1 / 26

Superpave Implementation Across Canada (1994-2001)

Superpave Implementation Across Canada (1994-2001). Results from the 2001 Canadian Superpave Implementation Tracking Study (C-SITS) Steve Goodman C-SHRP Program Manager. Overview. C-SHRP and Superpave Past C-SHRP Implementation Surveys 2001 Survey Methodology Results Summary

kyle
Download Presentation

Superpave Implementation Across Canada (1994-2001)

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. Superpave Implementation Across Canada (1994-2001) Results from the 2001 Canadian Superpave Implementation Tracking Study (C-SITS) Steve Goodman C-SHRP Program Manager

  2. Overview • C-SHRP and Superpave • Past C-SHRP Implementation Surveys • 2001 Survey Methodology • Results • Summary • Some Current SP Research • The Future of C-SHRP and Superpave

  3. C-SHRP and Superpave • Considerable attention from C-SHRP as major product of SHRP • Equipment purchase assistance • Test roads at Lamont, Hearst and Sherbrooke (low temp. cracking) • 1998 Briefing Tour • Canadian Directory of Resources • Technical briefs, technical briefs and more technical briefs • Implementation surveys

  4. Past Implementation Surveys • 1998 Provincial Agency Survey • Conducted by C-SHRP and Golder Associates • 3 Parts • Superpave testing capability • Implementation Plans • Supply and Construction • Main conclusions • Implementation much slower than US • Some concerns with technology • Some agencies to implement by 2000/01

  5. Past Implementation Surveys • 1999 University Curriculum Study • Survey sent to all Canadian university Civil Engineering Depts. and some technical colleges • 13 of 30 responses • All 13 offered some form of Superpave instruction • Some specific courses, mostly added to existing courses • All provinces covered except BC

  6. 2001 C-SITS Survey • Expanded distribution • Provincial and territorial transportation agencies • Numerous municipalities • 2 Parts • Part 1 – Total tonnages by year • Full Superpave • PG Binders with Marshall Design • Part 2 – Detailed Project level data

  7. 2001 C-SITS Survey • Part 1 Questions • Tonnages placed 1994-2001 • Full Superpave (as per AI/AASHTO) • PG Binder with Marshall Design • Has your Agency adopted SP? If not, why? • Construction Concerns? • Tenderness, Compaction, Segregation, Pickup, Stripping • Average % increase in cost for SP asphalt • Is cost justified?

  8. 2001 C-SITS Survey • Responses • 41 responses (20%) • 10 provinces, 1 federal, 30 municipalities • 19 agencies have experimented with Superpave mix design • All 10 provinces, federal, 8 municipalities • Many of the large municipalities responded • Expected that unresponsive agencies do not have experience

  9. How Much Down? 4.13 million tonnes

  10. 4.13 million tonnes Full Superpave • 28.3 million tonnes PG Binder with Marshall design

  11. Tonnages Placed

  12. Municipal Users

  13. How Many Agencies Have Adopted SP? None.

  14. Why Not? • Limited experience with mix design and testing. • Performance still under evaluation. Mixed results to date. • Used only for high traffic areas. • Scarcity of acceptable aggregates (costs related to aggregate production). • Want to gain experience with PG binders first. • Want to ensure that Superpave does not exclude materials that have provided good performance in the past.

  15. Why Not? • Technical issues • FAA test • Restricted Zone • Software • Absence of performance related test. • Concern with industry’s testing and mix design ability and capacity. • Waiting for acceptance/adoption by Province. • High cost of testing equipment

  16. Why Not? • Low Benefit:Cost Ratio. Current mixes perform well against rutting. Only low temp cracking a concern (PG binders have improved situation) • Will eventually replace Marshall, but gradually.

  17. Construction Concerns?

  18. Concerns Remedied with Experience? • Mostly “Yes” • Comments • Insufficient experience • Handwork difficult • Increased pickup with modified binders (one agency removed rubber tired roller from job) • Some increased segregation with >25mm NMAS mixes

  19. Tonnages Placed

  20. Survey Summary • 2.6 million more tonnes of SP since 1998 • Much faster implementation rate • Municipalities are experimenting with and using Superpave • Only one agency has adopted SP mix design • Many agencies have adopted PG binder spec • West has good crude, use CAN-CGSB specs • Experience has reduced construction problems

  21. Survey Summary • Canadian agencies will likely adopt Superpave • Some outstanding technical issues • Concerns about performance of test sections • Waiting for performance test • Need industry experience and capacity

  22. Some SP Related Work • New RAP Guidelines for SP (NCHRP Research Results 253) • NCAT report on Restricted Zone • Should be a “Caution Zone” or Eliminated Entirely • Simple Performance Test soon (NCHRP 9-19 and 9-29) • Dynamic Modulus (E*)??? • NCHRP Report on Modified Binders (NCHRP 459) • Testing and Inspection Levels for HMAC (NCHRP 447) • Ndesign Table Literature Review (NCHRP Web Doc) • Many online through TRB at and NCAT

  23. The Future of C-SHRP and Superpave • Continue collecting survey information • Look at Part II information with time • Technical Briefs • Superpave vs. SMA? • Results of MTQ/LCPC/Heritage Research Experiment • Any other new technologies/procedures from NCHRP projects • Second Superpave Briefing Tour? • May tie in with AASHTO 2002

More Related