1 / 43

Low Temperature Cracking

Low Temperature Cracking. Tim Clyne, MnDOT. Dec 7, 2011 MAAPT. Presentation Topics. Project History Phase I Major Findings Phase II Research Mixture LTC Specification The Road Ahead. Affects Ride Quality. We’re Making Progress. Initial Superpave. Current spec. Project History.

blithe
Download Presentation

Low Temperature Cracking

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. Low Temperature Cracking Tim Clyne, MnDOT Dec 7, 2011 MAAPT

  2. Presentation Topics • Project History • Phase I Major Findings • Phase II Research • Mixture LTC Specification • The Road Ahead

  3. Affects Ride Quality

  4. We’re Making Progress Initial Superpave Current spec

  5. Project History

  6. Initial Project • Low Temperature Cracking of Asphalt Concrete Pavements (1999-2004) • Mihai Marasteanu, Xue Li, Timothy Clyne, Vaughan Voller, David Timm, David Newcomb • Introduced SCB test method • Developed two models • Crack spacing • Damage and crack propagation

  7. Phase I Field Performance • Low Temperature Cracking Performance at MnROAD • Brief for 2007 MnROAD Lessons Learned project • Tim Clyne, Ben Worel, Mihai Marasteanu • Evaluated field performance of ML and LVR cells

  8. LVR Superpave Cells • Investigation of the Low-Temperature Fracture Properties of Three MnROAD Asphalt Mixtures • University of Minnesota • Xinjun Li, Adam Zofka, Xue Li, Mihai Marasteanu, Timothy R. Clyne

  9. Pooled Fund Project Phase I National TAP – August 2003

  10. Pooled Fund Project Phase I • Investigation of Low Temperature Cracking in Asphalt Pavements National Pooled Fund Study 776 • 16 Authors from 5 entities! • Large Laboratory Experiment • 10 Asphalt Binders • Neat and Modified, PG 58-40 to 64-22 • 2 Aggregate Sources • Limestone and Granite • 2 Air Void Levels • 4% and 7% • 2 Asphalt Contents • Optimum Design and + 0.5%

  11. Pooled Fund Project Phase I • Field Samples • 13 pavement sections around region • Experimental Modeling

  12. Indirect Tensile Test • Developed during SHRP program • In current MEPDG • Determines Creep Stiffness & Tensile Strength • Test protocol AASHTO T 322-03

  13. Creep & Strength Data

  14. Semi Circular Bend • Apply constant Crack Mouth Opening Displacement • Determines Fracture Energy & Fracture Toughness • Proposed AASHTO Test Method

  15. SCB Data

  16. Disk Shaped Compact Tension • Similar to SCB except for geometry and loading rate • Determines Fracture Energy • Test protocol ASTM D 7313-06

  17. DCT Data

  18. Asphalt Binder Testing • Bending Beam Rheometer • Direct Tension • Double Edge Notched Tension • Dilatometric (Volume Change)

  19. Phase I Major Findings

  20. Fracture Mechanics Approach

  21. Asphalt Mixture Testing • Binder gives a good start, but doesn’t tell whole story

  22. Binder Grade • Modified vs. Unmodified • High temperature grade

  23. Aggregate Type • Granite generally better than Limestone

  24. Air Voids • Lower air voids = slightly better performance

  25. Binder Content • More asphalt = better performance

  26. Phase II Research

  27. Work Plan • Updated literature review • Test additional field samples • Various mix types, binder grades & modifiers, RAP • Develop LTC mix specification • Improved modeling capabilities • Model thermal cycling effects • Validate new mixture specification • Final Report

  28. Supplementary Data • Asphalt Mixture and Binder Fracture Testing for 2008 MnROAD Construction • University of Minnesota • Mihai Marasteanu, Ki Hoon Moon, Mugurel Turos • Tested 12 MnROAD mixtures and 9 binders, reported data • SCB, IDT, BBR, DTT, DENT • Porous, Novachip, 4.75 mm Superpave, WMA, Shingles

  29. DCT vs. SCB

  30. DCT vs. SCB

  31. DCT vs. SCB

  32. Equipment Cost

  33. Reproducibility

  34. Aging Plays a Role

  35. Phase II Major Findings • Conditioning / Aging • None > Long Term Lab = Field • Binder Modification • SBS > Elvaloy > PPA • RAP • No RAP > RAP = FRAP • Air Voids not significant • Test Temperature was significant

  36. ILLI-TC Model • Modeling can provide: • True performance prediction (cracking vs. time) • Input for maintenance decisions • Insight for policy decisions

  37. LTC Specification

  38. Draft Mixture Specification • Prepare sample during mix design • Eventually perform on behind paver samples • Prepare specimens at 7% air voids • Long term condition per AASHTO R 30 • Perform 3 replicate tests at PGLT + 10°C • Average Gf > 400 J/m2 • Make adjustments if mix fails & retest

  39. Specification Limit

  40. Possible Mixture Adjustments • Binder grade • Reduce Low PG (-34 vs -28) • Different modifier or supplier • Aggregate source • Granite/taconite instead of limestone • Reduce RAP/RAS content • Aggregate gradation • Finer gradation • Increase binder content

  41. What’s Next? • Use pilot spec on select projects in 2012 or 2013 • Implement in cooperation with Bituminous Office • HMA Performance Testing project – University of Minnesota Duluth • Phase I – Review of Literature & State Specifications • Phase II – Lab Testing & Field Validation (proposed fall 2011) • Extend to other types of cracking • Fatigue, Top Down, Reflective

  42. Thank You! • Tim Clyne • 651-366-5473 • tim.clyne@state.mn.us www.mndot.gov/mnroad

More Related