Recycled Materials and Byproducts in Highway Applications—Summary Report, Volume 1 (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

52 Open-ended questions were included in each byproduct category, which allowed the respondents to report their own experiences with the performance of application prod- ucts that used each byproduct. The written comments were reviewed and categorized into general terms representing the comment content as excellent, good, fair, and poor qualities. Responses containing words such as “excellent,” “much improved,” and “superior” were counted as “excel- lent” performance. Comments such as “performed as good as conventional materials” and “no differences noticed” were cataloged as “good.” Wording such as “not as good as . . .” and “didn’t last as long as . . .” were classified as “fair.” Specific comments such as “will never try again” and “don’t recommend” are represented by the “poor” cate- gory. The ratings for each type of byproduct and highway applications are shown in Tables 25 through 28. The results showed consistent rankings for some byprod- ucts in application products (e.g., RAP in HMA), whereas others showed ratings ranging from excellent to poor per- formance for a single byproduct in a single application (e.g., scrap tire rubber in HMA applications). The wide differences in some byproducts can be explained by the specific type of byproduct in a single category and single application. For example, agencies using scrap tire rubber in HMA applica- tions rated the performance as good to excellent when incor- porating crumb rubber into the asphalt cement using the wet process. States reporting poor performance were using the crumb rubber in the dry process, which considers the rubber as an aggregate particle. It is likely other byproducts with a range of performance ratings may be linked to variations in the specific characteristics of a single type of byproduct or in the selection of the most appropriate process or high- way application. This possibility might be more thoroughly explored in future research efforts. chapter ten Summary of Performance commentS on Survey Performance Characteristic Roofing Shingles Kiln Dust Waste Glass Foundry Sand Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor HMA Rutting OH Stripping HI, VA Performance— General AL, KY, NC NJ FL NJ FL OH Unbound Base and Subbase NV CO AL Performance— General KY (mixed) TAble 25 SuMMARy OF PeRFORMAnCe ReSPOnSeS FROM AgenCy SuRvey FOR SHIngleS, KIln DuST, glASS, AnD FOunDRy SAnD

53 Performance Characteristic Mining Byproducts Quarry Byproducts Blast Furnace Slag (general) Steel Slag Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor HMA Stripping AL Performance— General KS AR, CO, DE, FL, IA, IL, KY, LA, MO, NE PA, TX AL IN CO Surface Treatments KY, FL, WI, IL OH MO, IL IA PCC Workability FL Permeability MA, NJ Scaling OH,VT ASR NJ Durability FL Performance— General AR MS, TX AL, DC, DE, IA, IN, KS, LA, MO, OH, NY VA, VT, WA IN Unbound Fills and Embankments UT UT Base and Subbase MD MD, ND, SC OH PA IN Rip/RAP AL TAble 26 SuMMARy OF PeRFORMAnCe ReSPOnSeS FROM AgenCy SuRvey FOR MIneRAl, QuARRy, AnD FeRROuS SlAg byPRODuCTS Performance Characteristic GGBFS Fly Ash Bottom Ash Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor HMA Rutting TX Performance— General KY, AL KY TX PCC Workability WI Permeability ME, TX ASR UT ID, IL, PA, SC, TX, VT Strength DC Performance— General NY, WA AZ, IN, MS, VA, TX AL, AR, CO, IL, LA, MA, MO, ND, NH, NV NY, OH, WI, SC, VT, WA NH* Unbound Fills and Embankments MD, OH NH1 Base and Subbase KY, MD, NE, OH, PA, TX MO *Has not been used long enough to get information on long-term performance. ASR = alkali silica reactivity. TAble 27 SuMMARy OF PeRFORMAnCe ReSPOnSeS FROM AgenCy InTeRvIeWS FOR ggbFS, Fly ASH, AnD bOTTOM ASH byPRODuCTS

54 Performance Characteristic Tires Recycled Concrete Material RAP Wearing Course (top layer of HMA) RAP (lower layers of HMA) Excel Good Fair Poor Excel Good Fair Poor Excel Good Fair Poor Excel Good Fair Poor HMA Raveling PA PA Performance— General1 AZ KY, ME, NJ, VA, TX IA IL, KY, ME, MS, MO, NJ, OR AL, AR, AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, IL, IN, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV AK, AL, AR, AZ, CO, CT, DC, DE, IA, ID, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, KS, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, NJ, NH, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV Surface Treatment GA, NH, TX GA Performance— General FL, ND, VA Crack Sealant CO CO Unbound Fills and Embankments ME, NH IL, OH KY Base and Subbase AL, LA, MD2, ND, NJ, NE, NH, IA NV, PA, SC Aesthetics NH 1 Good perform ance associated with crumb rubber wet process; poor performance associated with crumb rubber dry process (aggregate replacement). 2 Has not been in use long enough to get information on long-term performance. Excel = Excellent. TAble 28 SuMMARy OF PeRFORMAnCe ReSPOnSeS FROM AgenCy InTeRvIeWS FOR TIReS, RCM, AnD RAP byPRODuCTS