Terminal Blend Rubberized Asphalt

Evaluation of Terminal Blend Rubberized
Asphalt in Paving Applications
Report Number: CP2C- 2010 – 102TM
Technical Memo
May 14, 2010
California Pavement Preservation Center
25 Main Street, Suite 202
California State University
Chico, California 98929-0930
(530) 898-5981
PROJECT SUMMARY PAGE
Tech Report: 2010 – 102TM
Title: Terminal Blend Rubberized Asphalt
Authors: R. Gary Hicks, Ding Cheng, and Tyler Duffy
Prepared For:
California Integrated Waste Management
Board
Client Reference No.:
Prepared by: CP2 Center
Date: May 14, 2010
Abstract:
Terminal Blends (TB) are binder materials in the rubberized asphalt concrete that use
finely ground (less than 40 mesh) crumb rubber modifier (CRM) and is typically blended
at the asphalt refinery. Historically, the primary differences between TB and asphalt
rubber (AR) binders were the amount of CRM used in the binder (TB less than 10%; AR
15-20%) and the use of specialized mixing equipment for AR. However, in recent years
the rubber content in Terminal Blends has been increased to 15-20 % or more. CIWMB
now supports the use of terminal blends for chip seals, but does not yet support the use of
Terminal Blends (TB) in hot mixes. This technical memo is the first effort to address this
issue.
This report includes a literature review and survey of users of TB in various states
including California, Texas, Florida, Nevada and Arizona. It contains the review of TB
testing projects placed in California including the MB pilot projects place in the late
1990’s, the Firebaugh and Mendocino projects (conducted by Caltrans in partnership with
the Board), District 11 Chip Seal project, and the Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) test
sections placed at the Richmond Field Station by UC Berkeley.
Through this preliminary study, the field testing and laboratory results have shown that
TB hot mix is a promising paving material for preventing reflective and fatigue cracking.
It performs better than conventional hot mix and chip seal and, in many of the tests is
equal to or superior to the performance of asphalt rubber. However, more research needs
to be done on determining the amount of rubber in TB, moisture susceptibility of TB
binder, and evaluating the long-term performance of existing Terminal Blend projects in
California or in other states.
Keywords:
Terminal blend, Asphalt Rubber, chip seals, hot mixes
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We appreciate the CIWMB for providing the funding for this important and meaningful
project. We would like to extend our gratitude to Nate Gauff and Bob Fujii who provided
continuous support to this project. We also appreciate the support of Paramount
Petroleum and Valero Oil in helping to identify a number of projects in California that
have included terminal blend rubberized asphalt. We also appreciate the assistance
provided by the states of Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Texas, Oregon, Louisiana, and
Kansas.
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts
and accuracy of the data presented herein. The content does not necessarily reflect the
official views or polices of the California Integrated Waste Management Board
(CIWMB) or the State of California.
iii
Table of Contents
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Background ................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Historic Review ........................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Methods of Rubber Modification.............................................................................. 3
2.3 Terminal Blend Usage .............................................................................................. 5
2.4 Terminology and Specifications ............................................................................... 6
3.0 Terminal Blend Usage in California ........................................................................... 10
3.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Terminal Blend Usage ............................................................................................ 10
3.3 Terminal Blend Project Survey, 2010 ..................................................................... 20
3.4 Summary ................................................................................................................. 20
4.0 Terminal Blend Used in Other States ..................................................................... 24
4.1 Arizona DOT .......................................................................................................... 25
4.2 Colorado .................................................................................................................. 25
4.3 Florida DOT ............................................................................................................ 26
4.4 Kansas DOT ............................................................................................................ 28
4.5 Louisiana DOT........................................................................................................ 29
4.6 Nevada DOT ........................................................................................................... 29
4.7 Oregon DOT ........................................................................................................... 31
4.8 Texas DOT .............................................................................................................. 31
4.8 Summary ................................................................................................................. 33
5.0 Challenges ............................................................................................................... 34
6.0 Experiences in Comparing Asphalt Rubber with Terminal Blends ........................ 35
6.1 HVS testing at UC Berkeley .................................................................................. 35
6.2 Five Year Warrantee Projects ................................................................................. 39
6.3 Firebaugh Project-SR33 .......................................................................................... 40
6.4 Mendocino County Project-SR 20 .......................................................................... 42
6.4 Modified Binder Chip Seals in Hot Climates with High Truck Traffic Volumes .. 43
6.5 MB Pilot Project ..................................................................................................... 51
6.7 Summary ................................................................................................................. 52
7.0. Summary, Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................... 54
8.0 References ................................................................................................................... 56
9.0 Appendices .................................................................................................................. 61
Appendix A: Florida hma Terminal Blend Projects ..................................................... 62
Appendix B- Process used to Certify that the rubber content is good and that the rubber
is from California .......................................................................................................... 71
Appendix C-California Contacts................................................................................... 73
Appendix D-Out of State Contacts ............................................................................... 76
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Asphalt Rubber vs. Terminal Blends................................................................. 5
Figure 3.1 Escalona Drive, Santa Cruz ............................................................................. 21
Figure 3.2 Edge Cracking on Swift Lane.......................................................................... 22
Figure 3.3 Reflective Cracking on California Street ........................................................ 22
Figure 3.4: Block Cracking on Delaware Street ............................................................... 23
Figure 3.5 Block Cracking on Plateau Avenue ................................................................. 23
Figure 6.1 Rutting Section after Trafficking..................................................................... 36
Figure 6.2 Cracking Section after Trafficking .................................................................. 37
Figure 6.3 Layout for Hwy 86 Chip Seal Test Sections ................................................... 43
Figure 6.5: Section 7, start of second portion ................................................................... 45
Figure 6.4 Section 7, first portion of test section .............................................................. 45
Figure 6.6 Section 8, considerable rock loss with non-coated aggregate ......................... 46
Figure 6.7 Section 8: Closer look after the initial loss of non- ......................................... 46
precoated aggregates. The performance has been stable thereafter. ................................. 46
Figure 6.8 Section 9, good embedment. ........................................................................... 47
Figure 6.9 Section 9, good embedment but some of reflective cracking .......................... 47
Figure 6.10 Section 10: Closer look at aggregate ............................................................. 48
Figure 6.11 Section 10-good performance........................................................................ 48
Figure 6.12 Section 11B: good performance ................................................................... 49
Figure 6.13 Section 11B: Closer look at aggregate .......................................................... 49
Figure 6.14 Section 11A, overviewe of test section ......................................................... 50
Figure 6.15 Section 11A, high embedment due to small aggregate size. ......................... 50
Figure 6.16 Finish Avenue O (Updyke, 2009) ................................................................. 52
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 MB Specifications for Terminal Blend Asphalt (Reese, 1994) .......................... 7
Table 2.2 PG-TR Specifications for Terminal Blend Asphalt (after the PCCAS) ........... 8
Table 2. 3 Caltrans Designation for Asphalt Rubber Mixes ............................................... 9
Table 3.1 Summary of Terminal Blend Hot Mix Projects in California .......................... 11
Table 3.2 Summary of Terminal Blend Chip Seal projects in California ......................... 14
Table 3.3 Summary of Slurry Seal Projects using Tire modified
Slurry Seal in California ................................................................................................... 18
Table 4.1 Other States Using Terminal Blends ............................................................... 24
Table 4.2 Arizona Terminal Blend Projects ..................................................................... 27
Table 4.3 Kansas Terminal Blend Projects ....................................................................... 28
Table 4.5 Oregon Terminal Blend Projects ...................................................................... 31
Table 4.6 Texas Terminal Blend Projects ......................................................................... 32
Table 6.1 Description of materials and application rates uses in the Test Sections ......... 44
*Polymeer Modified asphalt rubber.................................................................................. 44
Table 6.2 Modified Asphalt Chip Seal Binder and aggregates variation ......................... 44
vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The CIWMB currently supports the use of Terminal Blends for chip seals, but does not
yet support the use of Terminal Blends (TB) in hot mixes for the rubberized asphalt
concrete (RAC) grant programs at this time. The primary reasons are as follows:




The performance benefits of this product and how they compare with the field
blended asphalt-rubber (AR) process is not clearly documented.
There may be gaps in the technical knowledge that have to be addressed before
the product can be used statewide.
The assurance that Crumb Rubber Modifier (CRM) is being used in the product.
A rapid, economical and simple test or monitoring system needs to be developed
to ensure that the CRM usage is properly tracked and verifiable.
A full range of potential pavement maintenance applications for which TB can be
used as a paving material has not been identified.
Terminal Blends are a RAC binder material that uses finely ground (less than 40 mesh)
crumb rubber modifier (CRM) and is typically blended at the asphalt refinery or the
“terminal”. Historically, the primary differences between TB and asphalt rubber (AR)
binders were the amount of CRM used in the binder (TB: <10%; AR: 15-20%) and the
use of specialized mixing equipment for AR. However, in recent years the rubber content
in Terminal Blends has been increased to 15-20 % or more.
This study is the first attempt to address these issues raised above. A series of
investigations, studies have been conducted to ensure that there are performance benefits
to using TB over conventional (non-modified) binders and to also compare those benefits
to those achieved by using the traditional asphalt rubber (AR) products used in
California.
Also, as a part of this overall study, there was a companion investigation of the emerging
technology of warm-mix asphalt, which overall allows asphalt mixes to be batched at
lower processing temperatures. This investigation was conducted to determine the
possible application of this technology with TB and AR processes. These findings are
included in a companion report titled “Assessment of Warm Mix Technologies for Use
with Asphalt Rubber Applications”
1.1 Project objectives
This project will attempt to answer the questions posed in the background section. It
includes the following:


Survey of TB users in California, Texas, Florida, and other states
Review of Terminal Blend test projects placed in California including the MB
pilot projects, the Firebaugh and Mendocino projects (conducted by Caltrans in
1

partnership with the CIWMB), the LA County chip seal project, also finished by
the CIWMB, and the Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) test sections placed at the
Richmond Field Station by UC Berkeley
Recommendations as to whether terminal blends can be included as a part of the
HMA and chip seal grant program of the CIWMB
1.2 Work Tasks
The work tasks performed in this contract on terminal blends are as follows:
Task 1 - Identify and evaluate existing Caltrans and local agency projects placed
containing TB. The Caltrans projects include 10 modified binder (MB) pilot projects
placed in the late 1990’s, test sections including the District 6 (Firebaugh) and District 1
(Mendocino) projects placed in the early 2000’s, the Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) test
sections at the Richmond field station, and the 5-year warranty job on Highway 395
between Reno and Susanville. The performance of these projects along with any
supporting lab data (e.g., the percentage of CRM used for each of the projects) will be
collected and evaluated.
Task 2 - Identify and evaluate the use of Terminal Blends in the other states (e.g.
Arizona, Texas, Florida, and others) to see how they perform and in which applications
they are used.
Task 3 – Identify challenges and gaps in knowledge for TB use. For example, how can an
agency ensure that the CRM contents can be tested to quantify the number of tires being
used by this process? Other gaps will be identified as a part of this task.
Task 4 – Identify other Pavement Maintenance Applications for which Terminal Blends
could be used in paving applications and indicate how many waste tires might be diverted
by using these new maintenance treatments.
2
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 HISTORIC REVIEW
Rubber modification of asphalt has a long history in the United States. In the 1950s, tire
manufacturers and polymer suppliers such as Goodyear, Firestone, U.S. Rubber, and
DuPont promoted the use of various rubber modifiers or elastomers as a way to improve
the performance of asphalt pavements. The products generally came in dry powder or
latex form. The rubber additives were normally added to the asphalt binder in
concentrations ranging from 2 to 7 percent. Lewis and Welborn reported the results of a
laboratory study to evaluate binders made with 14 types of rubber powders and 3 asphalts
in a 1954 issue of Public Roads (Lewis et al., 1954). A companion mixture study
examined a wide range of rubber materials including tread from scrap tires, styrenebutadiene rubber (SBR), natural rubber, polybutadiene, and reclaimed rubber using both
wet and dry methods of adding them to HMA (Rex et al., 1954). Although these rubber
modifiers showed promise in reducing the temperature susceptibility of the asphalt binder
and conceivably improving the high temperature and low temperature performance of the
mix, they never received widespread acceptance. This was likely due to the economics of
the time when asphalt was very low cost relative to the rubber modifiers. Many agencies
found it difficult to justify the increased cost in light of marginal improvement in
pavement performance. Some agencies also concluded that the rubber modified mix was
more difficult to apply and had an objectionable odor (Price, 2004).
Interest in rubber modified asphalt systems did not surface again until about the mid1960s when Charles McDonald, an engineer for the City of Phoenix, developed a process
for blending rubber from waste tires with hot asphalt (McDonald, 1981). His formula
produced a binder that contained about 20% tire rubber. Based on positive performance
experiences over ensuing years, Arizona DOT adopted the use of this material in
pavement interlayers, chip seals, and later as a binder in open and gap graded HMA.
Subsequently, these products have been evaluated in roughly forty states in the United
States and over 25 countries worldwide. California continues to be a major user of
asphalt rubber in chip seals and in HMA
2.2 METHODS OF RUBBER MODIFICATION
As concerns over the environmental problem of waste tire disposal grew, various
techniques for incorporating rubber into asphalt pavements emerged. The basic methods
for modifying asphalt with reclaimed tire rubber are referred to as the wet process, the
dry process, and the Terminal Blend process (Epps, 1994). Of these processes, the wet
process and the Terminal Blend process are the most widely used.
3
The binder produced from the McDonald process, or wet process, is called Asphalt
Rubber (AR). It has been defined by ASTM as:
“A blend of asphalt cement, reclaimed tire rubber, and certain additives
in which the rubber component is at least 15% by weight of the total blend
and has reacted in the hot asphalt cement sufficiently to cause swelling of
the rubber particles.”(ASTM, 2005)
In the wet process, asphalt is blended with a crumb rubber modifier in a specialized
blending unit at elevated temperatures (190-225°C) for a minimum of 45 minutes to
promote the chemical and physical bonding of the components. During the blending
process, the crumb rubber swells and softens as it reacts with the asphalt. This reaction is
influenced by the blending temperature, the time the temperature remains elevated, the
type and amount of mechanical mixing, the size and texture of the crumb rubber, and the
aromatic component of the asphalt. The rubber modifier ranges, typically, from 18 to
22% by weight of the asphalt. Extender oils are sometimes used to reduce viscosity and
promote workability of the Asphalt Rubber, as well as to increase the compatibility
between the asphalt and crumb rubber (Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Technology Center
2010). Asphalt Rubber is used primarily in open graded and gap graded HMA. It is also
used in spray applications for seal coats, pavement interlayer’s, and as a crack sealant.
Where Asphalt Rubber is used as a seal coat, it is commonly referred to as a Stress
Absorbing Membrane (SAM). When it is used as an interlayer under HMA surfacing, it
is called a Stress Absorbing Membrane Interlayer (SAMI). The overall performance of
Asphalt Rubber systems has been good. Benefits include reductions in reflective
cracking, improved wet weather safety, and reduced traffic noise.
In the dry process, crumb rubber is added to the aggregate in a hot mix plant operation
prior to adding the asphalt. There is relatively little reaction between the asphalt and
crumb rubber in the dry process. In essence, the crumb rubber replaces a portion of the
aggregate. The dry process can be used in open-graded or gap-graded HMA. The most
commonly used dry process was developed and patented in the late 1960s in Sweden
under the trade name “Rubit”. This technology was later patented for use in the United
States in 1978 under the trade name “PlusRide”. The performance of pavements using
this process met with mixed reviews and, as a result, the dry process is not widely used
for modifying asphalt pavements. However, dry crumb rubber from recycled tires is
being used in other applications such as landscaping and light weight backfill for
retaining walls and embankments.
Terminal Blend is a wet process where a fine mesh crumb rubber is blended with asphalt
at a refinery or terminal. Terminal Blend binders contain anywhere from 5 to 18 % or
more crumb rubber depending on their final application. Terminal Blends can be held in
storage tanks for extended periods of time with proper agitation. The binder produced
from Terminal Blends can be used in dense graded, open graded, or gap graded HMA.
The manufacturing process for Terminal Blends is similar to that used for polymer
modified asphalts. Terminal Blends were initially introduced in the mid 1980s and,
4
hence, have less performance history than Asphalt Rubber. However, they are being
successfully used by several states and are being evaluated in trial field applications by
other states (Boone et al., 2008; Asphalt Magazine, 2008). Terminal Blends and Asphalt
Rubbers are completely different products as illustrated by the photograph in Figure 1.
Terminal Blends can have either the same or less rubber than Asphalt Rubber and they
can be produced as a finished product at a refinery, or terminal rather than in a
specialized blending unit at the hot mix plant. Unlike Asphalt Rubber, Terminal Blends
can be used in dense graded mixes which may open a new opportunity for the disposal of
additional waste tire rubber. In this regard, Terminal Blends are more likely to compete
with polymer modified asphalts rather than Asphalt Rubber.
Figure 2.1 Asphalt Rubber vs. Terminal Blends
2.3 TERMINAL BLEND USAGE
Terminal Blend asphalt rubber has been used since the mid 1980’s beginning with
Florida and Texas. Since then, it has been used in several other states including
California, Colorado, Louisiana, Arizona, and Nevada. .
Terminal Blends are manufactured at the refinery (or terminal) like any other polymer
modified asphalt. The asphalt is heated in a tank to an elevated temperature and crumb
rubber is introduced into the tank and is digested into the asphalt. During this process, the
operator takes samples and runs a solubility test to ensure the rubber is completely
5
digested. Most manufacturers used a high shear process to make sure the tire rubber is
completed digested. The solubility of the finished product is generally above 97.5 %.
Terminal Blends can be stored just like other asphalts. According to industry, they are
storage stable binders because the tire rubber is fully digested into the asphalt. The
material is delivered to the hot mix plant by truck, mixed and shipped to the job just like
any other asphalt binder.
Terminal Blends have been used in both hot mix and chip seals. They have been used in
dense or open graded asphalt mixes as well as gap graded mixes. However, they are the
preferred choices for open and dense graded mixes. The field blended AR is usually used
in gap-graded or open-graded mixes. They are also routinely used in hot applied chip
seals and have been emulsified for use in emulsion chip and slurry seals. More will be
discussed on Terminal Blends in later chapters.
2.4 TERMINOLOGY AND SPECIFICATIONS
The term “rubberized asphalt” is often used to describe the binder produced by blending
crumb rubber, or more specifically, ground tire rubber with hot asphalt. Both Asphalt
Rubber and Terminal Blends fall under this general description. Ground tire rubber is
produced from ambient and/or cryogenic grinding of waste tires. Ambient grinding at or
above room temperature is a process that generates irregularly shaped, torn rubber
particles with relatively large surface area, that helps promote interaction with the
asphalt. Cryogenic grinding is a process that uses liquid nitrogen to freeze the tire rubber
until it becomes brittle and then uses a hammer mill to shatter the rubber into smaller
particles. If used, cryogenic grinding is usually followed by ambient grinding.
Specifications for rubberized asphalt binders have evolved over the years. The modified
binder specifications (MB) developed and used in the 1990’s conformed to the
specifications shown in Table 2.1 (Reese, 1994). The MAC-15TR binder is similar to the
MAC-10TR binder specified in the Greenbook section 600-5.2.1 (AAPT, 2000), except
that it contains 15% tire rubber rather than 10% tire rubber. Caltrans is currently
considering performance graded (PG) specifications for terminal blends similar to those
adopted for optional use by the Pacific Coast Conference on Asphalt Specifications
(PCCAS) in 2008 (NCCAS 2008) and shown in Table 2.2 (Reese, 1994). These
specifications are very similar to those adopted by Caltrans for PG polymer modified
asphalts in 2007 (Santucci).
Terminology used to describe mixes made with rubberized asphalt has also changed over
the years. Caltrans, for example, formerly referred to Asphalt Rubber mixes as
rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC). In an effort to be more consistent with terminology
used nationally, Caltrans now refers to these mixes as rubberized HMA (R-HMA). The
mix type is further designated as gap graded (G) or open graded (O). The former and
current designations for these Asphalt Rubber mixes are shown in Table 2.3.
6
Table 2.1 MB Specifications for Terminal Blend Asphalt (Reese, 1994)
Specification
On Original Binder:
SSD≥30(.6+SSV)³ @ ºC
Test Method
CT 381
On Residue from RTFO:
AASHTO
T240
CT 381
Delta≤97–6(logG*)
and G*÷sin(delta) ≥4.0 kPa
Both at 10 rad/sec @ ºC
On Residue from either:
Pressure Aging Vessel1 @ ºC
Or
Tilt-Oven @ 113 ºC for hrs shown
Stiffness:
300 mPa (max.) at 60 sec1
@ ºC, with M-value = .3 min
Or
100 mPa (max.) at 10 rad/sec
@ ºC, with M-value=.3 min
SSD ≥-115 SSV-50.6 @ ºC
AASHTO
PP1
MB-4
25 ºC
MB-5
25 ºC
MB-6
25 ºC
MB-7
25 ºC
64 ºC
100 ºC
64 ºC
100 ºC
64 ºC
100 ºC
64 ºC
110 ºC
36 hrs
36 hrs
36 hrs
72 hrs
-8 ºC
-19 ºC
-30 ºC
-8 ºC
9 ºC
25 ºC
-2 ºC
25 ºC
-13 ºC
25 ºC
9 ºC
25 ºC
CT 374B
AASHTO
TP1
CT 381
CT 381
Notes: 1Referee method
California Test (CT)
Shear Susceptibility of Deal (SSD)
Shear Susceptibility of Delta (SSD)
Rolling Thin Film Oven (RTFO)
7
Table 2.2 PG-TR Specifications for Terminal Blend Asphalt (after the PCCAS)
Property
AASHTO
Test
PG 64Method
28 TR
Original Binder
T 48
230
T 44
97.5
T 316
3.0
Flash Point, minimum ºC
Solubility, % minimum
Viscosity at 135 ºC, Maximum,
pa-s
Dynamic Shear,
T 315
Test Temp. at 10 rad/s, ºC
64
Minimum G*/sin(delta), kPa
1.00
RTFO Test,
T 240
Mass Loss, Maximum, %
1.00
RTFO Test Aged Binder
Dynamic shear,
T 315
Test Temp. at 10 rad/s, ºC
64
Minimum G*/sin(delta), kPa
2.20
Elastic Recoverye,
T 301
Test Temp., ºC
25
Minimum recovery, %
75
Multiple Stress Creep Recov.
TP 70
Report
Average % Recov. @100 Pa
Multiple Stress Creep Recov.
TP 70
Report
Average % Recov. @3200 Pa
Multiple Stress Creep Recov.
TP 70
Report
Non-Recov. Compliance, Jnr
PAVf Aging,
R 28
Temperature, ºC
100
RTFO Test and PAV Aged Binder
Dynamic Shear Test
T 315
Test Temp. at 10 Rad/s, ºC
22
Maximum G*sin(delta), kPa
5000
Creep Stiffness,
T 313
Test Temperature, ºC
-18
Maximum S-value, mPa
300
Minimum M-value
.300
Specification
110PAV
230
97.5
3.0
76
1.00
1.00
76
2.20
25
65
Report
Report
Report
100 (110)d
31
5000
-12
300
.300
8
Table 2. 3 Caltrans Designation for Asphalt Rubber Mixes
Former Designation
RAC
RAC-G
RAC-O
RAC-O-HB
Current Designation
R-HMA
R-HMA-G
R-HMA-O
R-HMA-O-HB
General Description
Rubberized HMA
Gap Graded R-HMA
Open Graded R-HMA
High Binder Content R-HMA-O
Current designation for Terminal Blends includes the following:
Caltrans
PG 64-28TR
PG 70-22TR
PG 76-22TR
Greenbook
MAC-10 TR
MAC-15 TR
AC Grades
AC 15-5TR
AC 28-5TR
9
3.0 TERMINAL BLEND USAGE IN CALIFORNIA
3.1 BACKGROUND
In California, Terminal Blends are targeted for use in the same applications for which
polymer modified asphalt is used, including hot mixes and chip seals. Early work in
California was the result of a modified binder (MB) specification developed by Caltrans
in the early 90’s (Reese 1994). The MB spec resulted in a number of pilot projects
constructed in the late 90’s as well the construction of five warrantee projects constructed
in the early 2000’s. Only one of these warrantee projects was constructed with a terminal
blend.
Perhaps the biggest boost for Terminal Blends was California’s adoption of the SHRP PG
specifications in 2006. Since the Terminal Blends are fully SHRP graded materials, they
can be easily used by Caltrans and local agencies in California. Typical terminal blend
grades are:



PG 64-28TR
PG 70-22TR
PG 76-22TR
It should be noted that both the PG64-28TR and PG76-22TR meets the same Caltrans
specification for PG64-28PM and PG76-22PM. Virtually any PG grade can be made with
Terminal Blend tire rubber
These grades can have varying rubber content as high as 25% by weight. Caltrans and the
Pacific Coast Conference on Asphalt Specifications (PCCAS) have adopted the PG
Terminal Blends as alternatives to PMA materials. This has resulted in increased usage of
Terminal Blends for highway preservation and rehabilitation applications.
Current producers of terminal blends in California include Paramount Petroleum and
Valero Oil. Others are looking into emulsifying terminal blends containing tire rubber
including California Pavement Maintenance (CPM) and Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc.
3.2 TERMINAL BLEND USAGE
Several agencies having made use of Terminal Blends in hot mixes, hot applied chip
seals and slurry seals are summarized in Tables 3.1 to 3.3. One of the tasks of this project
was to collect information on each of these projects. Industry was extremely helpful in
identifying many of these projects.
10
Table 3.1 Summary of Terminal Blend Hot Mix Projects in California
Project ID
Year
Constructed
Responsible
Agency
Contact
Location
Performance
2009
10 MB pilot
projects
1997-99
Caltrans
Terrie
Bressette or
Don Goss
Statewide
Good
MAC 10 1/10
overlay
project
November, 1999
San Diego
County
Bradley
Avenue
Graves
St/1st Ave
Stable with
reflective cracking
MAC-10 1/2
in. gap grd
overlay
December, 1999
Caltrans
District 11
Joe
Goldhammer
or Larry
Horseman, San
Diego County
Joe
Goldhammer,
or Art Padilla,
Caltrans
SR163/I-5
ramp
No reflective
cracking and no
further
maintenance
MAC-18
May, 2000
CALTRANS
Don Goss,
Valero Oil
Highway 1,
Laguna, CA
Good
MAC 10
project
Sept, 2000
City of
Oceanside
Vandergriff
Blvd
Good condition
over 10 years
MAC 10
overlay
project
March, 2001
San Diego
County
Joe
Goldhammer
or Jim
Knowlton, City
Eng.
Joe
Goldhammer
or Sim J Harris
Contractor
Julian-Los
Coches Road
Now covered
with chip seal
MAC 10
Trench
patch/overlay
project
April, 2001
Oceanside
Joe
Goldhammer
or Sim J Harris
Contractor
Camp
Pendleton
Sewer,
Oceanside
Excellent
condition
MAC 10 2in
overlay
June, 2002
San Diego
County
Joe
Goldhammer
or Sim J Harris
Contractor
EncinitasEncinitas
Blvd
Excellent
condition
MAC 10 1inch
overlay
November, 2002
San Diego
County
Joe
Goldhammer
or Superior
Ready-mix
Fairbanks
Ranch
San Digit Rd
Excellent
condition
11
Project ID
Year
Constructed
Responsible
Agency
Contact
Location
Performance
2009
Mac-10
Emulsion
Trial
December, 2002
City of Chula
Vista
Joe
Goldhammer
or Sim J Harris
Trousdale Dr
Rubberized
emulsion broke
too quick
unstable
MAC 10 1
inch overlay
August, 2003
City of
Carlsbad
Caminito
Valentia
Still performing
well
MB-4 PG7022 TR
August, 2003
Department of
Forestry
Joe
Goldhammer
or John
Schauble City
PWD
Sol Geminez
Granite
Construction
San Luis
Reservoir
No information
on performance
Mac-10
overlay
November, 2003
City of
Carlsbad
Joe
Goldhammer
or Vulcan
Materials
Southeast
section of
town
Good Condition
over 6 years
HVS test
sections
2003-2008
Caltrans
Terrie
Bressette
Richmond,
CA
See UCB reports
MAC-10
overlay city
pilot
January, 2004
City of
Oceanside
Joe
Goldhammer
or Superior
Ready Mix
Oceanside
pier parking
lot
Excellent
condition
#06-385504
15% MB-4
PG70-22TR
June, 2004
Caltrans
Terrie
Bressette
Hwy 33,
District 6
Firebaugh
See Caltrans
reports
#02-258504
15% MB-4,
PG70-22TR
July, 2004
Caltrans
Terrie
Bressette
Hwy 395,
Hallelujah
Junction
See Caltrans
reports
#01-316104
15%, MB-4,
PG70-22TR
Sept, 2005
Caltrans
Michael
Stapleton
Hwy 20,
District 1
Ukiah area
See Caltrans
reports
MAC 10
1.5inch
overlay
November, 2005
City of El Cajon
Joe
Goldhammer
or Mike
Cordoza PW
Ballentine St
Main to
Madison
Excellent
condition
Mac 10
overlay
January, 2007
City of El Cajon
Joe
Goldhammer
or Superior
Ready Mix
East side
residential
streets
4lane miles
Excellent
condition
12
Project ID
Year
Constructed
Responsible
Agency
Contact
Location
Performance
2009
MAC 10
1.5inch
overlay
July, 2008
City of El Cajon
Joe
Goldhammer
or Superior
Ready Mix
Washington
Ave from
Mollison to
Granite Hills
4lane miles
Excellent
condition
MAC 10
1/10overlay
August, 2008
San Diego
County
Joe
Goldhammer
or Superior
Ready Mix
Julian
Whispering
Pines Rd. 10
lane miles
Excellent
condition
MAC 15
overlay
January, 2009
San Diego
County
Joe
Goldhammer
or Superior
Ready Mix
Elfin Forrest
Rd
Questhaven
to San
Marcos City
Limit
Excellent
condition
MAC 15
overlay
September-09
City of El Cajon
Joe
Goldhammer
or Superior
Ready Mix
Cuyamaca
Ave Bradley
to Santee
City limits
Excellent
condition still
new
13
Table 3.2 Summary of Terminal Blend Chip Seal projects in California
Project ID
Year
constructed
Responsible
agency
Contact
Location
Performance 2009
Chip Seal
November,
1995
San Diego
County
Joe
Goldhammer
Valley Center.
Valley Center
Road
Still performing well.
Corners raveled
because released to
traffic too soon.
PG7622TR
2003
Caltrans
Steve Olsen
Hwy 183
Exposed Chip Seal still
in place. New overlay
over part of project
and that area of
overlay is very good
Chip Seal
PG7022TR 10%
2006
City of
Sacramento
Steve Olsen,
Granite
Construction
Sacramento,
Various
locations
Good
PG76/7022TR 10%
2006
City of Santa
Cruz
Edgard Hitti/
Josh Spangrud
Delaware Ave.
and California
Street
Pretty good.
Transverse cracking
returning
Chip Seal
PG7622TR 10%
September,
2007
Kern County
Jim Ryan, Dan
Chung
Manor Dr from
Kern River
Bridge to China
Grade Lane 1
Very well
PG7622TR 15%
ChipPMCQS
slurry
seal
Project
August,
2007
City of Santa
Cruz
Edgard Hitti
or Graham
Contractors,
Josh Spangrud
or Don
Milner
Various
Locations. See
map
Pretty good.
Transverse cracking
returning
14
Project ID
Year
constructed
Responsible
agency
Contact
Location
Performance 2009
Terminal
blend
test
sections
70-22TR
10%
2007
CALTRANS
Shawn
Rizzutto
Highway 86,
Imperial County
Experimental work
with various spread
rates for binder and
rock, coated and
uncoated rock
PG7622TR
Chip Seal
Spring
2007 and
Fall 2007
City of
Stockton
Steve Olsen,
Granite
Construction
Carter Way,
Eastbound
Lincoln StreetFrench Camp
Road
Good
PG7022TR
Chip Seal
PMCQS
Slurry
PG7622TR
Chip seal
PMCQS
Slurry
Chip Seal
PG7622TR 10%
2008
City of
Carlsbad
Dennis Copp
City of Carlsbad
Performing good.
Impeding reflective
cracking
2008
City of
Diamond
Bar
Dennis Copp
City of Diamond
Bar
Performing very good.
So good they did it
more streets in 2009
July, 2008
Contra
Costa
County
Margie Valdez
Martinez dump
main entrance
road
Very good, held lock
PG6428TR
Dense
Grade
overlay
PG7622TR 10%
2008
CALTRANS
Edgard Hitti
I-40, Essex
Overlay on I-40
2008
Rancho
Cordova
Edgard Hitti,
Steve Olsen
White Rock
Road
Good
PG7022TR
18.5%
Chip
Slurry
Seal
Project
PG7622TR 18%
chip seal
2008
City of
Colusa
Edgard Hitti,
Steve Olsen
Various streets
Good
2008
City of Santa
Cruz
Josh Spangrud
Various streets
Good
July, 2009
LA County
Edgard Hitti,
Erik Updyke
Ave J, Ave O
Lancaster
Good
15
Project ID
Year
constructed
Responsible
agency
Contact
Location
Performance 2009
PG7622TR 18%
Cape Seal
July, 2009
City of
LaFayette,
Graham
Contractors
Edgard Hitti,
or Don Milner
Stanley
Boulevard,
Camino Diablo,
Moraga Road
Good
PG7622TR 18%
Cape Seal
August,
2009
City of
Winters
Edgard Hitti,
or Don Milner
Various
Locations
Good
PG7622TR
18.5%
September,
2009
City of Elk
Grove,
Franklin
Construction
Edgard Hitti,
or Roger
Maier
Various
Locations
Good
PG7622TR 18%
2009
CALTRANS
District 2 020E5704
Edgard Hitti
Jim Heller
HWY 96/36
Chester
No report yet
PG7622TR 18%
2009
CALTRANS
District 2 024C6304
Edgard Hitti
Jim Heller
HWY 299/36
Whiskeytown
No report yet
PG7622TR
18.5%
2009
City of
Poway
Edgard Hitti
Ed Dillon
Bond Blacktop
Santa Ana Ave
and Almond
No report yet
16
Project ID
Year
constructed
Responsible
agency
Contact
Location
Performance 2009
PG7622TR 18%
Cape Seal
June, 2009
City of
Rancho
Cordova
Intermountain
Steven Olsen,
Edgard Hitti
Various streets
Good
PG7622TR
18.5%
Cape Seal
July, 2009
City of Clovis
Edgard Hitti,
Don Milner
Graham Cont.
Various streets
Good
PG7622TR 18%
Cape Seal
July, 2009
City of
Sacramento
Edgard Hitti,
Steven Olsen
Intermountain
Various streets
Good
PG7622TR 18%
Cape Seal
August,
2009
City of
Salinas
Edgard Hitti,
Ed Dillion
Bond Blacktop
Salinas
Good
Chip seal
PG7622TR
(18.5%)
August,
2009
Caltrans
District 6
06-0K7104
Tulare
County
Don Milner
Graham Cont.
Jim Ryan
Tulare/King Cnty
Hwy 63
Good
Chip seal
PG7622TR
(18%)
August,
2009
Caltrans Dist
6
06OK7104
Kings
County
Don Milner
Graham Cont.
Jim Ryan
Hwy 198
Good
PG7622TR
Chip seal
PMCQS
Slurry
PG7622TR
Chip seal
PMCQS
Slurry
2009
City of
Diamond
Bar
Dennis Copp
Edgard Hitti
City of Diamond
Bar Covered
Wagon Way
No report yet
2009
City of
Fontana
Dennis Copp
Edgard Hitti
City of Fontana
Asst collectors
No report yet
17
Table 3.3 Summary of Slurry Seal Projects using Tire modified Slurry Seal in
California
Project
ID
Year
constructed
Responsible agency
Contact
Location
Performance
Slurry
Seal
December,
2003
City of Buena Ventura
Lance Allan,
Thang Tran,
Dan Frost
Petite Ave.,
from
Henderson
Rd. and
Darling Rd.
Good. Lost
color and
turned gray
quickly.
Slurry
Seal
June, 2004
City of Fountain Valley
Lance Allan,
Bob Callison
Foothill St.,
from Heil
Ave. to
Azalea Ave.
Slurry
Seal
March,2005
City of Santa Fe
Springs
Lance Allan
Emmens
Way
Slurry
Seal
May, 2005
City of West Covina
Lance Allan,
Vince
Mastrosimone
Canyon Rd.,
from Covina
Hills to
Ranch Creek
Slurry
Seal
June, 2005
City of Laverne
Lance Allan,
Gene Klatt,
L.D. Johnson
Pinto Street
at Miller
Slurry
Seal
May, 2006
City of Oceanside
Lance Allan,
Steve Kemp,
Peter Schultz
Oceanside
Blvd. at
Corporate
Center Dr.
Good
Slurry
Seal
November,
2006
City of Dana Point
Lance Allan,
Rick
Rudometkin
Grenada,
from Selva
Rd. to La
Cresta Dr.
Good. Oxidized
quickly and lost
color.
Slurry
Seal
December,
2007
City of Oceanside
Lance Allan,
Ron Purdue
Various
Streets
Needed to
reform mix
after first
attempt.
Performing well
Slurry
Seal
July, 2008
City of Rialto
Lance Allen,
Gene Klatt
Various
Streets
18
Project
ID
Year
constructed
Responsible agency
Contact
Location
Performance
Slurry
Seal
April, 2008
City of Carlsbad
Lance Allan,
John Schauble
Various
Streets
Good
Slurry
Seal
October,
2008
Calabasas
Lance Allen,
Tom Kirk
Vista Pointe
Private
Community
Good
Slurry
Seal
November,
2008
City of Palm Desert
Lance Allan,
Ryan Gayler
Summit
View Dr.
Good. Heavier
aggregate
Slurry
Seal
November,
2008
City of Oceanside
Lance Allan,
Ron Perdue,
Gary Kelison
Various
Streets
Good
Slurry
Seal
November,
2008
City of La Mirada
Lance Allan,
Steve Forester
Aranza Dr.
from
Alicanted to
Pastrana
Good
Slurry
seal
Slurry
Seal
January,
2009
April, 2009
City of Oceanside
Lance Allan
Oceanside
Good
City of Carson
Lance Allen,
DeWayne
Vaughn
Various
Streets
Good. Some
issues with
drying time.
Slurry
Seal
May, 2009
City of Long Beach
Lance Allan,
Pat Abadi
2nd Street
through
Belmont
Shores
Good
Slurry
Seal
May, 2009
City of Glendora
Lance Allen,
Illuminado
Anacion
Woodcroft
Ave.
Good
Slurry
Seal
May, 2009
County of Los Angeles
Lance Allen,
Imleda Diaz
Sunnybrook
Lane,
Whittier
Good overall.
Some reflective
cracking.
Slurry
Seal
June,2009
City of San Dimas
San Dimas
Zone B & D
Good
Slurry
Seal
July, 2009
City of Thousand Oaks
Lance Allan,
John
Campbell
Lance Allen,
Joe Bravo
Sagebrush
Road
Good
Slurry
Seal
July, 2009
City of Yuba City
Ben Moody
Woodbridge
Street
Good
19
Project
ID
Year
constructed
Responsible agency
Contact
Location
Performance
Slurry
Seal
September,
2009
County of Orange
Lance Allen,
Buddy Coover
Aliso Creek
Trail and
Upper
Newport
Bay Native
Reserve
Bike Trail
Good
Slurry
Seal
September,
2009
City of Corona
Lance Allan,
Nelson Nelson
Corona,
Various
locations
Good
Slurry
Seal
December,
2009
City of Lake Forest
Lance Allan
Lake Forest
Slurry
Seal
November,
2009
City of Indian wells
Lance Allan
Indian Wells
Slurry
Seal
November,
2009
City of La Quinta
Lance Allan
La Quinta
Slurry
Seal
January,
2010
City of Oceanside
Lance Allan
Oceanside
3.3 TERMINAL BLEND PROJECT SURVEY, 2010
In March of 2010, selected chip seal projects from 2006 and 2007 in Santa Cruz were
evaluated for performance. Figures 3.1 to 3.5 are photos of this 2010 field survey.
California Street and Delaware Street were completed in 2006. Plateau Street, Swift
Lane, and Escalona Drive were completed in 2007. Damage to the surface was low in
severity. This included some longitudinal cracks, reflective cracks, edge cracks, and
block cracks. Some Overall, the performance of these projects has been good and the
streets surveyed will last the expected performance life. Note: The photos focus on
cracks to surface, but damage was not uniform throughout site locations.
3.4 SUMMARY
As can be seen, Terminal Blends are being used for various maintenance applications in
California including thin HMA, Chip Seals, and Slurry Seals. Usage started in the late
1990’s with only a few HMA and chip seals projects. In 2009, there were over 20
projects throughout California and there are more projects planned for 2010. Most
projects are located in southern California due to location to producers. In most cases,
Terminal Blends have performed as well or better than Asphalt Rubber. The increased
use is attributed to lower costs and improved performance. The number of projects has
20
decreased over the past two years, which is mostly due to the economy and not
performance. The more experience with the product, the less problems have been found.
Complaints have been minor and are mostly due to lack of experience with the product or
loss of color. Many agencies, including Caltrans, plan to continue using Terminal Blend
products.
Figure 3.1 Escalona Drive, Santa Cruz
21
Figure 3.2 Edge Cracking on Swift Lane
Figure 3.3 Reflective Cracking on California Street
22
Figure 3.4: Block Cracking on Delaware Street
Figure 3.5 Block Cracking on Plateau Avenue
23
4.0 TERMINAL BLEND USED IN OTHER STATES
In January 2009, a survey of the state materials engineers was conducted to determine
which agencies used Terminal Blends. Table 4.1 is a summary of the responses.
Table 4.1 Other States Using Terminal Blends
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Response
No
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
NO
State
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Response
No
No
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Yes
No
Yes
No
State
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Response
Yes
No
No
Yes
The following summarizes the input provided by these states with respect to Terminal
Blends. Questions which were asked as a part of this task included the following:




Who are the producers in these states?
Who are the contacts in these states?
In what applications are Terminal Blends used?
How do Terminal Blends used in these states differ from the products used in
CA?
24
4.1 ARIZONA DOT
ADOT has over 35 years experience with rubberized asphalt, especially the use of
Asphalt Rubber (Zareh et al., 2006). In the early 1970s, ADOT placed several SAM and
SAMI field experiments. From 1974 until 1989, approximately 1100 km (660 miles) of
state highways were built using SAM and SAMI technology. In 1989, ADOT
documented in a research report on the history, development, and performance of Asphalt
Rubber that “Asphalt Rubber has successfully been used as an encapsulating membrane
to control distortion due to expansive soils and to reduce reflective cracking in overlays
on both rigid and flexible pavements” (Scofield, 1989). In 1985, ADOT began
experiments with open graded and gap graded Asphalt Rubber mixes. The open graded
Asphalt Rubber mix, typically 12.5 mm to 25 mm thick, is generally used as the final
wearing surface over both concrete and HMA pavements. On badly cracked pavements,
a gap graded Asphalt Rubber mix, generally 37.5 mm to 50 mm thick, is often used. This
may be followed by an open graded Asphalt Rubber application depending on traffic and
type of highway. Pavement performance has been monitored by ADOT since 1972.
More than 28,000 lane-km (16,800 lane miles) of very good performing Asphalt Rubber
pavements have been built in Arizona since 1988.
Arizona DOT has also used rubberized asphalt Terminal Blends for dense and open
graded hot mixes since 2000. Typically the percentage of crumb rubber has a minimum
content of 8%. Arizona also uses chip seals with a crumb rubber percentage of 5 for low
and high volume roads as well as a TR emulsion with 5-10% crumb rubber for fog seals.
Wright Asphalt Co. is planning on launching slurry emulsion later in 2010.
In 2009, Arizona DOT used 2600 tons of Terminal Blends for hot mixes and 7500 tons is
estimated for use in 2010. Paramount Petroleum is the producers of these products and
Wright Asphalt Products Co. is the supplier. These projects have performed well over
the years producing good or better results than competing binders. Overall Arizona has
had no problems to date with Terminal Blends, but there was one complaint regarding
compaction difficulties. Table 4.2 summarizes most of the Terminal Blend projects
placed in Arizona.
4.2 COLORADO
Colorado began experimenting with Terminal Blend rubberized asphalt in 2006. Due to
the extreme climate, which impacts road durability, and limited government spending in
road maintenance the city of Colorado Springs began evaluating alternative forms of
maintenance. With help from Arizona DOT, one alternative that became a viable option
was Terminal Blends. In 2006 four sections on road with different traffic volumes were
used as test sections. This included Wooten Road, Chelton Road, Union Boulevard, and
Briargate Parkway. These test sections had a crumb rubber percentage of 10% and were
25
open graded. Since 2006, the Terminal Blend projects have performed very well. They
are expected to last longer than similar products and are expected to decrease noise, and
improve safety. An improvement on safety has also been evaluated due to less splash and
back spray along with reduction in ice bulk.
4.3 FLORIDA DOT
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) began its investigation into the use of
Asphalt Rubber as a stress absorbing membrane interlayer and moisture barrier in the late
1970s. In 1988, the Florida legislature passed a bill (Senate Bill 1192) directing the
FDOT to determine the feasibility of using ground tire rubber in HMA. FDOT
concentrated its efforts on the use of ground tire rubber in open graded friction course
mixes. This, in essence, is a hybrid manufacturing approach between that used to
produce Asphalt Rubber and Terminal Blends. Ground tire rubber concentrations of 515% by total weight of binder were used. In most cases, extender oil was not added.
Based on observations from these test projects, FDOT concluded that the use of rubber
significantly improved the cracking resistance of the open graded friction course
pavements and that the optimum amount of rubber to add was between 5 and 20 percent.
Florida DOT was one of the early users of Terminal Blend; it is currently widely used in
dense and open graded hot mixes. For dense mixes, FDOT uses ARB-5 which has a
rubber content of 5%; and for open graded mixes, ARB-12 is used with a rubber content
of 12%. ARB-20, with a rubber tire content of 20%, is also applied in an ARMI mixture,
although use is infrequent. The primary producers in Florida include Blackledge
Emulsions, Inc. and Associated Asphalt (Mariani). In 2009, 34,982 tons of Terminal
Blend rubberized asphalt binder was used for hot mixes. Overall Terminal Blend projects
have performed well, but FDOT has encountered some problems if the binder is not
handled correctly. These problems include settlement in asphalt storage tanks and
inadequate reaction times. This leads to poor mix volumetrics and mat texture issues.
FDOT has completed over 300 projects, which are listed in Appendix A.
26
Table 4.2 Arizona Terminal Blend Projects
Project ID
Year
constructed
Responsible
agency
Contact
Location
Performance
Asphalt
Binder
H499701C
Asphalt
Binder
H447301C
Asphalt
Binder
H480301C
Asphalt
Binder
H656901C
Asphalt
Binder
H657201C
Asphalt
Binder
H747101C
Asphalt
Binder
H1469901C
Asphalt
Binder
H659201C
Asphalt
Binder
H613601C
July, 2000
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
Good
March, 2003
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
November,
2007
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
December,
2007
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
March, 2008
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
May, 2008
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
June, 2009
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
July, 2009
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
August, 2009
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
JCT US 60-Lake
Pleasant
Route SR 74
Kohls Ranch
Section
Route SR 260
JCT B19 - Palo
Parado
Route I-19
Lake Havasu TI MP 21 (WB)
Route I-40
Pine Springs Switzer Canyon
Route 40B
SR89A-Chino
Valley
Route SR 89
Little Green
Valley
Route SR 260
S Coolidge City
Limits-JCT287
Route SR 87
Mcguireville Rest
Area To YV C
Route I 17
Asphalt
Binder
H652101C
Asphalt
Binder
H779201C
Asphalt
Binder
H795001C
Asphalt
Binder
H709701C
Planned
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
Pending
Planned
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
Planned
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
Planned
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
The Gap to Cedar
Ridge
Route US 89
I-8, MP 158.5 to
Bianco Rd
Route I 9
Riordan RR OP Country Club
Route 40B
Lower Switchback
Rubble Walls
Route US 191
Asphalt
Binder
H679201C
Planned
Arizona DOT
Scott Weinland
Pending
Asphalt
Binder
H546001C
Planned
Arizona DOT
Scott
Weinland
New Four Peaks
Rd - Dos S Ranch
Rd
Route SR 97
SR 77 MP 364 to
MP 372
Route SR 77
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Pending
Pending
Pending
Pending
27
4.4 KANSAS DOT
.
Kansas DOT currently uses rubberized asphalt Terminal Blends for chip seals and has
two HMA projects planned for March 2010. The crumb rubber percentage for high
volume roads is specified at a minimum of 5% and for low volume routes it is specified
at 2%. Wright Asphalt in Texas has provided the asphalt on recent projects. In 2009,
1,505 tons of rubberized asphalt was used for chip seals. For the most part, the projects
have performed well although Kansas DOT had issues with aggregate loss on one of the
chip seal projects. Table 4.3 summarizes the terminal projects in Kansas.
Table 4.3 Kansas Terminal Blend Projects
Project
ID
Year
constructed
Responsible
agency
Contact
Location
Performance
Chip Seal
AC-205TR
Chip Seal
AC-205TR
Chip Seal
AC-205TR
Chip Seal
AC-102TR
Chip Seal
AC-102TR
Chip Seal
AC-102TR
Chip Seal
AC-102TR
Chip Seal
AC-102TR
Chip Seal
AC-102TR
June, 2009
KDOT
Greg
Schieber
Pratt County
Good
December,
2007
KDOT
Greg
Schieber
Barton County
Good
December,
2007
KDOT
Greg
Schieber
Johnson County
Good
April, 2009
KDOT
Greg
Schieber
Russell County
Good
April, 2009
KDOT
Greg
Schieber
Rawlins County
Good
April, 2009
KDOT
Greg
Schieber
Decatur County
Good
April, 2009
KDOT
Greg
Schieber
Multiple
Counties
Good
April, 2009
KDOT
Greg
Schieber
Multiple
Counties
Good
April, 2009
KDOT
Greg
Schieber
Multiple
Counties
Good
28
4.5 LOUISIANA DOT
Louisiana currently does not have any Terminal Blend products, but has used rubberized
asphalt. Currently 140,000 tons of rubberized asphalt is used for hot mixes each year.
4.6 NEVADA DOT
The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) has used polymer modified asphalt in
its mixes very successfully since 1990. NDOT now specifies two PG polymer modified
asphalt grades: PG 64-28NV for northern Nevada and PG 76-22NV for southern Nevada.
In recent years, NDOT has been evaluating Terminal Blend binders as an alternate to
polymer modified asphalt. Specification requirements for the Terminal Blends are very
similar to those used for the polymer modified asphalt grades and have been designated
as PG 64-28TR and PG 76-22TR (Pavement Preservation Journal, 2008). NDOT has
also reported on the use of Asphalt Rubber in a major open graded mix project. This
project is located on the I-515 freeway in Henderson Nevada, (near Las Vegas) where the
primary objective was to reduce pavement noise (PCCAS Asphalt Paving Committee
Minutes, 2007).
There have been two notable research projects conducted at the University of Nevada,
Reno (UNR) involving Asphalt Rubber, Terminal Blends, and polymer modified asphalt
mixes. In 1998, UNR evaluated the performance of terminal blend mixes with the
performance of Asphalt Rubber mixes (Gopal et al., 1997). This UNR study compared
the performance of laboratory prepared gap graded Terminal Blend mixes to gap graded
Asphalt Rubber mixes. The study also compared the performance of dense graded
Terminal Blend mixes to gap graded Terminal Blend mixes. In addition, the performance
of field produced gap graded terminal blend mixes was compared to the performance of
the laboratory mixes. The researchers concluded that there was no statistical difference
in rutting or fatigue resistance between the gap graded Terminal Blend and Asphalt
Rubber mixes, and that the dense graded Terminal Blend mixes were more resistant to
rutting but less resistant to fatigue cracking than the gap graded Terminal Blend mixes.
The field prepared gap graded Terminal Blend mixes were found to be resistant to
moisture damage, thermal cracking, and rutting. The rutting resistance of the field
prepared gap graded Terminal Blend mix was similar to that of the laboratory prepared
gap graded terminal blend and Asphalt Rubber mixes.
In 2006, UNR conducted a research project to evaluate the laboratory performance of
HMA mixes made with Terminal Blend binders and polymer modified binders (Sebally
et al., 2007). Phase two of the study involved mechanistic-empirical analyses of a
pavement structure to access the fatigue resistance of the various mixes under traffic
loads. It was concluded from the combined findings of the laboratory evaluations and the
mechanistic-empirical analyses that Terminal Blend mixes can perform well regardless of
whether they are used in dense or gap graded mixes.
29
NDOT has used rubberized asphalt Terminal Blends for hot mixes and chip seals since
2007 and plans to start using them in slurry seals in 2010. NDOT calls the Asphalt
Cement PG64-28NVTR. Typically, a minimum crumb rubber percentage of 10% is
required. Paramount Petroleum and Paramount-Nevada are the producers for these
projects and Wright Asphalt supplies the rubber. Approximately 4,000 tons of rubberized
asphalt Terminal Blends are used for hot mixes and 5,500 tons are used in chip seals each
year. Although the product is still in the evaluation period, Terminal Blend projects have
performed well for NDOT.
A 70-22TR is used for chip seals and in 2009 a 13 mile project was placed at Pyramid
Lake. The 76-22TR is specified for use in southern Nevada and project will start in the
near future. Table 4.4 summarizes Terminal Blend usage in Nevada.
Table 4.4 Nevada Terminal Blend Projects
Project ID
Year
constructed
Responsible
agency
Contact
Location
Performance
PG7022TR,
Chip Seal
PG6428TR,
HMA ,
PG6428NVTR
PG6428TR,
HMA
2007
Intermountain
Edgard
Hitti
Gerlach
Good
2008
SNC, NDOT
Edgard
Hitti
Rye Patch I-80
Good
2009
Nevada DOT
Edgard
Hitti
395, Carson/Reno
through Washoe
City
Good
PG7622TR,
HMA
PG7622NVTR
DG & OG
PG7022TR,
Chip Seal
PG7622TR Chip
Seal
PG6428NVTR
DG & OG
2009
Nevada DOT,
Frehner
Edgard
Hitti
I-15, Moapa,
Logadale/Overton
I-15
Good
2009
Nevada DOT
Edgard
Hitti
SR445, Pyramid
Lake
Good
2009
Intermountain
Edgard
Hitti
Arrow Head
Good
2009
Granite Co.
Edgard
Hitti
Pogni Lane
Good
30
4.7 OREGON DOT
Oregon DOT currently uses Terminal Blends for chip seals and has completed hot mixes
in the past. The oil used for chip seals is AC-15 5TR with crumb rubber percentage of
5%. PBA-6GR is used for hot mixes, which includes 10 to 12% crumb rubber. The AC15 5TR is produce by Wright Asphalt and the PBA-6GR was produced by US Oil.
About 2600 tons of rubberized asphalt Terminal Blends was used in 2009. Oregon DOT
is currently monitoring the chip seals to determine their performance. One hot oil chip
seal resulted in flying chips that caused damage to a few windshields. Table 4.5
summarizes the terminal blend projects in Oregon.
Table 4.5 Oregon Terminal Blend Projects
Project ID
Year
Responsible
constructed agency
Contact
Location
Performance
HMA: PBA6GR
1994
Oregon DOT
Elizabeth
Hunt
I-5: Azalea-Jump
off Joe
Good
HMA: PBA6GR
1994
Oregon DOT
Elizabeth
Hunt
I-84: StainfieldTower Road
Good
HMA: PBA6GR
1993
Oregon DOT
Elizabeth
Hunt
US 26: Kah-NeeTah JunctionPelton Dame
Good
Chip Seal:
AC-15 5TR
2009
Oregon DOT
Elizabeth
Hunt
I:84-Woelpern
Rd & ArlingtonTower Road
Good
Chip Seal:
AC-15 5TR
2009
Oregon DOT
Elizabeth
Hunt
OR138/US199
Good
4.8 TEXAS DOT
The first reported use of Asphalt Rubber in Texas was in 1976 in the Bryan and El Paso
Districts of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) (Rubber Pavements
Association). In Texas, Asphalt Rubber has been used in four applications: chip seal coat
or SAM, undercoat or SAMI, hot mix, and open graded porous friction course. Asphalt
Rubber chip seal is considered to be a routine rehabilitation strategy in several districts of
TxDOT. TxDOT made significant changes in mix design procedure and specifications
for crumb rubber modified hot mix in 1992, basically replacing dense graded mixes with
gap graded mixes. District personnel of TxDOT reported that Asphalt Rubber HMA
projects had significantly better resistance to cracking than conventional HMA
(Tahmoressi, 2001). Porous friction courses modified with Asphalt Rubber were also
reported to have better performance with respect to cracking and raveling than
conventional or polymer modified mixes. The improvement in resistance was considered
31
to be due to the high amount of binder in the rubber modified friction courses. Asphalt
Rubber seal coats showed excellent resistance to reflective cracking but varied in the
degree of bleeding depending on the size of aggregate chip used.
Terminal Blends were first used in Texas in the mid-1980s. In a comprehensive study by
Texas A&M University in the year 2000 (Glover, et al, 2000) Terminal Blends, referred
to as “high-cure crumb rubber modified asphalt”, were shown to perform well in
laboratory tests and field evaluations. Among other things, the researchers concluded
that Terminal Blends are suitable for dense graded mixes and can be produced through a
combination of high temperature and high shear. Production in the presence of oxygen
can enhance the breakdown of the rubber and the curing process. They also reported that
PG test equipment, such as the dynamic shear rheometer and bending beam rheometer
can be used to test and monitor the properties of the Terminal Blend. Field studies were
conducted at two Texas locations in 1998 and 2000 that showed Terminal Blends could
be used successfully in dense graded mixes with up to 18% rubber added.
TxDOT started using rubberized asphalt Terminal Blends in the field for hot mixes and
chip seals in 2009. Approximately 120,000 tons of products have been used for chip
seals and 90,000 tons is used for hot mixes each year. These projects typically have a
crumb rubber percentage of 5. Producers in Texas include Alon Refinery, Martin
Asphalt, Nustar, Pelican Refining, Valero, and Corpus Christi. Performance of Terminal
Blends has been good and rubberized asphalt Terminal Blends has become the preferred
material for chip seals. Table 4.6 summarizes the Terminal Blend projects in Texas in
2009.
Table 4.6 Texas Terminal Blend Projects, 2009
Project
ID
Year
constructed
Responsible
agency
Contact
Location
Performance
PFC PG
76-22TR
March, 2009
Texas DOT
Richard
Izzo
District: Tyler,
County: Smith
Good
PFC PG
76-22TR
April, 2009
Texas DOT
Richard
Izzo
District: Tyler,
County: Smith
Good
PFC PG
76-22TR
April, 2009
Texas DOT
Richard
Izzo
District: Tyler,
County: Smith
Good
PFC PG
76-22TR
September,
2009
Texas DOT
Richard
Izzo
District: Tyler,
County: Smith
Good
PFC PG
76-22TR
November,
2009
Texas DOT
Richard
Izzo
District: Tyler,
County: Gregg
Good
PFC PG
76-22TR
December,
2009
Texas DOT
Richard
Izzo
District:
Houston,
County: Waller
Good
PFC PG
76-22TR
December,
2009
Texas DOT
Richard
Izzo
District: Austin,
County: Travis
Good
32
It should be noted that in Texas, asphalt rubber (AR) is typically not terminal blended and
terminally blended asphalts with crumb rubber are not referred to as asphalt rubber. They
are referred to as TR rather than AR. The ASTM definition for AR requires the blend of
at least 15% tire rubber. All of the Texas Terminal Blends rubber jobs have about 5%
rubber (TR).
4.8 SUMMARY
As can be seen, several states use Terminal Blends that contain crumb rubber. They
include California, Arizona, Florida, Nevada, Oregon, Kansas, Louisiana and Texas. The
product in Arizona and Nevada are similar to that used in California. The products in
Kansas, Oregon, Texas, and Florida contain a much lower content of asphalt rubber.
33
5.0 CHALLENGES
There are a number of challenges that must be addressed prior to widespread use of
Terminal Blends in California. They include the following:







Determining crumb rubber content- The first and foremost is the determination of
the crumb rubber content in the asphalt binder. Currently, polymer modified
asphalt producers supply batch weights to the users. A similar approach could be
used for the Terminal Blends since it is a batch process as well. A copy of a
proposed process is attached in Appendix B. Direct determination of the rubber
content is not an easy process. Tests can be developed to determine rubber
content, but it is doubtful that they could be converted into a simple QC test that
can be used in the field.
Tankage- Some agencies have mentioned that contractors maybe unwilling to
change to a Terminal Blend from their workhorse product. The suppliers of
terminal blends need to work with the contractors, and if necessary provide the
needed tankage to allow the conversion to happen easily. Based on projects to
date that used TR products, tankage has not been an issue with the contractors
since handling and storage are similar to polymer modified material.
Cleanup- Some contractors have indicated that cleanup of the tanks can be an
issue. With terminal blends, the storage stability should not be a problem. They
have reportedly been stored for several months or more without problems.
Climate conditions- Most projects have varying climate conditions. There is a
lack of performance information on usage in cold climates or areas that receive
snow.
Loss of color- Some users have reported Terminal Blend products lose color
quickly and turn grey.
Lack of a clear definition- There is not a clear universal definition of Terminal
Blend between other states. This creates discrepancies when evaluating Terminal
Blend usage throughout the United States.
Relative performance- The CIWMB would like documented evidence that the
Terminal Blends perform as well as the traditional field blended asphalt rubber
products and that they are as cost effective. This will be discussed in the next
section.
Each of these issues are being addressed so the terminal blends can become accepted by
the CIWMB for the grant program. At the present time, the use of Terminal Blends is an
excellent alternative to asphalt rubber. However, it is a different product and the products
cannot be interchanged.
34
6.0 EXPERIENCES IN COMPARING ASPHALT RUBBER WITH TERMINAL
BLENDS
This section presents a summary of projects constructed by Caltrans where direct
comparisons between the terminal blends and AR field blends were available.
6.1 HVS TESTING AT UC BERKELEY
This study was sponsored by Caltrans and conducted by the University of California,
Berkeley partnered Pavement Research Center (Guada, et. al., 2007).The questions
addressed were as follows:

The question asked by Caltrans and Industry: Will gap-graded modified binder
(MB-G) mixes provide performance equal to gap-graded rubberized asphalt
concrete (RAC-G) mixes in half thickness applications?

Why was this question asked? MB could offer cost savings, and widen the
application range for rubberized binders.
Caltrans, industry and academia developed a comprehensive plan for laboratory testing,
Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) testing, and full-scale testing on in-service highways.
The University of California Pavement Research Center (UCPRC), through the Partnered
Pavement Research Center program, performed the laboratory and HVS testing. The
HVS was used to apply very high traffic loads to 12 uniform rutting and reflective
cracking test sections under controlled, matching conditions. A total of more than
15 million load repetitions (about 400 million equivalent standard axles loads) were
applied during the study. This provided reliable data that was used to develop and
calibrate mechanistic models to simulate the performance of similar materials not
included in the study, and to extrapolate the results from test sections to other conditions
such as different traffic levels, pavement structures, and stages of pavement deterioration.
Construction of the test road was designed following standard Caltrans procedures and
incorporates a 410 mm Class 2 aggregate base (recycled construction waste) on a clay
subgrade with a 90 mm dense-graded asphalt concrete (DGAC) surface. Design thickness
was based on a subgrade R-value of 5 and a Traffic Index of 7 (~131,000 equivalent
standard axle loads, or ESALs). The road was constructed in 2001 by commercial
contractor (selected based on low-bid) using conventional equipment.
This structure was trafficked with the HVS between February 2002 and April 2003 to
induce fatigue cracking. A total of approximately 3.3 million load repetitions (equating
to about 17.7 million equivalent standard axles (ESALs) using the Caltrans 4.2 exponent)
were applied to six sections to induce a minimum of 2.5 m/m2 fatigue cracking on each
section. Upon completion of the HVS tests, the road was overlaid with six different
35
treatments in June 2003. The thickness for the control DGAC overlay was determined
according to Caltrans Test Method 356. The other overlay thicknesses were either the
same or half of the DGAC overlay thickness. The treatments included:






Half-thickness (45 mm) MB4 gap-graded overlay;
Full-thickness (90 mm) MB4 gap-graded overlay;
Half-thickness MB4 gap-graded overlay with minimum 15 percent recycled tire
rubber;
Half-thickness MAC15TR gap-graded overlay;
Half-thickness rubberized asphalt concrete gap-graded overlay (RAC-G),
included as a control for performance comparison purposes, and
Full-thickness (90 mm) AR4000 dense-graded asphalt concrete (DGAC) overlay,
included as a control for performance comparison purposes.
The purpose of the second round of HVS tests was to assess the effectiveness of the
overlays in limiting reflective cracking in subsequent HVS testing. The HVS test
sections were precisely positioned on top of the sections already trafficked on the
underlying pavement. A high-temperature rutting study on sections adjacent to the
reflective cracking sections was also carried out to assess the susceptibility of the mixes
to early rutting at high pavement temperatures (see Figure 6.1). Figure 6.2 shows the
cracking after traffic.
.
Figure 6.1 Rutting Section after Trafficking
36
Figure 6.2 Cracking Section after Trafficking
The overlay rutting sections were trafficked with the HVS between September and
December 2003. During this period a total of about 80,000 lb (60 kN) channelized,
unidirectional load repetitions with a dual tire (720 kPa pressure) were applied across the
sections, equating to approximately 455,000 ESALs. A temperature chamber was used to
maintain the pavement temperature at 50°C±4°C. Measurements taken at regular
intervals throughout the test included air and pavement temperatures, in-depth elastic
deflection, and surface and in-depth permanent deformation.
HVS trafficking of the overlay reflective cracking sections took place between January
2004 and June 2007. During this period a total of approximately 12.5 million load
repetitions at loads varying between 60 kN and 100 kN, depending on the stage in the test
plan, were applied across the sections, which equates to about 385 million ESALs. A
temperature chamber was used to maintain the pavement temperature on each section at
20°C±4°C for the first one million repetitions, then at 15°C±4°C for the remainder of the
test. A dual tire (720 kPa pressure) in a bidirectional loading pattern with lateral wander
was used for all experiments. Measurements taken at regular intervals throughout the test
included air and pavement temperatures, surface and in-depth elastic deflection, surface
and in-depth permanent deformation, and cracking.
A forensic investigation was carried out after HVS testing. The final summary report
(UCPRC-SR-2007-03) plus other supporting documents can be found at
www.its.berkeley.edu/pavementresearch by clicking the on “publications: and then
“reports for clients and agents”. This included excavation and assessment of 18 test pits,
coring, density and moisture determination, Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)
measurements, and microscope studies of material sampled from the pits. Observations
revealed that most of the deformation measured in the rutting study occurred in the
underlying DGAC. There was some variation in layer thicknesses over the length of the
experiment. DCP measurements and scanning electron microscope studies indicated that
37
the stiffness of the recycled aggregate base varied somewhat between sections due to
some re-cementation that occurred after construction. The strongest part of the base was
typically between 100 and 250 mm. Studies of the asphalt layers, including fractured
cores, showed that cracking in the DGAC and RAC-G overlays had mostly reflected from
the underlying DGAC layer. There was no observed cracking on the surface of the MB
sections.
Laboratory fatigue and shear studies were also conducted in parallel with HVS testing. In
the cracking study, flexural frequency sweeps (stiffness at different temperatures and
period of loading related to traffic speed and climate) and flexural beam tests were
carried out to assess cracking resistance of the overlay mixes. In the shear study,
stiffnesses at high temperatures and permanent deformation at high temperatures were
used to evaluate rutting resistance. Tests were carried out on field-mixed, fieldcompacted, (shear study only), field-mixed, laboratory-compacted, and laboratory-mixed,
laboratory-compacted specimens.
Laboratory results were statistically analyzed to identify the significant variables
affecting stiffness, fatigue and permanent shear deformation performance. The effects of
aggregate gradation, long-term aging, air-void content, mix temperature, and strain/stress
level were the focus of the study, with both field- and laboratory-prepared specimens
compared. Regression models were developed to portray the effects of the significant
variables on the performance-related properties. Test criteria for the shear study included
Cycles to 5 Percent Permanent Shear Strain, Permanent Shear Strain at 5,000 Cycles, and
Resilient Shear Modulus (G*). In the fatigue study, test criteria included number of
cycles to 50 Percent Loss of Stiffness. Analysis of stiffness-versus-strain repetition
curves showed differences in crack initiation and propagation between the DGAC and
RAC-G mixes and between the RAC-G and MB mixes, with results indicating that
damage may slow during the propagation phase of the RAC-G mix, and even more so for
the MB mixes, while it accelerates in the DGAC mix.
The results indicate that gap-graded mixes with MB4, MB4 with 15% rubber, and
MAC15TR binders will provide superior performance in terms of reflective cracking
compared to the same half thickness of RAC-G, when used in thin overlays on cracked
asphalt pavements. With regard to rutting performance, conventional dense-graded
asphalt concrete was clearly superior to all other mixes, followed by the RAC-G, and
then the modified binder (MB) mixes. Most of the rutting in the HVS test sections
occurred in the DGAC layer below the overlays, and not in the overlay itself.
As a result of this study the researchers made the following recommendations:

MB-4 with 15 % rubber, and MAC-15TR binders can be used in appropriately
designed half-thickness overlay mixes for reflective cracking applications where
RAC-G would normally be considered. There is potentially a greater risk of
rutting compared to RAC-G if these mixes are used under slow moving, heavy
truck traffic in hot climates, hence the current mix designs should not be used in
locations with these conditions until proven in pilot projects on in-service
highways.
38


The HVS calibrated simulation models should be used to assess the performance
of other mixes or changes in binder specifications and to validate future mix and
thickness design changes.
Long-term performance monitoring (rutting, cracking, forensic coring and
assessment of the interactions of underlying pavement and thin overlays) of inservice test sections should be continued to relate long-term performance to the
laboratory and HVS findings.
6.2 FIVE YEAR WARRANTEE PROJECTS
Background
In 2002, Caltrans initiated a program that would require contractors to provide warranties
for Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) pavements. In order to find out if such
requirements are viable and cost effective for both Caltrans and industry, five pilot
projects were constructed at various locations across the state to evaluate not only the
performance of RAC but also the effectiveness of the warranty specifications associated
with it. All five proposed RAC warranty pilot projects are complete. Highway 395 in
Lassen County was the last of five pilot projects and was completed on August 2004 and
the only project with a Terminal Blend binder.
Lassen 395 is located on Highway 395 between the town of Doyle and Hallelujah
Junction in Lassen County. It is a high desert area with an elevation of approximately
1280 meters above sea level. The project consisted of overlaying a 2-lane undivided
highway with 60 mm of Dense Graded AC (DGAC) using a Terminal Blend asphalt
rubber binder (MB-D) with 15 % rubber. Project limits are from KP 19.0 to KP 39.91.
An 8-kilometer gap (KP28.3 to KP 36.21) exists within the project limit that is not part of
the warranty. This particular section was paved with the same RAC material by means of
a Contract Change Order (CCO). Surface preparation for the warranty section, included
a PASS scrub seal and a thin blanket asphalt concrete (AC) overlay. The prime
contractor for this project was Teichert Construction Company.
The Lassen 395 RAC warranty pilot project is unique in two areas, the environmental
zone and the type of binder used in the hot mix. The contractor opted to use the
“Terminal Blend” binder rather than the typical “wet process” method employed by the
other four RAC warranty pilot projects mentioned above. The “wet process” is typically
specified through Caltrans special provisions whenever RAC is used in a project. The
“wet process” method blends Crumb Rubber Modifier (CRM) with the asphalt cement at
the production site before incorporating the crumb rubber modified binder with the
aggregate and can only be used with a gap-graded aggregate. The “Terminal Blend” is
also a form of a wet process where CRM is blended with hot asphalt binder at the
refinery or at an asphalt binder storage unit and can be used with a dense graded
aggregate.
39
Findings
After 5 years of service (Caltrans 2009) most test sections are in good to very good
condition with minor distress noted. Based on the performance history, thickness and
deflection information, most of the pavement evaluation sections should perform their
expected life of 10 years with minor maintenance and pavement preservation treatments.
However, there are reported concerns about the low severity raveling noted along the
length of the project in the wheel paths. This is attributed to tire chains, studded tires or
heavy loads. These conditions need to be monitored regularly. More details on the study
can be found at the Caltrans website:
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/translab/ofpm/deliverable.htm.
6.3 FIREBAUGH PROJECT-SR33
Background
The Fresno Highway 33 experimental overlay project is located near the town of
Firebaugh in the central valley of California. It consists of nine pavement test sections
with a variety of rubber-modified asphalt concrete mixes and a control section of a Type
A dense-graded asphalt concrete (DGAC). The rubber-modified sections include a
rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) Type-G (wet process), a Rubber Modified Asphalt
Concrete – Gap Graded (RUMAC, dry process), a Type-G Modified Binder (MB-G), and
a Type-D Modified Binder (MB-D). Both the MB-G and MB-D are Terminal Blended
wet process binders. All rubber-modified pavement test sections include two thicknesses:
45 mm and 90 mm. The DGAC section is 90 mm thick.
Pre-construction, construction and performance information for the Highway 33 project
is described in three separate volumes:




Volume 1 (March 2005) describes the design and construction of the experimental
section
Volume 2 (November 2005) includes results of laboratory tests on samples
obtained from the field and prepared in the laboratory. The laboratory testing
program consisted of rutting and fatigue measurements as well as wheel tracking
to assess moisture sensitivity
Volume 3 describes the results of recent evaluations of the nine experimental
sections (PES) in terms of visual distress surveys, deflection testing and limited
pavement coring
Volume 4-Final Report (September 2008) which summarizes the findings from
the study
All of these reports can be found on the Caltrans website:
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ofpm/deliverables.htm
40
Findings
In terms of field performance, the MB-D mix performed best, followed by MB-G and
DGAC at about the same level of performance, followed by the RAC-G and RUMACGG sections. While MB-D, MB-G and DGAC appear to meet or exceed the performance
requirements for the projected 10-year design life, the RAC-G and RUMAC-GG sections
are already in poor condition after only four years of service. In other words, the RAC-G
and RUMAC-GG overlays did not perform as expected and appear to be inferior to the
DGAC mix. Higher deflections, existing moisture damage and/or poor pavement
condition prior to overlay cannot be blamed for the inferior performance of these two
mixes. Similar pre-overlay conditions were noted on some of the PES that performed
well.
Based on review of the available data from the mix designs, the construction and
laboratory reports, it appears that construction factors (particularly compaction) may have
had the most impact on the performance of the RAC-G materials. Laboratory tests
indicated that RAC-G with in-place air void contents of greater than 6.0% may exhibit
poor performance, particularly with respect to rutting. A higher AR binder content would
likely have increased this relatively low threshold air void content somewhat. For this
reason, consideration should be given to optimizing AR binder content during mix
design, rather than simply meeting minimum specification requirements. Since only 1 of
12 cores exhibited less than 6% air voids, it appears that most of the RAC-G placed for
this experimental project was not sufficiently compacted to provide the desired
performance, although it has not rutted. The new Section 39 of the Caltrans Standard
Specifications includes compaction requirements for RAC-G mixes that should help to
address this issue. However, for this project, corresponding penalties would probably
have been limited to the half-thick RAC-G.
The relative performance of the MB-D and MB-G mixes indicates that Modified Binders
(or Terminal Blends) are better suited for use in dense-graded mixes than in gap-graded
mixes. Although highly modified, these no-agitation rubberized binders do not build
viscosity like the high viscosity asphalt rubber binders and should not be used to try to
mimic RAC-G mixes.
Other field observations and conclusions include:


The primary failure mechanism at work on all nine PES is reflective cracking
which was confirmed by comparison of pre-overlay and post-overlay distress
maps as well as by the fact that cracking, in many instances, started on the
shoulders where traffic is minimal.
The loss of coarse and fine aggregate on the RAC-G sections (pop-outs and
raveling) was also observed in other Caltrans RAC-G projects (Caltrans RAC
Warranty Projects in San Diego, Ventura, Merced, Fresno and Mendocino
Counties). During construction of the Fresno Highway 33 project, the paving
crew mentioned that, in comparison with the other rubber asphalt mixes,
41

RAC-G is less workable and more difficult to compact once the mix
temperature drops below a certain value. The surface of the overlay will be the
first to cool down and therefore compaction at the surface may not be
achieved as desired. As a result, coarse and fine aggregate will be lost from
the mix under the action of traffic loading and the elements. It is important to
note that pop-outs and loss of fines occurred not only in the wheel paths but
throughout the entire overlay area including the shoulder. Aggregate
properties were not evaluated to determine if there were related causes.
Bleeding was observed on both MB-G sections and it was worse on the
thicker MB-G section. The mix design and construction data indicate that the
MB-G materials were likely “over-asphalted” with low VMA and in-place air
void contents. Unlike high-viscosity asphalt rubber binder, Modified Binders
can’t develop high enough viscosity to prevent drain-down of the binder from
the gap-graded aggregate blend at normal mixing and compaction
temperatures. The relatively high design binder content selected in an attempt
to conform to the requirements for RAC-G is a primary reason that bleeding
occurred on the MB-G sections. The heavy agricultural truck traffic was also
a contributor. In comparison, no bleeding was found on the MB-D sections
where a dense-graded aggregate gradation was used, which appears to be a
much more suitable use of MB materials.
6.4 MENDOCINO COUNTY PROJECT-SR 20
Background
The Mendocino Highway 20 experimental overlay project is located near the town of
Ukiah about 120 miles north of San Francisco. It consists of three pavement test sections
with a variety of rubber-modified asphalt concrete mixes and a control section of a Type
A dense-graded asphalt concrete (DGAC). The rubber-modified sections include a
rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) Type-G (wet process), a Rubber Modified Asphalt
Concrete – Gap Graded (RUMAC, dry process), and a Type-D Modified Binder (MB-D).
The MB-D is a Terminal Blended wet process binder. All rubberized asphalt concrete
overlays are 60 mm thick. The DGAC overlay is 105 mm thick.
The work plan, pre-construction, construction and performance information for the
Highway 20 project is described in several separate volumes:



Volume 1 (July 2005) describes the proposed monitoring, sampling and testing
plan for the experiment
Volume 2 (July 2005) describes pre-construction conditions in terms of distress
surveys and deflection testing
Volume 3 (December 2005) describes the design and construction of the
experimental section
42

Volume 4 (September 2008) describes the results of recent evaluations of the four
experimental sections (PES) in terms of visual distress surveys, deflection testing
and limited pavement coring.
All of these reports can be found on the Caltrans
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ofpm/deliverables.htm.
website
located
at
Findings
After 3 years of service, the rubberized asphalt concrete overlays as well as the control
DGAC overlay are in very good condition and will likely meet or exceed the performance
requirements for the projected 10-year design life. It is recommended that the project is
visited again in a two-three years time frame to monitor the initiation and development of
distress and to evaluate the relative performance of the four different rubberized asphalt
products.
6.4 MODIFIED BINDER CHIP SEALS
VOLUMES
IN
HOT CLIMATES
WITH
HIGH TRUCK TRAFFIC
Background
Five rubberized asphalt chip seal test sections (section 7-11) were placed in November
2008 in California District 11 on Highway 86 in southern California near Westmoreland.
The average high temperature in the summer is around 120oF with an average low of
15oF at night in the in the winter. The average daily traffic is in excess of 9,500 vehicles,
with over 3,300 vehicles being trucks. The layouts of the test sections are shown in
Figure 1 while the description of the materials used in the test sections are given in Table
6.1 and 6.2. Sections 1-6 included asphalt rubber test sections. Sections 7-11 included
several materials including terminal blend rubberized asphalt. This article will address
only the sections 7-11.
9
8
NB
7
6
10
11B
5
4
3
2
1
11A
SB
Figure 6.3 Layout for Hwy 86 Chip Seal Test Sections
43
Table 6.1 Description of materials and application rates uses in the Test Sections
7 – PG82-16 (8%TR + 3%SBS, 100PAV, 1/2”precoated, 0.42gl/syd) field blend.
8 - PG70-22 (5.5%TR + 3%SBS, 110PAV, 1/2”non-precoated, 0.39gl/syd) terminal blend
9 – PMAR*(15.5%TR, 2% SBS, 1/2”precoated, 0.48gl/syd) field blend
10 – PG76-22 (8%TR + 3%SBS, 100PAV, 1/2”precoated, 0.52gl/syd) field blend
11A – PG70-22 (5.5%TR + 3%SBS, 110PAV, 3/8”precoated, 0.36gl/syd) terminal blend
11B – PG70-22 (5.5%TR + 3%SBS, 110PAV, 1/2”precoated, 0.44gl/syd) terminal blend
*Polymeer Modified asphalt rubber
Table 6.2 Modified Asphalt Chip Seal Binder and aggregates variation
Section
Actual P
G grade
PAV % Tire
½”
½” non
3/8”
content Precoated Precoated Precoated
7
8
9
10
11A
11B
82-16
70-22
Unknown
76-22
70-22
70-22
100
110
N/A
100
110
110
8.0
5.5
15.5
8.0
5.5
5.5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-
Yes
-
In
accordance
to the final
NSSP binder
76-22TR
No
No
No
No
No
No
The test section construction consisted of a combination of field blended and terminal
blended products and the main purposes were to validate the NSSP specification that was
written without specifying a process and is based on end-result specifications. Variations
in aggregate size, with or without pre-coating, were included to check for construction
variability and effect of aggregates on performance of the section based traffic loading.
Binders in all sections exhibited good adhesion properties after two years of construction.
In these specific test sections, the pre-coated aggregated performed better in retention
than the non-pre-coated one, but on closer look, section 8 shows that loss of the non precoated aggregates was during the initial life of the section but slowed down thereafter. In
the section that used the 3/8” pre-coated aggregates, the embedment was much greater
than the ½” and for these specific conditions the ½” is the preferable size to consider.
Section 7 was constructed in the north bound direction. The start of the section had less
embedment of the rock than near the end of it which might be due to change of spray
44
rate. A change in appearance between the first half and the second half was noted. (See
Figures 6.4 and 6.5)
Figure 6.5: Section 7, start of second portion
Figure 6.4 Section 7, first portion of test section
For section 8, a non-precoated aggregate was used. The loss of aggregate was noted
during the initial stage of the construction. This section was placed to evaluate the effect
of the precoated in chip seal application especially if it is not caped. This emphasizes the
requirement for aggregates to be pre-coated in the NSSP. (See Figures 6.6 and 6.7)
45
Figure 6.6 Section 8, considerable rock loss with non-coated aggregate
Figure 6.7 Section 8: Closer look after the initial loss of nonprecoated aggregates. The performance has been stable thereafter.
Section 9 was constructed at a later date and wasn’t included in the original scope of the
test sections since it has a higher content of tire rubber in comparison to the other
sections. Nevertheless, the performance, when it comes to aggregate embedment, was
similar to the other sections, but was too stiff to mitigate reflective cracking. (See Figures
6.8 and 6.9) This finding has triggered a change in the NSSP specification to have an
upper limit on DSR in addition to the minimum value.
46
Figure 6.8 Section 9, good embedment.
Figure 6.9 Section 9, good embedment but some of reflective cracking
Section 10 was constructed on the south bound with ½” pre-coated chip and exhibit good
performance in aggregate retention, embedment and reflective cracking. (See Figures
6.10 and 6.11)
47
Figure 6.10 Section 10: Closer look at aggregate
Figure 6.11 Section 10-good performance
Section 11B was constructed on the south bound with ½” pre-coated chip and exhibit
good performance in aggregate retention, embedment and reflective cracking. (See
Figures 6.12 and 6.13) it did exhibit some minor reflection cracking.
48
Figure 6.12 Section 11B: good performance
Figure 6.13 Section 11B: Closer look at aggregate
Section 11A was constructed on the south bound but with 3/8” pre-coated aggregates to
check the impact of aggregates size. The chip used was too small for the traffic level,
yielding a flushing appearance. In these specific location and traffic volume the
embedment of aggregates was too high but NSSP had three different aggregates size to
accommodate for different traffic level.
49
Figure 6.14 Section 11A, overviewe of test section
Figure 6.15 Section 11A, high embedment due to small aggregate size.
Findings
The findings of this study after 2 years of performance in a harsh southern California
desert climate with high truck traffic are as follows:
50

Field and terminal blended products made at similar rubber content had similar
performance.

Consistent spray rate is important across the pavement with similar distress level
to achieve good results.

For chip seal application an appropriate stiffness is needed to medicate reflective
cracking and embedment level, so a maximum and minimum DSR has been set in
the NSSP

Non-precoated aggregate has been used successfully in several projects and
other states, but pre-coated aggregates increases the change of performance of
the chip seal since less dust and better bonding will occur especially if the
surface treatment is not caped.

A ½ inch maximum size pre-coated chip needs to be used for the best
performance under similar traffic and environment condition.

QC/QA testing frequencies has been included in the NSSP to insure materials
such as the binders and aggregates materials are in compliance with the
specification.
6.5 MB PILOT PROJECT
The Modified Binder (MB) pilot projects consisted of ten projects constructed to the
Caltrans MB specifications (Holleran et al., 2002). These projects were constructed
during the period of 1997 to 2000 in coastal locations. The minimum CRM of 10% was
used and projects were both gap-graded and dense-graded mixtures over a range of
structural section designs. They Included both Rubber Asphalt produced by the fieldblended process and Terminal Blend method. The projects were evaluated in 2001 by
Caltrans and given a rating of good, fair, or poor. A good rating meant the project is
expected to achieve its design life and exhibits little to no premature distress. Fair meant
the project is expected to achieve its design life, however, it exhibits a moderate level of
premature distress. A poor rating meant the project would not achieve the expected
design life due to moderate to severe distress. Based on Caltrans’ evaluations, eight of
the ten projects performed good after 1-4 years of service. One project was rated as fair
due to alligator crack reflecting on the surface. Another project was rated as poor due to
base failure and pumping. Based on these results, “hot mix employing MB binders used
in RAC type G and RAC type D mixes as CAPM overlays have the ability to meet
performance requirements when correctly constructed” (Holleran et al. 2002). However,
more documentation was needed on the preconstruction and construction of MB projects.
Also the project did not have sufficient documentation to allow the conclusion for all
climate conditions or traffic loading. The MB pilot project did establish a good starting
point for research and more projects in the future.
51
6.6 Terminal Blend Chip Seal Demonstration Project
In 2008 CIWMB offered LA county Department of Public Works a grant to construct
chip seals using a performance graded paving asphalt containing Terminal Blend. The
location of the site was avenue O between 120th street east and 170th street east and
avenue J between 150th street east to 170th street east. Avenue J is an arterial route
between the community of Lake, LA and city of Palmdale. Avenue J is an arterial route
between Lancaster and western San Bernardino. There are large amounts of traffic and
both streets. The PCI rating of avenue O is 60 and it is 52 for avenue J. The test sections
were in poor to fair conditions and below the typical threshold for consideration of a Chip
Seal treatment. Paramount Petroleum supplied PG 76-22 TR with a CRM of 15%.
Construction started in early July, 2009 without any problems. As of April 2010, the chip
seal projects have performed well with no evidence of rock loss however, some
underlying cracks are reflecting through. This study found that PG 76-22TR is an
appropriate binder for use in chip seal applications on roadways with moderate distresses.
Figure 6.6 displays the Avenue O after construction.
Figure 6.16 Finish Avenue O (Updyke, 2009)
6.7 SUMMARY
Caltrans has performed a variety of projects throughout California to compare the
performance of Terminal Blends and field blends. These projects include lab tests and
52
field studies that offer a direct comparison between different test sections, more
experience with construction of Terminal Blend, and increased data on different mix
designs. The Terminal Blend tests and projects have sparked increased interest and
recognition of TR products as a viable alternative to conventional methods. Terminal
Blends have performed as well or better than traditional mixes and field blends. Very
few problems with Terminal Blend have been observed in tests.
53
7.0. SUMMARY, PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Summary
Although many techniques have been used to combine rubber and asphalt over the years,
two major technologies have emerged for blending ground tire rubber into hot asphalt:
the Asphalt Rubber process and the Terminal Blend process. Both technologies are
described as wet processes. The Asphalt Rubber process involves blending ground tire
rubber and asphalt in a specialized blending unit on site at the hot mix plant and then
adding the binder to the selected aggregate gradation to produce the final mix. In the
Terminal Blend process, a finer mesh ground tire rubber is blended with the asphalt at a
refinery or terminal into a homogeneous binder that is delivered to the hot mix plant for
production of the final mix.
By their very nature, Asphalt Rubber and Terminal Blend binders are different products
with a different appearance and different properties. Both Asphalt Rubber and Terminal
Blends can be used in chip seal applications and interlayers. Both binders can be used to
produce gap graded and open graded mixes. Terminal Blend binders are also suitable for
dense graded mixes. Asphalt Rubber technology has a longer proven performance
history and uses a higher percentage of rubber than terminal blend technology while
Terminal Blend technology may have manufacturing benefits over Asphalt Rubber
technology. Yet, both technologies serve a valuable role in providing highway agencies
with useful pavement preservation strategies and, at the same time, addressing the
environmental problem of waste tire disposal.
Based on numerous laboratory studies, field installations, and accelerated pavement
testing programs, it has been shown that both Asphalt Rubber and Terminal Blend
systems, properly designed and constructed, can perform well in resisting crack
reflection, improving driving safety, and reducing pavement noise. Despite the many
advantages of these systems, there are situations where these technologies may not be the
best choice. For example, Asphalt Rubber and Terminal Blend mixes should not be used:





During cold or rainy weather with ambient temperatures below 13°C.
Over pavements with severe cracks.
Where considerable handwork is required.
Where traffic and deflection data are unknown.
Where haul distances are too long to maintain sufficient mix temperature for
placement and compaction. (Warm Mix technology may eventually alleviate this
problem.)
54
Performance history is important in the use of Asphalt Rubber and Terminal Blend
mixes. Terminal Blend systems appear to be a good alternative to polymer modified
asphalt applications and based on the HVS accelerated pavement testing study and
studies at UNR, and field test section in California. Terminal Blend mix performance also
compare favorably with that of Asphalt Rubber for gap graded mixes.
7.2 Conclusions
Based on the results presented, the following conclusions appear warranted:






Terminal Blends have a long history of use, but not as long as asphalt rubber
The results of tests in California would suggest that both Terminal Blends and
asphalt rubber are superior products when compared to conventional HMA
The results of the HVS testing and field tests at Firebaugh and Mendocino would
suggest they terminal blends and asphalt rubber performance in a comparable
manner
Terminal Blends contain at least 15% asphalt rubber for use in chip seals and in
hot mixes. As a result, they should qualify for Grants offered by the CIWMB
Terminal Blends have not yet been used in warm mixes
There is no simple test procedure to determine CRB content in Terminal Blends.
7.3 Recommendations
Recommendations for this study include at least the following:


Terminal Blends are recommend for the grant program of the CIWMB as long as
they contain at least 15% crumb rubber
Terminal Blends should be evaluated for use with warm mix technologies
55
8.0 REFERENCES
1. 36th Pacific Coast Conference on Asphalt Specifications, Portland, Oregon,
May 20-21, 2008.
2. ASTM International Annual Book of Standards, D 8 Definitions, 2005.
3. “Asphalt-rubber or rubberized asphalt: clearing up the confusion.” International
Surfacing Systems, Modesto CA.
4. Blankenship, P. B. (2009) “Summary report for paramount petroleum.” Asphalt
Institute, Lexington, Kentucky, October 26, 2009.
5. Boone, T. (2008) “Paramount petroleum corporation provides terminal
blend asphalt rubber chip seal for test sections in Imperial County.”
California Asphalt Magazine, Construction Issue, 2008.
6. Caltrans, (2004) “Methods of test to obtain flexible pavement deflection
measurements for determining pavement rehabilitation requirements.” California Test
356, June 2004.
7. Caltrans, “Asphalt rubber usage guide.” Sacramento, California, September 2006.
8. Caltrans, (2008) “Evaluation of Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Full Scale Projects:
Fresno County/Highway 33 (Firebaugh).” Volume 4-Final Report, Office of Flexible
Pavement, Sacramento CA, September 2008,
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ofpm/deliverables.htm.
9. Caltrans, (2009) “Evaluation of Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Full Scale Projects:
Lassen County/Highway 395.” Final Report, Office of Flexible Pavement, Sacramento
CA, December 2009, www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ofpm/deliverables.htm.
10. Caltrans, (2008) “Evaluation of Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Full Scale Projects:
Mendocino County/Highway 20” Volume 4-Final Report, Office of Flexible
Pavement, Sacramento CA, September 2008,
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ofpm/deliverables.htm.
11. Caltrans, (2009) “Evaluation of Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Full Scale Test
Sections and Comparison with Results of the UCPRC HVS Study.” Volume 5-Final
Report, Office of Flexible Pavement, Sacramento CA, December 2008,
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ofpm/deliverables.htm.
12. Caltrans, (2005) “Rubberized asphalt concrete firebaugh project.” Volume 156
Construction, Office of Flexible Pavement Materials, Sacramento, California, March
2005, www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ofpm/deliverables.htm.
13. Choubane, B., Sholar, G.A., Musselman, J.A., and Page, G.C. (1998) “Long term
performance evaluation of asphalt-rubber surface mixes.” State of Florida
Research Report FL/DOT/SMO/98-431, November 1998.
14. Epps, J.A., “Uses of recycled rubber tires in highways.” NCHRP Synthesis 198,
Transportation Research board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994.
15. “Evaluation of modified binder gap-graded mixes for half-thickness reflective
cracking overlays” Pavement Research Center, University of California, Davis &
Berkeley, Spring 2007, www.its.berkely.edu/pavementresearch.
16. Fontes, Liseane P.T.L., Pereira, Paulo A.A., Pais, Jorge C., and Triches, Glicerio,
(2006) “Performance of wet process method alternatives: terminal or continuous
blend”, Proceedings, Asphalt Rubber 2006 Conference, Palm Springs, California,
October 2006.
17. Glover, Charles J. et al. (2000) “A comprehensive laboratory and field study of highcure crumb rubber modified asphalt materials.” Texas Transportation Institute, Texas
A&M University, Report 1460-1, January 2000.
18. Gopal,V., Sebaaly, P.E., and Troy, K., (1997)“Characterization of CRM binders
and mixtures used in Nevada.” Final report No. 1197-2, Nevada Department of
Transportation, Carson City, NV, September 9, 1997.
19. “Greenbook.” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2000 Edition,
p. 457.
20. Guada, I, Signore, J., Tsai, B., Jones, D., Harvey, J., and Monismith, C. (2007)
“Reflective cracking study: first-level report on laboratory shear testing.” University
of California, Pavement Research Center, Report UCPRC-RR-206-11, September
2007, www.its.berkeley.edu/pavementresearch.
21. Hicks, G. (2009) “Differences between asphalt rubber and terminal blend modified
asphalts.” CP2 Center News, Chico California, October 2009.
22. Holleran, G., Hicks, R. G. (2002) “Rubber modified binder-pilot project review
2001.” State of California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA June, 2002.
23. Houston, W. N., Mirza, M. W., Zapata, C. E., Raghavendra, S. (2005)
“Environmental effects in pavement mix and structural design systems”, NCHRP,
Project 9-23 part 1, September, 2005.
57
24. “How RAC is made. 2010” Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Technology Center,
www.rubberizedasphalt.org.
25. Humer, R. P. (2009) “Testing the equivalency of PG 64-28TR and PG64-28PM”
Asphalt Institute, Westlake Village, California, May 15, 2009.
26. Jones, D., Harvey, J., and Monismith, C., (2007) “Reflective cracking study:
summary report.” University of California Pavement Research Center, Report
UCPRC-SR-2007-01, December 2007.
27. Khattack, S., “Testing terminal blend tire rubber asphalt performance for safety, ride
quality and cost in Colorado Springs, Colorado” City of Colorado Springs, Colorado
Springs, CO.
28. Lewis, R.H. and Welborn, J.Y. (1954) “The effect of various rubbers on the
properties of petroleum asphalts.” Public Roads, Vol. 28, No. 4, October, 1954, p.
64.
29. McDonald, C.H. (1981). “Recollections of early asphalt-rubber history.”, National
Seminar on Asphalt-Rubber, October 1981.
30. “Methods for testing of material production plants.” California Department of
Transportation, California Test 109, Sacramento, California, May 2004.
31. “Nevada-grinding or green paving to restore the ride of old concrete freeways.”
Rubber Pavement News, Volume 12, No. 1, Spring 2009.
32. “Old tires to protect baggage screeners.” The Orange County Register, Orange
County, California, February 15, 2008.
33. Overley, J. (2008) “Old tires could take a load off John Wayne.” The Orange County
Register, Orange County, California, February 16, 2008.
34. PCCAS Asphalt Paving Committee Minutes, September 25, 2007.
35. Price, Mark L. (2004) “That stretch of road.” Akron Beacon Journal, September 13,
2004.
36. Qi, Xicheng, Shenoy, Aroon, Al-Khateeb, Ghazi, Arnold, Terry, Gibson, Nelson,
Youtcheff, Jack, and Harman, Tom, (2006) “Laboratory characterization and fullscale accelerated performance testing of crumb rubber asphalts and other modified
asphalt systems”, Proceedings, Asphalt Rubber 2006 Conference, Palm Springs,
California, October 2006.
37. Reese, R. (1994) “Development of a physical property specification for asphalt-
58
rubber binder.” Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Volume
64, 1994.
38. Rex, H.M. and Peck, R.A. (1954) “A laboratory study of rubber-asphalt paving
mixtures.” Public Roads, Vol. 28, No. 4, October, 1954, p. 91.
39. “Rubberized asphalt concrete warranty pilot projects volume 2 – Interim performance
monitoring report.” Caltrans, Sacramento California, November 15, 2009
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ofpm/deliverables.htm.
40. Rubber World, Those Amazing Rubber Roads, March-April, 1967.
41. Santucci, L. “Performance graded (PG) polymer modified asphalts in California.”
Technical Topic No.7, Technology Transfer Program, Institute of Transportation
Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
42. Santucci, L. (2000) “Rubber roads: waste tires find a home.” UCPRC Pavement
Technology Update, Volume 1, NO. 2 Berkeley California, September, 2009.
43. Scofield, L.A. (1989) “The history, development, and performance of asphalt rubber
at ADOT.” Report Number AZ-SP-8902, Arizona Department of Transportation,
December 1989.
44. Sebaaly, P.E., Sebaaly, H., and Hajj, E., (2007) “Evaluation of Nevada’s HMA
mixtures manufactured with terminal blend rubber modified binders.” Western
Regional Superpave Center, University of Nevada, Reno, May 2007.
45. Sebally, P.E., Sebaaly, H., Haijj, E., and Hitti, E. “Fatigue properties of rubber
modified asphalt mixtures.”
46. Shatnawi, S., Stonex, A., and Hicks, R.G. (2006) “An update on the asphalt rubber
pavement preservation strategies used in California.” Proceedings, Asphalt Rubber
2006 Conference, Palm Springs, California, October 2006.
47. Shatnawi, S. and Long, B. (2000) “Performance of asphalt rubber vs. thin overlays.”
Proceedings, Asphalt Rubber 2000 Conference, Vilamoura, Portugal, November
2000.
48. “Standard specifications for tire rubber modified slurry seal.” Pacific Emulsions,
Inc., Santa Fe Springs, CA, July, 2008.
49. Tahmoressi, M. (2001) “Evaluation of asphalt rubber pavements in Texas”,
PaveTex Engineering and Testing, Inc. Report prepared for Rubber Pavements
Association, January 2001.
50. “Terminal blended rubberized asphalt goes mainstream-now PG Graded”, Asphalt
59
Magazine, Asphalt Institute, November 2008.
51. “Terminal blend rubberized asphalt binders.” Pavement Preservation Journal,
Winter 2008, www.pavementpreservation.org.
52. Texas Asphalt Rubber Survey, Rubber Pavements Association.
53. “Where the rubber meets the slurry” Better Roads, Volume 79, Number 6, June 2009.
54. Zareh, Ali and Way, G.B. (2006) “35 years of asphalt-rubber in Arizona.”
Proceedings, Asphalt Rubber 2006 Conference, Palm Springs, California, October
2006.
60
9.0 APPENDICES
61
APPENDIX A: FLORIDA HMA TERMINAL BLEND PROJECTS
Contract ID
Year
constructed
Responsible
agency
Contact
Location
Performance
19426
21059
21561
21586
21663
February, 1996
April, 2002
May, 2002
June, 2002
September,
2002
January, 2003
February, 2003
February, 2003
March, 2003
April, 2003
May, 2003
June, 2002
June, 2003
July, 2003
July, 2003
August, 2003
August, 2003
August, 2003
August, 2003
August, 2003
September,
2003
September,
2003
September,
2003
September,
2003
September,
2003
October, 2003
October, 2003
October, 2003
October, 2003
October, 2003
October, 2003
October, 2003
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 2
District 2
District 6
District 4
District 3
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 2
District 4
District 2
District 5
District 5
District 2
District 1
District 2
District 4
District 2
District 4
District 2
District 2
District 3
District 3
District 2
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 2
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 3
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 2
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 3
Good
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 5
District 4
District 2
District 5
District 2
District 3
District 3
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
T2000
T4011
T2031
T5143
T5024
T2018
21575
E2F70
T4018
T2043
T4024
T2054
T2049
T3027
T1098
T2041
T2061
T3022
T2057
T3032
T5040
T4038
E2F81
T5041
T2034
T3023
T3031
62
E2G54
E2F85
T6024
T3039
T7033
T3034
T2055
T2027
T2065
T5047
T4039
T3025
E7B70
T2068
T3045
T2030
T1051
T2064
T2060
T2059
E4G54
T5036
E2F94
E2F99
T3030
T3152
T4054
T3049
T4052
T1060
E2G06
T6023
T3152
T6038
T3123
T1075
T7052
T4026
E2H22
November,
2003
November,
2003
November,
2003
December, 2003
December, 2003
December, 2003
December, 2003
December, 2003
December, 2003
December, 2003
December, 2003
January, 2004
January, 2004
January, 2004
January, 2004
January, 2004
January, 2004
January, 2004
January, 2004
January, 2004
January, 2004
January, 2004
February, 2004
February, 2004
March, 2004
March, 2004
March, 2004
March, 2004
March, 2004
March, 2004
March, 2004
March, 2004
March, 2004
April, 2004
April, 2004
April, 2004
April, 2004
April, 2004
April, 2004
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 2
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 2
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 6
Good
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 3
District 7
District 3
District 2
District 2
District 2
District 5
District 4
District 3
District 7
District 2
District 3
District 2
District 1
District 2
District 2
District 2
District 4
District 5
District 2
District 2
District 3
District 3
District 4
District 3
District 4
District 1
District 2
District 6
District 3
District 6
District 3
District 1
District 7
District 4
District 2
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
63
E2H11
T2066
T5056
T4057
T4031
E1E10
E4G91
T6044
T3053
T2099
T5062
T1082
E2G08
E2G91
T4030
E5F92
T5063
T5064
T3134
E3C73
T2085
T2093
E2G93
E2G94
E1E48
T7065
T6056
E1E51
T1069
T1089
T5069
E8F56
T1084
T6055
E1E59
T1098
T2098
April, 2004
April, 2004
April, 2004
May, 2004
May, 2004
May, 2004
May, 2004
June, 2004
June, 2004
June, 2004
June, 2004
July, 2004
July, 2004
July, 2004
July, 2004
July, 2004
July, 2004
July, 2004
August, 2004
August, 2004
August, 2004
August, 2004
September,
2004
September,
2004
September,
2004
October, 2004
October, 2004
October, 2004
October, 2004
October, 2004
October, 2004
October, 2004
October, 2004
October, 2004
November,
2004
November,
2004
November,
2004
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 2
District 2
District 5
District 4
District 4
District 1
District 4
District 6
District 3
District 2
District 5
District 1
District 2
District 2
District 4
District 5
District 5
District 5
District 3
District 3
District 2
District 2
District 2
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 2
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 1
Good
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 5
District 6
District 1
District 1
District 1
District 5
District 8
District 1
District 6
District 1
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 1
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 2
Good
64
T1093
T5070
T6051
T4034
T1092
T5082
E4H21
T4063
E2G95
T2100
E2G90
T1109
T2080
T5084
T1110
E2H01
T6063
T6050
T6064
T5089
T2110
T2086
E4H22
T5095
T5094
E2G94
T4075
T2087
E2H07
T6066
T6057
T2123
T4079
T5106
T1135
E1E90
T6065
T1132
November,
2004
November,
2004
November,
2004
November,
2004
December, 2004
January, 2005
January, 2005
January, 2005
January, 2005
January, 2005
January, 2005
January, 2005
January, 2005
February, 2005
February, 2005
February, 2005
February, 2005
March, 2005
March, 2005
March, 2005
March, 2005
March, 2005
March, 2005
April, 2005
April, 2005
April, 2005
April, 2005
April, 2005
April, 2005
April, 2005
April, 2005
May, 2005
May, 2005
June, 2005
June, 2005
June, 2005
June, 2005
June, 2005
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 1
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 5
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 6
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 4
Good
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 1
District 5
District 4
District 4
District 2
District 2
District 2
District 1
District 2
District 5
District 1
District 2
District 6
District 6
District 6
District 5
District 2
District 2
District 4
District 5
District 5
District 2
District 4
District 2
District 2
District 6
District 6
District 2
District 4
District 5
District 1
District 1
District 6
District 1
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
65
T7101
T5104
T5112
E2I33
E2I12
T6100
T5115
T5116
T5124
T4084
T1123
T5119
T1145
T2140
T4087
E5K40
T5125
E2I40
T1116
T5123
T3073
T6085
T1099
T4095
T4097
T6096
T6084
T4106
T6081
T6086
T5133
T6082
T2075
T1166
July, 2005
July, 2005
July, 2005
July, 2005
July, 2005
July, 2005
August, 2005
August, 2005
August, 2005
August, 2005
August, 2005
September,
2005
September,
2005
September,
2005
September,
2005
October, 2005
November,
2005
November,
2005
November,
2005
November,
2005
November,
2005
December, 2005
December, 2005
December, 2005
December, 2005
December, 2005
December, 2005
January, 2006
January, 2006
January, 2006
January, 2006
February, 2006
February, 2006
February, 2006
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 7
District 5
District 5
District 2
District 2
District 6
District 5
District 5
District 5
District 4
District 1
District 5
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 1
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 2
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 4
Good
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
District 5
District 5
Good
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 2
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 1
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 5
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 3
Good
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 6
District 1
District 4
District 4
District 6
District 6
District 4
District 6
District 6
District 5
District 6
District 2
District 1
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
66
T4111
T4102
T3109
T3201
T2164
T1167
T2139
T1163
T4125
T6088
T2166
T2166
T6089
T6092
T1170
T5139
E6D49
T4116
T5149
T5113
T1186
T1174
E2I25
T7144
T4124
T4120
T5165
T2183
T1189
T3083
T3076
E6C29
E8H03
T6110
E7D72
T1216
T2147
T6105
E7D81
T4108
February, 2006
February, 2006
February, 2006
February, 2006
March, 2006
March, 2006
March, 2006
March, 2006
March, 2006
March, 2006
April, 2006
April, 2006
April, 2006
April, 2006
April, 2006
April, 2006
May, 2006
May, 2006
May, 2006
May, 2006
May, 2006
May, 2006
June, 2006
June, 2006
June, 2006
June, 2006
June, 2006
July, 2006
July, 2006
July, 2006
July, 2006
July, 2006
August, 2006
September,
2006
September,
2006
October, 2006
October, 2006
October, 2006
October, 2006
October, 2006
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 4
District 4
District 3
District 3
District 2
District 1
District 2
District 1
District 4
District 6
District 2
District 2
District 6
District 6
District 1
District 5
District 6
District 4
District 5
District 5
District 1
District 1
District 2
District 7
District 4
District 4
District 5
District 2
District 1
District 3
District 3
District 6
District 8
District 6
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 7
Good
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 1
District 2
District 6
District 7
District 4
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
67
T4139
T4134
T5174
T2200
T4122
T6107
T7154
T4148
T4130
T1219
T1195
T6113
T6118
E4I76
E7D73
T4152
T1223
T5172
T5184
E1F80
T2203
T6134
T6112
T1228
T4160
E7D91
T4147
T4149
T5201
T5191
T4161
T3244
T1236
T7166
T6135
T7159
T1198
E7E09
T1190
T1243
T2129
October, 2006
October, 2006
October, 2006
December, 2006
December, 2006
December, 2006
December, 2006
December, 2006
December, 2006
December, 2006
December, 2006
December, 2006
December, 2006
January, 2007
January, 2007
January, 2007
January, 2007
January, 2007
January, 2007
January, 2007
March, 2007
March, 2007
March, 2007
March, 2007
April, 2007
April, 2007
April, 2007
May, 2007
May, 2007
May, 2007
May, 2007
May, 2007
May, 2007
June, 2007
June, 2007
June, 2007
July, 2007
July, 2007
July, 2007
July, 2007
July, 2007
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 4
District 4
District 5
District 2
District 4
District 6
District 7
District 4
District 4
District 1
District 1
District 6
District 6
District 4
District 7
District 4
District 1
District 5
District 5
District 1
District 2
District 6
District 6
District 1
District 4
District 7
District 4
District 4
District 5
District 5
District 4
District 3
District 1
District 7
District 6
District 7
District 1
District 7
District 1
District 1
District 2
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
68
T2242
T3170
E6D58
T6129
T3139
T4173
E7E45
T1250
E6C28
T6141
T5221
E2K84
E2K85
T3168
T6128
T6139
T2221
E2K83
E6E05
T1221
T6144
T5225
E1G41
T4184
T5228
T5234
E2K99
E2L13
T1257
T1232
T2180
T4128
T2259
T2179
T2258
T3080
T5128
July, 2007
July, 2007
July, 2007
July, 2007
July, 2007
July, 2007
August, 2007
August, 2007
August, 2007
August, 2007
August, 2007
September,
2007
September,
2007
September,
2007
September,
2007
September,
2007
October, 2007
October, 2007
October, 2007
December, 2007
December, 2007
December, 2007
January, 2008
January, 2008
January, 2008
January, 2008
January, 2008
January, 2008
January, 2008
March, 2008
May, 2008
May, 2008
July, 2008
August, 2008
August, 2008
August, 2008
August, 2008
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 2
District 3
District 6
District 6
District 3
District 4
District 7
District 1
District 6
District 6
District 5
District 2
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 2
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 3
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 6
Good
Florida DOT
David Webb
District 6
Good
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
David Webb
District 2
District 2
District 6
District 1
District 6
District 5
District 1
District 4
District 5
District 5
District 2
District 2
District 1
District 1
District 2
District 4
District 2
District 2
District 2
District 3
District 5
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
69
T6173
E2L79
August, 2008
February, 2009
Florida DOT
Florida DOT
David Webb
David Webb
District 6
District 2
Good
Good
70
APPENDIX B- PROCESS
USED TO CERTIFY THAT THE RUBBER CONTENT IS GOOD AND
THAT THE RUBBER IS FROM CALIFORNIA
Performance Graded Ground Tire Rubber Asphalt
Production (PG-TR)
A- Tire Rubber Modified Asphalt Concentrate Production (TRMAC):
1- Batch report prepared by QA/QC manger for production formula. This includes
asphalt base stock, % of components (asphalt and rubber) to produce a specific
TRMAC for example 15%, 20%, 25%.
2- Batch report is communicated to Operations manger for production of materials.
3- 30-40 mesh ground tire rubber ordered and scheduled for delivery to plant. Truck
is scaled and weighed at the certified scale before entering the facility for weight
verification. In case of short load communicate back to operations manager for
formula production adjustment.
4- Each crumb rubber load will have a certificate from the supplier stating that the
material is derived from whole scrap tires generated within the State of California.
5- Once verified, the truck enters production facility.
B- TRMAC production:
1- Base asphalt is charged and metered into the process unit; all the controls are
verified by instrumentation at the control room.
2- Re-check volume injected by hand gauging and compare to instrumentation, log
volume of asphalt injected on production report.
3- Inject rubber load into the process unit.
4- Induce small volume of air to ensure mixing of rubber and asphalt (this process
help the wetting of rubber particles).
5- Complete base asphalt injection into process unit.
6- Verify all components volumes and weight before starting the process, by
instrumentation at control room and hand gauging.
7- Verify that the % of components meets the batch report. In case of any errors
communicate back to operations manager for formula adjustment.
8- Begin blending process. Set temperature at the production set point and turn on
high speed mixing.
9- Monitor tank level, pressure of vessel, and temperature from control room.
10- Once proper temperature is reached start the QC process on material.
71
C- QC process:
1- After 4 hours of mixing and temperature start the sampling process each 2 hours
to check solubility. Target solubility is >98.5%.
2- Lab will be checking solubility on samples and communicating back to
operations.
3- When solubility target is reached notify operations.
4- Stop process and transfer TRMAC to storage tank (concentrate tank).
5- TRMAC is stored for further process to produce the targeted PG grades.
D- Blending:
1- Batch report prepared by QA/QC manger for PG grades production. (PG64-28TR,
PG70-22TR, PG76-22TR) with specific Tire rubber targets. (5, 10, 15, 20%).
2- Batch report is communicated back to operations manager for production.
3- Base asphalt and TRMAC are blended based on % by volumes specified by batch
report.
4- After blending samples are taken per QA/QC plan and sent to lab for testing and
certification.
5- Testing and certification are done by PPC lab (AMRL, ASTM certified).
6- Split samples are taken from each batch per CalTrans COC program.
7- A certificate of compliance is published for each batch by lab and handed to scale
house.
8- Each truck load of material shipped is certified.
72
APPENDIX C-CALIFORNIA CONTACTS
Name
Joe
Goldhammer
Number
619-286-0624
Email
[email protected]
Company
San Diego County
Sol Geminez
559-275-2437, Cell:
559-318-6366
[email protected]
Granite
Construction-Fresno
Mike
Stapleton
707-498-9621
[email protected]
Caltrans
Steve Olsen
Edgard Hitti
916-439-3129
775-690-7424 Cell:
775-835-6344
[email protected]
[email protected]
Intermountain
paramount
Petroleum
Don Barrett
Shawn
Rizzutto
408-672-8110
760-355-0430
[email protected]
Granite Rock
Caltrans District 11
Margie Valdez
925-335-3665
[email protected]
Contra Costa County
Jim Ryan
661-978-9357
[email protected]
Paramount
Petroleum
[email protected]
[email protected]
Copp Construction
Paramount
Petroleum
[email protected],
[email protected]
Consultant
Dennis Copp
Jean Azoury
office: 562-5312060 ext:2832 Cell:
562-233-4767
Lee
Thibadeau
Dan Chung
office:661-8625188, Cell: 661345-0597
[email protected]
Kern County Roads
Dept
831-420-5178
[email protected]
City of Santa Cruz
408-293-9516
310-518-4000
(562) 903-8989
[email protected]
[email protected]
Graham Contractors
Valero
[email protected]
Roy Allan Slurry Seal,
Inc
[email protected]
CPM
Josh Spangrud
Che Corlett
Don Goss
Lance Allen
Gordon
Rayner
916-381-8033 ext:
123
73
Erik Updyke
626-458-4914
[email protected]
LA county
Don Milner
cell: 408-218-0669
Office: 209-9842460
[email protected]
Graham Construction
Jim Heller
530-246-4388
Northwest Paving/
Caltrans District 2
Roger Maier
Jim Farnell
Ryan Bengal
530-343-9600
562-903-8989
916-869-2497
Franklin Construction
Pacific Emulsions
CPM
[email protected]
714-567-7844
Materials Lab
Supervisor County of
Orange
951-817-5765
Assistant Director of
Public Works, City of
Corona
Joe Bravo
805-449-2499 x382
Street Maintenance
Supervisor, Thousand
Oaks
John
Campbell
909-394-6200
Project Manager, San
Dimas
llluminado
Anacion
626-914-8258
Project Manager,
Glendora
Pat Abadi
562-570-6383
Senior Engineer, Long
Beach
626-458-4923
County of Los Angeles
Geotechnical &
Materials Engineering
DeWayne
Vaughn
310-952-1700
Inspector City of
Carson
Steve Forester
562-943-0131
Director of Public
Works, La Mirada
Ron Perdue
760-435-5119 Cell:
760-535-0111
City of Oceanside,
Project Engineer
Gary Kellison
760-435-5112
Senior Engineer, City
of Oceanside
Buddy Coover
Nelson Nelson
Imelda Diaz
74
Ryan Gayler
760-776-6393
Engineer, Palm Desert
714-978-8228
Engineer, Wildan
Vista Pointe
Gene Klatt
909-820-2602
Project Manager,
(Wildan) Rialto and
Laverne
John Schauble
760-602-2762
City Engineer,
Carslbad
Rick
Rudometkin
949-248-3589
Public Works
Manager, Dana Point
Tom Kirk
Steve Kemp
Inspector, City of
Oceanside
Peter Schultz
619-571-1271
Superintendent,
Hazard Construction
Co. Oceanside
909-596-8741
Maintenance
Superintendent,
Laverne
L.D. Johnson
Vince
Mastrosimone 626-858-7253
Street
Superintendent, West
Covina
Bob Callison
714-593-4601
Senior Inspector,
Fountain Valley
Thang Tran
805-658-4789
Associate Civil
Engineer, Buena
Ventura
Dan Frost
805-654-7884
Senior Inspector,
Buena Ventura
Ted Pittman
949-923-3782
Rick Burtiss
Matt Luttrop
310-952-1700
925-299-3247
[email protected]
Orange County Parks
Engineer, City of
Carson
City of Lafayette
75
APPENDIX D-OUT OF STATE CONTACTS
State
Name
Phone number
phone: 775-8887520, cell: 775720-4532
775-690-7424
Email
Agency
Nevada
Arizona
Reid g.
Kaiser
Edgard
Hitti
Jim Delton
Florida
Jim
Musselmen
352-955-2905
[email protected]
Florida DOT
Arizona and
Texas
Jon Vincent
602-541-1369
[email protected]
Wright Asphalt
Louisiana
Oregon
Texas
Chris
Abadie
Liz Hunt
Dale Rand
225-767-9109
503-986-3115
512-506-5836
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Louisiana DOT
Oregon DOT
Texas DOT
Texas
Richard
Izzo
512-506-5832
[email protected]
Texas DOT
Arizona
Scott
Weinland
602-712-8131
[email protected]
Arizona DOT
Nevada
Harold
Stone
775-240-2654
[email protected]
Washoe County,
NV
Nevada
Greg
Belancio
775-328-2052
Kansas
Greg
schieber
785-296-1198
[email protected]
Kansas Dot
Florida
David
Webb
352-955-2907
[email protected]
Florida DOT
Kansas
Rick
Kreider
785-296-1195
[email protected]
Kansas DOT
Texas
Jerry
Peterson
512-506-5821
Nevada
Florida
Glen
Roberts
Pat
Upshaw
Florida
Jim Warren
Florida
[email protected]
[email protected]
NDOT
Paramount
Arizona DOT
602-712-8094
Washoe County,
for Harold
Texas DOT
352-955-2908
[email protected]
Florida DOT
352 955-2906
[email protected]
Florida DOT
Asphalt
Contractors
Association
http://www.acaf.org
76