Construction

and Building

Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 928–936

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Pavement design with central plant hot-mix recycled asphalt mixes

K. Aravind, Animesh Das *

Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, UP 208 016, India

Received 23 February 2006; received in revised form 16 May 2006; accepted 25 May 2006
Available online 18 July 2006

Abstract

Central plant hot mix recycling is one of the popular techniques adopted for recycling of asphalt pavement materials. Literature
review reports varied levels of performances (laboratory as well as field) of recycled mix compared to the performances of corresponding
virgin mixes. Thus, there is a need for conducting performance-related tests before finalizing any recycled mix design. The present paper
discusses laboratory study conducted on recycled mix design of two different Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) samples, and subse-
quently develops an integrated mix-design-structural-design approach for hot recycled mix. The total cost of the asphalt layer construc-
tion is estimated considering the constituent proportion and the pavement design thickness so that the designer can choose the best
option.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Reclaimed asphalt pavement; Central plant recycling; Hot mix recycling; Mix design; Pavement design

1. Introduction Large number of studies have been reported on labora-

Hot mix recycling is one of the popular pavement reha-
bilitation techniques. In central plant hot mix recycling,
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) intended for recycling
is combined with required quantity of virgin asphalt binder
and new aggregates in a hot mix plant, located away from
the construction site. The resultant mix is transported to
the paving site, placed, and compacted to the required
compaction level.
Amongst various pavement recycling methods, hot mix
recycling has certain advantages, such as, comparable per-
formance to that of conventional mixes [1] and better qual-
ity control [2]. This is due to the fact that constituents are
mixed under controlled conditions and it is possible to mon-
itor mixing process continuously. In this process, less work-
space is required for laying the recycled mix. Hence, this is
suitable for the roads where the right-of-way is restricted.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 512 2597477; fax: +91 512 2597395.
E-mail addresses: aravind.kswamy@gmail.com (K. Aravind),
adas@iitk.ac.in (A. Das).
URL: http://home.iitk.ac.in/~adas (A. Das).
tory performance, field performance and pavement design
with virgin asphalt mix (i.e., mix containing virgin binder
and new aggregates). However, published studies on engi-
neering characterization and pavement design with hot
recycled asphalt mix is rather scanty.
Some studies indicate that the amount of RAP used in
the recycled mix affects the property of the mix [3,4],
whereas, other study indicates that mix property is not sig-
nificantly affected by the quantity of RAP used [5]. Some
researchers have found the stiffness modulus of recycled
mix to be better than virgin mix [3,5], whereas other
researchers have found similar or lower stiffness [6–8]. Sim-
ilarly, the indirect tensile strength of recycled mix is found
to be satisfactory or better [3,4,9], or even poorer [10] than
its corresponding virgin mix. In general, recycled mix has a
greater resistance to rutting than virgin mix [5,7,10–12].
From field studies, rutting performance of recycled mix
has been found better than virgin mix [13]. However, in
some studies it has been found the initial rutting rate is
higher in recycled mix [14] and in other studies it is
observed that there is no significant difference between
the rutting behavior of recycled and virgin mix [4,15].

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.05.004
 K. Aravind, A. Das / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 928–936 929

Fatigue performance of recycled mix, are observed to be
poorer with respect to the virgin mix [13,4,5], although
other studies suggest that it could be similar [11,7] or even
better [3,12], specially for the situation when RAP content
with respect to the total mix is less than 30% [16].
It can be noted from the above discussions that the per-
formance of recycled mixes in fatigue, rutting or stiffness
could be better, worser, or similar compared to the corre-
sponding virgin mix. Similar conflicting conclusions can
be derived for various other properties [8,10,17,18] of the
mix.
Thus, the mix design for recycled mix essentially advo-
cates for conducting performance-related laboratory tests
on the mix designed samples, so as to ascertain its in–ser-
vice performance. The test parameters, (for example, stiff-
ness modulus and fatigue life) can as well be used for
pavement design purposes. Since there is a possibility that
the stiffness modulus and fatigue life values are different
from that of the corresponding virgin mix, the design thick-
ness values need to be calculated afresh. Thus, the scope of
the present paper is to design a pavement with a hot recy-
cled asphalt surfacing, where the recycled mix is finalized
through a systematic mix design system.
performed on the recycled samples in order to asses their
performance. The same tests are conducted for virgin
mixes, with same specification, in order to have a compar-
ative idea of mix performance. The schematic plan of the
study is presented in Fig. 1.
2.1. Determination of constituent properties and mix
proportioning
Representative samples from in-service pavement (i.e.,
RAP) intended to be recycled are procured from two sites
of Kanpur city and cleaned for deleterious matters. These
materials are identified as Sample 1 and Sample 2.
The physical properties of the individual components of
the collected RAP samples are to be determined. Thus,
aged asphalt binder and old aggregates are separated from
the RAP samples using Centrifuge Bitumen Extractor
(CBE) as per ASTM D2172 [25]. The average asphalt bin-
der content of the RAP and the gradation of the old aggre-
gates present in RAP are found out. The virgin and
extracted (aged) binders are tested for their physical prop-
erties. The test results are given in Table 1. The gradation
of RAP aggregates is presented in Fig. 2.

2. Laboratory investigation

Various guidelines suggest procedures for recycled mix

design [2,4,19–21]. The basic requirements of the recycled
mix design can be summarized [22] as follows:

 The quantity of old aggregates and new aggregates are

to be adjusted in such a way that the resultant gradation
of aggregates conforms to the specified gradation.
 The quantity of the aged asphalt binder, virgin asphalt
binder and the rejuvenator, if any, are to be adjusted
in such a way that the resultant viscosity becomes equal
to the desirable viscosity at operating temperature.
Some other parameter (for example complex shear mod-
ulus etc.) may be chosen instead of viscosity.
 The total quantity of asphalt binder should be adjusted
in such a way that it satisfies the desired asphalt binder
quantity of the target mix.
 The other volumetric and strength parameters of the Fig. 1. The schematic plan of the whole study.
mix should also be satisfied.

Laboratory study in similar lines (for a three-component

Table 1
system constituted with RAP, new aggregates and virgin Properties of extracted and virgin asphalt binder
asphalt binder) has been adopted in this work for prelimin-
Test Specifications Bitumen type
ary constituent proportioning, and is further extended
through performance-related tests. The step-by-step labo- 80/100 Sample 1 Sample 2
grade
ratory procedure followed in the present work has been
elaborated in the following paragraphs. Ductility IS1208:1978 67 11 10
Softening point (°C) IS1205:1969 49.5 69.5 78.5
The RAP samples are collected, proportioned, and Specific gravity IS1202:1978 1.007 1.033 1.209
mixed with virgin asphalt binder and new aggregates, for Flash point (°C) IS1448:1969 280 255 260
various target bitumen contents. Standard Marshall testing Penetration IS1203:1978 87.5 26 18.7
[20,23,24] is conducted for estimation of the possible opti- Dynamic viscosity ASTM
mal binder content. Further, creep and fatigue tests are At 100 °C (mPa s) D 4402-02 1140 6240 4750
930 K. Aravind, A. Das / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 928–936
Fig. 2. Gradation of RAP aggregates and specification.
It was decided to adopt the gradation specification of
Semi Dense Bituminous Concrete (SDBC), as per Ministry
of Road Transport and Highways (MORT&H), Govern-
ment of India, specifications [23], for the development of
the recycled mix design. The recommended gradation is
also presented in Fig. 2.
In a recycled mix, the aged binder (present in the RAP)
and virgin binder constitute the total binder content of the
recycled mix. Similarly, old aggregates (present in RAP)
and new aggregates constitute the total aggregate content
in the recycled mix. This has been explained schematically
in Fig. 3.
The basic objective of the recycled mix design is to know
the ‘best’ constituent proportions between the RAP, virgin
binder and new aggregates. For this, one needs to know the
total binder content of the recycled mix. Interestingly, this
cannot be known before performing the mix design itself.
Thus, some preliminary estimation of the total binder con-
tent needs to be made to start the iterative mix design
process.
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram explaining contribution of various components
to the recycled mix.
One way for estimating this binder content is to calcu-
late the binder demand to cover the approximate surface
area of the aggregates with an average film thickness
[20,26]. In the present study, an empirical formula given
by the Asphalt Institute [20], based on the average film
thickness concept, has been adopted. The binder demand
for SDBC can, thus, be approximately calculated as 5.5%
of total weight of the mix.
The proportion between the virgin and aged binder can
be estimated by using viscosity mixing rule [20,21,27] as fol-
lows, so that the resultant mix achieves the target viscosity
at the reference temperature,
lnðgt Þ ¼ pob lnðgo Þ þ pnb lnðgn Þ ð1Þ
where, gt, go, gn represent viscosity of target mix, aged and
virgin binder at the reference temperature, respectively, and
pob and pnb represent fraction of aged and virgin binder,
respectively (i.e., pob + pnb = 1).
In the present study, the minimum rolling temperature
100 °C, as specified by MORT&H [23] guidelines is chosen
as the reference temperature. The target viscosity has been
chosen as 2320 mPa s. This is basically the viscosity value
observed in 60/70 penetration grade of binder at the target
temperature. It means the target of the present mix design
problem is to achieve a viscosity of the recycled mix (at ref-
erence temperature) similar to that of 60/70 grade of bitu-
men, by using 80/100 grade of bitumen as the recycling
agent.
Having known the proportion between the aged and vir-
gin binder (pob:pnb), percentage of binder present in RAP
ðP bRAP Þ and the percentage of total binder demand of the
recycled mix ðP Rb Þ, one can estimate the percentage of virgin
bitumen ðP Rnb Þ and RAP ðP RRAP Þ to be added to obtain the
recycled mix. Once the percentages of two constituents
(i.e., P Rnb and P RRAP ) are known, the quantity of the third
constituent (i.e., percentage of new aggregates in recycled
mix, P Rna ) is automatically known. The aggregate gradation
of the recycled mix can then be suitably adjusted by using a
desirable gradation of the new aggregates. The final form
of the derived formulae for proportion calculation, satisfy-
ing the requirements of recycled mix design stated in the
beginning of this section, is presented in Table 2. Further
details on the development of this preliminary constituent
proportioning (and subsequent RAP quantity and cost
optimization) have been discussed elsewhere [22,28]. The
constituent proportions calculated from Table 2 is numer-
ically identical to that of calculated as per Asphalt Institute
[20].
Table 2
Formulae for calculating constituent proportions in recycled mix
Percentage of virgin binder pnb  P Rb
ðpob  P Rb  100Þ
Percentage of RAP
P RAP
b
Percentage of new aggregates 100  ðP RRAP þ P Rnb Þ
 K. Aravind, A. Das / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 928–936 931

2.2. Mix preparation
Using the formulation for constituent proportioning, as
explained in the previous section, recycled mixes are pre-
pared. Two processes are adopted to prepare the samples.
 Type 1 process: First, aged binder and old aggregates are
separated from the RAP using CBE equipment. Then,
precalculated quantity of virgin binder is added to the
extracted binder to produce a homogeneous mixture of
binder of required viscosity. This binder mix is then
added to a hot mix of old and new aggregates to pro-
duce the recycled mix.
 Type 2 process: Collected RAP is broken into pieces
using hammer. While breaking, care is taken to make
sure that aggregates are not crushed due to impact of
hammer. This broken material is added to new aggre-
gates and then heated to higher temperature. To this
mixture, known amount of hot virgin binder is added.
This mixture is mixed well to produce the recycled mix.
These two types of material processing are adopted in
the test plan, because these represent the two possible
extreme cases during manufacture of recycled mix. Type-
1 process represents a situation where aged binder melts
at high temperature and get mixed with virgin binder com-
pletely. Type-2 process represents a situation where due to
impact of drum rotation, a part of RAP breaks down into
smaller sized lumps; this, in turn, gets mixed with virgin
binder and new aggregates. Old aggregates and aged binder
are not separated out completely during this process. How-
ever, it is believed that the realistic situation is somewhere
in between these two cases [17,29,30].
Therefore, in the present study, four possible mix com-
binations emerge, namely, Sample 1-Type 1, Sample 1-
Type 2, Sample 2-Type 1 and Sample 2-Type 2 mixes.
These are termed as S1-T1, S1-T2, S2-T1 and S2-T2 respec-
tively, and have been referred so in the rest of the paper.
2.3. Marshall tests
The approximate binder demand for SDBC, estimated
as 5.5%, may not necessarily be the optimum binder con-
tent of the mix, because it is estimated considering the
approximate surface area to cover the aggregates with
some approximate film thickness. There are other volumet-
ric and strength issues involved in the mix design process,
which dictate the final value of optimum binder content.
The purpose of the Marshall test is, therefore, to estimate
this optimum value of binder content by checking the vol-
umetric and strength parameters with varied binder
contents.
Using the procedure of preparing the mix, as explained
in the previous section, Marshall samples (diameter
100 mm) are prepared for binder contents as 4.5%, 5.0%,
5.5%, 6.0% and 6.5% (with respect to the total weight of
the mix). It may be noted that, as the target binder content
of the recycled mix ðP Rb Þ changes, the constituent propor-
tions also gets changed and needs recalculation every time
(refer to Table 2).
The recycled mix is poured into Marshall mold, and
then compacted with Marshall hammer with 75 blows on
each face. The compacted Marshall samples are tested after
curing for 24 h. The weight measurements are done for esti-
mation of volumetric parameters. The Marshall samples
are kept in water bath at 60 °C for 30 min and then tested
for Marshall flow and stability using Marshall testing
machine [23,24,31].
The Marshall test results are tabulated for S1-T1, S1-T2,
S2-T1 and S2-T2 types of mixes. A typical set of Marshall
test results (averaged using three specimens) for S1-T1 mix
is presented in Table 3. Separate specifications for recycled
mix not being available in Indian guidelines, it was thought
to compare the Marshall results with the specifications of
the virgin mix itself (i.e., SDBC in the present case). The
acceptable range of Marshall test parameters for SDBC
(as virgin mix) as stipulated in MORT&H guidelines [23]
is reproduced in Table 4.
Comparing Table 3 with Table 4, it can be seen that a
number of test parameters are going out of the range and
a common zone of satisfaction is not achieved. Similar
results are obtained for other recycled mixes, i.e., S1-T2,
S2-T1 and S2-T2. Non-compliance between test results
and specified acceptance values is mainly observed with
Table 4
Marshall parameters for SDBC (as virgin mix) laid down by MORT&H
[23]
Parameter Permissible value
Air voids (VA) (%) 3 to 5
Voids in mineral aggregates (VMA) (%) P14
Voids filled with bitumen (VFB) (%) 65–78
Marshall stability (kN) P8.2
Marshall flow (mm) 2–4

Table 3
A typical Marshall test result for S1-T1 mix (average of the three samples)
Bitumen Air voids Voids in mineral aggregates Voids filled with Marshall Marshall
content (%) (VA) (%) (VMA) (%) Bitumen (VFB) (%) stability (kN) flow (mm)
4.5 5.04 17.8 71.6 7.0 1.66
5.0 3.59 16.7 78.5 10.7 1.80
5.5 3.43 16.7 79.5 8.8 2.20
6.0 2.43 15.8 84.6 7.6 2.30
6.5 2.43 14.9 83.7 7.0 2.35
932 K. Aravind, A. Das / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 928–936
the volumetric parameters. Thus, the optimum binder con-
tent for any of the recycled mixes could not be conclusively
established.
Tests have been conducted for the virgin mix, using the
mid-point gradation of the SDBC mix as specified by
MORT&H, and the common zone of binder content for
which all the Marshall parameters are satisfied is found
to be ranging between 5.0% and 6.4% (refer Fig. 4). Any
binder content within the feasible zone can be adopted
[20] as design value. However, a binder content, close to
middle portion of the upper and lower limit of the feasible
zone, entails a more reliable mix design [32,33]. So, a bin-
der content of 5.5% can be safely assumed as optimum bin-
der content for the virgin mix in this study.
2.3.1. Discussion
The Marshall test results for estimating the optimum
binder content remained inconclusive for all the recycled
mixes, when compared to the specification limits of the vir-
gin mix. It is seen that, the Marshall stability and flow val-
ues almost remained within the permissible ranges and even
comparable to the virgin mix. It is only the volumetric
parameter values that seem to go out of the range. A pos-
sible reason can be explained in the following:
For the recycled mix design process adopted in the pres-
ent case, first the quantities of RAP, virgin binder and new
aggregates are determined, and later the gradation of the
new aggregates are adjusted so as to closely match with
the mid-point gradation of SDBC. Since, the quantities
of the old and new aggregates are fixed beforehand, and
so also the gradation of the old aggregates (i.e., RAP gra-
dation), the only parameter that can be varied is the grada-
tion of new aggregates. By this process, the achieved
gradation may not necessarily match the mid point grada-
tion, considering all possible gradations of the new aggre-
gates. This might have caused non-compliance of the
volumetric parameters with reference to the SDBC virgin
mix specification. Thus, there remains a need of developing
specifications for recycled mixes for Indian gradation.
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram showing feasible zones for SDBC virgin mix
design.
2.4. Creep test
Static creep test is one of the tests that can characterize
rutting potential of a mix. This involves application of
known amount of static load for a specified duration at
constant temperature. Since the optimum binder content
of the recycled mixes could not be established conclusively
from Marshall test, it was decided to carry out creep test
over a range of binder content.
In the present study, recommendations made by Shell
pavement design manual [34] has been used for performing
creep test. This involves loading and unloading for a period
of 1 h each at a temperature of 40 °C. Schematic diagram
of setup fabricated at Transportation Engineering Labora-
tory, IIT Kanpur [28] is shown in Fig. 5. It consists of a
loading frame and a pair of dial gauges. Loading frame
is designed in such a way that it transfers the load to the
specimen axially. The samples are placed in between the
smooth surfaced ceramic plates with the flat surfaces hori-
zontal. The dial gauges are fixed at two places on the cera-
mic plates. The dial gauges are placed independent of the
loading frame which helps in accurate measurement of
axial deformation [28].
The samples for creep test are prepared in similar way
the samples are prepared for Marshall testing. Each sample
is tested after curing for 24 h. Calculated amount of load is
placed at the end of the loading frame such that stress of
0.1 MPa is developed in the sample. After a period of
1 h, the load is removed. The displacements are noted at
different time intervals using dial gauges over the entire
period. A typical variation (for virgin mix sample with
6.5% binder content) of axial deformation with time (i.e.,
creep curve) is shown in Fig. 6. The recoverable strain val-
ues at different binder contents is plotted for various mixes
in Fig. 7.
2.4.1. Discussion
As expected, it is seen that the recoverable strain gradu-
ally increases with the binder content and then again starts
decreasing for all types of mixes. From Fig. 7 it is seen that
Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of creep test setup.
 K. Aravind, A. Das / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 928–936
Fig. 6. Variation of deformation with time in creep test for virgin mix
sample with 6.5% bitumen content.
Fig. 7. Variation of recoverable strain with binder content for different
mixes.
for most of the mixes, maximum recoverable strain is
observed between 5.5% and 6.0% of binder content.
Further, the permanent and recoverable strain compo-
nents are compared in Fig. 8 for all types of mixes at a par-
ticular binder content, chosen as 5.5% in the present case.
It is seen that even though permanent strain component
in virgin mix is less, recoverable strain in recycled mix is
comparable to that of virgin mix.
2.5. Fatigue test
Beam fatigue test is one of the tests that can characterize
the fatigue behavior of the mix. In present study, a binder
content of 5.5% is chosen for fatigue testing for all types of
mixes.
Constant strain amplitude fatigue testing is carried out
to characterize fatigue behavior of recycled mixes. For
this purpose, fatigue testing machine fabricated [32] at
Transportation Engineering Laboratory, IIT Kanpur
was used [28]. It consists of a motor, cam, load cell,
933
Fig. 8. Comparison of creep performance of different mixes at binder
content of 5.5%.
LVDT, beam holding arrangement and a data acquisition
system. Motor is used to apply sinusoidal loading on the
specimen. The cam arrangement is used to impart dis-
placement to the specimen, which in turn varies the strain
in the beam being tested. A load cell is used in measuring
the load applied and a LVDT is used to measure dis-
placement. Since constant strain amplitude fatigue test
is carried out, the maximum displacement is kept con-
stant for the entire period of testing on a particular
beam. The beam holding arrangement is used to fix the
beam rigidly in place. A photographic view of the setup
is given in Fig. 9.
Asphalt mix is prepared and poured into the mold
(length 380 mm, breadth 78 mm) in three layers and it is
compacted with 175 blows with standard Marshall ham-
mer. This number of blows is arrived at by comparing
beam density with the average density of standard Mar-
shall specimen at same binder content. These beams are
tested for fatigue performance after 24 h of curing. Each
beam is fixed to the fatigue testing machine and sinusoidal
loading is applied. Load corresponding to half the initial
load is noted as failure load and corresponding number
of repetitions is also noted. Similar procedure is repeated
for other test samples at different strain levels to develop
the fatigue curve. Temperature during test is maintained
30 ± 2 °C.
A general regression based fatigue equation can be
expressed as
 k1
1
N ¼ k0 ð2Þ

where N = number of load repetitions the beam can sustain
till failure,  = tensile strain, k0 and k1 are regression coef-
ficients.
Fig. 10 presents the fatigue curves of the various mixes.
The regression coefficients of the fatigue equation (Eq. (2))
as well as the average initial stiffness values for all these
types of mixes are presented in Table 5.
934 K. Aravind, A. Das / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 928–936

Table 5
Regression coefficients and initial stiffness of different mixes
Mix type Number of Regression R2 Average initial
samples tested coefficients stiffness (MPa)
k0 k1
Virgin mix 10 2.8150 1.3355 0.91 1477
S1-T1 9 0.5647 1.5458 0.92 1711
S1-T2 9 0.0631 1.8755 0.92 1723
S2-T1 10 0.7872 1.3573 0.94 773
S2-T2 10 0.1951 1.6928 0.78 738

3. Pavement design and comparison

The individual mixes showed different values of stiffness

Fig. 9. The fatigue test set-up.
2.5.1. Discussion
From Fig. 10 it can be seen that at lower strain levels,
the fatigue lives of the recycled mixes are better or similar
to that of virgin SDBC mix. However, at higher strain
level, the opposite trend is observed. Fatigue performance
of S2-T1 is observed to be poorest of all other mixes.
The stiffness values of Sample 1 recycled mixes are
observed (refer Table 5) to be higher than virgin mix.
For Sample 2 it is observed to be reverse.
Fig. 10. Fatigue performance of different mixes.
moduli and fatigue performance parameters. The overall
effect of these two parameters can only be assessed when
pavement design is performed.
For performing pavement design a suitable shift factor,
derived from long term pavement performance data, needs
to be adopted. Different shift-factor values are suggested by
various researchers [35–38]. The shift factor for asphalt
pavement can even vary between 5 and 700 [39]. In absence
of field performance data of the recycled mixes developed
in the present study, a value of 100 is chosen as shift factor
for all the fatigue equations for comparison of various
pavement designs. The values of k0 of Eq. (2) for various
mixes are accordingly modified.
For the present pavement design, a three layer pavement
section is assumed, made up of asphalt surfacing, unbound
granular layer and subgrade. Literature suggests that Pois-
son’s ratio generally ranges from 0.35 to 0.5 for asphalt
layer, 0.2 to 0.45 for unbound granular layer and 0.3 to
0.5 clayey subgrade [40,41,39]. Thus, in the present case,
typical Poisson’s ratio values as 0.35, 0.3 and 0.3 are cho-
sen for asphalt surfacing, unbound granular layer and sub-
grade, respectively. The stiffness moduli of granular layer
and subgrade have been assumed as 150 MPa and
50 MPa, respectively. The design traffic is assumed to be
20 million standard axles. Using the fatigue equations,
the allowable strains are obtained for the design traffic.
For a given thickness of granular layer, some tentative
thickness value of bituminous surfacing layer is assumed
and the tensile strain value is calculated using linear
multi-layer elastic analysis of pavement structure [38].
The thickness of the bituminous surfacing layer is then
adjusted such that the computed strain value is comparable
to the allowable strain value and thus the design thickness
value is obtained. Therefore, the design thicknesses from
fatigue considerations obtained are compared in Table 6.
Having obtained the pavement design thicknesses, it is
now possible to compare the material cost of the construc-
tion of asphalt layer made up of recycled mix and virgin
mix. The same is explained in subsequent paragraphs.
Since S2-T1 design thickness is considerably high, com-
pared to other mixes, it has been neglected for further cost
computation.
 K. Aravind, A. Das / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 928–936 935

Table 6 Table 7
Design thickness of SDBC layer (mm) Construction cost of asphalt layer of 7 m wide and 1 km long stretch with
different mixes
Mix type Granular layer thickness (mm)
Mix type Construction cost (Indian % Saving
200 500
Rupees)
Virgin mix 217 201
S1-T1 190 175 Granular layer thickness Granular layer
(mm) thickness (mm)
S1-T2 148 136
S2-T1 >400 >400 200 500 200 500
S2-T2 244 226 Virgin mix 55,65,616 51,55,248 – –
S1–T1 32,42,350 29,96,350 41.7 41.9
S1-T2 25,40,272 23,38,112 54.5 54.6
S2-T2 48,90,004 45,32,430 12.1 12.1
It is assumed that same machinery and manpower can
be used for production of virgin mix as well as recycled
mix. Operations that have been considered in the cost esti- due to (i) differences of design thickness, as well as (ii) dif-
mate are milling and transportation of RAP, production of ferences in the mutual constituent proportions.
asphalt mix using hot mix plant, transportation of mix thus
produced to construction site and compacting using differ- 4. Conclusion
ent rollers. It is assumed that the thickness of existing pave-
ment is such that there is no excess or deficit of RAP Mix design for recycled asphalt mix has been performed
collected. through Marshall, creep and fatigue tests. The parameters
A typical calculation is given in Appendix A. Standard obtained are used in pavement design and the economy in
schedule of rates issued by Central Public Works Depart- alternative designs are evaluated considering the material
ment (CPWD), Government of India has been used for cost towards constituent proportion as well as design thick-
computation of the costs [42,43]. ness. Thus, the paper has presented an integrated mix-
Thus the construction cost of asphalt layer of 7 m wide design-structural-design system for hot recycled asphalt
and 1 km long stretch is tabulated in Table 7. mix.

3.1. Discussion Acknowledgement

It can be seen that cost of construction with recycled mix
could be economical compared to virgin mix. Percentage
saving in the present example problem varied between
12.1% and 54.6% for different mixes. It may be noted that
these differences in material costs across various mixes is
The senior author wishes to thankfully acknowledge the
financial support provided by the All India Council of
Technical Education (AICTE), Government of India, un-
der the scheme of ‘‘Career award for young teachers
(2002-03)’’.

Appendix A

Typical rate analysis for asphalt layer construction with virgin SDBC mix
Description Unit Quantity Rate (Indian Rupees) Amount (Indian Rupees)
(a) Labour Man-day 21 1116.3 2443.80

(b) Machinery
Batch mix plant h 6 13,400.00 80,402.40
Paver finisher h 6 2070.00 12,420.00
Generator 250 kVA h 6 720.00 4320.00
Front end loader h 6 624.00 3744.00
Tipper 10 ton capacity ton km 4500 2.09 9396.00
Smooth wheeled roller h 3.9 297.00 1158.30
Vibratory roller h 3.9 1192.80 4651.92
Smooth wheeled tandem roller h 3.9 356.40 1389.96

(c) Material
Bitumen @5.5% of mix ton 24.75 17,151.60 424,502.10
20–5 mm aggregate (65%) cum 184.27 420.00 77,395.50
5 mm and below aggregate (33%) cum 93.55 552.00 51,642.36
Cement filler (2%) ton 8.50 3079.20 26,157.97

Rate per m3 = (a + b + c)/191 3664.48

936 K. Aravind, A. Das / Construction and Building Materials 21 (2007) 928–936
References
[1] Betenson WD. Recycled asphalt concrete in Utah. Proc Assoc
Asphalt Pav Technol 1979;48:272–95.
[2] Epps JA, Terrel RL, Little DN, Holmgreen RJ. Guidelines for
recycling asphalt pavements. Proc Assoc Asphalt Pav Technol
1980;49:144–76.
[3] Huang B, Kingery III WR, Zhang Z. Laboratory study of fatigue
characteristics of HMA mixtures containing RAP. International
symposium on design and construction of long lasting asphalt
pavements, Auburn; 2004. p. 501–22.
[4] McDaniel R, Soleymani H, Anderson RM, Turner P, Peterson R.
Recommended use of reclaimed asphalt pavement in the Superpave
mix design method. Web document no. 30, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, DC; 2000. Available from: http://gulli-
ver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_w30-a.pdf.
[5] Servas VP, Ferreira MA, Curtayne PC. Fundamental properties of
recycled asphalt mixes. In: Proceedings of the 6th international
conference on structural design of asphalt pavements, vol. 1. Ann
Arbor, Michigan; 1987. p. 455–65.
[6] Noureldin AS, Wood LE. Laboratory evaluation of recycled asphalt
pavement using nondestructive tests. Transportation research record.
Washington, DC: National Research Council; 1990. 1269:92–100.
[7] Whitcomb W, Hicks RG, Escobar SJ. Evaluation of a unified design
for asphalt recycling by means of dynamic and fatigue testing. Proc
Assoc Asphalt Pav Technol 1980;50:1–31.
[8] Sondag MS, Chadbourn BA, Drescher A. Investigation of recycled
asphalt pavement (RAP) mixtures. Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Minnesota, MNRC 2002-15. Department of Transpor-
tation, Minnesota.
[9] Little DN, Epps JA. Evaluation of certain structural characteristics of
recycled pavement materials. Proc Assoc Asphalt Pav Technol
1980;49:219–51.
[10] Kandhal PS, Rao SS, Watson DE, Young B. Performance of recycled
hot mix asphalt mixtures. NCAT Report No. 95-1. National Center
for Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, Alabama; 1995.
[11] Little DN, Holmgreen RJ, Epps JA. Effect of recycling agents on
structural performance of recycled asphalt concrete materials. Proc
Assoc Asphalt Pav Technol 1980;50:32–63.
[12] Malpass GA. The use of reclaimed asphalt pavement in new
Superpave asphalt concrete mixtures. Ph.D. thesis. Department of
Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh; 2003.
[13] Sullivan J. Pavement recycling executive summary and report. Report
No. FHWA-SA-95-060, Federal Highway Administration; 1996.
Available from: http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/FHWA/011182.pdf,
downloaded January 2006.
[14] Potter JF, Mercer J. Full-scale performance trials and accelerated
testing of hot-mix recycling in the UK. In: Proceedings of 8th
international conference of structural design of asphalt pavements,
Seattle; 1997. p. 593–607.
[15] Edwards AC , Mayhew HC. Recycled asphalt wearing courses.
Research report no. 225, Transport and Road Research Laboratory,
UK; 1989.
[16] Kingery WR. Laboratory study of fatigue characteristics of HMA
surface mixtures containing recycled asphalt pavement (RAP).
Master’s thesis. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville; 2004.
[17] Karlsson R, Isacsson U. Material-related aspects of asphalt recycling
state-of-the-art. J Mater Civil Eng, ASCE 2005;18(1):81–92.
[18] Shoenberger JE, Demoss TA. Hot-mix recycling of asphalt concrete
airfield pavements. Int J Pave Eng 2005;6(1):17–26.
[19] Roberts FL, Kandhal PS, Brown ER, Lee D-Y, Kennedy TW. Hot
mix asphalt materials, mixture design, and construction. Lanham,
Maryland: NAPA Education Foundation; 1996.
[20] Mix design methods for asphalt concrete and other hot-mix types. The
Asphalt Institute Manual Series no.2 (MS-2), Asphalt Institute; 1997.
[21] Asphalt hot mix recycling, The Asphalt Institute Manual Series no. 20
(MS-20), 2nd ed.; 1986.
[22] Aravind K, Das A. Preliminary constituent proportioning for central
plant hotmix asphalt recycling. J Mater Civil Eng, ASCE, in press.
[23] Specification for road and bridge works, 4th Revision. Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways (MORT&H), Government of India,
published by Indian Roads Congress; 2001.
[24] ASTM D 1559-89. Test method for resistance to plastic flow of
bituminous mixtures using Marshall apparatus. ASTM International;
1989.
[25] ASTM D 2172-01 Standard test methods for quantitative extraction
of bitumen from bituminous paving mixtures. ASTM International;
2001.
[26] Goetz WH. The evolution of asphalt concrete mix design. In: Garter
Jr W, editor. Asphalt concrete mix design: development of more
rational approaches (STP 1041). Philadelphia: American society for
testing and materials; 1989. p. 5–14.
[27] ASTM 4887-99. Standard practice for preparation of viscosity blends
for hot recycled bituminous materials. ASTM International; 1999.
[28] Aravind K. Bituminous mix design for hot central plant recycling.
Master’s thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Kanpur, India; June 2005.
[29] Chang LT, Terrel RL, Mahoney JP. Measurement of mixing
efficiency in pavement recycling. Proc Assoc Asphalt Pav Technol
1982;52:61–87.
[30] Karlsson R, Isacsson U. Bitumen rejuvenator diffusion as influenced
by aging. Int J Road Mater Pavement Des 2002;3(2):167–82.
[31] MORT&H. Manual for construction and supervision of bituminous
works. Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi; 2001.
[32] Ghosh P. Development of alternative gradation and modification of
mix design approach for bituminous concrete (BC) from fatigue life
consideration. Master’s thesis. Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India; 2002.
[33] Chakroborty P, Das A, Ghosh P. Determining reliability of a
bituminous mix design. Communicated to Int J Pave Eng; October
2004.
[34] Shell pavement design manual. Shell International Petroleum Com-
pany Limited; 1978.
[35] Brunton JM, Brown SF, Pell PS. Development to the Nottingham
analytical design method for asphalt pavements. Proceedings of 6th
international conference of structural design of asphalt pavements,
vol. 1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan; 1987. p. 366–77.
[36] Harvey J, Deacon J, Tayebali A, Leahy R, Monismith C. A
reliability-based mix design and analysis system for mitigating fatigue
distress. In: Proceedings of 8th international conference of asphalt
pavements. Seattle, USA: University of Washington; 1997. p. 301–23.
[37] Deacon J, Coplantz J, Tayebali A, Monismith C. Temperature
considerations in asphalt–aggregate mixture analysis and design.
Transportation research record, vol. 1454. Washington, DC: National
Research Council; 1994. p. 97–112.
[38] Das A, Pandey BB. Mechanistic-empirical design of bituminous roads:
an Indian perspective. J Transport Eng, ASCE 1999;125(5):463–71.
[39] Pell PS. Pavement materials: key-note address. Proceedings of 6th
international conference of structural design of asphalt pavements,
vol. 2. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan; 1987. p. 36–70.
[40] Brown SF, Pell PS. A fundamental structural design procedure for
flexible pavements. In: Proceedings of 3rd international conference of
structural design of asphalt pavements, vol. 1. London; 1972; p. 369–
81.
[41] Mitchell JK, Monismith CL. Thickness design procedure for pave-
ments with cement stabilized bases and thin asphalt surfacings.
Proceedings of 4th international conference of structural design of
asphalt pavements, vol. 1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan; 1977.
p. 409–16.
[42] Delhi schedule of rates, Central Public Works Department (CPWB),
Government of India. Published by Director General (works),
CPWD, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi; 2002.
[43] Personal communication with Mr. Prashant Joshi, highway consul-
tant, New Delhi, 110 070.