Download
r ubber p avement a ssociation technical advisory board meeting 11 july 2002 san diego california n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
R ubber P avement A ssociation Technical Advisory Board Meeting 11 July 2002 San Diego, California PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
R ubber P avement A ssociation Technical Advisory Board Meeting 11 July 2002 San Diego, California

R ubber P avement A ssociation Technical Advisory Board Meeting 11 July 2002 San Diego, California

152 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

R ubber P avement A ssociation Technical Advisory Board Meeting 11 July 2002 San Diego, California

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Rubber Pavement Association Technical Advisory Board Meeting 11 July 2002San Diego, California Asphalt Rubber Research Kamil E. Kaloush Arizona State University

  2. AR Research Background at ASU • Started July 2001 • Obtain Typical Engineering Material Properties for AR Mixtures and Binders • >>> 2002 Design Guide • Compare the Laboratory Performance of AR Mixtures To Conventional ADOT Mixtures • Special Studies: Field - Laboratory Comparison

  3. Research Partners Arizona State University

  4. Completed 2nd Project: Nov 01 – Nov 03 I-17 Frontage Rd. AR Demonstration Program On-Going Current Projects 1st Project: Jul 01 – Jun 02 I-40 Buffalo Range Sections

  5. Satisfy Research Needs • Project 2: PG Binder Specifications for AR Binders. • Project 8: Database of Asphalt Rubber Projects. • Project 10: Evaluate AR Using 2002 Design Guide Test Protocols. • Project 11: Laboratory and Field Evaluation

  6. Current Projects 3rd Project: Jul 02 – Jan 03 Alberta AR Test Section Starting Soon! 4th Project: ALF Test Section

  7. On Going Asphalt-Rubber Technology Research Center (ARTIC) Library Update • Project 3: Document Merits of Asphalt Rubber Products • Project 5: Individual Technical Merit Documents Research Needs

  8. I-40 Buffalo Range • One Stock Binder (58-22). • Gap / Open Graded Mixes. • Binder Tests. • Mixture Tests on HMA. • In-situ Air Voids I-40 MP 229

  9. AR Demonstration Program • Acting as a Catalyst to Expand the Environmental Responsible Use of Crumb Rubber • Demonstrate the Use of Ground Tire Rubber in Asphalt Pavement Construction • >> Nationwide Implementation.

  10. Project Ends Pinnacle Peak Rd. Project Start

  11. Mainly PG 64-16 / (Test Section 58-22). Gap Graded Mix Binder and HMA Testing Lab Experimental Design on HMA 3 Compaction Levels 2 Aging Levels Field Specimens Reflective Cracking Model Verification (CONSULPAV: Dr. Jorge Sousa) AR Demonstration Program

  12. Gyratory Compaction / Coring

  13. Air Voids Measurements - Corelok

  14. Binder Tests • Conventional Tests • Penetration AASHTO T49-93 • Softening Point AASHTO T53-92 • Rotational Viscosity AASHTO TP48 • Superpave / SHRP Tests • Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR): AASHTO PP1 • Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR): AASHTO TP1-98

  15. ASU Experience in AR Binder Handling / Testing • Heating: Needs Additional 15 to 20 min • Use Continuous & Rigorous Stirring • RTFO : Spill Over (~ 20%) • Brookfield: Select Proper Spindle

  16. Pen 59, 77oF Soft. Point 139oF Brookfield Viscosity 200-350oF Buffalo Range (PG58-22 + R)

  17. PG 58-22 With and Without Rubber

  18. Comparison with ADOT Binders

  19. Comparison with PG 76-16 Binder

  20. Effect of RTFO and PAV

  21. Comparison With PG 76-16 Binder RTFO PAV

  22. Mixture Tests: NCHRP 9-19 SPT Candidates Triaxial Compression • Dynamic Modulus (E*) • Flow Time (FT) – (Static Creep Test) • Flow Number of Repetitions (FN) – (Repeated Load Test)

  23. Phase Lag in Dynamic Loading 3 to 200 psi Confinement E* Dynamic Modulus Testing

  24. E* Master Curve

  25. Secondary Tertiary FT Defines Time When Shear Deformation Begins Primary Creep Test - Rutting Stress s Time

  26. ep = N b a 2 2 14 14 16 16 FN (Flow Number) Repeated Load Test - Rutting Load Number of Cycles (N) 0.9 s 0.1 s er MR Permanent Strain (in/in) N

  27. Cracking Tests Indirect Tensile Creep Test • Creep Compliance • Strength

  28. Cracking Tests Flexural Fatigue Tests SHRP M-009

  29. εt E Nf 2002 Design Guide Generalized fatigue equation for mixed loading mode:

  30. E* Master Curves Comparison

  31. Repeated Load Tests

  32. Static Creep Tests

  33. Indirect Tensile Strength Tests

  34. Thermal Cracking As Tensile Strain Indirect Tensile Strength Tests

  35. Thermal Cracking As Fracture Energy Indirect Tensile Strength Tests

  36. Fatigue Test Results

  37. Gap – Open – Dense Graded

  38. Summary • The Conventional Binder Tests are Adequate in Describing the Viscosity-Temperature Susceptibility (A-VTS) of Crumb Rubber Modified Binders. • This A-VTS Relationship Also Appears to Relate to Observed Field Performance Behavior. • Less Low-Temperature Cracking • Good Resistance to Rutting at High Temperatures.

  39. Summary • Corelok is a Useful Device for Measuring Mixture Air Voids, Especially ACFC Mixes • E*AR Mixes ~ E* Conv. Mixes(Note Va %) • Permanent Deformation (PD)Tests: > ARAC Good Resistance to Deformation

  40. Summary • Tensile Strength: No Advantages of AR Mixes • Strain at Failure • Fracture Energy were Better Indicators of Field Performance • Fatigue Relationships: AR-ACFC and ARAC Mixtures Provides Much Better Fatigue Life Than Dense Graded PG 76-16 Mix.

  41. Acknowledgment • George Way, Julie Nodes, Doug Forstie, ADOT • Mark Belshe, FNF Construction • Donna Carlson, Doug Carlson, RPA • Andy Acho, Ford Motor Company • Matthew Witczak, ASU • ASU Advanced Pavement Laboratory Staff / GRA’s • Kenny Witczak, Javed Bari, Mohammad Abojaradeh, Aleksander Zborowski, Andres Sotil Thank you !