NCHRP 9-49A Project Update: Performance of WMA Technologies: Stage II Long-term Field Performance. Binder ETG Meeting Oklahoma City, OK Sept 15, PDF Free Download

NCHRP 9-49A Project Update: Performance of WMA Technologies: Stage II Long-term Field Performance Binder ETG Meeting Oklahoma City, OK Sept 15, 2015

Outline Objectives & Research Progress Preliminary Findings Transverse Cracking Top-down Longitudinal Cracking Rutting & Moisture Susceptibility Material Property Changes Over Time MT I-15 Project TN SR 125 Project IA US 34 Project Summary and Future Work 1

Research Objectives To identify the material and engineering properties of WMA pavements that are significant determinants of their long-term field performance, and To recommend best practices for the use of WMA technologies. 2

New (2011 Construction) Pavement Projects 5 Projects = 10 HMA-WMA pairs 1 st round: pre-overlay distress survey, construction monitoring, on-site sample compaction, field cores, and falling weight deflectometer tests 2 nd round: field cores and distress survey 3

In-service (as of 2011) Pavement Projects 22 field projects + 1 HVS = 40 HMA-WMA pairs 1 st round: distress survey, field cores and falling weight deflectometer tests 2 nd round: distress survey 4

Projects Distribution 20 20 No. of Projects 15 10 5 No. of Projects 15 10 5 0 Organic Chemical Foaming WMA Technology 0 <3M >=3M Traffic (ESALs) 12 25 No. of Projects 10 8 6 4 2 0 [4,5) [6,7) [8,10) Age, Years No. of Projects 20 15 10 5 0 Flexible PCC/Cement Stabilized Base Pavement Structure 5

Project MT I-15 TN SR 125 IA US 34 TX FM 973 LA US 61 Construction Year 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 Warm Mix Mixing Temp., F Compaction Temp., F Sasobit, Evotherm DAT, Foaming H (315-320) W (283-300) H (290-300) W (269-285) Evotherm 3G H (320-350) W (290-320) H (311-335) W (275-290) Sasobit, Evotherm 3G H (330-340) W (265-280) H (253-265) W (220-239) Evotherm 3G, Foaming H (310-340) W (249-290) H (268-291) W (221-268) Sasobit, Evotherm 3G H (325) W (295) H (277-316) W (245-250) Design Thickness, in. 2.5 1.25 1.5 2.0 2.0 Traffic 3 million (3,170 AADT, 26.3% truck) 0.39 million (3,470 AADT, 13% truck) Aggregate Siliceous Gravel & Sand 3 million (6,450 AADT, 10.9% truck) Limestone, Quartzite & Sand 3 million (11,300 AADT, 4.3% truck) Gravel, Limestone & Dolomite 9 million (34,138 ADT, 14% truck) Granite & Limestone NMAS, in. 3/4 1/2 1/2 3/4 1/2 Asphalt Binder PG 70-28 PG 70-22 PG 58-28 PG 70-22 PG 76-22 Anti-stripping Agent Hydrated Lime, 1.4% AZZ-MAZ, 0.3% None None 0.6% Polymer-modified SBS Yes None N/A SBS Asphalt Content, % 4.6 6.0 5.44 5.2 4.7 G mm HMA (2.458) Sas (2.466) Evo (2.459) Foam (2.453) HMA (2.352) Evotherm (2.355) HMA (2.423) Sasobit (2.428) Evotherm (2.429) HMA(2.406) Evotherm (2.405) Foaming (2.420) Sampling Date Sep. 15-17, 2011 Oct. 24-31, 2011 Sep. 6, 2011 Dec. 1, 2011 HMA (2.464) Sasobit (2.468) Evotherm(2.464) May 16-June 6, 2012 RAP or RAS None 10% RAP 17% RAP None 15% RAP Structure 2.5'' overlay + 7'' existing HMA + 16.2'' base (nonstabilized) + infinite subgrade 1.25'' overlay + 8'' bituminous base + 6'' min. aggregate base + infinite subgrade HMA & Sasobit: 1.5''overlay + 5'' existing HMA + 7'' PCC + subgrade Evotherm: 1.5'' overlay + 3'' existing HMA + 9'' PCC + subgrade 2'' overlay + 8'' existing HMA + 10'' base + 141.1'' subgrade (lean clay) 2'' overlay + 8'' existing HMA + 8'' PCC + 6'' cement treated soil subgrade 6

Mixture Test Testing Conditions Material Properties References/ Standards IDT Dynamic Modulus/Creep Compliance Temp.: 4, 14, 32, 50, 68, 86ºF; Frequency: 20, 10, 5, 1, 0.1, 0.01 Hz Duration: 100 seconds Dynamic modulus; Creep compliance AASHTO T322 Wen et al. 2002 Mixture Test Summary Fatigue- IDT Fracture at Room Temp Temp.: 68ºF Loading rate: 2 in./min IDT strength; Fracture work density; Vertical failure deformation Horizontal failure strain AASHTO T322 Thermal Cracking- IDT Fracture at Low Temp Temp.: 14ºF Loading rate: 0.1 in./min IDT strength; Fracture work density; Vertical failure deformation; Horizontal failure strain AASHTO T322 Wen 2012 Rutting/Moisture - Hamburg Temp.: 122ºF Wet condition Rut depth; Stripping inflection point (SIP); Cycles AASHTO T324 Vertical Failure Deformation 7

Binder Test Summary Binder Test PGs Rutting: MSCR Fatigue: Monotonic at Room Temp Thermal Cracking: Monotonic at Low Temp Testing Conditions Different temp depending on the test (DSR, BBR) Stress: 0.1, 3.2kPa Temp.: 98% Reliability from LTPP Bind Temp.: 68ºF Shear strain rate: 0.3 s -1 Temp.: 41ºF Shear strain rate: 0.01s - 1 Material Properties References/Standard s PG; BBR stiffness; m-value AASHTO MP1/T240/T313 Jnr 0.1, Jnr 3.2 ; R 0.1, R 3.2 Maximum stress; Fracture energy; Failure strain Maximum stress; Fracture energy; Failure strain AASHTO T350 Wen et al. 2010 Wen 2012 Fracture energy Failure strain 8

Outline Objectives & Research Progress Preliminary Findings Transverse Cracking Top-down Longitudinal Cracking Rutting & Moisture Susceptibility Effects of WMA on construction practices Material Properties Changes MT I-15 Project TN SR 125 Project IA US 34 Project Summary and Future Work 9

Transverse Cracking Existing crack in the shoulder Reflective Surface-initiated 10

1 st Round HMA/WMA Transverse Cracking Comparison 14 (21 H-W Pairs) out of 28 projects exhibited transverse cracking Project Number 20 15 10 5 0 5 15 1 H>W H=W H<W H>W: HMA has more cracking than WMA HMA has slightly more transverse cracks than WMA. 5/10 3/6 1/4 5/8 11

2 nd Round HMA/WMA Transverse Cracking Comparison 22 (35 H-W pairs) out of 28 projects exhibited transverse cracking 27 20 H>W H>W: HMA has more cracking than WMA Project Number 15 10 5 0 6 4/6 2 H=W H<W HMA has slightly more transverse cracks than WMA 9/10 1/4 8/8 12

Significant Determinants of Transverse Cracking Compare Material Properties H>W, H=W, H<W (t-test) Compare Field Performance H>W, H=W, H<W (t-test) Compare the two rankings Consistent trend No consistent trend Summarize the number of pairs with consistent trend and determine the promising indicator 13

Significant Determinants for Transverse Cracking Based on 1 st Round Results No. of Pairs 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 E* (14 F) 15 out of 21 HMA/WMA pairs Mix Work Density (14 F) BBR stiffness Binder shear strength (41 F) Binder fracture energy (41 F) Mix E* (14 F) Binder shear strength (41 F) Binder shear strength (68 F) Mix work density (14 F) 8 6 Binder failure strain (41 F) BBR m-value 4 2 0 Positive Negative Binder failure strain (68 F) Mix horizontal failure strain (68 F) Mix vertical failure deformation (68 F) 14

Verification: Significant Determinants for Transverse Cracking Based on 2 nd Round Results 25 out of 35 HMA/WMA pairs Number of pairs 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 E* (14 F) Postive Mix Work Density (14 F) Negative BBR stiffness Binder shear strength (41 F) Binder fracture energy (41 F) Mix E* (14 F) Binder shear strength (41 F) Binder shear strength (68 F) Mix work density (14 F) Binder failure strain (41 F) BBR m-value Binder failure strain (68 F) Mix horizontal failure strain (68 F) Mix vertical failure deformation (68 F) 15

Outline Objectives & Research Progress Preliminary Findings Transverse Cracking Top-down Longitudinal Cracking Rutting & Moisture Susceptibility Material Properties Changes MT I-15 Project TN SR 125 Project IA US 34 Project Summary and Future Work 16

Top-down Fatigue Cracking 17

1 st Round HMA/WMA Top-down Cracking Comparison 8 (17 H-W pairs) out of 24 projects exhibited top-down longitudinal cracking. Project Number 15 12 9 6 3 0 0 15 2 H>W H=W H<W HMA and WMA are comparable in top-down fatigue cracking performance 0/6 2/10 0/4 6/8 18

2 nd Round HMA/WMA Top-down Cracking Comparison 14 (24 H-W pairs) out of 28 projects exhibited top-down longitudinal cracking. Project Number 24 21 18 15 12 9 6 3 0 3/6 1 18 5 H>W H=W H<W 5/10 WMA has slightly more topdown fatigue cracking performance than HMA 0/4 6/8 19

Significant Determinants for Top-down Longitudinal Cracking Based on 1 st Round Results Vertical failure deformation (68ºF), 15 out of 17 pairs 16 14 Mix IDT strength(68 F) No. of Pairs 12 10 8 6 4 Mix creep compliance (68 F) Mix horizontal failure strain (68 F) 2 0 Positive Negative Mix vertical failure deformation (68 F) 20

Verification: Significant Determinants for Top-down Cracking Based on 2 nd Round Results 24 Vertical failure deformation and horizontal failure strain (68ºF), 17 out of 24 pairs No. of Pairs 20 16 12 8 4 0 Positive Negative Mix IDT strength(68 F) Mix creep compliance (68 F) Mix horizontal failure strain (68 F) Mix vertical failure deformation (68 F) 21

Rutting 23

2 nd Round HMA/WMA Rutting Performance Comparison 23 projects (43 H-W pairs) exhibited measurable rut depth. No. of Pairs 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 5/6 3 39 1 H>W H=W H<W 9/10 HMA and WMA are comparable in rut depth 1/4 8/8 24

Significant Determinants for Rutting Resistance 34 out of 41 HMA/WMA pairs 39 out of 43 HMA/WMA pairs No. of Pairs 40 35 30 25 20 15 Mix RRI Low High PG PG Jnr0.1 Jnr3.2 Mix creep compliance (86 F) Hamburg Rutting Resistance Index R0.1 R3.2 10 Binder high temp PG 5 Binder low temp PG 0 Positive Negative Mix E* (86 F) 25

MT I-15 Project: Chip Seal On the Surface 27

MT I-15 Project: 2013 Vs 2011 Field Cores High Temp. PG 84 72 60 48 36 24 12 0-6 Binder PG Tests HMA Sasobit Evotherm Foaming HMA 2011 HMA 2013 Sas 2011 Sas 2013 Evo 2011 Evo 2013 Foam 2011 Foam 2013 Low Temp. PG -12-18 -24-30 28

MT I-15 Project: 2013 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder MSCR Tests Jnr3.2, kpa 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 HMA 2011 HMA 2013 Sas 2011 Sas 2013 Evo 2011 Evo 2013 Foam 2011 Foam 2013 R3.2 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 HMA 2011 HMA 2013 Sas 2011 Sas 2013 Evo 2011 Evo 2013 Foam 2011 Foam 2013 0.0 HMA Sasobit Evotherm Foaming 0 HMA Sasobit Evotherm Foaming 2013 vs 2011 HMA Sasobit Evotherm Foaming d2s, Jnr3.2 (31.3%)* 18.4% (=) 55.8% (<) 14.5% (=) 26.6% (=) d2s, R3.2 (17.3%)* 23.8% (>) 9.2% (=) 0.12% (=) 11.8% (=) * Source (Anderson 2014) http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/bayomy/iac/54th/presentations_54th/2.%20iac2014_mscr_mike%20anderson.pdf 29

MT I-15 Project: 2013 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder Fracture Tests at Intermediate Temperature Maximum Stress, kpa 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 HMA Sasobit Evotherm Foaming HMA 2011 HMA 2013 Sas 2011 Sas 2013 Evo 2011 Evo 2013 Foam 2011 Foam 2013 Fracture Energy, kpa 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 HMA Sasobit Evotherm Foaming HMA 2011 HMA 2013 Sas 2011 Sas 2013 Evo 2011 Evo 2013 Foam 2011 Foam 2013 30

MT I-15 Project: 2013 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder Fracture Tests at Low Temperature Failure Strain, mm/mm 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 HMA 2011 HMA 2013 Sas 2011 Sas 2013 Evo 2011 Evo 2013 Foam 2011 Foam 2013 0.0 HMA Sasobit Evotherm Foaming 31

TN SR 125 Project: HMA Pavement Before Construction During Construction After Construction 3 years After Construction 33

TN SR 125 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores 100 Binder PG Tests High Temp. PG 80 60 40 20 HMA 2011 HMA 2014 Evo 2011 Evo 2014 Low Temp. PG 0-6 -12-18 HMA Evotherm -24 34

TN SR 125 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder MSCR Tests Jnr3.2, kpa 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 HMA 2011 HMA 2014 Evo 2011 R3.2 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 HMA 2011 HMA 2014 Evo 2011 Evo 2014 0.2 10.0 0.0 HMA Evotherm 0.0 HMA Evotherm 35

TN SR 125 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder Fracture Tests at Intermediate Temperature 3000.0 5000.0 Maximum Stress, kpa 2500.0 2000.0 1500.0 1000.0 500.0 HMA 2011 HMA 2014 Evo 2011 Evo 2014 Fracture Energy, kpa 4000.0 3000.0 2000.0 1000.0 HMA 2011 HMA 2014 Evo 2011 Evo 2014 0.0 HMA Evotherm 0.0 HMA Evotherm 36

TN SR 125 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder Fracture Tests at Low Temperature 1.4 Failure Strain, mm/mm 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 HMA 2011 HMA 2014 Evo 2011 Evo 2014 0.0 HMA Evotherm 37

IA US 34 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder PG Tests High Temp. PG 84 72 60 48 36 24 12 0 HMA Sasobit Evotherm HMA 2011 HMA 2014 Sas 2011 Sas 2014 39

IA US 34 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder MSCR Tests Jnr3.2, kpa 1.8 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.0 HMA Sasobit Evotherm HMA 2011 HMA 2014 Sas 2011 Sas 2014 Evo 2011 Evo 2014 R3.2 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 HMA Sasobit Evotherm HMA 2011 HMA 2014 Sas 2011 Sas 2014 Evo 2011 Evo 2014 40

IA US 34 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder Fracture Tests at Intermediate Temperature Maximum Stress, kpa 2000.0 1600.0 1200.0 800.0 400.0 HMA 2011 HMA 2014 Sas 2011 Sas 2014 Evo 2011 Evo 2014 Fracture Energy, kpa 2500.0 2000.0 1500.0 1000.0 500.0 HMA 2011 HMA 2014 Sas 2011 Sas 2014 Evo 2011 Evo 2014 0.0 HMA Sasobit Evotherm 0.0 HMA Sasobit Evotherm 41

IA US 34 Project: 2014 Vs 2011 Field Cores Binder Fracture Tests at Low Temperature Failure Strain, mm/mm 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 HMA Sasobit Evotherm HMA 2011 HMA 2013 Sas 2011 Sas 2013 Evo 2011 Evo 2013 42

Analysis Carbonyl area (function of aging temperature and time) Arrhenius Equation linear Inverse of log crossover modulus linear Crossover frequency G* and δ Block 1 43

Aging Asphalt Binder: IA PG58-22, MT PG70-28(SBS) LA PG76-22(SBS) 1mm Temperature Aging time, days 55 C 2,5,10,18, 26, 35, 45, 60, 90 70 C 1, 3, 6,10,15, 22, 30, 40 85 C 1, 3, 5, 8,13,18, 24, 30 100 C 1, 2, 4, 6, 8,11,14,17

Analysis of crossover modulus data PG 58-28 PG 70-28 PG 76-22 Figure 1/log Gc* growth of PG binders at four temperature in air Block 1 45

Predicted master curve of G* and δ (CA model) (aged 40 days at 70C) PG58-28 G* PG58-28 δ PG70-28 G* Block 1 46 PG70-28 δ

Use Universal Model Parameters 2.5 0.19 Predicted CA (a.u.) 2 1.5 1 0.5 line of equality y = 0.99x R² = 0.94 Predicted 1/log Gc* (1/log Pa) 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 line of equality y = 1.00x R² = 0.96 105 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Measured CA (a.u.) CA 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 Measured 1/log Gc* (1/log Pa) 6 Shear Modulus Predicted Performance grade (PG) 95 85 75 65 line of equality y = 1.00x R² = 0.91 Predicted G'/(η'/G') (log Pa/s) 5 4 3 2 1 line of equality y = 1.00x R² = 0.97 55 55 65 75 85 95 105 Measured Performance grade (PG) Performance Grade 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Measured G'/(η'/G') (log Pa/s) Block 1 47 DSR Function

Thank You! Any questions? 48

NCHRP 9-49A Project Update: Performance of WMA Technologies: Stage II Long-term Field Performance. Binder ETG Meeting Oklahoma City, OK Sept 15, 2015