1 / 69

Shingles Recycling

Shingles Recycling. A presentation by Dan Krivit at the 49 th Annual Wisconsin Asphalt Paving Conference In Waukesha, Wisconsin Wednesday, November 15, 2006. Definitions. Manufacturers’ Asphalt Shingle Scrap Tear-Off Asphalt Shingle Scrap

candace
Télécharger la présentation

Shingles Recycling

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 A presentation by Dan Krivit at the 49th Annual WisconsinAsphalt Paving Conference In Waukesha, Wisconsin Wednesday, November 15, 2006

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

  3. 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

  4. Key Barriers • Lack of clear industry standards and specifications • Inconsistent state regulations • Lack of adequate information / technology transfer • Lack of national leadership by private industry and government

  5. Composition of Residential Asphalt Shingles

  6. 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)

  7. Multiple Applications • Hot mix asphalt (HMA) • Aggregate / gravel • Dust control • Cold patch • Ground cover • Fuel • New shingles

  8. 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

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

  10. Potential Benefits • Rutting resistance (especially at warmer temperatures) • Conservation of landfill space • Economic savings to HMA producer due to reduced need for virgin asphalt binder (add oil)

  11. Potential Disadvantages • Contamination (tear-offs) • Added costs of processing and use in HMA • Increased low-temperature / fatigue cracking

  12. Performance Grading (PG)

  13. Asphalt Grades • PG 64-22 (“PG sixty-four minus twenty-two”) • High temperature for rut resistance 64°C (147°F) • Low temperature for fatigue and cold weather performance(e.g., cracking) -22°C (-8°F)

  14. Mitigating Low Temperature Impacts of RAS • Use less RAS instead of 5%(e.g., use 2% to 3%) • Adjust the virgin binder PG to one grade softer (e.g., PG 52-34)

  15. Deleterious Material • Nails • Other metal • Wood • Cellophane • Other plastic • Paper • Fiber board

  16. U of MN Research • Professor Mihai MarasteanuDept. of Civil EngineeringAsphalt Lab • Adam ZofkaGraduate Student

  17. Missouri HMA Samples • Two recycled sources: • Tear-off shingles (5%) • Recycled asphalt pavement (20%) • Two virgin binders performance grades: • PG 64-22 • PG 58-28 Marasteanu, July 2006

  18. Creep Stiffness (MO: PG 64-22) Marasteanu, July 2006

  19. Creep Stiffness (MO: PG 64-22) Marasteanu, July 2006 Marasteanu, July 2006

  20. Creep Stiffness (MO: PG 58-28) Marasteanu, July 2006

  21. Creep Stiffness (MO: PG 58-28) Marasteanu, July 2006

  22. Strength (MO: PG 64-22) Marasteanu, July 2006 Marasteanu, July 2006

  23. Strength (MO: PG 58-28) Marasteanu, July 2006

  24. Conclusions: Stiffness(MO:At temperatures below -10°C) • PG -22 mixture:addition of shingles increases the mixture stiffness considerably (a) • PG -28 mixture:stiffness difference lessened (b) Marasteanu, July 2006

  25. Conclusions: Strength(MO:At temperatures below -10°C) No significant affects due to shingles for either PG -22 or PG -28 mixtures Marasteanu, July 2006

  26. Minnesota HMA Samples • Three types of recycled materials • 20% reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), • 15% RAP + 5% Tear-off recycled asphalt shingles (RAS), • 15% RAP + 5% Manufactured RAS. • Only one virgin asphalt binder: PG 58-28 Marasteanu, July 2006

  27. Creep Stiffness (MN: PG 58-28)(@ 100 seconds) Marasteanu, July 2006

  28. Creep Stiffness (MN: PG 58-28)(@ 500 seconds) Marasteanu, July 2006

  29. Strength (MN: PG 58-28) Marasteanu, July 2006

  30. Creep Stiffness (MO vs. MN)(@ 100 seconds) Marasteanu, July 2006

  31. Creep Stiffness (MO vs. MN)(@ 500 seconds) Marasteanu, July 2006

  32. Conclusions: Stiffness(MN) • Adding tear-offs significantly increases stiffness of the mixtures at all test temperatures (a) • Adding manufactured increases stiffness only at 0°C and -10°C (b) Marasteanu, July 2006

  33. Conclusions: Strength(MN) No significant affects due to either tear-off or manufacturers’ shingles scrap Marasteanu, July 2006

  34. Conclusions: Stiffness(MO vs. MN) • Lower stiffness values for the Minnesota RAP mixtures compared to Missouri mixtures • Lower stiffness values for the MN combinations of RAP + RAS compared to MO mixtures (a) Marasteanu, July 2006

  35. Minnesota Extracted Binder Samples • Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) (a) • Direct Tension Tests (DTT) (b) Marasteanu, July 2006

  36. BBR (MN) Marasteanu, July 2006

  37. BBR Conclusions (continued) • Addition of shingles changes the properties (a) • The two types of shingles perform differently • The manufactured material seems to be beneficial (b) • The tear-off material affects properties in a negative way (although it also decreases BBR stiffness) (c) Marasteanu, July 2006

  38. BBR Conclusions (continued) • m-value not fully understood (a) • The limited data also shows that binder and mixture results do not always agree (b) • Need further research (c) Marasteanu, July 2006

  39. Mn/DOT Research • Jim McGraw,DirectorMn/DOT Chemistry Lab

  40. McGraw, July 2006

  41. AC Impact in Final Mix(at 5% RAS) • RAS binder addition: • Manufacturers’ adds 1.0% binder • Tear-offs adds 1.8% McGraw, July 2006

  42. McGraw, July 2006

  43. Final Hot Mix Low Temperature PG (a) • Tear-off -28.8 (b) • Manufacturers’ -26.2 (c) • RAP -29.2 (d) McGraw, July 2006

  44. Conclusions • More mixture testing (a) • Experimental design needs true control • Shingle only study (b) • Field reviews of past projects (c) • Re-evaluate current Mn/DOT spec (d) McGraw, July 2006

  45. Additional National Developments • New AASHTO specification • EPA / CMRA study • www.ShingleRecycling.org • Asbestos data base

  46. States Using RAS(in 1999) Justus, September 2004

  47. Ayres, April 2004

  48. AASHTO Specification (continued) • Deleterious material maximum limits (Section 8):(material retained on the No. 4 sieve) • Heavy fraction = 0.50% • Lightweight fraction = 0.05%

  49. Missouri Shingle Spec • Extrinsic Material Allowance Raised • 3.0% Total • 1.5% Wood

More Related