U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590

Skip to content U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration



Cold In-place Recycling (CIR) Survey Summary

1. State 2. Contact Person 3. Does your State have an interest in CIR of HMA? 4. Does your State currently use CIR?
1 Alabama Gary M. Brunson PHONE: (334)206-2306 Not at this point in time No
3 Arkansas Jerry R. Westerman, Materials Engineer, (501) 569-2365, jerry.westerman@arkansashighways.com Not at this time. The majority of the "recycling" that has been performed recently is either the rubblization of existing PCCP pavement for use as a base course for ACHM overlay on interstates and the use of RAP (typically no more than 15%) combined with virgin materials in ACHM mix designs. Currently, there are no projects using CIR using the expanded definition of CIR by the Department.
4 Colorado Jay Goldbaum @ 303-757-9449 Yes Yes
5 Connecticut Joseph Varhue Yes (town Aid Work) (Rural town Roads)
6 Delaware Jim Pappas Yes Yes
7 Florida Gale Page Tel. 352-955-2903 Not at the present time based on previous experience and capabilities of the technology. No.
8 Hawaii Garret Okada No No
9 Idaho Mike Santi, Pavement Development Engineer, mike.santi@itd.idaho.gov Yes Yes
10 Illinois Eric Harm, harmee@dot.il.gov No No
11 Iowa Mike Heitzman 515-239-1003 YES YES
12 Kansas Lon Ingram Yes Yes
13 Kentucky Allen H. Myers, P. E. We would be interested to review information from successful CIR projects in other states. No
14 Louisiana Luanna Cambas, LADOTD Construction, 225-379-1536 low No
15 Maine Rick Bradbury (207) 941-4597 Yes Yes
16 Maryland Larry Michael Not in the State Highway System Not in the State System, however, several local governments have used .
17 *Maryland - Frederick County* Lori Kessler, Project Manger 301-694-1487 Yes, Frederick County does ** Please note that: State of Maryland does not use CIR as a repair strategy, however Frederick County, Maryland does. Yes, Frederick County does
18 Massachusetts Clement W. Fung Research and Materials Engineer
MassHighway Department
Ten Park Plaza, Room 7410
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 973-8440
Yes No
19 Mississippi Sheffield, Richard H. <rsheffield@mdot.state.ms.us>   MDOT does not use CIR, and there is no one working with the Department now that can remember doing a project. I think the last job we did was back in the mid '70s, and it fell apart after a year, so it has never been brought up again.
20 Missouri Mark Shelton Yes No. Specification has been developed and one project prepared for letting. http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/materials/pdf/msp/MSP0304.pdf
21 Montana Jon Watson Yes Yes
22 Nebraska Rober Rea Yes Yes
23 Nevada Sohila Bemanain, Assistant Chief Materials Engineer Yes Yes
24 New Hampshire Alan Rawson Yes Yes
25 New Jersey Eileen Sheehy (609) 530-2307 No No
26 New Mexico John H. Tenison, P.E., State Materials Bureau Chief, New Mexico Department of Transportation, P.O. Box 1149, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504, Work: (505) 827-981, Cell: (505) 490-1536, Fax: (505) 827-5649 Yes Yes
27 New York Brad Allen, NYSDOT - Materials Bureau, 50 Wolf Road POD 34, Albany, NY 12232, ballen@dot.state.ny.us , (518) 457-4589 Yes Yes
28 North Carolina Cecil L. Jones 919.733.7411 NCDOT does not currently use CIR and at this time has a greater interest and on-going projects utilizing HIP (hot-in-place recycling) instead. No
30 Oklahoma Reynolds Toney Interested in results of survey No
31 Ontario Becca.lane@mto.gov.on.ca Yes - we have carried out over 30 contracts. Yes
32 Pennsylvania Dean Maurer, Bituminous Testing Engr. 717-787-5229(Phone) or demaurer@state.pa.us. Yes Yes
33 South Carolina Merrill Zwanka or Chad Hawkins Not at this time No
34 South Dakota Gill L Hedman, Pavement Design Engineer, 605-773-5503, gill.hedman@state.sd.us Yes Yes - we have completed @ 350 + miles of CIR
35 Tennesee Brian Egan Yes, if it can be cost effective and competitive with hot mix. There is some interest at the county level as well. No , not at this time
36 Texas Dale Rand, P.E. (512)506-5836 No Very Low usage
  Utah Gary Kuhl Pavement Engineer 801-964-4552 Yes Yes
37 Vermont Mike Hedges, 802-244-8103, Mike.Hedges@state.vt.us. Yes Yes
38 Virginia Thomas R. Tate, PE @ Thomas.tate@vdot.virginia.gov Yes No
39 Washington Jeff Uhlmeyer, WSDOT Pavement Design Engineer, 360-709-5485 Yes, we have performed CIR since the early 1980's Yes, one or two projects per year
40 West Virginia Larry Barker, lbarker@dot.state.wv.us Not at this time No
41 Wisconsin John Volker Yes Very Little
42 Wyoming Rick Harvey, State Materials Engineer, rick.harvey@dot.state.wy.us , 307-777-4476 Limited Interest No
1. State 5. If the answer is "YES"for Question 4
5.a. Is CIR specified on a routine basis (a standard specification) in your State? 5.b. Is CIR used on free ways? How frequently? 5.c. Is CIR used on major collectors? How frequently 5.d. Is CIR used on local roads and streets? How frequently 5.e. Do you have mix design procedure for CIR?
1 Alabama          
2 Arizona specifications are contained in the special provisions for each cold recycle project (stored spec) - not currently in our standard specs no - mainly used on two-lane highways w/ adt of 4000 vpd or less;1 or 2 projects/year No No No
3 Arkansas          
4 Colorado It is a Standard Specification and is used occasionally. Yes, very rarely Yes, very rarely Yes, occasionally Yes
5 Connecticut special provisions, per project specifications No No Rural town roads (five projects per year) Yes
6 Delaware Special Provision No, Mostly Lower Volume Roads No Yes, about 2 projects per year we rely on the contractor to submit a design that will achieve the strength
7 Florida          
8 Hawaii          
10 Illinois          
11 Iowa YES YES, we have successfully used CIR on two low volume freeway rehab projects in the last four years NO, traffic control is a problem on high volume two-lane routes. YES, regularly by the Counties. YES and improvements are being researched at this time.
12 Kentucky          
13 Kansas Yes A few projects yearly must have sufficient thickness of new HMA as a cover. Yes - A few projects yearly A few projects yearly Yes
14 Louisiana        
15 Maine No, Special Provision - 5 projects so far. Not Yet. Yes - several times. No Require contractor to provide design.
16 Maryland          
17 *Maryland - Frederick County* Yes, Frederick County does Collector, residential - annually as part of asset management. Yes, annually Yes, annually Yes
18 Massachusetts          
19 Mississippi          
20 Missouri          
21 Montana No No Two recent Projects No Yes
22 Nebraska Yes, By Special Provision No Yes, 30% Yes, 10% Yes
23 Nevada Yes We us CIR routinely on state and low volume roadways. We are now trying a project on an Interstate for the 2005 construction season. Yes. One project year Yes. About five project per year. Yes but not a formal written procedure. However we do not perform a CIR mix design for our projects. We have performed past research that has shown by project selection standard emulsion rates are acceptable.
24 New Hampshire Yes - Roughly 10 project in the past ten years. One project on a low volume section of Interstate. No No No
25 New Jersey          
26 New Mexico Yes since 1985 Yes, Depends the condition of the pavement and what projects are being developed at that particular time. Yes, Depends the condition of the pavement and what projects are being developed at that particular time. Unknown - we only do it on State owned facilities Yes
27 New York It is routinely used, and we have one specification that is used state wide but it is not a "standard specification" as NYSDOT defines the term. No, we have a traffic limit of 8000 AADT with 10% trucks or approximately 5 million 20-year ESALs. Yes, if it meets the traffic limits given above, but rarely maybe once every year or two. Yes, very frequently. Some years NYSDOT has over 40 CIR projects, Localities in New York have even more projects following our specification. No, but we are working on one with our industry, trying to tie emulsion content to stability. Our greatest problem with a set mix design, so far, is that emulsion content is also tied to mix workability and compaction in the field.
28 North Carolina No No No No No
30 Oklahoma          
31 Ontario Yes No Yes, one contract per year Yes, but not by us No
32 Pennsylvania Yes No Yes - Limited (Must be less than 15000 ADT & 200 ESALs) Yes - Most often Yes
33 South Carolina          
34 South Dakota Yes, See Section 370 of our Standard Specifications which can be accessed @ http://www.sddot.com/Operations/Specifications/specbook_div2_04.htm We have not done any CIR projects on the Interstate system Yes, We generally do @ 20-30 miles per year in 2 to 3 projects No No
35 Tennesee          
36 Texas          
37 Vermont Not recently. No Less than once per year Not my jurisdiction Contractor supplied
38 Virginia          
39 Washington CIR is performed by special provision in Eastern Washington. No No No No
40 West Virginia          
41 Wisconsin No No No No No
42 Wyoming          
1. State 5. If the answer is "YES"for Question 4, please answer the following questions
5.f. Do you control density? How? 5.g. When do you permit the HMA overlay (curing time)? 5.h. What is the typical thickness of CIR? 5.i. Do you require the CIR to be placed by a paver? 5.j. What types of CIR, primary stabilizing agent, do you use?
i. Emulsion? ii. Engineered Emulsion? iii. Portland cement? iv. Foamed Asphalt? v. Pozolan? vi. Other?
1 Alabama                    
2 Arizona method compaction spec - with the option for the engineer to increase the number of passes based on nuclear density test results when the moisture content of the cir layer is reduced to 1.5% or less 2.5" - 3" Yes   hfe-300p w/ one percent liquid antistripping agent        
3 Arkansas                    
4 Colorado Yes, sampled at 1/5000 square yards, the maximum density is determined by AASHTO T-180. After the area is compacted by the contractor we require 100%. Once the free moisture is below 1% of the total weight of the mix. About 4 to 8 inches Yes Yes         Emulsion with lime slurry. Sometimes we us an Asphalt Rejuvenation Agent.
5 Connecticut Yes, Nuclear density gauge 2 hours     Yes          
6 Delaware 98% density is required usually 7 days 8" maximum Yes Yes NO Yes NO NO  
7 Florida                    
8 Hawaii                    
10 Illinois                    
11 Iowa YES the contractor must achieve a percentage (say 94%) of a lab compacted dry density The overlay may be placed when the CIR lift reaches 1.5% moisture or when the lift reaches 0.3% moisture above the "normal" pavement moisture. 3 to 4 inches YES or controlled screed, but not by a motor grader YES YES (gaining interest) NO YES (gaining interest) NO  
12 Kentucky                    
13 Kansas Percent of a test strip. Require a maximum of 2 % moisture - usually 48 hours in hot dry weather. Typically 4 inch depth of old pavements Yes Yes         Require the addition of lime also. We have used fly ash in lieu of emulsion in the past but reflective cracking was a concern.
14 Louisiana                  
15 Maine Yes, 98 Percent of test strip w/ thin layer gauge 4 days 3" - 5" Yes Yes, with cement added.          
16 Maryland                    
17 *Maryland - Frederick County* Yes, nuclear gage Typically 7-10 days, pending weather conditions. 3" - 6" Yes Yes          
18 Massachusetts                    
19 Mississippi                    
20 Missouri                    
21 Montana ASTM D2950 2 hours before traffic is allowed on the pavement 2.5 inches Yes   Yes        
22 Nebraska Yes, nuclear gauge/ rolling pattern After 7 days, they usually wait longer 4"-5" up to full depth Paver on partial depth; blade with full Yes         Lime
23 Nevada We perform density testing with nuclear gages and a control section. In general, we require a minimum of ten days and a maximum of 45 days to place the surface overlay. However the minimum days can change on specific projects. We CIP 3". Yes CMS-2s only emulsion allowed.       We add 1-1/2% quicklime by slurry.  
24 New Hampshire Test Strip/Nuclear Gauges After 14 day cure 3" to 4" Yes Yes          
25 New Jersey                    
26 New Mexico Ninety six percent (96%) of a laboratory prepared Marshall briquette Minimum of 2 hours 3 to 4 inches Yes Yes No No No No N/A
27 New York No density tests are performed yet. We are interested in developing a density requirement that might allow us to expand the use of CIR to higher volume roadways. After a minimum 7 days cure time, but often the cure time ends up being longer. 75 or 100 mm, most commonly 100 mm. Yes Yes. HFMS-2 or CMS-2 We allow the contractor to propose the use of alternative emulsions.        
28 North Carolina                    
30 Oklahoma                    
31 Ontario We test compaction in the field by removing pavement slabs and testing in the laboratory 14 days, plus moisture requirements and compaction requirements must be met. 100 mm Yes Yes - high float no no on a trial basis no no
32 Pennsylvania Yes - Nuclear gage - 96% of Control Strip At least 1 week cure time required. May determine moisture content measurement (max. 2%). Min. 3" Max. 5" Yes (If you mean is a strike-off screed required). Yes If you mean Modified, Yes No No No No
33 South Carolina                    
34 South Dakota Yes we use 97% of Test Strip density (see Section 370 of the Standard Specs) Moisture in the CIR material must be less than or equal to 1.5% prior to allowing the material to be covered up. 4" Yes AE 200S typically @ 1.5% We have done a couple of test sections using Koch's Engineered Emulsion (Reflex) No No No No
35 Tennesee                    
36 Texas                    
37 Vermont 95% of target density determined by AASHTO T 245 (Mod). Free moisture must be reduced to 1.5% or less. 3" sometimes 4" Yes High float        
38 Virginia                    
39 Washington Yes, roller pattern Try to limit moisture in the CIR mat to about 1 percent, typically a week following CIR placement 0.25 to 0.35' Yes CMS-2S WSDOT used CIREE (Reflex) on two test projects with mixed results No No No No
40 West Virginia                    
41 Wisconsin Yes, with a Nuclear meter Yes 3" Yes       Yes    
42 Wyoming                    
1. State 6. Are there any questions about CIR that you would like have answered (design, research, performance, cost, etc.? ) 7. Is the use of CIR going to increase or decrease in your State in the next 5 years? 8. If the answer is "NO" for Question 7
8.a. Did your state try CIR in the past, and if so, please explain any particular challenges you or your agency has with the use of CIR. 8.b. Is there anything preventing the use at this time? (technical information, experienced contractors, specifications, etc.)
1 Alabama Not at this point in time. I am not aware of any plans to use CIR in the next 5 years. To my knowledge, CIR has not been tried. I am not aware of any one within the Alabama Department of Transportation expressing any interest in using CIR.
2 Arizona would like to hear of the performance of cir from other state dot's that have been using this process INCREASE    
3 Arkansas Various issues include: Time to allow rejuvenators to "work" on older asphalt millings before placement and compaction; Compaction issues regarding CIR pavements; Rut resistance of CIR pavements; Long term performance of CIR pavements At this time, there is little interest in the use of CIR; therefore no use is expected in the next 5 years. CIR was tried first in the early 80's and most recently in the early 90's. In both cases, problems with compacting the mix and with raveling were experienced. Current specifications dictate that ACHM millings become property of the contractor. Many contractors subsequently resell the millings for use on driveways in rural areas.
4 Colorado All of the above. Stay about the same amount.    
5 Connecticut   Not known   99% of recycled HMA is used in hot HMA pavement
6 Delaware We're still in a learning curve for this materail INCREASE    
7 Florida Not at this time (see question 3). Not used (see question 3). Most rehabilitation in FL is done under traffic. The recommended "cure time" for the CIR process is not tolerable particularly for the heavy traffic roadways that the FDOT is responsible for. Even for local units of government in urban areas this "cure time" is not tolerable. FL has few roads in rural areas with low traffic. The addition of additional binder to a mixture that was placed originally at an optimal binder content and air void content does not make sense for performance. In addition, at this point many existing Marshall mixes in-place would not meet Superpave mix criteria particularly where the traffic has increased or even where it has remained the same. See question 8a
8 Hawaii     No Equipment, experienced contractors and sufficient work to maintain them.
10 Illinois Cost, performance life Slight increase Quality control and consistency of resulting product No experience, no perceived benefits over mill and replace with HMA using recycled HMA.
11 Iowa What is the appropriate structural value of CIR for pavement design? What is the value of "curing" before placing the overlay? Do any agencies control the milling process? INCREASE    
12 Kansas We are fairly pleased with our design procedure at this time We use the CIR process to mainly address HMA pavements that have thermal cracks. If we are in successfully preventing thermal cracking in new pavements and adequately address the cracking in existing pavements then CIR will probably not be needed as much in the future.    
13 Kentucky We would need guidance on the mix design procedure for CIR. Also, we are concerned about the performance (strength) of CIR when compared to HMA. Unknown at this time. Kentucky has not attempted CIR to date. Experience with this technology and confidence in CIR performance.
14 Louisiana benefits perhaps Will forward your survey to our Research dept. for this answer.) Other priorities, more pressing issues.
15 Maine Gyratory design process, cost effectiveness. Increase    
16 Maryland Not at this time. I have forwarded this survey to local government      
17 *Maryland - Frederick County* I would like to see a case study using different additives Stay the same    
18 Massachusetts Current cost in the area Depending on the cost Cost and the availability of local experienced contractors. Economic factor
19 Mississippi        
20 Missouri Design procedures seem to be complex in comparison to a HMA mixture. If this mixture is to be covered with some type of surfacing, are cold temperature considerations optional or necessary? Increase No past experience. Items we still have questions about are appropriate traffic levels and evaluation of existing HMA for CIR treatment.
21 Montana Yes, Montana is interested in all of these aspects. We would like to utilize CIR where appropriate on some pavement preservation projects. Increase    
22 Nebraska Not much research done yet yes    
23 Nevada No Stay the same.    
24 New Hampshire We have found that it reduces crack reflection. Have others had the same experience? Unsure    
25 New Jersey We would need cost and performance data in order to consider the use of CIR. No use is expected. We have not tried CIR but have done full-depth reclamation with limited success. We do not have any contractors experienced or specifications for CIR. The limitations to CIR are the major reason for not using this technique.
26 New Mexico No Probably remain the same.    
27 New York As I wrote above, we are interested in a mix design procedure, but it is difficult to hold the contractor to a set emulsion content. For example, in the lab 2% emulsion may be optimal, but depending on field conditions it may not be constructible. At 60° F, the mix might need more emulsion and at 90° F it may need less. How can we balance the various factors to achieve the best end product possible. If we are able to develop a mix design procedure and introduce a density requirement usage should increase significantly. Without those advancements I expect a slight increase, as the Department begins a push to prioritize performing maintenance treatments over rehabilitations.    
28 North Carolina   NCDOT's experience with CIR is limited to two projects constructed in the past around 5-10 years ago. There may have been some problems with finding suitable projects and/or mix design problems.  
30 Oklahoma     The material was soft, tender, not stable. Experienced contractors, specifications, past experiences.
31 Ontario Yes, we have many unanswered questions - how long does the mix need to cure, how can we test for strength, how much moisture is too much prior to overlay, what tests are other agencies carrying out on the CIR, does anyone have an ERS for the work? increase    
32 Pennsylvania No Don't know    
33 South Carolina 1. Criteria for selecting roads for CIR. 2. Research on long-term performance of rejuvenating additives. 3. Quality control and quality acceptance of CIR mixes. Probably stay the same. . We have tried hot mixed- in-place and had some challenges. I would assume there would be similar issues with CIR. See b. Some concerns about CIR are: 1. Long-term performance of rejuvenating additives, 2. Uniformity of mix, 3. Field quality control to include mix design verification and density 4. Preliminary field investigations to procure necessary mix design data, 5. Rate of construction, 6. QC/QA issues, and 7. Long-term performance on high volume roads.
34 South Dakota We are interested in the amount of moisture other States allow in the mixture prior to covering up. Also the performance and Specifications of CIR with Foamed Asphalt. We should stay about the same.    
35 Tennesee     Not to my knowledge. We have experimented with hot in-place recycling in the early 1990's. There has not been a need for this option in the recent past.
36 Texas     Yes. Based on the limited information available, performance issues are the challenge my agency has with the use of CIR. As mentioned in the previous answer performance issues are not encouraging the use of CIR at this time especially moisture related damage.
37 Vermont What SN credit (or Modulus) should be given to the product and how much pavement is required to "cap" it. It has now been 4 years since we have used it, primarily due to funding issues, so it should increase in time.    
38 Virginia The difference, if any, in the performance of roads where a CIR "train" was used (i.e. the CIR process included screens and crushers to size material) vs. those roads where a CIR train was not used (only milling machine with emulsion injection system feeding milled material directly into paver). Possibly increase. VDOT has drafted specifications for use on a CIR project and is working with its field operations personnel and industry to locate trial sites.    
39 Washington Mix design and compaction control procedures used by other states Stay the same    
40 West Virginia Development or use of a performance specification   Never used Nothing preventing it, but we are satisfied with our HMA overlays and surface treatments
41 Wisconsin Performance of CIR in other states Increase    
42 Wyoming   May have a project or two if the correct rehabilitation circumstances exist. WYDOT has completed several projects. Most rehabilitation projects where CIR would be beneficial do not have enough pavement thickness to allow CIR without removing the entire pavement layer and exposing moist soft base and subgrade that cannot support the equipment. We also had problems with afternoon thunderstorms and curing of the CIR. We are now investigating full depth recycling with a reclaimer, to avoid these issues. We also had problems with contractor and equipment availability on our projects. The CIR paving trains came from out of state and their operation had to be synchronized with a local contractor's mobile hot plant which was scheduled very tightly with our short paving season.
Excel files can be viewed with the Excel Viewer
Updated: 09/10/2015
Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000