concrete mixture optimization using statistical mixture design methods
Low-Temperature Cracking in Asphalt Pavementsncaupg/Activities/2007... · WI US-45 PG 58-34, 58-40...
43
Mihai Marasteanu – University of Minnesota NCAUPG Annual Meeting, January 2007 Low Low - - Temperature Cracking in Temperature Cracking in Asphalt Pavements Asphalt Pavements
Transcript of Low-Temperature Cracking in Asphalt Pavementsncaupg/Activities/2007... · WI US-45 PG 58-34, 58-40...
Mihai Marasteanu – University of MinnesotaNCAUPG Annual Meeting, January 2007
LowLow--Temperature Cracking in Temperature Cracking in Asphalt PavementsAsphalt Pavements
LowLow--Temperature CrackingTemperature Cracking
Good fracture resistance essential for asphalt pavements in northern US and in Canada
Low-temperature cracking represents the prevalent distress in Minnesota and neighboring states
Low Temperature Cracking Pooled Fund Low Temperature Cracking Pooled Fund State ParticipationState Participation
ConnecticutIdahoIowa
IllinoisKansas
MinnesotaNorth Dakota
New YorkVermontWisconsinWashington
and FHWA
http://www.pooledfund.org
Research team - four universitiesUMN, UIUC, WISC, ISU
Low Temperature Cracking Pooled Fund (Overall Plan)
State FieldSamples
(Good / Poor Performance)
Laboratory PreparedSamples
Laboratory Testing and Data Analysis
Verify Models
Field Validation of Results(Test Sections)
Phase 1
Phase 2
Pooled Fund Study Goals
• Development of test methods / protocols for LTC• What is the best test for binders and mixtures?
• Validate / refine MEPDG thermal cracking model
• Establish guidelines for MnROAD field validation
Field Samples
State Road AsphaltBinder
Performance(1=Good)(5=Bad)
Age(Years) Pavement Comment Recommendation
IL US-20 AC-10, AC-20 2 20 Accepted
IL I-74 AC-20 2 15 original surface will soon be milled and replaced Accepted
MN Cell 33 PG 58-28 3 6 silty clay subgrade constructed in 1994 Accepted
MN Cell 34 PG 58-34 1 6 silty clay subgrade constructed in 1994 Accepted
MN Cell 35 PG 58-40 4 6 silty clay subgrade constructed in 1994 Accepted
MN Cell 3 PG 58-28120/150 3 14 silty clay subgrade constructed in
1992 Accepted
MN Cell 19 PG 64-22AC-20 4 14 silty clay subgrade constructed in
1992 Accepted
MN CSAH-75section 4WB PG 58-34 3 10 sand-gravel subgrade
constructed in 1955 Accepted
MN CSAH-75section 2EB PG 58-28 4 10 sand-gravel subgrade
constructed in 1955 Accepted
ND SH-18 120/150 4 8 A thin lift overlay has been placed over part of this project
Not recommended: overlay placed on original pavement
WI US-45 PG 58-34, 58-4085/100, 120/150 2 10 only difference in NB and SB
lanes was binder Accepted
WI STH-73 PG 58-28 1 5 subbase stabilized with asphaltic base course Accepted
LVR - Cell 33 Eastbound
25' core area 25' core area500'wheel path
Cores 1-18Beams 1-6
Cores 19-27Beams 7-9
wheel pathwheel path
wheel path
102 kip
80 kip
sta 63+75(up close to edge)
6" core 6" core
24" center to center
6" core 6" core
6" core 6" core
18" slight spacing if necessary
sta 68+75(up close to edge)
(3) 6" x 18" x depth beams
18
15 16119 10
13 17 18
3 4 57 12
14
62 1
63
452 22
25
20192326
212427
7
98
Field Samples
MnROAD Sample Extraction
IL US20 Slab Extraction
Field Samples InformationBeams - received Spring 2005
L l h1 MnRoad 03 05 BB 008 470 176 1602 MnRoad 33 05 BB 006 405 195 1153 MnRoad 33 05 BB 005 405 195 1134 MnRoad 19 05 BB 07 480 212 2055 MnRoad 19 05 BB 08 480 203 2006 MnRoad 35 05 BB 08 470 155 1027 MnRoad 34 05 BB 01 445 168 1118 MnRoad 35 05 BB 09 470 192 1079 MnRoad 34 05 BB 06 470 183 112
Cell Year Mix Spot Dimensions
Field Samples Information
Cell 33
L=105D=150
1 MnRoad 33 05 BC 32 MnRoad 33 05 BC 73 MnRoad 33 05 BC 104 MnRoad 33 05 BC 165 MnRoad 33 05 BC 236 MnRoad 33 05 BC 247 MnRoad 33 05 BC 258 MnRoad 33 05 BC 269 MnRoad 33 05 BC 27
10 MnRoad 33 05 BC 0911 MnRoad 33 05 BC 1512 MnRoad 33 05 BC 1113 MnRoad 33 05 BC 0514 MnRoad 33 05 BC 0815 MnRoad 33 05 BC 1316 MnRoad 33 05 BC 1217 MnRoad 33 05 BC 1418 MnRoad 33 05 BC 04
Received
Nov-05Nov-05
SpotCell Year Mix
Nov-05Nov-05Nov-05Nov-05Nov-05Nov-05Nov-05
spring 2005spring 2005spring 2005spring 2005spring 2005spring 2005spring 2005spring 2005spring 2005
Laboratory ExperimentLaboratory Experiment
××PG64-22Plain 1
××PG64-28SBS 2
××PG64-28plain 1
××PG64-34Black Max
××PG64-34Elvaloy
××PG58-28plain 2
××××××××PG58-28plain 1
××PG58-34SBS 1
×××PG58-34Elvaloy
×××PG58-40SBS 1
Binder Type
+0.5%Design+0.5%Design+0.5%Design+0.5%DesignBinder Content
LimestoneGraniteLimestoneGraniteAggregate Type
As constructed (7%)Design (4%)Air Voids
Laboratory Prepared Specimens
XMixture and BinderDilatometric Measurements
XBinder Fracture TestSENB
XXBinder Low Temperature BBR and DTT
X*XMixture Thermal Stress TestTSRST
XMixture Fracture TestSCB
XMixture Fracture TestSE(B)
XMixture Fracture TestDisc Compact Tension
XMixture Indirect TensionCreep and Strength
WISCUMNUIUCMTU
Mixture and Binder Test TemperaturesMixture and Binder Test Temperatures
Test at 3 temperaturesMatch 2 out of 3 temperatures for binders
and mixtures–For mixtures 6°C do not lead to big change in properties
Binders:PG +10°C (for a -28 it will be -18°C), 6°C below
it (-24°C) and 12°C below it (-30°C)Mixtures:
PG +10°C, 12°C below it, 12°C above it.
Fracture Testing Fracture Testing -- UIUCUIUCDisc Shaped Compact Tension
DC(T)1 mm/min CMOD150mm
Single Edge Notched Beam
SE(B)1 mm/min CMOD50x75x375mm
Fracture Energy Fracture Energy –– GGff (J/m(J/m22))
Gf
CMOD
Load
Softening
Peak Load
Time to Peak Load
SCBSCB
Fracture EnergyFracture Energy
P
OO'
A W
Wtail
uuc
lig
ff A
WG =
Wf: work of fractureAlig: area of the ligament
∫= PduW f
α
δ
P 0
r
2 s
c lip g ua ge
lo a d in gro lle r
sup p o rtro lle r
a
Stress Intensity Factor KStress Intensity Factor KII
ΙΙ = YaK πσ0
Brs
rsYa
KI
I 0
00)/(
∆+=
πσ
))r/a(Cexp(C)r/a(CCY 4321)r/s(I 0 ++=
165.65.2 )ra(0839.215)
ra(97042.27)
ra(64035.1655676.6B +++=
SCB Test PlotsSCB Test Plots
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7LLD (mm)
Load
(kN)
B2-1-22-12
B2-2-22-12
B2-3-22-12
B2-1-21-24
B2-2-21-24
B2-3-21-24
B2-1-31-36
B2-2-31-36
B2-3-31-36
SCB SCB -- temperature effect on Ktemperature effect on KICIC and and GGff
0.00
0.30
0.60
0.90
1.20
1.50
-40 -30 -20 -10 0
Temp(°C)
KI(M
Pa.m
0.5)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Frac
ture
Ene
rgy(
N/m
)
B1-KI
B2-KI
F1-KIB1-Energy
B2-Energy
F1-Energy
IDT IDT –– Creep and StrengthCreep and Strength
Specification type testsIn addition:
Limited creep tests at different load levelsLimited strength
tests at different loading rates
IDT Creep DataIDT Creep Data
TSRSTTSRST
Tensile Strength Restrained Stress Test
Lab prepared beamsField beams
Acoustic EmissionAcoustic Emission
Source Sensor
( xi , yi , zi )
( x0 , y0 , z0 )
( ) ioipi ttcd ε+−=
( ) ( ) ( )202
02
0 zzyyxxd iiii −+−+−=
Cp: Wave speed- from calibration
Ti: Event Arrive time- from recording
Acoustic EmissionAcoustic Emission
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time (sec)
Even
t Cou
nt
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Load
ing(
KN
)
LoadingAE count
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Time (sec)
Load
-100
100
300
500
700
900
1100
1300
1500
AE
Ener
g
LoadAE Energy
Acoustic Emission Event LocationAcoustic Emission Event Location
05
1015202530354045505560657075
-75 -65 -55 -45 -35 -25 -15 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75
Notch05
1015202530354045505560657075
-75 -65 -55 -45 -35 -25 -15 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75
Notch
-75-70-65-60-55-50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-505
1015202530354045505560657075
-75 -65 -55 -45 -35 -25 -15 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 75
Binder TestingBinder Testing
Binders used to prepare laboratory mixturesBinders recovered from top layer of field samplesTest methods
BBR – 1000sDT – 3%/minDENT – 1.8%/minAll three after 1h and 20h conditioning
DENTDENT
DilatometricDilatometric Measurements Measurements
Precision Capillary Tube
Silicon Rubber O-ringStainless Steal FittingPolypropylene
Washer
Housing
Base Cup Binder SpecimenSilicon Paper
Fracture Energy at TFracture Energy at THH
Fracture Energy Ranking at TH Highest: 64-34:B:4:GR
Lowest: 64-22:P1:4:LMNot calculated: 58-40:M1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
64-3
4:B:4:
GR64
-34:B
:4:LM
64-3
4:E:4:
GR
58-3
4:S1:4
:GR
58-3
4:E:4:
GR64
-34:E
:4:LM
58-3
4:E:4:
GR:+0.5
AC
58-2
8:P2:4
:GR
58-3
4:S1:4
:LM58
-34:E
:4:LM
64-2
8:S2:4
:GR
58-2
8:P1:4
:GR
64-2
8:P1:4
:GR
64-2
8:S2:4
:LM
58-2
8:P2:4
:LM
58-2
8:P1:4
:GR:+
0.5AC
64-2
2:P1:4
:GR
58-2
8:P1:7
:GR:+
0.5AC
58-2
8:P1:4
:LM:+
0.5AC
64-2
8:P1:4
:LM
58-2
8:P1:4
:LM
58-2
8:P1:7
:GR
58-2
8:P1:7
:LM
58-2
8:P1:7
:LM:+
0.5AC
64-2
2:P1:4
:LM
Mixture
Frac
ture
Ene
rgy(
J/m
2 )
Fracture Energy at TFracture Energy at TMM
Fracture Energy Ranking at TMHighest: 58-40:S1:4:GR:+0.5AC
Lowest: 58-28:P1:7:LM:+0.5AC
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
58-40
:S1:4
:GR:+0
.5AC
58-40
:S1:4
:GR
64-34
:B:4:
GR
58-40
:S1:4
:LM
64-34
:B:4:
LM
64-22
:P1:4
:GR
58-34
:S1:4
:GR
64-34
:E:4:
GR
64-28
:S2:4
:GR
58-34
:E:4:
GR:+0.5AC
58-28
:P1:4
:GR:+0
.5AC
58-34
:E:4:
GR
58-28
:P1:4
:GR
58-28
:P2:4
:GR
58-28
:P1:7
:GR:+0
.5AC
64-22
:P1:4
:LM
58-28
:P1:7
:GR
64-28
:S2:4
:LM
64-28
:P1:4
:GR
64-34
:E:4:
LM
58-28
:P1:4
:LM
58-28
:P1:4
:LM:+0.5
AC
58-34
:S1:4
:LM
58-28
:P1:7
:LM
58-28
:P2:4
:LM
58-34
:E:4:
LM
64-28
:P1:4
:LM
58-28
:P1:7
:LM:+0.5
AC
Mixture
Frac
ture
Ene
rgy(
J/m
2 )
Fracture Energy at TFracture Energy at TLL
Fracture Energy Ranking at TL
Highest: 58-40:S1:4:GR:+0.5AC
Lowest: 58-28:P1:7:LM
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
58-40
:S1:4:G
R:+0.5A
C
58-40
:S1:4:G
R
64-34
:B:4:GR
64-28
:S2:4:G
R
58-34
:E:4:GR:+0.5
AC
58-34
:S1:4:G
R
58-28
:P1:4:G
R
64-34
:E:4:GR
58-28
:P1:4:G
R:+0.5A
C
58-40
:S1:4:LM
58-34
:E:4:GR
58-28
:P1:7:G
R:+0.5A
C
58-28
:P2:4:G
R
64-22
:P1:4:G
R
64-28
:S2:4:LM
58-34
:S1:4:LM
58-28
:P2:4:LM
64-34
:B:4:LM
64-28
:P1:4:G
R
58-28
:P1:7:G
R
58-28
:P1:4:LM
:+0.5AC
64-22
:P1:4:LM
64-34
:E:4:LM
58-28
:P1:4:LM
58-34
:E:4:LM
58-28
:P1:7:LM
:+0.5AC
64-28
:P1:4:LM
58-28
:P1:7:LM
Mixture
Frac
ture
Ene
rgy(
J/m
2 )
Fracture Toughness at TFracture Toughness at THH
Fracture Toughness Ranking at THHighest: 58-34:E:4:GR
Lowest: 58-28:P1:7:LM
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
58-34
:E:4:
GR
64-34
:E:4:
GR
58-34
:E:4:
GR:+0.5AC
58-34
:S1:4
:LM
64-34
:B:4:
GR64
-34:E
:4:LM
58-34
:S1:4
:GR
64-28
:P1:4
:GR
64-28
:P1:4
:LM58
-34:E
:4:LM
64-28
:S2:4
:GR
58-28
:P2:4
:GR
58-28
:P1:4
:GR
64-34
:B:4:
LM
58-40
:S1:4
:GR
64-28
:S2:4
:LM
58-40
:S1:4
:GR:+0
.5AC
58-40
:S1:4
:LM
64-22
:P1:4
:GR
58-28
:P1:4
:LM:+0.5
AC
58-28
:P1:4
:LM
58-28
:P2:4
:LM
58-28
:P1:7
:GR
64-22
:P1:4
:LM
58-28
:P1:7
:GR:+0
.5AC
58-28
:P1:7
:LM:+0.5
AC
58-28
:P1:7
:LM
Mixture
Frac
ture
Tou
ghne
ss(M
Pa.m
0.5 )
Fracture Toughness at TFracture Toughness at TMM
Fracture Toughness Ranking at TM
Highest: 64-34:B:4:GR
Lowest: 58-28:P1:7:LM+0.5AC
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
64-34
:B:4:GR
64-34
:E:4:GR
58-34
:S1:4:G
R
58-34
:E:4:GR
64-34
:B:4:LM
64-28
:S2:4:G
R
58-34
:E:4:GR:+0
.5AC
58-40
:S1:4:G
R
58-34
:S1:4:LM
64-34
:E:4:LM
58-28
:P2:4:G
R
64-28
:P1:4:G
R
64-22
:P1:4:G
R
64-28
:S2:4:LM
58-28
:P1:4:G
R
58-28
:P2:4:LM
58-40
:S1:4:LM
58-40
:S1:4:G
R:+0.5A
C
58-28
:P1:4:G
R:+0.5A
C58
-34:E:4:
LM
58-28
:P1:7:G
R:+0.5A
C
64-22
:P1:4:LM
64-28
:P1:4:LM
58-28
:P1:7:G
R
58-28
:P1:4:LM
58-28
:P1:4:LM
:+0.5A
C
58-28
:P1:7:LM
58-28
:P1:7:LM
:+0.5A
C
Mixture
Frac
ture
Tou
ghne
ss(M
Pa.
m0.
5 )
Fracture Toughness at TFracture Toughness at TLL
Fracture Toughness Ranking at TLHighest: 64-34:B:4:GR
Lowest: 58-28:P1:7:LM
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
64-34
:B:4:GR
58-40
:S1:4:G
R
58-34
:S1:4:G
R
58-34
:E:4:GR:+0
.5AC
58-34
:E:4:GR
64-34
:E:4:GR
64-28
:S2:4:G
R
58-40
:S1:4:G
R:+0.5A
C64
-34:B:4:
LM
58-28
:P2:4:G
R
64-28
:P1:4:G
R
58-28
:P1:4:G
R:+0.5A
C
58-28
:P1:4:G
R
58-40
:S1:4:LM
58-34
:S1:4:LM
64-34
:E:4:LM
64-22
:P1:4:G
R
58-28
:P1:7:G
R
64-28
:S2:4:LM
58-28
:P2:4:LM
58-28
:P1:4:LM
58-28
:P1:4:LM
:+0.5A
C
64-28
:P1:4:LM
58-28
:P1:7:G
R:+0.5A
C58
-34:E:4:
LM
64-22
:P1:4:LM
58-28
:P1:7:LM
:+0.5A
C
58-28
:P1:7:LM
Mixture
Frac
ture
Tou
ghne
ss(M
Pa.m
0.5 )
ConclusionsConclusions
At low temperature, asphalt mixtures are complex viscoelastic composite materials that are significantly temperature and loading rate dependent
Testing temperatures should be established relative to expected low pavement temperature and relative to low temperature PG grade for location of interestThe effect of loading rate needs to be investigated to better match true field cooling rates
Mixture and binder test temperatures should be matched as much as possible to better understand the contribution of the binder to the fracture properties of mixtures
ConclusionsConclusionsAsphalt binder testing alone does not provide sufficient reliability to predict low temperature cracking of asphalt pavements
The effect of aggregate type appears to have a significant effect for mixtures made with the same asphalt binder
PG system provides a good starting point, however, further refinement of the current system.
Role of the BBR “m” value should be re-consideredPhysical hardening has a significant effect on measured binder properties
ConclusionsConclusionsThe current specifications for low temperature cracking for both asphalt binders and mixtures do not include a fracture test
Two simple mixture tests, the disk-shaped compact tension test and semi-circular bend test, were investigated and were successfully used The binder direct tension test protocol was modified to obtain binder characteristics needed for better ranking at low temperatureHowever, need an improved binder test, that gives the same type of information as the mixture test, i.e. provide post-peak behavior
ConclusionsConclusions
The current indirect tensile test provides useful information for the complete evaluation of low temperature behavior of asphalt mixtures, but is not the best choice for a simple screening test The current thermal stress restrained specimen test can become a useful research tool to analyze the stress development and fracture mechanism in asphalt mixtures at low temperatures if further refined
Thank you!Thank you!
