asphalt rubber research
DESCRIPTION
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 ComparisonTRANSCRIPT
RRubber ubber PPavement avement AAssociationssociation
Technical Advisory Board Meeting Technical Advisory Board Meeting
11 July 200211 July 2002San Diego, CaliforniaSan Diego, California
Arizona State UniversityArizona State University
Asphalt Rubber ResearchAsphalt Rubber Research
Kamil E. KaloushKamil E. Kaloush
AR Research AR Research Background at ASUBackground at ASU
Started July 2001Started July 2001 Obtain Typical Engineering Material Obtain Typical Engineering Material
Properties for AR Mixtures and BindersProperties for AR Mixtures and Binders >>> 2002 Design Guide>>> 2002 Design Guide
Compare the Laboratory Performance of AR Compare the Laboratory Performance of AR Mixtures To Conventional ADOT MixturesMixtures To Conventional ADOT Mixtures
Special Studies: Field - Laboratory Special Studies: Field - Laboratory ComparisonComparison
Research Research PartnersPartners
Arizona State UniversityArizona State University
11stst Project Project: : Jul 01 – Jun 02Jul 01 – Jun 02I-40 Buffalo Range I-40 Buffalo Range SectionsSections
Current Current ProjectsProjects
22ndnd Project Project: : Nov 01 – Nov 03Nov 01 – Nov 03I-17 Frontage Rd. I-17 Frontage Rd. AR Demonstration AR Demonstration ProgramProgram
Satisfy Research Satisfy Research NeedsNeeds
Project 2Project 2: PG Binder Specifications for AR : PG Binder Specifications for AR Binders.Binders.
Project 8Project 8: Database of Asphalt Rubber : Database of Asphalt Rubber Projects.Projects.
Project 10Project 10: Evaluate AR Using 2002 : Evaluate AR Using 2002 Design Guide Test Protocols.Design Guide Test Protocols.
Project 11Project 11: Laboratory and Field : Laboratory and Field EvaluationEvaluation
33rdrd Project Project: : Jul 02 – Jan 03Jul 02 – Jan 03Alberta AR Test SectionAlberta AR Test Section
Current Current ProjectsProjects
44thth Project Project: : ALF Test SectionALF Test Section
Asphalt-Rubber Asphalt-Rubber Technology Research Technology Research Center (ARTIC) Library Center (ARTIC) Library UpdateUpdate
Project 3Project 3: Document Merits of Asphalt : Document Merits of Asphalt Rubber ProductsRubber Products
Project 5Project 5: Individual Technical Merit : Individual Technical Merit DocumentsDocuments
One Stock Binder (58-22).One Stock Binder (58-22). Gap / Open Graded Mixes.Gap / Open Graded Mixes. Binder Tests.Binder Tests. Mixture Tests on HMA.Mixture Tests on HMA.
In-situ Air VoidsIn-situ Air Voids
I-40 Buffalo I-40 Buffalo RangeRange
I-40 MP 229
AR Demonstration AR Demonstration ProgramProgram
Acting as a Catalyst to Expand Acting as a Catalyst to Expand the Environmental Responsible Use of Crumb Rubber the Environmental Responsible Use of Crumb Rubber
Demonstrate the Use of Ground Tire Rubber in Demonstrate the Use of Ground Tire Rubber in Asphalt Pavement Construction Asphalt Pavement Construction
>>>> Nationwide Implementation. Nationwide Implementation.
Project Start
Project EndsPinnacle Peak
Rd.
AR Demonstration AR Demonstration ProgramProgram
Mainly PG 64-16 / (Test Section 58-22).Mainly PG 64-16 / (Test Section 58-22). Gap Graded MixGap Graded Mix Binder and HMA TestingBinder and HMA Testing Lab Experimental Design on HMALab Experimental Design on HMA
3 Compaction Levels3 Compaction Levels 2 Aging Levels 2 Aging Levels Field SpecimensField Specimens
Reflective Cracking Model Verification Reflective Cracking Model Verification (CONSULPAV: Dr. Jorge Sousa)(CONSULPAV: Dr. Jorge Sousa)
Gyratory Gyratory CompactionCompaction / Coring / Coring
Air Voids Air Voids Measurements - Measurements - CorelokCorelok
Comparison Of Air Voids By SSD and CorelokAll Specimen Sizes
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Va(%) SSD
Va(%
) Cor
elok
P-ACFC
C-ACFC
C-ARAC
B-ACFC
B-ARAC
D-ACFC
D-I 17
Of Equality
Conventional TestsConventional Tests
Superpave / Superpave / SHRP TestsSHRP Tests
Penetration AASHTO T49-93Penetration AASHTO T49-93Softening Point AASHTO T53-92Softening Point AASHTO T53-92Rotational Viscosity AASHTO Rotational Viscosity AASHTO
TP48TP48
Dynamic Shear Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR): Rheometer (DSR): AASHTO PP1AASHTO PP1
Bending Beam RheometerBending Beam Rheometer (BBR): AASHTO TP1-98(BBR): AASHTO TP1-98
Binder Binder TestsTests
ASU Experience in AR ASU Experience in AR Binder Handling / Binder Handling / TestingTesting
Heating: Needs Additional 15 to 20 minHeating: Needs Additional 15 to 20 min Use Continuous & Rigorous Stirring Use Continuous & Rigorous Stirring RTFO : Spill Over (~ 20%)RTFO : Spill Over (~ 20%) Brookfield: Select Proper SpindleBrookfield: Select Proper Spindle
Buffalo Range (PG58-22 + Buffalo Range (PG58-22 + R)R)
Viscosity - Temperature Relationship (Original Binder)
ARAC PG 58-28: y = -2.4795x + 7.6903R2 = 0.989
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 2.95
Log (Temp, oRankine)
Log
(Log
visc
osity
, cP)
(41) (103) (171) (248) (335) (432)(deg F)
Pen 59, 77oF
Soft. Point 139oF
Brookfield Viscosity 200-350oF
PG 58-22 With and Without PG 58-22 With and Without RubberRubber
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 2.95
Log (Temp) (Rankine)
Log
(Log
vis
) (cp
)
ARACPG58-22
Viscosity - Temperature Relationship
Comparison with ADOT Comparison with ADOT BindersBinders
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 2.95
Log (Temp) (Rankine)
Log
(Log
vis
) (cp
)
ARACPG58-22PG64-16PG64-22PG70-10PG76-16
Viscosity - Temperature Relationship
Comparison with PG 76-16 Comparison with PG 76-16 BinderBinder
Viscosity - Temperature Relationship (Original Binder)
ARAC PG 58-28: y = -2.4795x + 7.6903R2 = 0.989
Chevron PG 76-16: y = -3.6295x + 10.869R2 = 0.9986
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 2.95
Log (Temp, oRankine)
Log
(Log
visc
osity
, cP)
CRA PG 58-28Chevron PG 76-16
(41) (103) (171) (248) (335) (432)(deg F)
Effect of RTFO and Effect of RTFO and PAV PAV
Viscosity - Temperature Relationship of Copperstate CRA PG 58-22 Binder
Original: y = -2.4795x + 7.6903R2 = 0.989
RTFO :y = -2.3145x + 7.2872R2 = 0.9713
PAV100: y = -2.255x + 7.1466R2 = 0.9913
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 2.95
Log (Temp, oRankine)
Log
(Log
visc
osity
, cP)
RTFO ORIGINAL
PAV100
(41) (103) (171) (248) (335) (432)(deg F)
Comparison With PG 76-16 Comparison With PG 76-16 BinderBinder
Viscosity - Temperature Relationship (RTFO)
CRA PG 58-28: y = -2.3145x + 7.2872R2 = 0.9713
Chevron PG 76-16: y = -3.542x + 10.642R2 = 0.9989
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 2.95
Log (Temp, oRankine)
Log
(Log
visc
osity
, cP)
CRA PG 58-28Chevron PG 76-16
(41) (103) (171) (248) (335) (432)(deg F)
Viscosity - Temperature Relationship (PAV100)
CRA PG 58-28: y = -2.255x + 7.1466R2 = 0.9913
Chevron PG 76-16: y = -3.3005x + 10.013R2 = 0.995
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 2.95
Log (Temp, oRankine)
Log
(Log
visc
osity
, cP)
CRA PG 58-28Chevron PG 76-16
RTFRTFOO
PAPAVV
Triaxial Compression Triaxial Compression 1.1. Dynamic Modulus (Dynamic Modulus (E*E*))2.2. Flow Time (Flow Time (FFTT) – (Static Creep Test)) – (Static Creep Test)3.3. Flow Number of Repetitions (Flow Number of Repetitions (FFNN) – ) –
(Repeated Load Test)(Repeated Load Test)
Mixture Tests:Mixture Tests:NCHRP 9-19 SPT NCHRP 9-19 SPT Candidates Candidates
E* Dynamic Modulus E* Dynamic Modulus TestingTesting
0
0*
EConfinement
3 to 200 psi
Stress
Strain
Phase lag
Time
Phase Lag in Dynamic Loading
E* E* MasteMaster r CurveCurve
0,01
0,1
1
10
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Log Reduced Time, s
E*,
10^
6 ps
i
14 40 70 100 130
Temperature (°F)
0,01
0,1
1
10
0,01 0,1 1 10 100
Loading Time (s)
E*,
10^
6 ps
i
14F 40F 70F 100F 130F
1= 36 psi for T=14°F1= 20 psi for T=40°F1= 9 psi for T=70°F
1= 4 psi for T=100°F1= 2 psi for T=130°F
Stress
Time
Creep Test Creep Test - Rutting- Rutting
Secondary
Primary
Tertiary
FT Defines Time When Shear Deformation Begins
2 14 16 2 14 16
0.1 s 0.9 s Number of Cycles (N)
LoadPe
rman
ent S
train
(in/
in)
NFN (Flow Number)
p = a N b
MRr
Repeated Load Repeated Load Test - RuttingTest - Rutting
Indirect Tensile Creep TestIndirect Tensile Creep Test1.1. Creep Compliance Creep Compliance 2.2. StrengthStrength
Cracking Cracking TestsTests
Flexural Fatigue TestsFlexural Fatigue TestsSHRP M-009SHRP M-009
Cracking Cracking TestsTests
2002 Design 2002 Design GuideGuide
Generalized fatigue equation for mixed Generalized fatigue equation for mixed loading mode:loading mode:
E
Nf
εt
32 111
kk
tf EKN
E* Master Curves E* Master Curves ComparisonComparison
0.01
0.1
1
10
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8Log Red Time, s
E*
10^6
psi
ARAC (58-22) AR-ACFC (58-22) ARAC (64-16) PG 76-16 PG 64-22
Air Void (%)
ARAC Gap Graded (58-22) 10.87AR-ACFC Open Graded (58-22) 17.63 ARAC Gap Graded (64-16) 5.74 PG 76-16 7.94 PG 64-22 7.52
Repeated Load Repeated Load TestsTests
b) REPEATED LOAD UNCONFINED TESTAXIAL STRAIN @ FN
3 = 0psi d = 15psiTemp 130oF
3.1202.727
0.3270
2
4
6
8
10
12
AR-ACFC ARAC SRB PG64-22
Stra
in [%
]
b) REPEATED LOAD UNCONFINED TESTFLOW NUMBER
3 = 0 psi d = 15 psi
Temp 130oF
738
12,118
605-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
AR-ACFC ARAC SRB PG64-22
Flow
Num
ber [
cycl
es]
Static Creep Static Creep TestsTests
b) STATIC CREEP UNCONFINED TESTAXIAL STRAIN
3 = 0 psi d = 10 psi
Temp 130oF
3.394
1.874
0.2770
2
4
6
8
AR-ACFC ARAC SRB PG64-22
Stra
in [%
]
b) STATIC CREEP UNCONFINED TESTFLOW TIME
3 = 0 psi d = 10 psi
Temp 130oF
108
23,826
135-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
AR-ACFC ARAC SRB PG64-22
Flow
Tim
e [s
ec]
Indirect Indirect Tensile Tensile Strength Strength TestsTests
a ) I N D I R E C T T E N S I L E S T R E N G T H T E S TT E N S I L E S T R E N G T H
T e m p 3 2 º F
8 3 1 0 5
2 7 7
0
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
A R - A C F C A R A C S R B P G 6 4 - 2 2
Tensile Strength (psi)
b ) I N D I R E C T T E N S I L E S T R E N G T H T E S TT E N S I L E S T R E N G T H
T e m p 1 4 º F
1 3 7 1 4 4
4 3 7
0
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
A R - A C F C A R A C S R B P G 6 4 - 2 2Tensile Strength (psi)
c ) I N D I R E C T T E N S I L E S T R E N G T H T E S TT E N S I L E S T R E N G T H
T e m p 5 º F
1 5 7 1 9 0
4 4 6
0
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
5 0 0
A R - A C F C A R A C S R B P G 6 4 - 2 2
Tensile Strength (psi)
Indirect Indirect Tensile Tensile Strength Strength TestsTests
Thermal Cracking
As Tensile Strain
a ) I N D I R E C T T E N S I L E S T R E N G T H T E S T
S T R A I N @ F A I L U R ET e m p 3 2 º F
2 . 4 7 E - 0 3
1 . 4 3 E - 0 3
3 . 4 7 E - 0 3
0 E + 0 0
1 E - 0 3
2 E - 0 3
3 E - 0 3
4 E - 0 3
A R - A C F C A R A C S R B P G 6 4 - 2 2
Strain @ Failure
b ) I N D I R E C T T E N S I L E S T R E N G T H T E S TS T R A I N @ F A I L U R E
T e m p 1 4 º F
1 . 4 7 E - 0 31 . 1 0 E - 0 3 9 . 8 5 E - 0 4
0 E + 0 0
1 E - 0 3
2 E - 0 3
3 E - 0 3
4 E - 0 3
A R - A C F C A R A C S R B P G 6 4 - 2 2
Strain @ Failure
c ) I N D I R E C T T E N S I L E S T R E N G T H T E S TS T R A I N @ F A I L U R E
T e m p 5 º F
2 . 1 5 E - 0 31 . 3 0 E - 0 3
7 . 0 5 E - 0 4
0 E + 0 0
1 E - 0 3
2 E - 0 3
3 E - 0 3
4 E - 0 3
A R - A C F C A R A C S R B P G 6 4 - 2 2
Strain @ Failure
Indirect Indirect Tensile Tensile Strength Strength TestsTests
Thermal Cracking
As Fracture Energy
a ) I N D I R E C T T E N S I L E S T R E N G T H T E S T
F R A C T U R E E N E R G YT e m p 3 2 º F
2 5 62 9 5 3 3 0
0
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
A R - A C F C A R A C S R B P G 6 4 - 2 2Fracture Energy (lbs x
inch)
b ) I N D I R E C T T E N S I L E S T R E N G T H T E S TF R A C T U R E E N E R G Y
T e m p 1 4 º F
3 0 0 2 8 22 3 2
0
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
A R - A C F C A R A C S R B P G 6 4 - 2 2Fracture Energy (lbs x
inch)
c ) I N D I R E C T T E N S I L E S T R E N G T H T E S TF R A C T U R E E N E R G Y
T e m p 5 º F
2 0 8 1 8 81 2 1
0
1 0 0
2 0 0
3 0 0
4 0 0
A R - A C F C A R A C S R B P G 6 4 - 2 2Fracture Energy (lbs x
inch)
Fatigue Test Fatigue Test ResultsResults
Fatigue Relationship for ADOT Rubber Asphalt (Field & Lab) Mix &ADOT Salt River Base at Control Strain and 70 oF at 50% of Initial
Stiffness
100
1000
10000
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Cycles to Failure
Stra
in le
vel (
)
ARAC-FIELD 8%Va
ARAC-FIELD 5.5%Va
ADOT SRB 7%Va
ARAC-LAB 8.5%Va
ARAC-LAB 11%Va
AR-ACFC-LAB 18%Va
Gap – Open – Dense Gap – Open – Dense GradedGraded
Fatigue Relationship for ADOT Asphalt Rubber Mixes & ADOT Salt River Base Mix at Control Strain and 70 oF at 50% of Initial Stiffness
100
1000
10000
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
N - Number of Repetitions
- F
lexu
ral S
train
(in
/in)
ADOT SRB 7%VaARAC-LAB 11%VaAR-ACFC-LAB 18%Va
SummaSummaryry
The The Conventional Binder TestsConventional Binder Tests are Adequate in are Adequate in Describing the Viscosity-Temperature Susceptibility Describing the Viscosity-Temperature Susceptibility ((A-VTSA-VTS) of Crumb Rubber Modified Binders.) of Crumb Rubber Modified Binders.
This A-VTS Relationship Also Appears to This A-VTS Relationship Also Appears to Relate to Relate to Observed Field Performance BehaviorObserved Field Performance Behavior. . LessLess Low-Temperature Low-Temperature CrackingCracking Good Good Resistance to RuttingResistance to Rutting at High Temperatures at High Temperatures..
SummaSummaryry
CorelokCorelok is a Useful Device for Measuring is a Useful Device for Measuring Mixture Air Voids, Especially ACFC MixesMixture Air Voids, Especially ACFC Mixes
E*E*AR MixesAR Mixes ~ E* ~ E* Conv. MixesConv. Mixes (Note Va %)(Note Va %)
Permanent DeformationPermanent Deformation (PD)Tests: > (PD)Tests: > ARAC Good Resistance to DeformationARAC Good Resistance to Deformation
SummaSummaryry
Tensile StrengthTensile Strength: No Advantages of AR Mixes : No Advantages of AR Mixes Strain at FailureStrain at Failure Fracture EnergyFracture Energy
were Better Indicators of Field Performancewere Better Indicators of Field Performance Fatigue Relationships:Fatigue Relationships: AR-ACFC and ARAC AR-ACFC and ARAC
Mixtures Provides Much Better Fatigue Life Mixtures Provides Much Better Fatigue Life Than Dense Graded PG 76-16 Mix. Than Dense Graded PG 76-16 Mix.
George Way, Julie Nodes, Doug Forstie, George Way, Julie Nodes, Doug Forstie, ADOTADOT Mark Belshe, Mark Belshe, FNF ConstructionFNF Construction Donna Carlson, Doug Carlson, Donna Carlson, Doug Carlson, RPARPA Andy Acho, Andy Acho, Ford Motor CompanyFord Motor Company Matthew Witczak, Matthew Witczak, ASUASU ASU Advanced Pavement Laboratory Staff / GRA’sASU Advanced Pavement Laboratory Staff / GRA’s
Kenny Witczak, Javed Bari, Mohammad Abojaradeh, Aleksander Zborowski, Kenny Witczak, Javed Bari, Mohammad Abojaradeh, Aleksander Zborowski, Andres SotilAndres Sotil
AcknowledgAcknowledgmentment
Thank Thank you !you !