Transcript New Technologies Land on Airport Pavements

New Technologies Land on Airport
Pavements
Rocky Mountain Asphalt Conference
February 18-20, 2009
AAPTP Background
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cooperative Agreement FAA & AU
Created in 2004 $2million/year
$1.6 million for 3 year obtained
Organized similar to TRB NCHRP
19 Projects funded
Future dependent upon New FAA
Legislation in Congress
Obstacles for Technology
• Lack of experience with technology
• Aversion to risk
• Differences between airport and
highways
• FAA lack of encouragement
Technologies Introduced
•
•
•
•
•
PG Binder Grading (04-02)
Superpave (04-03)
SMA (04-04)
Guidelines for Rubblization (04-01)
Longitudinal Joints (04-05)
Projects of Interest
• HMA Airport Construction Best Practice
Manual (05-01)
• Techniques for Mitigation of Reflective
Cracking (05-04)
• Use of RAP in Airport Pavements (05-06)
Projects Underway
• Life Cycle Cost Analysis For Airfield Pavements
(06-06)
• Non Coal Tar Based Fuel Resistant Sealers and
Binders (05-02)
• Techniques for Prevention and Remediation of
Non-load Related Distresses (05-07 & 06-01)
• Effect of De-icing Chemical on HMA Airfield
Pavements (05-02)
Projects Underway (Cont.)
• Non-destructive Testing to Identify Presence
and Extent of Delamination of HMA Airfield
Pavements (06-04)
• Use of Recycled ASR PCC Materials in HMA
(06-02)
• Guidelines for Use of State DOT Specs (06-05)
• Performance Base Specs for Airfields (06-3)
• Assessment of Existing Overlay Design
Procedures for Airfield Pavements (06-07)
Project 04-02
PG Binder Selection
• Change from highways to airfield
• Considerations for airfield use
– Gross vehicle weights
– Number of loads
– Speed of Loadings
– Wander
• Use of pavement facility
• Availability of required asphalt grade
PG Binder Selection Background
• PG System Design based upon highway traffic
and expected temperatures at the pavement
site
• Grades based upon same performance
measurement at different temperatures
• PG 64-22 represents a binder that provides
satisfactory performance at a high
temperature of 64 C and at a low temperature
of -22C
PG 52
Binder Performance Grade:
10
16
22
Design high pavement temperature,
C:
Design low pavement temperature,
C:
28
34
40
46
<52
>10
>16
>22
>28
>34
>40
>46
Test on Original Binder
Flash Point Temperature (T 48), Min.,
C
230
Viscosity (ASTM D 4402)
Maximum value of 3 Pa-s attest
temperature, C
135
Dynamic Shear (TP 5)
G*/sin , minimum value 1.00 kPa, at
10 rad/s and Test Temperature, C
52
Tests on Residue from Rolling Thin Film Oven (T 240)
Mass Loss, Maximum, %
1.00
Dynamic Shear (TP 5)
G*/sin , minimum value 2.20 kPa, at
10 rad/s and Test Temperature, C
52
Tests on Residue from Pressure Aging Vessel (PP 1)
PAV Aging Temperature, C
Dynamic Shear (TP 5)
G* sin , maximum value 5,000 kPa,
at 10 rad/s and Test Temperature, C
90
25
Physical Hardening
22
19
16
13
10
7
Report
Creep Stiffness (TP 1)
Stiffness, maximum value 300 MPa
m-value, minimum value 0.30, at 60
sec ant Test Temperature, C
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
Direct Tension (TP 5)
Failure strain, minimum value 1.0%,
at 1.0 mm/min and Test
Temperature, C
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
LTPPBind Software
PG Binder Selection
Procedure
– Convert aircraft weights into Equivalent Highway
loads (EHE)
– Select base temperature from LTPPBind 3.1
– Adjust for traffic and pavement location on facility
– Check for availability within US
Convert Aircraft to EHE
EHEs for Binder Grade Selection
Maximum Gross Aircraft Weight, lb:
1,000,000
100,000,000
300,000
100,000
30,000
10,000
10,000,000
1,000,000
100,000
1,000
10,000
100,000
Annual Departures
1,000,000
PG Adjustments
Typical Speed
Mph
Aircraft
Stacking
Runway
Centers
None
Little or none
Occasional
Frequent
 45
 45
---
---
Taxiways/
Runway Ends
15 to < 45
15 to < 45
Design Traffic
EHEs
Grade Adjustment
C
Non-Modified
Binders
< 300,000
Polymer
Modified
Binders*
0
300,000 to
< 3 million
+7
Not Required
+4
3 million to
< 10 million
+7
Suggested
+4
 10 million
---
Required
+4
< 10 million
+14
Suggested
+11
 10 million
---
Required
+11
Any
---
Required
+17
5 to < 15
<5
*Polymer modified binders must have a minimum elastic recovery value of 60 % at 25 C,
following procedures described in AASHTO 301.
Check for Availability
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
46
-28
-----------Y
---------------
52
-34 -28
-- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Y
-- -Y Y
-- --- --- --- --- --- -Y Y
-- --- --- --- Y
-- --
-34
----Y
-----Y
------Y
-Y
Y
Y
-----
58
-28
-Y
--Y
Y
Y
---Y
Y
Y
Y
------Y
Y
Y
----
-22
Y
-Y
-Y
--Y
--Y
-Y
Y
Y
Y
---Y
------
Common Binder PG Grades
64
67
70
76
-34 -28 -22 -16 -22 -34 -28 -22 -16 -10 -16 -28 -22
-- -- Y -- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y
-- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- Y Y -- -- -- -- -- Y -- -- Y
-- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y
-- Y Y -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y --- Y Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y
-- -- Y -- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y
-- -- Y -- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y
-- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -Y Y Y -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y --- Y Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- -- Y Y
-- Y Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- -- -- Y
-- Y Y -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y
-- Y Y -- -- Y Y Y -- -- -- Y Y
-- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y
-- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y
-- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- Y Y -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y
-- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -Y Y Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- -- Y Y
Y Y -- -- -- Y Y -- -- -- -- Y --- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Y
-- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y
Y Y Y -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- -- --- Y -- -- -- -- Y -- -- -- -- Y --
82
-16 -28 -22 -16
-- -- -- --- -- -- -Y -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- Y Y --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- Y --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --
Questions?
www.AAPTP.US