Performance Evaluation of

Full Depth Reclaimed (FDR)

Pavements in Tennessee
Research Final Report from University of Tennessee at Chattanooga | Joseph Owino (PI),
Mbakisya Onyango (Co-PI) Weidong Wu (Co-PI), Ignatius Fomunung (Co-PI), Heather Brown (Co-
PI) and Odia Dumbiri (GA), Kelvin Msechu (GA) | March 31, 2022

Sponsored by Tennessee Department of Transportation Long Range Planning

Research Office & Federal Highway Administration
 DISCLAIMER
This research was funded through the State Planning and Research (SPR) Program by the
Tennessee Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration under RES
2020-11: Performance Evaluation of Full Depth Reclaimed (FDR) Pavements in Tennessee.
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Tennessee Department of
Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation in the interest of
information exchange. The State of Tennessee and the United States Government assume no
liability of its contents or use thereof.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author(s) who are solely responsible for the
facts and accuracy of the material presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Tennessee Department of Transportation or the United States Department of
Transportation.

i
 Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
RES2020-11
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
May 31, 2022
Performance Evaluation of Full Depth Reclaimed (FDR) Pavements In
Tennessee 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Joseph Owino (PI), Mbakisya Onyango (Co-PI), Joseph Owino (Co-PI),
Weidong Wu (Co-PI), Ignatius Fomunung (Co-PI), Heather Brown (Co-
PI) and Odia Dumbiri (GA), Kelvin Msechu (GA)
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Avenue, Dept 2502 11. Contract or Grant No.
Chattanooga, TN, 37403 RES2020-11
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Tennessee Department of Transportation Final Report
505 Deaderick Street, Suite 900 August 2019 - May 2022
Nashville, TN 37243 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Conducted in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

16. Abstract
This research was conducted by the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) and Middle Tennessee
State University (MTSU) in collaboration with Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) and this report
summarizes the research effort accomplished the objectives of TDOT Research solicitation RES2020-11
“Performance Evaluation of Full Depth Reclaimed (FDR) Pavements in Tennessee”. To achieve the objective,
several activities have been performed: recommend criteria to select appropriate FDR treatment process; develop
mix design procedures to determine to determine the stabilization agent content for FDR; study two FDR case
studies in Lauderdale County and Weakley County; and develop a selection criterion to identify suitable FDR
candidates.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Full depth reclamation, chemical No restriction. This document is available to the public
from the sponsoring agency at the website
stabilization, bituminous stabilization, http://www.tn.gov/.
Falling weight deflectometer, pavement
19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unclassified Unclassified 96

ii
 Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express a sincere appreciation to Tennessee Department of
Transportation (TDOT) and Federal Highway Administration for funding this research project.
Likewise, appreciation is due to TDOT engineers, technicians and staff from Pavement,
Materials and Long-Range Planning Research Office, who continually supported the project
and provided relevant information needed for the success of this project. Many thanks are due
to graduate and undergraduate students that worked on this project at different times. Finally,
yet importantly, thanks to UTC Office of Sponsored Projects and the Finance Office for working
with the research team and TDOT to make sure that the project conduct is on the timely
manner.

iii
Executive Summary
This research was conducted by the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) and Middle
Tennessee State University (MTSU) in collaboration with Tennessee Department of
Transportation (TDOT) and this report summarizes the research effort accomplished and the
objectives of TDOT Research solicitation RES2020-11 “Performance Evaluation of Full Depth
Reclaimed (FDR) Pavements in Tennessee”. To achieve the objectives, several activities have been
performed: (1) recommended criteria to select appropriate FDR treatment process; (2) developed
mix design procedures to determine the stabilization agent content for FDR; (3) evaluated two
FDR case studies in Lauderdale County and Weakley County; and (4) developed a selection
criterion to identify suitable FDR candidates.
Full-Depth Reclamation has emerged as a viable pavement rehabilitation technique that is
gaining widespread acceptance to restore old and distressed asphalt pavements. This increasing
interest is due to several factors: information on the long-term performance of stabilized FDR;
improved and reliable equipment; the pavement section returns to service almost immediately;
cost savings associated with the technique in comparison to other rehabilitation techniques; and
sustainability. In its most basic form, FDR consists of in-situ pulverization of deteriorated
pavement and underlying layers, uniform blending of pulverized material, grading, and
compaction to produce a homogeneous stabilized base course, usually with addition of materials
to improve the quality and capacity of the stabilized base. Some counties in Tennessee have had
some experiences with FDR in mostly low volume roads like Weakley County and Rutherford
County; other counties are just getting started with FDR while others have no experience at all
with FDR.
A comprehensive literature review was conducted to evaluate the current practices of FDR
techniques in other states that have used FDR as a technique to rehabilitate distressed
pavements. To this end, an online survey was conducted to gather information on best practices
of FDR from State DOT’s. The survey was conducted in two phases with questions focusing on
experiences with and implementation of FDR. Phase 1 of the survey contains responses from 41
states in the United States, and phase 2 of the survey focused on county engineers in the state
of Tennessee.
After compiling the results of the online survey, the study embarked on mix design procedures
(including laboratory procedures) for two pavement sections in Tennessee. The sites were State
Route (SR) 88 in Lauderdale County and SR 54 in Weakley County. For both pavement sections,
mix designs were conducted using Portland cement and asphalt emulsion as stabilizing agent.
For SR 88, the decision was made to use Portland cement as the stabilizing agent. SR 88 was bid
and rehabilitated in 2021. After construction of SR 88, post-construction assessment was
conducted using a falling weight deflectometer test to assess the condition of the new pavement
section. SR 54 was bid, but construction has not yet commenced as of now. In addition to
compiling mix design procedures, the research team was tasked with developing a robust
technique for identifying potential FDR candidates.

iv
Key Findings
The following were the key finding that were observed in this research.
• Portland cement and asphalt emulsion are the two most common stabilizing agents used
in FDR in the United States.
• Cement stabilization was less effective in improving the structural capacity of pavement
sections with a deep asphalt layer than sections with shallow asphalt layers.
• Cement stabilization was ineffective for materials with 100% RAP content.
• Asphalt emulsion worked well as a stabilizing agent for reclaimed materials of varying RAP
contents including 100% RAP content.
• As the RAP content in the reclaimed materials increased, the emulsion content needed
for effective stabilization decreased.

Key Recommendations
• Auger sampling can be used for material collection for purposes of mix design
preparation. This will result in faster material retrieval and the creation of holes that
would cost less to fill.
• A falling weight deflectometer (FWD) serves as an important tool for FDR pavement
candidate selection and should be effectively used in addition to core sampling and visual
inspection.
• Time should be allowed for possible shrinkage to occur due to curing after construction
when using Portland cement as a stabilizing agent before placing a wearing course on the
newly constructed pavement. This will reduce the possibility of cracks due to shrinkage
reflecting through the wearing course.
• Low cement dosage is recommended to minimize cracks.

v
 Table of Contents
DISCLAIMER ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….i
Technical Report Documentation Page................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgement..................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... iv
Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................ v
Key Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..ix
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. x
Glossary of Key Terms and Acronyms.................................................................................................... xi
Chapter 1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Problem Statement .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objective of the Research ............................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Scope of Work................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Organization of Report .................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter 2 Literature Review................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Stabilization Using Portland Cement............................................................................................. 3
2.2 Stabilization Using Bituminous Agents ......................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Emulsified Asphalt .................................................................................................................... 4
2.2.2 Foamed Asphalt ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Other Stabilization Agents .............................................................................................................. 4
2.3.1 Calcium Chloride Stabilization ................................................................................................ 4
2.3.2 Lime and Quicklime Stabilization ........................................................................................... 4
2.4 Critical Factors Affecting the Performance of FDR ...................................................................... 4
2.4.1 Climatic and Environmental Factors ...................................................................................... 4
2.4.2 Structural and Material Factors .............................................................................................. 6
2.5 Factors in FDR Project Selection..................................................................................................... 7
2.5.1 Pavement Distresses and Failure ........................................................................................... 7
2.5.2 Traffic Estimate ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.5.3 Pavement Survey and In-Situ Tests ........................................................................................ 9
2.5.4 Materials and Environmental Factors .................................................................................. 10
2.6 FDR Construction Methods........................................................................................................... 10
2.7 Current TDOT FDR Publication SP304DR .................................................................................... 10

vi
 2.8 Case Studies of Application of FDR.............................................................................................. 11
2.8.1 Cement-Stabilized FDR ........................................................................................................... 11
2.8.2 Asphalt-Stabilized FDR ........................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 3 State-of-the-Practice Survey ........................................................................................... 14
3.1 Survey of Design and Construction Best Practices of State DOT’s.......................................... 14
3.2 Survey Results................................................................................................................................. 14
3.2.1 Phase 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.2 Phase 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 21
Chapter 4 Field Investigation and Laboratory Testing .................................................................. 27
4.1 State Hwy SR 88 – Lauderdale County, Tennessee ................................................................... 27
4.1.1 Preconstruction Pavement Condition and Evaluation ...................................................... 27
4.1.2 Material Gradation and Testing ............................................................................................ 29
4.1.3 Mix Design for Portland Cement .......................................................................................... 30
4.1.4 Mix Design for Emulsified Asphalt........................................................................................ 32
4.1.5 Post Construction SR 88 – FWD Testing ............................................................................... 35
4.2 State Hwy SR 54 – Weakley County, Tennessee..................................................................... 37
4.2.1 Material Gradation and Testing ............................................................................................ 37
4.2.2 Mix Design for Portland Cement .......................................................................................... 38
4.2.3 Mix Design for Emulsified Asphalt........................................................................................ 39
4.2.3.1 Water Optimization ............................................................................................................. 40
4.2.3.2 Emulsion Optimization ....................................................................................................... 41
Chapter 5 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................... 44
5.1 Project Selection ............................................................................................................................. 44
5.2 Online Survey.................................................................................................................................. 44
5.3 Stabilizing Agents ........................................................................................................................... 46
5.3.1 Portland Cement ..................................................................................................................... 46
5.3.2 Emulsified Asphalt .................................................................................................................. 46
Chapter 6 Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................... 49
6.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 49
6.2 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 50
References …. ............................................................................................................................................ 51
Appendix A. Mix Design ........................................................................................................................... 55

vii
 A1: Portland Cement Mix Design (PCFDR) ........................................................................................ 56
A2: Emulsified Asphalt Mix Design (AEFDR) ...................................................................................... 57
Appendix B. Laboratory Results: Tables and Graphs .......................................................................... 59
Appendix C. Core Sample Analyses ....................................................................................................... 75

viii
 List of Tables
Table 2.1 Summary Table of Material Type Using Various Stabilizing Agents [15] ........................... 5
Table 2.2 FDR Suitability for Pavement Failure Types ........................................................................... 8
Table 2.3 Performance Test Criteria for Selecting Optimum Binder Content for CDOT [38] ........ 12
Table 2.4 Performance Test Criteria for Selecting Optimum Binder Content for IDOT [39] ......... 13
Table 3.1 FDR Treated Pavement and Current Conditions ................................................................ 25
Table 3.2 Responses on Common Pavement Failures ........................................................................ 26
Table 4.1 Pre-Construction Summary Statics ....................................................................................... 29
Table 4.2 Summary of Results for SR 88–Lauderdale County............................................................ 32
Table 4.3 Optimum Water Contents for all Batches ............................................................................ 33
Table 4.4 Water Content by Mass for Asphalt Optimization .............................................................. 33
Table 4.5 Bulk Density for all Batches ................................................................................................... 34
Table 4.6 Summary of Asphalt Emulsion Optimization ...................................................................... 35
Table 4.7 Summary of Optimum Asphalt Content .............................................................................. 35
Table 4.8 Post Construction Summary Statistics ................................................................................. 36
Table 4.9 Comparison of Pre-Construction and Post Construction SN ............................................ 36
Table 4.10 Optimum Asphalt Content ................................................................................................... 41
Table 4.11 Marshall Stability and Retained Stability Results.............................................................. 43
Table 5.1 Material Gradation Summary ................................................................................................ 47
Table 5.2 Binder Content and RAP Content ......................................................................................... 48
Table 5.3 Optimization Summaries ....................................................................................................... 48
Table B 1 Batch 1-3-5 Base Materials Particle Size Distribution ........................................................ 60
Table B 2 Batch 1-3-5 RAP Aggregate Materials Particle Size Distribution....................................... 60
Table B 3 Batch 7-9-11 Subgrade Materials Particle Size Distribution ............................................. 61
Table B 4 Batch 7-9-11 Base Materials Particle Size Distribution ...................................................... 61
Table B 5 Batch 7-9-11 RAP Materials Particle Size Distribution. ...................................................... 62
Table B 6 Binder content and RAP content. ......................................................................................... 62
Table B 7 Batch 1-3-5 mixed materials particle size distribution. ..................................................... 63
Table B 8 Batch 7-9-11 mixed materials particle size distribution. ................................................... 63
Table B 9 Batch 13-15 mixed materials particle size distribution ..................................................... 64
Table B 10 Water Optimization for Batch 1-3-5 ................................................................................... 64
Table B 11 Water Optimization for Batch 7-9-11 ................................................................................. 65
Table B 12 Water Optimization for Batch 13-15 .................................................................................. 66
Table B 13 Asphalt Emulsion Density for Batch 1-3-5 ......................................................................... 67
Table B 14 Asphalt Emulsion Density for Batch 7-9-11 ....................................................................... 68
Table B 15 Asphalt Emulsion Density for Batch 13-15 ........................................................................ 69
Table B 16 Marshall Stability Test for Batch 1-3-5 ............................................................................... 70
Table B 17 Marshall Stability Test for Batch 7-9-11 ............................................................................. 71
Table B 18 Marshall Stability Test for Batch 13-15 .............................................................................. 72
Table B 19 Particle Size Distribution for RAP Materials ...................................................................... 73
Table B 20 Particle Size Distribution for Material Residue from Asphalt Extraction ...................... 74
Table C 1 Pre-Construction FWD Data……………………………………………………………………………………… 76
Table C 2 Back-Calculated Pre-Construction Results …………………………………………………………………76
Table C 3 Back-Calculated Post Construction Results ………………………………………………………………..77

ix
 List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Survey Response Map ........................................................................................................... 14
Figure 3-2 Stabilizing Agents used for FDR ........................................................................................... 15
Figure 3-3 Geograhical Representation of State DOTs with Mix Design Guidelines ...................... 16
Figure 3-4 Pavements Treated with FDR ............................................................................................... 17
Figure 3-5 Techniques for Candidate Selection ................................................................................... 18
Figure 3-6 Common Problems Encountered During Construction ................................................... 19
Figure 3-7 Common Problems Encountered During Construction ................................................... 21
Figure 3-8 FDR Response Map within the State of Tennessee .......................................................... 22
Figure 3-9 Pavement Types Treated with FDR ..................................................................................... 24
Figure 3-10 Techniques for Pavement Selection ................................................................................. 24
Figure 4-1 SR-88 Pavement Material Collection ................................................................................... 28
Figure 4-2 Sample testing at MTSU Laboratory ................................................................................... 31
Figure 4-3 Typical Dry Density vs Moisture % ...................................................................................... 31
Figure 4-4 FWD Testing on SR-88 after FDR and Double Chip Seal Treatment ............................... 36
Figure 4-5 Pre-Construction and Post Construction Chart................................................................. 37
Figure 4-6 Particle Gradation for RAP Materials .................................................................................. 38
Figure 4-7 Particle Gradation for Material Residue from Asphalt Extraction .................................. 38
Figure 4-8 General Steps for Determining Portland Cement Mix Design for FDR layer [15] ........ 39
Figure 4-9 General Steps for Determining Emulsified Asphalt Mix Design for FDR layer .............. 40
Figure 4-10 Bulk Density Vs. Moisture Content ................................................................................... 41
Figure 4-11 Stability Curve ...................................................................................................................... 42
Figure B 1 Water Optimization for Batch 1-3-5 ................................................................................... 65
Figure B 2 Water Optimization for Batch 7-9-11 .................................................................................. 66
Figure B 3 Water Optimization for Batch 13-15 ................................................................................... 67
Figure B 4 Bulk Density for Batch 1-3-5................................................................................................. 68
Figure B 5 Bulk Density for Batch 7-9-11 .............................................................................................. 69
Figure B 6 Bulk Density for Batch 13-15................................................................................................ 70
Figure B 7 Stability Flow for Batch 1-3-5 ............................................................................................... 71
Figure B 8 Stability Flow for Batch 7-9-11 ............................................................................................. 72
Figure B 9 Stability Flow for Batch 13-15 ............................................................................................. 73
Figure C 1 Core#3 (4”) was drilled at 1.1 mile and corresponds to Sample # 2………………………….79
Figure C 2 Core#4 (4 ½”) ..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………79
Figure C 3 Core#5 (10 ½”) was drilled at 2.1 mile and corresponds to Sample # 3 ..…………………80
Figure C 4 Core#6 (5 ½”) ..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………80
Figure C 5 Core#7 (6”) was drilled at 3.1 mile and corresponds to sample # 4 ..……………………….81
Figure C 6 Core#8 (6 ¼”) Hole depth 9”-lost 2 ¾” ..…………………………………………………………………….81
Figure C 7 Core #9 (8 3/4”) was drilled at 4.0 mile and corresponds to sample # 5 ..………………..82
Figure C 8 Core#10 (11 ¼”) ..……………………………………………………………………………………………………..82
Figure C 9 Core #11 (8 ¼”) was drilled at 5.1 mile and corresponds to sample # 6 ..…………………83
Figure C 10 Core #13 (7”) ..………………………………………………………………………………………………………..83
Figure C 11 Core #15 (6 ½”) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………84

x
 Glossary of Key Terms and Acronyms
FDR Full Depth Reclamation
FWD Falling Weight Deflectometer
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AEFDR Asphalt Emulsion Full Depth Reclamation
PCFDR Portland Cement Full Depth Reclamation
AC Asphalt Concrete
ARRA Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association
AADTT Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic
AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic
HMA Hot Mixed Asphalt
IRI International Roughness Index
PCA Portland Cement Association
MEPDG Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide
TDOT Tennessee Department of Transportation
RAP Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement
UCS Unconfined Compressive Strength
SGA Superpave Gyratory Compactor
OMC Optimum Moisture Content
SFDR Stabilized Full Depth Reclamation
NDT Non-Destructive Test
HIR Hot in-place Recycling
CIR Cold in-place Recycling
CKD Cement Kiln Dust

xi
Chapter 1 Introduction
Full-Depth Reclamation (FDR) is a rehabilitation technique that consists of pulverizing an existing
asphalt pavement and its unbound underlying base, subbase and/or subgrade of a failed asphalt
pavement. After pulverization, a stabilizing agent (aggregates, asphalt, lime, or Portland cement)
is usually added to enhance the structural properties of the materials and the harmful effect of
moisture is mitigated. The stabilized material is then compacted, and a new rigid or flexible
wearing surface course is finally applied to complete the FDR process [1]. The depth of
pulverization can range from 4 to 12in. [2] depending on the thickness of the bound layers.
Selection of stabilizing agents is driven by several factors: price, availability, effectiveness, and
policy (certain agents are more effective in certain applications). In general, bituminous stabilizing
agents are recommended when pulverizing materials that consist of large particles (from sand
to gravel) while cementitious stabilizing agents are recommended for the entire AASHTO
Classification System [3]. The use of lime is recommended when the pulverizing materials consist
of silt and clay and where the plasticity index is greater than 10 [4]. Several researchers have
noticed that after application of some stabilizing agents, reflective cracks developed [5] [6].
Many State DOT’s have employed in-place recycling techniques to varying degrees, with reports
of tremendous improvements in the structural capacity immediately after construction [7] [8] [9].
Many studies have investigated and developed engineering standards on material
characterization and laboratory mix designs and options for selecting appropriate stabilizing
agents [10] [11] [12].

1.1 Problem Statement

A detailed research study was conducted to develop guidelines, standards, and specifications for
TDOT for the purpose of using Full-Depth Reclamation (FDR) as a viable pavement rehabilitation
technique. A wide variety of maintenance and rehabilitation techniques are available and have
been used to rehabilitate worn out and distressed pavements. FDR is one of the major
rehabilitation techniques available to restore pavements that have deteriorated and distressed
to the levels requiring major work.
In its simplest form, FDR consists of in-situ pulverization of existing pavement and underlying
layers, uniform blending of pulverized material, grading, and compaction. FDR recycles 100% of
the distressed asphalt pavement to form a strong base course with addition of certain materials
to improve the quality and capacity of the stabilized base. Three common types of stabilization
methods are: (a) mechanical stabilization (addition of aggregates), (b) chemical stabilization (e.g.,
addition of cement) and (c) bituminous stabilization (e.g., addition of asphalt binder). The type of
FDR construction is selected based on the existing pavement condition, locally available
materials, and traffic demand. For this research, two specific stabilizing agents, have been
studied: Portland cement and emulsified asphalt.
FDR has become an increasingly common technology in recent years to restore the service life of
pavement structures requiring deep rehabilitation and to stretch available funding for pavement
rehabilitation. Several factors contribute to this interest including improved equipment,
stabilization technology, sustainability, and costs relative to more conventional rehabilitation

1
strategies. Despite the increasing use of FDR, questions still linger regarding the behavior of the
stabilized materials and their long-term performance under traffic loads.
Many State DOTs have successfully used FDR to mitigate distressed pavements and restored
structural integrity. TDOT has conducted a limited number of FDR demonstration projects with
varying results, but need to organize and consolidate information about FDR, with the objective
of producing an implementable set of guidelines, criteria, and specifications on the FDR related
projects.

1.2 Objective of the Research

The objectives of this research project were to:
1. Review and suggest criteria for selecting the appropriate treatment process (mechanical,
chemical, or bituminous) of FDR for a given pavement condition.
2. Study the state of FDR in the United States and in the State of Tennessee with the aid of
questionnaires.
3. Develop an FDR mix design procedure to determine the stabilization agent content for FDR
pavements.
4. Recommend selection criteria for identifying suitable FDR candidate pavements.

1.3 Scope of Work

The scope of this project included:
1. An extensive research review to establish current DOT practices in Full-Depth Reclamation.
2. Developing and deploying a survey to state DOT to establish the current state of practice in
FDR.
3. Summarizing the results of the questionnaire.
4. Selecting appropriate additive stabilizing agents (mechanical, chemical, or bituminous) to be
further investigated for adoption in TDOT for different types of roadways.
5. Recommending changes, if any, on TDOT construction guidelines and specifications for FDR
pavements for the state of Tennessee.
6. Providing and submitting to TDOT a finalized technical report on pavement design guide, FDR
mix design and selection criteria for candidate pavement for FDR.

1.4 Organization of Report

Chapter 2 discusses relevant literature review of mix design procedures and construction
techniques of FDR projects used by various state DOT’s. This chapter also includes the state of
the matter of FDR in the state of Tennessee. Chapter 3 summarizes the results of the survey of
State DOTs regarding mix design, construction techniques and problems encountered during
and after rehabilitation of the pavement using FDR. Chapter 4 discusses the development of the
best practices using two FDR pilot projects in the state of Tennessee. Chapter 5 presents the
summary of findings and discussions. Chapter 6 presents conclusions, remarks, and
recommendations. Chapter 6 is followed by references and relevant appendices cited
throughout the report.

2
Chapter 2 Literature Review
The strength gained by a newly rehabilitated FDR pavement base depends on different factors
including the reclaimed material proportions, the type and nature of the base and subgrade
materials, the mix gradation, the environmental condition, and the type of stabilization agent
used for the rehabilitation. It is noteworthy that FDR base can be mechanically stabilized without
the use of any recycling agents. The resulting base from a mechanically stabilized FDR pavement
can be equated to an unbound pavement base, and the process does not necessarily require a
mix design as it uses the Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) materials and sometimes includes
the addition of virgin aggregates to improve material gradation [13]. The compacted mix of
crushed RAP with higher load bearing capacity and existing base materials gives a new unbound
homogeneous base material capable of resisting more wheel load compared to the existing base
layer. Using a chemical or bituminous stabilizing agent improves on this property of the
rehabilitated road.
The selection of recycling method is based on many factors including the present condition of
the pavement. This also applies to the selection of stabilizing agents for FDR. While rehabilitating
deteriorated roads based on present condition yields good improvements on the efficiency and
structural capacity of the pavement, future projections of the road condition would be beneficial
in the decision-making process for long-term functionality. Maximum utilization of resources for
FDR can be achieved by following selection guides or/and laboratory testing protocols to
determine suitability of the stabilizing agent on the present condition of the road and the future
projection of the road usage [14].
Getting the most benefit from an FDR mix depends a lot on the choice of stabilizing agent used
for the project. The stabilization agent affects more than just the structural capacity of the
rehabilitated pavement, it affects the mechanical properties, the life expectancy of the pavement
and importantly, the cost of rehabilitation.

2.1 Stabilization Using Portland Cement

Advantages of FDR bases stabilized with Portland cement (PCFDR) include its long-term durability
and the versatility PCFDR offers on varying load applications and environmental conditions. Lewis
et al. demonstrated a cost saving of 42% on a GDOT project using cement stabilization [14].The
Portland Cement Association (PCA) estimates agencies that use the FDR process save 30% to 60%
in costs over alternative reconstruction methods [15].
Stabilization with Portland cement is usually best suited for all volumes traffic showing severe
distress has been caused by heavy traffic and or subgrades with insufficient strength. In addition,
severely deteriorated pavements that would require total reconstruction are good candidates for
PCFDR. Placement of FDR with cement can be performed in a shorter timeframe saving on labor
and road closure costs.
Cement can be placed in dry powder form or in a cement and water slurry. This research study
just tested dry powder form however, the placement of slurry can be applied the same as dry
powder or injected under the hood of the reclaimer. Slurry can be applied with a concrete ready
mixed truck and is not affected by wind during placement. Attention to water content would be
similar for both dry powder and slurry to ensure proper compaction and density.

3
2.2 Stabilization Using Bituminous Agents
2.2.1 Emulsified Asphalt
FDR bases stabilized with asphalt emulsions (AEFDR) demonstrate improved strength and
reduced susceptibility to water permeating the void content, more like those of aggregate bases
than asphalt concrete [16]. Much like cement-stabilized FDR base, stabilization with emulsified
asphalt aims to optimize the moisture content and the asphalt content of the mix. Design
guidelines provided by the Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association (ARRA) covers practices
adopted for the preparation of emulsified asphalt mix design for FDR [17].

2.2.2 Foamed Asphalt

Foamed asphalt is a thin-film asphalt binder with a high coating capability, which is made by
combining cold water with hot asphalt binder. The result of the combination vaporizes the water,
and the steam produced is trapped in the asphalt binder creating bubbles of asphalt [18].
Preparing an FDR mix design with foamed asphalt follows eight major steps outlined in a
publication for the California Department of Transportation by the University of California [19].

2.3 Other Stabilization Agents

2.3.1 Calcium Chloride Stabilization
The use of calcium chloride as a stabilizer for FDR provides the benefit of a stabilized base that
retains maximum density and optimum moisture content for a longer time. Calcium chloride is
a hygroscopic deliquescence material with low vapor pressure and high surface tension. Calcium
chloride does more than just control moisture in a mix, it also is effective in reducing frost heaving
in the mix by depressing the freezing point of capillary water [20].

2.3.2 Lime and Quicklime Stabilization

The benefits of using lime as a stabilization agent as given by the National Lime Association
include long-lasting gains in strength, improved resilient modulus, shear strength and stability,
reduced plasticity, and moisture holding capacity [22]. Range on lime content used for different
construction projects has been dependent on the local conditions, design target and experience.
The ARRA recommended that when used as a slurry, lime slurry should contain at least 30% of
dry solid content and should conform to the standards established in AASHTO M 216 or ASTM
C997 [23].

2.4 Critical Factors Affecting the Performance of FDR

2.4.1 Climatic and Environmental Factors
The impacts of environmental factors on FDR are always present during an FDR project from the
time of construction, through the life of the project. During construction, factors like sunshine,
wind, rainfall, seasonal water table can alter important parameters in the mix design especially
moisture content and mixability. Dry stabilizing media like cement and lime are particularly
susceptible to wind impact during construction as the wind can blow the particles away from the
target areas during spreading [24].

4
 Table 2.1 Summary Table of Material Type Using Various Stabilizing Agents [15]
Material type USCS2 AASHTO3 Emulsified Foamed Cement, CKD, Lime/LKD
including RAP asphalt asphalt or self- PI > 20
SE>30 or PI < 10 cementing and P200 >
PI<6 and and P200 class C fly ash 25% SO4
P200 <20% 5 to 20% PI < 20 SO4 < <3000
3000 ppm ppm
Well graded gravel GW A-1-a Y Y Y
Poorly graded GP A-1-a Y Y
gravel
Silty gravel GM A-1-b Y Y Y
Clayey gravel GC A-1-b Y Y Y
A-12-6
Well graded sand SW A-1-b Y Y Y
Poorly graded SP A-3 or A- Y Y
sand 1-b
Silty sand SM A-2-4 or Y Y Y
A-2-5
Clayey sand SC A-2-6 or Y Y
A-2-7
Silt, silt with sand ML A-4 or A- Y
5
Lean clay CL A-6 Y Y
Organic OL A-4
clay/organic lean
clay
Elastic silt MH A-5 or A- Y
7-5
Fat clay, fat clay CH A-7-6 Y
with sand

Table 2.1 summarizes the relationship between suggested stabilizing agents and existing
material classification. Pavement damage, both in flexible pavement and in rigid pavement, can
occur from expansion and contraction of pavement and slab curling (for rigid pavement). Asphalt
concrete is very susceptible to heat, and as such, its stiffness increases in cold temperature but
reduces as temperature rises, increasing the tendency of rutting. As the temperature increases,
so does the viscoelasticity of the asphalt emulsion FDR. At higher temperatures, this could pose
a problem in the pavement base especially when the reclaimed material has a high RAP content.
Portland cement concrete also has its susceptibility to temperature variations, and this can also
be an issue for Portland cement-stabilized FDR. The contractions and expansions from the
cement-stabilized base can generate transverse cracking, slab curling in cases of varying rate of
expansion, and contraction between top and bottom layers of the rehabilitated base. Unlike
many PCC slabs that are built with expansion joints, cement-stabilized FDR is constructed
monolithically, and even though the materials are reclaimed and composite with a lower cement

5
content than PPC slabs, micro expansions from sections of the slab can still cause significant
damage in the road [24].
The impact of the freeze-thaw cycle affects both Portland cement and asphalt stabilized bases
adversely. Temperatures reduced to freezing point can induce thermal cracking in the pavement
although lower temperatures increase the stiffness of an asphalt-stabilized base. The thaw
season subjects the layer to settling as the pavement comes under load while the entrapped
frozen moisture melts away. The repeated expansion in the freeze season and
contraction/settling in the thaw season induces fatigue cracking and rutting, reducing the overall
functionality of the pavement [25].

2.4.2 Structural and Material Factors

The strength gained by the newly rehabilitated FDR pavement base depends on different factors
including the reclaimed material proportions, the type and nature of the base and subgrade
materials, the mix gradation, the environmental condition, and the type of stabilization agent
used for the rehabilitation. In its most basic form, an FDR base can be mechanically stabilized
(without the use of any recycling agents). The resulting base from a mechanically stabilized FDR
pavement can be likened to an unbound pavement base, and the process does not necessarily
require a mix design as it uses the RAP materials, and sometimes includes the addition of virgin
aggregates, to improve material gradation [26]. The compacted mix of crushed RAP with higher
load bearing capacity and existing base materials gives a new unbound homogeneous base
material capable of resisting more wheel load compared to the existing base layer. Using
chemical or bituminous stabilizing agents improves on this property of the rehabilitated road.
Portland cement creates better bonding between the aggregate particles in the rehabilitated
base, increasing the rigidity of the base and its resistance to deformation from traffic load. FDR
base stabilized with Portland cement exhibits reduced deflection from wheel load due to the
rigidity created from the cement component. As it is a property of cement, using too much
Portland cement content in the FDR tends to make the FDR base brittle and increases the
possibility of cracking. Bituminous stabilization gives FDR a flexible base that binds the reclaimed
materials tightly and deflects with the wheel load. The effectiveness of bituminous stabilized base
and Portland cement stabilized base varies with the pavement characteristics and material
compositions. Fly ash, lime and calcium chloride all improve the FDR base by improving the
density, improving the water resistivity of the base.
Also, the avoidance of deleterious materials, especially one containing high clay content in FDR,
is essential for the adequate performance. The ARRA and the PCA have published
recommendations for material gradation for FDR. The recommendations conclude that materials
to be reclaimed for FDR should have a minimum of 20% passing the #200 sieve [26] [27]. This is
drawn from the fact that high proportions of fine particles in the reclaimed materials increases
the total area needed for bonding between the particles which increases the quantity of
stabilizing agents and the overall cost of rehabilitation. Aside the increase in rehabilitation cost,
the presence of excessive fine particles has impacts on the overall structural dependability [28],
increasing the probability of the particles moving under heavy traffic load leading to the
development of pavement rutting.

6
2.5 Factors in FDR Project Selection
Different State DOTs have different considerations when selecting suitable candidates for FDR,
as some pavement distresses can be effectively rehabilitated with other techniques. Identifying
the type(s) of distresses and failures associated with the pavement is a first step in selecting
pavement candidates for FDR. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) [29]
detailed steps adopted in FDR pavement candidate selection and developed a selection guide
(Table 2.2) to aid in determination of the suitability of FDR as rehabilitation technique. As will be
discussed in Chapter 3 of this report, different strategies reported by respondents to the survey
are utilized for the selection of FDR pavement candidates. These include visual inspection, taking
core samples and using machines like the falling weight deflectometer, dynamic cone
penetrometer and others for pavement structural and sub-terranean properties. The survey
revealed that most popular techniques for most DOT’s are taking core samples and visual
inspection.

2.5.1 Pavement Distresses and Failure

Visual inspection reveals all pavement distresses visible such as cracking, surface deformation,
disintegration, and/or defects. The type of distress observed on the surface and the degree of
deterioration gives an idea of where the source of the defect could be located (surface, base,
subgrade) [30]. Distresses like potholes, raveling, asphalt bleeding and polishing, which have their
sources on the surface, could be rehabilitated with resurfacing and asphalt overlay provided the
pavement base layer is unaffected. Cold In-place Recycling (CIR) could be an effective used as a
rehabilitation solution for pavement surface defects and surface distresses like alligator cracking
and thermal cracking [31]. However, different forms of surface cracking may only be responses
of more severe structural failures, and these subterranean causes of distresses are best
investigated using equipment, that can analyze the pavement structure below the surface, such
as coring, the Falling Weight Deflectometer, the Ground Penetrating Radar, and dynamic cone
penetrometer. Coring, one of the most used techniques, provides subterranean information of
the structural state of the pavement. Analysis of core samples reveal physical information on the
structural composition of the pavement like layer thickness, state of deterioration, and base
composition. While CIR provide a good remedial action for some of these surface pavement
distresses and failures, it does not provide complete rehabilitation for base distresses and
failures which could be responsible for surface cracks like reflective cracking, blocking, fatigue
cracking, and other forms of surface deformations like rutting.
Analyses of survey responses (Chapter 3) from DOTs with experience with full depth reclamation
(FDR) across the United States shows that FDR provides a good rehabilitation solution to
pavement failures that goes beyond the surface, down to the base. Before deciding on the use
of FDR for rehabilitation, some DOTs investigate the type(s) of pavement distresses observed,
and match them with documented rehabilitation guides, as some level of distresses and failures
could be effectively and economically rehabilitated with other techniques. Documents received
from the survey respondents show that possible pavement failure for which FDR may be
considered as a suitable rehabilitation technique varies amongst States, but mostly includes: (1)
Deep rutting, (2) Load associated failures (alligator, wheel path, pavement edge), (3) non-load
associated failures (reflection, thermal, block), (4) Maintenance patching, and (5) Weak base or
subgrade support, and Poor ride quality.

7
 Table 2.2 FDR Suitability for Pavement Failure Types
Pavement Distress FDR would be Applicable

Category: Surface Defects

Raveling N
Flushing N
Slipperiness N
Category: Deformation
Corrugation
Ruts-shallow
Rutting Deep Y2,3
Category: Cracking (Load Associated)
Alligator
Longitudinal Y
Wheel Path Y
Pavement Edge
Slippage
Category: Cracking (Non-Load Associated)
Block (Shrinkage) Y
Longitudinal (Joint) Y
Transverse (Thermal) Y
Reflection
Category: Maintenance Patching
Spray Y4
Skin Y4
Pothole Y
Deep Asphalt
Category: Base and Subgrade
Weak Base or subgrade Y
Category: Ride Quality/Roughness
General Unevenness
Depressions (Settlement) Y5
High Spots (Heaving) Y6
NOTE:
2: The addition of new aggregate may be required for unstable mixes.
3: The chemical stabilization of the subgrade may be required if the soil is soft or
wet.
4: In some instances, spray and skin patches may be removed by cold planning
prior to these treatments (considered if very asphalt rich, bleeding).
5: Used if depressions are due to a poor subgrade condition.
6: Used if high spots are caused by frost heave or swelling of an expansive subgrade
soil.

8
2.5.2 Traffic Estimate
The traffic volume (current and future estimates) and traffic load serviced by the road needs to
be considered in candidate selection. Trucks and large vehicles with large axle wheel loads exert
more stress on the pavement than lighter vehicles, just as roads with increasing traffic volumes,
higher than what the road was designed for will deteriorate faster. Rehabilitating such
deteriorating roads especially those whose base structure is designed for fewer and lighter traffic
loads with techniques that targets surface repairs will be costlier in the long run, as more
frequent rehabilitations will be required to keep the road in functional condition to service
travelers. Pavement failure due to weak base resulting from increased traffic load will need a
redesign and reconstruction of the pavement structure instead of surface rehabilitation, and
since FDR is a technique that improves pavement base quality, it would be a more ideal
rehabilitation technique for such a road. Also, the short opening time for roads rehabilitated with
FDR is also beneficial for roads with high traffic.
Lightweight vehicles do not create as much stress as heavy vehicles do, that means the damage
to the lower structural layer of the pavement will be more for pavements with more truck
proportions, so a good selection consideration for FDR (as it relates with traffic) should consider
the axle load. This includes the number of single axle wheel loads, the axle spacing and the
number of tires. This provides an estimate of the stresses transferred from the pavement surface
through the base to the subgrade, and their possible contribution to the pavement deterioration.
The candidate selection consideration should also include the number of repetitions. High traffic
volume relates to high repetitions and will result in faster deterioration than roads with lower
traffic volumes. Another traffic consideration is the traffic speed. Slow moving vehicles exert
more pressure and stress on the pavement than fast moving vehicles.

2.5.3 Pavement Survey and In-Situ Tests

Surveying the pavement helps identify specific pavement characteristics of the road as a whole
section or in parts. The information obtained from the survey helps in estimating properties like
the layer resilience modulus (MR), the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), and the pavement
Structural Number (SN). Different Departments of Transportation have different preferences in
the tools and equipment for determining the layer resilience modulus of the pavement structure.
Typical equipment used include the falling weight deflectometer (FWD), dynamic cone
penetrometer, and ground penetrating radar [32]. From the survey conducted, the falling weight
deflectometer was discovered to be the most used of these types of non-destructive testing
methods. The data returned by the falling weight deflectometer are back-calculated to determine
the resilience modulus for each of the layers. Several back-calculation tools exist for this purpose,
and a few include MODULUS 7.0, EVERCALC, MICHBACK and MODTAG [33]. The data could also
be back-calculated manually as was done and is presented in Chapter 3. However, the iterative
process could be very tasking especially with a large amount of data.
Based on the type of pavement, the type of distress and failure, the severity of the distress and
failure, the PCI is derived as a measure of the pavement performance. The Federal Highway
Administration’s Distress Identification Manual [34] provides guidance in identifying and
measuring pavement distresses and their severity. In general, the overall pavement condition
index (OPCI) is made up of different indices which are used to evaluate the pavement condition.
Pavement condition distress index (PCIDistress) takes account of all observed distresses on the

9
pavement and assigns a threshold value of 60 which indicates the trigger point for pavement
repairs; pavement condition roughness index (PCIRoughness) measures the ride quality of the
pavement and compares it to the international roughness index; pavement condition structural
index (PCIStructural) compares the structural number of the pavement at the time of assessment to
the original pavement structural number at the time of its creation; pavement condition skid
index (PCISkid) is a measure of slipperiness of the pavement surface.
Yang H. Huang defines Structural number as a function of layer thicknesses, layer coefficients
and drainage coefficients [35]. The layer coefficient can be estimated from charts or calculated
from equations. However, layer coefficient for existing pavement is mostly lower than that of
newly designed pavement, and care should be observed when estimating layer coefficient for
resilience modulus greater than 450,000 psi due to susceptibility to thermal and fatigue cracking.
The drainage coefficients applied to the base and subbase to modify the layer coefficient can be
estimated following standard guides that can be found in AASHTO’s Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures [36]. The thicknesses of the pavement layers can be gotten from core
samples or pavement records.

2.5.4 Materials and Environmental Factors

FDR involves reclaiming the pavement materials on the surface, base, and subgrade(optional).
The proportions of materials are key factors in preparing the mix design. In some scenarios, extra
materials may be needed for the mix, or to correct some material deficiencies, and other times,
excess materials on the surface will be milled off. The depths of the pavement layers, therefore,
are important factors in selecting suitable candidates. Also, the material composition, particularly
the subgrade material composition, is one that affects the design and the cost. From the survey,
some respondents reported using supplementary materials like lime to enhance the material
properties of the subgrade. Roads with drainage problems will need pre-construction exercises
done to improve the drainage condition of the section, and areas with weak subgrade might need
complete subgrade removal and replacement with foreign materials before rehabilitation can be
done [26].

2.6 FDR Construction Methods

Many of the reclaimers used for FDR are equipped with cutting bits capable of pulverizing
pavement materials more than 12 in. deep into the road pavement. They cut and mix all
pavement materials within that cutting depth while simultaneously mixing water and the
recycling agent into the mix in a single pass. For cement stabilization and other dry recycling
agents like lime, a spreader is used to distribute the recycling agent uniformly over the surface
of the pavement to be recycled before the reclaimer makes it’s pass, mixing all the materials
together. For bituminous stabilization, a truck carrying the liquid stabilizing agent rides in front
of the reclaimer, feeding it with controlled supply of recycling agent as it cuts and mixes the
pavement materials. The recycled materials are then spread and shaped with a motor grader
before compaction to design depth or density.

2.7 Current TDOT FDR Publication SP304DR

TDOT currently only has a publication titled “Special Provision for Full Depth Reclamation (FDR)
of Flexible Pavement” [37]. The document covers specification on: (1) Materials, (2) Equipment,

10
(3) Mix Design Submittal Quality Control, (4) Construction Requirements, (5) Acceptance and
Verification Testing, and (6) Maintenance.
The potential suggested recommendations to the TDOT’s publication SP304FDR are presented in
Section 6.2 Recommendations.

2.8 Case Studies of Application of FDR

2.8.1 Cement-Stabilized FDR
Texas DOT (TxDOT) selects the optimum stabilizer content for FDR candidates in accordance with
in-house TxDOT guidelines. The TxDOT laboratory test protocols guidelines include gradation,
Atterberg limits, optimum moisture content (OMC), unconfined compressive strength (UCS),
evaluation of moisture susceptibility and seismic properties. For indirect tensile tests (IDT),
TxDOT guidelines, tests samples under wet and dry conditions using the Texas Gyratory
Compactor using the traditional TxDOT 6-in. by 8-in. samples. For moisture susceptibility test,
TxDOT uses a Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) developed accelerated test procedure called a
“dunk test”. This is a procedure that submerges the test specimens for four hours at room
temperature and then conducts the UCS and IDT tests. Unconfined compression strength (UCS)
tests are conducted and values of UCS greater than 175 psi are deemed acceptable. Test results
indicate a strong relationship between UCS and IDT. TxDOT currently does not have a criterion
for the four-hour dunk test, however a retained strength of 80% of dry strength is acceptable [7].
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) adopted the standard proctor test (AASHTO
99) in their mix design method. The method requires the determination of the maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content before addition of any stabilizing agent. Unconfined
compressive strength samples are molded at the optimum moisture content and at varying
cement contents. Using 4-in. molds and a standard proctor hammer, samples are compacted
into test specimens in three layers with 25 blows per layer. In the 2006 [8] study by GDOT, the
compacted samples were sealed in plastic bags and cured for 7 days. Unconfined compression
strength (UCS) tests were conducted and values of UCS greater than 450 psi were deemed
acceptable.
PennDOT adopted the ASTM D1633 Method for their UCS sample test preparation. As in the
GDOT adoption, samples are cured for 7 days after mixing and compaction. However, unlike with
the GDOT, job acceptance is based on pavement thickness. For pavements that are to be overlaid
by an overlay greater than 3 in., the method requires that the design mix’s average UCS must be
between 200 and 500 psi. For overlays less than 3 in., a mix design is acceptable if an average
UCS between 300 and 500 psi is achieved [9].
The New York DOT (NYSDOT) cement-stabilized FDR design method is very similar to the
Pennsylvania method. The only difference is the job formula acceptance criteria. The NYSDOT
requires the average UCS to be greater than 350 psi and less than 800 psi [10].

2.8.2 Asphalt-Stabilized FDR

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) adopted the proctor and the modified
proctor test (AASHTO T 180 Method D) to select the optimum emulsion content for FDR projects.
For the purpose of selecting optimum emulsion content, CDOT required that samples to be
prepared that meet certain gradation requirements with specified moisture content. CDOT

11
evaluated five criteria: (1) Short-term strength test - modified cohesiometer, (2) Indirect Tensile
Stress (ITS), (3) Conditioned ITS, (4) resilient modulus and (5) thermal cracking. Table 2.3 depicts
the optimum binder content job acceptance criteria for CDOT [11].

Table 2.3 Performance Test Criteria for Selecting Optimum Binder Content for CDOT [38]
Test Method Sample Criteria
Curing For mixtures For mixtures
Condition containing <8% containing >8%
passing #200 passing #200
sieve sieve
Short-term strength test, 1 hour –
60 minutes
modified cohesiometer, AASHTO
at 25oC
T246 (Part 13), g/5mm of wITSh >175 >150
Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS), ASTM
D4867, Part 8.11.1, 25oC, psi >40 >35
Conditioned ITS, ASTM D4867, psi 72 hours at >25 >20
Resilient modulus, ASTM D4123, 40oC
25oC, 1000psi >150 >120
Thermal cracking (ITS), AASHTO T322 <-20oC <-20oC

The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) uses the Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC)
mix design method. Samples are prepared at OMC in accordance with the modified proctor test
(ASTM D1557 Method C). Test specimens are compacted with a SGC machine using 30 gyrations
with 600 kPa compaction pressure and tested for short-term strength (STS) (ASTM D1560) and
ITS (ASTM D4867). Unlike CDOT, IDOT only used three criteria for job acceptance: (1) short-term
strength test (2) ITS, and (3) Conditioned ITS. Table 2.4 depicts the optimum binder content job
acceptance criteria for IDOT [12].
PennDOT used two different asphalt stabilizing agents for design of FDR materials – asphalt
emulsion and foamed asphalt. As such, PennDOT developed two different guidelines for asphalt
emulsion and foamed asphalt but used SGC (600 kPa and 30 gyrations) test samples for both
stabilizing agents. Test specimens are cured at 40°C for 30 minutes after mixing and at room
temperature for 48 hours after compaction. For test samples using foamed asphalt standard
(AASHTO) or modified (AASHTO 180) determination of the OMC is carried out. The test samples
are then prepared at 85% of the OMC, cured at 40°C for 30 minutes after mixing and compacted
into 4-inch or 6-inch molds. In the absence of a reasonable calculation of OMC, values of between
2% and 3% is recommended for samples of FDR using asphalt emulsion. ITS values greater than
50 psi and ITS ratios of 0.7 is considered a job acceptance and the asphalt (emulsion or foamed)
content of the sample that has the highest ITS value is selected as the design asphalt content [5].
South Carolina DOT (SCDOT) prepares their test samples based on the classification of the
recycled materials and OMC. SCDOT uses the AASHTO T 180 standards to determine the
optimum moisture content of the samples. For aggregates with a sand equivalent greater than
30, SGC samples are prepared at 45% to 65% of OMC and 60% to 75% of OMC for aggregates
with sand equivalences less than 30. If no peak dry density value can be determined, SCDOT
recommends using a moisture content of 3% for preparation of the SGC samples. SGC is used to

12
compact test samples at 600 kPa and 30 gyrations at room temperature. Four different tests were
performed on the compacted test specimens: ITS (under dry and moisture conditioned cases),
Gyratory Quotient, stability, and flow characteristics. For the stability test, the test is performed
in accordance with AASHTO T 245 for both initial cure (cure in forced draft oven for 48 hours at
140oF then cooled at room temperature for 24 hours) and final cure (cure at room temperature
for 24 hours). The flow test was performed also in accordance with the AASHTO T 245 guidelines
only for the final cure condition (cure in forced draft oven for 48 hours at 140oF then cooled at
room temperature for 24 hours). For the ITS, job acceptance criteria were for dry conditions ≥ 45
psi and for moisture conditions ≥ 25 psi. For Gyratory Quotient test values of between 150 to 500
ksi is considered acceptable. For stability, acceptance is a value of ≥ 3,000 lb for final cure (as
described above), and a value ≥ 1500 lb for initial cure (as described above). Flow of 0.1 to 0.25
in. is deemed acceptable. All four criteria must be achieved for job acceptance [6].
Table 2.4 Performance Test Criteria for Selecting Optimum Binder Content for IDOT [39]

Property Criteria
For mixtures containing <8% For mixtures containing >8%
passing #200 sieve passing #200 sieve
Short-term strength test, >175 >150
ASTM D1560
Indirect Tensile Strength >40 >35
(ITS), ASTM D4867, psi
Conditioned ITS, ASTM >25 >20
D4867, psi

13
Chapter 3 State-of-the-Practice Survey
3.1 Survey of Design and Construction Best Practices of State DOT’s
A comprehensive online survey was conducted to establish the state of the discipline and best
practices of FDR in the United States. In phase 1, a total of 361 online surveys were sent to
pavement engineers, materials engineers, and construction engineers in the different state
department of transportation and transportation agencies around the country. Of the
questionnaires sent, there were 75 respondents from 41 states, with respondents from 4 states
reporting no experience with FDR. Phase 1 of the survey questions contained 19 questions and
the responses are summarized in section 3.2 Survey Results.
The second phase of the survey which was completed and deployed after the assessment of the
first phase, focuses on the local road agencies, including counties and cities in Tennessee. Its
design is like that of phase one, but more localized to the county and city level.

3.2 Survey Results

3.2.1 Phase 1
Figure 3.1 shows a color-coded map of the United States with the states’ responses from the
online survey. States marked in blue represent are those state’s where no response was received,
yellow indicates states whose respondent(s) have no experience with FDR. All regions in white
represent states with respondents have experience with full depth reclamation. A summary of
the answers from states is provided in the rest of this section.

Figure 3-1 Survey Response Map

14
Question 1: What type of full depth reclamation (FDR) experience has your state DOT/county
had?
Full-depth reclamation (FDR) can be achieved with or without the addition of a stabilizing agent.
75 responses from 41 states, 13 respondents reported having no experience with FDR. Amongst
those with FDR experience, 58 respondents (93.5%) have utilized one form of stabilizing agent or
another in their FDR project(s) such as Portland cement, asphalt emulsion, foamed asphalt, lime,
and calcium chloride. Respondents from the state of Tennessee and surrounding states of
Missouri, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Arkansas all report utilizing one
stabilization medium or another for their FDR projects. While almost all states who responded
have experiences using one stabilizing agent or another or multiple experiences with different
agents as well as mechanical stabilization, only Connecticut and Wisconsin had respondents
reporting mechanical stabilization without stabilizing agents in their FDR experience.
Question 2: Of the FDR experiences in (1), what stabilization agent(s) did you use?
The choice of stabilization agent used for FDR as gathered from the survey varied irrespective of
the region. The more defining factor, however, is the experience in its application as states who
are relatively new in the use of full-depth reclamation as a tool for road rehabilitation have tried
fewer stabilization agents. Respondents mostly have utilized Portland cement in their projects,
after which were asphalt emulsion or foamed asphalt. Overall. Other stabilization agents, as
reported by respondents, which have been used for full-depth reclamation included, but was not
limited to, lime, foamed asphalt, and fly ash – see Figure 3.2.

Asphalt emulsion

Foamed asphalt

Portland Cement

Lime

Fly ash

Others (please specify)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 3-2 Stabilizing Agents used for FDR

Question 3: Of the stabilizers, which one do you prefer and why?

A greater percentage of respondents who answered this question responded with Portland
cement as their preferred stabilizing agent. While some only have experience using Portland
cement as the stabilizer for FDR, others prefer it because of the adaptable nature of Portland
cement for all soil types within their states and the ease and straight-forward nature of its use
during construction. Respondents from the states around Tennessee also chose Portland cement
for their preference.

15
Question 4: Do you have a specific mix design method(s) your state DOT/county uses for FDR?
Since the introduction of FDR as a rehabilitation solution for road pavements, different states’
departments of transportation have developed design standards for FDR. This question was
asked such that the team could understand which states have developed specific mix designs for
FDR, and to help understand the contents, considerations, and requirements by different states.
Among the 64 respondents to this question, 37 respondents from 25 states confirmed that their
states have specific mix design they use for FDR. Figure 3.3 shows a geographic representation
of respondents from 13 different states who sent us copies of their State DOT/county design mix
guide for FDR.

States with Mix Design Guidelines

Figure 3-3 Geograhical Representation of State DOTs with Mix Design Guidelines
Question 5: Generally, what proportion of subgrade is in your FDR mix?
Since utilization of the section subgrade for FDR is optional, the responses received varied from
zero percent (0%) to maximum provided in the survey (50%). It can be safely assumed that the
use of subgrade in the FDR mix design is subject to various factors such as soil type, particle size
distribution, design strength requirement, cost effectiveness, etc.
Question 6: Does your state DOT/county have a specification for FDR?
Over 80% of respondents to this question reported having specifications required for the
approval of FDR projects and the team was able to get some of these specifications from some
of the states.
Question 7: Has your state DOT/county tried supplementary materials such as fly ash?

16
Since FDR is a process that rehabilitates pavement failure down to the base, it is common to
encounter subgrade properties and terrains that are akin to specific portions of the pavement
and will require extra preparations and rectifications before the effective rehabilitation can
commence. Such conditions sometimes require the use of supplementary materials and
compound. Many of the respondents replied that they have not used any supplementary
materials, while some of those who did share their experience with us.
Two respondents from Missouri said that they used fly ash in FDR, but they encountered negative
issues due to inconsistency of the product, and a respondent from South Dakota reported an
unsuccessful utilization. Most of the respondents who used supplementary materials had
acceptable results in the different conditions in where they were used, like using fly ash as a
substitute for cement where there is a shortage or drying out saturated existing grades adjacent
to irrigation fields, setting the materials, and others.
Question 8: What type of pavement have you used FDR to treat?
The use of FDR as seen from the survey cuts across different types of pavements. The highest
application was found to be highways, followed by local roads. Parking lots and airports have the
least application of FDR. Figure 3.4 gives a description of FDR usage for different pavement types.

Residential roads

Local roads

City streets

Highways

Parking lots

Arterials

Interstate

Airports

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 3-4 Pavements Treated with FDR

Question 9: Does your agency have guidelines for when FDR is appropriate?
Thirty-seven of sixty-four responding to this question indicated that they have guidelines for
when FDR is appropriate for use as a rehabilitation technique.
Question 10: During the field investigations for candidate selection, which of the following
techniques do you employ?
Various techniques have been employed in the selection of suitable candidates for FDR. These
techniques help assess the state of deterioration and pavement condition of the proposed road.
Popular techniques used in the selection process include visual inspection, core sampling and
analysis, use of a falling weight deflectometer, use of a dynamic cone penetrometer, the list goes

17
on. Question 10 provided a view of the techniques mostly used in the field by engineers and State
DOTs.
As depicted in Figure 3.5, the most utilized technique in selecting suitable candidates is to take
core samples. This helps in assessing the subterranean damage done to the pavement along with
revealing vital information about the structural composition of the pavement. Visual inspection
comes next, as it is important in revealing the surface conditions of the pavement (both cause
and effect). Almost 50% of respondents use Falling Weight Deflectometer testing in addition to
other techniques in selecting their candidates while others use other techniques like the pit test
in their selection process.

Dynamic cone penetrometer 18

Falling weight deflectometer 31

Taking core samples from FDR candidate

pavement
55

Visual Inspection 45

Others (please specify) 20

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Figure 3-5 Techniques for Candidate Selection

Question 11: Do you take samples or cores of the pavement after a field investigation?
This question builds on the previous one, and it showed that most engineers and State DOTs take
core samples from the candidate pavement after investigation.
Question 12: Do you follow an Inspector’s Checklist or other documentation for acceptance
before and during projects?
While different State DOTs have different requirements listed in their checklists to ensure that
the project conforms to standard, 36 respondents reported that, they do not follow an inspection
checklist before and during the projects. Twenty-five of the 61 respondents reported following
an inspector’s checklist for project acceptance.
Question 13: What are some of the frequently encountered problems during construction?
Frequent problems encountered during construction as derived from the survey ranked
“improper moisture control” as the most prevalent. Figure 3.6 shows how the common problems
measured up to one another, with some recurring mentions listed under “others”. Among those
not listed in Figure 3.6 include weather conditions (temperature, humidity, wind, rain); failure to
meet gradation requirements; cement content control when applied dry; incomplete mixing of
stabilizer into pulverized materials; large boulders in the subgrade; change in the thickness of
the HMA being recycled; and proper recycling depth.

18
 Failure to meet density requirement

Improper moisture control

Improper curing

Lack of support from construction equipments

due to poor subgrade
Failure to meet specified line and grade/cross
slope

Fialure to meet strength requirement

Others (please specify)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Figure 3-6 Common Problems Encountered During Construction

Question 14: Do you have information regarding long-term performance of FDR/SFDR projects
in your state/county?
Most of the respondents do not have information regarding long-term performance of
FDR/SFDR.
Question 15: If you answered yes in (14), when were the projects constructed and what are the
conditions of the pavements currently?
Of the 75 respondents to the survey, 15 of them have information of pavements constructed
using FDR that are over 10 years old while some of the pavements are within 5 to 10 years old.
Question 16: Have you performed an economic assessment when selecting FDR/SFDR that
includes both the initial costs and future maintenance/rehabilitation costs?
Majority of respondents replied “NO” when asked if they have performed economic assessment
for the FDR projects. A few said that they have performed assessments on proposed and future
cost of maintenance and rehabilitation.
Question 17: Would you recommend FDR/SFDR and under what conditions?
Three respondents (2 from Delaware and 1 from Hawaii) answered that they would not
recommend FDR while all remaining respondents from the 60 who answered this question
recommended FDR with conditions for which their recommendations are based. Some
conditions given for the recommendation of FDR are: (1) For treating and repairing roads to full
depth in a cost-effective manner, typically for pavements with inadequate structure and high
stresses, (2) For its “green” benefits of recycling roadway materials and the economic savings by
not wasting used materials and saving on virgin materials for projects that would typically not be
reconstructed, (3) For restoring a road in poor condition, (4) If you have a severely fatigued or old
HMA pavement with minimal or no base course, the FDR can be used to create a platform for
new pavement construction, (5) At the time of the 2nd or 3rd overlay where more strength is need

19
than CIR can provide, (6) For pavements that are very thick and have contaminated or no base
course remaining. Pavements beyond being treated by CIR, (7) For any condition where
reconstruction is considered, (8) Would not recommend chemically stabilized FDR for road
sections shorter than 1 mile. It is not cost effective in such a situation, (9) For any road with base
failure, high level of distress, and full depth cracking, (10) Valid treatment on small arterials or
county roads in rural areas preferably with less than 4in. of asphalt, (11) When building strength
and getting rid of cracks is wanted. If no extra strength is needed, then CIR or overlay, (12) Under
all conditions. FDR is a very good low-cost way to get consistent supports that lasts under
pavements, (13) A go-to rehab method that is cost effective, (14) If a good gradation can be
achieved with the existing pavement and base/subbase materials and where frost and drainage
issues are not a concern, (15) HMA with alligator cracking and when a rise in profile is allowable,
(16) Less than 300 trucks/day, at least 3in. of AC over top and subgrade, not saturated, and (17)
When you have sufficient depth of asphalt to mix with soil, plenty of right-of-way, and a project
scope that is focused on pavement reconstruction.
Question 18: What issues have you seen occur during the life of an FDR project?
This question gave us an insight to some on-site issues as well as some futuristic issues to be
aware of in the life span of an FDR project. Abridged below are some of the answers provide by
respondents for this question: (1) Shrinkage cracking and public perception, (2) Presence of large
rocks and hand-placed stone bases that made it non-practical to use FDR. Other issues have been
too much cement in the mix which led to cracking of the base, also we have had environmental
concerns with cement dust, (3) Edge line cracking and moisture damage leading to rutting in the
FDR layer, (4) Reflective cracking, (5) Once built, they are generally good. Biggest issue is going
too deep into the base. Sometimes the base is contaminated by subgrade, or the reclaimer goes
through the base, (6) Early in the life of the FDR, the pavement can shove and tear while it is still
tender. Moisture problems have occurred because the FDR does not drain in certain
circumstances, (7) Proper site investigation (that is, subgrade soil profile) is key during project
development, and can often identify potential subgrade issues before the project starts, (8)
Environmental issues: avoid temperatures below 5 degrees Celsius during construction and
curing. Also, wind is dangerous for cement or lime stabilization as is spreads it outside the target
areas. Also, maintaining the moisture content from factors like rain and rapid drying, (9) Edge
support can occur on narrow segments, surface slippage can occur if not fog sealed, (10) Relief
cracking through the surface commonly with cement FDR, (11) High volatile clays have led to
premature cracking of some previous FDR in some areas, (12) Variability in road structure and
materials, (13) Cement SFDR got too hard/stiff, then cracked and reflected through the asphalt in
a very short time frame, (14) Lack of repair to severe drainage issues; use of too much cement
and lack of design work causes block cracking. The belief that harder is always better, (15) We
once had a foamed asphalt FDR project that had localized “boils” that damaged top lift of
pavement. It was attributed to accumulated road salt in the base course that was incorporated
into FDR, (16) Cracking and smoothness issues; early FDR projects only had a single lift placed
over the FDR as wearing course. These projects showed early cracking in the HMA but after
investigation, it was suspected that the cracks were top-down because the base was still intact.
All FDR after that time have used two lifts of HMA and have alleviated these issues, (17) Bad
candidate, isolated subgrade failures, and cross slopes, (18) Some of the lower volume roads had
thin asphalt thicknesses, (19) Lack of subsequent preventive maintenance treatment such as chip

20
seal, (20) Presence of underground utilities, and (21) Roughness during the first winter on some
projects. They were a lot smoother just after construction.
Question 19: Have you ever had to rehabilitate an FDR pavement during its lifetime and if what
did it entail?
Rehabilitating an FDR pavement is possible, and State DOTs reported the following could be
done: (1) Mill and overlay or overlay with HMA, (2) You can regrind an FDR years after an initial
FDR, (3) Most of the time we overlay the existing surface. Some of the older FDR have been re-
pulverized and re-stabilized, (4) Reclaiming with a different stabilizer, (5) Had to crack seal
reflective cracking in cement stabilized FDR, (6) Typical crack filing/sealing operations are done if
cracking occurs in the asphalt to try to mitigate the issue. If located in the subgrade, corrective
measures are done to the subgrade itself, (7) Just fixed spots that had severe drainage problems
to begin with and living with block cracking issues, and (8) Another FDR with thicker HMA overlay
was done to handle increased truck volumes.

3.2.2 Phase 2
Phase 2 of the online survey which focused on the use of FDR as a rehabilitation method in
Tennessee was developed and deployed. The survey which has some similarities to the previous
online survey (phase 1) was sent to the various county engineers in Tennessee, and the responses
provided the research team with valuable insight on the state of FDR in the state at the county
level. Ninety-four (94) online surveys were sent to county engineers during phase 2. Nineteen
(19) responses were received from different counties across the state of Tennessee.
Figure 3.7 shows a color-coded map of the state of Tennessee showing the 4 TDOT regions. The
shaded areas represent counties that responded to the online survey. The questionnaire shows
that there is at least one county in each region with experience in FDR. A summary of the answers
from these counties is provided in the rest of this section.

Figure 3-7 Common Problems Encountered During Construction

Question 1: Have you used Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) for road rehabilitation within your
county? (If you answered No, please respond to question #14 and #15 and submit the survey)
The response to this question can be taken as an adaptation for evaluating and estimating the
popularity of FDR as a pavement rehabilitation tool in Tennessee. As shown in Figure 3.8 of the
19 respondents, less than one-third (1/3) reported using FDR in one or more projects. Even
though a greater number of respondents have not used FDR in pavement rehabilitation, the
responses indicate that the technique is not new to all who answered. In addition, we can deduce

21
that full-depth reclamation has been used in all regions except for Region one where only two
responses were from Blount County and Washington County. From the survey, counties with
respondents who have experience with FDR includes Hamilton County and Coffee County in
region 2; Rutherford County in region three; and Henry County, Weakley County and Lake County
in region 4.

Counties with FDR experience Counties without FDR experience Counties with no responses

Figure 3-8 FDR Response Map within the State of Tennessee

Question 2: What stabilization method did you use?

Fifty percent (50%) of respondents to this question, including all respondents from regions two
and three, reported experience on FDR using a stabilizing agent. Respondents from region 4
(Weakley County and Lake County) reported the use of both mechanical stabilization for FDR and
a stabilizing agent. Some respondents indicated that they do not have any experience in FDR but
have heard of it but responded to this question as well. Three respondents reported the use of
mechanical stabilization, while one reported the use of SFDR. From this question, a conclusion
could be drawn that the low utilization of FDR for pavement rehabilitation across the state is not
a factor of unawareness in the part of county engineers, rather from a combination of factors
like time, acceptance, recommendation, and so on.
Question 3: What stabilization method do you prefer and why?
Portland cement was the preferred stabilization agent among respondents. Preferences for
some other respondents were limited to the single method of stabilization they are experienced
in as well as the stabilizing agent used. Highlighted limitations include mechanical stabilization in
Gibson County, use of Rs2 emulsion in Overton County and Portland cement in Weakley County.
Question 4: Did you use a specific mix design method for the project?
All respondents with experience in FDR reported that they had specific mix designs which were
used in project(s) in their respectively counties.
Question 5: Does your county have any specification and guideline for FDR?
While nearly all respondents indicated absence of FDR specifications and guidelines at the county
level, respondent from Weakley County reported otherwise. Responses to this question, when
cross-examined with responses to similar questions from phase 1 of the online survey, will help
the research team understand the development of state guidelines and specifications on FDR
that will help promote the practice and utilization of FDR in pavement rehabilitation.

22
Question 6: What percentage of the pavement materials did you use in the FDR mix? Respond
with 0-100% for each layer. Choose one or more.
The responses received from experienced respondents showed that all layers of the selected
pavement structure were pulverized and used for FDR projects. The major difference however is
the portion of subgrade materials added to the mix. Responses from Lake and Rutherford County
indicated 100% subgrade inclusion. This could be interpreted as the inclusion of a substantial
portion of subgrade materials in their design, and the reason could be attributed to several
conditions, such as thin asphalt pavement structure, target thickness of the FDR structure, or
good quality subgrade materials. Hamilton, Coffee, and Weakley County included subgrade
materials in their designs within the ranges of 10% to 25%. It is known that FDR is a process which
uses existing pavement materials that makes up the pavement structure. However, the
proportion of subgrade materials is dependent on several factors which include pavement
thickness, subgrade composition, target mix design, and others.
Question 7: Has your county used any supplementary materials such as fly ash in your
rehabilitation process?
Supplementary materials such as fly ash are sometimes required in an FDR process to condition
the soil, as substitutes for stabilizing agents, to facilitate drying processes and to address
drainage problems. However, reports from respondents showed that aside from the regular
chemical stabilizing agents such as Portland cement, Tennessee counties have not used any
supplementary material yet in their FDR projects.
Question 8: If your answer in (Q7) above is "YES" please indicate the supplementary material,
and how it performed.
This question builds on question 7. As there were no reports on the use of any supplementary
material, information on this question is unavailable.
Question 9: What type of pavement have you used FDR to treat? Choose all that apply.
This question presents the options of different pavement categories to the respondents including
residential roads, interstate, highways, airports. This distribution covers all types of roads in the
states maintained by the state and county officials at the different county levels. Most of the
applications of FDR within Tennessee have been on local roads as reported on the survey. This is
seen in the three regions where respondents have experience in FDR. Other pavement types
include residential roads, highways, and arterials. Figure 3.9 shows the pavement type
distribution according to the responses received.
Question 10: During the field investigations for pavement selection, which of the following
techniques do you employ? Choose all that apply.
Several techniques are used in pavement selection. From phase one of the survey, it was
discovered that the most used technique for pavement selection across the United States was by
taking core samples, followed by visual inspection, and falling weight deflectometer testing. At
the county level in Tennessee, responses to this same question reported the use of two
techniques from a list of techniques, with the first and most used being “visual inspection”, then
“taking core samples”. Figure 3.10 shows the responses provided to this question.

23
 Residential roads

Local Roads

City Streets

Highways

Parking Lots

Arterials

Interstates

Airports

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 3-9 Pavement Types Treated with FDR

Question 11: What are some of the frequently encountered problems during FDR construction?
The survey only reported a few problems encountered by the county engineers during FDR
construction. Among such problems include Improper moisture control, traffic control and
sanitation problems, which had dust and concrete splatter getting on vehicles.
Question 12: What pavement failure type(s) was the FDR rehabilitation meant to fix, and what is
the current condition of the road?
Question 12 was asked in a bid to know the pavement failures that were rehabilitated using Full
Depth Reclamation and the current performance of Full Depth Reclamation as a rehabilitation
technique. Table 3.1 show the survey responses.

Dynamic cone penetrometer

Falling weight deflectometer

Taking core samples from FDR candidate

pavement

Visual Inspection

Others (please specify)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 3-10 Techniques for Pavement Selection

24
 Table 3.1 FDR Treated Pavement and Current Conditions

County Failure Type Current Condition

Lake County Base failure Good condition

Henry County Subsurface failure Good condition
Rutherford County Load bearing capacity Excellent condition
Weakly County Poor base condition Ongoing project
Hamilton County Total subbase failure Good condition
Coffee County Alligator cracking and “After four years of
subgrade damage increased traffic, road still
shows no sign of failure”

Question 13: Do you have information on cost savings gained from the use of FDR from your
county?

The cost factor is a very important part of any project. None of the respondents to this question
had information on cost savings gained from the use of FDR.

Question 14: What is the most common pavement failure noticed in your county?

The responses from fifteen counties to this question are listed in Table 3.2.

Question 15: What other rehabilitation techniques has your county used?
There are other rehabilitation techniques used for pavement depending on the type of failure
and degree of deterioration. Listed below are some of the rehabilitation techniques used by
counties that responded: (1) Asphalt resurfacing, chip sealing, and micro seal. Used for pavement
with general deterioration, (2) Dig and fill: used for places with subgrade failure, (3) Cold in-place
recycling for alligator cracking and potholes, (4) Scrub deal and fog seal for cracking due to age,
(5) Filling soft spots with rocks, (6) Total reconstruction, isolating critical sections for repairs, (7)
Undercut with graded solid rock and wick drains for entrapped water, (8) Reconstruction, and (9)
Removal and replacement where there are subgrade failures.

Question 16: Would you recommend Full Depth Reclamation and under what conditions?
All respondents with experience in FDR reported that they would recommend it as a
rehabilitation technique, and some of the conditions given are listed below: (1) It is an excellent
way to treat a road with thin base or alligator cracking or subgrade failure working its way to the
surface, (2) if you have sub-base or subgrade failure with a quarter-of-a-mile needing repair, (3)
When there are predominating base issues, (4) For conditions too severe for other methods, and
(5) When greater load bearing capacity is required.

25
 Table 3.2 Responses on Common Pavement Failures

County Pavement

Overton County Cracks, potholes, and heavy truck wear

Lake County Base
Franklin County General deterioration
Rutherford County Subgrade failure
Weakley County Alligator cracking, potholed, etc.
Bradley County Soft spots usually due to underground springs
Benton County Mostly cracking due to age
Hickman County Soft spots
Hamilton County Pumping of the subbase
Lincoln County Poor subgrade
Perry County Failure caused by weight on trucks.
Gibson County Subbase failure from heavy loads.
Coffee County Random potholes, and shoulders breaking off.
Lauderdale County Alligator cracking and rutting
Blount County Subgrade failure resulting in separation of Asphalt
layers and degradation.

26
Chapter 4 Field Investigation and Laboratory
Testing
This research studied the suitability of PCFDR and AEFDR on reclaimed pavement materials from
two identified FDR candidates and was instrumental in understanding the performance of
stabilizing agents on reclaimed materials of different compositions and proportions. The FDR
candidates used for this research are located along SR 88 in Lauderdale County and along SR 54
in Weakley County.

4.1 State Hwy SR 88 – Lauderdale County, Tennessee

SR 88 is approximately a 44.78 miles state route that runs west-to-east through Lauderdale and
Crockett Counties, north of Memphis. The section has a combined annual average daily traffic
(AADT) of approximately 159 (or 4%) trucks [39]. The original pavement consisted of 3 ¾ to 11 in
of HMA. The base layer was estimated to have 10 in. of granular aggregate materials with some
sections having crushed rocks and some sections having crushed lime stones aggregates. From
the site investigation, numerous pavement distresses like longitudinal and fatigue cracking, edge
cracking, and rutting were identified. The core samples taken from the pavement at the time of
investigation revealed multiple layers of asphalt overlay at different sections of the road with
some layers being completely de-bonded. Images of the core samples and the analyses are
presented in Appendix C. The section chosen for FDR is 9.5 miles long on route SR-88 extending
from Dee Webb Road to Porter’s Gap Road in Lauderdale County - from coordinates 35.8981468,-
89.6286038 to 35.9032222,-89.5339325.
4.1.1 Preconstruction Pavement Condition and Evaluation
Before the sampling for the FDR work began, the research team spray painted FWD testing
location points every ½ mile on the SR 88 project. Cores were extracted, and core analyses are
presented in the Appendix C. Buckets and shovels were used to collect various samples from
different depths to get a representative sample that included a portion of the soil (see Figure 4.1).
A single set of laboratory evaluations for FDR mix design requires a large amount of material for
completion. The research team hauled approximately 250 lb of materials per sampling station in
5-gallon buckets for laboratory analysis. MTSU coordinated the standard proctor testing and
compressive strength testing at the MTSU laboratory with cement as the FDR stabilizer, while
UTC conducted laboratory experiments for emulsified asphalt as an FDR stabilizer.
A Dynatest falling weight deflectometer (FWD) was used in carrying out deflection
measurements. The equipment has seven sensors at radial distances of 0, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 and
60 in. from the center of the load plate located at the wheel path. Testing was conducted at a
load level of 9,000 lb. This process was repeated for all 15 stations along the road section and for
each section, 4 drops were taken. From each station, coring was done to assess the asphalt
thickness and properties. The deflection data from all stations, the station temperature readings
(air, surface, and pavement) and the pavement layer properties (surface, base, and subgrade),
were fed into a back-calculation algorithm. Data from each station starting with mile marker 0
were analyzed individually with the pavement structural information most relative to the core
samples drilled from the stations. Two drops were used as warm up drops which help the base

27
plate sit properly on the surface. Between the third and fourth drop, the drop closest to 9000 lb
was selected for analysis. Poisson’s ratio of 0.35 was adopted for surface and base materials, and
0.4 was adopted for subgrade materials. The subgrade was largely comprised of clayey materials
with a liquid limit of less than 50%, and a uniform base depth of 10 in. was assumed for all stations
throughout the road section.
The raw pre-construction FWD test data collected from SR 88 Lauderdale County is presented in
Table C 1, and Table C2 presents the back-calculated results obtained from the back-calculation
tool (MODULUS 7.0). The relationship between the surface layer coefficient (a1) and the surface
layer resilient modulus (E1) is depicted in Equation 4.1 while the relationship between the base
layer coefficient (a2) and the base layer resilient modulus (E2) is depicted in Equation 4.2 [39].

Since the layer coefficient for an existing pavement is considered lower than for a new pavement,
the additional parameter (0.44) in Equation 1 is replaced with 0.34. A publication by the Federal
Highway Authority suggests the possibility of an existing granular base having a layer coefficient
of zero (0), and as such, stations with a low base layer modulus yielding a negative layer
coefficient from Equation 4.2 were assigned a zero value. Table 4.1 presents the pre-construction
summary statistics for the road, D1 is the thickness of the surface layer, Esg is the subgrade
resilient modulus, and SN is the pavement structural number.

(a) Reclaiming Pavement Materials (b) Reclaimed Pavement Materials

Figure 4-1 SR-88 Pavement Material Collection

28
 Table 4.1 Pre-Construction Summary Statics

E1 (psi) a1 D1 (in) E2 (psi) a2 Esg (psi) SN

Average 1,283,007 0.47 7.08 25,860 0.087 9,013 4.13

Std Dev 1,127,259 0.14 2.37 25,447 0.096 2,300 2.05

(sample)
Median 749,900 0.43 7.00 15,500 0.066 8,400 3.85

Lowest 327,000 0.29 3.75 5,000 0.00 5,900 2.12

Highest 3,807,100 0.72 11.25 75,600 0.24 13,700 9.83

4.1.2 Material Gradation and Testing

To provide adequate structural support for the rehabilitated pavement, gradation of the
pulverized base and sometimes the subgrade must meet specific gradation requirements. On-
site, reclaimed materials for full depth reclamation are required to have 100% materials passing
the 3-inch sieve, and a maximum of 20% passing the #200 sieve (P200) [40] [15]. To maintain a
proper relationship between laboratory sample size and maximum aggregate size, laboratory
tests are conducted with materials passing the 1.5-inch sieve with 0% retention [41]. Materials
that fail to meet the #200 restriction (usually clay or silt), are either excluded from the mix, have
a different mix design method is adopted, or add virgin/foreign aggregates to the mix such that
the resulting gradation meets the requirements. For the stabilizing agents, emulsified asphalt
used should meet the requirement of 62% weight of residue by evaporation (typical) and must
comply with the requirements for the PG binder specified [42], and type 1 Portland cement or
cement kiln dust (CKD) can be used for PCFDR [15].
Pavement materials collected from the Lauderdale County Road were separated into 3 batches,
batch 1-3-5, batch 7-9-11 and batch 13-15, according to the stations they were collected and
based on the properties of the pavement structure which included the thicknesses of the asphalt
layers and the base material composition. This was done to have different mix designs that caters
to the specific pavement section structure. The laboratory procedures involved several steps
however, the main purpose of the laboratory tests was to determine the optimum binder
contents and optimum water content for the pulverized material for the FDR base capable of
supporting the traffic load. Appendix A presents the mix design procedures for the PCFDR and
AEFDR.
To begin the laboratory procedures, the asphalt binder content in the RAP materials for each
batch were determined with a binder ignition furnace [41]. A wash sieve analysis was then carried
out on the residue to determine the particle sizes of the aggregates in the RAP materials [43]. A
wash sieve analysis was also performed on base materials of batches 1-3-5 and 7-9-11 as well as
on the subgrade materials from station 7 of batch 7-9-11 separately to determine their particle
size distribution and to ensure that it met the gradation requirements. The results obtained
showed that the base materials met the requirement of 100% materials passing the 1.5-inch sieve
and a maximum of 20% passing the #200 sieve while the subgrade material from station 7 failed
to meet this requirement with 70% of its content passing the #200. Consequently, the subgrade
materials were excluded from the mixes for the design. A wash sieve analysis was not performed
on the base materials of batch 13-15 as the materials were already mixed with RAP materials.

29
Sieve analyses results from batch 1-3-5 for base materials and RAP aggregate materials are
presented in Appendix B in Table B 1 and Table B 2 respectively. The results show 100% of the
materials passing through the 1.5-in sieve and less than 20% materials passing the #200 sieve.
This conforms with the gradation requirement for the design mix.
Results of sieve analyses performed on materials from batch 7-9-11 are shown in Appendix B in
Table B 3, Table B 4 and Table B 5. Table B 3 shows results of the particle size distribution of the
subgrade materials. The results from Table B 3 show that the subgrade materials fail to meet the
requirements as more than 70% of its materials passes the #200 sieve. Adding materials that fail
to meet the requirement in the mix design will result in an uneconomical mix design and should
be avoided. Table B 4 and Table B 5 presents sieve analyses results for base materials and RAP
materials of Batch 7-9-11 meeting the gradation requirements.
Samples of mixed materials from the batches (base and RAP materials) were placed in the binder
ignition furnace to extract the asphalt binder. After extraction, the percentages of RAP materials
present in each batch was determined, sieve analysis was also performed on the materials of the
batches (base materials and RAP). Table B 6 depicts the results of the asphalt binder contents by
dry mass of RAP, design mixes for the different batches, and the RAP content by mass in the
mixes for the different batches and Table B 7, Table B 8 and Table B 9 show result of the particle
size distribution of the mixed materials for all batches. The mixed materials comprise of base
and RAP materials.

4.1.3 Mix Design for Portland Cement

Specimens were prepared in accordance with ASTM standards (see Figure 4.2) to select the
optimum stabilizer content for FDR base-course mix design by using 6-inch by 8-inch specimens.
The laboratory testing protocol includes the determination of gradation, Atterberg limits,
optimum moisture content, unconfined compressive strength, and evaluation of the moisture
susceptibility. Determining the maximum dry density at the optimum moisture content was
conducted as recommended in ATSM standards. A generic example of dry density/moisture
content plot is shown in Figure 4.3.
For purposes of evaluating a suitable mix design, the road section was divided into sections for
testing based on initial look at some of the cores and their layers and soil conditions. A range of
4.00%, 6.00%, 8.00% cement was tested for potential mix designs. A rock correction factor was
taken into consideration based on the material sampled from the site. Anything over 5.00% over
the ¾-inch sieve was corrected in the standard proctor values. 27 mixes were used to make
compressive strength specimens which were cast for 3-day and 7-day strengths. A summary of
the experimental results is presented in Table 4.2; the moisture density curve is presented in
Figure 4.3.

30
Figure 4-2 Sample testing at MTSU Laboratory

Figure 4-3 Typical Dry Density vs Moisture %

31
 Table 4.2 Summary of Results for SR 88–Lauderdale County

Average Density
Mix ID % Moisture 3 Day Strength (avg) 7 Day Strength (avg)
(pcf)

4.00% 1-3-5 136.00 6.6 247 298.5

4.00% 7-9-11 138.10 7.8 276 272

4.00% 13-15 134.62 6.3 228 330.5

6.00% 1-3-5 140.59 7.7 493 605

6.00% 7-9-11 138.90 10.4 376 424.5

6.00% 13-15 134.62 6.1 378 532.5

8.00% 1-3-5 140.63 7.8 592 754

8.00% 7-9-11 136.89 10.6 400 426.5

8.00% 13-15 140.63 8.6 692 740.5

0% 1-3-5* 128.00 N/A N/A N/A

0% 7-9-11* 125.8 N/A N/A N/A

0% 13-15* 124.4 N/A N/A N/A

4.1.4 Mix Design for Emulsified Asphalt

With the determination of the reclaimed material properties and following the provisions for
AEFDR mix design in Appendix A2, laboratory experimentation on the reclaimed materials was
advanced with the determination of the optimum moisture content. The materials are dried
(0.00% moisture content), and the water content needed for the optimization is a combination of
the water content present in the emulsion and added water. The emulsion used for the tests was
grade PG58-28 with an asphalt residue content of 2/3 by emulsion mass. A constant emulsion
content of 3.00% dry mass of mixed aggregate materials (the emulsion had a 2.00% mass of
asphalt residual and a 1.00% mass of water present in the constant emulsion content) was used
for the optimization of the water content. The added water percentages established for the tests
was set at 2.00%, by mass of dry mixed materials, to 6.00% with a 1.00% increment for every
target water content. Two 6-inch test samples were made for each of the target water content
percentages.
Four water content values (3.00%, 4.00%, 5.00% and 7.00%) were selected for the water
optimization of batches 1-3-5 and 7-9-11, while five water content values (3.00%, 4.00%, 5.00%,
6.00% and 7.00%) were used for the optimization of batch 13-15. This required to the preparation
of 8 test samples for batches 1-3-5 and 7-9-11, and 10 test samples for batch 13-15 (2 samples
for each selected water content). The results of the test are presented in Table B 10, Table B 11
and Table B 12 and the water optimizations curves are presented in Figure B 1, Figure B 2 and

32
Figure B 3. The optimum water content corresponds to the water content value giving the
maximum bulk density. Table 4.3 presents a summary of the optimum water content for all
batches.
Table 4.3 Optimum Water Contents for all Batches

Optimum Water
Batches Content
1-3-5 5.60%
7-9-11 5.45%
13-15 5.70%

After the determination of the optimum water content for each batch, 16 test samples were
prepares for determining the optimum emulsion content, 8 samples for dry Marshall test and 8
samples for wet Marshall test. The target emulsion contents for all batches were set at 2.00%,
3.00%, 4.00% and 5.00%, and 4 test samples were prepared for each emulsion content. The
required water mass at the target emulsion content for the batches was then calculated by
subtracting the mass of water present in the emulsion from the optimum mass of water required
to prepare 4000 g (dry reclaimed material) samples. Table 4.4 summarizes the water masses
present in the different emulsion content, and the required water mass for the optimization.
Table 4.4 Water Content by Mass for Asphalt Optimization

Asphalt
Optimum Water Emulsion Water Added Water
Batch Emulsion
Mass (g) Mass (g) Mass (g)
Content
1-3-5 sample 2.00% 224 26.67 197.33
mass (4000 g) 3.00% 224 40.00 184.00
4.00% 224 53.33 170.67
5.00% 224 66.67 157.33
7-9-11 sample 2.00% 218 26.67 181.33
mass (4000 g) 3.00% 218 40.00 178.00
4.00% 218 53.33 147.67
5.00% 218 66.67 151.33
13-15 sample 2.00% 228 26.67 201.33
mass (4000 g) 3.00% 228 40.00 188.00
4.00% 228 53.33 174.67
5.00% 228 66.67 161.33

In a similar manner to the water optimization process, the bulk density of the samples at different
emulsion contents and optimum water contents were calculated, and the results are presented
in Table B 13 to Table B 15. Figure B 4 to Figure B 6 are plots of bulk density against emulsion
content for batches 1-3-5, 7-9-11 and 13-15, respectively.

33
As reported in the first phase of the online survey, failure to meet density requirement is a
common problem during FDR construction, so comparison between sample bulk density results
for the asphalt optimization and the bulk density from the optimum water content is crucial in
ensuring that the prepared samples are within the range of the optimum water content. The
results from the bulk density tests showed that the test samples for batch 1-3-5 and batch 13-15
had peak bulk densities at 3.00% emulsion content and 3.60% emulsion content, respectively,
which fall closely within range of the bulk densities for the optimum water contents for those
batches, while batch 7-9-11 had peak bulk density at 3.80% emulsion content which fell short
compared to the bulk density at optimum moisture content (OMC) for the batch. Table 4.5 shows
a comparison between the bulk density from the optimum water content and the peak bulk
density for the asphalt optimization samples.
Table 4.5 Bulk Density for all Batches

Batch Bulk Density at OMC Peak Bulk Density for Asphalt

(lb./ft3) Optimization (lb./ft3)
1-3-5 133.70 133.53
7-9-11 135.55 133.97
13-15 131.72 132.00

The determination of optimum asphalt content in AEFDR design, which determines the reliability
of the design in terms of load resistance and moisture susceptibility, is conducted using the
Marshall stability test. For this test, four samples at the emulsion contents used for bulk density
tests were prepared. Also, new emulsion contents were set for the batches: 3.50% emulsion
content for batch 1-3-5 and batch 13-15 and 3.10% emulsion content for batch 7-9-11. These
emulsion contents were set for the purpose of determining the peak stability strength, and 3.10%
emulsion content for batch 7-9-11 was set to determine and track the change in sample stability
strength resulting from a small increase in emulsified asphalt content. Following the steps listed
in Appendix A2, dry Marshall stability and wet Marshall stability tests were then carried out on
two samples each for every emulsion content of each batch. Table B 16 to Table B 18 show the
results from the tests for each batch, and Figure B 7 to Figure B 9 show the plot of stability
strength against emulsion content for each batch.
Marshall stability tests showed that while the samples had high stability in dry conditions, the
samples showed rapid gain in wet stability with increase in asphalt content until a peak stability
is reached. The trend continues as the samples rapidly lose stability strength with continued
increase in asphalt content. Results of the wet Marshall stability test from Table B 17 shows the
increased rate of gain of stability strength with the increase in emulsion content for the samples
where a rather slight increase of 0.10% emulsion content from 3.00% emulsion content resulted
in a significant rise in stability strength. And Table B 16 and Table B 18 show the resulting change
in stability strength made by a 0.50% emulsion content difference. The significance of this relates
to the sensitivity of AEFDR strength to asphalt content and the importance of maintaining
optimum asphalt content during FDR construction with emulsified asphalt. Table 4.6 summarizes
the results of the Marshall stability tests and peak retained stability for the batches, and Table

34
4.7 shows the emulsion content corresponding to peak stability and the Optimum asphalt
content (residual).
Table 4.6 Summary of Asphalt Emulsion Optimization
Batch Dry Marshall (lbf) Wet Marshall (lbf) Retained Stability (%)
1-3-5 12261.95 8012.55 65.34
7-9-11 12104.6 7200 59.48
13-15 12150.2 8796.95 72.40

Table 4.7 Summary of Optimum Asphalt Content

Batch Optimum Emulsion Content (%) Optimum Asphalt Content (%)
1-3-5 3.50 2.33
7-9-11 3.30 2.20
13-15 3.50 2.33

Acceptance criteria for asphalt emulsion optimization is based on minimum required strength
and retained stability. The minimum strength requirement for test samples for emulsion
optimization is 1625 lbf [44], and the result of the tests performed indicated that all samples for
the different batches exceeded this minimum requirement with peak stability strengths at 3.50%
emulsion content for batches 1-3-5 and 13-15, and peak stability strength at 3.30% emulsion
content for batch 7-9-11. The average acceptable retained stability of 60% was surpassed by
batches 1-3-5 and 13-15, while retained stability result of batch 7-9-11 at 3.30% emulsion content
just fell short of the acceptable average.

4.1.5 Post Construction SR 88 – FWD Testing

On January 14, 2021, part of the research team met up with TDOT Headquarters’ FWD trailer for
post-construction testing of the FDR pavement with a double chip seal treatment. The trailer
tested all the previous spots from where core samples were taken. There were a few locations
that never would produce an FWD test reading, so at the end of testing, we had 10 locations out
of the original 15 with FWD test data. Figure 4.4 presents images of the post construction falling
weight deflectometer test being conducted on SR 88 in Lauderdale County. Post construction
FWD testing data collected were back calculated and analyzed, and the results were compared
to the pre-construction FWD testing data. The back calculated post construction resilient
modulus results are presented in Table C3, and Table 4.8 present the summary statistics. From
the tables, E1 represents the FDR resilient modulus, a1 represent the FDR layer coefficient, D1
represents the FDR layer thickness, Esg represents the subgrade resilient modulus and SN
represents the structural number.

35
 Figure 4-4 FWD Testing on SR-88 after FDR and Double Chip Seal Treatment

Table 4.8 Post Construction Summary Statistics

E1 (psi) a1 D1 (in) Esg (psi) SN

Average 1,579,300 0.51 12 8,009 6.11
Std Dev
(sample) 891,313 0.09 0 2,572 1.10
Median 1,187,500 0.48 12 7,485 5.72
Lowest 774,000 0.41 12 5,304 4.96
Highest 3,200,000 0.66 12 1,3118 7.96

Table 4.9 shows the stations with comparable results, the total depth of surface and base layers
(10 in. base thickness was assumed for all pavement sections), the FDR thickness, and compares
the pre-construction structural numbers to the post construction structural numbers for the
different sections, while Figure 4.5 gives a pictorial representation of how the structural numbers
for the different stations compare.
Table 4.9 Comparison of Pre-Construction and Post Construction SN

Mile Surface and Base FDR Pre-FDR Structural Post-FDR Structural

Station Marker Thickness (in) Thickness (in) Number Number
Station 1 0 13.75 12 1.79 7.96
Station 2 0.5 14.5 12 3.04 7.5
Station 3 1.1 14 12 4.57 7.43
Station 4 1.5 14.5 12 3.18 6.02
Station 5 2.1 20.5 12 3.5 5.37
Station 7 3.1 16.5 12 4.55 5.23
Station 9 3.9 18.75 12 2.26 5.83
Station 10 4.6 21.25 12 9.67 5.2
Station 11 5.1 18.25 12 5.92 5.6
Station 14 6.6 17 12 1.72 4.96

36
 Figure 4-5 Pre-Construction and Post Construction Chart

4.2 State Hwy SR 54 – Weakley County, Tennessee

SR 54 is a rural highway that runs West-to-East from the cities of Covington to Alamo, cutting
through Gibson, Weakley, and Henry Counties. Various portions of the road experience traffic
volume ranging from a combined annual average daily traffic (AADT) of approximately 2000 (with
5% trucks) to 3500 [39]. Core samples from the original pavement revealed a 13- to 15-inch,
heavily deteriorated HMA layer comprised of a mix of Bituminous Macadam and Surface Asphalt.
The section considered for rehabilitation is about 4.2 miles long on route SR 54, and from the site
investigation, the pavement showed numerous structural distresses and failures.

4.2.1 Material Gradation and Testing

For Hwy SR 54, the sample materials collected were completely made up of RAP materials without
any base materials in them; neither was there a separate collection of reclaimed base materials.
The reason for this was the depth of the asphalt layer, which was too deep for any base material
reclamation. Materials on site were required to meet the same requirements stated previously
in section 4.1.2. The materials were expected to have 100% of the largest particles passing the 3-
inch sieve and a maximum of 20% passing the #200 sieve (P200). In the lab, the materials are
required to have 100% passing the 1-5-inch sieve and a maximum of 20% passing the #200 sieve.
Wet sieve analyses were performed on the reclaimed materials, as well as the material residue
from asphalt extraction. The results obtained were satisfactory, indicating that the reclaimed
materials met the requirements for full depth reclamation with Portland cement and asphalt
emulsion stabilization. The results from the sieve analysis for the RAP materials are presented in
Table B 19, and the gradation curve is presented in
Figure 4.6. Table B 20 and Figure 4.6 show the result and gradation curve for the material residue
after the asphalt content extraction.

37
 Figure 4-6 Particle Gradation for RAP Materials

Figure 4-7 Particle Gradation for Material Residue from Asphalt Extraction

4.2.2 Mix Design for Portland Cement

The FDR mix design process for cement includes sampling the existing roadway to determine
thickness of asphalt, aggregate base, and subbase as well as classifying the materials that will be
incorporated. The sampled material is tested to determine an appropriate cement content,
optimum moisture content and maximum density. Figure 4.8 shows the general steps for
determining a mix design [15].

38
 Figure 4-8 General Steps for Determining Portland Cement Mix Design for FDR layer [15]

4.2.3 Mix Design for Emulsified Asphalt

Asphalt emulsion stabilization processes were conducted in three major phases: AEFDR
preliminary tests and characterization; water optimization; and asphalt emulsion optimization.
The results were compared to the results of the Portland cement stabilization conducted at MTSU
for the same batch of reclaimed pavement materials to ensure consistency of material properties
and characteristics. Figure 4.9 presents general steps for emulsified asphalt mix design
preparation.
The materials which were reclaimed from State Route 54 were mostly comprised of reclaimed
asphalt pavement (RAP) materials with little to no base and subgrade materials, and this was
largely due to the thick asphalt surface in the pavement structure. Tests using Portland cement
as a stabilization agent were first conducted on samples of the reclaimed materials, and what
was left of the materials were taken to UTC for the emulsified asphalt mix design. Details of the
preliminary tests and characterization like gradation, moisture content and asphalt content are
presented in section 4.2.2. Due to limited reclaimed materials for the asphalt emulsion
stabilization tests, tests samples which were prepared and used for the water optimization phase
were broken down (pulverized) and reintegrated into the batch materials. Thus, the difference in
total asphalt content and the changes resulting from this reintroduction were noted and
recorded.
The result of the emulsified asphalt stabilization showed excellent Marshall stability and retained
stability. Higher stability values were obtained from lower emulsion contents with the lowest
emulsion content used for the experiment having the highest result. Due to this, an optimum
emulsified asphalt content was not determined for the mix design, and it implies that only a low
amount of stabilizing agent is required for rehabilitating a road section of similar properties when
using asphalt emulsion as the stabilizing agent.

39
 Figure 4-9 General Steps for Determining Emulsified Asphalt Mix Design for FDR layer

4.2.3.1 Water Optimization

The preliminary test result placed the in-situ moisture content of the reclaimed materials at
3.70% of the material mass. This in-situ moisture content was used as the starting point for the
moisture contents for the water optimization phase. Increments in moisture content were set at
1.50% of sample mass, and four target moisture contents were established (3.70%, 5.20%, 6.70%
and 8.20%). Two test samples were prepared for each moisture content, for a total of 8 test
samples for the determination of the optimum moisture content for the mix. A standard asphalt
emulsion content of 3.00% by dry material weight was used for the water optimization phase. At
3.70% and 5.20% moisture contents, the mixed materials did not show any strange compaction
properties when compacted except for some light and considerably insignificant quantities of
water sticking to the super gyratory compactor mold cover after extraction of the compacted
samples. However, at 6.70% moisture content, sludges of water, emulsified asphalt and fine
reclaimed materials started forming on the surfaces of the samples and the mold cover when
the samples were extracted. The sludges formed on the samples at this moisture content mostly
stayed on the surface where they were formed (the samples surface and the mold) without
dripping. Sludge formed on samples prepared with 8.20% moisture content collected and formed
pools on the surfaces of the sample and the mold cover.
As presented in the step for AEFDR stabilization in Appendix A2 the samples were cured for 48
hours, and the bulk densities of the samples at the different moisture contents were determined.
A graph of bulk density against moisture content was plotted, and the maximum bulk density
(and corresponding moisture content) was identified as the optimum moisture content for the
samples. Table 4.10 gives the sample properties for the water optimization and Figure 4.10
presents a graph of bulk density against moisture content. The graph in Figure 4.10, shows that
the optimum moisture content which yields the most bulk density of 2.065 g/cm3 is at 6.90%.

40
 Table 4.10 Optimum Asphalt Content

Moisture Sample Dry Mass Saturated Mass (g) Submerged Density (g/cm3)
Percentage Number (g) Mass (g)
1 4081.3 4173.1 2140.1 2.007
3.70%
2 4079.5 4170.9 2138.9 2.008
moisture
average 4080.4 4172 2139.5 2.008
1 4140 4150.5 2120 2.039
5.20%
2 4144.4 4172.8 2138 2.037
moisture
average 4142.2 4161.65 2129 2.038
1 4136.4 4148.5 2137.5 2.057
6.70%
2 4146.7 4139.1 2138 2.072
moisture
average 4141.55 4143.8 2137.75 2.0645
1 4123.3 4150.1 2113.5 2.025
8.20%
2 4137.2 4153.9 2133.5 2.048
moisture
average 4130.25 4152 2123.5 2.036

2.07
2.06
Bulk Density (g/cm3)

2.05
2.04
2.03
2.02
2.01
2
3 5 7 9
Moisture Content (%)
\
Figure 4-10 Bulk Density Vs. Moisture Content

4.2.3.2 Emulsion Optimization

With the optimum moisture content successfully determined, optimization for the emulsified
asphalt content was started. Due to materials shortage, the research team reached a decision to
utilize materials from the samples used for the water optimization. A fixed emulsified asphalt
content of 3.00% of dry materials mass having 2/3 parts asphalt content was used in preparing
each sample at each moisture content. The samples were crushed, dried out to remove all
moisture, and weighed. Enough of the reclaimed materials was collected to prepare 16 test
samples (8 samples tested for dry Marshall and 8 samples for wet Marshall). The measured
reclaimed pavement material was mixed with the materials from the crushed samples, and the
mixed properties were determined. The mixed materials had an increase in the asphalt content
of 0.94% of dry material mass and total moisture content of 1.15% of dry material mass.

41
Four different emulsified asphalt contents from 2.00% through 5.00% with a 1.00% increase were
selected, and the required moisture content for each of the emulsion contents was calculated.
Two pairs of samples were prepared for the Marshall stability test and retained stability test for
each of the emulsion contents, and the samples were tested. The results obtained from the
emulsion optimization phase are presented in Table 4.11.
From Table 4.11, it can be deduced that the retained stability of the samples decreases as the
asphalt content increases, and all emulsion contents met the requirement for the minimum
acceptable strength value of 1625 lbf [44]. The nature of the stability curve from the selected
emulsion contents in Figure 4.11 did not show an optimum emulsion content. The stability is
highest at the lowest emulsion content, and the curve generated from the result turned to not a
specific breaking point as indicated in Figure 4.11.

Figure 4-11 Stability Curve

The effectiveness of the stabilization agent is dependent on several factors, and the amount of
RAP materials is one such factor. Where the result for PCFDR mix design was unsuccessful, AEFDR
proved effective at low asphalt content. One major underlying factor differentiating the results
from State Route 54 in Weakley County and State Route 88 in Lauderdale County is the proportion
of RAP in the reclaimed materials. Analysis of post FDR construction data for State Route 88
showed that sections of the rehabilitated road, which had more RAP materials during
rehabilitation, had a less resilient modulus. Information from some of the respondents to the
FDR survey where Portland cement was identified as the most utilized stabilization agent
recommended that FDR be used for roads with asphalt surface no more than 4 in. thick (5).
While Portland cement stabilization worked effectively for the road section of State Route 88 with
an acceptable mix of RAP materials, base materials, and subgrade materials, the same could not
be said for the materials from County Road 54. The experiment conducted on materials from this
road had the cement content increased from 4.00% to 14.00% and still could not break the
moisture/density curve. The possible reasons behind this occurrence were that there was
possibly too much asphalt content and not enough base/subgrade materials. The experiment for

42
the emulsified asphalt optimization was set at an initial emulsion content of 2.00%. With the
emulsified asphalt having two-thirds parts asphalt content, the total asphalt content (including
what was added from the samples used for water optimization) at each emulsion content level
was determined as 2.27%, 2.94%, 3.61% and 4.27%. At 2.27% asphalt content, which is equivalent
to 3.41% emulsified asphalt content, the materials had acceptable stability and retained stability.
Lower levels of asphalt content were not used in this experiment, and due to this lack of
information, the research team could not ascertain direct stability results for the materials at
lower emulsified asphalt content.

Table 4.1 Marshall Stability and Retained Stability Results

Samples Dry Marshall Test Wet Marshall Test Stability

Emulsion Sample Stability Flow Stability Flow Retained
Content Number (lbf) (in.) (lbf) (in.) Stability (%)

1 10531 0.025 7320 0.142

2.00% 2 12322 0.032 7898 0.147 0.66592
Average 11427 0.0285 7609.45 0.1445
1 12119 0.037 6802 0.145
3.00% 2 11642 0.034 8042 0.145 0.62472
Average 11881.2 0.0355 7422.5 0.145
1 NA NA 5650 0.15
4.00% 2 11939 0.051 6463 0.16 0.50733
Average 11939.1 0.051 6057.1 0.155
1 12628.6 0.069 5486.1 0.153
5.00% 2 12331.3 0.073 5697.7 0.155 0.44807
Average 12480 0.071 5591.9 0.154

43
Chapter 5 Results and Discussion
5.1 Project Selection
Selecting pavement candidates for FDR began with assessing the physical characteristics of the
road, which is easily done by visual inspection. Visible pavement distresses can easily be
identified, classified, and quantified, and pavements with moderate to severe deterioration were
considered for FDR. The distresses and failures and their degree of deterioration can then be
assessed and used in developing a PCI for the candidate pavement. Resurfacing, mill and fill,
overlay, and CIR and HIR are sufficient for treating mild to moderately deteriorated pavements
with structurally sound base structures. While FDR has the added benefit of restoring all
distressed pavements to good structural and functional conditions, severe surface deterioration
should be considered as an indicator of a more critical rehabilitation approach such as what FDR
offers.
In situations (especially for mild deteriorations) where the choice is to be made between FDR or
another rehabilitation solution like CIR and HIR, visual inspection should be augmented with
other assessment techniques like core sampling and NDTs like falling weight deflectometer
testing. Core samples will reveal the health condition of the pavement structure, especially the
HMA layer while NDTs will provide valuable information of the entire pavement structure
including the base and the subgrade layers. The data can then be analyzed, and the structural
number or layer stiffnesses calculated from the NDT can be checked to see if the pavement
deterioration has exceeded the agency’s trigger point.
When considering the urgency of undertaking an FDR project between the identified FDR
candidates, the traffic estimate and axle load of the FDR candidates need to be considered. Traffic
volume and axle load can be tied to the economic importance of a particular road and as such
can be used in organizing candidate pavements in order of priority.
Finally, material availability and proximity, pavement structural composition, environmental
suitability, and economic association to the different FDR candidates needs to be considered for
an optimized candidate selection process. Statistical tools like the Excel Solver tool or more
advanced tools can be used to reach conclusions among potential FDR candidates.

5.2 Online Survey

The goal of the survey was to establish an understanding of the state of FDR in the United States
and in the state of Tennessee. On the national level, while the reports and research findings have
shown that FDR is indeed an effective rehabilitation technique, experience in the area is still in
its early stages.
Findings from the survey reveal that of the different stabilizing agents, Portland cement has been
the preferred agent of choice for stabilizing FDR before emulsified asphalt.
While there is no official unified guide for preparing a mix design for FDR from the transportation
governing body, state agencies have taken to developing their mix design guides for FDR and
those state agencies that are yet to develop design guides employ the services of third parties
for the provision of mix designs for their FDR projects. It is also up to the individual agencies to

44
provide guidelines for when the use of FDR is appropriate, and most States agencies have
specifications for FDR projects.
During construction as reported in 3.2.1 Phase 1 of the survey, it is not certain what ideal or
preferred proportion of subgrade materials should be included in FDR projects as the reports
ranged from 0% to 50% of subgrade materials across the United States. Aside from the major
stabilizing agents used for the projects, most respondents rarely utilize supplementary materials
in their FDR projects. Roads that are mostly rehabilitated with FDR are highways, local roads and
major and minor arterials and the most adopted methods for determining candidate selection
for FDR are core sampling and visual inspection and more than half of respondents also use
falling weight deflectometer testing. The most common problem reported during the
construction of an FDR project from the survey was improper moisture control, and several other
identified problems had to do with density requirements, curing, strength requirements and
specification requirements.
Regarding long term performance, a larger percentage of respondents replied that they did not
have long-term performance information on FDR since a large portion of the projects were no
more than 10 years in age. For issues seen during the life of an FDR project, respondents
mentioned issues associated with the construction process like going too deep into the pavement
layers, issues associated with the environmental factors like the presence of large rocks,
improper drainage, wind and curing, and issues associated with stabilizing agents like shrinkage
cracks and relief cracks.
It is accepted that FDR is a cost-effective method of rehabilitation and pavement maintenance;
however, most of the respondents replied that they haven’t performed an economic assessment
on their projects. Almost all respondents indicated that they would recommend the use of FDR
for pavement rehabilitation for various reasons, including the correction of most pavement
distresses and failures, and as a good means of cost management while specifying conditions on
asphalt layer thicknesses, traffic load and environmental conditions for their recommendations.
On the state level (Tennessee), experience in FDR coming from six counties revealed that all had
experience in FDR using a stabilizing agent, and the preferred choice of stabilizing agent for FDR
from the counties was Portland cement. The county engineers all reported to have used a mix
design method for their projects, but no specification or guidelines were reported except for
Weakley County.
The pulverization in the county level FDR projects all used the full depth of the pavements with
varying proportions of subgrade inclusion, and none of the respondents reported the use of
supplementary materials like fly ash. Most FDR projects were performed on local roads and
residential roads. FDR has also been used for highways and arterials.
Taking cores and visual inspection were the most sort after means of candidate selection for the
counties, and moisture control, traffic and sanitation were the problems mostly encountered
during construction. The failure types that were targeted with FDR for the counties included all
failures associated with the base layer of the pavement and fatigue cracking, and all respondents
reported that they would recommend FDR for pavement treatment.
Outside the findings from the online survey, discussions on FDR stabilizing agents and their
applicability with Ariel Soriano from the City of Chattanooga shed light on alternative materials

45
that could improve cost efficiency of the process while delivering satisfactory results for the
intended purpose. The discussion was centered on the utilization of Cement Kiln Dust (CKD)
which is a by-product of cement production as a stabilizing agent. The properties of CKD as a
modifier for soils with high plasticity, and its relatively cheap acquisition could be taken
advantage of in situations where traditional stabilizing agents like Portland cement and
emulsified asphalt are insufficient for effective and economic FDR stabilization.

5.3 Stabilizing Agents

The effectiveness of the FDR stabilization agent is dependent on several factors including
pavement structural composition, material composition, environmental and climatic factors. For
each of these factors and/or a combination of multiple factors, different stabilizing agents would
be required for optimal functionality of an FDR project. From the research on the Portland
cement and emulsified asphalt as stabilizing agents for FDR, the results and summaries in the
ensuing sub-sections are generated.

5.3.1 Portland Cement

Cement is a type of chemical stabilization that is achieved by mixing pulverized asphalt pavement
and subsurface materials with a chemical stabilizing agent. Common chemical stabilization
materials are Portland cement, lime, fly ash, lime kiln dust, calcium, or magnesium chloride.
Cement stabilization is an engineered alternative to realize cost savings through reduction of
hauling and less labor for removing and replacing existing material. All the alternatives gain this
advantage. This research focused on the performance of the mixtures knowing that TDOT had
early indication that this method would save agency funding. Cement stabilization can achieve
high early strengths and this research wanted to understand more about strength development
with different percentage additions. In addition to early performance, durability is very important
for FDR roads and while this study did not have the opportunity to monitor for long term
durability, the literature suggests that you will see better moisture resistance and freeze/thaw
resistance. Lastly, cement stabilization works with a wide variety of existing materials and can
accommodate higher plasticity soils. We captured the PI of the soils to be able to monitor
performance on a variety of subsurface conditions.
Analyses of postconstruction data suggests that the differences in resilient modulus in different
sections of the road are subject to factors which mainly comprised of reclaimed material
proportions since no effort was taken to mill off excess asphalt surface materials before
rehabilitation to ensure consistent RAP proportions in the reclaimed mix. From the information
provided in section 4.1.5, lower post construction structural numbers are associated with
sections of the road with thicker asphalt layers, and though not researched upon, it is believed
that base material compositions also have some contributions to the post construction results.
Identifying the extent and range to which these factors affect the post-construction resilient
modulus and overall pavement performance would require further studies.
5.3.2 Emulsified Asphalt
Sieve analyses results for the base materials, RAP materials and composite materials for all
batches for SR 88, compared with the reclaimed asphalt pavement and underlying materials
requirements from the Asphalt Reclaiming and Recycling Association is provided in Table 5.1. The

46
results show all materials for the mix designs meeting the requirements except the subgrade
materials for SR 88 batch 7-9-11, which were eventually excluded from the mix.
Asphalt binder content in the RAP materials and composite materials were determined
separately using the procedure outlined in Appendix A2. The results were used to determine the
proportion of RAP materials in the reclaimed mix which, in turn, is taken as the reclaimed material
composition for the mix design. This composition will be used to determine the depth in the
pavement to which the reclaimer will retrieve materials during the FDR construction. The
reclaimed material proportions during construction will have to be maintained as much as
possible as the same proportion of RAP content in the mix as indicated in the design. This implies
that on some portion of the roadway, it might be needed to mill off some asphalt surface
materials to stick to the designed RAP content. Table 5.2 shows the report of binder content in
the RAP materials, reclaimed materials, and the RAP content in the reclaimed materials for the
batches.
The summary of the optimizations (water and emulsified asphalt) for all the batches are
presented in Table 5.3. The summary compares the results to minimum Marshall stability
recommendation by ARRA [44] and the stability retention to the common acceptable average of
60% [45]
Table 5.1 Material Gradation Summary

Sieve Sizes 3-in (75mm) 2-in (50mm) #200 (0.075mm)

Materials by Requirements 100% 95 – 100% 2 – 20%

Batch
Batch 1-3-5 Subgrade X X X
Materials Base 100% 100% 0.6%
RAP 100% 100% 4.8%
Composite 100% 100% 4.11%
Batch 7-9-11 Subgrade 100% 100% 71.6%
Materials Base 100% 100% 15.4%
RAP 100% 100% 8.1%
Composite 100% 100% 11%
Batch 13-15 Subgrade X X X
Materials Base X X X
RAP X X X
Composite 100% 100% 6.5%
SR 54 Materials Subgrade X X X
Base X X X
RAP 100% 100% 2.24%
Composite X X X

The optimum moisture content reported in the mix design considers the in-situ moisture present
in the reclaimed materials, water present in the asphalt emulsion, and extra water used during
the pulverization process as well as the general construction process. Using the sample
maximum bulk density in its determination, the optimum moisture content will provide
maximum compaction during construction while preventing slurry formation. The optimum
emulsion content reported in the mix gave the maximum stability under load and retained

47
stability when subjected to saturated moisture conditions. A lower optimum moisture content
was determined for batch 7-9-11. Though the OMC was lower, it produced a mix with the highest
bulk densities. While the RAP materials of batch 7-9-11 had the highest binder content, the
optimum emulsion content for the mix design turned out to be the lowest emulsion content of
the three batches. The Marshall stability load for the batch samples greatly exceeded the
minimum requirement, but the retained stability for this batch fell just below the requirement of
60% retention of dry stability strength. Mix design for batch 13-15 gave the highest optimum
moisture content amongst all batches for SR 88 and an optimum asphalt content same as the
mix design for batch 1-3-5. The Stability strength of the mix design samples was as promising of
the other mix designs with values going well above the minimum requirement. The retained
stability for this batch, however, was the most promising of all the batches as test samples
retained percentages of their stability that were much higher than the specification when
submerged in water over a period.

Table 5.2 Binder Content and RAP Content

Batches 1-3-5 7-9-11 13-15 SR 54

Binder Content in 4.52% 4.92% 4.52% 7.56%
RAP
Binder Content in 3.63% 3.35% 3.42% 7.56%
reclaimed materials
RAP Content in 80% 68% 76% 100%
reclaimed materials

Table 5.3 Optimization Summaries

Water Batch 1-3-5 Batch 7-9-11 Batch 13-15 SR 54 Specification

Optimization Requirement
OMC 5.60% 5.45% 5.7% 6.9% NA
Bulk Density 133.70 lb./ft3 135.55 lb./ft3 131.72 lb./ft3 128.91 lb./ft3 NA

Emulsion Batch 1-3-5 Batch 7-9-11 Batch 13-15 SR 54 Specification

Optimization Requirement
Emulsion 3.50 % 3.30% 3.50% 3.03% NA
Content
Bulk Density 133.53 lb./ft3 133.97 lb./ft3 132.00 lb./ft3 122.69 lb./ft3 NA
Dry Marshall 12262 lbf 12104.6 lbf 12150.2 lbf 11427 lbf NA
Stability
Dry Marshall 0.017 in 0.016 in 0.017 in 0.029 in NA
Flow
Wet Marshall 8013 lbf 7200 lbf 8796.95 lbf 7609.45 lbf 1625 lbf
Stability (minimum)
Wet Marshall 0.053 in 0.051 in 0.074 in 0.145 in NA
Flow
Retained 65.34 % 59.48 % 72.40 % 66.59% 60%
Stability

48
Chapter 6 Conclusion and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions
FDR is accepted as a suitable rehabilitation solution for most pavement distresses. It is
considered by many state agencies as an ideal solution for the improvement of pavement
structural capacity and widening of the pavement shoulders. At present, it is up to the different
state transportation agencies to provide mix design guides for FDR projects in the states as well
as candidate selection guides and construction specifications. Potential FDR candidates could be
any type of pavement, but the most common pavements rehabilitated with FDR are highways,
local roads, and arterials. As a very cost-effective alternative to reconstruction, the cost
effectiveness of FDR can be tied to the stabilizing agent used for the construction of the projects.
For instance, where Portland cement is used to stabilize an FDR base, an asphalt layer is typically
placed over the FDR as a wearing course to protect the base from moisture intrusion and improve
the ride quality, and this contributes to the cost of construction. Candidate selection for both the
national and state level of the survey revealed visual inspection and core sampling to be the most
adopted means of FDR candidate selection.

The selection of candidate pavements for FDR should start with the identification and
classification of visible distresses on the pavements. The identified distresses would then be used
in the development of a pavement condition index for the candidates where all candidates falling
below the trigger point for the agency would be considered as potential FDR candidates.
Pavement core sample analyses and NDT equipment like the falling weight deflectometer and
ground penetrating radar should then be used in assessing the condition of the pavement layers.
Pavements with poor base layers incapable of supporting the pavement design loads should be
considered as acceptable FDR candidates. Amongst acceptable FDR candidates, pavements with
more economic relevance based on traffic conditions should be given priority, and statistical
analyses tools like Excel Solver and other preferred tools should be utilized in reaching an
optimized choice between acceptable candidates based on the cost estimate of stabilization and
rehabilitation, the proximity of the candidates to materials, and other quantifiable factors.

A proper material gradation is vital to the performance of FDR projects. These materials are
required to have restrictions on the amount passing the #200 sieve, and the sizes of the coarse
aggregates in the mix. Too much fine materials in the mix will result in an increase in the amount
of recycling agent for the stabilization, and deleterious materials are preferably removed so as
not to compromise the properties of the mix design. Reclaimed materials with high RAP contents
are better stabilized with emulsified asphalt, and materials with 100% RAP contents are
unsuitable for cement stabilization and would require lower amount of emulsified asphalt for
optimum stabilization. Cement stabilization works best when there is significant inclusion of
granular materials from the base and subgrade (optional) layers provided they are of acceptable
properties. In certain conditions, it would be required to mill off some portions of the asphalt
layer to allow for an inclusive proportion of the other pavement materials. However, the cost,
effort and implications of such procedures should be compared to the merits and demerits of
other stabilizing agents, and their suitability.

49
6.2 Recommendations
TDOT’s specification for FDR projects (SP304FDR) appears to be well established with no need for
major specification alterations. However, having analyzed the findings from the research, and
from the discussions and the interactions with industry professionals, the research team strongly
recommends that some provisions be made to the specification to improve on the existing
provisions which would help save costs and improve the performance of the FDR projects.
In the Materials section, TDOT would benefit from the inclusion of Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) as
possible material for FDR stabilization. CKD as a waste product from the production of cement,
has been used in stabilizing and improving the properties of soil with high plasticity. Proper
integration of this material in FDR as a stabilizing agent or a supplementary agent would save
TDOT significantly in construction cost.
Under the Mix Design Submittal and Quality Control sections, the research team recommends
that different mix designs be adopted for sections of the FDR pavement with largely different
structural properties. Information from the postconstruction analyses for SR-88 suggests that the
difference in resilient modulus in different sections of the road resulted from using the same FDR
mix design on a road with largely different reclaimed materials proportions, owing to differences
in pavement structural layer thicknesses. The benefits from different mix design for pavement
sections with largely different characteristics are better consistency with the post construction
pavement properties and close adherence to the FDR mix design.
It is also recommended that appropriate time be given before the installation of an asphalt
surface course for cement stabilized FDR base. This draws from the factor that cement curing is
usually accomplished by shrinkage and possible development of cracks. Other bituminous
preservative methods like chip seal could be used immediately after construction to protect the
base form moisture loss until a permanent wearing course is installed.
After construction, for roads with high traffic volume, where redirection of the entire vehicular
traffic is impossible, restrictions should be placed on the class of vehicle driving on the newly
constructed road according to the engineer’s advice until the pavement is sufficiently cured
(typically 7 Days). This would protect the new pavement base from damage and defects in its
early curing stage.
The teams also recommends that to battle the challenge of environmental pollution of cement
particles by wind dispersion reported by respondents to the survey, the Department should set
plans for the development of provisions for the use cement slurry to combat such challenges
when spreading cement and other dry media for FDR projects.
TDOT’s specification has no provisions for emulsified asphalt as a stabilizing agent for FDR. The
development and inclusion of emulsified asphalt specifications on mix design, material quantity
and properties and construction procedures to TDOT’s FDR specifications will provide valuable
alternative for project success. The research team observed that savings can be derived from the
use of emulsified asphalt on pavement candidate with certain properties, like thick asphalt layers
as is detailed in section 4.2.3 of the report where low amount of emulsified asphalt is required
for effective stabilization of FDR candidate pavement with thick asphalt layers and no base and
subgrade material inclusion in the reclaimed mix.

50
References
[1] H. J. Miller, W. S. Guthrie, R. A. Crane and B. Smith, "Evaluation of cement-stabilized full-
depth-recycled base materials for frost and early traffic conditions," 2006.

[2] ARRA, "Full Depth Reclamation," 2022. [Online].

[3] Thomas, 2010.

[4] Wirtgen, "Cold Recycling Manual," Windhagen, Germany, 2004.

[5] I. Syed, T. Scullion and a. J. P. Harris, "Durability of Recycled and Stabilized Pavement
Materials," ASCE, 1999.

[6] J. Litzka and W. Haslehner, "Cold In-place Recycling on Low-Volume Roads in Austria,"
Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings, 1995.

[7] B. K. Diefenderfer and A. M. Overton, "Research Pays Off: Pavement Recycling: An Effective
Reuse of Resources," TR News, 2015.

[8] B. K. Diefenderfer and A. K. Apeagyei, "Analysis of full-depth reclamation trial sections in

Virginia," Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, 2011.

[9] M. R. Thompson, L. Garcia and S. H. Carpenter, "Cold In-place recycling and full depth
recycling with asphalt products (CIR&FDRwAP)," Illinois Center for Transportation (ICT),
2009.

[10] TxDOT, "Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets,
and Bridges," Texas Department of Transportation, 2004.

[11] Y. Kim and H. “. Lee, "Development of mix design procedure for cold in-place recycling with
foamed asphalt," Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 116-124, 2006.

[12] R. B. Mallick, M. R. Teto, P. S. Kandhal, E. Ray Brown, R. L. Bradbury and E. J. & Kearney,
"Laboratory study of full-depth reclamation mixes," Transportation research record, vol.
1813, no. 1, pp. 103-110, 2002.

[13] I. SUDAS, "Full Depth Reclamation," Statewide Urban Design And Specifications.

[14] E. J. Kearney and a. J. E. Huffman, "Full-depth reclamation process," Transportation Research

Record, pp. 203-209, 1999.

[15] G. D. Reeder, D. S. Harrington, M. E. Ayers and W. Adaska, "Guide to Full-Depth Reclamation

(FDR) with Cement," 2017.

[16] S. Shuler, "Best Practice for Full-Depth Reclamation Using Asphalt Emulsions," Colorado
Department of Transportation. Research Branch, 2015.

[17] ARRA, "Guidelines," 24 03 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.arra.org/page/guideline.

51
[18] P. Interactive, "Foamed Asphalt," [Online].

[19] D. Jones, P. Fu and J. T. Harvey, "Full-depth pavement reclamation with foamed asphalt in
California: Guidelines for project selection, design, and construction," 2009.

[20] J. M. Shepard, J. Pickett and M. Kienzle, "Full-depth reclamation with calcium chloride,"
Transportation Research Record, no. 1295, 1991.

[21] A. Duclos, D. Ambaiowei and L. Wheildon, "Effectiveness and benefits of calcium chloride
stabilized road base: a township of woolwich study," in TAC 2017: Investing in Transportation:
Building Canada's Economy--2017 Conference and Exhibition of the Transportation Association
of Canada, 2017.

[22] N. L. Association, "Soil Stabilization," 2007. [Online]. Available: https://www.lime.org/lime-

basics/uses-of-lime/construction/soil-stabilzation/.

[23] C. R. Smith, D. E. Lewis, J. Turner and D. M. Jared, "Georgia's Use of Lime in Full-Depth
Reclamation," Transportation Research Record, vol. 2059, no. 1, pp. 89-94, 2008.

[24] J. E. Michener, Effects of Environmental Factors on Construction of Soil-Cement Pavement

Layers, Effects of Environmental Factors on Construction of Soil-Cement Pavement Layers,
2008.

[25] W. S. Guthrie, J. E. Michener, B. T. Wilson and D. L. Eggett, "Effects of environmental factors

on construction of soil–cement pavement layers," Transportation research record, pp. 71-79,
2009.

[26] L. Titus-Glover, M. I. Darter and H. L. Von Quintus, "Impact of environmental factors on

pavement performance in the absence of heavy loads," United States. Federal Highway
Administration. Office of Infrastructure , 2019.

[27] G. Zuo, Impacts of environmental factors on flexible pavements, The University of

Tennessee, 2003.

[28] J. W. Burton, D. Perdomo and R. L. Lytton, "Influence of aggregate on rutting in asphalt

concrete," Transportation Research Record, (1259), 1990.

[29] PennDOT, "Developing Standards and Specifications for Full Depth Reclamation,"
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 2015.

[30] S. S. Adlinge and A. K. Gupta, "Pavement deterioration and its causes," International Journal
of Innovative Research, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 437-450, 2013.

[31] A. E. Alkins, B. Lane and T. Kazmierowski, "Sustainable pavements: environmental,

economic, and social benefits of in situ pavement recycling," Transportation research record,
vol. 2084, no. 1, pp. 100-103, 2008.

52
[32] C. Graveen, "Nondestructive test methods to assess pavement quality for use in a
performance-related specification," Purdue University, Master of Science in Civil Engineering,
2001.

[33] H. Ceylan, A. Guclu, E. Tutumluer and M. R. Thompson, "Backcalculation of full-depth

asphalt pavement layer moduli considering nonlinear stress-dependent subgrade
behavior," International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 2005.

[34] J. S. Miller and W. Y. Bellinger, "Distress identification manual for the long-term pavement
performance program," United States. Federal Highway Administration. Office of
Infrastructure, 2003.

[35] Y. H. Huang, Pavement analysis and design, 1993.

[36] T. Officials, AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, vol. 1, AASHTO, 1993.

[37] TDOT, "Special Provision Regarding Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) of Flexible Pavement,"
Tennessee Department of Transportation, 2015.

[38] CDOT, "Asphalt Emulsion Full Depth Reclamation," Colorado Department of Transportation.

[39] H. U. Bahia, Layer coefficients for new and reprocessed asphaltic mixes, Wisconsin
Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Infrastructure Development,,
2000.

[40] ARRA, "Recommended Mix Desing Guidelines for Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) Using
Emulsified Asphalt Stabilizing Agent FDR201A," Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming
Association, 2018.

[41] FHWA, "Mixture Design," Highway Materials Engineering, p. Module F.

[42] 3. CTM, "Method of test for residue by evaporationof emulsified asphalt," Carlifornia Test
Methods, 2000.

[43] A. T30, "Standard Method of Test for Mechanical Analysis of Extracted Aggregate," American
Association of State Highway Transport Officials.

[44] ARRA, "Recommended Construction Guidelines for Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) Using
Bituminous Stabilization," Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association, 2017.

[45] S. A. Al-Mishhadani, H. H. Al-Baidhani and H. H. Zghair, "Some properties of Emulsified

Asphalt Paving Mixture at Iraqi Environmental Conditions," Tikrit Journal of Engineering
Sciences, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 10-18, 2014.

[46] SUDAS, "Full Depth Reclamation, in Pavement Rehbailitation Program," Statewide Urban
Design and Specifications, Iowa. p. 7, 2019.

[47] T. D. o. T. TxDOT, "Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways,

Streets and Bridges," 2004.

53
[48] K. Muthen, "Foamed asphalt mixes-mix design procedure," Transportation Research Record,
pp. 290-296, 1998.

[49] A. T11, Standard method of test for materials finer than 75-μm (No. 200) sieve in mineral
aggregates by washing, Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Washington, DC, USA, 2020.

54
Appendix A. Mix Design

55
A1: Portland Cement Mix Design (PCFDR)
The design of Portland cement stabilized FDR focuses on optimizing the cement content and the
water content for the materials. The Portland Cement Association’s guide to full-depth
reclamation with cement specified recommended tests to conduct for the preparation of a
cement stabilized FDR mix design. The steps include:
1. Determination of the sample gradation following AASHTO T11 and T27 or ASTM C117 and
C136 standards. The gradation plays an important role in ensure a strong bond between
the particles and keeping cost in check as too many fines will require more cement
content for the mix. Hence the minimum percentages of 100% passing the 3-in sieve, 55%
of materials passing the No 4 sieve and a maximum of 20% passing the #200 sieve are
required.
2. Atterberg Limits Test using AASHTO T 90 or ASTM D4318. This test is recommended when
the materials passing the #200 sieve is at least 20% of the total combined materials. It
determines the liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index of the portion of the materials
passing the #200 sieve and this provides information on the bonding characteristics of
the aggregates, and aid in the classification of the soil materials.
3. Chemical compatibility. The test associated with this include sulfate content, pH value of
the existing materials and the organic material content in the reclaimed materials. Reeder
e al suggested that these tests can be minimized on the basis of familiarity with the soil
and materials composition of the road, and experience in the use of FDR to rehabilitation.

With the completion of the tests to classify and characterized the materials for the mix, a cement
arbitrary cement content is established and varied (preferably by 2 – 3% intervals) to establish
other cement contents for testing and determining the optimum content. following AASHTO T
134 or ASTM D558 for the determination of compaction density, the maximum dry density (MDD)
and the optimum moisture content (OMC) are calculated. To achieve this, material mixtures are
compacted at different moisture contents and a cement content that is midrange of all cement
contents considered for the test, and their dry densities are calculated. The results of the dry
densities are plotted against the water content, and the moisture content where the curve breaks
(maximum dry density) is marked as the OMC. The cement content and water content are
determined using equations A.1 and A.2 respectively.

Maintaining the optimum moisture content values, specimens should be prepared at the
different established cement contents and tested for their unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) following the standards of ASTM D1633. The graph of UCS against cement content is then
used to select the required cement content for the desired compressive strength of the mix
according to the agencies’ specification.

56
A2: Emulsified Asphalt Mix Design (AEFDR)
The FDR mix design involves three phases:
Phase 1: Determination of the percent passing sieve #200
1. Dry samples obtained from the site for 24 hours.
2. Determine the percent passing #200 (P200) sieve for each of the dry materials collected.
3. Determine the binder content of the Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) materials.
4. Mix the RAP, base and or subgrade samples at required ratios.
5. Determine the percent passing #200 sieve from the above mix (requirement: P200 <
20%).
6. Determine the binder content of the mix.
Phase 2: Optimum moisture content determination
1. Using a riffle splitter and a weighing scale, obtain 4000g of the dry sample mix in
different containers (3 samples per % moisture content value).
2. For optimum moisture determination using asphalt emulsion, the amount of asphalt
emulsion is selected as a percentage by mass of the dry sample and kept constant
through the process (example 3%). Since the asphalt emulsion contains part residuals
and part water, the water part is to be considered in optimum moisture content
determination.
3. For each of the 4000g samples, add water to attain the preferred moisture content (e.g.
4%, 5% and 6% by weight of dry sample) while keeping into consideration the additional
water from the emulsion to be used as decided in step 2 above. Note three (3) samples
are to be prepared for each moisture content value.
4. Mix each of the 4000g samples in a mixer with the moisture content required till the mix
becomes homogeneous.
5. Contain each of the mixed samples in sealed containers and let them soak for 24 hours.
6. After 24 hours, add the predetermined asphalt emulsion content by percent mass of the
dry sample (examples 3% of dry mass of mix) as decided in step 2 to each of the soaked
samples.
7. Using an asphalt mixer, mix each of the samples with the asphalt emulsion till a
homogenous mix is obtained.
8. Let the mixture sit for 30 minutes, then compact each of the samples for 30 gyrations
using a Gyratory compactor.
9. Extrude the sample from the Gyratory compactor and measure the wet mass and
thickness of the sample (Thickness is obtained as the average thickness of three or
more measurements on the sample). Calculate the sample wet density from the
measured parameters.
10. Place the compacted samples in the oven at 40o C for 48 hours
11. After 48 hours, remove the compacted samples and when cool measure the dry masses
and thicknesses of the samples. Calculate the Dry density of the samples from the
measured parameters.
12. Calculate the bulk density of the samples. Bulk density is calculated as saturated mass
(measured at SSD condition) divided by the sample volume. (6)

57
13. Plot a graph of bulk density versus moisture content. The optimum moisture content
can be obtained as the moisture content giving the maximum bulk density from the
plotted curve.
Phase 3: Optimum emulsion content determination
1. Optimum emulsion content determination initial procedures are much like those of the
optimum moisture content determination (Step 1 to 12), whereby for emulsion
optimization the moisture content is kept constant while the emulsion contents are
varied. The moisture content used here corresponds to the optimum moisture content.
Also, for emulsion content optimization it is advised to use six (6) samples per asphalt
content.
2. Plot a graph of bulk density versus emulsion contents.
3. Perform Marshal stability tests on the samples. Marshall stability tests include dry and
wet tests. From the six (6) samples for each emulsion content; three (3) are used for dry
Marshall stability and the other three (3) for wet Marshall stability test.
4. Dry Marshall stability test
i. Place the sample on the load frame and perform the Marshall test.
ii. Record the maximum stability strength of each test sample at different emulsion
contents
iii. Plot a graph of Stability versus emulsion content. The optimum emulsion content
can be obtained as the emulsion content at which maximum stability is observed on
the plotted curve.
iv. The dry Marshall test is targeted at a minimum strength value of 1625 lbf for 6inch
samples
5. Wet Marshall stability test
i. Soak the samples in the water bath at 25o C for 23 hours then at 40o C for an hour.
ii. Place the sample on the load frame and perform the Marshall test.
iii. Record the maximum stability strength of each test sample at different emulsion
contents.
iv. Plot a graph of Stability versus emulsion content. The optimum emulsion content
can be obtained as the emulsion content at which maximum stability is observed on
the plotted curve.
v. Determine the ratio of the maximum wet Marshall Stability to the Maximum dry
Marshall stability values to see if it meets the percent requirement set by the
required agency. An average of 60% retained stability is usually accepted for
emulsion FDR.

58
Appendix B. Laboratory Results: Tables and
Graphs

59
 Table B 1 Batch 1-3-5 Base Materials Particle Size Distribution
Sieve No. Sieve Size (in.) Retained (g) Cumulative Retained (g) % Passing
1.5 1.5 0 0 100.000
1 1 185.6 185.6 96.239
0.75 0.75 304.2 489.8 90.074
0.5 0.5 486.2 976 80.222
0.375 0.375 233.8 1209.8 75.484
4 0.187 577.7 1787.5 63.777
8 0.0937 468.2 2255.7 54.289
10 0.0787 139.6 2395.3 51.460
16 0.0469 425 2820.3 42.848
20 0.0331 648.4 3468.7 29.708
30 0.0234 472.5 3941.2 20.133
40 0.0165 557.8 4499 8.829
50 0.0117 172.2 4671.2 5.340
60 0.0098 41.5 4712.7 4.499
80 0.007 56.1 4768.8 3.362
100 0.0059 53.5 4822.3 2.278
200 0.0029 81.4 4903.7 0.628
pan 0 31 4934.7 0.000

Table B 2 Batch 1-3-5 RAP Aggregate Materials Particle Size Distribution

Sieve No. Sieve Size (in.) Retained (g) Cumulative Retained (g) % Passing
1.5 1.5 0 0 100.000
1 1 0 0 100.000
0.75 0.75 0 0 100.000
0.5 0.5 126.4 126.4 92.735
0.375 0.375 312.8 439.2 74.755
4 0.187 385.7 824.9 52.585
8 0.0937 175.9 1000.8 42.474
10 0.0787 34.2 1035 40.508
16 0.0469 79.6 1114.6 35.933
20 0.0331 55.75 1170.35 32.728
30 0.0234 63.12 1233.47 29.100
40 0.0165 89.18 1322.65 23.974
50 0.0117 141.55 1464.2 15.838
60 0.0098 60.55 1524.75 12.357
80 0.007 70.36 1595.11 8.313
100 0.0059 26.39 1621.5 6.796
200 0.0029 34.72 1656.22 4.800
pan 0 83.51 1739.73 0.000

60
 Table B 3 Batch 7-9-11 Subgrade Materials Particle Size Distribution

Sieve No. Sieve Size (in.) Retained (g) Cumulative Retained (g) % Passing
1.5 1.5 0 0.0 100.000
1 1 0 0.0 100.000
0.75 0.75 37.9 37.9 98.685
0.5 0.5 84.2 122.1 95.764
0.375 0.375 49.4 171.5 94.050
4 0.187 100.8 272.3 90.553
8 0.0937 99.3 371.6 87.108
10 0.0787 17.9 389.5 86.487
16 0.0469 41.8 431.3 85.037
20 0.0331 30.1 461.4 83.993
30 0.0234 40.4 501.8 82.591
40 0.0165 47.7 549.5 80.936
50 0.0117 40.5 590.0 79.531
60 0.0098 25.9 615.9 78.632
80 0.007 21.5 637.4 77.886
100 0.0059 18.2 655.6 77.255
200 0.0029 161.7 817.3 71.645
pan 0 2065.1 2882.4 0.000

Table B 4 Batch 7-9-11 Base Materials Particle Size Distribution

Sieve No. Sieve Size (in.) Retained (g) Cumulative Retained (g) % Passing
1.5 1.5 0 0 100.000
1 1 0 0 100.000
0.75 0.75 8.9 8.9 99.703
0.5 0.5 309 317.9 89.403
0.375 0.375 186.2 504.1 83.196
4 0.187 420.6 924.7 69.176
8 0.0937 462.5 1387.2 53.758
10 0.0787 104.9 1492.1 50.262
16 0.0469 252.1 1744.2 41.858
20 0.0331 150.8 1895 36.831
30 0.0234 138 2033 32.231
40 0.0165 133.2 2166.2 27.791
50 0.0117 120 2286.2 23.791
60 0.0098 43.6 2329.8 22.337
80 0.007 66.5 2396.3 20.121
100 0.0059 48.4 2444.7 18.507
200 0.0029 91.5 2536.2 15.457
pan 0 463.7 2999.9 0.000

61
 Table B 5 Batch 7-9-11 RAP Materials Particle Size Distribution.
Sieve No. Sieve Size (in.) Retained (g) Cumulative Retained (g) % Passing
1.5 1.5 0 0 100.000
1 1 0 0 100.000
0.75 0.75 0 0 100.000
0.5 0.5 62.5 62.5 96.795
0.375 0.375 140.8 203.3 89.575
4 0.187 360.8 564.1 71.073
8 0.0937 266.5 830.6 57.407
10 0.0787 61 891.6 54.279
16 0.0469 142.1 1033.7 46.992
20 0.0331 100.2 1133.9 41.854
30 0.0234 113.6 1247.5 36.029
40 0.0165 134.6 1382.1 29.127
50 0.0117 163.1 1545.2 20.763
60 0.0098 87 1632.2 16.302
80 0.007 55.3 1687.5 13.466
100 0.0059 30.1 1717.6 11.922
200 0.0029 75.4 1793 8.056
pan 0 157.1 1950.1 0.000

Table B 6 Binder content and RAP content.

Batches Binder content in Binder content in mix RAP content in mix
RAP
batch 1-3-5 4.52% 3.63% 75%
batch 7-9-11 4.92% 3.35% 78%
batch 13-15 4.52% 3.42% 76%

62
 Table B 7 Batch 1-3-5 mixed materials particle size distribution.
Sieve No. Sieve Size (in.) Retained (g) Cumulative Retained (g) % Passing
1.5 1.5 0 0 100.00
1 1 0 0 100.00
0.75 0.75 9 9 99.70
0.5 0.5 255.3 264.3 91.20
0.375 0.375 371.6 635.9 78.84
4 0.187 781.5 1417.4 52.83
8 0.0937 442.5 1859.9 38.11
10 0.0787 85.5 1945.4 35.26
16 0.0469 186.2 2131.6 29.06
20 0.0331 128.5 2260.1 24.79
30 0.0234 130.2 2390.3 20.46
40 0.0165 146.9 2537.2 15.57
50 0.0117 158.1 2695.3 10.31
60 0.0098 54.3 2749.6 8.50
80 0.007 62.2 2811.8 6.43
100 0.0059 34.4 2846.2 5.28
200 0.0029 35.4 2881.6 4.11
pan 0 123.4 3005 0.00

Table B 8 Batch 7-9-11 mixed materials particle size distribution.

Sieve No. Sieve Size (in.) Retained (g) Cumulative Retained (g) % Passing
1.5 1.5 0 0 100.00
1 1 0 0 100.00
0.75 0.75 0 0 100.00
0.5 0.5 331.3 331.3 89.15
0.375 0.375 402.7 734 75.96
4 0.187 775.7 1509.7 50.55
8 0.0937 462.2 1971.9 35.41
10 0.0787 92.7 2064.6 32.37
16 0.0469 178.4 2243 26.53
20 0.0331 104.3 2347.3 23.11
30 0.0234 97.5 2444.8 19.92
40 0.0165 86.6 2531.4 17.08
50 0.0117 66.5 2597.9 14.91
60 0.0098 22.6 2620.5 14.17
80 0.007 31.8 2652.3 13.12
100 0.0059 19 2671.3 12.50
200 0.0029 46.1 2717.4 10.99
pan 0 335.6 3053 0.00

63
 Table B 9 Batch 13-15 mixed materials particle size distribution
Sieve no Sieve Size (in.) Retained (g) Cumulative Retained (g) % Passing
1.5 1.5 0 0 100.00
1 1 0 0 100.00
0.75 0.75 0 0 100.00
0.5 0.5 168.8 168.8 88.67
0.375 0.375 132.9 301.7 79.76
4 0.187 323 624.7 58.09
8 0.0937 242.3 867 41.83
10 0.0787 49.4 916.4 38.52
16 0.0469 111.8 1028.2 31.02
20 0.0331 68.9 1097.1 26.39
30 0.0234 75.4 1172.5 21.34
40 0.0165 74.4 1246.9 16.34
50 0.0117 58.3 1305.2 12.43
60 0.0098 23.2 1328.4 10.88
80 0.007 28.8 1357.2 8.94
100 0.0059 15.5 1372.7 7.90
200 0.0029 20 1392.7 6.56
Pan 0 97.8 1490.5 0.00

Table B 10 Water Optimization for Batch 1-3-5

Water Content Sample Wet Density Dry Density Bulk Density
Number (lb./ft3) (lb./ft3) (lb./ft3)
1-3-5/301 134.400 131.418 132.440
3% water 1-3-5/302 133.620 130.364 131.418
average 134.009 130.889 131.928
1-3-5/401 135.429 131.844 132.758
4% water 1-3-5/402 136.188 131.976 132.840
average 135.808 131.910 132.799
1-3-5/501 138.819 133.360 133.988
5% water 1-3-5/502 137.976 132.356 133.129
average 138.397 132.857 133.557
1-3-5/701 139.731 132.270 132.796
7% water 1-3-5/702 139.435 131.451 131.872
average 139.583 131.859 132.332

64
 134.000
133.557
133.500

Bulk Density (lb/ft3)

133.000 132.799

132.500 132.332
131.928
132.000

131.500

131.000
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Water Content (%)

Figure B 1 Water Optimization for Batch 1-3-5

Table B 11 Water Optimization for Batch 7-9-11

Water Content Sample Number Wet Density Dry Density Bulk Density
(lb./ft3) (lb./ft3) (lb./ft3)
7-9-11/301 133.770 130.669 132.315
3% water 7-9-11/302 133.165 130.046 132.038
Average 133.467 130.357 132.176
7-9-11/401 137.216 132.936 134.325
4% water 7-9-11/402 137.518 132.781 133.981
average 137.367 132.859 134.153
7-9-11/501 140.735 134.931 135.593
5% water 7-9-11/502 140.149 134.531 135.213
average 140.441 134.731 135.402
7-9-11/701 140.019 132.505 132.796
7% water 7-9-11/702 140.579 133.204 133.639
average 140.298 132.853 133.216

65
 136.000
135.402
135.500

135.000

Bulk Density (lb/ft3)

134.500 134.153
134.000

133.500 133.216

133.000

132.500 132.176

132.000
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Water Content (%)

Figure B 2 Water Optimization for Batch 7-9-11

Table B 12 Water Optimization for Batch 13-15

Water Content Sample Wet Density Dry Density Bulk Density
3
Number (lb./ft ) (lb./ft3) (lb./ft3)
13-15/301 131.647 128.356 129.377
3% water 13-15/302 132.321 129.135 129.932
average 131.983 128.744 129.654
13-15/401 134.382 130.163 130.872
4% water 13-15/402 134.271 130.079 130.953
average 134.327 130.121 130.913
13-15/501 136.785 131.164 131.758
5% water 13-15/502 136.421 130.591 131.419
average 136.603 130.877 131.588
13-15/601 137.647 130.858 131.275
6% water 13-15/602 138.447 131.706 132.083
average 138.046 131.281 131.678
13-15/701 138.784 130.662 131.028
7% water 13-15/702 138.687 130.899 131.271
average 138.736 130.781 131.150

66
 132.000 131.678
131.588
131.500
131.150
130.913
131.000

Bulk Density (lb/ft3)

130.500

130.000
129.654

129.500

129.000
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Water Content (%)

Figure B 3 Water Optimization for Batch 13-15

Table B 13 Asphalt Emulsion Density for Batch 1-3-5

Emulsion Sample Wet Density Dry Density Bulk Density
Content Number (lb./ft3) (lb./ft3) (lb./ft3)
1-3-5/201 138.213 132.673 133.320
2% water 1-3-5/202 137.425 131.671 132.460
average 137.818 132.170 132.889
1-3-5/301 139.132 133.373 133.793
3% water 1-3-5/302 138.356 132.681 133.252
average 138.743 133.027 133.522
1-3-5/401 138.936 133.243 133.530
4% water 1-3-5/402 137.667 132.282 132.811
average 138.298 132.761 133.169
1-3-5/501 138.201 132.430 132.887
5% water 1-3-5/502 138.161 132.543 133.057
average 138.181 132.487 132.972

67
 134.000

133.522

Bulk Density (lb/ft3)

133.500

133.169

132.972
133.000 132.889

132.500
1 2 3 4 5
Emulsion Content (%)

Figure B 4 Bulk Density for Batch 1-3-5

Table B 14 Asphalt Emulsion Density for Batch 7-9-11

Emulsion Sample Number Wet Density Dry Density Bulk Density
Content (lb./ft3) (lb./ft3) (lb./ft3)
2% water 7-9-11/201 138.849 132.909 133.681
7-9-11/202 138.857 132.936 133.594
average 138.853 132.923 133.637
3% water 7-9-11/301 138.896 132.899 133.686
7-9-11/302 139.168 133.231 133.781
average 139.031 133.064 133.733
4% water 7-9-11/401 139.555 133.486 133.974
7-9-11/402 139.485 133.459 133.867
average 139.520 133.472 133.921
5% water 7-9-11/501 138.831 132.984 133.477
7-9-11/502 137.155 131.491 132.215
average 137.987 132.233 132.842

68
 134.500

134.000 133.921

Bulk Density (lb/ft3)

133.733
133.637

133.500

133.000 132.842

132.500
1 2 3 4 5 6
Emulsion Content (%)

Figure B 5 Bulk Density for Batch 7-9-11

Table B 15 Asphalt Emulsion Density for Batch 13-15

Emulsion Sample Wet Density Dry Density Bulk Density
Content Number (lb./ft3) (lb./ft3) (lb./ft3)
13-15/201 137.944 131.477 131.846
2% water 13-15/202 135.899 129.542 130.005
average 136.913 130.503 130.919
13-15/301 137.570 131.216 131.515
3% water 13-15/302 137.910 131.662 132.035
average 137.740 131.439 131.775
13-15/401 138.008 131.577 132.046
4% water 13-15/402 137.922 131.535 131.828
average 137.965 131.556 131.937
13-15/501 136.273 130.116 130.713
5% water 13-15/502 136.334 130.189 130.597
average 136.303 130.153 130.655

69
 132.500

131.937
132.000
131.775

Bulk Density (lb/ft3)

131.500

131.000 130.919

130.655

130.500
1 2 3 4 5 6
Emulsion Content (%)

Figure B 6 Bulk Density for Batch 13-15

Table B 16 Marshall Stability Test for Batch 1-3-5

Retained
Batch 1-3-5 Dry Marshall Wet Marshall
stability (%)

Emulsion Sample Stability Flow Stability Flow

Content Number (lbf) (in.) (lbf) (in.)
1-3-5/201 12847.5 0.027 5236.2 0.043

2% 1-3-5/202 12781.8 0.027 5723.3 0.049 42.76

Average 12814.65 0.027 5479.75 0.046

1-3-5/301 12538.3 0.017 5538.1 0.053

3% 1-3-5/302 12172.6 0.014 5167.0 0.051 43.32

Average 12355.45 0.0155 5352.55 0.052

1-3-5/351 11337.1 0.014 8296.2 0.055

3.50% 1-3-5/352 13186.8 0.019 7728.9 0.051 65.34

Average 12261.95 0.0165 8012.55 0.053

1-3-5/401 11865.2 0.015 6539.6 0.07

4% 1-3-5/402 12050.3 0.018 5215.3 0.068 49.15

Average 11957.75 0.0165 5877.45 0.069

1-3-5/503 12657.8 0.018 4760.0 0.075

5% 1-3-5/502 12962.4 0.021 5125.9 0.08 38.59
Average 12810.1 0.0195 4942.95 0.0775

70
 8500
8012.55
8000
7500

Stability (lbf)
7000
6500
5877.45
6000
5236.2 5352.55
5500
4942.95
5000
4500
1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Emulsion Content (%)

Figure B 7 Stability Flow for Batch 1-3-5

Table B 17 Marshall Stability Test for Batch 7-9-11

Retained
Batch 7-9-11 Dry Marshall Wet Marshall
stability (%)
Emulsion Sample Stability Flow Stability Flow
Content Number (lbf) (in.) (lbf) (in.)
7-9-11/201 12126 0.017 3128 0.048
2% 29.17
7-9-11/202 12230.9 0.012 3978 0.043
Average 12178.45 0.0145 3553 0.0455
7-9-11/301 12133.3 0.016 5462 0.053
3% 53.46
7-9-11/302 12170.7 0.013 7532 0.055
Average 12152 0.0145 6497 0.054
7-9-11/311 11815.9 0.014 7303 0.052
3.10% 58.36
7-9-11/312 12393.3 0.017 6825.1 0.049
Average 12104.6 0.0155 7064.05 0.0505
7-9-11/401 12055.8 0.017 5550.9 0.05
4% 53.59
7-9-11/402 11484.9 0.015 7061.3 0.054
Average 11770.35 0.016 6306.1 0.052
7-9-11/501 11769.4 0.016 7046.7 0.06
5% 55.70
7-9-11/502 11185.7 0.015 5738.8 0.063
Average 11477.55 0.0155 6392.75 0.0615

71
 7500
7064.05
7000

6500 6306.1
Stability (lbf)
6000 5738.8

5500

5000

4500

4000
3553
3500
1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Emulsion Content (%)

Figure B 8 Stability Flow for Batch 7-9-11

Table B 18 Marshall Stability Test for Batch 13-15

Retained
Batch 13-15 Dry Marshall Wet Marshall
stability (%)
Emulsion Sample Stability Flow Stability Flow
Content Number (lbf) (in.) (lbf) (in.)
13-15/201 11066.2 0.022 8116.6 0.049
2% 67.31
13-15/202 11275.8 0.02 6921.7 0.052
Average 11171 0.021 7519.15 0.0505
13-15/301 11412.8 0.026 7889.5 0.054
3% 71.59
13-15/302 8452.2 0.056
Average 11412.8 0.026 8170.85 0.055
13-15/351 11744.8 0.015 8800.6 0.086
3.50% 72.40
13-15/352 12555.6 0.018 8793.3 0.062
Average 12150.2 0.0165 8796.95 0.074
13-15/401 11254.1 0.031 7691.5 0.063
4% 72.72
13-15/402 8677.5 0.061
Average 11254.1 0.031 8184.5 0.062
13-15/501 10836.4 0.032 6555.1 0.072
5% 68.15
13-15/502 11703.8 0.035 8806.1 0.145
Average 11270.1 0.0335 7680.6 0.1085

72
 9000
8796.95

8500
Stability (lbf) 8170.85 8184.5

8000
7680.6
7519.15
7500

7000
1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6%
Emulsion Content (%)

Figure B 9 Stability Flow for Batch 13-15

Table B 19 Particle Size Distribution for RAP Materials

Sieve No. Sieve Size (in.) Retained (g) Cumulative Retained (g) % Passing
1.5 1.5 0 0 100.00
1 1 16.4 16.4 99.15
0.75 0.75 39.7 56.1 97.09
0.5 0.5 115.7 171.8 91.10
0.375 0.375 167.5 339.3 82.42
4 0.187 320 659.3 65.83
8 0.0937 590.4 1249.7 35.23
10 0.0787 40.8 1290.5 33.12
16 0.0469 192.8 1483.3 23.13
17.64
20 0.0331 105.8 1589.1
30 0.0234 91 1680.1 12.93

40 0.0165 77.1 1757.2 8.93

50 0.0117 66.4 1823.6 5.49

60 0.0098 17.5 1841.1 4.58

80 0.007 19.9 1861 3.55

100 0.0059 9 1870 3.08

200 0.0029 16.2 1886.2 2.24

pan 43.3 1929.5 0.00

73
 Table B 20 Particle Size Distribution for Material Residue from Asphalt Extraction

Sieve No. Sieve Size (in.) Retained (g) Cumulative Retained (g) % Passing
1.5 1.5 0 0 100.00
1 1 0 0 100.00
0.75 0.75 11 11 99.33
0.5 0.5 34.6 45.6 97.21
0.375 0.375 82.8 128.4 92.16
4 0.187 205.7 334.1 79.59
8 0.0937 445 779.1 52.41
10 0.0787 34.4 813.5 50.31
16 0.0469 142.1 955.6 41.62
20 0.0331 77.1 1032.7 36.92
30 0.0234 76.6 1109.3 32.24
40 0.0165 96 1205.3 26.37
50 0.0117 131.5 1336.8 18.34
60 0.0098 42.6 1379.4 15.74
80 0.007 50.7 1430.1 12.64
100 0.0059 20.4 1450.5 11.39
200 0.0029 43.5 1494 8.74
Pan 143 1637 0.00

74
Appendix C. Core Sample Analyses

75
 Table C 1 Pre-Construction FWD Data
Station Drop Stress Drop 0 12 18 (in) 24 (in) 36 (in) 48 (in) 60 (in)
# ID lb./in2 Force (in) (in) d3 d4 d5 d6 d7
(lb.) d1 (mils) d2 (mils) (mils) (mils) (mils) (mils) (mils)
1 4 82.1 8989 25.64 21.48 18.17 14.16 11.29 6.82 3.66
2 4 82.6 9053 21.44 21.04 12.72 10.33 8.65 6.06 3.63
3 4 82.5 9032 13.16 10.61 9.03 7.25 6.04 4.13 2.44
4 3 82.1 8997 19.10 14.96 12.24 9.53 7.82 4.78 2.40
5 4 81.8 8957 12.83 11.41 9.93 8.31 7.31 5.13 2.72
6 3 82.0 8981 30.23 23.93 19.82 15.28 12.17 7.54 3.83
7 4 81.60 8937 10.28 9.09 8.03 6.81 5.76 4.05 2.25
8 4 82.10 8989 18.68 17.05 15.61 13.40 11.83 8.39 4.14
9 4 81.10 8889 25.91 22.33 19.68 16.37 13.71 9.24 4.46
10 4 82.50 9037 7.02 6.78 6.67 6.31 5.98 5.04 3.15
11 4 82.60 9048 13.03 11.32 10.39 9.30 8.21 6.35 3.49
12 4 82.50 9040 11.57 9.92 8.74 7.68 6.86 5.26 3.11
13 4 82.00 8981 24.59 19.10 16.07 12.81 10.36 6.56 3.48
14 4 81.90 8968 29.07 24.23 20.51 15.51 12.46 7.58 3.60
15 3 82.30 9016 19.61 15.08 13.17 10.77 9.14 6.21 3.44

Table C 2 Back-Calculated Pre-Construction Results

Station # E1 (psi) a1 D1 (in) E2 (psi) a2 m2 D2 (in) Esg (psi) SN
1 2,708,200 0.65 3.75 5,000 0.00 1 10 8,000 2.47

2 901,700 0.46 4.5 22,800 0.11 1 10 9,000 3.18

3 2,447,700 0.63 4 60,700 0.21 1 10 12,700 4.70

4 1,313,400 0.53 4.5 20,400 0.10 1 10 10,500 3.35

5 634,700 0.40 10.5 5,000 0.00 1 10 11,800 4.26

6 566,000 0.38 5.5 8,100 0.00 1 10 6,800 2.12

7 2,980,800 0.67 6 15,500 0.07 1 10 13,700 4.71
8 749,900 0.43 9 5,000 0.00 1 10 6,600 3.91
9 368,500 0.31 8.75 5,000 0.00 1 10 5,900 2.72
10 3,807,100 0.71 11.25 43,000 0.18 1 10 8,200 9.83
11 951,100 0.47 8.25 68,500 0.23 1 10 8,200 6.20
12 707,100 0.42 8.75 75,600 0.24 1 10 10,000 6.09
13 327,000 0.28 8 6,500 0.00 1 10 8,400 2.32
14 380,900 0.31 7 5,000 0.00 1 10 7,000 2.22
15 401,000 0.32 6.5 41,800 0.17 1 10 8,400 3.85

76
 Table C 3 Back-Calculated Post Construction Results

Station # E1 (psi) a1 D1 (in) Esg (psi) SN

1 3,200,000 0.66 12 10,419 7.96
2 2,675,000 0.62 12 9,390 7.5
3 2,600,000 0.62 12 13,118 7.43
4 1,385,000 0.50 12 8,448 6.02
5 982,000 0.45 12 5,304 5.37
7 910,000 0.44 12 9,295 5.23
9 1,260,000 0.49 12 6,420 5.83
10 892,000 0.43 12 5,816 5.2
11 1,115,000 0.47 12 5,360 5.6
14 774,000 0.41 12 6,522 4.96

77
78
Core # 1 was drilled at 0-mile marker and corresponds to Sample #1

Figure C 1 Core#3 (4”) was drilled at 1.1 mile and corresponds to Sample # 2

Figure C 2 Core#4 (4 ½”)

79
Figure C 3 Core#5 (10 ½”) was drilled at 2.1 mile and corresponds to Sample # 3

Figure C 4 Core#6 (5 ½”)

80
Figure C 5 Core#7 (6”) was drilled at 3.1 mile and corresponds to sample # 4

Figure C 6 Core#8 (6 ¼”) Hole depth 9”-lost 2 ¾”

81
Figure C 7 Core #9 (8 3/4”) was drilled at 4.0 mile and corresponds to sample # 5

Figure C 8 Core#10 (11 ¼”)

82
 Figure C 9 Core #11 (8 ¼”) was drilled at 5.1 mile and corresponds to sample # 6

Core #12 bit bent-core destroyed, hole depth 8 ¾”.

Sample # 7 was taken at 6.1 mile no core was drilled at that location.

Figure C 10 Core #13 (7”)

83
Figure C 11 Core #15 (6 ½”)

84