1. North East Asphalt User/Producer Group Steering Committee Meeting Monday March 26, 2012 Presented by: Jo Sias Daniel, University of New Hampshire © Thorndyke Asphalt Paving© Pavement International 2007© McAsphalt Industries Limited 2009© United Contractors Midwest

2.  University of New Hampshire Dr. Jo Sias Daniel, PE (Project PI)  University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Dr. Walaa Mogawer, PE  Rutgers University Dr. Tom Bennert, PE  NC State University Dr. Y. Richard Kim, PE 2

3.  New Hampshire (NHDOT) - Lead Agency  Maryland (MDOT)  New Jersey (NJDOT)  New York (NYSDOT)  Pennsylvania (PennDOT)  Rhode Island (RIDOT)  Virginia (VDOT)  Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 3

4.  Evaluate the fatigue and low temperature cracking performance of plant-produced RAP mixtures  Provide further understanding of the blending that occurs between RAP and virgin binder in plant-produced mixtures  Refine fatigue failure criteria for RAP mixtures used in the Simplified Viscoelastic Continuum Damage (S-VECD) model 4

5.  Contractors have volunteered to produce mixtures at different RAP contents  Mixtures sampled and taken to lab for testing  SGC specimens compacted at time of production  Data collected on plant operations, raw material info, placement location & conditions (field cores if possible) 5

6.  18 Mixtures  Focus on evaluating effect of binder grade and plant type 6

7.  Recovered & virgin binder  PG grade, master curves  CCT  ABCD  Softening point  Mixture  Complex Modulus  Hamburg & TSR  Low Temperature Creep & Strength  Fatigue (S-VECD protocol)  Workability (UMass device) 7

8.  Recovered & virgin binder  Glass transition point  Mixture  Overlay Tester  TSRST  Beam Fatigue 8

9.  Testing completed on everything except  Extracted RAP binders  Beam Fatigue on some mixtures  TSRST on some mixtures  Analysis of data  |E*| and |G*| comparisons/blending – AAPT paper  Low temperature cracking (binder & mix) – paper in preparation for this year 9

10.  RAP impact on measured properties  Increase in |E*|  PG high temp grade bump above 20%  Minimal impact on low temp PG grade  Difference in ABCD and CCT  Lab handling procedures (reheating) impacts properties  Production parameters (discharge temp, silo storage time) appear to impact properties 10

11.  Select Phase I mixtures  Development  Validation  Extensive fatigue characterization  Testing ongoing 11

12.  NH 12.5 mm mixtures  PG 52-28 with 0, 15, 25% RAP  PG 52-34 with 25, 30, 40% RAP  Field test sections with cores, FHWA Mobile Lab  VA 9.5 mm mixtures  PG 70-22 with 0, 20% RAP  PG 64-22 with 30, 40% RAP  NY 12.5 mm mixture, PG 64-22  0% RAP with silo storage times of 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5 hrs  25% RAP with silo storage times of 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10 hrs 12

13.  Recovered & virgin binder  PG grade, master curves  CCT  ABCD  Softening point  Mixture  Complex Modulus  Hamburg & TSR (Hamburg on NH mixtures)  Low Temperature Creep & Strength  Fatigue (S-VECD protocol)  Workability (UMass device) 13

14.  Recovered & virgin binder  Glass transition point  Mixture  Overlay Tester  TSRST  Beam Fatigue 14

15.  Binder extractions in progress  Mixture testing in progress  FHWA Mobile Lab testing completed  Silo storage study paper planned for TRB/AAPT submission this year  Planning for 2012 season mixtures  PennDOT PG 76-22 0, 20% and PG 70-22 30, 40%  More silo storage data?  Same mix through batch and drum plant? 15

16.  Evaluation of field sites  Further investigation of production parameters  Aging  Combination of RAP, RAS and WMA 16

17. 17 Questions?