Shingles Recycling

1
Shingles Recycling

• A presentation by Dan Krivit at the
• 49th Annual WisconsinAsphalt Paving Conference
• In Waukesha, Wisconsin
• Wednesday, November 15, 2006

2
Definitions

• Manufacturers Asphalt Shingle Scrap
• Tear-Off Asphalt Shingle Scrap
• Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS)(Crushed
  screened)

3
History

• 15 years
• Multiple research studies in lab and field
• Manufacturer shingle scrap in hot-mix asphalt
  best known, most accepted practice
• Still relatively new application

4
Key Barriers

• Lack of clear industry standards and
  specifications
• Inconsistent state regulations
• Lack of adequate information / technology
  transfer
• Lack of national leadership by private industry
  and government

5
(No Transcript)
6
Composition of Residential Asphalt Shingles
7
Recent Composition Weight Ranges of Typical
Asphalt Shingles

• 32 to 42 Coating filler (limestone or fly ash)
• 28 to 42 Granules (painted rocks coal slag)
• 16 to 25 Asphalt
• 3 to 6 Back dust (limestone or silica sand)
• 2 to 15 Mat (fiberglass, paper, cotton rags)
• 0.2 to 2 Adhesives (modified asphalt based)

8
Multiple Applications

• Hot mix asphalt (HMA)
• Aggregate / gravel
• Dust control
• Cold patch
• Ground cover
• Fuel
• New shingles

9
Factors Affecting HMA Performance

• Aggregate gradation of RAS
• Properties of final blended binder content within
  the HMA as affected by
• RAS asphalt binder
• Virgin binder

10
Factors AffectingHMA Performance (continued)

• Location RAS is incorporated into HMA drum
• Temperature
• Moisture content of RAS and other aggregates
• Retention time in HMA drum

11
Potential Benefits

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

12
Potential Disadvantages

• Contamination (tear-offs)
• Added costs of processing and use in HMA
• Increased low-temperature / fatigue cracking

13
Performance Grading (PG)
14
Asphalt Grades

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

15
Mitigating Low Temperature Impacts of RAS

• Use less RAS instead of 5(e.g., use 2 to 3)
• Adjust the virgin binder PG to one grade softer
  (e.g., PG 52-34)

16
Deleterious Material

• Nails
• Other metal
• Wood
• Cellophane
• Other plastic
• Paper
• Fiber board

17
U of MN Research

• Professor Mihai MarasteanuDept. of Civil
  EngineeringAsphalt Lab
• Adam ZofkaGraduate Student

18
Missouri HMA Samples

• Two recycled sources
• Tear-off shingles (5)
• Recycled asphalt pavement (20)
• Two virgin binders performance grades
• PG 64-22
• PG 58-28

Marasteanu, July 2006
19
Creep Stiffness (MO PG 64-22)
Marasteanu, July 2006
20
Creep Stiffness (MO PG 64-22)
Marasteanu, July 2006
Marasteanu, July 2006
21
Creep Stiffness (MO PG 58-28)
Marasteanu, July 2006
22
Creep Stiffness (MO PG 58-28)
Marasteanu, July 2006
23
Strength (MO PG 64-22)
Marasteanu, July 2006
Marasteanu, July 2006
24
Strength (MO PG 58-28)
Marasteanu, July 2006
25
Conclusions Stiffness (MO At temperatures
below -10C)

• PG -22 mixture addition of shingles increases
  the mixture stiffness considerably (a)
• PG -28 mixture stiffness difference lessened (b)

Marasteanu, July 2006
26
Conclusions Strength (MO At temperatures below
-10C)

• No significant affects due to shingles for either
  PG -22 or PG -28 mixtures

Marasteanu, July 2006
27
Minnesota HMA Samples

• Three types of recycled materials
• 20 reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP),
• 15 RAP 5 Tear-off recycled asphalt shingles
  (RAS),
• 15 RAP 5 Manufactured RAS.
• Only one virgin asphalt binder PG 58-28

Marasteanu, July 2006
28
Creep Stiffness (MN PG 58-28) (_at_ 100 seconds)
Marasteanu, July 2006
29
Creep Stiffness (MN PG 58-28) (_at_ 500 seconds)
Marasteanu, July 2006
30
Strength (MN PG 58-28)
Marasteanu, July 2006
31
Creep Stiffness (MO vs. MN)(_at_ 100 seconds)
Marasteanu, July 2006
32
Creep Stiffness (MO vs. MN) (_at_ 500 seconds)
Marasteanu, July 2006
33
Conclusions Stiffness (MN)

• Adding tear-offs significantly increases
  stiffness of the mixtures at all test
  temperatures (a)
• Adding manufactured increases stiffness only at
  0C and -10C (b)

Marasteanu, July 2006
34
Conclusions Strength (MN)

• No significant affects due to either tear-off or
  manufacturers shingles scrap

Marasteanu, July 2006
35
Conclusions Stiffness(MO vs. MN)

• Lower stiffness values for the Minnesota RAP
  mixtures compared to Missouri mixtures
• Lower stiffness values for the MN combinations of
  RAP RAS compared to MO mixtures (a)

Marasteanu, July 2006
36
Minnesota Extracted Binder Samples

• Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) (a)
• Direct Tension Tests (DTT) (b)

Marasteanu, July 2006
37
BBR (MN)
Marasteanu, July 2006
38
BBR Conclusions (continued)

• Addition of shingles changes the properties (a)
• The two types of shingles perform differently
• The manufactured material seems to be beneficial
  (b)
• The tear-off material affects properties in a
  negative way (although it also decreases BBR
  stiffness) (c)

Marasteanu, July 2006
39
BBR Conclusions (continued)

• m-value not fully understood (a)
• The limited data also shows that binder and
  mixture results do not always agree (b)
• Need further research (c)

Marasteanu, July 2006
40
Mn/DOT Research

• Jim McGraw,DirectorMn/DOT Chemistry Lab

41
McGraw, July 2006
42
AC Impact in Final Mix(at 5 RAS)

• RAS binder addition
• Manufacturers adds 1.0 binder
• Tear-offs adds 1.8

McGraw, July 2006
43
McGraw, July 2006
44
Final Hot Mix Low Temperature PG (a)

• Tear-off -28.8 (b)
• Manufacturers -26.2 (c)
• RAP -29.2 (d)

McGraw, July 2006
45
Conclusions

• More mixture testing (a)
• Experimental design needs true control
• Shingle only study (b)
• Field reviews of past projects (c)
• Re-evaluate current Mn/DOT spec (d)

McGraw, July 2006
46
Additional National Developments

• New AASHTO specification
• EPA / CMRA study
• www.ShingleRecycling.org
• Asbestos data base

47
States Using RAS(in 1999)
Justus, September 2004
48
Ayres, April 2004
49
AASHTO Specification (continued)

• Deleterious material maximum limits (Section
  8)(material retained on the No. 4 sieve)
• Heavy fraction 0.50
• Lightweight fraction 0.05

50
Missouri Shingle Spec

• Extrinsic Material Allowance Raised
• 3.0 Total
• 1.5 Wood

51
AASHTO Specification (continued)

• Asbestos levels
• shall be certified to be asbestos free.
  (Section 5.2)
• (Tear-off shingles are) construction debris and
  various state and local regulations may be
  applicable to its use. The user of this
  specification is advised to contact state and
  local transportation departments and
  environmental agencies to determine what
  additional requirements may be necessary. (Note
  2)

52
Asbestos Risk

• Incidence of asbestos is extremely low
• Average content was only
• 0.02 in 1963
• 0.00016 in 1973

NAHB, 1999
53
ASRAS Data

• Iowa (1,791 samples), no hits
• Maine (118 samples), no hits
• Mass
• (2,288 composite samples) 11 hits lt 1
• (69 tarpaper samples) 2 lt 5
• (109 ground RAS samples) 2 lt 1
• Florida (287 samples), 2 hits gt 1

Ruesch, April 2003.
54
ASRAS Data(continued)

• Missouri (6 samples), no hits
• Hawaii (100 samples), 1 hit gt 1
• Minnesota (156 samples), no hits
• Minnesota (50 tarpaper), 1 hit _at_ 2 - 5
• We still want more data!
• (for EPA / CMRA project.)

Ruesch, April 2003.
55
DKA / AESAirborne Fiber Tests

• As part of the RMRC Project
• Environmental Testing of Airborne Particles
  atThe Shingle Processing Plant

Krivit, April 2003.
56
La Cross County, WIShingles Recycling
Demonstration

• Marty Cieslik (Foth Van Dyke) and Brian
  Tippetts (La Crosse County Solid Waste Director)
• Dr. Ervin Dukatz (VP-Materials and Research -
  Mathy Construction Company - Onalaska).

57
Use of Shingles on Dairy FarmsWest Central, WI

• Bernie Wenzel (Resource Recovery Team -
  Stratford, WI) and Deb Pingel (DNR-West Central
  Region).

58
Summary Highlights

• Risk from asbestos is negligible to non-existent
• Two rounds of sampling for total
• Dust (1999)
• Fibers (2002)
• Common sense and best management practices can
  help prevent employee exposure

Krivit, April 2003.
59
List of Roofing Waste Items Included for
RecyclingYES (Include these items)

• Asphalt shingles
• Felt attached to shingles

60
List of Roofing Waste Items Excluded for
Recycling NO (Do NOT include)

• Wood
• Metal flashings, gutters, etc
• Nails (best effort)
• Plastic wrap, buckets
• Paper waste
• No other garbage or trash

61
Lista de material para techos basura artículo
para reciclar
Si (Incluya) No / Ningun (No incluya)
Repias Madera
Papel del fietro Metal flashings, canales
Clavos
Plastico
Basura de papel
La otra basura
62
Comprehensive Quality Control Plan

• Quality control of supply
• Worker safety and health protection
• Final product quality, storage and handling
• Shingle recycling system design
• Final product sampling and lab testing

63
Quality Specs Scrap Feedstock and Final
Products

• Free of debris / trash / foreign matter
• Tear-off scrap must be asphalt shingles only
• No nails!

64
Recommendations

• Continue MARKET DEVELOPMENT (a)
• MANAGE the asbestos issue (b)
• PROTECT employee health and safety (c)
• GUARANTEE your product quality (d)

65
NCAUPG

• Conference in Minneapolis, MNJanuary 10-11,
  2007Contact
• Lynn Warble at [phone] or
  warble_at_purdue.edu
• http//cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/spave/NCAUPG/Index.h
  tml

66
NCAUPG January 2007 Conference

• Hot Mix Asphalt Technical Conference Session II
  Wednesday, January 10, 2007, 100 500 p.m.
  Moderators Mike Kvach and Will Stalcup, NCAUPG
  Co-Chairmen
• HMA Economics 101
• 100 200 RAP and Recycling of Asphalt
  Shingles
• Roger Brown, Pace Construction
• Joe Schroer, Missouri DOT
• Dusty Ordorff, Bituminous Roadways
• Dan Gallagher, Gallagher Asphalt

67
NCAUPG January 2007 Conference

• Hot Mix Asphalt Technical Conference Session III
  Thursday, January 11, 2007, 730 1145 a.m.
• Moderators Mike Kvach and Will Stalcup, NCAUPG
  Co-Chairmen
• 930 1000 Low Temperature Cracking Mihai
  Marasteanu, University of Minnesota

68
CD Recycling World Exposition and Show

• Conference in San Antonio, TexasJanuary 14 - 16,
  2007ContactLola Perez or Maria Miller at
  800.456.0707 or lperez_at_giemedia.com or
  mmiller_at_giemedia.com
• http//www.cdworldshow.com/

69
Dan Krivit and Associates

• 651-489-4990
• DKrivit_at_bitstream.net