1 / 14

Bituminous Stabilized Materials Guideline

Bituminous Stabilized Materials Guideline. Project Initiated By: Gautrans Sabita. G1 base on cemented subbase. > 100 mm Asphalt on cemented subbase. > 400 mm Cemented Base. G1 or G2 base on unbound subbase. 300 to 350 mm Cemented base & subbase. The Need for Recycling Alternatives. 10%.

khoi
Download Presentation

Bituminous Stabilized Materials Guideline

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. Bituminous Stabilized Materials Guideline Project Initiated By: Gautrans Sabita

  2. G1 base on cemented subbase > 100 mm Asphalt on cemented subbase > 400 mm Cemented Base G1 or G2 base on unbound subbase 300 to 350 mm Cemented base & subbase The Need for Recycling Alternatives 10% 20% 30% 40% 40% 50% 60% Percentage of Designs in TRH4 Catalogue for > 3 msa

  3. Current Guidelines: Main Deficiencies Mix Design • Lack of a suitable curing method • Lack of a suitable Shear Strength test • Lack of criteria to assess durability & flexibility Structural Design • Very Conservative designs • Need to expand knowledge base and incorporate long term field data

  4. Phase 1: Inception Study Structural Design Mix Design Phase 2: Development of Methodologies Structural Design Mix Design Selection Criteria Phase 3: Guideline Compilation & Review Mix Design Guidelines Structural Design Issues Construction Issues Guideline Finalization & Review Project Structure

  5. Tasks for Phase 2 • Mix Design • Adapt triaxial test and classification limits • Develop durability test and classification limits • Standardize specimen preparation, curing, compaction & testing • Structural Design • Expand LTPP database • Develop and calibrate material classification method and pavement design method

  6. LTPP Age Years MESA Accommodated to Date Section 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 30 N12-19 (1) 30 N12-19 (2) Support N1-13&14 25 N2-16 Crushed stone 25 N1-1 20 CTB N7-7 19 Natural gravel N3-4 17 MR27 17 ETB 13 P23/1 8 D2388 N4-5X (20-25) 8 N4-5X (27-30) 8 6 N4/1 11 Same-Himo (1) 11 Same-Himo (2) Same-Himo (3) 11 10 MR 504 (1) MR 504 (2) 10 10 MR 504 (3) P24/1 6

  7. HVS MESA Accommodated Age Years Section 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 90 Surfacing 200 ETB 150 Lime stabilized base 150 Lime stabilized base N3 HVS (1) 0 N3 HVS (2) 0 Support N3 HVS (3) 0 N3 HVS (5) 0 Crushed stone N2-16 (322A2) 8 P9/3 (372A3) 0 CTB P9/3 (373A3) 0 Natural gravel P9/3 (374A3A) 0 P9/3 (374A3B) 0 LTB P9/3 (375A3) 0 P9/3 (376A3) 0 D2388 (397A4) 0 D2388 (403A4) 1 D2388 (407A4) 2 D2388 (408A4) 3 P243/1 (409A4) 0 P243/1 (410A4) 0 P243/1 (411A4) 1 P243/1 (412A4) 1 N7 (415A5) 0 N7 (416A5) 0 N12-19 (415A5) 30

  8. Structural Design Method Vision: • Depend on Rational Inputs: • Determined from field tests using a specific procedure • Direct linkage with specifications • Clarity and Transparency • Traceable validation • Implements design fundamentals • Straightforward Implementation • Requires no specialist software • Reliable and Robust

  9. Prediction: How will rut depth, riding quality etc develop over time? Requires simulation Optimization: What can be done to minimize costs at reasonable risk? Sensitivity: What layers/parameters are most critical to prevent premature failure? Life Cycle: How will the pavement fail? How can it be rehabilitated? Reliability: E.g.:Is this design suitable for traffic of 3 to 8 mesa? Design Outputs & Expectations Design Method Outputs Cost, Effort & Experience Needed

  10. System Performance Indicators Shear Potential System Behaviour Indicator ??? Area = Shear Potential “Fingerprint” Development Approach • Range of Traffic Accommodated • Rut situation, RQ situation • Cracking situation • Need for rehabilitation 200 mm BSM 1 130 mm C4 > 200 mm G6 CBR 7-15%

  11. Design Catalogue Structures Failed Condition Warning Condition Good Condition Cumulative Traffic “Fingerprint” Indicator

  12. Conclusion • Structural Design: • Concept finalized March 2007 • Pilot implementation & refinement Mar ’07 to Jan ‘08 • Mix Design Protocols (2007) • Focus on Shear & Durability • Improved criteria and classification limits • Longer term testing and implementation of new tests…(2008+)

  13. 100 - 200 mm BSM on G7+ support 200 - 300 mm BSM on G6+ 150 - 200 mm BSM on 150 mm Stabilized Support 150 - 200 mm BSM on >250 mm Stabilized Support Design Methodology Concept Traffic Accommodated (mesa) 30 10 3 1

More Related