1 / 52

Full Depth Recycling PTP Meeting

Full Depth Recycling PTP Meeting. Task 4 - Data Analysis. Task 4-Development of FDR Mix Design Guide. 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.

shika
Download Presentation

Full Depth Recycling PTP Meeting

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. Full Depth Recycling PTP Meeting

  2. Task 4 - Data Analysis

  3. Task 4-Development of FDR Mix Design Guide • 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

  4. Types of FDR • Unstabilized • Mechanically stabilized with 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 (2% Portland Cement)

  5. Composition of FDR • Source: Good and Poor • Quality: Dirty and Clean • RAP: 0, 25, 50, and 75%

  6. Testing of Mechanically Stabilized FDR Mixes Resilient Modulus Testing California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Testing

  7. Testing of Portland Cement/Fly Ash Stabilized FDR Mixes Unconfined Compression Testing Tube Suction Testing

  8. Testing of Portland Cement/Fly Ash Stabilized FDR Mixes Moisture Sensitivity Testing with Wire Brush Method Tested Samples

  9. Testing of Asphalt Emulsion/ Foamed Asphalt FDR Mixes SuperPave Gyratory Compactor Foamed Asphalt Lab

  10. Testing of Asphalt Emulsion/ Foamed Asphalt FDR Mixes CoreLok Device Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) Testing

  11. Gradations

  12. Mix Design Issues • Strength: • Mr and CBR for unstabilized • UCS for cement and fly ash stabilized • ITS for foamed and emulsion stabilized • Moisture Susceptibility • Tube Suction and ASTM D559(wire brush test) • For cement and fly ash stabilized • AASHTO T-283 (freeze thaw cycle) • For foamed and emulsion stabilized

  13. Mix Design Issues • What works and what does not • What criteria to implement • Repeatability and reliability • Does the measurement make engineering sense

  14. Unstabilized FDR

  15. Unstabilized FDR

  16. Unstabilized FDR

  17. Unstabilized FDR

  18. Unstablized FDR • 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

  19. Mix Design Criteria • 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%

  20. Optimum Mix Designs: FDR+PC

  21. Stabilized with PC • UC strength between 300 and 400 psi is achievable in most cases • Higher UCS with higher PC content in all cases • Variability of the UCS test is acceptable • Tube suction test may be applicable

  22. Stabilized with PC ASTM D559(wire brush test)

  23. Optimum Mix Designs: FDR+FA

  24. Stabilized with FA • UC strength between 300 and 400 psi is achievable except for the Poor-Dirty material • Higher UCS with higher FA in most cases • Variability of the UCS is acceptable • Tube suction test may be applicable

  25. Stabilized with FA ASTM D559(wire brush test)

  26. Optimum Mix Designs: FDR+Emulsion

  27. Stabilized with Emulsion • Could not produce a design using the clean materials: too little fines • The ITS is a good indicator • The repeatability of the ITS is very good • Lime was effective

  28. Optimum Mix Designs:FDR+Foamed+1%PC

  29. Stabilized with Foamed Asphalt • Could not design without the PC • The ITS is a good indicator • The repeatability of the ITS is very good

  30. Task 5 - Data Analysis

  31. Task 5 – Development of Standard Laboratory Testing Method • The objective of this task is to develop a laboratory testing procedure to address material properties needed to support practical pavement design. The focus will be on developing standard test methods to be used specifically for AASHTO related pavement designs. • The FDR process produces a layer that will be modeled as a base course within the structure of a flexible pavement.

  32. Simple Performance Tester (SPT) • Resilient Modulus • Dynamic Modulus • E* Master Curve • Repeated Load Triaxial

  33. Dynamic Modulus Results

  34. E* Master Curve

  35. Testing of Asphalt Emulsion/ Foamed Asphalt FDR Mixes Foamed Asphalt Specimen: Poor Dirty Gradation with 75% RAP CoreLok for specific gravity determination.

  36. Task 8 - Data Analysis

  37. Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)

  38. Coring of Base Material

  39. Unconfined Compression Testing

  40. CEM 1 – UCS Test Results

  41. CEM 2 – UCS Test Results

  42. AF– UCS Test Results

  43. Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

  44. Deflection Basin and DCP Values

  45. Task 9 – Proposed Outline

More Related