EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF GROUND TIRE RUBBER ON LABORATORY

EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF GROUND TIRE RUBBER ON LABORATORY
RUTTING PERFORMANCE OF ASPHALT CONCRETE MIXTURES
DEVI PARIKH
Student
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
210 Mullica Hill Road
Rowan University
Glassboro, NJ 08028
Dr. YUSUF MEHTA, P.E.

Assistant Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Rowan University
Glassboro, NJ 08028
Dr. KAUSER JAHAN, P.E.

Associate Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Rowan University
Glassboro, NJ 08028
ABSTRACT
The nation faces ecological problems due to the accumulation of waste

automobile and truck tires. There are environmental regulations that prohibit burning
and burying of tires in a solid waste facility to reduce air pollution and hazardous
waste. Thus, handling this accumulation, which is estimated at approximately three-
quarter of a billion tires per year in the USA, is a major concern. Ground Tire
Rubber (GTR) is currently used in several states for flexible pavement construction.
The rutting performance of the pavement is known to improve in several states when
crumb (fine) rubber is used to modify the binder. Even though its effect on
performance using typical locally available New Jersey aggregates and gradation still
needs to be evaluated. In this study, the effect of crumb rubber pre-blended with the
asphalt cement on rutting performance of Superpave asphalt concrete mixtures as
measured in the laboratory was evaluated. In addition, the effect of quantity of
rubber in the mixture on the rutting performance was also evaluated. In all cases, the
locally available New Jersey aggregate sources were used and the gradation were
kept the same. The mixtures were evaluated using the compaction characteristics of
the Superpave Gyratory Compactor. The comparative laboratory study showed that
the No. 40 mesh fine rubber was more effective in controlling rutting as compared to
the No. 20 mesh. This effect was more significant from 0% to 5% as compared to
5% to 15%.
INTRODUCTION
The nation faces a major ecological problem due to accumulation of waste

automobile and truck tires. Environmental regulations prohibit the open burning or
burying of tires in solid waste facility. These tires are accumulating at the rate of
about 3/4th billion per year [1], [2], [3]. In order to solve this problem efforts are now
being made to find uses for these waste tires.
Also, there are some performance characteristics of asphalt concrete mixtures
for which the properties of asphalt cement binder play an important role, such as
durability. Additionally, there may be situations where the properties of the
aggregate portion of a particular mix cannot be changed because of local conditions,
economics, or frictional characteristics. In these cases an improvement in the
characteristics of the mix will need to be obtained through change or improvement of
the asphalt binder cement. One of the asphalt modifiers or additives, which indicated
some promise of improved binder properties, was relatively low percentages of
finely ground tire rubber (GTR) [3], [4], and [5].
Rubberized asphalts resisted rutting better than conventional (unmodified)
asphalt and about as well as polymer modified binder asphalts. Wheel tracking
performances were similar for dry mix and wet mix asphalts, but the fatigue life for
dry mix was three times as long as wet's. The type of rubber crumb used to make
binders did not affect wheel tracking very much, but had a significant effect on
fatigue resistance [6].
Therefore, the rutting performance of the pavement is known to improve in
several states like Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Kansas when crumb (fine)
rubber is used to modify the binder. But the effects of various sizes and proportions
of rubber on the rutting performance of pavements with local New Jersey aggregates
are still to be evaluated.
OBJECTIVE OF RESEARCH
The objective of this research is to study the effect of using different sizes
and proportions of Ground Tire Rubber as an asphalt binder modifier with locally
available New Jersey aggregates.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The scope of this study was limited to evaluating the mixtures with the following
parameters:
1. One gradation from four aggregate sources (3/8” light gravel, 3/8” dark
gravel, sand and dust).
2. One type of binder: AC 20.
3. Two nominal sizes of rubber: No. 20 and No. 40.
4. Two proportions of rubber for each size: 5% and 15% by weight of binder.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
The following mixes were to be evaluated in order to study the effect of different
sizes and proportions of rubber:
• Control section (0% rubber in asphalt binder)
• Binder with 5% No. 20 rubber + aggregates
• Binder with 15% No. 20 rubber + aggregates
• Binder with 5% No. 40 rubber + aggregatesBinder with 15% No. 40 rubber+
aggregates
The gradation used satisfies all the Superpave gradation except 2.36 mm sieve.
Since the effect of smaller size aggregates on asphalt concrete mixtures is more
significant to the finer rubber particles, the researchers believe that this will not
affect the objective of the study.
100
90
80
Percent passing, %
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
Sieve size ^ 0.45, mm
Figure 1: Gradation of the mixtures.

LABORATORY STUDY
The specimens were made out of the mixes with different sizes and
proportions of rubber particles. They were compacted in the Superpave Gyratory
Compactor up to 100 gyrations and the bulk specific gravity, the maximum specific
gravity of the compacted samples were measured using ASTM standards [7]. The
air voids of the compacted specimen was calculated using the following equation:
G
% AirVoids = 100 x(1 − mb ) (1)
Gmm
where:
Gmb = Bulk specific gravity
Gmm = Maximum specific gravity
% Air Voids = Air voids of compacted specimen, %
Initially, for each mixture, trial binder content is selected and the air void of
the compacted specimen is measured. Then the mixture is re-compacted at a
modified binder content to attain a target air void of 4%. This binder content is
called the design binder content. The mixture is considered stable and has a good
aggregate structure at that air void and design binder content. The rutting
performance of the mixtures at the design binder content is then evaluated.
RESULTS
As the asphalt concrete mixture compacts, the data acquisition system records
the reduction in height with number of revolutions. A typical compaction curve is
shown in Figure 2. The same curve is a straight line on a semi-log scale as shown in
Figure 3.
Based on the compaction curve (Figure 3) two Superpave Gyratory

Compactor parameters can be obtained, the slope of the curve (k) and the area under
the curve. The product of the slope and the air voids of the compacted specimen and
the area under the curve are related to the rutting performance [8].
150
145
140
Height (mm)
135
130
125
120
115
110
0 20 40 60 80 100
Number of Revolutions
Figure 2: Compaction Curve: Height (mm) Vs. Number of Revolutions

(With 5% No. 40 rubber and 7% design binder content).
160
k = -14.642
140
120
100
Height,mm
80
60
Area Under the Curve (A)
40
20
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Log(No. of rev)
Figure 3: Height versus Log of Number of Revolutions (sample with 5% No. 40 rubber in
optimum binder content).
SIGINIFICANCE OF SGC PARAMETERS
Area under the curve
Area under the curve reflects the amount of energy absorbed by the specimen
during compaction at a given gyration level. A smaller value indicates lesser
susceptibility to external loads, thus less rutting and a better mix
K*air voids
The product represents the condition of the material at the end of a given
gyration level. The lower value indicates poor aggregate structure and over
compaction, which may lead to more rutting and thus a worse mix. The values of
these parameters at design binder content are shown in TABLE 1.
ANALYSIS
The data obtained above was plotted to obtain a comparison between the
different mixtures. Figure 4 shows that the parameter k*Air voids increases
significantly as the amount of rubber increases in the binder, which indicates
improved rutting performance. This increase is more significant while going from 0
to 5% than it is while going from 5% to 15%. This may indicate that the
improvement rate levels off. Also, the improvement is more significant for the No.
40 rubber particles than it is for the No. 20 particles. This may indicate that the finer
particles are more effective.
Figure 5 indicates that the area under the curve parameter does not change as
drastically as the k* Air voids parameter. This shows that area under the curve may
not be that sensitive to the rubber content in the binder. This may be because the
area under the curve mainly depends on the gradation of the aggregate mixture rather
than the properties of the binder.
TABLE 1. The Superpave Gyratory Parameters
Rubber Design Binder K * AV Area Under the

Content, % Curve
0% (Control) 7.0 51.0 245.5
5% No. 40 7.0 58.5 243.0
15% No. 40 7.8 63.9 248.7
5% No. 20 7.0 52.3 214.3
15% No. 20 7.8 56.6 221.1
70
60
50
k*AirVoids
40
30
20 No 20 Rubber
10 No. 40 Rubber
0
0 5 10 15 20
% Rubber
Figure 4. k*Air Voids versus Percentage of Rubber
300
250
Area Under the Curve
200
150
100
No. 40 Rubber
50
No. 20 Rubber
0
0 5 10 15 20
% Rubber
Figure 5: Area Under The Curve Versus Percentage of Rubber.

CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions based on this study are:
1. Based on the k*AV parameter, the performance of the mixture improves

appreciably with rubber.
2. The most significant improvement is from 0% to 5%.
3. The No. 40 (finer) rubber is more effective than No. 20 (coarser) rubber in
controlling rutting.
4. The area under the curve is not that sensitive to rubber as a modifier. This is
because it mainly depends on the gradation of the mix, which is constant in
all mixtures tested.
REFERENCES
1. Hunt, E. A. 2001. “Crumb Rubber Modified Asphalt Concrete In

Oregon,” Final Report: FHWA-OR-RD-02-13, SPR 355.
3. Volle, T. H. 2000. “Performance Of Rubberized Asphalt Pavements In

Illinois,” Report No: FHWA/IL/PRR-136.
4. Oliver, J. W. 2000. “Rutting And Fatigue Properties Of Crumbed Rubber

Hot Mix Asphalts,” International Journal of Road Materials and Pavement
Design Volume: 1 Issue: 2.
5. Harmelink, DS . 1999. “Using Ground Tire Rubber In Hot Mix Asphalt

Pavements,” Report No: CDOT-DTD-R-99-9.
6. Tayebali, A. A.; Vyas, B. B.; Malpass, G. A. 1997. “Effect of Crumb

Rubber Particle Size And Concentration On Performance Grading Of Rubber
Modified Asphalt Binders,” American Society of Testing and Materials STP
1322, pp. 30-47.
7. American Society of Testing and Materials, 1994.
8. Anderson, Michael R. 2002. “Relationship Between Superpave Gyratory

Compaction Properties and the Rutting Potential of Asphalt Mixtures,”
Annual Meeting of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists. pp. 9.

EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF GROUND TIRE RUBBER ON LABORATORY

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF GROUND TIRE RUBBER ON LABORATORY

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF GROUND TIRE RUBBER ON LABORATORY

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF GROUND TIRE RUBBER ON LABORATORY

RUTTING PERFORMANCE OF ASPHALT CONCRETE MIXTURES

Dr. YUSUF MEHTA, P.E.

Dr. KAUSER JAHAN, P.E.

The nation faces ecological problems due to the accumulation of waste

The nation faces a major ecological problem due to accumulation of waste

Figure 1: Gradation of the mixtures.

Based on the compaction curve (Figure 3) two Superpave Gyratory

Figure 2: Compaction Curve: Height (mm) Vs. Number of Revolutions

Area under the curve

TABLE 1. The Superpave Gyratory Parameters

Rubber Design Binder K * AV Area Under the

Figure 4. k*Air Voids versus Percentage of Rubber

Figure 5: Area Under The Curve Versus Percentage of Rubber.

The conclusions based on this study are:

1. Based on the k*AV parameter, the performance of the mixture improves

1. Hunt, E. A. 2001. “Crumb Rubber Modified Asphalt Concrete In

3. Volle, T. H. 2000. “Performance Of Rubberized Asphalt Pavements In

4. Oliver, J. W. 2000. “Rutting And Fatigue Properties Of Crumbed Rubber

5. Harmelink, DS . 1999. “Using Ground Tire Rubber In Hot Mix Asphalt

6. Tayebali, A. A.; Vyas, B. B.; Malpass, G. A. 1997. “Effect of Crumb

7. American Society of Testing and Materials, 1994.

8. Anderson, Michael R. 2002. “Relationship Between Superpave Gyratory

You might also like