LOW TEMPERATURE CRACKING Tim Clyne, MnDOT Dec 7, 2011 MAAPT
Presentation Topics Project History Phase I Major Findings Phase II Research Mixture LTC Specification The Road Ahead
Affects Ride Quality
We’re Making Progress Current spec Initial Superpave
Project History
Initial Project Low Temperature Cracking of Asphalt Concrete Pavements ( ) Mihai Marasteanu, Xue Li, Timothy Clyne, Vaughan Voller, David Timm, David Newcomb Introduced SCB test method Developed two models Crack spacing Damage and crack propagation
Phase I Field Performance Low Temperature Cracking Performance at MnROAD Brief for 2007 MnROAD Lessons Learned project Tim Clyne, Ben Worel, Mihai Marasteanu Evaluated field performance of ML and LVR cells
LVR Superpave Cells Investigation of the Low-Temperature Fracture Properties of Three MnROAD Asphalt Mixtures University of Minnesota Xinjun Li, Adam Zofka, Xue Li, Mihai Marasteanu, Timothy R. Clyne
Pooled Fund Project Phase I National TAP – August 2003
Pooled Fund Project Phase I Investigation of Low Temperature Cracking in Asphalt Pavements National Pooled Fund Study 776 16 Authors from 5 entities! Large Laboratory Experiment 10 Asphalt Binders Neat and Modified, PG to 2 Aggregate Sources Limestone and Granite 2 Air Void Levels 4% and 7% 2 Asphalt Contents Optimum Design and + 0.5%
Pooled Fund Project Phase I Field Samples 13 pavement sections around region Experimental Modeling
Indirect Tensile Test Developed during SHRP program In current MEPDG Determines Creep Stiffness & Tensile Strength Test protocol AASHTO T
Creep & Strength Data
Semi Circular Bend Apply constant Crack Mouth Opening Displacement Determines Fracture Energy & Fracture Toughness Proposed AASHTO Test Method
SCB Data
Disk Shaped Compact Tension Similar to SCB except for geometry and loading rate Determines Fracture Energy Test protocol ASTM D
DCT Data
Asphalt Binder Testing Bending Beam Rheometer Direct Tension Double Edge Notched Tension Dilatometric (Volume Change)
Phase I Major Findings
Fracture Mechanics Approach
Asphalt Mixture Testing Binder gives a good start, but doesn’t tell whole story
Binder Grade Modified vs. Unmodified High temperature grade
Aggregate Type Granite generally better than Limestone
Air Voids Lower air voids = slightly better performance
Binder Content More asphalt = better performance
Phase II Research
Work Plan Updated literature review Test additional field samples Various mix types, binder grades & modifiers, RAP Develop LTC mix specification Improved modeling capabilities Model thermal cycling effects Validate new mixture specification Final Report
Supplementary Data Asphalt Mixture and Binder Fracture Testing for 2008 MnROAD Construction University of Minnesota Mihai Marasteanu, Ki Hoon Moon, Mugurel Turos Tested 12 MnROAD mixtures and 9 binders, reported data SCB, IDT, BBR, DTT, DENT Porous, Novachip, 4.75 mm Superpave, WMA, Shingles
DCT vs. SCB ItemDCTSCBEven Equipment needed x Cost of test setup x Test time requirement x Ease of sample preparation x Repeatability of results x Loading mode ? Loading rate ? Lab vs. Fieldx Ability to test thin lifts in field x OVERALL CHOICE
DCT vs. SCB
Equipment Cost ItemCost Loading fixtures$3,000 X ‐ Y Tables to facilitate coring and sawing $1,500 CMOD Extensometer (Epsilon)$1,400 Temperature ‐ Chamber $20,000 Temperature modules and thermocouples$400 PC for Data Acquisition$1,000 Labview Based Interface Board$700 Coring barrels (qty = 5)$500 Labview Software for Data Acquisition$1,500 Labview Programming$3,000 Dual water cooled masonry saws$10,000 Dual saw system for flat face and notching$7,000 TOTAL$50,000
Reproducibility
Aging Plays a Role
Phase II Major Findings Conditioning / Aging None > Long Term Lab = Field Binder Modification SBS > Elvaloy > PPA RAP No RAP > RAP = FRAP Air Voids not significant Test Temperature was significant
ILLI-TC Model Modeling can provide: True performance prediction (cracking vs. time) Input for maintenance decisions Insight for policy decisions
LTC Specification
Draft Mixture Specification Prepare sample during mix design Eventually perform on behind paver samples Prepare specimens at 7% air voids Long term condition per AASHTO R 30 Perform 3 replicate tests at PGLT + 10°C Average G f > 400 J/m 2 Make adjustments if mix fails & retest
Specification Limit
Possible Mixture Adjustments Binder grade Reduce Low PG (-34 vs -28) Different modifier or supplier Aggregate source Granite/taconite instead of limestone Reduce RAP/RAS content Aggregate gradation Finer gradation Increase binder content
What’s Next? Use pilot spec on select projects in 2012 or 2013 Implement in cooperation with Bituminous Office HMA Performance Testing project – University of Minnesota Duluth Phase I – Review of Literature & State Specifications Phase II – Lab Testing & Field Validation (proposed fall 2011) Extend to other types of cracking Fatigue, Top Down, Reflective
Thank You! Tim Clyne