1 / 31

Validation of Draft Guidelines for the Design of HMA in SA

Validation of Draft Guidelines for the Design of HMA in SA. OBJECTIVES Feedback Status of Validation. Scope of Presentation. Design Procedures & Performance Testing Study of Rut Resistance Testing Workshops on HMA Design Guidelines. Design Procedures Validated. Selection of Mix Type

rivka
Download Presentation

Validation of Draft Guidelines for the Design of HMA in SA

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. Validation of Draft Guidelines for the Design of HMA in SA OBJECTIVES Feedback Status of Validation RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  2. Scope of Presentation • Design Procedures & Performance Testing • Study of Rut Resistance Testing • Workshops on HMA Design Guidelines RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  3. Design Procedures Validated • Selection of Mix Type • Rating of Design Objectives • Volumetric Design • Bulk RD & COMPACT Software • Densely Graded Mixes • Stone Mastic Asphalt RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  4. Volumetric Design of Densely Graded Mixes RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  5. Mod Marshall Compaction Voids Criteria RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  6. Volumetric Design of Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) • Recommended Trial Binder Content • BRD  2.75 : BC = 5.5% & BRD < 2.75 : BC = 6.0% • 4 Samples Compacted @ 50 blows • VCA Coarse Aggr.  Dry Rodded Test • VMA  17.0% & VIM  3.0% • VCAmix (with mastic) < VCAdrc (without mastic) RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  7. Study of Rut Resistance Testing • 8 Field Mixes • Mixes paved on various roads, incl national and provincial roads and urban streets • Actual designs based on Marshall Method • 8 Laboratory Mixes (Experimental) • Different Binder Contents • Different Binder & Mix Types RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  8. Field Mixes RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  9. Rut Resistance TestsValidated In Study • Modified Marshall Compaction • Gyratory Compaction • Transportek Wheel Track Test (TWTT) • Dynamic Creep Test • Confined Impact Test (CIT) • Axial Loading Slab Test (ALS) RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  10. Modified Marshall Compaction RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  11. Gyratory Compaction RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  12. Comparison of Gyratory and Modified Marshall Compaction RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  13. Transportek WheelTracking Test (TWTT) RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  14. TWTT Downward Deformation RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  15. Gyratory Compaction vs TWTT RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  16. Confined Impact Test (CIT) RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  17. TOP OF SPECIMEN BEFORE TESTING B B A TEST SPECIMEN AFTER TESTING CIT – Measurement of Deformation RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  18. CIT – Performance Ratings RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  19. CIT – Field Mixes RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  20. Dynamic Creep vs TWTT RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  21. Experimental Laboratory Mixes RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  22. Comparison of Rut Resistance ofLaboratory Mixes • Modified Marshall Compaction • Gyratory Compaction • Transportek Wheel Track Test (TWTT) • Dynamic Creep Test RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  23. Influence of Binder Content: Modified Marshall Compaction RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  24. Influence of Binder Content: Gyratory Compaction RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  25. Influence of Binder Content: Transportek Wheel Track Test RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  26. Influence of Binder Type: Modified Marshall Compaction RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  27. Influence of Binder Type: Transportek Wheel Track Test RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  28. ConclusionsValidity of Rut Resistance Tests • Modified Marshall Compaction • Good Indicator of Workability & Stability • Gyratory Compaction • Good Correlation of Terminal VIM with Rut Resistance • Transportek Wheel Tracking Test • Best Prediction of Rut Resistance RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  29. ConclusionsValidity of Rut Resistance Tests • Dynamic Creep Test • Not Applicable to Stone-Skeleton & Modified Sand-Skeleton Mixes • Confined Impact Test • Validity Questionable RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  30. ConclusionsInfluence of Mix Composition • Binder Content • Higher Binder Contents  Lower Rut Resistance • Binder Type • SBS Mod Mix  Highest Rut Resistance • SBR Mod Mix  Lower than SBS Mod, but still Very Good • EVA Mod Mix  Similar to Non-modified Mix RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

  31. Conclusions – Workshops on HMA Design Guidelines • Cape Province • Venue: University of Stellenbosch • Date: Tuesday, 12th June 2001 • KwaZulu Natal • Venue: Roads Dept. Pietermaritzburg • Date: Wednesday, 13th June 2001 • Gauteng • Venue: University of Pretoria • Date: Thursday, 14th June 2001 • Time: 08:00  17:00 RPF – 17 May 2001 Validation of HMA Design Guidelines

More Related