Global standardisation of test methods for asphalt mixtur .Moisture sensitivity AASHTO T 283 Permanent

  • View
    215

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of Global standardisation of test methods for asphalt mixtur .Moisture sensitivity AASHTO T 283...

  • Global standardisation of test methods for asphalt mixtures

    Andrew Cooper

    1

  • Content

    Europe

    UK

    Netherlands

    France

    APT and pavement design

    US

    Observations

    2

  • Performance tests

    Performance tests are used to relate laboratory mix design to actual field performance and can be used to Evaluate new materials Understand failure Quality assure material/Specify material Design pavements as part of an integrated

    process using linear elastic theory

    3

  • Key material properties

    Deformation resistance (rutting) Fatigue life Modulus/Stiffness

    Moisture susceptibility Thermal cracking resistance Resistance to reflection cracking

    4

  • Content

    Europe

    UK

    Netherlands

    France

    APT and pavement design

    US

    Observations

    5

  • UK

    6

  • Time (s)

    Modulus

    7

  • Low stiffness

    Poor load spreading Good load spreading

    Compressive stress on subgrade

    High stiffness

    Modulus

    8

  • Roadbase design chart

    0

    50

    100

    150

    200

    250

    300

    350

    400

    450

    500

    1 10 100 1000

    Design Life (msa)

    To

    tal A

    sp

    ha

    lt T

    hic

    kn

    es

    s

    (mm

    )

    Grade 1

    Grade 3

    Grade 6

    Grade 9

    80 msa

    9

  • What worked really well with ITSM was that it was developed by academics, picked up by TRL who ran the relevant precision and ruggedness trials. All interested parties were looking for a performance test which would give a modulus value.

    Then, within the UK at least, there was only one manufacturer. They started to push for accreditation very early on.

    Later on the procedure was picked up by CEN with only a few modifications.

    UK

    10

  • CONCLUDING REMARKS1. The ITSM test is a practical test that is suitable for inclusion in a performance based specification to test laid material in a road construction contract. The test is quick, reliable, easy to use and economic. 2. Fundamental laboratory tests are not suited to this role. The technology of the ITSM test is appropriate, that of the fundamental tests is not. However, it has been demonstrated that ITSM measurements correlate well with more fundamental laboratory tests.3. The ITSM test is being used in contractual situations in major road construction contracts in the UK. 4. The UK philosophy is to test the laid product because that is what the Client is paying for and he requires assurance that what he is getting is fit-for-purpose. A laboratory mixture design study does not give the same assurance.

    UK

    11

  • UK

    5. The concept of performance measurements being carried out on laid materials for assessment and compliance is applied to all road layers in the UK. The Highways Agency and UK Industry are investing heavily in this approach. Performance based specifications are currently under development for the capping layers, sub-base, asphalt roadbase and asphalt surfacing.6. The good correlation between ITSM and the FWD demonstrates that the ITSM is a good measure of load-spreading ability.7. Criteria should be established for assessing the relative merits of test protocols which should include comparison of values, precision, cost, ease of practical application, etc so that appropriate tests can be selected for each application.

    12

  • UK Wheel tracking

    13

  • Wheel tracking

    Test Standards. BS 598 EN 12697-22:2002

    T0719-1993 AST 01:1999 NLT-173

    Test Temperature: 45:C & 60:C 60:C 60:C 60:C 60:C

    Load: 520 (N) 700 (N) 700 (N) 700 (N) 20N 900 (N)Specimen Size: 200mm or

    300x300x50mm200mm or 300x300x50mm

    300x300x50mm

    300x300mmx(35-110)mm

    300x300mm

    Tyre: (Diameter) 200-205mm 200-205mm 200mm 200-205mm 200mm

    Tyre: (Width) 50 1mm 50 5mm 50mm 501mm 50mmTyre: (Thickness) 131mm 20 2mm 15mm 10-13mm 20mm

    Tyre: (Hardness) 80 IRHD 80 IRHD JIS 844 in 20:C, 782 in 60:C

    8010 IRHD 80 IRHD

    Distance of travel: 230 10mm 230 10mm 23010mm 2305mm 2305mm

    Running Speed: 420.5 pp/min 26.5 1.0 RPM 421.0 pp/min 420.5 pp/min 420.5 pp/min

    Running time: 1 Hour 10K Load Cycles 1 Hour Min 10K passes (5000 Load cycles)

    2 Hour

    Temperature Conditioning Time:

    Sample Thickness

  • EN harmonization

    15

  • Content

    Europe

    UK

    Netherlands

    France

    APT and pavement design

    US

    Observations

    16

  • Netherlands

    Surface Base/binder

    Applied Stress

    (kPa)150 750 50-450

    Confining Stress (kPa)

    150 50

    Temperature (C) 50 40

    Failure limits 10,000 cyc 10,000 cyc

    17

  • EN options

    18

  • Netherlands

    19

  • 4pt Round Robin

    20

  • Mo

    du

    lus

    (Gp

    a)

    Frequency (Hz)

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

    68

    69

    70

    71

    72

    73

    * * * * * * * * *

    * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * *

    Round Robin results

    21

  • 69

    70

    71

    72

    73

    0 10 20 30 40 50 60

    Frequency [Hz]

    Sti

    ffn

    ess

    mo

    du

    lus

    [GP

    a]

    Beam I-50-A Beam I-50-B Beam I-100-A Beam I-100-B

    Beam II-50-A Beam II-50-B Beam II-100-A Beam II-100-B

    Beam III-50-A Beam III-5-A Beam-III-100-A Beam III-100-BFour point Round Robin

    22

  • 65

    70

    75

    80

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

    Frequency [Hz]

    Modulu

    s [G

    Pa]

    Beam I-50 Beam I-100 Beam II-50 Beam II-100 Beam III-50 Beam III-100

    Four point Round Robin

    23

  • 73

    74

    75

    76

    77

    0 10 20 30 40 50 60

    Frequency [Hz]

    Mo

    du

    lus [

    GP

    a]

    Beam III - 50 Beam III - 100 Beam II - 50 Beam II - 100

    Beam I - 50 Beam I - 100

    Four point Round Robin

    24

  • Four point Round Robin

    25

  • Four point Round Robin

    26

  • Four point Round Robin

    27

  • Four point Round Robin

    28

  • Four point Round Robin

    29

  • Four point Round Robin

    30

  • Four point Round Robin

    31

  • Four point Round Robin

    32

  • Four point Round Robin

    33

  • Four point Round Robin

    34

  • Four point Round Robin

    35

  • 36

  • Content

    Europe

    UK

    Netherlands

    France

    APT and pavement design

    US

    Observations

    37

  • The French approach

    Level 3 Stiffness(Complex modulus)

    Level 2Rut resistance

    Level 1Water sensitivity

    & Gyratory compaction

    Level 4 Fatigue

    fail

    Select mixture

    Adjust mixture composition

    fail

    fail

    fail

    fail

  • 39

    10mm EME2

    0,0

    5,0

    10,0

    15,0

    20,0

    25,0

    30,0

    1 10 100 1000

    Vo

    id c

    on

    ten

    t /

    %

    Number of Gyrations

    Mean % voids

    2.8% voids at 100 gyrations

  • 0

    2

    4

    6

    8

    10

    12

    14B

    BA

    C

    BB

    AC

    (bin

    de

    r)

    BB

    AG

    G

    BB

    ME

    GB

    2

    GB

    3

    EME

    1

    EME

    2

    Vo

    ids

    %

    In spec

    Out of spec

    French specification

    2.8

    40

  • The majority of the mixture testing conducted during SHRP by the Asphalt Institute wasconducted on this modified Texas 6showed the adjusted the modified Texas 6design for the Arizona Department of Transportation. The Arizona mix would not compact down to 4 percent air voids at the lower angle of gyrations. The SHRP researchers deduced that the 1insufficient for a mix design procedure targeting 4 percent air voids. The angle was adjusted back up and the research was completed at the higher angle.

    PCG correlation

    41

  • SPGC PCG

    French angle is less than SHRP angle

    French load is a little more than SHRP load

    0.82(1)1.16(1.25)

    42

  • Gyratory angle

    43

  • 0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    1 10 100 1000

    % V

    oid

    s

    Number of gyrations

    % voids 0.606

    % voids 0.848

    % voids 1.055

    100 7.1% 6.7% 5.2%

    Number of gyrations

    1 10 100 1000

    Angle influence

    44

  • DAV top angle () DAV bottom angle ()

    test10.769 0.8080.792 0.7980.774 0.809

    test20.797 0.80.771 0.7770.755 0.754

    test30.784 0.8030.77 0.785

    0.751 0.789

    test40.795 0.8010.77 0.782

    0.744 0.7650.762621769 0.783322449

    Internal angle

    45

  • ILS top angle ()

    square difference

    ILS bottom angle ()

    square difference

    test 1 0.65 0.038581951 0.612 0.06698455test 2 0.652 0.044315238 0.626 0.101429577test 3 0.654 0.056669165 0.632 0.075285999test 4 0.656 0.030015278 0.621 0.101941828test 5 0.658 0.041553182 0.63 0.051901892

    0.66 0.6335

    Internal angle

    46

  • The French approach

    Level 3 Stiffness(Complex modulus)

    Level 2Permanent deformation

    Level 1Gyratory compaction

    & Water sensitivity

    Level 4 Fatigue

    47

  • 48

  • Field specimens

    49

  • Adoption of French method

    50