Presented by: Elie Y. Hajj, Ph.D....University of Nevada Reno Presented by: Elie Y. Hajj, Ph.D....
33
University of Nevada Reno Presented by: Elie Y. Hajj, Ph.D. Manitoba – PTH 8 RAP Field Sections Manitoba – PTH 8 RAP Field Sections Update on Laboratory Test Results Recycled Asphalt Pavement Expert Task Group Oklahoma City, Oklahoma – October 26, 2010
Transcript of Presented by: Elie Y. Hajj, Ph.D....University of Nevada Reno Presented by: Elie Y. Hajj, Ph.D....
University of Nevada RenoPresented by: Elie Y. Hajj, Ph.D.Manitoba – PTH 8 RAP Field SectionsManitoba – PTH 8 RAP Field SectionsUpdate on Laboratory Test Results
Recycled Asphalt Pavement Expert Task GroupOklahoma City, Oklahoma – October 26, 2010
Manitoba RAP Sections (PTH8)
• Provincial Highway 8 between Gimli & Hnausa, Manitoba, Canada. • Total Project length: 17 miles• Comparative pavement site: ∼ 6 miles• Construction date: Sept 2009Construction date: Sept. 2009• RAP: ½” NMAS
Heaviest Traffic laneHeaviest Traffic lane
HMA/15% RAP 4th lift
About 3 km About 3 kmAbout 3 km
HMA/50% RAP 4th lift HMA/No RAP 4th liftHMA/50% RAP 4th lift
1 - 3 km
2”
HMA/50% RAP 3rd lift
HMA/15% RAP 4 lift
New HMA/50% RAP 2nd lift
HMA/15% RAP 3rd lift
HMA/50% RAP 4th lift
HMA/No RAP 3rd lift
HMA/No RAP 4 liftwith grade change
HMA/50% RAP 3rd liftwith grade change
2
2”
New HMA/50% RAP 1st lift
New HMA/50% RAP 2 lift
Manitoba RAP Sections (PTH8)Mixtures TypesMixtures Types
Mixture Binder Field Mix Lab Compacted
Lab Mix Lab Compacted
0% RAP no grade change Pen 150‐200 F‐0%‐150 L‐0%‐150
15% RAP no grade change Pen 150‐200 F‐15%‐150 L‐15%‐150
50% RAP no grade change Pen 150‐200 F‐50%‐150 L‐50%‐150
50% RAP grade change Pen 200‐300 F‐50%‐200 L‐50%‐200
Manitoba RAP Sections (PTH8)Mixtures TypesMixtures Types
Mixture Mix D i
Lift Optimum Bi d C
Binder Content b I i i O
RAP Bi d %*Design Binder Content by Ignition Oven Binder %*
F‐0%‐150 Bit B 4 5.2% 5.0% ‐‐
F‐15%‐150 Bit B 4 5.2% 5.1% 13.8%
F‐50%‐150 Bit B 4 5.0% 4.8% 49.0%
F‐50%‐200 Bit B 4 5.0% 4.8% 49.0%
L‐0%‐150 Bit B 4 5.2% ‐‐ ‐‐
L‐15%‐150 Bit B 4 5.2% ‐‐ 13.6%
L‐50%‐150 Bit B 4 5.0% ‐‐ 47.0%% 0%
L‐50%‐200 Bit B 4 5.0% ‐‐ 47.0%
* Based on RAP binder content of 4.7% (from Ignition Oven)
Manitoba RAP Sections (PTH8) Test Experiment Matrix – Binders Test Experiment Matrix – Binders
• Determine PG grading for:Determine PG grading for:
– virgin binders: P 150 200 P 200 300Pen 150-200, Pen 200-300
– recovered binders (85% Toluene + 15% Ethanol):F-0%-150, F-15%-150, F-50%-150, F-50%-200L-0%-150, L-15%-150, L-50%-150, L-50%-200RAP-100%
Manitoba RAP Sections (PTH8) Test Experiment Matrix – Binders Test Experiment Matrix – Binders
• Evaluate the following: Evaluate the following: – Blending chart process
RAP mortar procedure (UWM)– RAP mortar procedure (UWM)– Predicted binder properties from Hirsh model
Predicted binder properties from Huet Sayegh– Predicted binder properties from Huet-Sayeghmodified model (2S2P1D model) Predicted binder properties from Lytton et al model– Predicted binder properties from Lytton et al. model
Manitoba RAP Sections (PTH8) Test Experiment Matrix – MixturesTest Experiment Matrix – Mixtures
50 50 50 00 50 50 50 00
Property
F‐0%
‐15
F‐15
%‐1
F‐50
%‐1
F‐50
%‐20
L‐0%
‐15
L‐15
%‐15
L‐50
%‐15
L‐50
%‐20
Resistance to Moisture Damage‐ TS vs. F‐T cycles: 0, 1 and 3 F‐T‐ TSR at 1 and 3 F‐T
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
‐ E* vs. F‐T cycles: 0, 1 and 3 F‐T X X X X X X X X
Resistance to Thermal Cracking‐ TSRST: 0 and 3 F‐T X X X X X X X X
Resistance to Fatigue Cracking X X X X X X X X
Extraction/Recovery Using CentrifugeSuperpave PG GradesSuperpave PG Grades
59.0 54 1
76.561.0 62.6
69.1 65.158.6 59.4
67.3 63.172.084.0
59.0 54.1 58.6
14.7 12.2
30.9
15.8 18.5 24.3 22.714.9 17.8 23.0 21.6
12.024.036.048.060.0
perature (°C)
‐32.5 ‐34.4
‐14.7
‐31.6 ‐29.5‐21.2 ‐25.1
‐32.6 ‐30.5‐22.3 ‐26.6
48 0‐36.0‐24.0‐12.00.0
PG Tem
p
‐48.0
Asphalt Binder Type
High PG Intermediate PG Low PG
Extraction/Recovery Using CentrifugeSuperpave PG GradesSuperpave PG Grades
Mix PG Grade
VirginPEN150‐200 58‐28PEN200‐300 52‐34F‐0%‐150 58‐28
Extr./ Rec. i
F‐15%‐150 58‐28F‐50%‐150 64‐16F‐50%‐200 64‐22L 0% 150 58 28using
centrifugeL‐0%‐150 58‐28L‐15%‐150 58‐28L‐50%‐150 64‐22L 50% 200 58 22L‐50%‐200 58‐22
RAP binder (AASHTO M320) 76‐10
Asphalt Binder Blending ChartHigh Critical TemperatureHigh Critical Temperature
Asphalt Binder Blending ChartIntermediate Critical TemperatureIntermediate Critical Temperature
Asphalt Binder Blending ChartLow Critical TemperatureLow Critical Temperature
RAP Mortar Procedure (UWM)Flow Chart of Material Preparation and TestingFlow Chart of Material Preparation and Testing
RAP passing Mi ithRAP passing sieve #50 & retained on sieve #100 (R100)
Mix with RTFO binder RTFO SRAP mortar
Mix with original binder Fresh SRAP mortar
DSR (High Temperature)
Ignition ovenCalculate R100 binder content
DSR (Inter. Temperature)
BBR (Low
PAV SRAP mortar
PAV RRAP mortar
PAV aging
Retained aggregates
Temperature)
Mix with RTFO binder
RTFO RRAP mortar
PAV RRAP mortar
DSR (High Temperature)aggregates
Fresh RRAP mortarMix with
original binder
Temperature)
RAP Mortar Procedure (UWM)Typical ResultsTypical Results
7070Percent RAP Binder as Percent of Total Binder
58.7
30
40
50
60
70
30
40
50
60
70
ture (°C)
ture (°C)
16.7
10
0
10
20
30
10
0
10
20
30
rade
Tem
perat
rade
Tem
perat
‐30.9‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
‐40
‐30
‐20
‐10
PG Gr
PG Gr
0 10 20 30 40 50
% RAP BinderLow Temperature Intermediate TemperatureHigh Temperature Low Temperature (Extrapolated)
Predictions Using Hirsh Model
• Use semi-empirical model proposed by Christensen et al. Use semi empirical model proposed by Christensen et al. (2003) to estimate shear dynamic modulus.
• Measured E*laboratory data used.y• Minimize Error between Hirsch model prediction and real
data by varying binder stiffness.y y g• Compare estimated stiffness with measured stiffness. • Determine binder critical temperature.ete e b e c t ca te pe atu e
Summary of PG GradesPreliminary Results for Pen 150-200Preliminary Results for Pen 150-200
% Mix
Critical THigh Critical TIntermediate Critical TLowTSRST
RAPMix TSRST
Rec.Blend Chart
HirshMortar Testing
Rec.Blend Chart
HirshMortar Testing
Rec.Blend Chart
HirshMortar Testing
Virgin Binder
59.0 14.7 ‐32.5 ‐‐
0F 61.0 ‐‐ IP
‐‐15.8 ‐‐ IP
‐‐‐31.6 ‐‐ ‐‐
‐‐‐32.8
L 58.6 ‐‐ 57.5 14.9 ‐‐ 16.0 ‐32.6 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐33.0
F 62.6 63.6 IP 18.5 18.1 IP ‐29.5 ‐29.1 ‐‐ ‐30.815
63 658.7
816.7
9‐30.9
L 59.4 61.3 57.6 17.8 18.3 18.6 ‐30.5 ‐29.3 ‐‐ ‐30.9
50F 69.1 68.8 IP
61.024.3 23.4 IP
21.8‐21.2 ‐23.2 ‐‐
‐28.4‐29.1
L 67.3 67.6 62.5 23.0 23.7 24.0 ‐22.3 ‐23.7 ‐‐ ‐27.2
Summary of PG Grades (cont’d)Preliminary Results for Pen 200-300Preliminary Results for Pen 200-300
% Mix
Critical THigh Critical TIntermediate Critical TLowTSRST
RAPMix TSRST
Rec.Blend Chart
HirshMortar Testing
Rec.Blend Chart
HirshMortar Testing
Rec.Blend Chart
HirshMortar Testing
Virgin Binder
54.1 12.2 ‐34.4 ‐‐
0*F 61.0 ‐‐ IP
‐‐15.8 ‐‐ IP
‐‐‐31.6 ‐‐ ‐‐
‐‐‐32.8
L 58.6 ‐‐ 57.5 14.9 ‐‐ 16.0 ‐32.6 ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐33.0
F 65.1 65.3 IP 22.9 21.6 IP ‐25.1 ‐24.6 ‐‐ ‐32.150
65 357.0
618.8
6‐31.4
L 63.1 63.2 64.1 21.6 21.8 20.1 ‐26.6 ‐24.5 ‐‐ ‐34.4
*0% RAP manufactured with Pen150‐200
Inverse Problem for Low Temp CharacterizationA. C. Falchetto, M. O. Marasteanu & H. Di Benedetto A. C. Falchetto, M. O. Marasteanu & H. Di Benedetto
• Huet Model (Huet 1963)( )
Inverse Problem for Low Temp CharacterizationA. C. Falchetto, M. O. Marasteanu & H. Di Benedetto A. C. Falchetto, M. O. Marasteanu & H. Di Benedetto
• Calculated S(t)binder from measured S(t)mixturebinder mixture
• Authors showed very good predictions for the binder stiffness from the mixture stiffness.
Huet-Sayegh Modified2S2P1D Model (Olard and Di Benedetto 2003)2S2P1D Model (Olard and Di Benedetto, 2003)
• Generalization of Huet-Sayegh model
i : complex number, ω: 2π*frequencyk, h : exponents such as 0<k<h<1,, p ,δ : dimensionless constant E0 the static modulus when ω → 0, E∞ the glassy modulus when ω → ∞,η : Newtonian viscosity, η=(E∞ – E0).β.τ ; when ω → 0, then E*(iωτ) ~ E0+ iω.(E∞-E0).β.τ; β is dimensionless. τ : characteristic time varying with temperature
Huet-Sayegh Modified2S2P1D Model (Olard and Di Benedetto 2003)2S2P1D Model (Olard and Di Benedetto, 2003)
• Relationship between the characteristic time of the Relationship between the characteristic time of the mixture and the characteristic time of the corresponding binder at the reference temperature:p g p
α: Regression coefficient depending on mixture & aging
Huet-Sayegh Modified2S2P1D Model (Olard and Di Benedetto 2003)2S2P1D Model (Olard and Di Benedetto, 2003)
• Relationship between mix and binder complex moduliRelationship between mix and binder complex moduliwas proposed
Predictions Using Huet-Sayegh ModifiedApproach – Forward CalculationApproach – Forward Calculation
• Measure complex modulus for the various mixtures & Measure complex modulus for the various mixtures & their associated recovered asphalt binders.
• Fit Huet-Sayegh Modified (2S2P1D) model to measured y g ( )E* data:
Determine δ, h, k, β and τ0 for binder and mix0
• Examine the relationship between log(τmix) & log(τbinder)
Predictions Using Huet-Sayegh ModifiedLab-Produced mixturesLab-Produced mixtures
8.0E+00
y = 0.0981x2 + 2.4446x + 9.4162R² = 0.9982
2.0E+00
4.0E+00
6.0E+00
mix)
‐4.0E+00
‐2.0E+00
0.0E+00
Log10(τ
‐8.0E+00
‐6.0E+00
‐1.2E+01 ‐1.0E+01 ‐8.0E+00 ‐6.0E+00 ‐4.0E+00 ‐2.0E+00 0.0E+00
Log10(τbinder)
0%RAP‐150 50%RAP‐150 100%RAP Poly. Fit
Note: not the same parameters (δ, k, and h) were used for the mixes and binders
Predictions Using Huet-Sayegh Modified
• Promising results if relationship was found to be a Promising results if relationship was found to be a unique relationship
• Continuing Effort:• Continuing Effort:– Refine the analysis for lab-produced mixtures
Conduct the same analysis for field produced mixtures– Conduct the same analysis for field-produced mixtures– Conduct the same analysis for other mixtures
E l t th i l l ti– Evaluate the inverse calculation
Mixtures Testing
• TS and TSR at multiple F-T cyclesTS and TSR at multiple F T cycles• |E*| at multiple F-T cycles• TSRST at multiple F T cycles• TSRST at multiple F-T cycles• Fatigue testing
TS at 77°F and 0, 1 and 3 F-T
171189
170
200
117127
171 165
132143
169
115
155
170
113123
153161
117 122 124150
at 77°F, psi
101
73 75 70 75
93
50
100
sile Stren
gth a
0
50
Tens
F‐0%‐150 F‐15%‐150 F‐50%‐150 F‐50%‐200 L‐0%‐150 L‐15%‐150 L‐50%‐150 L‐50%‐200
Mixture Type
0 F‐T 1 F‐T 3 F‐T
TSR at 77°F, 1 and 3 F-T
120
8691 90
100
86 8681
95
6874
6680
io at 77°F, %
63 5953 53
66
55
40Strength Rati
0
Tensile
F‐0%‐150 F‐15%‐150 F‐50%‐150 F‐50%‐200 L‐0%‐150 L‐15%‐150 L‐50%‐150 L‐50%‐200
Mixture Type1 F‐T 3 F‐T
Resistance to Moisture DamageE* Test Results at 77°FE Test Results at 77 F
677700
546
487487534
470478500
600
10 Hz, ksi
335
406
280306
335
225
314
248276 295
222250
397
215241
335279300
400
| at 77°F an
d
225 222 215
100
200
F 0% 150 F 15% 150 F 50% 150 F 50% 200 L 0% 150 L 15% 150 L 50% 150 L 50% 200
|E*
F‐0%‐150 F‐15%‐150 F‐50%‐150 F‐50%‐200 L‐0%‐150 L‐15%‐150 L‐50%‐150 L‐50%‐200
Mixture Type
0 F‐T 1 F‐T 3 F‐T
Resistance to Moisture DamageE* Ratio at 77°FE Ratio at 77 F
9889 90
978888
100
67
7772
89 90 88
6662 59
88
77 79
69
83
75
d 10
Hz, %
50
tio at 77°F an
d
0
25
E* Rat
F‐0%‐150 F‐15%‐150 F‐50%‐150 F‐50%‐200 L‐0%‐150 L‐15%‐150 L‐50%‐150 L‐50%‐200
Mixture Type
1 F‐T 3 F‐T
Resistance to Thermal CrackingTSRST Test Results – Fracture Temperature TSRST Test Results Fracture Temperature
0 F-T
References
• T. J. Hirsch, “Modulus of elasticity of concrete affected by elastic moduli of cement paste matrix and aggregate”. Journal of the American Concrete 5 Institute, Vol. 59(3), 1962, pp 427-4522.
• D. Christensen, T. Pellinen, R. F. Bonaquist, “Hirsch model for estimating the modulus of asphalt concrete”. Journal of Association of Asphalt 8 Paving Technologists, Vol. 72, 2003, pp 97 121pp 97-121.
• A. Zofka, M. O. Marasteanu, X. Li, T. Clyne,J. McGraw, “Simple method to obtain asphalt binders low temperature properties from asphalt mixtures properties”. Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 74, 2005, pp255-282.
• F. Olard, H. Di Benedetto, “General “2S2P1D” model and relation between the linear viscoelastic behaviors of bituminous binders and mixes”. RMPD, Vol. 4/2 – Special Issue, 1 2003, pp185-224.
é “ f• H. Di Benedetto, F. Olard, C. Sauzéat, B. Delaporte, “Linear viscoelastic behaviour of bituminous materials: from binders to mixes”, RMPD, Vol. 5 – Special Issue, 2004, pp163-202.
References
• B. Delaporte, H. Di Benedetto, P. Chaverot, G. Gauthier, “Linear viscoelastic properties of bituminous materials: from binders to mastics”. J. of the AAPT, Vol. 76, 2007, pp 455-494.
• A. C. Falchetto, M. O. Marasteanu, H. Di Benedetto, “Analogical Based Approach to Forward and Inverse Problems for Asphalt Materials Characterization at Low Temperatures”. Submitted for possible publication in the AAPT Journal, 2011.M O M t “R l ti L T t Mi t d Bi d P ti U i • M. O. Marasteanu, “Relating Low Temperature Mixture and Binder Properties Using Phenomenological and Analogical Models”. Asphalt Binder ETG meeting, Madison, Wisconsin, September 2010.
• ......
