| Literature DB >> 32932617 |
Giulia Tarsi1, Piergiorgio Tataranni1, Cesare Sangiorgi1.
Abstract
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) material mainly consists of removed asphalt concretes from existing infrastructures and, to a minor extent, of wasted or rejected mixes during the production processes. Being composed of two valuable non-renewable resources, i.e., aggregates and bituminous binder, its conscious use can ensure the sustainability of asphalt pavement construction. Thanks to the use of RAP material in new asphalt products, the USA saved 4.1 million tons of virgin binder and 78 million tons of virgin aggregates in 2018. Therefore, the use of RAP for the production of new asphalt formulations at the top of the recycling hierarchy is preferable instead of being down-cycled in low-value applications. The RAP material represents one of the most re-used construction products worldwide; in 2018, approximately 88% wt. and 72% wt. of RAP were used in USA and Europe, respectively, as aggregates for Hot, Warm and Cold Asphalt Mixtures and for unbound layers. Several studies have revealed positive responses of the recycled asphalt mixtures with high or very high content of RAP. However, the common practices of many countries still limit the RAP content to a 15-20% wt., on average, in the recycled asphalt mixes. The amount of RAP in asphalt concretes can be significantly increased by applying good management practices of the RAP, either processed or not, as well as novel production technologies and advanced mix design approaches. This manuscript aims to summarize the state-of-the-art of use of RAP aggregates in new asphalt mixtures. The economic and environmental benefits are also discussed.Entities:
Keywords: reclaimed asphalt pavement; recycled asphalt mixtures; recycling; wasted asphalt
Year: 2020 PMID: 32932617 PMCID: PMC7560297 DOI: 10.3390/ma13184052
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Comparison of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) uses in the USA and Europe: data from [8,12].
| Considered Quantities | USA | EUROPE |
|---|---|---|
| Total production of HMA and WMA | 389.3 × 106 Tons | 297.9 × 106 Tons |
| Total RAP accepted in facilities of plants | 101.1 × 106 Tons | 49.5 × 106 Tons |
| RAP used in HMA/WMA mixtures | 81.3% | 51.4% |
| RAP used in CMA mixtures | 0.297% | 3.81% |
| RAP used as aggregates for unbound layers | 6.33% | 17.0% |
| RAP used for other purposes | 1.98% | 2.00% |
| RAP landfilled | ≈0.00% | 9.63% |
Recommended geometric shape of the unprocessed and processed RAP stockpiles.
| Critical Phenomenon | Unprocessed RAP | Processed RAP |
|---|---|---|
| Segregation | Arc-shaped and layered stockpiles [ | Conical or low-sloped stockpiles [ |
| Consolidation | Stockpiles with limited height [ | |
| Moisture retention | Conical stockpiles—No irregular shape [ | |
Figure 1Operational procedures of batch and continuous plants.
Overview of the RAP incorporation modes and points in batch and continuous plants.
| RAP Incorporation Mode | RAP Incorporation Point | Type of Plant |
|---|---|---|
| Addition of cold RAP at some stage [ |
Boot of the hot elevator—Subsequent screening and storing in hot bins Boot of the hot elevator—Direct storing in hot bins Weight hopper Mixing drum (pugmill) | Batch |
| Pre-heat RAP in a separate dryer [ |
Separate dryer drum for RAP aggregates only | Batch |
| Pre-heat RAP and virgin aggregates in a combined dryer [ |
Half-point of the dryer/mixing drum with either parallel- or counter-flow Beyond the burner flame of the dryer/mixing drum Recycling ring (annular space) of the double barrel dryer drum mixer Recycling ring (annular space) of the dryer drum | Continuous |
| Batch |
Performances of asphalt mixtures with low, high and very high content of RAP.
| References | Type of Mix | Stiffness and Cracking | Moisture Damage | Permanent Deformations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Binh T. et al (2011) [ |
RAP content = 0, 10, 20, 30% Binders = soft and standard |
Higher RAP contents lead to increase the stiffness of the mixes—no mitigation effect of soft binder | ||
| West R. et al (2013) [ |
RAP content = 0, 25, 40, 55% Various materials |
Higher RAP contents lead to increase the stiffness of the mixes—no use of soft binder Higher RAP contents turn into lower fatigue resistance of the mixes Not clear trend of thermal cracking | Several RAP mixes did not meet the standard criteria, but they show a better moisture resistance than virgin ones | Good results of all mixes |
| Lee J. et al (2015) [ |
RAP content = 0, 15, 30, 60% Binders = soft and standard |
No significant differences in mixes with different RAP contents—mitigation effect of soft binder Higher RAP contents turn into lower fatigue resistance of the mixes—mitigation effect of soft binder | Good results of all mixes | Higher RAP contents turn into higher rutting resistance—soft binder increases the rutting potential of RAP mixes |
| Izaks R. et al (2015) [ |
RAP content = 0, 30, 50% Binders = soft and standard |
The mix with the highest RAP content has similar stiffness of virgin mix—mitigation effect of soft binder Higher RAP contents turn into lower fatigue resistance of the mixes—mitigation effect of soft binder | Good results of all mixes—30% RAP mix has the better response | |
| Mogawer W. et al (2012) [ |
RAP content = 0, 20, 30, 40% Binders = soft and standard |
Higher RAP contents lead to increase the stiffness of the mixes Higher RAP contents turn into lower cracking resistance of the mixes | Higher RAP contents lead to increase the rutting resistance—importance of materials quality and binder coating—no significant effect of soft binder | Higher RAP contents turn into higher rutting resistance—importance of materials quality and binder coating—no significant effect of soft binder |
| Porot M. et al (2017) [ |
RAP content = 0, 70% Additional mix = 70%RAP + recycling agent One binder |
Higher RAP contents lead to increase the stiffness of the mixes—mitigation effect of recycling agent | ||
| Silva H.M.R.D. et al (2012) [ |
RAP content = 100% Additional mixes =100%RAP + recycling agents One binder |
The mix with higher RAP content and no recycling agent has higher stiffness—mitigation effect of recycling agent The RAP mix with recycling agent has the best fatigue resistance—mitigation effect of recycling agents | Good results of all mixes—the RAP mixture without recycling agent is slightly more sensitive | Good results of all mixes—RAP mix without recycling agent is slightly better |
| Zaumanis M. et al (2019) [ |
RAP content = 100% Addition of recycling agent Binders = PmB and standard |
The stiffness of all RAP mixes is similar to that of virgin one—mitigation effect of recycling agent Not clear trend of fracture toughness | The RAP mix with the lowest binder content and coarser gradation has the best rutting resistance |
Figure 2Recycled hot mix asphalt costs based on RAP content–Adapted from [14].