Construction of rubber-modified asphaut pavements

McQuillen, J L and Gary Hicks, R (1987) Construction of rubber-modified asphaut pavements. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 113(4), pp. 537-553. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Public road agencies are currently evaluating hot mix applications of PlusRide™ and Arm-R-Shield™ modified asphalt pavements. The processes use reclaimed rubber from ground automotive and light truck tires to reduce reflective and thermal cracking, suppress traffic noise, increase resistance to studded tire wear, and reduce the environmental impact of tire disposal. The projects constructed to date have primarily been experimental because the capital cost for this surfacing alternative ranges from 1.5 to 2 or more times the cost of conventional asphaltic concrete. A literature review of the construction practices and a questionnaire survey of contractors are used to determine why the construction costs of the modified mixes have been so high. One of the factors is the increase in financial risk perceived by contractors who bid on these types of pavements. Another cost factor, especially with the PlusRide™ system, is the unusual aggregate gradation required by the process. Still another concern is the increased mixing temperatures and times required by both rubber-modified products. For Arm-R-Shield™, the high cost of the mix primarily reflects the cost of the asphalt-rubber binder supplied by the manufacturer. These costs could be reduced by development of specifications which limit the contractor’s risk, such as the use of conventional aggregate gradings, requiring minimum increases in mixing temperature and time, and allowing competition between rubber-modified asphalt suppliers.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: asphalt pavement, specification, capital cost, manufacturer, survey, literature review, competition, questionnaire, environmental impact, agency, cost factor, aggregate, construction cost
Subjects: data analysis and analytics, financial and cost management, data collection methods, environmental impact, materials science, practitioner, market analysis, sociology, infrastructure and transport systems, economics, accounting and finance, contractual condition
Topics: Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Sustainability, Roles and Professions, Contract Administration
Descriptive scope: 5 PCTEA

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here