Rubber Pavement Association

1
Asphalt Rubber Research

• Rubber Pavement Association
• Technical Advisory Board Meeting
• 11 July 2002San Diego, California

Kamil E. Kaloush
Arizona State University
2
AR Research Background at ASU

• Started July 2001
• Obtain Typical Engineering Material Properties
  for AR Mixtures and Binders
• gtgtgt 2002 Design Guide
• Compare the Laboratory Performance of AR Mixtures
  To Conventional ADOT Mixtures
• Special Studies Field - Laboratory Comparison

3
Research Partners
Arizona State University
4
Current Projects
1st Project Jul 01 Jun 02 I-40 Buffalo Range
Sections
5
Satisfy Research Needs

• Project 2 PG Binder Specifications for AR
  Binders.
• Project 8 Database of Asphalt Rubber Projects.
• Project 10 Evaluate AR Using 2002 Design Guide
  Test Protocols.
• Project 11 Laboratory and Field Evaluation

6
Current Projects
3rd Project Jul 02 Jan 03 Alberta AR Test
Section
Starting Soon!
4th Project ALF Test Section
7
On Going
Asphalt-Rubber Technology Research Center
(ARTIC) Library Update
Research Needs

• Project 3 Document Merits of Asphalt Rubber
  Products
• Project 5 Individual Technical Merit Documents

8
I-40 Buffalo Range

• One Stock Binder (58-22).
• Gap / Open Graded Mixes.
• Binder Tests.
• Mixture Tests on HMA.
• In-situ Air Voids

I-40 MP 229
9
AR Demonstration Program

• Acting as a
  Catalyst to Expand the Environmental Responsible
  Use of Crumb Rubber
• Demonstrate the Use of Ground Tire Rubber in
  Asphalt Pavement Construction
• gtgt Nationwide Implementation.

10
Project Ends Pinnacle Peak Rd.
Project Start
11
AR Demonstration Program

• Mainly PG 64-16 / (Test Section 58-22).
• Gap Graded Mix
• Binder and HMA Testing
• Lab Experimental Design on HMA
• 3 Compaction Levels
• 2 Aging Levels
• Field Specimens
• Reflective Cracking Model Verification
  (CONSULPAV Dr. Jorge Sousa)

12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Gyratory Compaction / Coring
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
Air Voids Measurements - Corelok
18
(No Transcript)
19
Binder Tests

• Conventional Tests

• Penetration AASHTO T49-93
• Softening Point AASHTO T53-92
• Rotational Viscosity AASHTO TP48

• Superpave / SHRP Tests

• Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) AASHTO PP1
• Bending Beam Rheometer
• (BBR) AASHTO TP1-98

20
ASU Experience in AR Binder Handling / Testing

• Heating Needs Additional 15 to 20 min
• Use Continuous Rigorous Stirring
• RTFO Spill Over ( 20)
• Brookfield Select Proper Spindle

21
Buffalo Range (PG58-22 R)
22
PG 58-22 With and Without Rubber
23
Comparison with ADOT Binders
24
Comparison with PG 76-16 Binder
25
Effect of RTFO and PAV
26
Comparison With PG 76-16 Binder
RTFO
PAV
27
Mixture Tests NCHRP 9-19 SPT Candidates

• Triaxial Compression
• Dynamic Modulus (E)
• Flow Time (FT) (Static Creep Test)
• Flow Number of Repetitions (FN) (Repeated Load
  Test)

28
E Dynamic Modulus Testing
29
E Master Curve
30
Creep Test - Rutting
Stress s
Time
31
Repeated Load Test - Rutting
Load
Number of Cycles (N)
0.9 s
0.1 s
er
MR
Permanent Strain (in/in)
N
32
Cracking Tests

• Indirect Tensile Creep Test
• Creep Compliance
• Strength

33
Cracking Tests

• Flexural Fatigue Tests
• SHRP M-009

34
2002 Design Guide

• Generalized fatigue equation for mixed loading
  mode

35
E Master Curves Comparison
36
Repeated Load Tests
37
Static Creep Tests
38
Indirect Tensile Strength Tests
39
Indirect Tensile Strength Tests
40
Indirect Tensile Strength Tests
41
Fatigue Test Results
42
Gap Open Dense Graded
43
Summary

• The Conventional Binder Tests are Adequate in
  Describing the Viscosity-Temperature
  Susceptibility (A-VTS) of Crumb Rubber Modified
  Binders.
• This A-VTS Relationship Also Appears to Relate to
  Observed Field Performance Behavior.
• Less Low-Temperature Cracking
• Good Resistance to Rutting at High Temperatures.

44
Summary

• Corelok is a Useful Device for Measuring Mixture
  Air Voids, Especially ACFC Mixes
• EAR Mixes E Conv. Mixes (Note Va )
• Permanent Deformation (PD)Tests gt ARAC Good
  Resistance to Deformation

45
Summary

• Tensile Strength No Advantages of AR Mixes
• Strain at Failure
• Fracture Energy were Better Indicators of
  Field Performance
• Fatigue Relationships AR-ACFC and ARAC Mixtures
  Provides Much Better Fatigue Life Than Dense
  Graded PG 76-16 Mix.

46
Acknowledgment

• George Way, Julie Nodes, Doug Forstie, ADOT
• Mark Belshe, FNF Construction
• Donna Carlson, Doug Carlson, RPA
• Andy Acho, Ford Motor Company
• Matthew Witczak, ASU
• ASU Advanced Pavement Laboratory Staff / GRAs
• Kenny Witczak, Javed Bari, Mohammad Abojaradeh,
  Aleksander Zborowski, Andres Sotil

Thank you !