nchrp 9-49a project update: performance of wma ......tn sr 125 project ia us 34 project summary and...

NCHRP 9-49A Project Update: Performance of WMA Technologies:

Stage II – Long-term Field Performance

Binder ETG Meeting Oklahoma City, OK

Sept 15, 2015

Outline Objectives & Research Progress Preliminary Findings

Transverse Cracking Top-down Longitudinal Cracking Rutting & Moisture Susceptibility Material Property Changes Over Time

MT I-15 Project TN SR 125 Project IA US 34 Project

Summary and Future Work

1

Research Objectives To identify the material and engineering properties of

WMA pavements that are significant determinants of their long-term field performance, and

To recommend best practices for the use of WMA

technologies.

2

3

New (2011 Construction) Pavement Projects • 5 Projects = 10 HMA-WMA pairs • 1st round: pre-overlay distress survey, construction

monitoring, on-site sample compaction, field cores, and falling weight deflectometer tests

• 2nd round: field cores and distress survey

4

In-service (as of 2011) Pavement Projects • 22 field projects + 1 HVS = 40 HMA-WMA pairs • 1st round: distress survey, field cores and falling

weight deflectometer tests • 2nd round: distress survey

5

Projects Distribution

0

5

10

15

20

No.

of P

roje

cts

Organic Chemical Foaming WMA Technology

0

5

10

15

20

No.

of P

roje

cts

=3M Traffic (ESALs)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

No.

of P

roje

cts

[4,5) [6,7) [8,10) Age, Years

0

5

10

15

20

25

No.

of P

roje

cts

Flexible PCC/Cement Stabilized Base Pavement Structure

Project MT I-15 TN SR 125 IA US 34 TX FM 973 LA US 61

Construction Year 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012

Warm Mix Sasobit, Evotherm

DAT, Foaming Evotherm 3G Sasobit, Evotherm 3G

Evotherm 3G, Foaming

Sasobit, Evotherm 3G

Mixing Temp., °F H (315-320)

W (283-300) H (320-350) W (290-320)

H (330-340) W (265-280)

H (310-340) W (249-290)

H (325) W (295)

Compaction Temp., °F

H (290-300) W (269-285)

H (311-335) W (275-290)

H (253-265) W (220-239)

H (268-291) W (221-268)

H (277-316) W (245-250)

Design Thickness, in. 2.5 1.25 1.5 2.0 2.0

Traffic 3 million (3,170

AADT, 26.3% truck) 0.39 million (3,470 AADT, 13% truck)

3 million (6,450 AADT, 10.9% truck)

3 million (11,300 AADT, 4.3% truck)

9 million (34,138 ADT, 14% truck)

Aggregate Siliceous Gravel & Sand Limestone, Quartzite &

Sand Gravel, Limestone &

Dolomite Granite & Limestone

NMAS, in. 3/4 1/2 1/2 3/4 1/2

Asphalt Binder PG 70-28 PG 70-22 PG 58-28 PG 70-22 PG 76-22

Anti-stripping Agent Hydrated Lime, 1.4% AZZ-MAZ, 0.3% None None 0.6%

Polymer-modified SBS Yes None N/A SBS

Asphalt Content, % 4.6 6.0 5.44 5.2 4.7

Gmm HMA (2.458) Sas

(2.466) Evo (2.459) Foam (2.453)

HMA (2.352) Evotherm (2.355)

HMA (2.423) Sasobit (2.428) Evotherm

(2.429)

HMA(2.406) Evotherm (2.405) Foaming (2.420)

HMA (2.464) Sasobit (2.468)

Evotherm(2.464)

Sampling Date Sep. 15-17, 2011 Oct. 24-31, 2011 Sep. 6, 2011 Dec. 1, 2011 May 16-June 6,

2012

RAP or RAS None 10% RAP 17% RAP None 15% RAP

Structure

2.5'' overlay + 7'' existing HMA + 16.2'' base (non-

stabilized) + infinite subgrade

1.25'' overlay + 8'' bituminous base + 6'' min. aggregate base + infinite

subgrade

HMA & Sasobit: 1.5''overlay + 5'' existing HMA + 7'' PCC + subgrade Evotherm: 1.5'' overlay + 3'' existing HMA

+ 9'' PCC + subgrade

2'' overlay + 8'' existing HMA + 10'' base +

141.1'' subgrade (lean clay)

2'' overlay + 8'' existing HMA + 8'' PCC + 6'' cement treated soil

subgrade 6

Mixture Test

IDT Dynamic Modulus/Creep

Compliance

Fatigue- IDT Fracture at Room

Temp

Thermal Cracking-IDT Fracture at Low

Temp

Rutting/Moisture-

Hamburg

Testing Conditions

Temp.: −4, 14, 32, 50, 68, 86ºF; Frequency: 20, 10, 5, 1, 0.1, 0.01 Hz Duration: 100 seconds

Temp.: 68ºF Loading rate: 2 in./min

Temp.: 14ºF Loading rate: 0.1 in./min

Temp.: 122ºF Wet condition

Material Properties

Dynamic modulus; Creep compliance

IDT strength; Fracture work density; Vertical failure deformation Horizontal failure strain

IDT strength; Fracture work density; Vertical failure deformation; Horizontal failure strain

Rut depth; Stripping inflection point (SIP); Cycles

References/Standards

AASHTO T322 Wen et al. 2002

AASHTO T322 AASHTO T322

Wen 2012 AASHTO T324

7

Mixture Test Summary

Vertical Failure Deformation

Binder Test PGs Rutting: MSCR Fatigue:

Monotonic at Room Temp

Thermal Cracking: Monotonic at Low

Temp

Testing Conditions Different temp

depending on the test (DSR, BBR)

Stress: 0.1, 3.2kPa Temp.: 98% Reliability from LTPP Bind

Temp.: 68ºF Shear strain rate: 0.3 s-1

Temp.: 41ºF Shear strain rate: 0.01s-1

Material Properties PG; BBR stiffness; m-value

Jnr0.1, Jnr3.2; R0.1, R3.2

Maximum stress; Fracture energy; Failure strain

Maximum stress; Fracture energy; Failure strain

References/Standards

AASHTO MP1/T240/T313

AASHTO T350 Wen et al. 2010 Wen 2012

8

Binder Test Summary

Fracture energy

Failure strain


Transverse Cracking Top-down Longitudinal Cracking Rutting & Moisture Susceptibility Effects of WMA on construction practices Material Properties Changes



9

10

Transverse Cracking

Reflective Surface-initiated

Existing crack in the shoulder

11

14 (21 H-W Pairs) out of 28 projects exhibited transverse cracking 1st Round HMA/WMA Transverse Cracking Comparison

3/6 5/10

1/4 5/8

• H>W: HMA has more cracking than WMA

05

101520

5

15

1 Pr

ojec

t Num

ber H>W

H=WH

12

22 (35 H-W pairs) out of 28 projects exhibited transverse cracking

• HMA has slightly more transverse cracks than WMA

2nd Round HMA/WMA Transverse Cracking Comparison

4/6

1/4

9/10

8/8

• H>W: HMA has more cracking than WMA

0

5

10

15

20

6

27

2 Pro

ject

Num

ber

H>WH=WH

13

Compare Material Properties

• H>W, H=W, HW, H=W, H

14

Significant Determinants for Transverse Cracking Based on 1st Round Results

E* (14°F)

Mix Work Density (14°F)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24N

o. o

f Pai

rs

Positive Negative

BBR stiffness

Binder shear strength(41°F)Binder fracture energy(41°F)Mix E* (14°F)

Binder shear strength(41°F)Binder shear strength(68°F)Mix work density (14°F)

Binder failure strain(41°F)BBR m-value

Binder failure strain(68°F)Mix horizontal failurestrain (68°F)Mix vertical failuredeformation (68°F)

15 out of 21 HMA/WMA pairs

15

Verification: Significant Determinants for Transverse Cracking Based on 2nd Round Results

E* (14°F)

Mix Work Density (14°F)

02468

10121416182022242628303234

Num

ber o

f pai

rs

Postive Negative

BBR stiffness

Binder shear strength(41°F)Binder fractureenergy (41°F)Mix E* (14°F)

Binder shear strength(41°F)Binder shear strength(68°F)Mix work density(14°F)Binder failure strain(41°F)BBR m-value

Binder failure strain(68°F)Mix horizontal failurestrain (68°F)Mix vertical failuredeformation (68°F)



Transverse Cracking Top-down Longitudinal Cracking Rutting & Moisture Susceptibility Material Properties Changes



16

17

Top-down Fatigue Cracking

18

8 (17 H-W pairs) out of 24 projects exhibited top-down longitudinal cracking.

HMA and WMA are comparable in top-down fatigue cracking performance

1st Round HMA/WMA Top-down Cracking Comparison

0/6 2/10

0/4 6/8

0369

1215

0

15

2 Pr

ojec

t Num

ber

H>WH=WH

19

14 (24 H-W pairs) out of 28 projects exhibited top-down longitudinal cracking.

WMA has slightly more top-down fatigue cracking performance than HMA

2nd Round HMA/WMA Top-down Cracking Comparison

3/6

0/4

5/10

6/8

0369

1215182124

1

18

5 Proje

ct N

umbe

r

H>WH=WH

20

Significant Determinants for Top-down Longitudinal Cracking Based on 1st Round Results

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

No.

of P

airs

Positive Negative

Mix IDTstrength(68°F)

Mix creepcompliance (68°F)

Mix horizontalfailure strain(68°F)Mix vertical failuredeformation(68°F)

Vertical failure deformation (68ºF), 15 out of 17 pairs

21

Verification: Significant Determinants for Top-down Cracking Based on 2nd Round Results

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

No.

of P

airs

Positive Negative

Mix IDTstrength(68°F)

Mix creep compliance(68°F)

Mix horizontal failurestrain (68°F)

Mix vertical failuredeformation (68°F)

Vertical failure deformation and horizontal failure strain (68ºF), 17 out of 24 pairs





22

23

Rutting

24

23 projects (43 H-W pairs) exhibited measurable rut depth.

HMA and WMA are comparable in rut depth

2nd Round HMA/WMA Rutting Performance Comparison

5/6

1/4

9/10

8/8

05

10152025303540

3

39

1 No.

of P

airs

H>WH=WH

25

Significant Determinants for Rutting Resistance


Mix RRI High PG

Low PG

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

No.

of P

airs

Positive Negative

Jnr0.1

Jnr3.2

Mix creep compliance(86°F)Hamburg RuttingResistance IndexR0.1

R3.2

Binder high temp PG

Binder low temp PG

Mix E* (86°F)



Transverse Cracking Top-down Longitudinal Cracking Rutting & Moisture Susceptibility Effects of WMA on construction practices Material Properties Changes



26

27

MT I-15 Project: Chip Seal On the Surface

28

MT I-15 Project: 2013 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder PG Tests

-30

-24

-18

-12

-6

0

Low

Tem

p. P

G

0

12

24

36

48

60

72

84

Hig

h Te

mp.

PG

HMA Sasobit Evotherm Foaming HMA 2011

HMA 2013

Sas 2011

Sas 2013

Evo 2011

Evo 2013

Foam 2011

Foam 2013

29

MT I-15 Project: 2013 Vs 2011 Field Cores

Binder MSCR Tests

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Jnr3

.2, k

Pa

HMA Sasobit Evotherm Foaming

HMA 2011HMA 2013Sas 2011Sas 2013Evo 2011Evo 2013Foam 2011Foam 2013

01020304050607080

R3.2



2013 vs 2011 HMA Sasobit Evotherm Foaming

d2s, Jnr3.2 (31.3%)* 18.4% (=) 55.8% () 9.2% (=) 0.12% (=) 11.8% (=)

* Source (Anderson 2014) http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/bayomy/IAC/54th/Presentations_54th/2.%20IAC2014_MSCR_Mike%20Anderson.pdf

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/bayomy/IAC/54th/Presentations_54th/2. IAC2014_MSCR_Mike Anderson.pdf

30

MT I-15 Project: 2013 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder Fracture Tests at Intermediate Temperature

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Max

imum

Str

ess,

kPa



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Frac

ture

Ene

rgy,

kPa



31

MT I-15 Project: 2013 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder Fracture Tests at Low Temperature

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

Failu

re S

trai

n, m

m/m

m







32

33

TN SR 125 Project: HMA Pavement

Before Construction During Construction

After Construction 3 years After Construction

34

TN SR 125 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder PG Tests

0

20

40

60

80

100

High

Tem

p. P

G

HMA Evotherm

HMA 2011

HMA 2014

Evo 2011

Evo 2014

-24

-18

-12

-6

0

Low

Tem

p. P

G

35

TN SR 125 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores

Binder MSCR Tests

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Jnr3

.2, k

Pa

HMA Evotherm

HMA2011HMA2014Evo 2011

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

R3.2

HMA Evotherm

HMA 2011

HMA 2014

Evo 2011

Evo 2014

36

TN SR 125 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder Fracture Tests at Intermediate Temperature

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

Max

imum

Str

ess,

kPa

HMA Evotherm

HMA 2011

HMA 2014

Evo 2011

Evo 2014

0.0

1000.0

2000.0

3000.0

4000.0

5000.0

Frac

ture

Ene

rgy,

kPa

HMA Evotherm

HMA 2011

HMA 2014

Evo 2011

Evo 2014

37

TN SR 125 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder Fracture Tests at Low Temperature

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Failu

re S

trai

n, m

m/m

m

HMA Evotherm

HMA 2011

HMA 2014

Evo 2011

Evo 2014





38

39

IA US 34 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder PG Tests

0

12

24

36

48

60

72

84

High

Tem

p. P

G

HMA Sasobit Evotherm HMA2011HMA2014Sas 2011

Sas 2014

40

IA US 34 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores

Binder MSCR Tests

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

Jnr3

.2, k

Pa

HMA Sasobit Evotherm

HMA 2011HMA 2014Sas 2011Sas 2014Evo 2011Evo 2014

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.0

R3.2



41

IA US 34 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder Fracture Tests at Intermediate Temperature

0.0

400.0

800.0

1200.0

1600.0

2000.0

Max

imum

Str

ess,

kPa



0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

Frac

ture

Ene

rgy,

kPa



42

IA US 34 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder Fracture Tests at Low Temperature

0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.8Fa

ilure

Str

ain,

mm

/mm


HMA 2011

HMA 2013

Sas 2011

Sas 2013

Evo 2011

Evo 2013

Block 1 43

Carbonyl area (function of aging temperature and time)

Inverse of log crossover modulus

Crossover frequency

G* and δ

linear

linear

Arrhenius Equation

Analysis

Aging Asphalt Binder: IA PG58-22, MT PG70-28(SBS) LA PG76-22(SBS)

Temperature Aging time, days 55°C 2,5,10,18, 26, 35, 45, 60, 90 70°C 1, 3, 6,10,15, 22, 30, 40 85°C 1, 3, 5, 8,13,18, 24, 30

100°C 1, 2, 4, 6, 8,11,14,17 ≤1mm

Block 1 45

Analysis of crossover modulus data

PG 58-28 PG 70-28

PG 76-22 Figure 1/log Gc* growth of PG binders at four temperature in air

Block 1 46

Predicted master curve of G* and δ (CA model) (aged 40 days at 70C)

PG58-28 G* PG58-28 δ

PG70-28 G* PG70-28 δ

Block 1 47

Use Universal Model Parameters

CA Shear Modulus

Performance Grade DSR Function

y = 0.99x R² = 0.94

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Pred

icte

d C

A (a

.u.)

Measured CA (a.u.)

line of equality

y = 1.00x R² = 0.96

0.13

0.14

0.15

0.16

0.17

0.18

0.19

0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19

Pred

icte

d 1/

log

|Gc*

| (1/

log

Pa)

Measured 1/log |Gc*| (1/log Pa)

line of equality

y = 1.00x R² = 0.91

55

65

75

85

95

105

55 65 75 85 95 105

Pred

icte

d Pe

rfor

man

ce g

rade

(PG

)

Measured Performance grade (PG)

line of equality

y = 1.00x R² = 0.97

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Pred

icte

d G

'/(η'/G

') (lo

g Pa

/s)

Measured G'/(η'/G') (log Pa/s)

line of equality

Thank You! Any questions?

48

Slide Number 1OutlineResearch ObjectivesNew (2011 Construction) Pavement ProjectsIn-service (as of 2011) Pavement ProjectsProjects DistributionSlide Number 7Slide Number 8Slide Number 9OutlineSlide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Slide Number 16OutlineSlide Number 18Slide Number 19Slide Number 20Slide Number 21Slide Number 22OutlineSlide Number 24Slide Number 25Slide Number 26OutlineSlide Number 28Slide Number 29Slide Number 30Slide Number 31Slide Number 32OutlineSlide Number 34Slide Number 35Slide Number 36Slide Number 37Slide Number 38OutlineSlide Number 40Slide Number 41Slide Number 42Slide Number 43Slide Number 44AgingSlide Number 46Slide Number 47Slide Number 48Slide Number 49

nchrp 9-49a project update: performance of wma ......tn sr 125 project ia us 34 project summary and...

Documents