Louisiana Asphalt MaterialsPerforming for the past 20 years.
Chris Abadie, P.E. DOTD Materials Engineer Administrator
OHMPA Ontario Hot Mix Paving Association
Toronto December 2nd 2015
“Performance and Performance Specifications”
1) History 2) Asphalt Binder
Modified Asphalts 3) Asphalt Mixture
Superpave SMA OGFC
• 1991 LTRC Presentation (Dr. Louay Mohammad)
• Polymer-modified asphalt properties improved
– Fatigue cracking resistance – Permanent deformation resistance – Thermally induced cracking resistance – Less moisture sensitivity – Reduced age hardening
• Improvements unique to polymer – asphalt combination
Benefits of Polymer Modification
Value of Polymer AsphaltLab Mix Analysis
PG 64 $400 / $75
PG 70m $500 / $80
PG 76m $600 / $85
Binder Cost ($400/T ) $400 +25% +50%
HMA Cost ($75/T ) $75 +6.5%,$80 +13%, $85
DSCE, 10C 1 250% 400%
SCB, 25 C 4.5Jc 10% 50%
Dyn Mod (E*) AMPT
-10 C 1 10% 10%
25 C 1 15% 15%
54 C 1 15% 50%
Flow no. 54 C 1 100% 1000%
Flow time 54C 1 10000% 100000%
G*/sin(delta) vs. ALF Rutting
MSCR (Jnr) vs. ALF Rutting
Louisiana MSCR Specification
PropertyAASHTO
Test Method
PG82-22rm1PG76-22m PG70-22m
PG 67-22 (PG64-22
)PG58-28
Spec. Spec. Spec. Spec. Spec.
Tests on Original Binder:
Rotational Viscosity @ 135°C, Pa·s 2
T 316 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Dynamic Shear, 10 rad/s, G*/Sin Delta, kPa
T 315 1.00+ @ 82°C
1.00+ @ 76°C
1.00+ @ 70°C
1.00+ @ 67°C
1.00+ @ 58°C
Dynamic Shear, 10 rad/s, Phase Angle, °
T 315 N/A 75° @ 76°C
(Future) --- ---
Flash Point, °C T 48 232+ 232+ 232+ 232+ 232+Solubility, % 3 T 44 N/A 99.0+ 99.0+ 99.0+ 99.0+Separation of Polymer, 163°C, 48 hours, degree C difference in R & B from top to bottom 4
ASTM D7173
AASHTO T 53
---
2-
2-
---
---
Table 1002-3
Louisiana MSCR Specification
Force Ductility Ratio (f2/f1, 4°C, 5 cm/min., f2 @ 30 cm elongation)5
T 300 --- 0.30+ --- --- ---
Force Ductility, (4°C, 5 cm/min, 30 cm elongation, kg)3
T 300 --- --- 0.23+ --- ---
PropertyAASHTO
Test Method
PG82-22rm1PG76-22m (PG70-22m
)
PG 67-22 (PG64-22
)PG58-28
Spec. Spec. Spec. Spec. Spec.
Force Ductility Ratio and Force Ductility test procedures removed
Table 1002-3
Louisiana MSCR Specification
PropertyAASHTO
Test Method
PG82-22rm1 PG 76-22m PG 70-22m PG
67-22 PG58-28
Spec. Spec. Spec. Spec. Spec.Tests on Rolling Thin Film Oven Residue:
T 240
Mass Change, % T 240 1.00- 1.00- 1.00- 1.00- 1.00-Dynamic Shear, 10 rad/s, G*/Sin Delta, kPa
T 315
2.20+ @ 82°C
2.20+ @ 67°C
2.20+ @ 58°C
Elastic Recovery, 25°C, 10 cm elongation, % 6
T 301 60+ --- ---
Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR), Jnr(3.2)
TP 70 --- 0.5 2.0 na ---
Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR), % Recovery (3.2)
TP 70 --- Meets AASHTO TP 70 curve
Meets AASHTO TP 70 curve
--- ---
Ductility, 25°C, 5 cm/min, cm T 51 --- --- --- 90+ ---
Table 1002-3
PropertyAASHTO
Test Method
PG82-22rm1 PG 76-22m PG 70-22m
PG 67-22 PG58-28
Spec. Spec. Spec. Spec. Spec.
Tests on Pressure Aging Vessel Residue:
R 28
Dynamic Shear, @ 26.5°C, 10 rad/s, G* Sin Delta, kPa
T 315 5000- 5000-(6000-)
5000-(6000-)
5000- 5000- @ 19°C
Bending Beam Creep Stiffness, S, MPa @ -12°C.
T 313 300- 300- 300- 300- 300- @ -18°C
Bending Beam Creep Slope, m value,@ -12°C
T 313 0.300+ 0.300+ 0.300+ 0.300+ 0.300+ @ -18°C
Table 1002-3Louisiana MSCR Specification
• IRI • Cracking • Rutting
• PERFORMACE : 15 YR
Interstate PG 76-22m Overlay
(7” -9” PG 76-22m Level 2 Superpave over Rubblized JCP)
451-01 I-20
451-06 I-20
451-07 I-20 (Brk/St)
450-91 I-10
450-03 I-10
450-04 I-10
450-05 I-10
Index Limits
Index RUT (in/mi)
IRI (in/mi)
Fatigue (sqft/mi)
Random (ft/mi)
Very Good 95.5 0.18 73 1650 1150
Good 89.5 0.26 103 3600 2250
Fair 75.5 0.43 173 9625 8150
Poor 64.5 0.57 228 23225 21825
Based on Louisiana Pavement Management recommendations August 2010.
Asphalt Pavement Preservation Treatments- Interstate Triggers
Treatment Alligator (sqft/mi)
Random(ft/mi)
Rut (in)
IRI (in/mi)
Microsurfacing <800 < 500 0.25-0.375 < 125
Thin Overlay (2" mill, 2" fill)
(0-100 sqyd patching)<3500 <3000 >0.375 90-125
Medium overlay (3.5" fill (mill 2" optional))
(100-300 sqyd patching)3500-20000 >3000 > 125
Average ADTAv
erag
e A
DT
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
Age (yrs)
-5 0.75 6.5 12.25 18
I-10 (450-03 (1))I-10 (450-03 (2))I-10 (450-04)I-10 (450-05)I-10 (450-91)I-20 (451-01)I-20 (451-06)I-20 (451-07) Break Seat
RutAv
erag
e Ru
t (i
n)
0
0.125
0.25
0.375
0.5
Age (yrs)
-5 0.75 6.5 12.25 18
I-10 (450-03 (1))I-10 (450-03 (2))I-10 (450-04)I-10 (450-05)I-10 (450-91)I-20 (451-01)I-20 (451-06)I-20 (451-07) Break Seat
0.375 in =9mm
63 in/mile = 1 meter/kilometerAv
erag
e IR
I (in
/mi)
0
45
90
135
180
Age (yrs)
-5 0.75 6.5 12.25 18
I-10 (450-03 (1))I-10 (450-03 (2))I-10 (450-04)I-10 (450-05)I-10 (450-91)I-20 (451-01)I-20 (451-06)I-20 (451-07) Break Seat
100 in/mi
Alligator CrackingA
lliga
tor
Crac
king
(sq
ft/m
i)
0
875
1750
2625
3500
Age (yrs)
0 4.5 9 13.5 18
I-10 (450-03 (1))I-10 (450-03 (2))I-10 (450-04)I-10 (450-05)I-10 (450-91)I-20 (451-01)
451-06, 451-07 are listed as composite and the PMS does not record ALGCRK for composite 450-05 high points are due to very localized cracking within a 2.0 mile segment of the 20 miles of pavement
Rubblized and Overlay - Random Cracking
Rand
om C
rack
ing
(lnf
t/m
i)
0
1750
3500
5250
7000
Age (yrs)
-5 0.75 6.5 12.25 18
I-10 (450-03 (1))I-10 (450-03 (2))I-10 (450-04)I-10 (450-05)I-10 (450-91)I-20 (451-01)I-20 (451-06)I-20 (451-07) Break Seat3000 lf/mi
Poor-8500 lf/mi
CrackingTr
ansv
erse
Cra
ckin
g (l
nft/
mi)
0
1250
2500
3750
5000
Age (yrs)
-5 0.75 6.5 12.25 18
I-10 (450-03 (1))I-10 (450-03 (2))I-10 (450-04)I-10 (450-05)I-10 (450-91)I-20 (451-01)I-20 (451-06)I-20 (451-07) Break Seat
Pavement management performance rating
PatchingPa
tchi
ng (
sqft
/mi)
0
2500
5000
7500
10000
Age (yrs)
-5 0.75 6.5 12.25 18
I-10 (450-03 (1))I-10 (450-03 (2))I-10 (450-04)I-10 (450-05)I-10 (450-91)I-20 (451-01)I-20 (451-06)I-20 (451-07) Break Seat
I-10 - 450-03 (1) – 9 years
Performance of all Pavements
IRI and Rut State System – now vs 10 yrs agoState HS IRI
Avg
IRI (
in/m
i)
0
50
100
150
200
Age
0 8 15 23 30
2013 ASP2003 ASP
State HS Rut
Avg
Rut
(in)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Age
0 8 15 23 30
2013 ASP2003 ASP
Fatigue Cracking state system now vs 10 yrs ago
State HS fatigue crack
ALG
CRK
(sqf
t/m
i)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
Age
0 8 15 23 30
2013 ASP2003 ASP
THIN LIFT ASPHALT SPECIFICATIONS
Chris Abadie
Thin Overlay vs. Mil/Overlay LA 308 10 yr. Performance Comparison
Aver
age
IRI
020406080
100120140
Year1997 2000 2002 2005 2007
Proj. 1 (1998 Mill 2" and 3.5" Overlay)Proj. 2 (1997 Thin Overlay)Proj. 3 (1998 Mill 2" and 3.5" Overlay)
OGFC
Conventional
CTM Results (Macro-Texture)M
PD (m
m)
0.00
0.33
0.65
0.98
1.30
CYCLE
0 25000 50000 75000 100000
100% LIMESTONE, OGFC 100% Sandstone, OGFC 70/30 LS+SS, OGFC100% LIMESTONE, 19 mm superpave 100% Sandstone, 19 mm superpave 70/30 LS+SS, 19 mm superpave100% LIMESTONE, 12.5 m superpave 100% Sandstone, 12.5 mm superpave 70/30 LS+SS, 12.5 mm superpave100% LIMESTONE, SMA 100% Sandstone, SMA 70/30 LS+SS, SMA
OGFC
SMA
Superpave
Roadtec SP-200
5 yr Safety Record for OGFC:I – 20 (Dist 05: Britton Road to Vancil Road)
Wet Weather Crashes
Num
ber
of C
rash
es
0
8
15
23
30
3 yr avg Before 3yr Avg after 5 Year After
8
4
26
>80% >70%
I-49 Coarse Thin Lift Natchitoches 2005
“Performance”
• Loaded Wheel Test – (Rut, Durability, Moisture Sensitivity)
• Semi circular bend Test – Resistance to Cracking
Laboratory Experiment: LWT Test
• Performance Indicator Resistance to Rutting and
Moisture Sensitivity • Test Protocol AASHTO T324
• Temperature 50°C
• Loading Wheel Diameter: 203.5 mm (8 inch)
Wheel Width: 47mm (1.85 inch) Fixed Load: 703 N (158 lbs)
Rolling Speed: 1.1 km/hr Passing Rate: 52 passes/min
Laboratory Experiment: SCB Test
• Performance Indicator Resistance to Crack Propagation • Test Protocol Mohammad et al. [2004] • Temperature 25°C • Loading 0.5 mm/min vertical
deformation • The Critical Value of
Fracture Resistance,
dadU
bJc )1(−=
b = sample thickness, a = notch depth, U = strain energy to failure
a
2s
2rd
P
notch
P 2
P 2
b
Preliminary Analysis: Semi-Circular Bend
Volumetric
ParametersCracki
ng Performance
High Temperature Performance
42% 58% 72% 0%
Preliminary Analysis: Performance Test
Volumetric
ParametersCracki
ng Performance
High Temperature Performance
Level 150%
Laboratory Experiment: Modified SCB Test
Forc
e (K
n)
0
0.175
0.35
0.525
0.7
Length(mm)0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3
Original DataMax of Data setFitted CurvePeak of Curve
dadU
bJc )1(−=
Load
Deformation
Contractor Lab Accreditation
Number of HMA Testing Labs 39
Number of Accredited Testing Labs 31
Number of Design Labs 15
Number of Production Labs 16
Number of AMRL Accredited Labs 17
Number of CMEC Accredited Labs 14
Proficiency SamplesGmm
2.47
2.4788
2.4875
2.4963
2.505
DataMeanRating 5 (1SD)Rating 5 (1SD)Rating 3 (2SD)Rating 3 (2SD)OutliersOutliers
Proficiency SamplesGmb
2.345
2.3613
2.3775
2.3938
2.41
DataMeanRating 5 (1SD)Rating 5 (1SD)Rating 3 (2SD)Rating 3 (2SD)OutliersOutliers
Asphalt Works
– Saving Time of Construction – Improving Quality – Saving Money – Improving the Environment
–Saving Lives
Top Related