Post on 18-Jan-2016
Full Depth Recycling PTP Meeting
Task 4 - Data Analysis
The objective of this task is to develop a mix design procedure for the various types of FDR
Determine what works and what does not work
Each type of FDR has separate mix design
Task 4-Development of FDR Mix Design Guide
◦ Unstabilized◦ Mechanically stabilized with virgin aggregate◦ Stabilized FDR with Portland Cement◦ Stabilized FDR with Fly Ash◦ Stabilized FDR with Asphalt Emulsion◦ Stabilized FDR with Asphalt Emulsion with 1% Lime◦ Stabilized FDR with Foamed Asphalt with 1% Portland
Cement (2% Portland Cement)
Types of FDR
◦ Source: Good and Poor
◦ Quality: Dirty and Clean
◦ RAP: 0, 25, 50, and 75%
Composition of FDR
FDR Source GradationFDR Type
Unstabilized Stabilized with PC (3, 5, 7 %)
Stabilized with Fly Ash (10, 12, 15 %)
Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion (3,
4.5, 6 %)
Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion (3,
4.5, 6 %)+ Lime
Stabilized with Foamed Asphalt (2.5,
3, 3.5 %) + PC
PoorDirty -Moisture-density
curve-Mr and CBR
-Moisture-density curve- Compressive strength-Moisture sensitivity
-Moisture-density curve- Compressive strength-Moisture sensitivity
-Superpave Gyratory- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture conditioning
-Superpave Gyratory- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture conditioning
-Superpave Gyratory- Moisture-density curve (use results of unstabilized)- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture conditioning
Clean -Moisture-density curve-Mr and CBR
-Moisture-density curve- Compressive strength-Moisture sensitivity
-Moisture-density curve- Compressive strength-Moisture sensitivity
-Superpave Gyratory- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture conditioning
-Superpave Gyratory- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture conditioning
-Superpave Gyratory- Moisture-density curve (use results of unstabilized)- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture conditioning
GoodDirty -Moisture-density
curve-Mr and CBR
-Moisture-density curve- Compressive strength-Moisture sensitivity
-Moisture-density curve- Compressive strength-Moisture sensitivity
-Superpave Gyratory- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture conditioning
-Superpave Gyratory- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture conditioning
-Superpave Gyratory- Moisture-density curve (use results of unstabilized)- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture conditioning
Clean -Moisture-density curve-Mr and CBR
-Moisture-density curve- Compressive strength-Moisture sensitivity
-Moisture-density curve- Compressive strength-Moisture sensitivity
-Superpave Gyratory- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture conditioning
-Superpave Gyratory- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture s conditioning
-Superpave Gyratory- Moisture-density curve (use results of unstabilized)- Bulk density using Corelok- Maximum density using Corelok-Moisture conditioning
Testing of Mechanically Stabilized FDR Mixes
Resilient Modulus TestingCalifornia Bearing Ratio (CBR) Testing
Testing of Portland Cement/Fly Ash Stabilized
FDR Mixes
Unconfined Compression Testing Tube Suction Testing
Testing of Portland Cement/Fly Ash Stabilized
FDR Mixes
Moisture Sensitivity Testing with Wire Brush Method
Tested Samples
Testing of Asphalt Emulsion/ Foamed Asphalt FDR Mixes
SuperPave Gyratory Compactor
Foamed Asphalt Lab
Testing of Asphalt Emulsion/ Foamed Asphalt FDR Mixes
CoreLok Device
Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) Testing
Gradations
1101000.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
Good CleanGood DirtyPoor CleanPoor Dirty
Grain Size (mm)
Perc
ent
Pass
ing
Strength: ◦ Mr and CBR for unstabilized ◦ UCS for cement and fly ash stabilized◦ ITS for foamed and emulsion stabilized
Moisture Susceptibility ◦ Tube Suction and ASTM D559(wire brush test)
For cement and fly ash stabilized ◦ AASHTO T-283 (freeze thaw cycle)
For foamed and emulsion stabilized
Mix Design Issues
What works and what does not
What criteria to implement
Repeatability and reliability
Does the measurement make engineering sense
Mix Design Issues
Unstabilized FDR
75% 50% 25% 0%105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
Density Chart
GCGDPCPD
% of RAP
Den
sity
(lb/
ft3)
Unstabilized FDR
75% 50% 25% 0%6
7
8
9
10
Moisture Chart
GCGDPCPD
% of RAP
Moi
stur
e co
nten
t (%
)
Unstabilized FDR
75 50 25 015000
17000
19000
21000
23000
25000
27000
29000
Resilient Modulus
GCGDPCPD
% of RAP
Reis
iele
nt M
odul
us (p
si)
Unstabilized FDR
02550750.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
50.00
55.00
Good CleanGood DirtyPoor CleanPoor Dirty
RAP %
Avera
ge C
BR
RAP 25% and 50% content did not significantly impact the Mr
The 75% RAP improved the Mr of the Poor source
Relationship between Mr and CBR is un-reliable for FDR: Use Mr
Unstablized FDR
FDR+PC & FDR+FA◦ Dry UC: 300 – 400 psi◦ Tube Suction: max 9
FDR+Foamed & FDR+Emulsion◦ Dry TS at 77F: min 30 psi◦ TS Ratio: min. 70%
Mix Design Criteria
Material %PC Dry UC (psi) Tube Suction
GC-25% 5 283 4.6
GC-50% 7 407 4.6
GC-75% 7 409 3.9
GD-25% 3 352 6.3
GD-50% 5 413 5.3
GD-75% 7 374 5.9
PC-25% 3 295 6.2
PC-50% 5 379 4.0
PC-75% 5 256 7.1
PD-25% 3 454 5.5
PD-50% 3 421 3.1
PD-75% 5 409 3.6
Optimum Mix Designs: FDR+PC
UC strength between 300 and 400 psi is achievable in most cases
Higher UCS with higher PC content in all cases
Variability of the UCS test is acceptable
Tube suction test may be applicable
Stabilized with PC
Good Clean 75% Rap 7% Cem
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Cycles
Wei
ght (
gm)
Poor Dirty 50% Rap 3% CEM
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
2150
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Cycles
Wei
ght (
gm)
Specimen ID Average % loss
Poor Clean 75% Rap 5% CEM 0.9%
Poor Clean 50% Rap 5% CEM 0.6%
Poor Clean 25% Rap 3% CEM 1.5%
Poor Clean 25% Rap 12% FA 2.1%
Poor Clean 50% Rap 12% FA 1.0%
Poor Clean 75% Rap 10% FA 1.6%
Good Dirty 25% Rap 3% CEM 2.6%
Good Dirty 50% Rap 5% CEM 1.4%
Good Dirty 75% Rap 7% CEM 1.0%
Good Dirty 75% Rap 10% FA 4.1%
Good Dirty 50% Rap 10% FA 5.4%
Good Dirty 25% Rap 12% FA 4.7%
Good Clean 75% Rap 7% Cem 0.7%
Good Clean 50% Rap 7% Cem 0.6%
Good Clean 25% Rap 5% Cem 0.7%
Good Clean 75% Rap 12% FA 9.6%
Good Clean 50% Rap 12% FA failed sample
Good Clean 25% Rap 12% FA 12.4%
Poor Dirty 75% Rap 5% CEM 1.5%
Poor Dirty 50% Rap 3% CEM 12.9%
Poor Dirty 25% Rap 3% CEM 11.1%
Poor Dirty 75% Rap 15% FA 12.5%
Poor Dirty 50% Rap 15% FA 7.5%
Poor Dirty 25% Rap 15% FA 6.7%
Stabilized with PCASTM D559(wire brush test)
Material %FA Dry UC (psi) Tube Suction
GC-25% 12 895 5.1
GC-50% 12 362 4.1
GC-75% 12 335 4.6
GD-25% 10 579 10.6
GD-50% 10 412 7.1
GD-75% 12 330 9.2
PC-25% 10 558 6.0
PC-50% 12 404 6.5
PC-75% 12 327 5.6
PD-25% 15 170 6.9
PD-50% 15 159 9.8
PD-75% 15 63 9.2
Optimum Mix Designs: FDR+FA
UC strength between 300 and 400 psi is achievable except for the Poor-Dirty material
Higher UCS with higher FA in most cases
Variability of the UCS is acceptable
Tube suction test may be applicable
Stabilized with FA
Good Dirty 50% Rap 10% FA
1760
1780
1800
1820
1840
1860
1880
1900
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Cycles
Wei
ght (
gm)
Poor Clean 75% Rap 10% FA
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Cycles
Wei
ght (
gm)
Specimen ID Average % loss
Poor Clean 75% Rap 5% CEM 0.9%
Poor Clean 50% Rap 5% CEM 0.6%
Poor Clean 25% Rap 3% CEM 1.5%
Poor Clean 25% Rap 12% FA 2.1%
Poor Clean 50% Rap 12% FA 1.0%
Poor Clean 75% Rap 10% FA 1.6%
Good Dirty 25% Rap 3% CEM 2.6%
Good Dirty 50% Rap 5% CEM 1.4%
Good Dirty 75% Rap 7% CEM 1.0%
Good Dirty 75% Rap 10% FA 4.1%
Good Dirty 50% Rap 10% FA 5.4%
Good Dirty 25% Rap 12% FA 4.7%
Good Clean 75% Rap 7% Cem 0.7%
Good Clean 50% Rap 7% Cem 0.6%
Good Clean 25% Rap 5% Cem 0.7%
Good Clean 75% Rap 12% FA 9.6%
Good Clean 50% Rap 12% FA failed sample
Good Clean 25% Rap 12% FA 12.4%
Poor Dirty 75% Rap 5% CEM 1.5%
Poor Dirty 50% Rap 3% CEM 12.9%
Poor Dirty 25% Rap 3% CEM 11.1%
Poor Dirty 75% Rap 15% FA 12.5%
Poor Dirty 50% Rap 15% FA 7.5%
Poor Dirty 25% Rap 15% FA 6.7%
Stabilized with FAASTM D559(wire brush test)
Material %Emulsion Dry TS(psi) Wet TS(psi) TSR (%)
NO LIME
GD-25% 4.5 41 15 37
GD-50% 4.5 47 20 43
GD-75% 4.5 46 21 46
PD-25% 4.5 30 Disintegrate
PD-50% 4.5 50 Disintegrate
PD-75% 4.5 51 Disintegrate
1% LIME
GD-25% 4.5 45 27 60
GD-50% 4.5 37 32 86
GD-75% 4.5 44 31 70
PD-25% 4.5 22 13 59
PD-50% 4.5 38 17 45
PD-75% 4.5 34 19 56
Optimum Mix Designs: FDR+Emulsion
Could not produce a design using the clean materials: too little fines
The ITS is a good indicator
The repeatability of the ITS is very good
Lime was effective
Stabilized with Emulsion
Material %AC Dry TS(psi) Wet TS(psi) TSR (%)
GC-25% 3.0* 53 43 81
GC-50% 3.0* 51 41 80
GC-75% 3.0* 58 45 78
GD-25% 3.5 45 34 76
GD-50% 3.5 44 43 98
GD-75% 3.5 51 42 82
PC-25% 3.5 54 32 59
PC-50% 3.5 53 40 75
PC-75% 3.5 48 33 69
PD-25% 3.0 43 26 60
PD-50% 3.0 48 29 60
PD-75% 3.0 55 35 64
Optimum Mix Designs:FDR+Foamed+1%PC
Could not design without the PC
The ITS is a good indicator
The repeatability of the ITS is very good
Stabilized with Foamed Asphalt
Task 5 - Data Analysis
The objective of this task is to develop a laboratory testing procedure to address material properties needed to support practical pavement design. The focus will be on developing standard test methods to be used specifically for AASHTO related pavement designs.
The FDR process produces a layer that will be modeled as a base course within the structure of a flexible pavement.
Task 5 – Development of Standard Laboratory Testing
Method
FDR Source GradationFDR Type
Unstabilized Stabilized with PC at optimum
%
Stabilized with Fly Ash at
optimum %
Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion
at optimum %
Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion (at optimum %)+
Lime
Stabilized with Foamed Asphalt
(at optimum %) + PC
PoorDirty - Resilient
Modulus- CBR
- Compressive Strength- Modulus of Rupture
- Compressive Strength- Modulus of Rupture
- E* Master Curve- Repeated Load Triaxial
- E* Master Curve- Repeated Load Triaxial
- E* Master Curve- Repeated Load Triaxial
Clean - Resilient Modulus- CBR
- Compressive Strength- Modulus of Rupture
- Compressive Strength- Modulus of Rupture
- E* Master Curve- Repeated Load Triaxial
- E* Master Curve- Repeated Load Triaxial
- E* Master Curve- Repeated Load Triaxial
GoodDirty - Resilient
Modulus- CBR
- Compressive Strength- Modulus of Rupture
- Compressive Strength- Modulus of Rupture
- E* Master Curve- Repeated Load Triaxial
- E* Master Curve- Repeated Load Triaxial
- E* Master Curve- Repeated Load Triaxial
Clean - Resilient Modulus- CBR
- Compressive Strength- Modulus of Rupture
- Compressive Strength- Modulus of Rupture
- E* Master Curve- Repeated Load Triaxial
- E* Master Curve- Repeated Load Triaxial
- E* Master Curve- Repeated Load Triaxial
Resilient Modulus Dynamic Modulus E* Master Curve Repeated Load Triaxial
Simple Performance Tester (SPT)
Frequency (Hz)
Dynamic Modulus (kPa)
Phase Angle (Deg)
Average Temp. (C)
Average Conf. Press. (kPa)
Load Drift (%)
Deformation Drift (%)
Std. Error for Load
(%)
Std. Error for Deforms
(%)
Uniformity Coef. For
Deforms (%)
Uniformity Coef. For
Phase Angles (Deg)
25 2448734 26.3 36.9 0 1.02 12.75 8.43 7.23 9.88 0
10 1742475 26.73 36.8 0 -2.9 1.08 19.27 14.3 10.4 0.37
5 1504835 25.33 36.6 0 -0.04 5.9 8.86 6.84 9.62 0.47
1 963524.6 23.19 36.5 0 -1.89 11.64 10.4 8 7.72 0.86
0.5 812014.9 21.97 36.5 0 -2.07 15.17 9.92 8.28 6.07 0.66
0.1 592362.4 18.04 36.4 0 -3.91 2.94 4.18 5.32 4.93 0.34
Date:9/9/200
8Specimen Gauge Length (mm): 70Specimen Dia. (mm): 100Specimen Height. (mm): 150Cross Sec. Area (mm2) 7853.98Test Temp (C): 36.4Conf. Pres. (kPa): 0
Dynamic Modulus Results
E* Master Curve
Foamed Asphalt Specimen:Poor Dirty Gradation with 75% RAP
CoreLok for specific gravity determination.
Testing of Asphalt Emulsion/ Foamed Asphalt FDR Mixes
0 5 10 15 20 25 300.0
1000000.0
2000000.0
3000000.0
4000000.0
Good Clean - 75% RAP - 1% Cement - 4.4 Deg C
Frequency (hertz)
Dynam
ic M
odulu
s (
kP
a)
0 5 10 15 20 25 300.0
500000.0
1000000.0
1500000.0
2000000.0
2500000.0
Good Clean - 75% RAP - 1% Cement - 21.1 Deg C
Frequency (hertz)
Dynam
ic M
odulu
s (
kP
a)
0 5 10 15 20 25 300.0
200000.0
400000.0
600000.0
800000.0
1000000.0
1200000.0
Good Clean - 75% RAP - 1% Cement - 37.8 Deg C
Frequency (hertz)
Dynam
ic M
odulu
s (
kP
a)
0 5 10 15 20 25 300.0
100000.0200000.0300000.0400000.0500000.0600000.0700000.0
Good Clean - 75% RAP - 1% Cement - 54 Deg C
Frequency (hertz)
Dynam
ic M
odulu
s (
kP
a)
Task 8 - Data Analysis
Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
Coring of Base Material
Unconfined Compression Testing
CEM 1 – UCS Test Results
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.160
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Cement#1 Sample A2Cement#1 Sample B2Cement#1 Sample C2
Deformation (Inches)
Load (Lbs)
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.140
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Cement#2 Sample A1Cement#2 Sample A2Cement#2 Sample B1
Deformation (Inches)
Load (Lbs)
CEM 2 – UCS Test Results
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.180
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
FOAM Sample A2FOAM Sample B2FOAM Sample C2
Deformation (Inches)
Load (Lbs)
AF– UCS Test Results
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)
Deflection Basin and DCP Values
Task 9 – Proposed Outline
Mix Designs Sampling of Materials
◦ Locations◦ Quantities
Processing of FDR Materials Mix Design Properties for each FDR Type Mix Design Process
◦ Test Methods◦ Necessary modifications (if required)
Mix Design Criteria Selection of Optimum Mix Designs AASHTO Standards
Major Parts of Task 9
Performance Properties of FDR Materials Selected Properties for each FDR Type Selected Test Methods (including any necessary
modifications) Data Analysis from each Test Method Use of Data Measured from the Performance Testing
◦ AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design◦ AASHTO MEPDG
AASHTO Standards
Major Parts of Task 9