Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

USA-CANADA-FRANCE Comparisons on HMA

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "USA-CANADA-FRANCE Comparisons on HMA"— 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
Agenda Introduction HMA in New York State HMA in Quebec HMA in France Comparisons Conclusions

3 Canada – USA - France Formulations Equipment Hot and black everywhere
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 64-28
Neat asphalt

7 New York State Formulation 12.5 mm SUPERPAVE
1st step: Optimization of the gradation 3 blends for the gradation Same AC content 2nd step: Optimization of the AC 3 AC contents 4% Air voids at N design Then with the final AC N max 3rd 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
in 106 < 0.3 <3.0 <10 <30 >30 N initial 6 7 8 9 N design 50 75 100 125 N max 115 160 205

10 New York State

11

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

13

14 Quebec Components Aggregates Asphalt Cement 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% 30000 cycles R > 10%

17 France Components Formulation 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 Film of binder 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 ε6 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 Gyratory press
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

29

30

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 Evaluation de la SGC Pine

33 Evaluation de la SGC Pine
The Pine SGC Evaluation de la SGC Pine

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

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

36 Evaluation de la SGC Pine
Comparison of design procedures Goals: 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 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. Evaluation de la SGC Pine

37 Evaluation de la SGC Pine
Une différence dans l’exploitation 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 Evaluation de la SGC Pine

38 Evaluation de la SGC Pine
The superpave method is complex and time consuming : Determination of various specific gravities Evaluation of VMA, VFA et Va, Measurement of compacity at Ndes, Nmax et Nini : Cdes = 96 % à Ndes, Cmax < 98 % à Nmax, Cmin < 89 % à Nmin. Evaluation de la SGC Pine

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 Evaluation de la SGC Pine

40 Evaluation de la SGC Pine
A 1 giration La pente k V1 pine = 0,95xV1 pcg3 kpine = 1,19xKpcg3 Identical results for 1 giration SGC compaction is faster than PCG compaction Evaluation de la SGC Pine

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 Evaluation de la SGC Pine

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, Cini, Cmax …). Evaluation de la SGC Pine

43 Evaluation de la SGC Pine
Results : All hot mix types comply with Superpave specs Classification of hot mix types Traffic : Low level Medium level High level BBME<BBMa<EME BBSG GB Use in France: BBSG,GB BBME, EME, BBMa Evaluation de la SGC Pine

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

45 Evaluation de la SGC Pine
Relation compacité terrain – SGC Pine : Compacités SGC Pine déterminées par la la relation Cpine = C6xe Bissectrice : Cterrain = C6xe compacités Pine (C6 x e) fonction des compacités terrain Evaluation de la SGC Pine

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

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

51 Construction Europe

52 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"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google