applied

sciences
Article
Performance of High Content Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
(RAP) in Asphaltic Mix with Crumb Rubber Modifier and
Waste Engine Oil as Rejuvenator
Md Zahid Hossain Khan 1 , Suhana Koting 1, *, Herda Yati Binti Katman 2, *, Mohd Rasdan Ibrahim 1 ,
Ali Mohammed Babalghaith 1 and Obada Asqool 1

1 Centre for Transportation Research, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,

Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia; [email protected] (M.Z.H.K.);
[email protected] (M.R.I.); [email protected] (A.M.B.); [email protected] (O.A.)
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), Putrajaya Campus,
Jalan IKRAM-UNITEN, Kajang, Selangor 43000, Malaysia
* Correspondence: [email protected] (S.K.); [email protected] (H.Y.B.K.);
Tel.: +60-3-7967-7648 (S.K.); +60-3-8921-2020 (ext. 2252) (H.Y.B.K.)

Abstract: The utilisation of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) as a suitable substitute for natural
aggregate and binder offers an energy-saving and cost-effective approach to enhance the performance
of asphalt mix. Realising the potential use of RAP as a promising recycling technique, many countries
are seeking to recycle RAP as part of the global effort to address the rising challenge of climate





 change and contribute to a sustainable environment. This study aimed to develop an integrated
approach to determine the amount of RAP to be used in an asphaltic concrete wearing course with
Citation: Khan, M.Z.H.; Koting, S.;
14 mm nominal maximum aggregate size (ACW14). The RAP was incorporated with two waste
Katman, H.Y.B.; Ibrahim, M.R.;
materials comprising waste engine oil (WEO) as a rejuvenator and Crumb Rubber (CRM) as a binder
Babalghaith, A.M.; Asqool, O.
Performance of High Content
modifier. A total of five different mixes, which include R0 (control mix), R30, R50, R70, and R100
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) (replacement of 30%, 50%, 70%, and 100% of RAP aggregates in the mix, respectively) were evaluated.
in Asphaltic Mix with Crumb Rubber The Marshall parameters, resilient modulus (MR ), indirect tensile fatigue, moisture susceptibility,
Modifier and Waste Engine Oil as and mass loss (ML) tests were conducted to investigate the performance of each mix. Finally, an
Rejuvenator. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226. arbitrary scale was developed to optimise the RAP content. The results showed that the Marshall
parameters, moisture susceptibility, and ML values of the RAP mixes met the criteria outlined in the
https://doi.org/10.3390/app11115226 standard. According to the MR performance, the R50, R70, and R100 mixes were more resilient than
the R0. In terms of fatigue resistance, the R30, R50, and R70 mixes showed better performance than
Academic Editor: Luís Picado Santos
the R0. Overall, the collective performance of all RAP mixes was above the R0 and it increased with
the increment of RAP content. Therefore, it was possible to design ACW14 mixes with up to 100%
Received: 19 April 2021
RAP in combination with WEO and CRM.
Accepted: 17 May 2021
Published: 4 June 2021
Keywords: reclaimed asphalt pavement; ACW14 mix; hot mix asphalt; waste engine oil; crumb
rubber modifier
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
1. Introduction
The use of reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is referred to as the recycling of aged
asphalt pavement since RAP is a suitable substitute for natural aggregate and binder. The
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
utilisation of RAP could reduce energy consumption, mineral usages, relevant pollution,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
and costs [1–8]. In fact, the use of RAP could reduce gas emissions and production
This article is an open access article
costs by as much as 35% and 70%, respectively [8–10]. However, the application of RAP
distributed under the terms and remains limited in many countries due to the lack of awareness and non-standard recycling
conditions of the Creative Commons requirements [10–12]. Therefore, there is a need to establish a RAP assessment framework,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// especially when various RAP proportions are used in a hot mix asphalt (HMA) design.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ As such, the use of 30% RAP in HMA was reported to cause little or no complications at
4.0/). all [13–16].

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11115226 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 2 of 16

Nevertheless, the incorporation of a high RAP content in HMA faces many challenges.
For example, an asphalt mix with higher RAP content could result in higher rutting
resistance due to changes in the viscoelastic property, which in turn could have a negative
impact on thermal cracking at low temperatures [17]. Furthermore, high RAP content could
influence the volumetric properties of the asphalt mix, which could affect its mechanical
performance [16,18]. It was also observed that high RAP content could reduce the fatigue
resistance [19–21] and the workability of the mix [22,23]. Despite the challenges, several
studies indicated that the use of a specific amount of RAP enhances the performance
characteristics of asphalt mixes. In terms of the performance against moisture damage,
Colbert et al. [24] showed that a 35% RAP mix performed better than a 50% RAP mix,
though both mixes outperformed the control mix. In another study, Celauro et al. [25]
observed that a 50% RAP mix recorded a tensile strength ratio (TSR) value of nearly
95%, which indicated the low susceptibility against moisture damage. Tran et al. [26]
also studied the performance of 50% RAP mix with and without rejuvenator. The study
reported that a 50% RAP mix with a rejuvenator increased the cracking resistance without
compromising moisture damage or permanent deformation resistance as compared to a 50%
RAP mix without a rejuvenator. It was also observed that the use of a rejuvenator slightly
improved the TSR with no detrimental impact. In addition, the compaction process is vital
to achieving optimal rutting resistance through proper interlocking aggregates [27]. In
particular, the laboratory study indicated that the aged binder in RAP affects the mechanical
properties of the mixes due to its internal interaction [28]. For instance, the stiffness,
viscosity, and softening point of the binder were reported to increase as the aged binder
increased [28–30]. Based on these studies, the selection of the appropriate temperature,
rejuvenator, binder and manufacturing process are all crucial factors to achieve the highest
performance of the RAP mix [8,31,32].
Currently, rejuvenators have received increasing attention in asphalt technologies
due to their ability to revive the properties of the aged binder [33–35], which potentially
prevents thermal cracks and brittleness [36]. Moreover, rejuvenators could increase the
durability of asphalt mixes [37]. Waste engine oil (WEO) is one of the common rejuvenators
that restores and softens the aged binder [38–41] as well as enhances the workability of RAP
mixes [23,39,42]. Although WEO can reduce the optimum binder content (OBC) [43], WEO
has a lower percentage of volatile components since it is processed under high temperatures
(above 220 ◦ C) [9], which partly contributes to binder hardening. The selection of a proper
dosage of rejuvenator is a critical issue [8,44–46] since the excessive incorporation of
rejuvenator affects the stripping, adhesion, rutting, and heat cracking while inadequate
dosages can stiff the mix [47–49]. In view of this, several studies have indicated that the
effective dosage of WEO was estimated at 15% [50–52].
Despite the significant advantages of the rejuvenator, the most influential drawback
of using rejuvenator is the potential reduction in the pavement’s rutting resistance ability
and to resist moisture damage [23,43,53]. This is because rejuvenator could increase
the flow value and softness of the mixes more than expected. Therefore, crumb rubber
modifier (CRM) is a widely used eco-friendly additive to assists the shortcomings of the
rejuvenator [23,54]. Wang et al. [55] showed that CRM was more resistant to ageing than
the unmodified binder because of the ability of CRM to reduce carbonyl and sulfoxide. In
addition, CRM was reported to improve the stability of asphalt mix, moisture resistance,
cracking behaviour, fatigue resistance, and resilient modulus [7,23,56–60]. Overall, the
asphalt mix would become more stable with stronger adhesion through the addition of
CRM [61]. The suitable CRM content to achieve the highest stability and rigidity was found
to be between 5% and 10% [61].
Currently, the lack of a uniform RAP recycling standard was considered a major
obstacle for a wider application of RAP. Thus, it is crucial to develop and establish a reliable
assessment of RAP in the asphalt mix. This study aimed to optimise the RAP content in
ACW14 mix design by investigating the mechanical performances based on the above
concepts. The mechanical performances were evaluated through the Marshall stability test,
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 3 of 16

resilient modulus test, indirect tensile fatigue test, moisture susceptibility test, and mass
loss test. The high RAP content (from 30% to 50%, 70%, and 100%) was incorporated with
two waste materials: WEO as a rejuvenator and CRM as a binder modifier.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials Properties
In this study, five primary materials were used to prepare ACW14 mix samples
(Figure 1), comprising RAP, natural aggregates (NAs), binder, binder modifier, and rejuve-
nator. The RAP was collected from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Meanwhile, crushed granite
was used as NA, while 1.5% ordinary Portland cement (by % of total aggregate mass) was
used as the active filler. Table 1 lists the basic properties of NA according to the ASTM
and AASHTO standards. The properties of the NA were mandatory in order to follow
the Malaysian Public Works Department (PWD) requirements. In addition, the 60/70
penetration grade bitumen was used as the virgin binder, which was modified with 6%
CRM of 80 mesh size using a propeller mixer at a speed of 200 rpm for two hours at 160 ◦ C.
Table 2 summarises the basic properties of the asphalt binders. Furthermore, the binder
modifier, which comprised 6% CRM (by % of virgin binder mass), was used to increase
the rheological properties of the virgin binder, and 15% WEO (by % of aged binder mass)
served as the rejuvenator to soften the aged binder. The specific gravity of the used WEO
was 0.87 with a water content of 0.34%.

Figure 1. Primary materials used in this study to prepare ACW14 mix samples.

Table 1. Basic properties of NA.

Test Standard NA PWD Requirement (2008)

Los Angeles abrasion ASTM C 131-14 25% ≤25%
Flakiness index ASTM D 4791-05 7.3% ≤25%
Elongation index ASTM D 4791-05 19.0% -
Soundness test (MgSO4 ) AASHTO T 104 0.8% ≤18%

Table 2. Properties of the asphalt binders.

Modified Extracted Aged

Property Temp. (◦ C) Standard Virgin Binder
Binder Binder
Penetration (100 g, 5 s, 0.1 mm) 25 ASTM D5 65 58 11
Softening point (◦ C) - ASTM D36 50 53 71
Ductility (cm) 27 ASTM D113 >100 34.2 -
135 366 644 3513
Rotational viscosity (20 rpm, cP) ASTM D4402
165 144 200 632
58 2.2 3.8 95.9
G*/sin δ (10 rad/s, kPa) 64 AASHTO T315 1.0 1.8 42.0
70 0.5 0.9 22.1
Note: G* = complex modulus; δ = phase angle.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 4 of 16

The RAP was first crushed and air-dried. Meanwhile, the aged binder was extracted
using the Abson method (ASTM D 1856) [62]. The solvent used to extract the aged
binder was methylene chloride solution. The extracted aged binder was then characterised
(Table 2). The RAP aggregates containing 4.1% aged binder (by % of RAP aggregate mass)
were then used to determine the combined aggregate gradation. Finally, the aged binder
was rejuvenated with 15% WEO (by % of aged binder mass), which catalysed to soften the
aged binder [50–52].

2.2. Experimental Process and Mix Design

Figure 2 shows the flowchart for the experimental process used in this study. Specifi-
cally, experiments were performed on five different modified binder contents (4.5%, 5.0%,
5.5%, 6.0%, and 6.5%), four different RAP content (30%, 50%, 70%, and 100%), and a control
mix (R0 with 0% RAP). The tests were performed in triplicates for each sample. Based on
PWD specifications (2008) [63], the five ACW14 mixes (R0, R30, R50, R70, and R100) were
selected for this study with wearing courses over 40 mm thickness. NA was used for the
R0 mix (Table 3).

Figure 2. The experimental process in this study.

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 5 of 16

Table 3. The composition of each mix.

Modified Binder Content (g/kg)

Mix Type RAP (%) NA (%)
4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 6.5%
R0 (control
0 100 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0
mix)
R30 30 70 32.3 37.2 42.3 47.3 52.3
R50 50 50 23.8 28.8 33.8 38.8 43.8
R70 70 30 15.3 20.3 25.3 30.3 35.3
R100 100 0 2.6 7.6 12.5 17.6 22.6
Note: RAP consists of a 4.1% aged binder.

2.3. Aggregate Gradation and Sample Preparation

The sequential gradation of RAP mixes should be identical to the R0 to ensure that
the effects of overall differences in aggregate gradation were eliminated, particularly the
particle size distribution of aggregates. The combination of NA and RAP aggregates was
calculated using the composite formula as shown in Equation (1):

(Mi − Pi × a)
Ni = (1)
(1 − a)

where Ni = the percentage amount of NA required to be added to satisfy the gradation

envelope; Mi = the percentage of aggregate as per the standard gradation envelope; Pi = the
actual or field size of RAP aggregate; a = the desired proportion of RAP, and i = the
sieve size.
The samples were prepared using the Marshall mix design method. The NA, RAP,
and modified binder were separately heated in the oven to 170 ◦ C for one hour. Binder
quantities varied from 4.5% to 6.5% at an increment rate of 0.5% for each sample. For the
preparation of R0, the modified binder was mixed with the heated aggregate. Meanwhile,
the 15% WEO was directly mixed with the heated RAP to allow direct contact with the aged
binder. Then, NAs were added and followed by the modified binder. This process would
stimulate diffusion, consequently activating the aged binder [64,65]. The asphalt mix was
then placed in a mould and compacted to 75-blow/face following the ASTM D 6926 stan-
dard [66]. Meanwhile, the rotational viscosity of the modified binder was measured and
graphed to determine the mixing and compaction temperatures. They were calculated
at the viscosity values of 0.17 ± 0.02 Pa.s and 0.28 ± 0.03 Pa.s, respectively [67–69]. The
mixing and compaction temperatures were found to be 167 ± 1 ◦ C and 160 ± 2 ◦ C, re-
spectively. Finally, the prepared samples were cured at room temperature for 24 h before
further analysis.

2.4. Volumetric, Stability and Flow Properties, and OBC Determination

The volumetric properties such as air voids in mix (VIM), voids in mineral aggregate
(VMA), and voids filled with the binder (VFB) were measured according to the ASTM D
3203 standard [70] while the mix density was measured following the ASTM D 2726 stan-
dard [71]. In addition, the Marshall stability and flow values were determined for the five
mixes at 60 ± 1 ◦ C and a loading rate of 50.8 mm/min following the ASTM D 6927 stan-
dard [72]. The mean OBC was calculated by averaging the five corresponding binders’
content values of the following parameters: (i) the peak stability; (ii) the flow equals 3 mm;
(iii) the density peak; (iv) VFB equals 75%, and (v) VIM equals 4.0%.

2.5. Mixes Performance Tests

Based on the OBC, other sets of ACW14 mixes were prepared for each RAP content.
Mechanical performance tests were performed, namely, resilient modulus (MR ), moisture
susceptibility, indirect tensile fatigue, and mass loss test. The following sections describe
these performance tests in more detail.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 6 of 16

The MR value demonstrates the reaction of the pavement system to traffic load-
ing [73,74]. Samples were tested for MR using the Universal Testing Apparatus (UMATTA),
according to AASHTO T 342 method [75] for the five mixes. The samples were kept at 25 ◦ C
for four hours before the test. The MR test conditions included the application of haversine
loading shape, 1000 N peak loading, 0.1 s loading time, and 3.0 s pulse repetition period.
Furthermore, a pavement comes into contact with moisture in many ways, especially
in the tropics. Hence, it is crucial to consider the effect of moisture on the design of the
pavement. A wet-versus-dry moisture conditioning test is widely used in the laboratory
to evaluate moisture susceptibility [76,77]. The TSR is the indicator of the resistance
capacity of the sample to moisture damage and was measured according to the AASHTO
T 283 standard [78], commonly known as the modified Lottman test. It is defined as the
ratio of the indirect tensile strength (ITS) of the samples under wet and dry conditions
(TSR = ITS wet
ITS ). In general, a higher TSR value indicates a higher resistance to moisture
dry
damage. TSR had an 0.80 minimum requirement [63,79].
Two sets of samples with a height of 63 ± 1 mm and a diameter of 101.6 ± 0.1 mm
were prepared with 7 ± 0.5% air voids. The first set of samples (3 out of 6 samples) was
classified as a controlled (dry) subset, while the others were classified as a conditioned (wet)
subset. The dry subset was immersed in water at 25 ± 0.5 ◦ C for 2 h ± 10 min. Conversely,
the wet subset was immersed in a hot water bath at 60 ± 1 ◦ C for 24 ± 1 h and then kept in
another bath for 2 h ± 10 min to maintain the temperature at 25 ± 0.5 ◦ C. All samples were
tested using the Marshall apparatus to determine the ITS value at a given distortion rate of
50 mm/min at 25 ◦ C. The TSR was calculated as the wet subset’s ITS value ratio to the dry
(control) subset’s ITS value.
It was also imperative to determine the fatigue characteristics of pavement materials
due to the fact that fatigue failure is one of the major asphalt distresses as a result of
exhausted traffic loading and environmental impact [80]. Indirect tensile fatigue testing is
an effective method that can be performed either under a controlled stress (more acceptable
for thick pavement layers) or control strain (more acceptable for thin pavement layers).
In this study, the controlled stress (while the strain values were changeable) was used
according to the BS EN 12697-24:2018 standard [81]. The major test conditions included the
temperature, loading force, loading shape, loading time, and rest time at 25 ◦ C, 2600 N,
haversine, 0.1 s, and 0.4 s, respectively.
The mass loss (ML) test is a reliable approach in determining the durability of compact
asphalt mixes [82,83]. The durability performance test procedure for ML was based on the
ASTM C131 method [84]. The Los Angeles abrasion machine was used to conduct the test
without any steel ball. It was necessary to fix 300 revolutions at 25 ± 1 ◦ C and the speed
from 30 to 33 rpm. The ML in % was calculated by Equation (2):

( P1 − P2 )
P= × 100 (2)
P1

where P = ML (%); P1 = mass before the test; and P2 = mass after the test. A higher ML
value indicates lower resistance to ravelling.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Optimum Binder Content (OBC)
Table 4 describes the OBC and binder amount for the five mixes. Overall, the OBC
for RAP mixes were lower than that of R0 in which the OBC of RAP mixes gradually
decreased as the RAP content increased. This was probably due to an increment in the
percentage of fine particles and the amount of WEO. However, the differences in OBC for
all the mixes were relatively small. For example, the OBC for the R100 mix was roughly 8%
lower than that of R0 in which other studies also reported the same trend [51,85–88]. In
addition, the amount of binder used in RAP mixes was drastically reduced. For instance,
only 13.6 g of binder was used to prepare the ACW14 samples of the R100 mix, which
was 79.7% lower than the amount of binder used to prepare R0 samples. This is due to
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 7 of 16

the combination of WEO and CRM in the mixes. The use of WEO effectively softens and
rejuvenates the aged binder while enhancing the workability of RAP mixes [23,42,43,89].
In addition, CRM enhanced the stability, efficiency, and consistency of the asphalt [23,61].
Moreover, the inclusion of RAP could have influenced the stability and flow properties
of the mixes. Therefore, it was demonstrated that the stability and flow values of RAP
mixes were more load-bearing and more flexible compared to R0. The Marshall stability
and volumetric properties of the five mixes with respect to the five binder contents are
included in Appendix A.

Table 4. Percentage of OBC and the amount of binder.

Mix Type
Component
R0 R30 R50 R70 R100
OBC (%) 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5 5.5
Modified binder used (%) 100.0 78.2 62.0 45.9 22.2
Binder amount saving (%) 0.0 23.2 41.7 57.4 79.7

3.2. Marshall Parameters in OBC

Table 5 provides results on the changes in the Marshall parameters for R0 and RAP
mixes in OBC. Based on the results, all mixes met the minimum 8 kN stability criteria for
high traffic volume roads. Overall, the stability of all RAP mixes was higher than that of
R0 as well as the standard limits.

Table 5. Marshall test results in OBC.

Marshall Parameters
Mix Types
Stability (kN) Flow (mm) VIM (%) VMA (%) VFB (%)
R0 10.2 3.0 4.3 17.4 75.0
R30 11.9 3.1 3.6 16.5 78.5
R50 11.1 3.4 3.6 16.1 78.0
R70 10.4 3.4 3.6 16.0 77.0
R100 10.2 4.0 4.6 16.7 72.9
PWD limit ≥8.0 2–4 3–5 ≥14.0 1 70–80
1 Asphalt Institute standard [90].

Specifically, the stability of RAP mixes improved from 32% to 48% compared to the
standard PWD (2008) value of 8 kN, indicating that WEO was an efficient rejuvenator that
could effectively enhance the properties of the aged binder [38,41,89]. Given that CRM
could improve the mechanical performance of binders [23], the addition of CRM into the
mix was assumed to improve the stability. Furthermore, all mixes followed a 2–4 mm flow
standard. The flow of the mixes increased with the increment of RAP content due to the
use of WEO in RAP mixes, which allowed aggregates to float in the mix. In addition, the
amount of WEO increased with the increment of RAP content. The result also indicated
that the rejuvenator softened the aged binder and increased the workability of the asphalt
mix. Moreover, the inclusion of CRM in the mix enhanced its flow value [23,61,91].
Table 5 also includes the results of the volumetric properties for R0 and RAP mixes.
Since the value of VIM of all mixes met the PWD standard of 3–5%, their permeability
properties were considered substantial. Furthermore, it was relatively necessary to maintain
the minimum 14% VMA standard set by the Asphalt Institute to adopt the binder film
within the mix [90]. According to the result, the VMA values of all RAP mixes were above
the minimum limit while the VFB values of all RAP mixes were within the threshold limit
(70–80%). Therefore, the volumetric properties indicate that all RAP mixes were durable.

3.3. Resilient Modulus (MR )

Figure 3 shows the average values of MR for R0 and RAP mixes. It can be seen that
the MR increased with the increment in RAP content. Mixes with higher MR were assumed
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 8 of 16

to be more resistant against deformation. The main reason was the existence of an aged
binder (the higher the RAP content, the more the aged binder), indicating that the aged
binder was able to increase the elastic component of the viscoelastic HMA mix. Moreover,
the incorporation of CRM, which has exceptional viscoelastic properties, increased the
elastic recovery value. Nonetheless, the use of WEO reduced the MR as demonstrated by
the slow growth rate of MR value by some 25% with R100 mix compared with the R0. This
occurrence may be associated with the change in the binder’s rheological properties. Thus,
it can be concluded that the combined use of WEO and CRM was effective to obtain a
balanced MR value.

Figure 3. MR for the five mixes.

3.4. Moisture Susceptibility Test

Figure 4 illustrates the TSR values of the five mixes. Generally, the TSR values of all
RAP mixes were above the R0 (0.89), and the standard value (0.80) with the highest TSR
value was recorded for the R100 mix (0.97), which was approximately 10% higher than R0.
Interestingly, the TSR value increased as the RAP content increased, except for the R50 mix
(0.93) where the TSR value was only 1.8% less than that of the R30 mix. Thus, the addition
of RAP was very significant towards the sample’s resistance capacity to moisture damage
as represented by the TSR value. Furthermore, the TSR value is commonly associated
with higher stiffness in RAP mixes. The moisture susceptibility is mainly characterised
by the adhesive resistance between the aggregate and binder and the cohesive resistance
of the binder particles. Since RAP aggregates were already covered with the aged binder,
RAP mixes were generally less susceptible to damage compared to the virgin mix. The
utilisation of rejuvenator in this study was successful in restoring the properties of the aged
binder [30], although it could reduce the moisture resistance of the asphalt mix [23] while
the use of 6% CRM effectively increased the rheological properties of the binder to reduce
the impact of WEO [7,23,59]. Moreover, the rheological properties of the aged binder were
also significantly higher (Table 2). Therefore, the combined use of WEO and CRM was
effective in applying a high RAP content in the HMA mix design. It can be concluded
that the use of RAP mixes for pavement construction prevents the likelihood of pavement
suffering from unfavourable moisture damage.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 9 of 16

Figure 4. TSR values for the five mixes.

3.5. Indirect Tensile Fatigue Test

According to the EN 12697-24 standard, fracture life corresponds to the total cycle,
which results in the complete rupture of the sample [81]. The fracture life measures the
ability of the asphalt to withstand repeated tensile forces during its service life for an
extended period. Based on the number of failure cycles of the five mixes (R0 and RAP
mixes) in Figure 5, R30, R50, and R70 RAP mixes produced higher fatigue resistances than
the R0 with R50 mix recorded the highest fatigue resistance. In contrast, the R100 mix was
approximately 5% less resistant to fatigue cracking than that of R0. The decrease in fatigue
cracking may be due to inadequate blending and diffusion between WEO and aged binders,
which could shorten the fatigue life. The fatigue life of a mix with a high RAP content was
largely influenced by the quality of blending and diffusion between the rejuvenator, virgin,
and aged binders. In addition, the use of CRM prolonged the fatigue life, as shown in many
studies [57,58,92]. Therefore, the results showed that the fatigue performance improved
with the addition of a modified binder, while WEO may cause limited improvements in
fatigue prevention [43,93]. Since the fatigue value of all RAP mixes was close to or higher
than that of the R0 value, this study suggested that the integration of WEO and CRM
was effective.

Figure 5. Fatigue results for the five mixes.

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 10 of 16

3.6. Mass Loss (ML) Test

Figure 6 shows the comparison of ML of the five mixes obtained through Equation (2).
According to the results, all ML values of the five mixes were well below the 15% standard
limit set by PWD [63]. Although there were certain differences between the mixes, statistical
analysis showed that there were no significant differences between them. The R50 mix
obtained the highest ML value (3.5%), which was well below the acceptable limit. Therefore,
it can be confirmed that all mixes produced promising results, which indicated that they
were highly resistant against ravelling. The ML test provided an indirect indication of
the possible impact of such improvements on mix disintegration resistance, which was
linked to mix durability and abrasion resistance [94]. Hence, the presence of CRM and
WEO reduced the ML considerably, and all mixes were highly durable [82,83].

Figure 6. ML testing result for the five mixes.

3.7. Performance Comparison Based on the Arbitrary Scale

It is very important to evaluate the performance test results from a different per-
spective, such as the arbitrary scale, so that the optimum RAP content to be applied in
HMA design can be determined. The arbitrary scale was developed to assimilate the
five major performance test results by assigning a weightage for the obtained test values
compared to the standards and other justifications. The arbitrary scale was based on the
following aspect:
— If a test has a certain pass/fail value, it was given 1.0 point. However, if there is no
standard requirement, the value of the R0 was assumed to be 1.0 point. Then, the
points for other mixes were determined accordingly. For example: (1) according to
PWD, the standard stability value is 8.0 kN. As the stability value of the R100 mix was
10.2 kN, thus the R100 mix gained 1.28 points; (2) PWD specifications do not have a
standard MR value. According to the test result, the MR value of R0 was 13,544 mPa
and was given 1.0 point. Since the MR value of the R100 mix was 16,966 mPa, therefore
R100 mix gained 1.25 points.
Figure 7 shows the comparison of the overall performance of the five mixes based on
the arbitrary scale. The overall performance of all RAP mixes was higher than the R0 and
more than the minimum of five points in total. The performance increased approximately
to 7.4% with the increment in RAP content. Understandably, the collective performance of
the five mixes was above the lower limit set by an arbitrary scale. Based on these findings,
all RAP mixes can be recommended for the road construction industries where up to 100%
RAP can be used in HMA design without significantly reducing the performance of the
asphalt mix.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 11 of 16

Figure 7. Comparison of the overall performance of the five mixes based on the arbitrary scale.

4. Conclusions
This study examined an integrated approach to optimise the RAP content of ACW14
mixes using high RAP content and waste materials (WEO and CRM) with the follow-
ing conclusions:
1. The OBC of all RAP mixes was below the R0 value. It was demonstrated that the
OBC values decreased gradually as the RAP content increased. Furthermore, it was
anticipated that the use of higher RAP percentages in the asphalt mixes would lead to
a significant revenue in the related pavement construction field.
2. The stability of all RAP mixes was higher than the R0 (10.2 kN) as well as the standard
limits (8.0 kN). The increment of RAP content was found to increase the flow. The
findings also showed that all RAP mixes satisfied the Marshall stability, flow, and
volumetric properties criteria.
3. The value of MR increased with the increment in RAP content. All RAP mixes were
more resilient than the R0 except the R30 mix, in which the MR value obtained was
1.6% lower than the R0. Thus, it was concluded that the combined use of WEO and
CRM was effective to obtain a balanced MR value.
4. The TSR values of all RAP mixes were above the R0 (88.7%) and standard requirement
(80%). Thus, it can be summarised that the RAP mixes were sufficiently resistant to
moisture susceptibility.
5. In terms of fatigue performance, the R30, R50, and R70 mixes produced a higher
fatigue resistance compared to the R0. The R100 mix was approximately 5% less
resistant to fatigue cracking than the R0.
6. The lower threshold value (15%) of all mixes from the ML test showed promising
results and indicated that the mixes were highly resistant to ravelling and suffi-
ciently durable.
7. The arbitrary scale was successfully developed as an effective performance evaluation
method to determine the five major performance test results. The collective perfor-
mance of all RAP mixes was higher than the R0 with increased performance as the
RAP content increased. Therefore, 100% RAP mix can be used in ACW14 mix design
without significantly reducing the asphalt mix’s performance.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 12 of 16

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, M.Z.H.K., S.K. and M.R.I.; methodology, M.Z.H.K., S.K.
and M.R.I.; formal analysis, M.Z.H.K., A.M.B. and O.A.; investigation, M.Z.H.K. and A.M.B.; re-
sources, S.K.; writing—original draft preparation, M.Z.H.K.; writing—review and editing, S.K.,
H.Y.B.K., M.R.I. and A.M.B.; supervision, S.K. and M.R.I.; project administration, S.K.; funding acqui-
sition, S.K. and H.Y.B.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was funded by the Universiti Malaya, grant name “Others MOHE—Top 100
(IIRG)-IISS (IIRG009C-19IISS)” and the Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), Malaysia, grant
number “BOLD 2020RIO10517844/046”. The first author was financially supported by the Local
Government Engineering Department, Bangladesh.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data used in this research can be provided upon request.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the Universiti Malaya and Universiti
Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), Malaysia. The first author gratefully acknowledges the Local Govern-
ment Engineering Department, Bangladesh, for the financial support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
All data of the Marshall and volumetric properties of the five mixes with respect to
the five binder contents are included below:

Table A1. Marshall stability and flow results in various binder contents.

Marshall Stability (kN) Marshall Flow (mm)

Binder Content
R0 R30 R50 R70 R100 R0 R30 R50 R70 R100
4.5% 7.6 9.8 7.8 8.0 8.2 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.9
5.0% 8.7 11.8 9.7 9.2 9.3 2.7 2.7 3.0 2.8 3.5
5.5% 9.7 11.9 10.9 10.1 10.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.7
6.0% 10.7 11.5 11.3 11.6 9.8 3.0 3.0 3.7 3.9 4.9
6.5% 9.6 10.6 10.2 10.7 9.1 3.4 3.4 4.4 4.7 5.1

Table A2. Density and VIM result in various binder contents.

Density (g cm−3 ) VIM (%)

Binder Content
R0 R30 R50 R70 R100 R0 R30 R50 R70 R100
4.5% 2.23 2.27 2.27 2.28 2.22 8.2 6.5 6.8 6.1 8.8
5.0% 2.26 2.28 2.29 2.31 2.27 6.5 5.6 5.2 4.5 6.1
5.5% 2.29 2.30 2.31 2.31 2.28 4.8 4.3 3.9 3.6 4.9
6.0% 2.31 2.31 2.32 2.30 2.30 3.2 3.1 2.6 3.3 3.3
6.5% 2.29 2.32 2.31 2.30 2.27 3.0 1.9 2.3 2.8 4.0
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 13 of 16

Table A3. VMA and VFB result in various binder contents.

VMA (%) VFB (%)

Binder Content
R0 R30 R50 R70 R100 R0 R30 R50 R70 R100
4.5% 17.9 16.5 16.7 16.1 18.4 54.5 60.3 59.1 62.0 52.5
5.0% 17.4 16.6 16.3 15.7 17.1 62.9 66.6 68.3 71.2 64.6
5.5% 16.9 16.5 16.2 15.9 17.0 72.0 74.2 76.1 77.6 71.7
6.0% 16.7 16.5 16.1 16.7 16.7 80.5 81.6 83.7 80.3 80.4
6.5% 17.5 16.6 16.8 17.3 18.4 82.7 88.3 86.6 83.8 78.0

References
1. Copeland, A. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in Asphalt Mixtures: State of the Practice; US Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration: McLean, VA, USA, 2011.
2. Aurangzeb, Q.; Al-Qadi, I.; Ozer, H.; Yang, R. Hybrid life cycle assessment for asphalt mixtures with high RAP content. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 83, 77–86. [CrossRef]
3. Shingles, R. Application of reclaimed asphalt pavement and recycled asphalt shingles in hot mix asphalt. In Transportation
Research Circulur; Citeseer: State College, PA, USA, 2014.
4. European Asphalt Pavement Association. Asphalt The 100% Recyclable Construction Product, in Rue du Commerce; European Asphalt
Pavement Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2014; p. 1040.
5. Bressi, S.; Santos, J.; Orešković, M.; Losa, M. A comparative environmental impact analysis of asphalt mixtures containing crumb
rubber and reclaimed asphalt pavement using life cycle assessment. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2021, 22, 524–538. [CrossRef]
6. Milad, A.; Taib, A.M.; Ahmeda, A.G.F.; Solla, M.; Yusoff, N.I.M. A Review of the Use of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement for Road
Paving Applications. J. Teknol. 2020, 82. [CrossRef]
7. Izaks, R.; Haritonovs, V.; Klasa, I.; Zaumanis, M. Hot Mix Asphalt with High RAP Content. Procedia Eng. 2015, 114, 676–684. [CrossRef]
8. Zaumanis, M.; Mallick, R.B.; Frank, R. 100% recycled hot mix asphalt: A review and analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 92,
230–245. [CrossRef]
9. Jahanbakhsh, H.; Karimi, M.M.; Naseri, H.; Nejad, F.M. Sustainable asphalt concrete containing high reclaimed asphalt pavements and
recycling agents: Performance assessment, cost analysis, and environmental impact. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118837. [CrossRef]
10. Zaumanis, M.; Mallick, R.B.; Frank, R. 100% Hot Mix Asphalt Recycling: Challenges and Benefits. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14,
3493–3502. [CrossRef]
11. McDaniel, R.S.; Shah, A.; Huber, G.A.; Copeland, A. Effects of reclaimed asphalt pavement content and virgin binder grade on
properties of plant produced mixtures. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2012, 13, 161–182. [CrossRef]
12. Baaj, H.; Ech, M.; Tapsoba, N.; Sauzeat, C.; Di Benedetto, H. Thermomechanical characterization of asphalt mixtures modified with
high contents of asphalt shingle modifier (ASM® ) and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP). Mater. Struct. 2013, 46, 1747–1763. [CrossRef]
13. Singh, D.; Sawant, D. Understanding effects of RAP on rheological performance and chemical composition of SBS modified
binder using series of laboratory tests. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2016, 9, 178–189. [CrossRef]
14. Miró, R.; Valdés, G.; Martínez, A.; Segura, P.; Rodríguez, C. Evaluation of high modulus mixture behaviour with high reclaimed
asphalt pavement (RAP) percentages for sustainable road construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 3854–3862. [CrossRef]
15. Al-Qadi, I.L.; Elseifi, M.; Carpenter, S.H. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement—A Literature Review; Illinois Center for Transportation:
Rantoul, IL, USA, 2007.
16. West, R.C.; Willis, J.R.; Marasteanu, M. Improved Mix Design, Evaluation, and Materials Management Practices for Hot Mix Asphalt
with High Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Content; Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; Volume 752.
17. Li, J.; Ni, F.; Lu, Q. Experimental Investigation into the Multiscale Performance of Asphalt Mixtures with High Contents of
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2018, 30, 04018105. [CrossRef]
18. Zhang, K.; Muftah, A.; Wen, H.; Bayomy, F.; Santi, M. Performance-related design method for asphalt mixes that contain
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP). In Transportation Research Board 95th Annual Meeting; Transportation Research Board:
Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
19. Al-Qadi, I.L.; Aurangzeb, Q.; Carpenter, S.H.; Pine, P.J.; Trepanier, J. Impact of High RAP Contents on Structural and Performance
Properties of Asphalt Mixtures; Report Number FHWA-ICT-12-002; Illinois Center for Transportation: Springfield, IL, USA, 2012.
20. McDaniel, R.S.; Soleymani, H.; Anderson, R.M.; Turner, P.; Peterson, R. Recommended use of reclaimed asphalt pavement in the
SuperPave mixture design method. In NCHRP Final Report; TRB: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
21. Han, S.; Cheng, X.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y. Laboratory Performance of Hot Mix Asphalt with High Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP)
and Fine Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (FRAP) Content. Materials 2019, 12, 2536. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Hidalgo, A.; Moreno-Navarro, F.; Tauste, R.; Rubio-Gámez, M. The Influence of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement on the Mechanical
Performance of Bituminous Mixtures. An Analysis at the Mortar Scale. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8343. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 14 of 16

23. Majidifard, H.; Tabatabaee, N.; Buttlar, W. Investigating short-term and long-term binder performance of high-RAP mixtures
containing waste cooking oil. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2019, 6, 396–406. [CrossRef]
24. Colbert, B.; You, Z. The determination of mechanical performance of laboratory produced hot mix asphalt mixtures using
controlled RAP and virgin aggregate size fractions. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 26, 655–662. [CrossRef]
25. Celauro, C.; Bernardo, C.; Gabriele, B. Production of innovative, recycled and high-performance asphalt for road pavements.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2010, 54, 337–347. [CrossRef]
26. Tran, N.H.; Taylor, A.; Willis, R. Effect of rejuvenator on performance properties of HMA mixtures with high RAP and RAS
contents. In NCAT Report; National Center for Asphalt Technology Auburn University: Auburn, AL, USA, 2012.
27. Polaczyk, P.; Ma, Y.; Xiao, R.; Hu, W.; Jiang, X.; Huang, B. Characterization of aggregate interlocking in hot mix asphalt by
mechanistic performance tests. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2021, 22, S498–S513. [CrossRef]
28. Noferini, L.; Simone, A.; Sangiorgi, C.; Mazzotta, F. Investigation on performances of asphalt mixtures made with Reclaimed Asphalt
Pavement: Effects of interaction between virgin and RAP bitumen. Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 2017, 10, 322–332. [CrossRef]
29. Hussain, A.; Yanjun, Q. Effect of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement on the Properties of Asphalt Binders. Procedia Eng. 2013, 54,
840–850. [CrossRef]
30. Zhu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Si, C.; Yan, T.; Li, Y. Laboratory Evaluation on Performance of Recycled Asphalt Binder and Mixtures under
Short-Term Aging Conditions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3404. [CrossRef]
31. Yu, B.; Gu, X.; Wu, M.; Ni, F. Application of a high percentage of reclaimed asphalt pavement in an asphalt mixture: Blending
process and performance investigation. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2017, 18, 753–765. [CrossRef]
32. Cavalli, M.C.; Partl, M.N.; Poulikakos, L.D. Measuring the binder film residues on black rock in mixtures with high amounts of
reclaimed asphalt. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 149, 665–672. [CrossRef]
33. Elkashef, M.; Williams, R.C.; Cochran, E.W. Physical and chemical characterization of rejuvenated reclaimed asphalt pavement
(RAP) binders using rheology testing and pyrolysis gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Mater. Struct. 2018, 51, 12. [CrossRef]
34. Elkashef, M.; Williams, R.C.; Cochran, E. Investigation of fatigue and thermal cracking behavior of rejuvenated reclaimed asphalt
pavement binders and mixtures. Int. J. Fatigue 2018, 108, 90–95. [CrossRef]
35. Bilema, M.; Bin Aman, Y.; Hassan, N.A.; Al-Saffar, Z.; Ahmad, K.; Rogo, K. Performance of Aged Asphalt Binder Treated with
Various Types of Rejuvenators. Civ. Eng. J. 2021, 7, 502–517. [CrossRef]
36. Xie, Z.; Tran, N.; Julian, G.; Taylor, A.; Blackburn, L.D. Performance of Asphalt Mixtures with High Recycled Contents Using
Rejuvenators and Warm-Mix Additive: Field and Lab Experiments. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2017, 29, 04017190. [CrossRef]
37. Bonicelli, A.; Calvi, P.; Martinez-Arguelles, G.; Fuentes, L.; Giustozzi, F. Experimental study on the use of rejuvenators and plastomeric
polymers for improving durability of high RAP content asphalt mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 155, 37–44. [CrossRef]
38. Hill, D.R.; Jennings, A.A. Bioasphalt from Urban Yard Waste Carbonization: A Student Study (No. FHWA/OH-2011/13); Ohio
Department of Transportation, Research and Development: Columbus, OH, USA, 2011.
39. Li, H.; Dong, B.; Wang, W.; Zhao, G.; Guo, P.; Ma, Q. Effect of Waste Engine Oil and Waste Cooking Oil on Performance
Improvement of Aged Asphalt. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1767. [CrossRef]
40. Tarsi, G.; Tataranni, P.; Sangiorgi, C. The Challenges of Using Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement for New Asphalt Mixtures: A Review.
Materials 2020, 13, 4052. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. West, R.C.; Copeland, A. High RAP Asphalt Pavements: Japan Practice-Lesson Learned; National Asphalt Pavement Association:
Lanham, MD, USA, 2015.
42. Mangiafico, S.; Di Benedetto, H.; Sauzéat, C.; Olard, F.; Pouget, S.; Planque, L. Relations between Linear ViscoElastic Behaviour of
Bituminous Mixtures Containing Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement and Colloidal Structure of Corresponding Binder Blends. Procedia
Eng. 2016, 143, 138–145. [CrossRef]
43. Jia, X.; Huang, B.; Moore, J.A.; Zhao, S. Influence of Waste Engine Oil on Asphalt Mixtures Containing Reclaimed Asphalt
Pavement. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015, 27, 04015042. [CrossRef]
44. Chen, M.; Leng, B.; Wu, S.; Sang, Y. Physical, chemical and rheological properties of waste edible vegetable oil rejuvenated asphalt
binders. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 66, 286–298. [CrossRef]
45. Nayak, P.; Sahoo, U.C. Rheological, chemical and thermal investigations on an aged binder rejuvenated with two non-edible oils.
Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2017, 18, 612–629. [CrossRef]
46. Reyes-Ortiz, O.; Berardinelli, E.; Alvarez, A.; Carvajal-Muñoz, J.; Fuentes, L. Evaluation of Hot Mix Asphalt Mixtures with
Replacement of Aggregates by Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Material. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 53, 379–388. [CrossRef]
47. Zaumanis, M.; Mallick, R.B.; Frank, R. Determining optimum rejuvenator dose for asphalt recycling based on Superpave
performance grade specifications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 69, 159–166. [CrossRef]
48. Im, S.; Karki, P.; Zhou, F. Development of new mix design method for asphalt mixtures containing RAP and rejuvenators. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2016, 115, 727–734. [CrossRef]
49. Cong, P.; Hao, H.; Zhang, Y.; Luo, W.; Yao, D. Investigation of diffusion of rejuvenator in aged asphalt. Int. J. Pavement Res.
Technol. 2016, 9, 280–288. [CrossRef]
50. Zaumanis, M.; Mallick, R.B.; Frank, R. Evaluation of Rejuvenator’s Effectiveness with Conventional Mix Testing for 100%
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Mixtures. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2013, 2370, 17–25. [CrossRef]
51. Mamun, A.A.; Wahhab, H.I.A.-A. Evaluation of Waste Engine Oil-Rejuvenated Asphalt Concrete Mixtures with High RAP
Content. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 2018, 7386256. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 15 of 16

52. Hidayah, M.K.N.; Hainin, M.R.; Hassan, N.A.; Abdullah, M.E. Rutting Evaluation of Aged Binder Containing Waste Engine Oil.
Adv. Mater. Res. 2014, 911, 405–409. [CrossRef]
53. Mogawer, W.S.; Austerman, A.J.; Kluttz, R.; Puchalski, S. Using Polymer Modification and Rejuvenators to Improve the
Performance of High Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Mixtures. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2016, 2575, 10–18. [CrossRef]
54. Crisman, B.; Ossich, G.; Lorenzi, L.; Bevilacqua, P.; Roberti, R. A Laboratory Assessment of the Influence of Crumb Rubber in Hot
Mix Asphalt with Recycled Steel Slag. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8045. [CrossRef]
55. Wang, H.; Liu, X.; Apostolidis, P.; Van De Ven, M.; Erkens, S.; Skarpas, A. Effect of laboratory aging on chemistry and rheology of
crumb rubber modified bitumen. Mater. Struct. 2020, 53, 1–15. [CrossRef]
56. Fakhri, M.; Azami, A. Evaluation of warm mix asphalt mixtures containing reclaimed asphalt pavement and crumb rubber.
J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 1125–1132.
57. Kocak, S.; Kutay, M.E. Use of crumb rubber in lieu of binder grade bumping for mixtures with high percentage of reclaimed
asphalt pavement. Road Mater. Pavement Des. 2017, 18, 116–129. [CrossRef]
58. Wang, H.; Liu, X.; van de Ven, M.; Lu, G.; Erkens, S.; Skarpas, A. Fatigue performance of long-term aged crumb rubber modified
bitumen containing warm-mix additives. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 239, 117824. [CrossRef]
59. Zaumanis, M.; Mallick, R.B. Review of very high-content reclaimed asphalt use in plant-produced pavements: State of the art. Int.
J. Pavement Eng. 2015, 16, 39–55. [CrossRef]
60. Huang, J.; Sun, Y. Effect of Modifiers on the Rutting, Moisture-Induced Damage, and Workability Properties of Hot Mix Asphalt
Mixtures. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7145. [CrossRef]
61. Mashaan, N.S.; Ali, A.H.; Koting, S.; Karim, M.R. Performance Evaluation of Crumb Rubber Modified Stone Mastic Asphalt
Pavement in Malaysia. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2013, 2013, 304676. [CrossRef]
62. ASTM. Standard Test Method for Recovery of Asphalt from Solution by Abson Method; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, 2009.
63. Public Works Department (PWD). Standard specification for road works. In Section; Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR): Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 2008; pp. S4–S58.
64. Zaumanis, M.; Boesiger, L.; Kunz, B.; Cavalli, M.C.; Poulikakos, L. Determining optimum rejuvenator addition location in asphalt
production plant. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 198, 368–378. [CrossRef]
65. Zaumanis, M.; Cavalli, M.C.; Poulikakos, L.D. Effect of rejuvenator addition location in plant on mechanical and chemical
properties of RAP binder. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2020, 21, 507–515. [CrossRef]
66. ASTM, D6926. Standard Practice for Preparation of Asphalt Mixture Specimens Using Marshall Apparatus; American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM): West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
67. Zhang, Z.-Q.; Tao, J.; Yang, B.; Li, N.-L. Methodology of Mixing and Compaction Temperatures for Modified Asphalt Mixture. In
Road Pavement Material Characterization and Rehabilitation: Selected Papers from the 2009 GeoHunan International Conference; American
Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2009; pp. 34–41. [CrossRef]
68. ASTM. Standard Viscosity Temperature Chart for Asphalts; ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2009.
69. Watson, D.E.; West, R.C.; Turner, P.A.; Casola, J.R. Mixing and Compaction Temperatures of Asphalt Binders in Hot-Mix Asphalt;
National Cooperative Highway Research Programs: Orange, CA, USA, 2010.
70. D3203: Standard Test Method for Percent Air Voids in Compacted Dense and Open Bituminous Paving Mixtures; American Society for
Testing Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2005.
71. Standard Test Method for Bulk Specific Gravity and Density of Non-Absorptive Compacted Asphalt Mixtures; ASTM: West Conshohocken,
PA, USA, 2017.
72. D6927-15 Standard Test Method for Marshall Stability and Flow of Asphalt Mixtures; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA,
USA, 2015.
73. Wolfenden, A.; Brown, E.; Foo, K. Evaluation of Variability in Resilient Modulus Test Results (ASTM D 4123). J. Test. Eval. 1991,
19, 1–13. [CrossRef]
74. Mokhtari, A.; Nejad, F.M. Mechanistic approach for fiber and polymer modified SMA mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36,
381–390. [CrossRef]
75. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. T 342-11: Standard Method of Test for Determining Dynamic
Modulus of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA); American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
76. Nejad, F.M.; Azarhoosh, A.; Hamedi, G.; Azarhoosh, M. Influence of using nonmaterial to reduce the moisture susceptibility of
hot mix asphalt. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 31, 384–388. [CrossRef]
77. Özen, H. Rutting evaluation of hydrated lime and SBS modified asphalt mixtures for laboratory and field compacted samples.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 756–765. [CrossRef]
78. AASHTO. Standard Method of Test for resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced Damage; AASHTO Provisional
Standards: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
79. AASHTO. AASHTO T283: Resistance of Compacted Bituminous Mixture to Moisture Induced Damage; AASHTO: Washington, DC,
USA, 2007.
80. Jahangiri, B.; Majidifard, H.; Meister, J.; Buttlar, W.G. Performance Evaluation of Asphalt Mixtures with Reclaimed Asphalt
Pavement and Recycled Asphalt Shingles in Missouri. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2019, 2673, 392–403. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5226 16 of 16

81. Standard, B.J.B.E. Bituminous Mixtures-Test Methods for Hot Mix Asphalt, Part 24: Resistance to Fatigue; NSAI: Dublin, Ireland, 2012;
pp. 12697–12724.
82. Doyle, J.D.; Howard, I.L. Evaluation of the Cantabro Durability Test for Dense Graded Asphalt. In Geo-Frontiers 2011: Advances in
Geotechnical Engineering; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2011; pp. 4563–4572. [CrossRef]
83. Cox, B.C.; Smith, B.T.; Howard, I.L.; James, R.S. State of Knowledge for Cantabro Testing of Dense Graded Asphalt. J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 2017, 29, 04017174. [CrossRef]
84. ASTM. Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles
Machine; ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2006.
85. Arshad, A.K.; Mohammad, M.; Shaffie, E.; Hashim, W.; Halim, A.G.A. Volumetric Analysis and Performance of Hot Mix Asphalt
with Variable Rap Content. In Proceedings of the MATEC Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Wuhan, China, 2017; Volume 103, p. 9004.
86. Mamun, A.A.; Wahhab, H.I.A.-A. Comparative laboratory evaluation of waste cooking oil rejuvenated asphalt concrete mixtures
for high contents of reclaimed asphalt pavement. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2020, 21, 1297–1308. [CrossRef]
87. Taherkhani, H.; Noorian, F. Laboratory investigation on the properties of asphalt concrete containing reclaimed asphalt pavement
and waste cooking oil as recycling agent. Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2021, 22, 539–549. [CrossRef]
88. Esfahani, M.A.; Khatayi, A. Effect of type and quantity of emulsifier in bitumen polymer emulsion on microsurfacing performance.
Int. J. Pavement Eng. 2020, 1–15. [CrossRef]
89. Joni, H.H.; Al-Rubaee, R.H.; Al-Zerkani, M.A. Rejuvenation of aged asphalt binder extracted from reclaimed asphalt pavement
using waste vegetable and engine oils. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2019, 11, e00279. [CrossRef]
90. Asphalt Institute. MS-2 Asphalt Mix Design Methods; Asphalt Institute: Lexington, KY, USA, 2014.
91. Mahrez, A. Properties of Rubberised Bitumen Binder and Its Effect on the Bituminous Mix. Master’s Thesis, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1999.
92. Pasetto, M.; Baldo, N. Fatigue Performance of Recycled Hot Mix Asphalt: A Laboratory Study. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 2017,
1–10. [CrossRef]
93. Zaumanis, M.; Mallick, R.B.; Poulikakos, L.; Frank, R. Influence of six rejuvenators on the performance properties of Reclaimed
Asphalt Pavement (RAP) binder and 100% recycled asphalt mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 71, 538–550. [CrossRef]
94. Ruiz, A.; Alberola, R.; Perez, F.; Sanchez, B. Porous asphalt mixtures in Spain. Transp. Res. Rec. 1990, 1265, 87–94.