206 S. 17th Avenue
Maildrop 075 R
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who
are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented
herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views
or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the
~ederal Highways Administration. This report does not constitute a
standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturer's
names which may appear herein are cited only because they are
considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U. S.
Government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REJUVENATOR
JULY 3, 1986
TIMOTHY M. WOLFE
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
I. REPORT NO. 1 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 1 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO. I
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REJWENATOR
ARIZONA TRANSPORTAION RESEARCH CENTER
206 South 17th Avenue
5. REPORT DATE
July 3. 1986
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
TIMOTHY M. WOLFE
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
II. CBNTRACT OR GRANT NO.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NQ
10. WORK UNIT NO.
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
(SAME AS ABOVE)
I3.TWE OF REWRT 8 PERIOD COVERED
APRIL, 1984 - JULY, 1986
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
This report contains a product evaluation of K.A.E. Paving Consultant's
Bituminous Pavement Rejuvcnator (BPR). BPR is a coal t a r product consisting
of a low viscosity blend of aromatic o i l s designed t o penetrate the asphalt,
and rejuvenate and p l a s t i c i z e the binder. ' 1
Two t e s t sections of BPR were placed in Arizona. A t both sections the
BPR was mixed, heated, and applied by manual methods. After placement a sand
b l o t t e r was used t o increase the f r i c t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
Visual inspection and core samples were performed a t both sections.
$ NONE NONE 17 I
Both t e s t s i t e s had severe cracking prior t o placement of tne BPR.
After placement a limited amount of crack sealing was observed; however,
the t e s t conditions were so extreme t h a t it was d i f f i c u l t t o adequately .
evaluate the t e s t sections. After one year, no significant difference
between t h e t r e a t e d and untreated sections was apparent.
1 17. KEY WORDS
PAVEMENT, ASPHALT, REJUVENATOR,
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ARIZONA EXPERIENCE WITH BPR . . . . . . . . 2
TEST SECTION PLACEHENT . . . . . . . . . . 3
FIELD REVIEWS AND TESTING . . . . . . . . . 8
ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 9
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOHHENDATIONS . . . . . . . 10
APPLICATION INFORNATION . . . . . . . . A1
HAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B1
Bituminous pavement rejuvenators have been used to
reconstitute Arizona roadvays since the early 1960's. The
process typically involvee the application of special emulsified
asphalts by distributor trucks at regular interval8 of time. The
rate of application and interval selection is determined by each
of the local maintenance authorities at the time of treatment.
In retrospect, the results of these maintenance activities
are varied. Rany applications have been exceptionally successful
vhile others have reduced the service life. Even today, after 30
years of experience and performance, considerable disagreement
exists as to the value and effectiveness of this form of
During this time, Reclamite, an emulsion of petroleum oils
and resin in vater, has been utilized almost exclusively as the
rejuvenating agent. Although other products have been tried, the
preponderance of usage suggests that Reclamite has been
preferred. Recently, a product known as Bituminous Pavement
Rejuvenat~r (BPR) has been promoted as a substitute and superior
product. BPR was developed by the Koppers Company in 1959 and
paralleled the development of the Reclamite rejuvenator by Golden
Bear. BPR, however, is not an asphalt product. It is a coal tar
product consisting of a 1ov viscosity blend of aromatic oils
designed to penetrate the asphalt, and rejuvenate and plasticize
the binder. The product was produced by the Koppers Company
until about 1975 vhen it was discontinued. In 1983 K.A.E. Paving
Consultants acquired the rights to distribute BPR, produced by
the Koppers Company, upon demand.
Historical experience with the product involves the results
of experiments and usage by the U.S. Air Force and the Corps of
Engineers. One four year study by the Air Force indicates that
both BPR and Reclamite do rejuvenate the asphalt binder.
Although reference to highway and commercial usage of BPR was
made in the original brochures produced by the Koppers Company.
few citations are available in the literature and only limited
application is believed to have occurred. It is not knovn
whether the limited highway usage resulted from lack of marketing
or from a concern over reduced surface skid resistance.
11. ARIZONA EXPERIENCE WITH BPR
ADOT's first field exposure to the BPR product occurred in
early April, 1984, when a private company placed two small (1 sq.
yd.) test sections on a northwest Phoenix shopping center access
road. The test sectlons were extensively cracked with typical
crack widths of 1/4". After two weeks of traffic the cracks had
narrowed to approximately 1/8" and less. The positive results
indicated that field testing by ADDT may be warranted.
Subsequently, discussions between Research and District 111
indicated that a test section on 1-40 near Crookton was
appropriate and on April 23, 1984, small test sections (10 sq.
yd.) were placed on the eastbound and westbound roadways (See
Figures 1 and 2 ) . After two months of performance, an evaluatlcn
of the test sections indicated that the treatment had been
effective in healing the cracking and re~uvenating the asphalt.
An apparent sealing of the surface was noted.
Based upon the 1-40 test results, a more ambitious test
section on a severely distressed pavement was attempted. Sheldon
Street in Prescott was selected for two additional sites; one
site in front of the District office and a second site two blocks
away (Figures 3 and 4). Both sites were approximately 125-150
square yards in size. Sheldon Street in this area was badly
distressed and scheduled for reconstruction in the near future.
Crack widths of over 1 inch were evident with soil infilling
present. After two months of performance, a visual
reconnaissance was performed and pavement cores retrieved.
Results indicated definite surface sealing and the possibility of
some crack healing. The severe crack widths and filling vlth
soil fines inhibited penetration into the cracks and rejuvenation
of the asphalt. Rejuvenation of some cracks appeared to have
occurred but this was difficult to substantiate.
In July of 1985, a visual inspection of 1-40 and Sheldon
Street test sections was performed. The conditions of all the
test locations indicated no significant difference between the
treated and untreated sections. Cores were subsequently
retrieved from the Sheldon Street locations to determine the
asphalt viscosity. The viscosity test results were inconclusive
(See section IV for testing problems). However, during the
coring operation it was noted that the treated cores held
together upon removal while the untreated cores typically did
not. This would suggest a significant reaction with the asphalt.
111. TEST SECTION PLACEMENT
At all the teat site locations, the BPR was mixed, heated,
and applied by manual methods. Three gallon hand-pump sprayers
were utilized for application (Figure 5 ) . After the BPR
one inch of material was removed from each core and tested. The
asphalt was extracted by the soxhlet test (A24131 and recovered
with a rotary vacuum evaporator (AZ511). The recovered asphalt
was tested for absolute viscosity using AASHTO T202. The
results of this testing indicated no significant difference
between the treated and untreated asphalt viscosities. However.
the distribution of data suggested a potential problem with the
test results. A second set of cores and chunks were retrieved
from the Sheldon project. It was not possible to retrieve cores
from all the areas because the street was being reconstructed.
Portions of asphaltic concrete were obtained in areas where
pavement was being removed. Upon completion of laboratory
testing, it was again noted that test results were inconclusive.
Since the completion of the laboratory testing, it was
learned that the test results may have been influenced by the
quality of the technical grade methylene chloride utilized in the
soxhlet test procedure. Unfortunately, this cannot be verified
and therefore the test results are inconclusive.
Performance evaluations are based upon the subjective
interpretation of the investigators with the principal instrument
of measurement the human eye. The analysis is as follows:
- Surface sealing occurred at each test site and,
possibly, reduced surface frictional qualities.
- Penetration of the BPR into the pavement occurred
within 30 minutes or less but required application of
sand blotter to improve the frictional characteristics
of the surface.
- Cores taken at the 1-40 site indicate that crack
sealing had occurred to depths of 4 inches. All
surface cracking at this site had been healed by the
BPR and sand blotter application within two months of
placement. After one year of service the pavement
displayed considerable cracking.
- No significant rutting was attributable to the
application of BPR.
- Although limited sealing at the Sheldon Street site is
believed to have occurred, the test conditions were so
extreme that the effectiveness of the product was not
- The 1-40 locations also did not prove to be an
adequate evaluation of the product. The pre-existing
condition of the pavements of both sites influenced
the performance assessment.
- No skid testing was performed.
- The cost/gallon of BPR is anticipated to be twice the
cost of conventional Reclamite. Inadequate information
is available to reasonably estimate costs.
- The evaluation period was basically one year and,
therefore, long term performance cannot be assessed.
- The product has a strong odor during placement and it
is questionable whether it would be suitable for
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECDHHENDATIDNS
The results of the test sections of 1-40 and Sheldon Street
are inconclusive. BPR promoted healing of cracks at these sites
within two months of application. After one year, no significant
difference between the treated and untreated sections was
apparent. The pre-existing condition of the pavements at these
sites made it difficult to properly evaluate the product.
Based on literature findings, BPR appears to have a
potential as an alternate to the conventional Reclamite product.
Evaluation of the skid properties of pavements treated with BPR
is necessary before utilization as a substitute can be
advocated. Additionally, the ecological acceptability of this
agent should be reviewed in detail as well as any adverse affects
on maintenance patches or slurry. The limited extent of this
study, approximately one year, precludes the assessment of long
It is recommended that BPR be included for evaluation in
the proposed research project on rejuvenating agents.
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REJUVENATOR
EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT DATA
BPR BPR Pavemrnt Ambimt
Applicsrion Penerration Application Surface Air Temp. Tcrt S e s t i m Dare
Test Site Location Rare (GSY) Tine (*in.) Temp. (Fi Temp. (FJ (F) s i z e lsq. ~ d . ) Applied
N.1. Phoenix Shopping *!all 0.1-0.1s 2 04-84
1-40 C M.F. 130.03 WB 0.1 5 140 124 73 10 04-23-84
1-40 P M.P. 133.4 £0 0.1 5-20 145 128 75 10 04-23-84
Sheldon Strecr Sire I1 0.075 150 100 76. 150 07-19-84
Sheldon Strecr Sire r2 0.2 SO 150 108-130 81- 150 07-19-84
*.Rained Shorrly Afrer Placement
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.