1 / 33

Oklahoma DOT Changes in Superpave Specifications to Address Permeability

Learn about changes in Superpave specifications addressing permeability issues in Oklahoma. Understand permeability definition, problems, and testing procedures. Review the impact of density and mix design on permeability. Discover ODOT's modifications to improve permeability testing and Superpave specifications, resulting in decreased permeability issues. Consider the importance of roadway density in addressing permeability concerns. Stay informed about upcoming longitudinal joint specifications for further improvements.

josephinemoore
Download Presentation

Oklahoma DOT Changes in Superpave Specifications to Address Permeability

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. Oklahoma DOT Changes in Superpave Specifications to Address Permeability

  2. HOW DO WE DEFINEPERMEABILITY? Inter-connected air voids which allow air, water, and moisture vapor to infiltrate a pavement structure from the surface and / or base.

  3. WHY IS PERMEABILITYA PROBLEM? Stripping – Asphalt binder is separated from the aggregate by the continued presence of water and moisture vapor.

  4. TEST PROCEDURE OVERVIEW OHD L-44 MEASUREMENT OF WATER PERMEABILITY OF COMPACTED PAVING MIXTURES

  5. Mold specimen to 7% air voids, 75mm height. Saturate specimen, apply thin film of Vaseline to sides

  6. Place specimen on permeameter and position sealing tube, which is covered by a rubber membrane

  7. Place upper cap assembly on specimen and clamp down. Inflate membrane to 14 psi.

  8. Ensure that water is flowing through the specimen at a constant rate and begin timing when water level reaches 65mm.

  9. Measure either: 1) Time for water level to drop to zero 2) Water level after 30 minutes

  10. The coefficient of permeability, k, is determined using the corrected water temperature. The initial specification was a maximum of 125 x 10-5 cm/s

  11. IF WE HAD A PERMEABILITY TEST AND SPECIFICATION, WHY WERE THE PAVEMENTS STILL PERMEABLE? Could we change the permeability test to better identify problem mixes? Could we change the Superpave specification in some way to make them inherently less permeable?

  12. ( ) a L h1 k = ln C A t h2 1st Step – Check the Permeability Test Equation where: k = coefficient of permeability, cm/s a = inside x-sectional area of cylinder, cm2 L = avg. thickness of the test specimen, cm A = x-sectional area of test specimen, cm2 t = elapsed time between h1 and h2, s h1 = initial head across test specimen, cm h2 = final head across test specimen, cm C = temp. correction for viscosity of water

  13. 1st Step – Check the Permeability Test Equation • The 65 cm tall tube of water could totally drain through the specimen in 5-1/2 minutes and still meet k = 125 x 10-5 cm/s • Dropping 45 cm in 30 minutes results in k = 12.5 x 10-5 cm/s

  14. A review of existing mix designs at that time demonstrated the relationship between nominal maximum aggregate size and permeability

  15. INITIAL IN-HOUSE RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTED THE FOLLOWING: • Confirmed that permeability increases as mix coarsens • Confirmed that permeability increases as the density at Nini gyrations decreases • The method used to determine 93% density for permeability testing is critical (CoreLok vs. Air Wt, Imm. Wt, SSD Wt) • The difference between the methods increases as the mix gets coarser

  16. CONTINUED RESEARCH Based on the data from the initial research, a test matrix with 1” NMS mixes at evenly spaced combined gradations was proposed. The mixes ranged from very coarse to very fine. Each mix was molded in increments from 91% to 98% density

  17. The difference between the methods of determining density increases with mix coarseness and lower density

  18. Absorption also increases with coarser mixes and lower density

  19. There is a clear relationship between permeability and absorption

  20. The three coarsest mixes stood out very clearly. Attaining 94% roadway density is critical.

  21. RESULTING CHANGES TO ODOT’S PERMEABILITY TEST & SPECIFICATION Specify OHD L-14 as the method by which to obtain the density of the permeability specimens Lower the maximum permeability from 125 x 10-5 cm/s to 12.5 x 10-5 cm/s Add minimum AC contents for each Superpave mix

  22. RESULTING CHANGES TO ODOT’S SUPERPAVE SPECIFICATION Specify a minimum density of 85.5% @ Nini gyrations Fine up Superpave gradation to make the allowable broad band more similar to to our previous A, B, C, and D blends Remove 1-1/2” NMS mixes from the specification

  23. New specifications were enacted in June 2004. All ODOT Field Divisions are reporting a marked decrease in permeability issues.

  24. The new specifications alone cannot guarantee that the roadway will not be permeable. There is one more important factor: ROADWAY DENSITY

  25. DATA FROM OUR FIRST FIELD INVESTIGATION OF A PERMEABLE PAVEMENT: (AT LONGITUDINAL JOINT)

  26. DATA FROM OUR NEXT FIELD INVESTIGATION OF A PERMEABLE PAVEMENT: (AT LONGITUDINAL JOINT)

  27. ODOT intends to adopt a longitudinal joint specification similar to TxDOT’s in the next few months. Based on their experience, we believe that permeability issues will be largely resolved.

  28. THANK YOU! QUESTIONS?

More Related