Transcript Asphalt Rubber Asphalt Concrete Friction Course Overlay as a Pavement Preservation Strategy

Asphalt Rubber Asphalt Concrete
Friction Course Overlay as a
Pavement Preservation Strategy
SIXTH MEXICAN ASPHALT CONGRESS
Cancun, Mexico, August 24th to 28th, 2009
K. Kaloush, K. Biligiri, M. Rodezno, M. Belshe
Arizona State University,
G. Way and D. Carlson, Rubber Pavement Association, Arizona, USA.
J. Sousa, Consulpav International, Inc. USA - Portugal
Presentation Outline
• Objectives of Study
• Background on Asphalt Rubber
• AR Pavement Preservation Strategy
-
Performance / Durability
-
Highway Noise
-
Thermal Gradient / Urban Climate Interaction
-
Friction / Safety and Ride Quality / Comfort
-
Tire Wear Emissions / Air Quality
-
Cost and Energy Consideration
• Summary and Conclusions
Objective
Evaluation of AR-ACFC benefits as a pavement
preservation strategy in terms of laboratory
material characterization tests and field
performance evaluation including: highway
noise reduction, mitigation of daily thermal
variances in PCC pavements, improved skid
resistance, reduced roughness, and reduction
of emission rates of tire wear.
ASTM D8
Standard Definitions of Terms Relating to Materials for
Roads and Pavements
Asphalt Rubber– a blend of asphalt cement,
reclaimed tire rubber and certain additives in
which the rubber component is at least 15%
by weight of the total blend and has reacted in
the hot asphalt cement sufficiently to cause
swelling of the rubber particles.
Typical HMA Cross Section
AR Bitumen Content
8.8 - 10%
Air Voids 18 - 20%
AR Bitumen 6.8- 8%
Air Voids 7 - 10%
13 mm
ARFC
ARAC
50 mm ARAC
Dense
Open
Gap /
SMA
Existing or new
HMA Base Mix
Base Asphalts for AR Use
Type 1: Hot Climate
PG 64-16 (Pen 60/70)
Type 2: Moderate Climate PG 58-22 (Pen 80/100)
Type 3: Cold Climate
PG 52-28 (Pen 200/300)
Is AR a Good Pavement Preservation
Strategy?
1. Performance / Durability
2. Highway Noise
3. Thermal Gradient / Urban Climate Interaction
4. Friction / Safety
5. Ride Quality / Comfort
6. Tire Wear Emissions / Air Quality
7. Cost and Energy Consideration
1- Performance / Durability
•
•
•
•
•
•
Binder Tests
Triaxial Shear Strength
Dynamic Modulus E*
Permanent Deformation FN / FT
Fatigue
IDT Creep and Strength
Viscosity-Temperature Relationships
1.2
Viscosity (Log Log cP)
1
0.8
0.6
ADOT Virgin PG 76-16
I-17 AR PG 58-22
I-17 AR PG 64-16
I-40 AR PG 58-22
Alberta AR Pen 150-200
0.4
0.2
0
(deg F)
2.7
(41)
2.75
(103)
2.8
2.85
2.9
(171)
(248)(R)
Temperature
Rankine
o
Temperature (Log Rankine, F)
(335)
2.95
(432)
Dynamic Complex Modulus E* AASHTO TP 62-03
100,000
AR-ACFC-Unconfined
Confined 69 Kpa
Confined-138 Kpa
Confined-207 Kpa
E* (Mpa)
10,000
54.4°C
0.1 Hz
1,000
100
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Log Reduced Time (sec)
3
4
5
6
7
8
2- Tire / Pavement Noise (dB) for
Arizona I-10 Test Sections
106
Tire / Pavement Noise (dB)
105
104
102.84
103
104.68
101.56
102
100.6
101
100
101.0
99.8
99.94
99
98
102.17
99.8
98.9
97
96
AR-ACFC
ACFC
Dynatest 2008 at 100 Km/h
Field Noise Validation Studies
P-ACFC
PEM
SMA
Scofield-Donovan 2002 at 100 Km/h
I-10 TEST SECTIONS
AR-ACFC ¾”
P-ACFC ¾”
PEM 1 ¼”
Field Noise
Validation Studies
SMA ¾”
ACFC ¾”
3- Field Investigation of PCC Thermal Behavior
• Temperature
Gradients induce
damaging Curling
Stresses
Thermal Gradient Test Site
Courtesy AZ511.com
Thermal Gradients Effect
• Observed benefits of
porosity and lower
thermal mass of the
ARFC layer.
• Thermal Blanket
Effect of ARFC
reduces PCC Curling
Stresses (8-25%)
Urban Heat Island
4- Friction / Safety
LANE
I010EHOV
I010ELN1
I010ELN2
I010ELN3
I010ELN4
I010WHOV
I010WLN1
I010WLN2
I010WLN3
I010WLN4
Average Friction Value
PCCP
AR-ACFC
0.54
0.66
0.60
0.61
0.49
0.61
0.47
0.60
0.47
0.54
0.51
0.58
0.64
0.57
0.50
0.59
0.44
0.59
0.42
0.58
Friction Test-Deck Park Tunnel I010 East HOV Lane @ 60 mph
Comparison PCCP to AR-ACFC
0.8
Friction Value (Mu)
0.7
0.6
0.5
PCCP
0.4
AR-ACFC
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
50
250
450
650
850
1050 1250 1450 1650 1850 2050 2250 2450 2650
Friction average every 50 feet
5- Ride Quality / Roughness
Profilometer Test-Deck Park Tunnel I010 East HOV Comparison
PCCP to AR
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
P CCP
AR
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
I010EHOV
I010ELN1
I010ELN2
I010ELN3
I010ELN4
I010WHOV
I010WLN1
I010WLN2
I010WLN3
I010WLN4
IRI (in/mi)
PCCP
AR-ACFC
96.34
43.57
123.20
59.03
104.29
48.81
111.87
47.80
115.30
52.91
85.44
32.51
87.94
37.79
85.40
46.92
96.83
46.11
97.75
36.81
IRI(IN/MI)
LANE
Distance every 100ft
6- Air Quality
• Rare opportunity to sample tire wear emissions at the
tunnel before and after the AR-ACFC overlay.
Deck Park
Tunnel, I-10
Phoenix, AZ
Tire Wear Emission Rates
Based on Tire Wear Tracers
May 2004 and
June 2005
Emission rates calculated per kilometer driven (mg/km).
Tire wear
emission rate
based on
Compound # 3
Compound # 4
Experiment 1
(PCC road surface)
Experiment 2
(AR-ACFC road surface)
354 ± 71
172 ± 34
177 ± 35
120 ± 24
7- Energy Consideration
½ Thickness
Design Criteria
Process
Tire Shedding
kJ/kg
-1744
Shred
Transportation
Granulation
CRM Transportation
-1744
-3586
-1744
Steel Recovery
Asphalt Saved
Aggregate Saved
Gain / Loss
1900
209,325 to 465,168
107,860
310,267 to 566,109
Positive Impact on CO2 Emissions
Cost Benefits
1200
1100
Maintenance Cost $/lane-Km
•Longer Service Life
•Reduced cracking
and maintenance.
•Reduced thickness.
Overlays / Inlays
1000
AR-ACFC
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Year
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Conclusions
• AR-ACFC is a System Preservation Design Strategy:
– Performance / Durability √
– Safety √
– Ride Quality √
– Quality of Life Issues √
• Highway Noise
• Air Quality
• Urban Heat Island
– Energy Savings and Cost Effective √
Thank You
Arizona - USA