1 / 15

Performance of Exposed Aggregate Surface of Composite Pavements at MnROAD

Performance of Exposed Aggregate Surface of Composite Pavements at MnROAD. Bernard Izevbekhai Alexandra Akkari Minnesota Department of Transportation. International Symposium on Pavement Performance Trends A dvances and Challenges ASTM Committee E17 on Vehicle Pavement Systems

lainey
Download Presentation

Performance of Exposed Aggregate Surface of Composite Pavements at MnROAD

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. Performance of Exposed AggregateSurface of Composite Pavementsat MnROAD Bernard Izevbekhai Alexandra Akkari Minnesota Department of Transportation International Symposium on Pavement Performance Trends Advances and Challenges ASTM Committee E17 on Vehicle Pavement Systems Tampa Florida December 5 2011

  2. OUTLINE Introduction Layout Mix Design Performance Evaluation Results Conclusion Potentials

  3. MNROAD MAINLINE • Interstate 94 Westbound Live Traffic • 28,000 AADT • Mainline • Passing Lane Vs. Driving Lane 50-50 Traffic; 80-20 ESALs • Total Truck Volume 15% approx.

  4. Introduction Composite Cells Compare EAC to cells 70 and 71 to evaluate performance • Targets of EA Surface • Quiet pavement surface • Increased durability • Increased friction • Objective of Composite Pavement • Minimize cost with high quality EA surface layer over low cost (relaxed gradation) layer • Sustainability • Investigate Cost effectiveness of 2-lift Concrete

  5. Mix Design 98% Passing 3/8”

  6. Performance Evaluation Friction ASTM E-247 International Roughness Index ASTM E-950 On Board Sound Intensity AASHTP TP 76-09 Sound Absorption ASTM E-1050 Profile Depth ASTM E-2157

  7. Ride Quality Anomalous laser-induced IRI was not observed in EAC.

  8. Pavement Noise

  9. Sound Absorption

  10. Friction

  11. Surface Profile

  12. TextureOrientation

  13. SPIKINESS CONCEPT & QUANTIFICATION dx

  14. Conclusions • EAC does not provide significant noise reduction • higher OBSI than both the HMA and traditional diamond grind. • Innovative diamond grinding of composite pavements may be beneficial for noise reduction • lowerOBSI than the HMA, EAC, traditional DG surfaces, and higher sound absorption than EAC. • EAC can provide more than adequate friction for driver safety, but does not show any improvement from typical HMA or DG. • Anomalous laser-induced IRI was not observed in EAC. Going Forward • Changing the quality and type of aggregate in EAC could lead to a change in texture orientation / spikiness and improve surface performance. • Need to examine Elongation, flatness etc in mix design to minimize spikiness.

  15. QUESTIONS I THANK THEE

More Related