Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

USA-CANADA-FRANCE Comparisons on HMA François CHAIGNON COLAS Inc CUPGA November 2004.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "USA-CANADA-FRANCE Comparisons on HMA François CHAIGNON COLAS Inc CUPGA November 2004."— Presentation transcript:

1 USA-CANADA-FRANCE Comparisons on HMA François CHAIGNON COLAS Inc CUPGA November 2004

2 1. Introduction 2. HMA in New York State 3. HMA in Quebec 4. HMA in France 5. Comparisons 6. Conclusions Agenda

3 Canada – USA - France Formulations Equipment Marshall in Western Canada and USA SUPERPAVE in USA, Ontario and Quebec Some kind of SUPERPAVE in France Gyratory compactor Wheel track test Fatigue test Hot and black everywhere Universal HMA?

4 Formulations USA New York State SUPERPAVE since 1995

5 New York State Formulation 12.5 mm Superpave Aggregates Physical requirements LA < 35 MgSO4 18% max Consensus properties Crushed count FAA Friction aggregates

6 New York State Formulation 12.5 mm SUPERPAVE Asphalt Cement PG Neat asphalt

7 New York State Formulation 12.5 mm SUPERPAVE 1 st step: Optimization of the gradation 3 blends for the gradation Same AC content 2 nd step: Optimization of the AC 3 AC contents 4% Air voids at N design Then with the final AC N max 3 rd step Validation by DOT regional lab

8 New York State Formulation 12.5 mm SUPERPAVE Tender requirements ESAL PG Maximum size gradation RAP percentage is 20% in all mixes 30% in base 37.5mm

9 New York State Formulation 12.5 mm SUPERPAVE ESAL design requirements ESAL in 10 6 < 0.3<3.0<10<30>30 N initial67889 N design N max

10 New York State


12 Requirements for lab technicians Certification for technician at the plant Good partnership between the industry and NYDOT Certification set up together Joint Technical committee


14 Quebec Components Aggregates Depending of traffic Fraction Asphalt Cement PG grades

15 Quebec Volume of AC given per formula AC computed based on the porosity of the aggregates Gradation to comply with Gyratory compactor Wheel track test

16 Quebec Specifications ESG 10 Enrobés Semi Grenu 10 mm Gyratory 10g C > 10% 80g 4% > C > 7% 200g C >2% Wheel track test 1000 cycles R < 10% 3000 cycles R < 20% cycles R > 10%

17 France Components Choice depending on the traffic Aggregates Liquid Asphalt Formulation Gradation PCG Wheel Track test (function of the traffic) Fatigue test (function of the traffic)

18 France Aggregates Higher specs in Europe LA, MDE and PSV Narrow Fractions Film of binder Formulation to approach the AC content Based on the gradation Based on the area to be coated

19 France Gyratory Not linked to the traffic Goal is for the compaction of the HMA Linked to the maximum size aggregates

20 France Gyratory Press P.C.G.

21 France Wheel track test Rutting at 60°C Different values depending of the formulation

22 France Wheel track test

23 France Fatigue test Modulus ε 6 Both values linked to road design

24 France Fatigue test

25 Comparisons Components Aggregates Higher requirements in Quebec and France Use of RAP (yes in NY, no in Quebec, yes in France) Function of the traffic in Quebec and France Large specs in NYS as in the US Fractions in Quebec and France

26 Comparisons Components Liquid Asphalt PG grade in NY and Quebec Penetration and R&B in France (EU specs) Linked to traffic in France

27 Comparisons Methods Marshall Design SUPERPAVE design Linked to the traffic Gyratory press Linked to compaction on site Wheel track test Fatigue test

28 Comparisons Final mixes HMA /ACP wearing courses NY 12.5 mm Superpave Quebec ESG 10 France BBSG 10



31 Conclusions The use of the gyratory press is quite different Gradation AC content

32 Evaluation de la SGC Pine La Presse à Cisaillement Giratoire Type 3

33 Evaluation de la SGC Pine The Pine SGC

34 Evaluation de la SGC Pine COMPACTION EFFECT F F Compaction Strength Éprouvette cylindrique Compaction Angle Rotation During the test, the surface of the cylinder is kept constant, the height decreases Use of PCG in the French Procedure Forecast the compaction level that can be achieved on the job site

35 Evaluation de la SGC Pine COMPARISON between PCG3 and SGC PINE SGC PINE

36 Evaluation de la SGC Pine Comparison of design procedures French method Superpave Method Measurement of void content for a given number of giration. This number is a function of the hot mix type. Measurement of the number of giration in order to get 4% voids content. Comparison between Ngir and Ndesign Goals: Hot mix production: French method Superpave Méthod The whole amount of mixes is made at the same time Preparation of hot mis specimen one after another. Hot mixes ageing for two hours at the compaction temperature.

37 Evaluation de la SGC Pine Une différence dans lexploitation des résultats The two press give the variation of the height of the specimen versus the number of giration. French method: use of the experimental curve as it is. Superpave method: the experimental curve has to be corrected courbe de compacité du BBSG 0/10 Noubleau avec et sans correction

38 Evaluation de la SGC Pine Determination of various specific gravities The superpave method is complex and time consuming : Evaluation of VMA, VFA et Va, Measurement of compacity at N des, N max et N ini : C des = 96 % à N des, C max < 98 % à N max, C min < 89 % à N min.

39 Evaluation de la SGC Pine LES RESULTATS DES 2 PRESSES 18 design mixes were tested, SGC Pine and PCG tests détermination du domaine de définition de la SGC Pine

40 Evaluation de la SGC Pine A 1 giration V 1 pine = 0,95xV 1 pcg3 La pente k k pine = 1,19xK pcg3 Identical results for 1 girationSGC compaction is faster than PCG compaction

41 Evaluation de la SGC Pine Corrélation entre les deux machines V % PINE = V% PCG3 - 1,29 – 0,71 x ln(N) pourcentages de vides à la Pine fonction du pourcentage de vides à la PCG 3 à 20 et à 60 girations

42 Evaluation de la SGC Pine Evaluation of some French mix design versus Suprepave specs Type of hot mixes: GB, BBSG, EME, BBMa et les BBME Performances to be reached: 4 % voids content at the higher Ngir, FullFill the specs related to (VMA, VFA, Va, C ini, C max …).

43 Evaluation de la SGC Pine Results : Classification of hot mix types All hot mix types comply with Superpave specs Traffic : Low level Medium level High level BBME

44 Evaluation de la SGC Pine LES RELATIONS AVEC LE TERRAIN Les résultats à la PCG 3 et à la SGC Pine : évaluation des deux presses en fonction de la compacité terrain Compacités PCG déterminées par la la relation C PCG = C10xe Bissectrice : C terrain = C 10xe

45 Evaluation de la SGC Pine compacités Pine (C 6 x e ) fonction des compacités terrain Relation compacité terrain – SGC Pine : Compacités SGC Pine déterminées par la la relation C pine = C 6xe Bissectrice : C terrain = C 6xe

46 Evaluation de la SGC Pine Next steps + Check the behavior of superpave mix design versus : French rutting test Complex modulus

47 Construction No big differences in manufacturing Batch plants more likely in France and Quebec Drum plants in the USA North America / Europe Pavers High compaction screed with tampers and vibration Speed!! Rollers France: Pneumatic tires rollers Rare in North America

48 Construction Smoothness / Rideability More and more important Waves lengths in France IRI or Profilograph Continuous feeding of the paver Speed The driver can feel it

49 Construction More targeted to the driver/tax payer Skid resistance Smoothness Noise reduction Color Comfort and safety

50 Construction Europe



53 Construction North America

54 Manufacturing North America

55 Final conclusions Every country has its own history in the HMA European specifications!! 50 states Provinces

56 Final conclusions Climate Aggregates Are part of the local conditions AC is more universal Not the HMA

57 Final conclusions

58 Final conclusions Future End performances specifications Partnership between DOT and industry Quality in both sides

59 Thanks Michel PARADIS MTQ Jean Guy CLEMENT SINTRA Jerry HALLORAN BARRETT PAVING To all of you for listening

Download ppt "USA-CANADA-FRANCE Comparisons on HMA François CHAIGNON COLAS Inc CUPGA November 2004."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google