Presented by Ferrella March

Colorado Waste Tire Market Development Conference

Greenwood Village, CO

June 21, 2017 Photo credit: Ferrella March

Project History

The collaborative model for success

Limiting factors in the collaborative process

Navigating the “mind” field

Literature review and survey results

Next steps

Objectives

Photo credit: DEQ Staff, Tulsa Co. road identified for chip seal

27A O.S.§ 2-11-401.5

Accrued funds can be used for remediation of tire dumps and projects to increase market demand for products made from Oklahoma used tires.

Prioritization for projects with the greatest potential to benefit schools, communities and local governments.

Project History

Photo credit: DEQ Staff

Literature review (OU)

Demonstration Project (Wagoner County)

Testing and Evaluation (OU)

Project History

Photo credit: DEQ StaffPhoto credit: University of OK School of Civil Eng. and Env. Science

Photo credit: DEQ Staff Photo credit: University of OK School of Civil Eng. and Env. Science

Project History

The Collaborative Model

Photo credit: Ferrella March, Norman, OK

The Collaborative Model

“If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas." -George Bernard Shaw

MUTUALGOAL

Problem Identification

Educate

Resolve Conflict Plan

Evaluation

Source:: USEPA (2008, June)

Logistics

Cog in the wheel dilemma

Timelines not always in alignment

Legislative actions and budget cuts

Personality differences

Limiting Factors

Source: Clip art

Navigating the “Mind” Field The Dominator

The enforcer

The manipulator

The unrealistic optimist

The pessimist

The smartest person in the room

Source: Trafton, A. (2011, Jan 28)

Dominates discussions

Wants it their way

Takes up most of the table but brings little to the feast

Takes control of the situation

Always pushing onward

The Dominator

Source: Looney Tunes, Clip art

The Enforcer Takes shots at the other team members

Overly vigilant

Always looking for the catch

Worried about the legal implications

Keeps things on track

Serves as a check for ideas

Source: Looney Tunes, Clip art

Likes to talk

Charming and makes you feel good

May offer up a deal but has a hidden agenda

Can see all sides

Can effectively organize a compromise

The Manipulator

Source: Looney Tunes, Clip art

Everything is always good even when it is not

Unaware of potential issues/complications

Gives everyone a sense of security

Uplifting during stressful times

Encourages a better final product

The Unrealistic Optimist

Source: Looney Tunes, Clip art

Brings down morale

Idea squasher

Nothing is ever good enough

Provides balance to unrealistic ideas

Feels there is always room for improvement

The Eternal Pessimist

Source: Looney Tunes, Clip art

Not always the smartest person in the room

Needs to state ideas

No other ideas are as good

A wealth of knowledge

Full of ideas because they are “genius”

The Smartest Person in the Room

Source: Looney Tunes, Clip art

Literature Review and DOT Survey

Photo credit: Ferrella March

Comprehensive literature review

Provide summary of knowledge

Identify research needs

Document major findings in pertinent studies

Observed enhancement of mix performance from scrap tire rubber

Some studies showed that wet process CRM mixes resulted in better performance compared to dry process CRM mixes (Volle, 2000; Choubane, 1999; Bandini, 2011).

Recent studies indicate successful experiences with the dry process CRM mixes (Bennert et al., 2004; Willis et al., 2012; Shen et al., 2015)

75% of DOTs have never tried the dry-process (Bandini, 2011)

Performance of gap-graded CRM mixes seems to be more desirable and consistent than dense-graded CRM mixes.

Literature Review –Summary

Photo credit: DEQ Staff

Conventional Mix

Crumb Rubber Modified Mixes

Wet Process or Dry Process?

Application of CRM-modified SAMIs improve the overall pavement performance (AZ and FlL); mixed reviews in other states (Flintsch, et al., 1994)

Larger GTR sizes are allowed to be used in the interlayers and chip seals compared to asphalt mix layers

Crumb rubber additions of approximately 5% and 10% produce one and two PG bumps in asphalt binders, respectively

Rubber size, type, and grinding process affect but do not materially impact binder or mix modification

CRM binders are great for improved rutting resistance

Literature Review –Summary

Source: Clip art

Crumb rubber cook time in binder beyond 30 to 60 minutes does not materially improve binder performance

With proper mixing, low and no-cook CRM asphalt seems to perform as well as terminal blend CRM asphalt, both in the lab and in the field

Wet and dry process CRM asphalt perform as well or better than PMA (better fatigue and moisture resistance, lower permanent strain accumulation with rubber)

Separation of rubber and binder in terminal blends is a real risk

Literature Review –Summary

Photo credit: DEQ Staff

Literature Review-DOT Survey

52%48%

Total Participants = 40

GTR Users

Others

38.9%

44.4%

27.8%61.1%

33.3%

22.2%

Unsuccessful experience

Concern over performance

Lack of performance data

Not cost effective

No incentive

No crumb rubber producer

Reason for not incorporating GTR in asphalt mixes

Main reasons for using GTR in asphalt pavements

25%

67%21%

50%

Cost Effectiveness

Better Performance

Incentives

Other

87%

57%

52%57%

48%

30%

22%26%

Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)

Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA)

Non-Structural Thin-Lift Overlay(<1.5 in.)

Structural Overlays (> 1.5 in.)

Mill-and-Fill Operation

Chip Seal

Fog Seal

Type(s) of mixes in which GTR is used by agencies

GTR applications

74%

39%

78%

30%

Interstate Highways

City road

State Highway

Other (please specify)

Type of process used by agencies

14%

77%

55% Dry Process

Wet Process (TerminalBlend)

Wet Process (Field Blend)

Statutory changes effective November 1, 2017 is projected to increase the Fund More tire dumps cleanups Market development projects Smaller scale Short termCriteria ready to goExplore other funding sources for smaller scale demonstration

projects

Next Steps

Next Steps Look for ways to leverage

efforts

Continue to plant seeds, nurture them and watch them grow

Photo credit: Ferrella March

“The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don’t play together, the club won’t be worth a dime.”

-Babe Ruth

Questions?

Source: Valdez, J. (2016, April 27)

Rouzbeh Ghabchi, Ph.D., Musharraf Zaman, Ph.D., P.E.Amir Arshadi, Ph.D.with the University of Oklahoma, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science (CEES), Norman, Oklahoma for conducting the

research, survey, and preparation of the document Ken Hobson, ODOT, for his expertise

Dr. Redmond (Red) Clark, president of Asphalt Plus, LLC, for sharing his knowledge, up-to-date technical content, documents, write-ups and

providing the research team with permission to use them in this report

Acknowledgements

Ferrella MarchOklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

Land Protection Division Solid Waste Sustainability Unit

Used Tire Recycling Program Ferrella.march@deq.ok.gov

405-702-5175 ofc/405-397-7960 cell

Literature review can be retrieved from: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/WasteTire/FINAL%20ODEQ%20Literature%20Review%20Report(V.3).pdf

Contact

Bandini, P. (2011). Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Pavements in New Mexico: Market Feasibility and Performance Assessment. Department of Civil Engineering, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.

Bennert, T., Maher, A., & Smith, J. (2004). Evaluation of crumb rubber in hot mix asphalt (Final Report). Rutgers University, Center for Advanced Infrastructure & Transportation, and Rutgers Asphalt/Pavement Laboratory, Piscataway, NJ.

Choubane, B., Sholar, G., Musselman, J., & Page, G. (1999). Ten-year performance evaluation of asphalt-rubber surface mixes. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1681, 10-18.

Flintsch, G.W. , Scofield, L.A., & Zaniewski, J. P. (1994). Network-level performance evaluation of asphalt-rubber pavement treatments in Arizona. Transportaion Research Record, 1435, 59-68.

Shen, J., Xie, Z., & Li, B. (2014). Comprehensive Evaluation of the Long-Term Performance of Rubberized Pavement: Phase II: The Influence of Rubber and Asphalt Interaction on Mixture Durability (Report No. FHWA-GA-12-1229). Forest Park, Ga.

References

Trafton, A. (2011, Jan 28). Illuminating the brain. MIT News . Retrieved from http://news.mit.edu/2011/illuminating-brain-0128

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008, June). EPA’s environmental justice collaborative problem-solving model. (EPA-300-R-06-002). Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201504/documents/ejproblemcollaborativesolvingmodel.pdf

Valdez, J. (2016, April 27). Happy National Babe Ruth Day. The Hornet. Retrieved from http://hornet.fullcoll.edu/happy-national-babe-ruth-day/

Volle, T. H. (2000). Performance of Rubberized Asphalt Pavements in Illinois (No. FHWA/IL/PRR-136). Springfield, IL.

Willis, J. R., Plemons, C., Turner, P., Rodezno, C., & Mitchell, T. (2012). Effect of ground tire rubber particle size and grinding method on asphalt binder properties. National Center for Asphalt Technology. NCAT Report 12-09.

References