1. Asphalt Shingles in HMA Missouri DOT Experience North Central HMA Conference Joe Schroer, PE January 10, 2007

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

3. First Look The “Ex” Factor Exhaustive Literature Search Exclusion of Tear Offs in States Allowing Manufacturing Waste Extra Clean Material – Contained Little Deleterious Matter Exceptionally Stiff Asphalt Extracted from Shingles

4. Shingle Components Asphalt  20%-40% –Stiffen Roadway Asphalt Aggregate   30% –Good Stuff Fiberglass or Paper Mat   30% –No Harm if Well Dispersed

5. MoDOT Goals Engineering Properties First –Harmful Effects of Deleterious Material –Asphalt Binder Properties Traffic Safety – Nails, etc. If Everything Else Works Out, Landfilling is Reduced

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

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

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

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

10. High Temperature

11. Low Temperature

12. Assume Incomplete Blending 50% 75% 100%

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

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

15. Deleterious Material Nails Wood Plastic Cellophane Paper Fiber Board

16. Trial by Fire

19. No Difference Visually Standard Mixture Tests Placement

20. Big Difference Rut Resistance Cold Temperature Tests OFM in Mixture

21. Trial Project US 61/67, St. Louis Co. Part of Study with Minnesota 4 Mixtures 19.0 mm Superpave –PG 58-28 20% RAP 15% RAP, 5% Shingles –PG 64-22 20% RAP 15% RAP, 5% Shingles

23. Study Results IDT Testing by U of Mn –Tensile Strength Little Difference –Creep Stiffness Greatly Affected at Lower Temperatures Evaluation of Reflective Cracking in Sections to Be Made

24. PG 64-22 PG 58-28

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

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

27. Newspaper Plastic Bottles Milk Jugs, Aluminum Cardboard Cans Newspaper