

View publication stats Airfield and Highway Pavements 2021