See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/264974709

100% recycled hot mix asphalt: A review and

analysis

ARTICLE in RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING · JULY 2014

Impact Factor: 2.69 · DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.07.007

CITATIONS DOWNLOADS VIEWS

3 588 307

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Martins Zaumanis Rajib B. Mallick

Latvian State Roads Worcester Polytechnic Institute
23 PUBLICATIONS 51 CITATIONS 82 PUBLICATIONS 404 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Available from: Martins Zaumanis

Retrieved on: 28 July 2015
 Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

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

Review

100% recycled hot mix asphalt: A review and analysis

Martins Zaumanis a,∗ , Rajib B. Mallick a , Robert Frank b
a
Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI), 100 Institute Road, Kaven Hall, Worcester, MA 01609, United States
b
RAP Technologies, 217 Belhaven Avenue, Linwood, NJ 08221, United States

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

Article history: A holistic evaluation of the feasibility of producing 100% recycled mixtures is presented. Eleven tech-
Received 11 February 2014 nologies readily available for producing 100% Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) hot asphalt mixtures
Received in revised form 10 July 2014 are described in the article and the complementary video (http://youtu.be/coj-e5mhHEQ). The recorded
Accepted 10 July 2014
performance of 100% RAP mixtures is analyzed along with identification of typical high RAP distresses.
Available online 1 August 2014
Recommended mix design procedures and the best RAP management strategies are described. A cradle-
to-gate analysis of environmental effects indicated 18 kg or 35% CO2 eq savings per t of produced 100%
Keywords:
RAP asphalt mixture compared to virgin mix, while cost analysis showed at least 50% savings in material
100% RAP recycling
Asphalt production
related expenses.
State-of-the-art © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Rejuvenator
Asphalt cost
Sustainable pavement

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
1.1. RAP use and availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
2. 100% RAP production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
2.1. All-RAP Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
2.1.1. Current operation, RAP processing and mix design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
2.2. Ammann RAH 100 plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
2.2.1. Current operation, RAP processing, and mix design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
2.3. Alex-Sin manufacturing plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
2.4. RapmasterTM plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
2.4.1. Current operation, RAP processing and mix design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
2.5. RATech plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
3. 100% RAP performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.1. Typical distresses associated with high RAP use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.1.1. Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.1.2. Rutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.1.3. Water susceptibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.1.4. Flushing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.2. Laboratory research results of 100% RAP mixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
3.3. Full Scale Trials of 100% RAP mixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
4. Mix design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
4.1. RAP gradation and aggregate characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 8572648722.

E-mail addresses: jeckabs@gmail.com (M. Zaumanis), rajib@wpi.edu (R.B. Mallick), info@raptech.us (R. Frank).
URL: http://zaumanis.com (M. Zaumanis).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.07.007
0921-3449/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245 231

4.2. Binder content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

4.3. Recycling agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
4.3.1. Dose selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
4.3.2. Diffusion of recycling agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
4.3.3. Performance of specific products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
4.4. Mixture volumetric and performance-related tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
5. Best practices for RAP management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
5.1. RAP milling and processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
5.2. Storage of RAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
5.3. RAP quality control and variability analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
6. Environmental analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
7. Economic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
7.1. Cost analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
7.2. Break even time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
8. Summary and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
Appendix A. Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

1. Introduction In developed countries, road maintenance overwhelm new con-

Currently in many construction projects asphalt is recycled in
unbound base layers; for road shoulders and rural roads; cold or hot
in-place recycling; and adding a relatively small percentage added
to new hot mix asphalt. Asphalt recycling is not truly sustainable
when it is degraded and used in these lower value applications.
100% hot mix recycling closes the materials cycle by fully utilizing
the valuable materials found in reclaimed asphalt in high quality
applications.
There are many questions and confusion among researchers
and industry regarding the feasibility and necessity for production
of total Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) recycling. This paper
and the complementary video (http://youtu.be/coj-e5mhHEQ)
presents a holistic study to evaluate the technology, benefits, con-
strains, costs, and viability of 100% RAP hot mix asphalt as well as
summarizes the recorded performance of such mixes.
1.1. RAP use and availability
In Europe, the data from 19 countries that provided Euro-
pean Asphalt Pavement Association (EAPA) with RAP use statistics
shows that 47% of the available RAP was used in hot or warm
mix asphalt applications, while 22 million tonnes were used in
other applications or stockpiled (EAPA, 2012). In the US, a sur-
vey by National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) (Hansen
and Copeland, 2013) estimates a total of 71.8 million tonnes of
RAP accepted in 2011, 84% of which were used in asphalt appli-
cations. Although nationally this is a high re-use rate, in urbanized
areas the restrictions on the maximum allowed RAP content in mix
design and technical capabilities of asphalt plants have created high
surplus of RAP. Estimation by New Jersey Asphalt Pavement Asso-
ciation (data provided by K. Monaco and J. Purcell) for the last six
years shows only 41% RAP use in asphalt pavements which has
caused excess RAP of 4.1 million tonnes (Table 1).
Table 1
Estimated amount of excess RAP in New Jersey.
Year RAP milled, t
2007 1,593,017
2008 1,391,622
2009 1,552,194
2010 1,687,364
2011 1,893,295
2012 1,925,047
Total 10,042,538
struction creating great amounts of readily available material that
can potentially be re-used for resurfacing of the same road pave-
ments. These statistics demonstrate that there is enough RAP
available for higher RAP use in HMA applications, especially in
urbanized areas. Establishing 100% RAP recycling asphalt plants
can significantly increase the recycling capacity and help reduce
the amount of RAP that is wasted in low value applications.
2. 100% RAP production
The maximum amount of reclaimed asphalt is mainly limited
by the available production technology. In a conventional recycling
process superheated virgin materials indirectly heat the RAP aggre-
gates thus imposing limitations on the amount of RAP that can
be added. Most drum plants can accommodate up to 50% RAP
(Bonaquist, 2007) and a typical RAP range of batch plants is 10–20%
(Kandhal and Mallick, 1997). Producing mixtures of higher RAP con-
tent using conventional plants would require an unrealistically high
superheating temperature of virgin aggregates, causing blue smoke
from volatilization of RAP binder, and risk dryer fires if RAP feed is
interrupted.
There are multiple technologies readily available for produc-
tion of 100% recycled hot mix asphalt. The authors contacted
owners/producers of five of these plants and visited two of plant
locations. Basic information about these facilities is summarized
in Table 2 and the main principles of each technology are sum-
marized later in this section as well as illustrated in the video
(http://youtu.be/coj-e5mhHEQ). All contacted producers pointed
out that conventional techniques and equipment can be used for
placement and compaction of 100% RAP mixes. None of them
revealed any serious issues with mixture workability or perfor-
mance.
Other technologies that are designed for 100% RAP recycling, but
are not described in detail, include:
– “HERA System” is an indirect heating process in which hot gasses
heat the outside of satellite tubes in drum, inside which the
asphalt is heated and dried while rotating (Volker Wessels, 2013).
– “Bagela” recycler is an ultra-portable (towable) drum with up
RAP used Excess RAP, t
to 10 t/h production capacity. Flame in a separate combustion
42% 675,853 chamber heats RAP mainly through the hot wall of mixing drum
26% 359,245
(Bagela, 2013).
41% 636,844
42% 703,976
– RSL is another company producing towable recycling units with
50% 939,844 up to 25t /h capacity. In the process heat is directed into the top
43% 833,703 of the mixing drum, inside which the asphalt is heated and dried
41% 4,149,464 while rotating (RSL, 2014).
232 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245

Table 2
Summary of the described processes.

Technology name All-RAP process Ammann RAH Alex-Sin Rapmaster RATech

100 Manufacturing, Inc

Plant producer RAP- Ammann Alex-Sin RAP Process E-MAK

Technologies, Manufacturing, Inc Machinery, LLC
Inc
(modification
of generic
plant)
Owner of visited plant Green Asphalt BAB Belag AG Pavement Evergreen –
Recycling Systems Sustainable
& Alex Sin Pavements
Manufacturing
Plant location Long Island Birmenstorf, Riverside, Not in operation Plant
City, New York canton Aargau, California, USA manufacturer
City, USA Switzerland located in
Turkey
Plant type Drum plant Batch plant Drum plant Drum plant Batch plant
Dryer type Conventional Counter flow Counter flow with Indirect rotary tube Separate heat
counter flow with two phase extreme oxidized dryer generator with
shell dryer drum conductor indirect heat
triangular drier
Maximal plant output 200 t/h 240 t/h 300 t/h 100 t/h 180 t/h
Put into operation 2001 2010 1992 1994 2011
Current status Commercial Commercial Idle, technology Idle Commercial
production production development production
Amount of 100% RAP mixtures produced to date ∼300,000 t ∼1000 t ∼4100 t ∼100,000 t n/a
Asphalt layers produced Base, binder, Base and n/a Wearing, base, Base
wearing and binder coarse binder
specialty mixes
Main 100% RAP mixture applications Commercial Industrial areas Currently not in Commercial sites, n/a
sites, operation local area roads
temporary, and
secondary
streets.
Information sources R. Frank (RAP I. Otero D. Alexander L. Hanlon, R. (Gencer et al.,
Technologies, (Ammann, (Alexander and Anderson (RAP 2012; E-MAK,
2013; Frank, 2011, 2013) Sindelar, 1994) Process Machinery, 2013)
2004) 2013)

– “Benninghoven” has developed a uniflow large volume drum Table 3

with a burner that precludes direct contact between the flame
and recycled material (Benninghoven, 2013).
– “RapSaver” is a preheating system comprised of a continuously
fed sealed conductive heating system that allows RAP to be
heated and dried using a slow moving hollow screw heating
auger (Augering, 2013).
– “HyRAP” is a direct heating system that uses a parallel flow drum
with four point material entry collars for different fractions of
RAP (Brooks Construction Company, 2013).
– “Cyclean” is a microwave heating technology that was utilized at
the end of 1980s and beginning of 1990s. Due to the high energy
requirements of microwaves and thermal oxidizer compared
to conventional systems the process has only seen limited use
(Techapplication, 1992; Federal Highway Administration, 2008).
2.1. All-RAP Plant
All-RAP Plant (RAP Technologies, 2013) process uses conven-
tional hot mix asphalt plant components and a special blue smoke
filtration system (Frank, 2004) (Fig. 1a). Since most of the fine dust is
encapsulated by RAP binder there is little need for dust collection.
Instead, blue smoke generated by the direct contact of RAP with
flame has to be removed prior to releasing combustion gases to the
atmosphere. RAP Technologies employs a multiple stage filtration
system (Fig. 1) to comply with local air quality rules as follows (the
recorded emissions are summarized in Table 3):
– Inertial separator drops out small quantity of coarse fines that
are then manually removed a few times per year.
Emissions of NYC plant (RAP Technologies, 2013).
Pollutant Emissions
PM 0.02 grains/SFC
CO 0.2 lb/t
VOC 0.14 lb/t
NOx 0.08 lb/t
SO2 0.06 lb/t
– Disposable fiberglass pocket filters remove micron size particles
with up to 99% control efficiency.
– Recirculated water spray cools air stream and condenses hydro-
carbons stripped from RAP during drying to form aerosol mist.
– Fiberbed filters remove aerosol mist by Brownian capture and
release zero opacity gases to atmosphere.
– Exhaust gases comply with 0.04 g per SCF (Standard Cubic
Foot) and 10% opacity limits for conventional asphalt plants
established by US federal “Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources” described in 40 CFR Part 60.
– Air flow is approximately 30,000 ACFM (Actual Cubic Feet per
Minute) at 30% moisture.
– The dryer is maintained at slight negative pressure to vent com-
bustion gases and fugitive emissions to the air pollution control
device.
Separate cold feed bins for fine and coarse RAP fractions vol-
umetrically meter design blends onto incline conveyers that deliver
them to the heating drum. Due to differences in ratio of thermal
mass and surface area, the fine RAP fractions require less time to
reach mix temperature than coarse aggregates. Therefore, coarse
 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245
Fig. 1. 100% all RAP process plant in New York City.
RAP is introduced in the drum at the beginning of it, while the
fine RAP is introduced at dryer midpoint via a conventional “center
entry” RAP collar. The mix discharge temperature is around 150 ◦ C.
The recycling agent type and dose is chosen based on extracted
binder penetration test results. It is sprayed on the hot RAP at the
dryer discharge chute as demonstrated in Fig. 1b. It mechanically
mixes with the RAP binder during transportation by drag slat con-
veyor. The diffusion continues during storage, transportation, and
laying of the asphalt.
2.1.1. Current operation, RAP processing and mix design
The RAP is run through a screening plant and separated into frac-
tions using 6.4 mm, 12.5 mm and 19.0 mm sieves. A combination
of these fractions is used to produce 4.75, 12.5 or 19 mm Nomi-
nal Maximum Aggregate Size (NMAS) Superpave mixes. Oversize
clumps of pavement are crushed to liberate sand from stone in a
manner that avoids generation of excess 70 ␮m material. Addi-
tional 19 mm material is trucked in from conventional plants to
keep up with demand for base mixes. RAP fines are used imme-
diately after processing to avoid high moisture content due to
precipitation.
100% RAP is used to pave utility trenches, commercial parking
lots, and industrial areas. A study that evaluated one site is reported
in Section 3.3. In 2013 a demonstration project of 100% RAP along
with conventional asphalt was paved by New York City Department
of Transportation (NYC DOT) at Jewel Avenue & 147th Street in Kew
Garden Hills, Queens (New York City, 2013). 85th Road and 75th
street was paved in 2001 along with numerous other streets that
are still in service providing record of the durability of 100% RAP
mixes on public streets.
2.2. Ammann RAH 100 plant
The indirect heating system “RAH 100” is paired with Ammann
“Uniglobe 200” plant at the visited location in Birmensdorf,
Switzerland. The plant has three cold storage bins for storing differ-
ent RAP fractions. The bunkers are located underground, thus RAP
is not exposed to weathering. The material is metered and trans-
ported via conveyor belt to bucket elevators that deliver the cold
RAP to heating drum.
The drum is installed on top of the tower to ensure gravity-
driven handling of the hot RAP as illustrated in Fig. 2a. A counter
flow dryer with two phase drum is used. The material heating and
drying phase of the drum rotates, while the combustion cham-
ber is static as demonstrated in Fig. 2b. The RAP is heated with
hot air and is discharged before getting in contact with the flame
thus reducing emissions and limiting RAP binder aging. Usual RAP
discharge temperature is 165–180 ◦ C. The air recirculation system
improves drying efficiency in comparison to conventional systems
by 10%, ensures low oxygen content to further reduce aging and
reduces emissions (Ammann, 2011). After discharge gravity drives
233
the material into hot storage silo which has a capacity of 28t . The
RAP is further released to the weight hopper and asphalt pugmill
of 3t capacity. The rejuvenator and virgin binder, if any, is added in
the pugmill and mixed together with RAP for 30–40 s.
2.2.1. Current operation, RAP processing, and mix design
RAP is crushed and screened to NMAS of 22 mm. On aver-
age the material has around 10% fines and binder penetration of
30–40 × 0.1 mm. Rejuvenator can be added to the heated RAP in
the asphalt pugmill. However, currently the plant operates without
addition of any recycling agent.
2.3. Alex-Sin manufacturing plant
A drum dryer without direct exposure of RAP to flame is used in
the “Alex-Sin Manufacturing” plant that is capable of 100% RAP pro-
duction (Alexander and Sindelar, 1994). Seven burners are located
in a heating chamber and perpendicularly heat rotating drum dryer
shell from exterior as demonstrated in Fig. 3. Radiation shields
(46 cm wide) are located on the drum perpendicular to flames
to prevent drum from heating unevenly. Heat is transferred from
drum to RAP by conduction through the metal shell. The front third
of the drum (cold end) is constructed of aluminum while the rear
two-thirds are made of 310 stainless steel. Hot combustion gases
flow through the heating chamber and enter the drum at 680 ◦ C
to move in counter-flow direction. In addition, breech ports are
placed inside the drum to introduce hot air at drum center. Fins are
welded on the exterior of the drum at 45◦ angles to aid at churning
of air and work as secondary thermal mass conductors. The burner
output is controlled by three infrared readers that are set to main-
tain the inner drum surface temperature between 480 and 540 ◦ C.
The burners operate between 650 and 900 ◦ C and, based on tem-
perature readings, are typically set to three different output levels
ranging from 100% at the entrance of materials to 50% (or less) of
maximum output at the exit of the drum. Fuel use of 3.4–5.2 l per
t of mixture produced has been recorded at ambient temperatures
ranging from 10 to 30 ◦ C. The final mixture temperature can be
adjusted as required and the maximum stack temperature is 80 ◦ C.
Virgin binder or recycling agent can be added at the mixing zone
at the end of the drum though a pipe that penetrates the rear wall.
2.4. RapmasterTM plant
In the RapmasterTM processor (Anderson et al., 2010) RAP is
indirectly heated through convection, conduction, and radiation
within the rotating drum from stainless steel heat exchange tubes
and heated drum wall surface. Hot combustion gases are gener-
ated in a dedicated combustion chamber and channeled inside heat
exchange tubes that pass through the length of the drum in counter
flow direction to the materials (Fig. 4). The drum has a double shell
whereby the spent exhaust gases from heat exchange tubes are
234 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245

Fig. 2. BAB Belag AG RAH 100 recycling plant (a) and cross-section of heating drum (b) (courtesy of Ammann).

Fig. 3. Alex-Sin plant drying unit (a) and cross section (b) of the heating unit (the internal plates (f) have been replaced with “J” flights) (Alexander and Sindelar, 1994).

Fig. 4. RapmasterTM drying unit overview (a) and heating principle (b).

running back the length of the drum, and after blending with fresh
air are directed to combustion gas exhaust. Since there is no air
velocity within the drum and all exhaust gases are isolated from
the material, the main exhaust fan collects gases directly from the
plant without a baghouse. A second fan draws blue smoke created
during heating process to a combustion chamber for incineration.
After the hot RAP at around 160 ◦ C is discharged from the drum,
it enters post mixer pugmill where it is blended with a recycling
agent and, if necessary, virgin binder. The asphalt from pugmill is
transported by a drag slat conveyor to heated silos.
2.4.1. Current operation, RAP processing and mix design
The plant is currently idle. When in operation, the RAP was typ-
ically screened to two or three fractions using a high frequency
screening system (i.e. using screens of 12.7 mm and 6.4 mm).
Oversized material was crushed into the necessary fraction. The
RapmasterTM producers note that RAP uniformity and consistency
after processing was often better than that of virgin aggregates.
“Cyclogen L” recycling agent was typically added at around 0.6% by
weight of mixture to provide the desired performance grade.
In a demonstration project on Tinkham Street, Springfield, MA
in 2003, a 100% RAP mixture, the pavement was placed along with
a virgin mix. Visual observations of the site show equal or less
cracking of 100% RAP compared to control sections.
2.5. RATech plant
RATech” heating unit can be integrated in existing batch asphalt
plant to provide partial or total RAP recycling. It uses indirect heat-
ing from a separate hot air generator to heat RAP in an originally
designed triangle profile drier (Gencer, 2010) using vertical eleva-
tor. RAP is indirectly heated by hot air of 200–400 ◦ C and directly
exposed to 120–200 ◦ C as illustrated in Fig. 5a. This reduced tem-
perature compared to conventional plants helps limit the aging of
RAP binder and lowers the emissions. A controllable speed spi-
ral conveyor spreads the RAP slowly between the drier’s plates
where it is heated through hot surfaces of channels and driving
plate surfaces to the desired temperature. The driving plates are
designed to limit sticking of RAP and reduce segregation. After heat-
ing RAP is released to RATech mixer via weighing unit. Any recycling
 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245
Fig. 5. RATech triangle drier (a) and heat generator (b).
additives or virgin bitumen are added in at this stage and 45 s mix-
ing time is suggested. The hot RAP is kept in a heated silo until
ready for discharge. The production capacity of the plant signifi-
cantly varies based on the RAP moisture content. It will drop from
180t/h for 1% moisture to around 80t/h for 5% moisture content.
The hot air that is used to bring RAP to the desired process
temperature is obtained from heat generator, which consists of
combustion space and burner (Fig. 5b). The released hot air from the
burner is mixed with controlled amount of cold air and fed into cir-
culation channels of triangle drier at the required temperature. The
temperature, flow rate, speed, and pressure of the circulating air is
controlled automatically. The temperature of air when it reaches
air filter has dropped to 90–95 ◦ C.
3. 100% RAP performance
3.1. Typical distresses associated with high RAP use
Before describing the few studies that have evaluated 100%
recycled asphalt, typical distresses of traditional very high RAP con-
tent mixtures are reviewed. Although the findings of such studies
cannot be directly attributed to 100% RAP mixtures, the trends in
most cases are likely to remain similar.
3.1.1. Cracking
The distresses in high RAP mixtures are mostly associated with
the aged binder. The stiff, less elastic binder in RAP typically
increases mixture stiffness (Al-Qadi et al., 2012; West et al., 2013)
and therefore can cause fatigue damage (Daniel et al., 2010; Shah
et al., 2007; West et al., 2011) and low temperature brittleness
(West et al., 2011; Terrel et al., 1992). For example, National Cooper-
ative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) study 9–46 (West et al.,
2013) evaluated the use of 55% RAP mixes and showed that stiff-
ness, as measured by dynamic modulus at different temperatures
and frequencies, increased by 25–60% compared to virgin mixtures.
These are some of the main reasons for reluctance for government
agencies to allow very high RAP content (Mogawer et al., 2012;
Willis et al., 2012).
Contrary to general perception, the studies by Al-Qadi et al.
(2012), Huang et al. (2004, 2005), Shu et al. (2008), McDaniel et al.
(2012), as well as Sargious and Mushule (1991) have all indicated
increased fatigue life of mixtures containing at least 40% RAP com-
pared to conventional mixtures. These results may be partially
explained by reduced tensile strains in the mixture due to increased
stiffness and improved bond between binder and aggregates. In
addition, Huang et al. (2005) concluded that the hardened binder
forms a stiff micro layer at the interface of RAP which reduces
the stress and strain concentration within the HMA and could
improve fatigue resistance. Yet, the authors predict that finaliza-
tion of recycling agent diffusion would likely neglect this effect over
235
time. Therefore, laboratory evaluation of mixtures where diffusion
has not finalized can create “false positive” results.
3.1.2. Rutting
Multiple studies have shown that the resistance to rutting resis-
tance is likely to be very good for high RAP mixes because of the
presence of aged binder (McDaniel et al., 2000; Silva et al., 2012;
Karlsson and Isacsson, 2006). However, the recycling agents are
aimed at reduction of the mix stiffness and may cause increased
rutting if inappropriately used. Two main factors must be taken
into account to avoid forming of plastic deformations:
– The recycling agent dose must be carefully chosen not to over
soften the binder.
– Sufficient recycling agent diffusion into the binder film must
have occurred before opening to traffic. Insufficient diffusion will
form soft outer layer of binder film (Shah et al., 2007; Mogawer
et al., 2012) which may lead to increased dynamics of develop-
ing permanent deformations in early stages of pavement life until
equilibrium is reached (Potter and Mercer, 1997).
3.1.3. Water susceptibility
Since the RAP aggregates are already covered with asphalt, there
is less chance of water penetration in the particles. Therefore, gen-
erally high recycled asphalt mixtures are expected to have similar
or better moisture susceptibility compared to conventional asphalt
(Mogawer et al., 2012; Karlsson and Isacsson, 2006; Tran et al.,
2012). If the milled pavement had stripping problems, adhesion
additive should be used (DeKold and Amirkhanian, 1992).
3.1.4. Flushing
In field studies with the use of incompatible products or exces-
sive dose of recycling agents, a migration of oils toward the surface
of the asphalt layer has been noticed, resulting in reduction of
the friction of wearing course and compromised pavement perfor-
mance. This has been described as unstable rejuvenation resulting
in bleeding or flushing (Kandhal and Mallick, 1997; Karlsson and
Isacsson, 2006).
3.2. Laboratory research results of 100% RAP mixtures
A doctorate research by Zaumanis (2014) compared recycling
agents for 100% RAP HMA mixtures. Both conventional petroleum
and novel organic recycling agents were tested, including organic
oil, aromatic extract, waste engine oil (WEO), distilled tall oil,
waste vegetable oil (WVO) and waste vegetable grease. The tests
of extracted binder showed that the products at 12% dose, except
WEO, reduced the aged binder performance grade (PG) temper-
ature from −12 ◦ C of RAP binder to the required −22 ◦ C. Most
recycling agents also reduced critical mixture cracking tempera-
ture, calculated from creep compliance and tensile strength test
results, and two products (WVO and aromatic extract) ensured
236 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245
cracking temperature similar to virgin mixture. The high tem-
perature rutting potential was in all cases within the required
specification limits for Hamburg wheel tracking test (Zaumanis
et al., 2014a). The authors also concluded that workability of virgin
mix cannot be reached with any of the products. Overall at 12% dose
waste vegetable products outperformed other recycling agents in
most of the tests.
A laboratory study by Silva et al. (2012) evaluated the poten-
tial of 100% RAP hot mix recycling with the use of recycling agents.
Instead of extracting binder from RAP, the researchers chose a hard
binder grade to replicate aged binder and performed testing using
two rejuvenating agents: “ACF Iterlene 1000” and used motor oil.
The aim was to reduce viscosity of the binder, which had pene-
tration of 14 × 0.1 mm and softening point of 68 ◦ C to penetration
grade of 20/30 and respective required softening point of 55–63 ◦ C.
Through addition of three doses of recycling agents, it was found
that both of them satisfied this requirement at 5% dose from binder
mass. All mixtures had high resistance of water damage, measured
as indirect tensile strength ratio (ITSR). The wheel tracking test
results of the unmodified mixture, as expected due to aged RAP
binder, showed superior performance, while the rejuvenated mixes
demonstrated similar result to conventional mixture having the
same binder grade. As measured by a four point bending test, the
stiffness of mixture has been reduced, phase angle increased and
fatigue resistance improved with the addition of recycling agents.
The authors concluded that mixture performance results were even
better than those of conventional HMA with using either of the
recycling agents.
A study by Zaumanis et al. (2013) evaluated the use of nine
recycling agents for softening extracted RAP binder and improv-
ing 100% RAP mixture low temperature properties. Doses of 9% and
18% from binder mass were used. The extracted RAP binder was
severely aged having penetration of 16 × 0.1 mm at 25 ◦ C and kine-
matic viscosity of 2054 mm2 /s at 135 ◦ C while the virgin binder
had 85 × 0.1 mm and 474 mm2 /s respectively. The effectiveness of
reducing the RAP binder consistency to the target of virgin binder
varied by a factor of twelve between the different recycling agents.
Two of the products were not able to ensure binder softening to
the required level at a reasonable dosage rate. Creep compliance
and tensile strength of mixtures were tested at −10 ◦ C with the dif-
ferent recycling agents. All products provided similar or reduced
stiffness compared to unmodified RAP mixture, but only five of
them ensured equal or higher strength. The authors concluded that
four of the tested products (organic blend, refined tallow, aromatic
extract, and distilled tall oil) reduced low temperature brittleness
and at the same time provided binder consistency similar to that of
target virgin binder.
A study by Mallick et al. (2010) evaluated 100% RAP hot mix
asphalt produced with addition of 0.9% Reclamite recycling agent
(from mixture mass). The RAP was re-graded to meet 12.5 mm
Fig. 6. 100% RAP pavement on 75th street in NYC, Woodhaven at construction (2001) and in 2012.
Superpave gradation specification for use in base course. Compared
to RAP mix without a recycling agent a decrease in dynamic mod-
ulus value (reduced stiffness) was noted in most temperatures and
frequencies, except the highest temperature (54.4 ◦ C) and the low-
est loading frequencies (0.1 and 1 Hz). The authors compared these
results with reports from multiple other studies to conclude that
the stiffness of 100% RAP rejuvenated mixes is very similar or lower
than that of conventional HMA. Low temperature cracking poten-
tial was evaluated through the use of creep compliance and indirect
tensile strength test to conclude that reduced embrittlement was
obtained after introduction of Reclamite.
3.3. Full Scale Trials of 100% RAP mixtures
The study by Mallick et al. (2010) presents results of full scale
application of 100% RAP wearing coarse in New York City (NYC).
The 12.5 mm NMAS dense-graded mixture was produced using the
asphalt plant described in Section 2.1. “Renoil” recycling agent was
used to restore the RAP binder grade to PG 70-28. The quality con-
trol results demonstrated good consistency of air voids, Marshall
stability and flow. Samples were also cored from 7 year old 100%
RAP pavement where Renoil was used as recycling agent. The air
void content at four of six core locations was similar to control sec-
tion while at the others two it was high (9.6 and 11.2%). Stiffness of
the rejuvenated 100% RAP mixture, measured by resilient modulus
test, was lower than that of concurrently paved 15% RAP mixture
that was used as control. Creep compliance at −10 ◦ C, which is an
indicator of low temperature stiffness, showed similar results for
both 15% and 100% RAP mixtures.
Due to scarce availability of research reports, in summer of 2012
the authors performed a visual inspection tour of the 100% RAP
sites in NYC DOT demonstration projects at Woodhaven 85th Road
and 75th Street. These wearing coarses were paved in 2001 using
Marshall mix design with 12.5 mm NMAS aggregate design (6F mix
designation by NYC DOT). No differences in pavement performance
compared to control sections of virgin mixtures were noted (Fig. 6).
Tinkham Street in Springfield, MA was paved in 2003 using 100%
RAP mixture along with control virgin mixture and both sections
are performing well.
Historically, due to oil crisis in the 1970s and consecutive
increase in binder cost, a significant effort was placed on research of
high use of RAP. FHWA demonstration project No. 39 in the 1970s
and beginning of the 1980s was aimed at reducing energy use and
asphalt costs by maximizing the recycling. Due to the available
technology at the time, RAP content in most projects was limited
to around 30–70% (Hellriegel, 1980; Howard et al., 2009; Henely,
1980; Zywiak, 1982; Federal Highway Administration, 1995). The
few 100% RAP field research projects that could be found in the
literature are listed in Table 4. The observed problems of pave-
ment performance, consistency, production and emissions at the
 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245 237

Table 4
Historic 100% RAP plant-produced hot mix asphalt projects.

Project Construction Layer Additive dose Plant type Performance Source

year and type

Interstate 8, Sentinel, Arizona 1978 Base and 2.5% Cyclogen Central, drum Likely due to overdose of (Federal Highway
surface dryer rejuvenator, in-place density Administration, 1995;
showed low air voids (0–2.3%) Little and Epps, 1980)
although the mixture was
designed with 4.1% air voids
Interstate 15, Henderson, Nevada 1974 Surface 1.5% AR-8000 Central, drum Section required heavy (Federal Highway
0.75% Paxole dryer maintenance and was Administration, 1995;
removed in 1986 Little and Epps, 1980)
U.S. 84, Snyder, Texas 1976 Base 4.0% AC-10 Central, hot – (Little and Epps, 1980)
pug mix
Loop 374, Mission, Texas 1975 Surface 1.6% Reclamite Central, drum – (Little and Epps, 1980)
3.0% AC-5 dryer
2.0% flux oil
U.S. 50, Holden, Utah 1975 Surface 1.5% AC-10 Central, drum – (Little and Epps, 1980)
dryer
Georgia 1991 Unspecified 0% and 4% “Cyclean” Good performance after 17 (Bloomquist et al., 1993)
unspecified months of service
recycling agent

very high RAP projects significantly reduced the research and trust determining aggregate fractured faces, fine aggregate sand equiv-
in high RAP content mixtures (Howard et al., 2009; Bloomquist alent, LA abrasion, and bulk specific gravity (except aggregates
et al., 1993). A comfortable approach of using low RAP content that undergo significant changes in ignition oven). For soundness
(10–25%) has been adopted since then and is reality even nowadays. testing and aggregate gradation, solvent extraction is preferred.
Bonaquist has noted that many of the isolated failures with high
RAP contents have occurred when unprocessed RAP was produced 4.2. Binder content
in asphalt plants that were not designed to handle such mixtures
(Bonaquist, 2007). Several parameters will impact the binder content in 100% RAP
mixtures and optimization can be performed by changing them
4. Mix design alone or together. For example, binder content can be increased by
either of the following actions (lower content can be achieved by
The traditional mix design methodology, especially with respect opposite steps):
to design of optimal binder content, has to be modified for very high
content RAP mixtures. The mix designer will have to make com- – Choose source RAP with higher binder content.
promises when choosing how to process the reclaimed asphalt and – Increase fines content in the mixture, since they usually contain
what size fractions best satisfy the mixture gradation, binder con- higher binder content (Khedaywi and White, 1995; Brock and
tent, mixture volumetric and performance-property requirements Richmond, 2007).
while efficiently utilizing the available material. Choice of recycling – Choose less effective recycling agent. Organic products tend to be
agent and its dose is another significant aspect. more effective at a select dose compared to petroleum products
The authors’ proposed mix design principles for dense-graded (Zaumanis et al. 2013, 2014b; Dony et al., 2013).
100% RAP mixtures are summarized in Fig. 7. First, the aggregates
are tested for required properties and the chosen RAP fractions
are combined in an initial mixture composition. The binder is then
extracted from the mixture to determine its properties and choose
the necessary recycling agent type and dose. The asphalt is mixed
and compacted in laboratory to determine the required volumet-
ric and performance-related properties. The steps are repeated by
taking appropriate modification if correspondence to the specifica-
tion requirements is not ensured at any stage. If due to properties
of milled RAP (especially fines and binder content) the design of
mixture with 100% RAP is not possible (Gencer et al., 2012; Arnold
et al., 2012), virgin binder and aggregates can be added. However,
care should be given to ensure sufficient blending of RAP and virgin
binder as well as homogeneous coating of virgin and RAP aggre-
gates.

4.1. RAP gradation and aggregate characterization

The basic principle for ensuring good performing asphalt

pavement is to apply the same requirements to the RAP aggregates
as those that are specified for virgin mineral aggregates (Willis
et al., 2012). A study by NCAT and University of Nevada Reno (West
et al., 2013; Kvasnak et al., 2010) suggests that either ignition
oven test or solvent extraction can be used for extraction before Fig. 7. 100% RAP mixture design.
238 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245
– Increase recycling agent dose. Care should be given to comply
with the performance specification requirements, especially rut-
ting.
– Add virgin binder.
4.3. Recycling agents
A successful use of recycling agents should reverse the RAP
binder aging process, restore the properties of asphalt binder for
another service period, and make the RAP binder effectively “avail-
able” to the mixture. It is necessary to carefully select the recycling
agent to provide the necessary short and long term properties, as
follows:
– Short term. Recycling agents should allow the production of high
RAP content mixture by rapidly diffusing into the RAP binder
and mobilizing the aged asphalt in order to produce uniformly
coated mixtures. Recycling agent should soften the binder in
order to produce a workable mixture that can be easily paved
and compacted to the required density without the hazard of pro-
ducing harmful emissions. Major part of diffusion process should
be completed before the traffic is allowed to avoid reduction of
friction and increased susceptibility to rutting.
– Long term. Recycling agents should reconstitute chemical and
physical properties of the aged binder and maintain stability for
another service period. The binder rheology has to be altered to
reduce fatigue and low temperature cracking potential without
over softening the binder to cause rutting problems. Sufficient
adhesion and cohesion have to be provided in the mix to prevent
moisture damage and raveling.
4.3.1. Dose selection
The dose of recycling agents should be selected to meet the
target grade of the aged RAP binder, resulting in improved crack-
ing resistance without adversely affecting rutting resistance (Tran
et al., 2012). Mixing of the recovered RAP binder with recycling
agent to determine the rejuvenated binder grade is considered the
best approach at this time for selection of appropriate recycling
agent dose. Such method is used in majority of the research studies
(West et al., 2013; Silva et al., 2012; Tran et al., 2012; Zaumanis
et al., 2013). A report by NCAT (West et al., 2011) suggests using
centrifuge extraction over other methods for recovery of the RAP
binder from high RAP mixtures.
The research by Zaumanis et al. (2014b), Tran et al. (2012), Lei
et al. (2014), and Ma et al. (2010) have all shown that the change in
Superpave performance grade (both high and low) is almost lin-
ear at different doses of the same recycling agent. Research by
Zaumanis et al. (2014b) and Dony et al. (2013) showed that pene-
tration increases exponentially with higher recycling agent content
and softening efficiency of organic products is generally much
higher than that of petroleum recycling agents. The research by
Asli et al. (2012) and Lin et al. (2011), however, showed linear pen-
etration increase. The viscosity for any dose can be predicted using
Refutas equation (Zaumanis et al., 2014a). Research by Zaumanis
et al. (2014b) demonstrated with six different recycling agents that
the dose calculated to reach the penetration of virgin binder also
ensures conformity to the performance grade of the same binder.
In this research, a method for rejuvenator dose optimization was
developed to account for the RAP binder variability due to source
and age of the material.
There are several drawbacks of determining recycling agent
dose based on binder performance alone, as follows:
– The entire RAP binder is extracted and blended with recycling
agent thus assuming full activation of RAP binder in the mixture.
However, it has been reported by multiple studies (Huang et al.,
2005; Al-Qadi et al., 2007; Bennert and Dongre, 2010) that part
of RAP binder stays inherent and does not actively contribute to
mix properties (often referred to as “black rock”).
– Softening of binder to reach the desired viscosity, penetration
or softening point can be achieved by various oils, but does not
ensure binder rejuvenation.
– Many recycling agents will also allow aged binder to reach the
desired performance grade (PG). While this provides better char-
acterization of binder properties than viscosity alone, research
by Burke and Hesp (2011) and Hesp and Shurvell (2010) has
shown that conformity to PG did not prevent pavement prema-
ture excessive thermal cracking when WEO bottoms (residue)
was used as recycling agent.
– Incompatible recycling agent or overdose can cause lack of binder
cohesion and reduce adhesion with the aggregate thus leading to
premature pavement deterioration, especially susceptibility to
water damage.
For these reasons, determination of relevant mixture
performance-related properties should be considered and is
discussed in Section 4.4.
4.3.2. Diffusion of recycling agents
Diffusion speed of the recycling agent into the hard RAP binder
depends on binder and recycling agent properties and occurs most
rapidly at elevated temperatures during mixing, storage, trans-
portation, and compaction (Kuang et al., 2011; Zaumanis and
Mallick, 2013; Karlsson and Isacsson, 2003). It can continue during
the service life until equilibrium is reached (Huang et al., 2005; Tran
et al., 2012; Carpenter and Wolosick, 1980). Part of the RAP binder
in fact may not be activated and stays as “black rock” (Huang et al.,
2005; Shirodkar et al., 2011; Zaumanis and Mallick, 2014). Karlsson
and Isacsson (2003) argued that the diffusion rate is governed by
the viscosity of the maltene phase instead of the entire recycled
binder. The recycling agent diffusion process in RAP binder film is
illustrated in Fig. 8 as described by Carpenter and Wolosick (1980):
– The modifier forms a very low-viscosity layer that surrounds the
aggregate, which is coated with a very high viscosity aged asphalt
cement. Due to weathering the outer micro-layer of RAP binder
is typically harder compared to the inner layers (Carpenter and
Wolosick, 1980; Noureldin and Wood, 1987).
– The modifier starts to penetrate into the aged binder, decreasing
the amount of raw modifier on the binder.
– The penetration continues and the viscosity of the inner layer is
lowered and gradually the viscosity of the outer layer is increased.
– Equilibrium is approached over the majority of the aged binder
film.
The recycling agent diffusion can significantly affect perfor-
mance of the asphalt mixture as follows:
– In mix design assumption of full binder activation while the
binder is actually behaving as partial “black rock”, the mixture
will be soft and under asphalted (Al-Qadi et al., 2007; Shirodkar
et al., 2011), which can lead to cracking and raveling failures of
the pavement.
– Alternatively, assumption of “black rock” situation when the RAP
binder actually contributes to the mixture performance will lead
to soft mixture because of high bitumen content (Howard et al.,
2009; Al-Qadi et al., 2007). This can cause plastic deformations
of the pavement.
– If traffic is allowed on pavement where recycling agent diffusion
is not complete, its concentration in the outer layer of binder film
 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245
Fig. 8. Recycling agent diffusion into binder film and binder layer viscosities.
will be high and can lead to increased rutting due to this soft film
dominating performance of pavement (Potter and Mercer, 1997).
– Incomplete diffusion can cause problems in predicting the
pavement performance in laboratory, especially for long-term
properties, like fatigue (Carpenter and Wolosick, 1980) (dis-
cussed in Section 3.1).
To improve the blending and diffusion of RAP and the added
materials (recycling agent, virgin binder) the following actions can
be considered (Bonaquist, 2007; Zaumanis and Mallick, 2013):
– Increase the mixing and storage time to ensure longer time for
mingling between materials.
– Use warm mix asphalt (WMA) additive (without lowering tem-
perature) to reduce the viscosity and increase lubricity of binder.
– Raise the mixing and compaction temperature to facilitate diffu-
sion and blending.
4.3.3. Performance of specific products
Multiple different recycling agents are available in the market,
including engineered and generic products having both petroleum
and organic origins. No single recycling agent will be suited for all
applications. General performance indications of some recycling
agents that have been used for plant-produced hot mix asphalt are
summarized here. Several products were already discussed previ-
ously in Section 3.
Rejuvenators should provide homogeneous system where
asphaltenes are well peptized/dissolved and prevented from pre-
cipitation or flocculation, while softening agents are solely aimed at
lowering the viscosity of RAP binder (Karlsson and Isacsson, 2006).
Roberts et al. (1996) defined the softening agents as asphalt flux
oils, lube stock, lubricating or crankcase oil or slurry oil; the reju-
venating agents were defined as lube extracts and extender oils.
Other research has shown that the best rejuvenation can be attained
with high amount of maltene constituents – naphthenic or polar
aromatic fractions (Xu et al., 2014; Roberts et al., 2009) and low
content of saturates, which are highly incompatible with binders
and increases aging (Tran et al., 2012; Peterson et al., 2014). The
stability of the system in aging depends on the solubility, molec-
ular size and to a large extent on molecular shape (Karlsson and
Isacsson, 2006). Brownridge (2010) demonstrated that application
of engineered rejuvenator can almost entirely restore the chemical
composition of aged asphalt as illustrated in Fig. 9. The study by
Bailey and Zoorob (2012a), however, noted that for neither of two
vegetable oils used in her study, SARA (Saturates, Aromatics, Resins,
Asphaltenes) analysis provided meaningful results thus question-
ing the application of the test method. Two studies (Nahar et al.,
239
2014; Xu et al., 2014) attempted to evaluate microstructure of reju-
venated binder using atomic force microscopy (AFM) images. In
both research rejuvenators improved the rheology of aged binder
and in some cases the performance was similar to that of the source
virgin binder. Xu et al. (2014) indicated that these results were qual-
itatively consistent with the AFM micro-mechanical parameters
and the changes in binders’ chemical composition (SARA). Simi-
larly Nahar et al. (2014) showed that AFM images after using one
of the rejuvenators resemble those of the source un-aged binder
and concluded that the chemo-physical mechanisms in this study
demonstrate true rejuvenation.
The use of petroleum products has been most widely reported
for rejuvenation. “Reclamite” has been reported as a recycling agent
that provides good performance in multiple sites (Mallick et al.,
2010; Boyer, 2000) and it has been used for more than 50 years
(Brownridge, 2010). “Cyclogen” has been used for production of
100% RAP pavements in Arizona (Jimenez and Meier, 1986) and
research by Tran et al. (2012) has shown that this product can be
used for improving the low temperature cracking resistance of RAP
binder to a level of virgin binder. The fatigue resistance of 50% RAP
binder mixture plus 12% of recycling agent, measured with the LAS
test described by Hintz et al. (2011), was also improved but not to
the level of virgin binder.
Different types of organic oils have also been tested as recycling.
Bailey et al. has performed laboratory and field trials of vegetable
oils (both virgin and waste) as recycling agents (Bailey and Zoorob,
2012b; Artamendi et al., 2011) and concluded that the use of such
oils can reduce the viscosity to reach the target grade, ensure
Fig. 9. Binder chemical composition at different states (Brownridge, 2010).
240 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245
similar rheology to virgin binder as measured with DSR, reduce
the mixture stiffness to a level of virgin sample and improve the
resistance to aging compared to virgin binder by 20%. The mix-
ture workability, however, was not affected with the addition of
these oils. Gordon et al. (2009) concluded that recycled cooking
oil is a good candidate for improving the low-temperature grade.
Zaumanis et al. (2013) showed based on low temperature mixture
tests and binder softening efficiency that organic blend, refined tal-
low, and distilled tall oil are efficient in improving RAP cracking
resistance. In a later study (Zaumanis et al., 2014a) the authors con-
cluded that waste vegetable products, “Hydrogreen”, distilled tall
oil and petroleum product aromatic extract are likely to improve
the overall performance of 100% RAP mix. All tested products were
able to reduce the binder penetration to level of virgin binder
and passed the mixture rut resistance requirement at the selected
dose of 12%. Waste vegetable products provided the most reduc-
tion in mixture stiffness, likely because of most binder softening
at the tested dose. Dony et al. (2013) similarly concluded that veg-
etable oil and aromatic oil can be successfully used to soften the
binder to the required consistency grade (penetration, softening
point). The authors also concluded that binder that was modi-
fied with vegetable oil exhibited the highest hardening during
short term aging (RTFO). This was explained by slow oxidation of
fatty acid unsaturations present in the vegetable oil (siccativation
phenomenon).
4.4. Mixture volumetric and performance-related tests
Ensuring the required voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) is the
most important volumetric parameter to ensure mix durability
(West et al., 2013). Calculation of VMA requires the use of Gsb (bulk
specific gravity) of the RAP aggregates and NCHRP Report 752 (West
et al., 2013) results show that even a small error caused by the
RAP extraction or burning process could cause the VMA to be off
by ±0.4% at a 50% RAP content. This error would magnify at 100%
recycling.
Because of the possible uncertainty in calculation of volumet-
ric properties and the small experience of high RAP and recycling
agent use, performance related tests are recommended to fur-
ther assess the mix design. The tests should be chosen based
on the climatic conditions, anticipated failure modes as well as
the experience, confidence and availability of criteria on the use
of specific methods. A summary of most advanced performance-
related test methods and pass/fail criteria (for select tests) for high
RAP mixes is available in NCHRP Report 752 (West et al., 2013).
Before testing of performance-related properties, it is important to
provide enough time for diffusion of the recycling agent, since that
might significantly affect the test results. If failures that typically
occur later in pavement life need to be evaluated (e.g. crack-
ing), long term laboratory aging is also necessary (McDaniel et al.,
2000).
To obtain dry RAP without further aging the material, it can be
placed in an oven at 110 ◦ C for up to 6 h (West et al., 2013). Alter-
natively fan can be used for drying at room temperature. Before
mixing samples, the RAP should be pre-heated at the design tem-
perature between 1.5 and 3 h in order to ensure homogeneous
temperature while having the least effect on the properties of RAP
binder (West et al., 2013).
5. Best practices for RAP management
Vertical integration of the materials RAP supply chain, includ-
ing the milling, processing, storage, and quality control operations,
would greatly benefit the quality of final product. The best practices
of RAP management are discussed below.
5.1. RAP milling and processing
Asphalt pavement can be milled in partial or full depth. Road
constructions where the different layers have aggregates or binder
of various quality or grade should be removed by partial milling, in
order to later allow the use of RAP in higher value layers (Arnold
et al., 2012; Kerkhof, 2012). Choice of the milling apparatus, depth
and speed will all influence the quality of RAP (Kerkhof, 2012).
Special attention should be given to minimize fines content. For
example, slow forward speed or fast drum rotation will gener-
ate more undesirable fines. “SmartPave System” designers indicate
that generally the RAP milled with upward cut milling heads stay
within 10% of original gradation (RAP Process Machinery, 2013).
In most cases, production of 100% RAP mixture will require
processing of RAP in order to provide several fractions. Screening
of the material provides flexibility to the mix designer for ensur-
ing the necessary particle size distribution and give control over the
binder and fines content (Hansen and Copeland, 2013; Al-Qadi et al.,
2012; West et al., 2013; Brock and Richmond, 2007). Crushing, how-
ever, should be avoided in order to reduce generation of excessive
fines content that is usually already present from milling opera-
tion (West, 2011). Too high fines content can significantly restrict
the RAP mixture design by not meeting the mixture aggregate size
distribution requirements, dust to binder ratio, air voids, and VMA
(Newcomb et al., 2007; McDaniel et al., 2002; Copeland, 2011).
5.2. Storage of RAP
RAP stockpiles should be treated just like any virgin aggregate
stockpiles to avoid contamination and separation of different mate-
rials (Brock and Richmond, 2007). The startup waste should not be
mixed together with RAP material (Brock and Richmond, 2007). If
RAP from different sources is stored in the same stockpile it can be
blended to increase homogeneity before processing or feeding into
the cold feeder (West, 2011).
Moisture content in RAP is an important factor that can limit
the maximum RAP content. It will cause higher drying and heating
costs, reduce the plant production rate (E-MAK, 2013), and increase
emissions by 10% for every 1% moisture increase (Prowell et al.,
2012). Moisture content can be reduced by the following actions,
in the order of most to least effective (Zaumanis and Mallick, 2014;
Zhou et al., 2010):
– Covered stockpiles under a roof.
– Use of paved, sloped storage area.
– Use of tall conical stockpiles.
– Crushing and screening of RAP in small portions at the day of use
(West et al., 2013; Brock and Richmond, 2007).
5.3. RAP quality control and variability analysis
The studies in 1980s and 1990s have concluded that RAP
exhibits variability in composition (Kallas, 1984; Solaimanian and
Tahmoressi, 1996). However, recent findings show that consistency
of RAP from a single project (and with adequate handling from
multiple projects) is mostly uniform even without fractionation
and RAP is generally more consistent than virgin aggregates (West,
2008; Estakhri et al., 1999).
RAP should be well characterized for mix design and quality
control purposes. The material should be sampled from multiple
locations around RAP stockpile by using back-dragging technique
to determine its properties and variability (West et al., 2013). While
for small contents of RAP it may be enough to determine the binder
content and aggregate gradation, for high RAP content mixtures the
required aggregate and binder properties should be determined as
well (Newcomb et al., 2007).
 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245
Table 5
Energy use for material production, laying and transportation.
Process Energy use
Sand and gravel production 5.8 MJ/t
Crushed stone production 54 MJ/t
RAP processing 16.5 MJ/t
Bitumena and recycling agentb production 1749 MJ/t
Hot mix asphalt production 275 MJ/t
Laying 9 MJ/t
Transport 0.9 MJ/t -km
a
In Europe: oil extraction 1090 MJ/t + bitumen production 510 MJ/t + pipeline transport 49 MJ/t + storage 100 MJ/t.
b
Recycling agent production assumed equal to bitumen production.
6. Environmental analysis
Most life cycle studies clearly indicate that use of high con-
tent RAP reduce the emissions and energy use (Lee et al., 2012;
Aurangzeb et al., 2014). For hot mix pavements, the main two main
processes that are responsible for GHG emissions and energy use
are binder and asphalt production (Chappat and Bilal, 2003; Huang
et al., 2009). RAP use reduces the binder consumption and thus pro-
portionally decreases the environmental effect. For example, the
European Commission sponsored project Re-Road (Waymen et al.,
2012) and Vidal et al. (2013) demonstrated that even at a relatively
low RAP rate of 15% the environmental benefits from recycling are
higher than those achieved by application of WMA technologies
resulting in temperature decrease of 30–35 ◦ C compared to HMA.
A comprehensive view of 100% RAP pavement is necessary to
cover the environmental effects during entire life cycle of asphalt,
including production of constituent materials, asphalt production
phase, construction, maintenance and end of life solutions. Pave-
ment durability is the largest unknown in such estimations and
can have a large impact on the conclusions of life cycle effects com-
pared to conventional pavement (Aurangzeb et al., 2014). Research
by Waymen et al. (2012) suggests that reduction of durability of
pavement from 20 to 14 years would increase the global warming
potential by 13%. Lee et al. (2012) concludes that at 30% RAP rate
the pavement the service life has to be 80–90% from that of virgin
mix to ensure environmental benefits. Unfortunately, the existing
state of practice for 100% recycling does not allow for conclusive
evidence on the long-term performance of such pavements. Thus
the analysis is currently limited to unit inventory or cradle-to-gate
analysis, which at the same time is the most reliable part of any life
cycle calculation.
According to “Re-Road” project (Waymen et al., 2012) and the
practical experience reported by 100% RAP mixture producers, the
energy use at asphalt production and paving operations can be
assumed independent of recycled asphalt content rate. The deve-
lopers of the different technologies also claim that emissions are
similar to traditional asphalt plants (RAP Technologies, 2013; RAP
Fig. 10. Emissions.
241
Source Emissions Source
(Willburn and Goonan, 10 CO2 eq (Chappat and Bilal,
1998) 2003)
4 CO2 eq (McRobert, 2010)
(Eurobitume, 2011) 285 CO2 eq (Chappat and Bilal,
(Chappat and Bilal, 22 CO2 eq 2003)
2003) 0.6 CO2 eq
0.06 CO2 eq
Process Machinery, 2013; Volker Wessels, 2013). Therefore the
energy use and emissions from different processes that are sum-
marized in Table 5 were considered applicable to both virgin and
100% RAP mixtures. Milling of old pavement was not considered
as part of process since it is an integral part of reconstruction and
would be done irrespective of the type of mixture paved. A mixture
containing 25% sand, 70% crushed stone and 5% bitumen was used
in the calculations as a representation of a typical virgin mix. 100%
RAP mixture is considered having 12% recycling agent added from
binder mass. It is also assumed that 100% RAP mix does not require
any virgin binder addition. In practice this is often the case, since
any lost binder is replaced by the addition of recycling agent.
The emission data from Table 5 was used to estimate the
cradle-to-gate emissions and energy use of virgin mix versus 100%
RAP mixture, including raw material production, RAP processing,
asphalt production, hauling and paving. For simplicity, the trans-
port distance was considered equal and consists of 50 km distance
from quarry/RAP site to asphalt plant plus 50 km asphalt plant to
paving site. The only variables in the process are energy use for pro-
duction of constituent materials. The calculation results in Fig. 10
demonstrate that 18 kg of CO2 equivalent and 20% energy per t
of paved mixture can be saved by producing asphalt from 100%
reclaimed material.
7. Economic analysis
The cost of binder has tripled during the last decade as illustrated
in Fig. 11. The RAP price compared to that is very low ranging from
USD 15 to USD 30 (Howard et al., 2009) and in urban areas the RAP
can often be obtained free of charge due to excess of the material.
Hence major savings can be realized through replacement of virgin
by the RAP binder. These savings must be quantified to account
for additional expenses related to RAP processing, testing, and use
of recycling agent. Switching to 100% recycling would also require
significant investments for modification of production technology
that must be put into the equation.
242 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245

$70

$60

Costs per t of asphalt

RAP Disposal
$50
RAP 50-70%
$40

$30 Aggregate
$20 Polluon Control
Binder Rejuvenator
$10 Tesng
RAP Processing
$0 Burner Fuel
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
RAP content

Fig. 12. Material related costs of hot mix recycling.

Fig. 11. Binder Price Index (Pensilvania Asphalt Pavement Association, 2013). facility were obtained and the calculation based on the proposed
frequencies shows 1.48 USD expenses per t of produced asphalt.
Table 6 The operational expenses that are likely to remain constant (e.g.
Material related costs. staff wages, rent) were not included in the calculation.
Expense position Cost The material related costs must be paired with a mix design
to perform a calculation of savings per unit of produced mixture.
Aggregate $19.80/t
Binder $704.00/t
Aggregate content of 94.3% and binder content of 5.7% (RAP binder
Recycling agent $1.30/l 5.1% + recycling agent 0.6%) was used for calculations.
RAP purchasing $11.00/t Fig. 12 summarizes the calculation results of material related
RAP disposal $5.50/t costs per t of produced asphalt ranging from 0% to 100% RAP
RAP processing $3.30/t
content. Depending on the market situation with availability of
Burner fuel $3.47/t
Pollution control $2.75/t@100%RAP RAP, the costs of per t of 100% RAP mixture would be reduced
between 32 and 48 USD or 50 and 70% compared to virgin mix.
Clearly, the major part of the costs comes from binder expenses
7.1. Cost analysis and as the cost of oil continues to rise, the benefit of using high RAP
mixtures will only increase.
A simple calculation was performed to assess the materials These calculation results are consistent with the estimates of
related costs for production of mixtures with increased RAP con- 100% RAP producers:
tent. The assumptions for costs that were used for calculation are
listed in Table 6 and include all major positions that are expected to – Ammann demonstrates more than 40% savings in material
change with increased RAP use. These expenses may vary depend- related expenses for 100% RAP mixture production compared to
ing on the technology in use and the location of the contractor. 0% RAP mixture (Ammann, 2013).
For example, large metropolitan areas often have surplus of RAP – I. Otero, a representative from “BAB Belag”, who owns Ammann
from city streets and the contractors will often pay for disposing 100% RAP capable plant in Switzerland, indicates savings of
it, thus the “RAP disposal” position in Table 6. Rural areas, on approximately USD 11 for every 10% increase in RAP content.
the other hand may have shortage of RAP and asphalt producers – Smart PAVE system (RAP Process Machinery, 2013) claims 30%
will need to purchase it. Testing is another additional expense. or higher savings in production related costs compared to HMA
According to guidelines from NCHRP Report 735 (West et al., 2013) produced with primarily virgin aggregates.
RAP binder content and gradation should be tested once per 900t
and specific gravity once per 2700t . Mixture performance-related 7.2. Break even time
test frequency was assumed equal to RAP binder performance
grading (once per 4500t ). The testing expenses, including rutting, Switching to production of 100% RAP mixture would require
low temperature and top down cracking, from commercial testing investment in plant technology, such as asphalt production

Fig. 13. Break even time for 100% recycling technology investment.
 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245
related equipment, RAP processing units, and possible RAP storage
upgrade. These expenses will vary greatly depending on the chosen
technology and readily available equipment.
Three assumptions have to be made to perform a simple calcu-
lation on time to break even:
– The investment amount.
– Production rate.
– Profit margin per t of mix.
The average annual production rate of a plant located in the US
in 2011 was 95,000 t (EAPA, 2012). Reaching country average might
be a high target for a new technology and therefore a calculation at
30,000 t per year rate was performed as well. Three different invest-
ment levels (1, 2, and 5 million USD) and profit margins ranging
from USD 0 to 40 per t of mix were used for calculation of time to
break even and the results are illustrated in Fig. 13. The profit per
t of mix will likely not be directly related to the savings calculated
earlier; at least until proved that the quality and longevity of 100%
RAP pavement is equal to that of conventional asphalt. However,
even a reduction of asphalt price by as much as USD 20 compared
to low RAP mix would still promise the contractor at least USD 12
profit per t of produced mixture (see Fig. 12). At such margin, for
example, time to reach break-even point would be less than three
years for 1 million USD investment and 30,000 t/year. production
rate.
8. Summary and discussion
In recent years the industry focus has been placed on increas-
ing the amount of RAP in mix asphalt production. This is a result
of tripled binder costs during the last decade that came at a time
of extremely strained funding for road construction and mainte-
nance. Most of the research has been aimed at development of
practices for up to 40% RAP in hot mix design, but the current
state-of-the-art technologies and the know-how might allow to
leapfrog the intermediate steps and take advantage of total RAP
recycling. This article demonstrates the availability of the necessary
tools and know-how for production of such mixtures. Switching
to 100% RAP production would enable material related cost sav-
ings of 50–70% compared to virgin mixture. Thus price reduction
of as much as USD 20 per t of asphalt would still provide the
contractor a profit of at least USD 12 per t of produced asphalt.
Such margin, for example, would allow the contractor to break
even in just one year at the US average yearly production rate of
90,000 t and initial investment in plant technology of 1 million
USD. The material related expenses would be stabilized at con-
stant level by removing the dependence on the increasing binder
price.
Eleven plant technologies readily available for 100% hot mix
recycling were identified and five of them are described in
detail as well as demonstrated in the complementary video
(http://youtu.be/coj-e5mhHEQ). These technologies allow produc-
tion of mixture at the conventional production temperatures and
paving can be performed using existing equipment and techniques.
Modification is required to the existing asphalt plants. Ten of the
technologies require installation of a new drying/heating system
and one is designed to retrofit existing drum plants with a differ-
ent filtration system. Both drum and batch production systems have
been used to produce 100% RAP mixtures.
The conventional mix design methodology will have to be
modified for designing 100% RAP mixtures, most notably in respect
to binder content and use of recycling agents. The binder has to
be extracted from RAP to verify its properties and determine the
necessary recycling agent type and dose to ensure correspondence
243
to the specification requirements. The binder content can be
modified by switching between RAP sources, using recycling
agents of different efficiency, modifying the RAP fines content,
or adding virgin binder. The designed mixture should be tested
for conventional volumetric properties and performance-related
specification requirements may be added. Care should be given to
allow finalization of recycling agent diffusion before performing
testing to avoid false results. Advances in performance related test
methods, especially cracking tests, will greatly benefit the confi-
dence in use of 100% RAP mixtures and allow performance-based
specification.
An important challenge for production of 100% recycled mix-
ture is ensuring high quality input material. The specification
criteria for RAP aggregates should be equal to virgin materials.
Vertical integration of the materials supply chain control would
greatly benefit the quality of final product. Starting from the milling
process of old pavement the goals should be to minimize fines con-
tent, separate materials of different values, limit contamination,
minimize moisture content and ensure RAP homogeneity. Before
production RAP should be processed in the necessary fractions to
allow design of mixture gradation, while minimizing excess mate-
rial. A quality control procedure should be implemented to verify
the properties and variability of RAP stockpiles, including aggre-
gate gradation and specific gravity as well as binder content and
properties.
The literature survey confirmed the general wisdom that the
stiffness of high RAP mixtures is higher than for virgin. While typ-
ically undesirable, this might be beneficial for structural design
purposes of specialty applications, including perpetual pavements
and high modulus asphalt concrete (HMAC). For production of con-
ventional asphalt the stiffness has to be reduced to avoid fatigue
and thermal cracking. Various recycling agents have shown to be
able to modify the aged binder to a level that corresponds to the
required Superpave or empirical binder grade, but the workabil-
ity in most cases remained lower than that of virgin binder. Both
petroleum and organic products have been successfully used. Lab-
oratory research studies of 100% RAP mixtures have shown that
appropriate choice of recycling agent type and dose can reduce
the stiffness of aged RAP mixture to the level of virgin mixture
while providing high rutting resistance. Most of the reluctance
for the use of recycling agents stems from isolated unsuccessful
projects in 1970s and 1980s which showed rutting and raveling
problems. These failures have been associated with the recycling
agent diffusion and effect on adhesion, but are equality likely
caused by immature production technology and use of unprocessed
RAP. The newly developed production technologies, adequate RAP
management, improved mix design in conjunction with modern
performance-related testing methods are likely to neglect such
problems. However, the durability performance of 100% RAP pave-
ments remains the major question. This asks for further research to
evaluate the performance in laboratory and most importantly in full
scale demonstration projects. Successful cases should allow for leg-
islation of such mixtures by road shareholders for paving on public
roads. Until then the application is limited mainly to lower level
roads and privately owned construction sites where the asphalt
costs are driving demand.
100% recycling can provide true sustainability by closing the
materials cycle and allowing to use the reclaimed asphalt in the
same high value application as conventional asphalt. A reduction
in emissions of 18 kg CO2 eq per t of paved mixture can be achieved
by switching to 100% RAP asphalt, mostly due to embedded energy
necessary for production of constituent materials. Such reduction
in environmental effect and implementation of innovative produc-
tion process would greatly benefit the agencies that have applied
certification systems for sustainable construction practices (LEED,
Greenroads, etc.).
244 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank everyone who helped to orga-
nize visits to the asphalt plants and provided valuable insights
on moving toward 100% recycling, including T. El-Korchi (WPI), B.
Prowell (AMS), L. Poulikakos (EMPA), D. Alexander (Alex-Sin Man-
ufacturing), A. Bieder (Ammann), I. Otero (Walo, represents BAB
Belag), M. Partl (EMPA), L. Hanlon (Evergreen Sustainable Pave-
ments), R. Anderson (Evergreen Sustainable Pavements), L. Porot
(Arizona Chemicals), G. Hurley (AMS), T. Naidoo (Asphalt&Wax
Innovations), P. Naidoo (Asphalt&Wax Innovations), K. Ward (RSL),
K.W. Damm, K. Monaco (NJ APA), J.J. Purcell (NJ APA), G. Wollen-
haupt (R2R), and H. Bailey (TRL).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.resconrec.2014.07.007.
References
Alexander DJ, Sindelar RA. Combined direct and indirect rotary dryer with reclaimer.
United States Patent US5,305,533 A, 26 April 1994.
Al-Qadi IL, Elseifi MA, Carpenter SH. Reclaimed asphalt pavement – a literature
review. Springfield, IL: Illinois Center of Transportation; 2007, March.
Al-Qadi IL, Aurangzeb Q, Carpenter SH, Pine WJ, Trepaner J. Impact of high RAP
contents on structural and performance properties of asphalt mixtures. Spring-
field, IL: Illinois Center for Transportation; 2012, June.
Ammann. Asphalt mixing plants. In: Developing technology for our customers
requirements; 2011.
Ammann. Asphalt recycling possibilities on the asphalt mixing plant [online]; 2013,
Available at: http://www.fehrl.org/?m=32&mode=download&id file=15190
[accessed 14.10.13].
Anderson RW, Hanlon LC, Martin GF. Temperature control in an indirectly heated
recycled asphalt product heater. United States Patent US7,669,792 B1, 2 March
2010.
Arnold CJ, Nolting M, Riebensehl G, Denck C. Unlocking the full potential of reclaimed
asphalt pavement (RAP) – high quality asphalt courses incorporating more then
90% RAP: a case study. In: 5th Euroasphalt & Eurobitume congress; 2012. p. 13–5.
Artamendi I, Bailey H, Phillips P, Allen B. Rejuvenation of bituminous mixtures
containing reclaimed asphalt with used vegetable oil. In: 5th international con-
ference bituminous mixtures and pavements; 2011.
Asli H, Ahmadinia E, Zargar M, Karim MR. Investigation on physical proper-
ties of waste cooking oil – rejuvenated bitumen binder. Constr Build Mater
2012;37:398–405.
Augering Technologies. RAP saver [online]. Available at: http://augertech.com/
rap saver/rap saver.htm [accessed 22.11.13].
Aurangzeb Q, Al-Qadi IL, Ozer H, Yang R. Hybrid life cycle assessment for asphalt
mixtures with high RAP content. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;83:77–86.
Bagela. Asphalt recyclers [online]. Available at: http://bagela.de/en/products-
solutions/asphalt-recyclers.html [accessed 26.11.13].
Bailey HK, Zoorob SE. The use of vegetable oil as a rejuvenator for asphalt mixtures.
In: 5th Euroasphalt & Eurobitume congress; 2012a.
Bailey HK, Zoorob SE. The use of vegetable oil in asphalt mixtures, in the laboratory
and field. In: 5th Euroasphlat & Eurobitume congress; 2012b.
Bennert T, Dongre R. Backcalculation method to determine effective asphalt binder
properties of recycled asphalt pavement mixtures. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res
Board 2010;2179:75–84.
Benninghoven. Asphalt recycling [online]. Available at: http://www.benninghoven.
com/index.php?option=com content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=54 [accessed
17.10.13].
Bloomquist D, Diamond G, Oden M, Ruth B, Tia M. Engineering and environmental
asphaltic of recycled materials for highway construction. Laramie, WY: Western
Research Institute; 1993, July.
Bonaquist R. Can I run more RAP? Hot Mix Asphalt Technol 2007;12(September
(5)):11–3.
Boyer RE. Asphalt rejuvenators fact, or fable. Asphalt Institute [online];
2000, Available at: http://www.totalasphalt.com/docs/products/Asphalt-
Rejuvenators Fact-or-Fable.pdf [accessed 21.05.13].
Brock J, Richmond J. Milling and recycling. Chattanooga, TN: ASTEC, Inc; 2007.
Brooks Construction Company. HyRAP, the 100% recycled asphalt pavement [online].
Available at: http://www.brooks1st.com/recycled.htm [accessed 26.11.13].
Brownridge J. The role of an asphalt rejuvenator in pavement preservation: use
and need for asphalt rejuvenation. In: Compendium of papers from the first
international conference on pavement preservation; 2010. p. 13–5.
Burke K, Hesp SA. Penetration testing of waste engine oil residue modified asphalt
cements. In: 1st conference of Transportation Research Group of India (CTRG);
2011.
Carpenter S, Wolosick J. Modifier influence in the characterization of hot-mix
recycled material. Transp Res Rec 1980:15–22.
Chappat M, Bilal J. The environmental road of the future. COLAS; 2003.
Copeland A. Reclaimed asphalt pavement in asphalt mixtures: state of the practise.
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration; 2011.
Daniel JS, Pochily JL, Boisvert DM. Can more reclaimed asphalt pavement be
added? Study of extracted binder properties from plant produced mixtures
with up to 25% reclaimed asphalt pavement. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board
2010;2180:19–29.
DeKold SP, Amirkhanian SN. Reuse of moisture-damaged asphaltic concrete pave-
ments. Transp Res Rec 1992;1337:79–88.
Dony A, Colin J, Bruneau D, Drouadaine I, Navaro J. Reclaimed asphalt concretes
with high recycling rates: changes in reclaimed binder properties according to
rejuvenating agent. Constr Build Mater 2013;41:175–81.
EAPA. Asphalt in figures 2011. Brussels, Belgium: European Asphalt Pavement Asso-
ciation; 2012.
E-MAK Machine Construction Industry & Trading Co. RATech [online]. Available
at: http://www.e-mak.com/en/products/ratech.asp?SectionID=87 [accessed
13.11.13].
Estakhri C, Spiegelman C, Gajewski B, Yang G, Little D. Recycled hot-mix asphalt
concrete in Florida: a variability study. Austin, TX: International Center for
Aggregates Research; 1999.
Eurobitume. Life cycle inventory: bitumen. Brussels, Belgium: Eurobitume; 2011.
Federal Highway Administration. Pavement recycling executive summary and
report. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration; 1995.
Federal Highway Administration. User guidelines for waste and by-product materi-
als in pavement construction. Washington, DC: FHWA; 2008.
Frank R. Hot mix asphalt manufacturing system and method. United States Patent
US6,832,850 B1, 21 December 2004.
Gencer MN. A method and system for hot asphalt recycling. United States Patent
US20,100,203,462 A1, 12 August 2010.
Gencer MN, Gencer SE, Karapahin M, Memis M, Kunduraciodlu G. A new method for
hot recycling of asphalt. In: 5th Euroasphalt & Eurobitume congress; 2012.
Gordon C, Susanna H, Zanzotto L. Comparison of renewable oil, recycled oil, and
commercial rejuvenating agent delivered from crude oil in paving asphalt mod-
ification. In: CSCE 2009 annual general conference; 2009.
Hansen KR, Copeland A. 2nd annual asphalt pavement industry survey on reclaimed
asphalt pavement, reclaimed asphalt shingles, and warm-mix asphalt usage:
2009–2011. Lanham, MD: National Asphalt Pavement Association; 2013.
Hellriegel EJ. Bituminous concrete pavement recycling. Arlington, VA: U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation; 1980.
Henely RP. Evaluation of recycled asphalt concrete pavements. Ames, IA: Iowa
Department of Transportation; 1980.
Hesp SA, Shurvell HF. X-ray fluorescence detection of waste engine oil residue
in asphalt and its effect on cracking in service. Int J Pavement Eng
2010;11(December):541–53.
Hintz C, Velasques R, Johnson C, Bahia H. Modification and validation of the linear
amplitude sweep test for binder fatigue. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board
2011;2207:99–106.
Howard IL, Cooley ALJ, Doyle JD. Laboratory testing and economic analysis of high
RAP warm mixed asphalt. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Department of Transporta-
tion; 2009.
Huang B, Kingery WR, Zhang Z. Laboratory study of fatigue characteristics of HMA
mixtures containing RAP. In: International symposium on design and construc-
tion of long lasting asphalt pavements; 2004.
Huang B, Li G, Vukosaviljevic D, Shu X, Egan B. Laboratory investigation of mixing
hot-mix asphalt with reclaimed asphalt pavement. Transp Res Rec 2005:37–45.
Huang Y, Bird R, Heidrich O. Development of a life cycle assessment tool for
construction and maintenance of asphalt pavements. J Clean Prod 2009;17:
283–96.
Jimenez JA, Meier WR. Recycled asphalt concrete mix design. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona
Department of Transportation; 1986, June.
Kallas BF. Flexible pavement mixture design using reclaimed asphalt concrete. Lex-
ington, KY: Federal Highway Agency; 1984.
Kandhal PM, Mallick RB. Pavement recycling guidelines for state and local gov-
ernments – participant’s reference book. Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration; 1997.
Karlsson R, Isacsson R. Investigations on bitumen rejuvenator diffusion and struc-
tural stability. J Assoc Asphalt Paving Technol 2003;72:463–501.
Karlsson R, Isacsson U. Material-related aspects of asphalt recycling-state-of-the-art.
J Mater Civil Eng 2006;18(1):81–92.
Kerkhof EVd. Warm waste asphalt recycling in Belgium – 30 years of experience and
full confidence in the future. In: 5th Euroasphalt & Eurobitume congress; 2012.
Khedaywi TS, White TD. Development and analysis of laboratory techniques for
simulating segregation. Transp Res Rec 1995;1492:36–45.
Kuang D, Feng Z, Yu J, Chen X, Zhou B. A new approach for evaluating rejuvenator
diffusing into aged bitumen. J Wuhan Univ Technol – Mater 2011;21(1).
Kvasnak A, West R, Michael J, Loria L, Hajj EY, Tran N. Bulk specific gravity of
reclaimed asphalt pavement aggregate, evaluating the effect of voids in mineral
aggregate. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2010;2180:30–5.
Lee N, Chou C-P, Chen K-Y. Benefits in energy savings and CO2 reduction by using
reclaimed asphalt pavement. In: Transportation Research Board 91st annual
meeting; 2012.
Lei Z, Golalipour A, Tabatabaee HA, Bahia HU. Prediction of effect of bio-based and
refined waste oil modifiers on rheological properties of asphalt binders. In:
Transportation Research Board 93rd annual meeting; 2014.
 M. Zaumanis et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92 (2014) 230–245
Lin P-S, Wu T-L, Chang C-W, Chou B-Y. Effects of recycling agents on aged asphalt
binders and reclaimed asphalt concrete. Mater Struct 2011;44:911–21.
Little DN, Epps JA. Evaluation of certain structural characteristics of recycled
pavement material. In: Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving Tech-
nologists; 1980.
Ma T, Huang X, Zhao Y, Hussain BU. Compound rejuvenation of polymer modified
asphalt binder. J Wuhan Univ Technol – Mater Sci 2010;25(6):1070–6.
Mallick RB, Tao M, O’Sullivan K, Frank R. Why not use rejuvenator for 100% RAP
recycling? In: Transportation Research Board annual meeting; 2010.
McDaniel RS, Shah A, Huber G. Investigation of low- and high-temperature
properties of plant-produced RAP mixtures. McLean, VA: Federal Highway
Administration; 2012, January.
McDaniel RS, Soleymani H, Anderson MR, Turer P, Peterson R. Recommended use
of reclaimed asphalt pavement in the superpave mix design method. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program; 2000.
McDaniel R, Soleymani H, Shah A. Use of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) under
superpave specifications: a regional pooled fund study. Joint Transportation
Research Program; 2002.
McRobert J. Sustainable aggregates – CO2 emission factor study. Bendigo, Australia:
ARRB, Group; 2010, August.
Mogawer WS, Bennert T, Daniel JS, Bonaquist R, Austerman A, Booshehrian A. Per-
formance characteristics of plant produced high RAP mixtures. Transp Pooled
Fund Progr 2012;13(1):183–208.
Nahar S, Qiu J, Schlangen E, Shirazi M, van de Ven M, Schitter G, et al. Turning
back time: rheological and microstructural assessment of rejuvenated bitumen.
Washington, DC: 93rd annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board;
2014.
New York City DOT, The Daily Pothole, 1 July 2013 [online]. Available at:
http://thedailypothole.tumblr.com/post/58267624381/100-recycled [accessed
15.10.13].
Newcomb DE, Brown ER, Epps JA. Designing HMA mixtures with high RAP content:
a practical guide. Lunham, MD: National Asphalt Pavement Association; 2007.
Noureldin AS, Wood LE. Rejuvenator diffusion in binder film for hot-mix recycled
asphalt pavement. Transp Res Rec 1987;1115:61.
Pensilvania Asphalt Pavement Association. Price Inex [online]; 2013, December,
Available at: http://www.pahotmix.org/Price Index.asp [accessed 05.12.13].
Peterson G, Davison R, Glover C, Bullin JA. Effect of composition on asphalt recycling
agent performance. Transp Res Rec 2014;1463:38–46.
Potter J, Mercer J. Full-scale performance trials and accelerated testing of hot-mix
recycling in the UK. In: Eighth international conference on asphalt pavements;
1997. p. 10–4.
Prowell BD, Hurley GC, Frank B. Warm-Mix asphalt: best practices. 3rd ed. Lunham,
MD: National Asphalt Pavement Association; 2012.
RAP Process Machinery. Evergreen Sustainable Pavements [online]. Available at:
http://www.smartpavesystem.com/index.html [accessed 16.10.13].
RAP Technologies. The all RAP process [online]. Available at: http://raptech.us
[accessed 15.10.13].
Roberts F, Kandhal PS, Brown ER, Lee DY, Kennedy T. Hot mix asphalt materials,
mixture design, and construction. 2nd ed. Lunham, MD: NAPA; 1996.
Roberts F, Kendhal P, Brown ER, Lee DY, Kennedy T. Hot mix asphalt materials, mix-
ture design and construction. 3rd ed. Lanham, MD: National Asphalt Pavement
Association Research and Education Foundation; 2009.
RSL Asphalt Recycling Machines. RSL website [online]. Available at:
http://www.rslplant.co.uk/ [accessed 10.05.14].
Sargious M, Mushule N. Behaviour of recycled asphalt pavement at low tempera-
tures. Can J Civil Eng 1991;18(3):428–35.
Shah A, McDaniel RS, Huber GA, Gallivan VL. Investigation of properties of plant-
produced RAP mixtures. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2007;1998:103–11.
Shirodkar P, Mehta YA, Aaron N, Sonpal K, Norton A, Tomlinson C, et al. A study
to determine the degree of partial blending of reclaimed asphalt pavement
(RAP) binder for high RAP hot mix asphalt. Constr Build Mater 2011;25(January
(1)):150–5.
245
Shu X, Huang B, Vukosavljevic D. Laboratory evaluation of fatigue characteristics of
recycled asphalt mixture. Constr Build Mater 2008;22:1323–30.
Silva HM, Oliveira JR, Jesus CM. Are totally recycled hot mix asphalt a sustainable
alternative for road paving? Resour Conserv Recycl 2012;60:38–48.
Solaimanian M, Tahmoressi M. Variability analysis of hot-mix asphalt concrete
containing high percentage of reclaimed asphalt pavement. Transp Res Rec
1996;1543:89–96.
Techapplicatoin. Microwave process for asphalt pavement recycling, vol. 2; 1992.
Terrel R, Joseph P, Fritchen D. Five year experience on low temperature performance
of recycled hot mix. Transp Res Rec 1992;1362:56–65.
Tran NH, Taylor A, Willis R. Effect of rejuvenator on performance properties of
HMA mixtures with high RAP and RAS contents. Auburn, AL: National Center
for Asphalt Technology; 2012.
Vidal R, Moliner E, Martinez G, Rubio MC. Life cycle assessment of hot mix asphalt
and zeolite-based warm mix asphalt with reclaimed asphalt pavement. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2013;74:101–14.
Waymen M, Andersson-Skold Y, Bergmen R, Huang Y, Parry T, Raaberg J, et al. Life
cycle assessment of reclaimed asphalt. European Commission; 2012.
Volker Wessels. HERA system [online]. Available at: http://en.volkerwessels.com/
en/projects/detail/hera-system [accessed 11.11.13].
West RC. Summary of NCAT survey of RAP management practices and RAP variabil-
ity. Auburn, AL: National Center of Asphalt Technology; 2008, July.
West RC. Reclaimed asphalt pavement management: best practices. Auburn, AL:
National Center for Asphalt Technology; 2011, August.
West R, Michael J, Turochy R, Maghsoodloo S. A comparison of virgin and recycled
asphalt pavements using long-term pavement performance SPS-5 data. In:
Annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board; 2011.
West R, Willis JR, Marasteanu M. Improved mix design, evaluation, and materials
management practices for hot mix asphalt with high reclaimed asphalt pave-
ment content. NCHRP; 2013, January.
Willburn D, Goonan T. Aggregates from natural and recycled sources. U.S. Depart-
ment of he Interior; 1998.
Willis JR, Turner P, Julian G, Taylor AJ, Padula FdG. Effects of changing virgin binder
grade and content on RAP mixture properties. Auburn, AL: National Center for
Asphalt Technology; 2012, May.
Xu X, Zaumanis M, dos Santos S, Poulikakos L. Rheological, microscopic and chem-
ical characterization of the rejuvenating effect on asphalt binders. Fuel 2014.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.06.038.
Zaumanis M. [Doctorate dissertation] 100% recycled hot mix asphalt and the use of
rejuvenators [Doctorate dissertation]. Worcester, MA: Worcester Polytechnic
Institute; 2014.
Zaumanis M, Mallick RB. Finite element modeling of rejuvenator diffusion in
RAP binder film – simulation of plant mixing process. In: RILEM conference;
2013.
Zaumanis M, Mallick R. Review of very high content reclaimed asphalt use
in plant produced pavements: state-of-the-art. Int J Pavement Eng 2014.,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2014.893331.
Zaumanis M, Mallick RB, Frank R. Evaluation of rejuvenator’s effectiveness with
conventional mix testing for 100% reclaimed asphalt pavement mixtures. Transp
Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2013;2370:17–25.
Zaumanis M, Mallick R, Frank R. Evaluation of different recycling agents for restoring
aged asphalt binder and performance of 100% recycled asphalt. Mater Struct
2014a., http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-014-0332-5 [in press].
Zaumanis M, Mallick R, Frank R. Determining optimum rejuvenator dose for asphalt
recycling based on superpave performance grade specifications. Constr Build
Mater 2014b., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.035 [in press].
Zhou F, Das G, Scullion T, Hu S. RAP stockpile management and procession in Texas:
state of the practice and proposed guidelines. Austin, TX: Texas Department of
Transportation; 2010, February.
Zywiak SJ. Demonstration Project No. 39. Recycling asphalt pavements. New Hamp-
shire: Federal Highway Administration; 1982.