Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJuan Connolly Modified over 10 years ago
1
Performance Testing of Asphalt Pavements Specifying Low-Temperature Cracking Performance for Hot-Mix Asphalt January 22, 2012 TRB Workshop Tim Clyne, MnDOT
2
Presentation Topics Brief Project History Phase I Major Findings
Phase II Research Mixture LTC Specification The Road Ahead
4
Affects Ride Quality
5
Project History
6
Initial Studies Low Temperature Cracking of Asphalt Concrete Pavements
Introduced SCB test method Developed models for crack spacing and propogation Low Temperature Cracking Performance at MnROAD Evaluated field performance of ML and LVR cells Investigation of the Low-Temperature Fracture Properties of Three MnROAD Asphalt Mixtures PG 58-28, 58-34, 58-40
7
Pooled Fund Project Phase I
National TAP – August 2003
8
Pooled Fund Project Phase I
Investigation of Low Temperature Cracking in Asphalt Pavements National Pooled Fund Study TPF-5(080) 16 Authors from 5 entities! Large Laboratory Experiment 10 Asphalt Binders Neat and Modified, PG to 64-22 2 Aggregate Sources Limestone and Granite 2 Air Void Levels 4% and 7% 2 Asphalt Contents Optimum Design and + 0.5%
9
Pooled Fund Project Phase I
Field Samples 13 pavement sections around region Experimental Modeling
10
Laboratory Test Procedures
Indirect Tensile Test (IDT) Test protocol AASHTO T Semi Circular Bend (SCB) Proposed AASHTO Test Disk Shaped Compact Tension ASTM D
11
Asphalt Binder Testing
Bending Beam Rheometer Direct Tension Double Edge Notched Tension Dilatometric (Volume Change)
12
Phase I Major Findings
13
Fracture Mechanics Approach
14
Asphalt Mixture Testing
Binder gives a good start, but doesn’t tell whole story
15
Binder Grade Modified vs. Unmodified High temperature grade
16
Aggregate Type Granite generally better than Limestone
17
Air Voids Lower air voids = slightly better performance
18
Binder Content More asphalt = better performance
19
Phase II Research
20
Objectives Develop LTC mix specification
Test field additional field samples Various mix types, binder grades & modifiers, RAP Supplementary data from 12 MnROAD mixtures and 9 binders from 2008 SCB, IDT, BBR, DTT, DENT Porous, Novachip, 4.75 mm Superpave, WMA, Shingles Improved modeling capabilities
21
DCT vs. SCB Item DCT SCB Even Equipment needed x Cost of test setup
x Cost of test setup Test time requirement Ease of sample preparation Repeatability of results Loading mode ? Loading rate Lab vs. Field Ability to test thin lifts in field OVERALL CHOICE
22
DCT vs. SCB
23
SCB = DCT if you remove creep!
DCT vs. SCB SCB = DCT if you remove creep!
24
Reproducibility
25
Equipment Cost Item Cost 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 Labview Programming Dual water cooled masonry saws $10,000 Dual saw system for flat face and notching $7,000 TOTAL $50,000
26
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
27
ILLI-TC Model Modeling can provide:
True performance prediction (cracking vs. time) Input for maintenance decisions Insight for policy decisions
28
LTC Specification
29
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 Gf > 350 J/m2 Make adjustments if mix fails & retest
30
Specification Limit
31
Possible Mixture Adjustments
Binder grade Reduce Low PG (-34 vs -28) Different modifier or supplier Aggregate source Granite/taconite instead of limestone/gravel Reduce RAP/RAS content Aggregate gradation Finer gradation Increase binder content
32
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 (begin spring 2012) Extend to other types of cracking Fatigue, Top Down, Reflective
33
Thank You! Tim Clyne 651-366-5473 tim.clyne@state.mn.us
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.