It is in the producer’s best interest to show state specifiers that his or her stockpiles are placed on paved, sloped surfaces and/or housed beneath a covered shelter. Photo courtesy of Murphy Pavement Technology, Inc., Chicago. Table 1. Allowed RAP Percentages in Asphalt Courses state In this closed system, RAP is crushed and screened continuously. Photo courtesy of Murphy Pavement Technology, Inc., Chicago. sitting in the yard and not being used on a job. That’s waste. “With the amount of effort, work and cost of materials today there is no waste as I see it. RAP is very valuable to an asphalt contractor and is a big tool to be used to keep him more competitive and give him an edge over a competitor who does not recycle. Every ton of RAP saves big money for the asphalt contractor. It’s not called ‘Black Gold’ for nothing.” At the Warm-Mix Asphalt & Recycling Symposium held in Sacramento June 2009, Cecil L. Jones, PE, state materials engineer of North Carolina DOT, presented survey results regarding states’ use of RAP percentages in base, intermediate and surface courses (See Table 1). He showed attendees the mental and physical barriers that asphalt industry members must overcome to convince owner agencies that RAP is a viable product for use in reasonably high quantities in asphalt mixes so we all avoid the waste Giltz hates to see. According to Jones’ survey presentation, 34 percent of the responding states worry about RAP stockpile management, thus producers need to assure DOTs and owner agencies that they have clean, well-managed RAP stockpiles. It is in the producer’s best interest to show state specifiers that his or her stockpiles are placed on paved, sloped surfaces and/or housed beneath a covered shelter. Show your system for screening out debris or oversize material. Be ahead of the curve by frac- tionating RAP for quality control, gradation control and testing parameters. There’s an incredible amount of information about FRAP available for free at www.beFRAPready.com. The respondents to the survey also said they were interested in proving the quality of the original stone in RAP piles. Jones pointed out that 13 percent of respondents were concerned with binder issues, contemplating properties of the final blend and compaction issues. Does your RAP use require an additional tank at the plant? Does it bump the binder grade; and how does that affect cost? Another 11 percent of respondents were concerned with the availability of RAP, which includes the items already discussed in this article. But consider also how you can assure owner agencies that your available material is not contaminated and not full of moisture. They want to hear that it will meet gradation requirements and not be something to toss into a shoulder or unbound maintenance application instead. Twenty-four percent of respondents cited “other” issues such as a contractor’s inexperience or unwillingness, or a resistance to change existing specs as troublesome. But 18 percent of respondents were concerned with long-term performance of RAP. With small-sample tests such as those conducted by research students at the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT), it doesn’t seem the industry is ready to make wide generalizations about longterm performance just yet. Researchers with Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming % allowed in 2007 base 20 20 0 ≥30 ≥30 n/a 10 20 ≥30 25 ≥30 15 15 25 ≥30 25 20 ≥30 15 25 ≥30 ≥30 ≥30 ≥30 20 ≥30 ≥30 0 20 25 ≥30 ≥30 20 20 ≥30 25 ≥30 15 ≥30 15 ≥30 ≥30 ≥30 20 15 25 20 15 ≥30 ≥30 inter. 20 20 0 ≥30 15 25 10 20 ≥30 25 n/a 15 15 25 ≥30 25 20 20 15 n/a 20 ≥30 ≥30 ≥30 20 ≥30 n/a 0 20 25 ≥30 20 20 20 ≥30 25 ≥30 15 ≥30 15 ≥30 ≥30 20 20 15 20 20 15 ≥30 ≥30 surface 20 0 0 ≥30 15 15 10 10 0 25 15 15 15 25 ≥30 25 20 15 15 15 10 15 ≥30 15 10 10 25 0 15 15 0 20 20 20 10 0 20 15 0 15 ≥30 10 20 20 15 20 20 15 20 ≥30 % allowed in 2009 base 25 n/a* 25 ≥30 <100 25 n/r** 20 ≥30 ≥30 ≥30 n/r 25 n/r 15 25 <100 ≥30 25 <100 n/r 25 ≥30 ≥30 <100 <100 n/r ≥30 ≥30 25 n/r ≥30 ≥30 20 ≥30 n/r n/r <100 ≥30 ≥30 n/r n/r ≥30 ≥30 n/r ≥30 20 <100 ≥30 <100 inter. 25 n/a 25 ≥30 15 25 n/r 20 ≥30 ≥30 n/a n/r 25 n/r 15 25 <100 20 25 <100 n/r 20 ≥30 ≥30 <100 <100 n/r 0 ≥30 25 n/r 20 ≥30 20 ≥30 n/r n/r <100 ≥30 25 n/r n/r ≥30 ≥30 n/r ≥30 20 <100 ≥30 <100 surface 25 0 20 ≥30 15 20 n/r 10 15 ≥30 20 n/r 20 n/r 15 25 <100 15 15 <100 n/r 15 ≥30 15 <100 <100 n/r 0 25 15 n/r 20 ≥30 20 15 n/r n/r <100 0 20 n/r n/r 20 ≥30 n/r ≥30 20 <100 20 <100 * n/a = not available when the survey was conducted ** n/r = not reported when survey results were tabulated Data compiled from the “Survey of State RAP Use” presented by Cecil L. Jones, PE, State Materials Engineer for NCDOT at the 2009 Warm-Mix Asphalt & Recycling Symposium. ASPHALT PRO 21