 The objective of this task is to develop a mix design procedure for the various types of FDR  Determine what works and what does not work  Each type of FDR has separate mix design

◦ Unstabilized ◦ Mechanically stabilized: add virgin aggregate ◦ Stabilized FDR with Portland Cement ◦ Stabilized FDR with Fly Ash ◦ Stabilized FDR with Asphalt Emulsion ◦ Stabilized FDR with Asphalt Emulsion with 1% Lime ◦ Stabilized FDR with Foamed Asphalt with 1% Portland Cement

◦ Source: Good and Poor ◦ Quality: Dirty and Clean ◦ RAP: 0, 25, 50, and 75%

FDR SourceGradation FDR Type UnstabilizedStabilized with PC (3, 5, 7 %) Stabilized with Fly Ash (10, 12, 15 %) Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion (3, 4.5, 6 %) Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion (3, 4.5, 6 %)+ Lime Stabilized with Foamed Asphalt (2.5, 3, 3.5 %) + PC Good Clean -Moisture-density -Mr and CBR -Moisture-density - Comp strength -Moisture sensitivity -Moisture-density - Comp strength -Moisture sensitivity -Moisture-Density Superpave Gyratory - Density with Corelok -Moisture sensitivity -Moisture-Density -Superpave Gyratory - Density with Corelok -Moisture sensitivity -Moisture-Density -Superpave Gyratory -Density with Corelok -Moisture sensitivity Dirty SAME Poor Clean SAME Dirty SAME

 Strength: ◦ Mr and CBR for unstabilized ◦ UC for cement and fly ash stabilized ◦ TS for foamed and emulsion stabilized  Moisture Susceptibility ◦ Tube Suction and ASTM D559  For cement and fly ash stabilized ◦ AASHTO T-283  for foamed and emulsion stabilized

 What works and what does not  What criteria to implement  Repeatability and reliability  Does the measurement make engineering sense

 RAP 25 and 50% content did not significantly impact the Mr  The 75% RAP improved the Mr of the Poor source  Relationship between Mr and CBR is un- reliable for FDR: Use Mr

 FDR+PC & FDR+FA ◦ Dry UC:300 – 400 psi ◦ Tube Suction:max 9  FDR+Foamed & FDR+Emulsion ◦ Dry TS at 77F:min 30 psi ◦ TS Ratio:min. 70%

Material - %Rap%PCDry UC (psi)Tube Suction GC-25% GC-50% GC-75% GD-25% GD-50% GD-75% PC-25% PC-50% PC-75% PD-25% PD-50% PD-75%

 UC strength between 300 and 400 psi is achievable in most cases  Higher UC with higher PC content in all cases  Variability of the UC test is acceptable  Tube Suction test maybe applicable

Material -% Rap%FADry UC (psi)Tube Suction GC-25% GC-50% GC-75% GD-25% GD-50% GD-75% PC-25% PC-50% PC-75% PD-25% PD-50% PD-75%

 UC strength between 300 and 400 psi is achievable except for the Poor-Dirty material  Higher UC with higher FA in most cases  Variability of the UC is acceptable  Tube Suction test maybe applicable

Material –%Rap%EmulsionDry TS(psi)Wet TS(psi)TSR (%) NO LIME GD-25% GD-50% GD-75% PD-25%4.530Disintegrate PD-50%4.550Disintegrate PD-75%4.551Disintegrate 1% LIME GD-25% GD-50% GD-75% PD-25% PD-50% PD-75%

 Could not design the clean materials: too little fines  The TS is a good indicator  The repeatability of the TS is very good  Lime was effective

Material - %Rap%ACDry TS(psi)Wet TS(psi)TSR (%) GC-25%3.0* GC-50%3.0* GC-75%3.0* GD-25% GD-50% GD-75% PC-25% PC-50% PC-75% PD-25% PD-50% PD-75%

 Could not design without the PC  The TS is a good indicator  The repeatability of the TS is very good

 Be consistent with AASHTO Design Guides ◦ AASHTO 1993 ◦ AASHTO MEPDG

 Unstablised:  Resilient modulus (Mr)  FDR+PC & FDR+FA:  Modulus of Rupture (MR)  FDR+Foamed & FDR+Emuslion:  Dynamic Modulus (E*)

Material - %Rap%PCDry UC (psi)MR (psi) GC-25% GC-50% GC-75% GD-25% GD-50% GD-75% PC-25% PC-50% PC-75% PD-25% PD-50% PD-75%540979

Material - %Rap%FADry UC (psi)MR (psi) GC-25%Rap GC-50%Rap GC-75%Rap GD-25%Rap GD-50%Rap GD-75%Rap PC-25%Rap10558 PC-50%Rap PC-75%Rap12327 PD-25%Rap PD-50%Rap PD-75%Rap156348

 |E*| master curve: Modulus of HMA at any combination of loading rate & temperature. Time Stress Strain Time time shift =  /   =  0 sin(ωt)  =  0 sin(ωt-  ) 00 00 |E*| = σ 0 /ε 0 34