shingles recycling

Download Shingles Recycling

Post on 07-Jan-2016

63 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

  • Shingles RecyclingA presentation by Dan Krivit at the

    49th Annual Wisconsin Asphalt Paving ConferenceIn Waukesha, WisconsinWednesday, November 15, 2006

  • DefinitionsManufacturers Asphalt Shingle ScrapTear-Off Asphalt Shingle ScrapRecycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) (Crushed & screened)

  • History15 years +Multiple research studies in lab and fieldManufacturer shingle scrap in hot-mix asphalt best known, most accepted practiceStill relatively new application

  • Key BarriersLack of clear industry standards and specificationsInconsistent state regulationsLack of adequate information / technology transferLack of national leadership by private industry and government

  • Composition of Residential Asphalt Shingles

  • Recent Composition: Weight Ranges of Typical Asphalt Shingles32 to 42% Coating filler (limestone or fly ash)28 to 42% Granules (painted rocks & coal slag)16 to 25% Asphalt3 to 6% Back dust (limestone or silica sand)2 to 15% Mat (fiberglass, paper, cotton rags)0.2 to 2% Adhesives (modified asphalt based)

  • Multiple ApplicationsHot mix asphalt (HMA)Aggregate / gravelDust controlCold patchGround coverFuelNew shingles

  • Factors Affecting HMA PerformanceAggregate gradation of RASProperties of final blended binder content within the HMA as affected by:RAS asphalt binderVirgin binder

  • Factors AffectingHMA Performance (continued)Location RAS is incorporated into HMA drumTemperatureMoisture content of RAS and other aggregatesRetention time in HMA drum

  • Potential BenefitsRutting resistance (especially at warmer temperatures)Conservation of landfill spaceEconomic savings to HMA producer due to reduced need for virgin asphalt binder (add oil)

  • Potential DisadvantagesContamination (tear-offs)Added costs of processing and use in HMAIncreased low-temperature / fatigue cracking

  • Performance Grading (PG)

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

  • Mitigating Low Temperature Impacts of RASUse 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)

  • Deleterious MaterialNailsOther metalWoodCellophaneOther plasticPaperFiber board

  • U of MN ResearchProfessor Mihai Marasteanu Dept. of Civil Engineering Asphalt LabAdam Zofka Graduate Student

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Conclusions: Strength (MO: At temperatures below -10C)No significant affects due to shingles for either PG -22 or PG -28 mixturesMarasteanu, July 2006

    Marasteanu, July 2006

  • Minnesota HMA SamplesThree types of recycled materials20% reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP),15% RAP + 5% Tear-off recycled asphalt shingles (RAS),15% RAP + 5% Manufactured RAS. Only one virgin asphalt binder: PG 58-28Marasteanu, July 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Conclusions: Strength (MN)No significant affects due to either tear-off or manufacturers shingles scrapMarasteanu, July 2006

    Marasteanu, July 2006

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

  • Minnesota Extracted Binder SamplesBending Beam Rheometer (BBR) (a)Direct Tension Tests (DTT) (b)Marasteanu, July 2006

  • BBR (MN)Marasteanu, July 2006

  • BBR Conclusions (continued)Addition of shingles changes the properties (a)The two types of shingles perform differentlyThe 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

  • 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

  • Mn/DOT ResearchJim McGraw, Director Mn/DOT Chemistry Lab

  • McGraw, July 2006

    Chart1

    21.633.36.9

    17.738.67.1

    1836.56.9

    18.737.87.1

    19.938.86.9

    17.536.86.9

    18.333.57.3

    17.736.17.2

    23.236.96.9

    23.135.36.9

    Manufacture Waste

    Demcon Tear-Off

    RAP

    Sample

    %AC

    Shingle Asphalt Content

    Summary

    TP88833P%ACMass LossPG HighPG LowAsh

    BC Sample #Material type%ACAvgS.D.Wt loss %AvgSDPG HighAvgS.D.PG LowAvgS.D.

    05BC286MW Shingles21.619.62.3-0.153-0.80.4135.4141.76.1-11.7-11.01.999.320

    05BC287MW Shingles17.7-0.146143.5-10.0

    05BC288MW Shingles18.0-0.576144.3-6.1

    05BC289MW Shingles18.7-1.204153.9-10.9

    05BC290MW Shingles19.9-0.718137.6-12.5

    05BC291MW Shingles17.5-0.685140.7-11.3

    05BC292MW Shingles18.3-0.908138.7-11.3

    05BC293MW Shingles17.7-1.428149.0-11.4

    05BC294MW Shingles23.2-1.300134.4-12.7

    05BC295MW Shingles23.1-0.745139.5-11.9

    05BC296Demcon tearoff33.336.41.9-1.740-1.30.4129.9126.04.5-1.3-0.65.299.002

    05BC297Demcon tearoff38.6124.80.0

    05BC298Demcon tearoff36.5-1.300121.23.7

    05BC299Demcon tearoff37.8-0.632121.8-0.9

    05BC300Demcon tearoff38.8-0.915124.1-6.0

    05BC301Demcon tearoff36.8-1.036132.9-2.8

    05BC302Demcon tearoff33.5-1.830126.72.0

    05BC303Demcon tearoff36.1-1.290123.1-6.9

    05BC304Demcon tearoff36.9122.6-4.8

    05BC305Demcon tearoff35.3-1.815133.110.6

    05BC306RAP6.97.00.2-0.650-0.70.177.576.10.9-25.3-25.80.795.969

    05BC307RAP7.1-0.65076.4-24.4

    05BC308RAP6.9-0.79074.7-25.8

    05BC309RAP7.1-0.71076.7-26.3

    05BC310RAP6.9-0.71075.7-27

    05BC311RAP6.9-0.88575.4-25.9

    05BC312RAP7.3-0.93075.2-26.2

    05BC313RAP7.2-0.73576.4-25.9

    05BC314RAP6.9-0.65375.7-26.2

    05BC315RAP6.9-0.74776.9-25.1

    06BC001A5% Tearoff 15% Rap6.26.20.0-0.54073.073.20.2-21.5-18.82.4

    06BC001B5% Tearoff 15% Rap6.273.4-18

    06BC001C5% Tearoff 15% Rap6.273.1-16.9

    06BC002A15% Rap 5% Manuf.6.26.20.170.670.90.4-26.2-26.20.2

    06BC002B15% Rap 5% Manuf.6.271.3-26.4

    06BC002C15% Rap 5% Manuf.6.170.9-26.0

    06BC003A20% RAP6.36.10.263.964.20.3-30.3-29.20.9

    06BC003B20% RAP6.064.5-28.9

    06BC003C20% RAP6.164.3-28.5

    Comments:1. Comparing to 20% RAP mixtures, MW/RAP mix 1/2 grade higher on low temperature properties. TO/RAP mix

    higher by a full grade.

    2. Comparing to 20% RAP mixtures, MW/RAP mix 1 full grade higher on high temperature properties. TO/RAP mix

    higher by a 1 1/2 grades.

    3. Demcon TO shingle has almost double %AC.

    4. Very good control on %AC and gradations.

    5. Experienced high than expected RTFO losses on all products. RAP source might have has some seal coat material

    in it.

    6. Ash test showed minimal paper or fiber in recovered AC

    7. MW shingles had high fiber content but lower paper in extracted samples.

    8. Low temperature PG data reported is m-value controlled and includes TTS.

    Recovery Data

    TP88833P

    BC Sample #Material type%ACWt loss %PG HighPG Low

    05BC286Shingles21.6-0.153135.4-11.70avg141.7

    05BC287Shingles17.7-0.146143.5-10.00sd6.1

    05BC288Shingles18.0-0.576144.3-6.10

    05BC289Shingles18.7-1.204153.9-10.90

    05BC290Shingles19.9-0.718137.6-12.50

    05BC291Shingles17.5-0.685140.7-11.30

    05BC292Shingles18.3-0.908138.7-11.30

    05BC293Shingles17.7-1.428149.0-11.40

    05BC294Shingles23.2-1.300134.4-12.70

    05BC295Shingles23.1-0.745139.5-11.90

    Average19.6-0.8141.7-11.0

    Std Dev2.30.46.11.9

    BC Sample #Material type%ACWt loss %PG HighPG Low

    05BC296Demcon tearoff33.3-1.740129.9-1.30avg126.0

    05BC297Demcon tearoff38.6124.80.00sd4.5

    05BC298Demcon tearoff36.5-1.300121.23.70

    05BC299Demcon tearoff37.8-0.632121.8-0.90

    05BC300Demcon tearoff38.8-0.915124.16.00

    05BC301Demcon tearoff36.8-1.036132.92.80

    05BC302Demcon tearoff33.5-1.830126.72.00

    05BC303Demcon tearoff36.1-1.290123.1-6.90

    05BC304Demcon tearoff36.9122.6-4.8

    05BC305Demcon tearoff35.3-1.815133.110.6

    Average36.4-1.3126.01.1

    Std Dev1.90.44.55.1

    BC Sample #Material type%ACWt loss %PG HighPG Low

    05BC306RAP6.9-0.65077.5-25.370.0

    05BC307RAP7.1-0.65076.4-24.420.8

    05

Recommended

View more >