Comparison of Binder and Mixture Characteristics with Respect to Cracking Performance

Transcription

1 Comparison of Binder and Mixture Characteristics with Respect to Cracking Performance Reyhaneh Rahbar-Rastegar Jo Sias Daniel Northeast Asphalt User/Producer Group Meeting Newark, Delaware October 20, 2016

2 Introduction Cracking is one of the main types of distresses in asphalt pavements Researchers have developed various cracking index parameters to evaluate the cracking potential of asphalt binders and mixtures Primary Objective: To compare several common and recently developed asphalt mixture and asphalt binder index parameters to determine if correlations exist with respect to fatigue and thermal cracking. 2

3 Acknowledgements NHDOT Funding Beran Black, Matt Courser Pike Industries, Inc. Mary Westcott, Peter Moore, Dave Duncan Gerry Reinke, MTE Services UNH pavement research group 3

4 Materials o Lebanon ü 11 Mixtures (Plant) ü Binder type (PG 58-28, PG 52-34) ü Two sources for each binder grade ü NMAS (12.5 and 19 mm) ü Recycled Material (20-30% and /RAS) o Hooksett ü 3 Mixtures (Plant) ü Binder type (PG 58-28, PG 64-28) ü NMAS (9.5 and 12.5 mm) ü Recycled Material (15-25% ) 4

5 Materials Target Air Void (test specimen): 6% ± 0.5 Binder Grade Westmoreland: PG C Tear off Shingles Mixture NMAS (mm) %AC Design Total Percent Passing Gradations 9.5 mm 12.5 mm 19 mm Seive Size (mm) 5

6 Binder Parameters High and Low Continuous PG Temperatures ΔT cr = T cr (S=300) T cr (m=0.300) G* and d master curves Rheological parameters R-value Crossover frequency Glover-Rowe parameter 6

7 PG Temperatures 88 High PG Temperature (C) Low PG Temperature (C) Source 2 Source 1 Source 1 Source % 18.5% /RAS Lebanon PG PG Source 1, Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, % 18.9% 18.5% /RAS 28.3% 20.4% /RAS 31.3% 20.4% /RAS 31.3% Source 2, % Hooksett Virgin Binder 12.5 mm 12.5 mm 19 mm 12.5 mm 9.5 mm Source 2, % Source 2, %

8 ΔT cr Lebanon Virgin Binder 12.5 mm 19 mm PG PG Source 1, Source 1, Source 2, 58-28Source 3, mm Source 2, Hooksett Source 2, mm Source 2, Source 2 Source 1 Source 1 Source % 18.5% /RAS 28.3% 18.9% 18.5% /RAS 28.3% 20.4% /RAS 31.3% 20.4% /RAS 31.3% 22.4% 21.3% 16.4% -2 Tcr hr PAV 40 hr PAV Crack Warning Crack Limit -14 8

9 ΔT cr vs R-value Aging R-value Tcr 12.5, 58-28, 18.9% 12.5, 58-28, 28.3% 12.5, 52-34, 18.9% 12.5, 52-34, 28.3% 19, 58-28, 31.3% 19, 52-34, 31.3% 19, 58-28, 20.4%RAS 19, 52-34, 20.4%RAS 12.5, 58-28, 18.5%RAS 12.5, 52-34, 18.5% RAS 9

10 Glover-Rowe Parameter 10 Complex Modulus (MPa) G cos δ ' 600 kpa, at rad/sec sin δ G cos δ ' 180 kpa, at rad/sec sin δ Phase Angle (Degree) PG 58-28,12.5, 28.3% PG 58-28,12.5,18.5% RAS PG 58-28,12.5,18.9% PG 52-34,12.5, 28.3% PG 52-34,12.5,18.5%RA5 PG 52-34,12.5,18.9% PG 58-28,19, 31.3% PG 58-28, 19, 20.4% RAS PG 52-34,19, 31.3% PG 52-34, 19, 20.4% RAS Source 1, PG Source 1, PG Source 2, PG Source 3, PG

11 Mixture Parameters Complex Modulus (AASHTO T-342) Master curve parameters Mixture Glover-Rowe parameter Uniaxial Fatigue Testing (AASHTO TP-107 ) SVECD and LVECD pavement evaluation Disc-Shaped Compact Tension (ASTM D ) 11

12 SVECD Fatigue (N G R =100) GR= % 18.5% /RAS 28.3% 18.9% 18.5% /RAS 28.3% 20.8% 20.4% RAS 31.3% 20.4% RAS 31.3% 22.4% 21.3% 16.4% Source 1, Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 2, Source 2, mm 19 mm 12.5 mm 9.5 mm Lebanon Hooksett Source 2,

13 DCT Flexibility Index Gf /m (J/m2) PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG PG % 16.4% 18.9% 22.4% 28.3% 20.4% 31.3% 20.4% 31.3% /RAS /RAS 9.5 mm 12.5 mm 19 mm 13

14 Pavement Evaluation Percentage of Asphalt Layer Failed 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0.0% 18.9% Maximum N/Nf value at 20 years 85.4% 18.5% RAS 28.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.9% 22.0% 18.5% RAS 28.3% 0.0% 0.0% 20.8% 27.4% 20.4% RAS 31.3% Source 1, Source 1, Source 2, Source 1, % 20.4% RAS 31.3% 2.2% 2.7% 22.4% Source 3, Source 2, % 21.3% 11.9% 16.4% Source 2, Source 2, mm 12.5 mm 19 mm 19 mm 12.5 mm 9.5 mm Lebanon 18.9% 28.3% 18.9% 18.5% RAS 20.8% 20.4% /RAS 21.3% Source 1, Source 1, Source 2, Source 2, mm 19 mm 9.5 mm Lebanon Hooksett Hooksett 14

15 Parameter Comparisons Pearson correlation factor: measure of linear relationship between two parameters Binder parameter comparisons Mixture parameter comparisons Binder-Mixture comparisons 15

16 Comparison of Binder Parameters G-R Tcr High PG Temp Low PG Temp R value G* (0 C) G* (25 C) Phase binder (0 C) Phase Binder (25 C) G-R Tcr High PG Temp Low PG Temp R value G* (0 C) G* (25 C) Phase binder (0 C) Phase Binder (25 C)

17 Comparison of Mixture Parameters GR=10 0 Fracture Energy Flex Index Mixbased G-R Gamma E* (4.4 C) E* (21 C) Phase binder (4.4 C) Phase Binder (21 C) GR= Fracture Energy Flex Index Mix-based G-R Gamma E* (4.4 C) E* (21 C) Phase binder (4.4 C) Phase Binder (21 C)

18 Comparison of Binder and Mixture Parameters Category Stiffness Relaxation Aging Pearson Correlation Coefficient Comparison Parameter Parameter Values Rankings G* at 0C vs E* at 4.4C G* at 25C vs E* at 21.1 C Phase Angle (0 C binder vs 4.4 C mixture) Phase Angle (25 C binder vs 21.1 C mixture) G-R vs mixed-based G-R R value vs Gamma Low Temp. Cracking Tcr vs DCT Flex Index Fatigue Cracking G-R vs N G R = G-R vs LVECD Tcr vs N G R = Tcr vs LVECD

19 Conclusions Very good to good correlations between binder index parameters The strongest correlation is between R value and DT cr The mixture factors did not show strong correlation with each other Binder and mixture stiffness are strongly correlated, as expected Short-term cracking behavior of mixtures may not be accurately predicted only by rheological parameters of the binder 19

20 Future work The actual field cracking performance of mixtures needs to be incorporated in the analysis Testing on long term aged mixtures is needed to conduct a better comparison Additional statistical analysis may help to identify stronger mixture and binder relationships 20

21 92nd AAPT Annual Meeting and Technical Sessions The 2017 Annual Meeting will be held March 19-22, 2017 The Island Hotel, Newport Beach, California USA Our 2017 venue AAPT Office: 6776 Lake Drive, Suite 215 Lino Lakes, MN Phone: Fax: or Annual Meeting The Annual Business Meeting and Technical Sessions of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists (AAPT) will be March 19-22, 2017 in Newport Beach, California at The Island Hotel ( The annual meeting includes asphalt-related technical sessions comprised of peerreviewed papers, and invited presentations on specific topics in the Leading Edge Workshop, AAPT-ISAP International Forum, and Symposium. Please see the Annual Meeting page ( for more details as they become available. Important dates August 15, deadline for submitting papers (CLOSED) October 10, peer reviews completed November 4, notification of paper acceptance December 2016 Annual Meeting registration opens March 19 to 22, Annual Business Meeting and Technical Sessions For the latest information please check our web site at:

22 Questi ons? 22

23 Shear Modulus Mastercurve 1.E+10 1.E+09 1.E+08 G* (Pa) 1.E+07 1.E+06 1.E+05 1.E+04 1.E+03 1.E-07 1.E-05 1.E-03 1.E-01 1.E+01 1.E+03 1.E+05 1.E+07 1.E+09 1.E+11 Frequency (rad/s) Source 1, PG Source 1, PG Source 2, PG Source 3, PG PG 58-28, 12.5, 18.9% PG 58-28, 12.5, 28.3% PG 58-28, 12.5, 18.5% RAS PG 58-28, 19, 31.3% PG 58-28, 19, 20.4% RAS PG 52-34, 12.5, 18.9% PG 52-34, 12.5, 28.3% PG 52-34, 12.5, 18.5% RAS PG 52-34, 19, 31.3% PG 52-34, 19, 20.4% RAS 23

24 Phase Angle Diagrams 1.E+10 1.E+09 1.E+08 1.E+07 G* (Pa) 1.E+06 1.E+05 1.E+04 1.E Phase Angle (Degrees) Source 1, PG Source 1, PG Source 2, PG Source 3, PG PG 58-28, 12.5, 18.9% PG 58-28, 12.5, 28.3% PG 58-28, 12.5, 18.5% RAS PG 58-28, 19, 31.3% PG 58-28, 19, 20.4% RAS PG 52-34, 12.5, 18.9% PG 52-34, 12.5, 28.3% PG 52-34, 12.5, 18.5% RAS PG 52-34, 19, 31.3% PG , 19, 20.4% RAS 24

25 Crossover Frequency- R value 10 Crossover-Frequency Aging R-Value 12.5, 58-28, 18.9% 12.5, 58-28, 28.3% 12.5, 52-34, 18.9% 12.5, 52-34, 28.3% 19, 58-28, 31.3% 19, 52-34, 31.3% 19, 58-28, 20.4%RAS 19, 52-34, 20.4%RAS 12.5, 58-28, 18.5%RAS 12.5, 52-34, 18.5% RAS 25

26 Dynamic Modulus Mastercurves Dynamic Modulus (MPa) E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 Reduced Frequency (Hz) PG 58-28, 12.5 mm, 18.9% PG 58-28, 12.5 mm, 28.3% PG 58-28, 12.5 mm, 18.5% RAS PG 58-28, 19 mm, 20.8% PG 58-28, 19 mm, 31.3% PG 58-28, 19 mm, 20.4% RAS PG 52-34, 12.5 mm, 18.9% PG 52-34, 12.5 mm, 28.3% PG 52-34, 12.5 mm, 18.5% RAS PG 52-34, 19 mm, 31.3% PG 52-34, 19 mm, 20.4% RAS PG 58-28, 12.5 mm, 22.4% PG 58-28, 9.5 mm, 21.3% PG 64-28, 9.5 mm, 16.4% 26

27 Black Space Diagrams Dynamic Modulus (MPa) Phase Angle (Degrees) PG 58-28, 12.5 mm, 18.9% PG 58-28, 12.5 mm, 28.3% PG 58-28, 12.5 mm, 18.5% RAS PG 58-28, 19 mm, 20.8% PG 58-28, 19 mm, 31.3% PG 58-28, 19 mm, 20.4% RAS PG 52-34, 12.5 mm, 18.9% PG 52-34, 12.5 mm, 28.3% PG 52-34, 12.5 mm, 18.5% RAS PG 52-34, 19 mm, 31.3% PG 52-34, 19 mm, 20.4% RAS PG 58-28, 12.5 mm, 22.4% PG 58-28, 9.5 mm, 21.3% PG 64-28, 9.5 mm, 16.4% 27

28 Mixture Parameters -Beta/Gamma vs. Gamma log E = δ (BCD(EFG(HCI(JKL M N )) PR Q (Generalized sigmoidal) 28

29 -Beta/gamma vs. Gamma Aging 7 -Beta/Gamma Gamma PG 52-34, 12.5, 18.9% PG 52-34, 12.5, 28.3% PG 52-34, 12.5, 18.5% RAS PG 58-28, 12.5, 18.9% PG 58-28, 12.5, 28.3% PG 58-28, 12.5, 18.5% RAS PG 52-34, 19, 31.3% PG 52-34, 19, 20.4% RAS PG 58-28, 19, 20.8% PG 58-28, 19, 31.3% PG 58-28, 19, 20.4% RAS PG 58-28, 12.5, 22.4% PG 58-28, 9.5, 21.3% PG 64-28, 9.5, 16.4% 29

30 Mixture Parameters Mix-based Glover-Rowe Parameter Mensching et al., 2016 S (TKU V) W XYZ V at rad/s and PGLT + 10 C 30

31 Mix-based Black Space E* (MPa) Phase Angle (degrees) PG 52-34, 12.5, 18.9% PG 52-34, 12.5, 28.3% PG 52-34, 12.5, 18.5% RAS PG 58-28, 12.5, 18.9% PG 58-28, 12.5, 28.3% PG 58-28, 12.5, 18.5% RAS PG 52-34, 19, 28.3% PG 52-34, 19, 20.4% RAS PG 58-28, 19, 20.8% PG 58-28, 19, 31.3% PG 58-28, 19, 20.4% RAS PG 58-28, 12.5, 22.4% PG 58-28, 9.5, 21.3% PG 64-28, 9.5, 16.4% 31