Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Arya Ebrahimpour, Ph.D., P.E. Professor & Interim Chair Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Idaho State University Sustainable Pavement Maintenance.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Arya Ebrahimpour, Ph.D., P.E. Professor & Interim Chair Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Idaho State University Sustainable Pavement Maintenance."— Presentation transcript:

1 Arya Ebrahimpour, Ph.D., P.E. Professor & Interim Chair Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Idaho State University Sustainable Pavement Maintenance via Chip Sealing Application

2 Outline I.Introduction II. Laboratory Experiments III. Design Methodologies IV. Test Results V. Conclusions and Recommendations 2

3 I. Introduction 1.Overview 2.Objectives 3.Scope of Work 3

4 1. Overview What is Chip sealing? Comparative Studies and success stories from round the world. Cost effectiveness of chip sealing compared to other preventive maintenance techniques. 4

5 5

6 Field Observation 6

7 2. Objectives of the Research a)To evaluate the effectiveness of Idahos existing chip seal practice. b)To identify the reasons for the loss of aggregate from the pavement surface. c)To study the materials used and suggest the best material to improve the chip seal practice. d)To evaluate the performance of different kinds of binders. e)To establish a better rational design method based on experiments performed in this project. 7

8 3. Scope of Work Determine the properties of aggregate. Utilize the parameters in design calcs. Establish a better aggregate of the six districts of Idaho Establishing a better rational design method which suites the conditions of Idaho. 8

9 II.Laboratory Tests a)Sieve Analysis b)Flakiness Index Test c)Loose Unit Weight d)Cleanliness Value Test e)Vialit Tests 9

10 a) Sieve Analysis 10

11 b) Flakiness Index Test 11

12 c) Loose Unit Weight 12 Wt of Aggregate = lb. Volume of the Container = 0.1 cubic feet. Loose Unit Wt = 9.519/ 0.1 = lb/cubic feet

13 d) Cleanliness Value Test 13

14 e) Vialit Test 14

15 III.Design Methodologies 1.McLeod Design Method 2.Modified Kearby Method 3.New Zealand Chip Seal Design method 4.United Kingdom Road Note 39 15

16 1. McLeod Design Method The amount of aggregate is determined using the formula: 16 A = 46.8 (1-0.4V) ×H×G×E

17 McLeod Design Method Contd Amount of binder to be used is given by: 17

18 2. Modified Kearby Method The amount of aggregate is determined by: 18

19 2. Modified Kearby Method The asphalt spread ratio is determined by: 19

20 3. New Zealand Chip Seals Method The residue asphalt content is determined: 20

21 4. United Kingdom Road Note 39 United Kingdom Road Note 39 21

22 IV.Results and Discussions 1.Median Size 2.Flakiness Index 3.Average Least Dimension 4.Loose Unit Weight 5.Void Ratio 6.Cleanliness Value Test 7.Vialit Test 22

23 1. Median Size of the Particle The median size varied from inches to inches, the lowest for District 2 and the highest for District 1. 23

24 2. Flakiness Index Value The flakiness index values varied from 5.44 to 21.08, the lowest for District 5 and the highest for District 2. 24

25 3. Average Least Dimension VS M/FI DistrictALDM/FI

26 4. Loose Unit Weight District 5 had the highest loose unit weight of and District 6 had the least of

27 5. Void Ratio DistrictVoid Ratio

28 6. Cleanliness Value Index DistrictCV (%) Height of Sediment (in)

29 7. Vialit Test Results The Vialit Tests Washed Aggregate Retention (%) Unwashed Aggregate (%)

30 Vialit Test Results Contd Vialit Test for Different Binders CRS-2RCRS-2PCRS-2LCRS-2S

31 Vialit Test Results Contd Vialit Test Cured at different temperatures -10 Degrees C 25 Degrees C 40 Degrees C 60 Degrees C

32 7. Vialit Test Results 32

33 Vialit Test Results Contd The amount of aggregate swept for different binders CRS-2RCRS-2PCRS-2SCRS-2L

34 V.Conclusions and Recommendations 1.Conclusions 2.Recommendations 34

35 1. Conclusions a.M/FI factor better than ALD b.Void Ratio and its significance in the design. c.Effect of fines on the aggregate retention d.Effect of different binders on Aggregate retention. 35

36 Conclusions Contd e.Effect of different aggregate on CRS-2R f. Effect of temperature of curing on aggregate retention. g. Cleanliness Value compared to Percentage fines. 36

37 a.Using washed aggregate or aggregate with least amount of fines is recommended. b.Using aggregate which is more round in shape and is uniform in size are preferred. 2. Recommendations 37

38 Recommendations Contd c.Quantities of binder and aggregate should be used as per calculated in the design method procedure. d.Using Digital Imagery technique and Finite element analysis. e.Wheel Tracking better than dropping a ball. 38

39 Questions? 39


Download ppt "Arya Ebrahimpour, Ph.D., P.E. Professor & Interim Chair Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Idaho State University Sustainable Pavement Maintenance."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google