1 / 33

Performance Testing of Asphalt Pavements Specifying Low-Temperature Cracking Performance for Hot-Mix Asphalt

Performance Testing of Asphalt Pavements Specifying Low-Temperature Cracking Performance for Hot-Mix Asphalt. Tim Clyne, MnDOT. January 22, 2012 TRB Workshop. Presentation Topics. Brief Project History Phase I Major Findings Phase II Research Mixture LTC Specification The Road Ahead.

holt
Download Presentation

Performance Testing of Asphalt Pavements Specifying Low-Temperature Cracking Performance for Hot-Mix Asphalt

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Performance Testing of Asphalt PavementsSpecifying Low-Temperature Cracking Performance for Hot-Mix Asphalt Tim Clyne, MnDOT January 22, 2012 TRB Workshop

  2. Presentation Topics • Brief Project History • Phase I Major Findings • Phase II Research • Mixture LTC Specification • The Road Ahead

  3. Affects Ride Quality

  4. Project History

  5. 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

  6. Pooled Fund Project Phase I National TAP – August 2003

  7. 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 58-40 to 64-22 • 2 Aggregate Sources • Limestone and Granite • 2 Air Void Levels • 4% and 7% • 2 Asphalt Contents • Optimum Design and + 0.5%

  8. Pooled Fund Project Phase I • Field Samples • 13 pavement sections around region • Experimental Modeling

  9. Laboratory Test Procedures • Indirect Tensile Test (IDT) • Test protocol AASHTO T 322-03 • Semi Circular Bend (SCB) • Proposed AASHTO Test • Disk Shaped Compact Tension • ASTM D 7313-06

  10. Asphalt Binder Testing • Bending Beam Rheometer • Direct Tension • Double Edge Notched Tension • Dilatometric (Volume Change)

  11. Phase I Major Findings

  12. Fracture Mechanics Approach

  13. Asphalt Mixture Testing • Binder gives a good start, but doesn’t tell whole story

  14. Binder Grade • Modified vs. Unmodified • High temperature grade

  15. Aggregate Type • Granite generally better than Limestone

  16. Air Voids • Lower air voids = slightly better performance

  17. Binder Content • More asphalt = better performance

  18. Phase II Research

  19. 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

  20. DCT vs. SCB

  21. DCT vs. SCB

  22. DCT vs. SCB SCB = DCT if you remove creep!

  23. Reproducibility

  24. Equipment Cost

  25. 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

  26. ILLI-TC Model • Modeling can provide: • True performance prediction (cracking vs. time) • Input for maintenance decisions • Insight for policy decisions

  27. LTC Specification

  28. 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

  29. Specification Limit

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. Thank You! • Tim Clyne • 651-366-5473 • tim.clyne@state.mn.us www.mndot.gov/mnroad

More Related