1 / 91

Shingles Recycling: Quality Assurance / Quality Control

Shingles Recycling: Quality Assurance / Quality Control. A Presentation at the Sacramento RMRC Workshop on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 Presenter: Dan Krivit Dan Krivit and Associates. Recycled Materials Resource Center. www.rmrc.unh.edu. Presentation Outline.

alamea
Télécharger la présentation

Shingles Recycling: Quality Assurance / Quality Control

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Shingles Recycling:Quality Assurance / Quality Control A Presentation at theSacramento RMRC Workshop on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 Presenter: Dan KrivitDan Krivit and Associates

  2. Recycled MaterialsResource Center www.rmrc.unh.edu

  3. Presentation Outline [Modified from presentation already in your big books! Make sure to get all additional inserts: • AASHTO spec • Bibliography • SWMCB packet

  4. Material Introduction

  5. Definitions • Manufacturers’ Asphalt Shingle Scrap • Tear-Off Asphalt Shingle Scrap • Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS)(Crushed & screened)

  6. History • 15 years + • Multiple research studies in lab and field • Manufacturer shingle scrap in hot-mix asphalt best known, most accepted practice • Still relatively new application

  7. Engineering Properties

  8. Composition of Residential Asphalt Shingles

  9. Recent Composition Weight Ranges of Typical Asphalt Shingles • 32 to 42% Coating filler (limestone or fly ash) • 28 to 42% Granules (painted rocks & coal slag) • 16 to 25% Asphalt • 3 to 6% Back dust (limestone or silica sand) • 2 to 15% Mat (fiberglass, paper, cotton rags) • 0.2 to 2% Adhesives (modified asphalt based)

  10. Applications and Performance

  11. Multiple Applications [Most Proven] • HMA • Aggregate (gravel) • Dust control • Cold patch • Ground cover • Fuel • New shingles

  12. Factors Affecting HMA Performance • Aggregate gradation of RAS • Properties of final blended binder content within the HMA as affected by: • RAS asphalt binder • Virgin binder

  13. Factors AffectingHMA Performance(continued) • Location RAS is incorporated into HMA • Temperature • Moisture content of RAS and other aggregates • Retention time in HMA drum

  14. Engineering Performance Advantages • Reduce need for virgin binder • Add fibrous reinforcement • Modify PG grade binder High temp performance • Reduce landfill needs 3-11

  15. Potential Benefits *(* Manufacturers’ RAS) • Cracking resistance • Rutting resistance • Conservation of landfill space Source: Paul Lum, Lafarge Construction Materials Ltd., April 13, 2003.

  16. Challenges • Need for improved grinding and handling • Blending and storage • Continued research into engineering effects of RAP and RAS on AC binder content • Quality control and quality assurance

  17. BarrierstoShingleRecycling • Economic reasons • Policy and regulatory compliance • Environmental concerns • Technical reasons • Public sentiment ----------- (Note: These barriers may be real or perceived!)

  18. Engineering Performance Disadvantages • Hotter mix requirements • Stiffer mix • Possible contamination (Justus, September 2004) 3-12

  19. Asphalt Shingles in HMAMissouri DOT Experience Joe Schroer, PE Construction and Materials Division March 30, 2005

  20. In The Beginning • Approached by Pace Construction and Peerless Landfill • MoDOT Not Using RAP in Mixtures • Deleterious Material • Stiffness of Asphalt in Shingles

  21. Why Should We Pursue Shingles? • High Asphalt Content • Granules Are Hard and Durable • Recycling CO$T

  22. Concerns • How Will Deleterious Material Affect the Mixture • Can the Low Temperature Grading be Maintained at Various Blending Ratios

  23. Asphalt After Blending with Shingle Asphalt • Resist Rutting • Resist Fatigue Cracking • Resist Cold-Weather Cracking

  24. Asphalt Grades • High Temperature for Rut Resistance • Low Temperature for Fatigue and Cold Weather Performance Performance Graded = PG PG 64-22 (PG Sixty-four Minus Twenty-two) High Temp 64°C (147°F) Low Temp –22°C (-8°F)

  25. Asphalt Modifications Require PG 64-22 • Stiffer at High Temperature – OK • Stiffer at Low Temperature • Use Lower Percentage of Shingles • Use Softer Roadway Asphalt

  26. Deleterious Evaluation • Specification for Aggregate • 0.5% “Other Foreign Material” • Sticks, mud balls, deer fur, etc. • Shingle “OFM” • Approximately 3% Total

  27. Nails Wood Plastic Cellophane Paper Fiber Board Deleterious Material

  28. No Difference • Visually • Standard Mixture Tests • Placement

  29. Can Tear-Off Shingles be Used? • Allowance in OFM Due to Small Percentage of Shingles and Trial Mixture • Start with Softer Roadway Asphalt

  30. Where Are We?The “Ex” Factor 2 • Extrinsic Material Allowance Raised • 3.0% Total • 1.5% Wood • Expect PG 64-22 met w/ PG 58-28 • Extra grades optional w/ testing • Examining various proportions and asphalts • Exuberant Contractors

  31. U of M Lab Data:Missouri Samples • Prof. Mihai Marasteanu,U of M Dept. of Civil Engineering • Preliminary results as of 4-6-2006 • Report with Mn/DOT lab data to be released soon

  32. MO: Mix Stiffness @ 100sec. (PG 64-22)

  33. MO: Mix Stiffness @ 100sec. (PG 58-28)

  34. MO: Mix Stiffness @ 500sec. (PG 58-28)

  35. MO: Tensile Strength (PG 64-22)

  36. MO: Tensile Strength (PG 58-28)

  37. Mn/DOT lab data • Jim McGraw, Director of Mn/DOT’s Chemical Lab, Maplewood, MN • Preliminary lab data as of Thursday, April 6, 2006 • Report with U of M lab data, including Mo/DOT samples, to be released soon

  38. New Minnesota Lab Study • Funded by OEA • Co-sponsored by Mn/DOT • Comparing manufacturer RAS to Tear-Off RAS • Mn/DOT to conduct PG extractions • U of M Civil Engineering to conductindirect tensile strength tests

  39. MN: Asphalt Content of RAS

  40. U of M Lab Data:Minnesota Samples • Prof. Mihai Marasteanu,U of M Dept. of Civil Engineering • Preliminary results as of Thursday, April 6, 2006 • Report with Mn/DOT lab data to be released soon

  41. MN: Mix Stiffness [GPa] @ 100 sec. 16 13.5 20% RAP 15% RAP + 5% Tear-off 12 15% RAP + 5% Manufactured 10.0 8.2 8 Stiffness [GPa] 5.5 5.0 4 2.7 0.5 0.2 0.2 0 0 -10 -20 o Temperature [ C]

  42. MN: Mix Stiffness [GPa] @ 500 sec.

  43. MN: Tensile Strength [MPa]

  44. MN vs. MO: Mix Stiffness [GPa] @ 100 sec.

  45. MN vs. MO: Mix Stiffness [GPa] @ 500 sec.

  46. States Using RAS

  47. (Justus, September 2004)

  48. Western States • California • Montana • Texas • Oregon

  49. Other States’ Specifications[and Experiences]

  50. Minnesota • Manufacturing Shingle Waste Only • 100% passing the ½ inch Sieve • Maximum of 5.0% RAS permitted • Gradation meet the requirements of the mix design • Performance grade of virgin asphalt binder based on the properties of the shingle asphalt binder • No limits on deleterious materials or asbestos (Justus, September 2004)

More Related