01366626

Component

https://doi.org/10.3141/2292-11

http://scholar.google.com...bhan&publication_year=2012

Most state departments of transportation (DOTs) adopted the Superpave® mix design method in the late 1990s. The Superpave mix design method replaced the Marshall method and became mainstream. Superpave came with aggregate, binder, and mix requirements to control rutting and cracking. With a life expectancy of about 15 years, many Superpave roads are now becoming candidates for resurfacing or recycling. Can Superpave mixes undergo hot in-place recycling with success? In fact, Superpave mixes contain expensive and high-quality aggregates, which meet the consensus properties, and high-quality binder, which meets the performance grade (PG) requirements. If these mixes can be recycled in place and meet the original Superpave properties, then substantial savings can be realized. The potential savings are in the 30% to 50% range of the cost to mill and resurface. In addition, emissions could be reduced by 70%, while 100% of the existing material could be reused. This paper reports on an experiment conducted in Gainesville, Florida, in 2010 at the Florida DOT State Materials Office, in which a Superpave mix underwent the hot in-place recycling process. The properties of the aggregate, binder, and mix were compared to answer certain questions about aggregate degradation, binder rejuvenation, and mix properties. The answers to these questions shed light on the possibility of the 100% recycle of Superpave mixes. The results showed that minimal aggregate degradation took place. The recycled mixes met Superpave gradation requirements for the most part. The rejuvenated binder met or exceeded the PG requirement. The mix could be engineered to meet the air voids requirement of Superpave.

01455587

12-0771

English

pp 88–93

2012

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board

9780309223331

Print

Figures; Photos; References; Tables

Environmental impacts; Hot in-place recycling; Pavement maintenance; Properties of materials; Quality control; Rehabilitation; Superpave

Gainesville (Florida)

Highways; Maintenance and Preservation; Pavements; I61: Equipment and Maintenance Methods

PRP, TRIS, TRB, ATRI

Feb 8 2012 4:57PM

• Best-Value Bid Selection Methods for Performance-Based Roadway Maintenance Contracts
• Comprehensive Model for Highway Bridge Maintenance Quality Evaluation in Jiangsu Province, China
• Criteria for Fleet Management: Identification of Optimal Disposal Points with the Use of Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost
• Framework for Carbon Emission Evaluation of Road Maintenance
• Impact of Climate Conditions on Effectiveness of Asphalt Pavement Preservation Techniques
• Impact of Three State Practices on Effectiveness of Hot-Mix Asphalt Overlay
• Increased Maintenance Costs of Extreme Weather Events: Preparing for Climate Change Adaptation
• Integration of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis with Bridge Management Systems: Case Study of Swedish Bridge and Tunnel Management System
• Life Cycle of Hot In-Place Pavement Recycling: Case Study
• Long-Term Field Monitoring and Evaluation of Maintenance Practices for Pervious Concrete Pavement in Vermont
• Measurement and Communication of Bridge Performance with Remote Sensing Technologies
• Optimal Allocation of Resources to Maintain, Rehabilitate, and Reconstruct Heterogeneous Bridge Networks
• Optimization of Equipment Replacement: Dynamic Programming-Based Optimization
• Pavement Preservation with Micromilling in Georgia: Follow-Up Study
• Probabilistic Approach to Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Preventive Maintenance Strategies on Flexible Pavements
• Project Selection and Prioritization of Pavement Preservation: Competitive Approach
• Repair of Construction-Related Deterioration in Precast Deck-Panel Bridges
• Sonic Methods to Detect Delamination in Concrete Bridge Decks: Impact of Testing Configuration and Data Analysis Approach
• Stochastic Life-Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavement Preservation Treatments