Validation of Uniform Compaction of Hot-Mix Asphalt ... of Uniform Compaction of Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements in Connecticut ... Contractors should be using their own Quality Control

  • View
    216

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Text of Validation of Uniform Compaction of Hot-Mix Asphalt ... of Uniform Compaction of Hot-Mix Asphalt...

  • Title Page

    Validation of Uniform Compaction of Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements in Connecticut

    Prepared by: Scott Zinke and James Mahoney

    Report Number: CT-2288-F-16-1 June 30, 2016

    FINAL REPORT

    Project No. SPR 2288

    Submitted to the Connecticut Department of Transportation

    Connecticut Advanced Pavement Laboratory Connecticut Transportation Institute

    School of Engineering University of Connecticut

    Prepared for:

    Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Policy and PlanningRoadway Information Systems Research Section

    Michael Connors Assistant Planning Director

  • ii

    Disclaimer

    This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views of the Connecticut Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration.

  • iii

    Acknowledgments This report was prepared by the University of Connecticut, in cooperation with the Connecticut Department of Transportation and the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in the publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Connecticut Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This publication is based upon publicly supported research and is copyrighted. It may be reproduced in part or in full, but it is requested that there be customary crediting of the source.

  • iv

    Standard Conversions

    SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

    Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH

    in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km

    AREA in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

    ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

    yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

    ac acres 0.405 hectares ha mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

    VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3

    yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3

    NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

    MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams glb pounds 0.454 kilograms kgT short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t")

    TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC

    or (F-32)/1.8 ILLUMINATION

    fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

    FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa

    APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol

    LENGTHmm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.28 feet ft m meters 1.09 yards yd km kilometers 0.621 miles mi

    AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2

    m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2

    m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2

    ha hectares 2.47 acres ac km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2

    VOLUME mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz L liters 0.264 gallons gal m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3

    m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3

    MASS g grams 0.035 ounces ozkg kilograms 2.202 pounds lbMg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T

    TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF

    ILLUMINATION lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

    FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

    *SI is the symbol for th International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. e(Revised March 2003)

  • v

    Technical Report Documentation Page

    1. Report No. CT-2288-F-16-1

    2. Government Accession No.

    3. Recipients Catalog No.

    4. Title and Subtitle Validation of Uniform Compaction of Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements in Connecticut

    5. Report Date June 30, 2016 6. Performing Organization Code

    7. Author(s) Scott Zinke, James Mahoney

    8. Performing Organization Report No. CAPLAB 20-2016

    9. Performing Organization Name and Address University of Connecticut Connecticut Transportation Institute 270 Middle Turnpike, U-5202 Storrs, Connecticut 06269-5202

    10 Work Unit No. (TRIS) N/A 11. Contract or Grant No. SPR-2288 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

    Connecticut Department of Transportation 2800 Berlin Turnpike Newington, CT 06131-7546

    14. Sponsoring Agency Code

    15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway

    Administration 16. Abstract CT DOT trialed Uniform Compaction (UC) equipment on 2 pilot projects during the 2014 construction season. This equipment included everything that would be used for Intelligent Compaction (IC) with the exception of the stiffness measurement instrumentation. The intention was to investigate whether the use of the equipment would lead to better coverage and speed control to provide a more consistent and uniform overlay. The data from each roller and paver was collected each night of paving. These raw data files were then transferred to the research team for analysis with the VETA mapping software. Acceptance core density was also analyzed on both projects and compared to other 2014 projects in CT that did not use the UC equipment. Results show that the use of the UC equipment did, in fact, significantly improve the uniformity of the pavement from a density perspective. Analysis of the mapping software showed that it may be useful in determining overall coverage, speed and temperature information. The quality and accuracy of the mapping software should be improved prior to using the equipment for locating areas of distress and deficiency. Given the results of the reviewed literature, the stiffness values do not correlate well with pavement density. 17. Key Words

    18.Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the

    public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. The report is available on-line from National Transportation Library at http://ntl.bts.gov.

    19. Security Classif. (of report) Unclassified

    20. Security Classif. (of this page) Unclassified

    21. No. of Pages 30

    21. Price

    Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

  • vi

    Table of Contents

    Title Page ......................................................................................................................... i

    Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................... ii

    Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... iii

    Standard Conversions .....................................................................................................iv

    Technical Report Documentation Page ........................................................................... v

    Table of Contents ............................................................................................................vi

    List of Tables .................................................................................................................. vii

    List of Figures ................................................................................................................. vii

    Introduction and Background Summary .......................................................................... 1

    Problem Statement.......................................................................................................... 2

    Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 2

    Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 3

    Connecticut DOT Pilot Projects ..................................................................................... 10

    Veta Mapping of Pilot Projects ...................................................................................... 11

    Compaction Uniformity Analysis .................................................................................... 16

    Nuclear Density Measurements .................................................................................... 18

    Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................. 21

    References .................................................................................................................... 23

  • vii

    List of Tables

    Table 1. Mat Cores Descriptive Statistics ..................................................................... 16

    Table 2. Joint Cores Descriptive Statistics .................................................................... 17

    Table 3. Levenes F-test for Variances on Mat Cores .................................................. 17

    Table 4. Levenes F-test for Variances on Joint Cores ................................................. 18

    Table 5. Nuclear Density Descriptive Statistics ...........