evaluation of rutting potential of hot mix asphalt using the asphalt pavement anal vzer

180 Pages·2009·3.68 MB·English

EVALUATION OF RUTTING POTENTIAL
OF HOT MIX ASPHALT USING
THE ASPHALT PAVEMENT ANALV ZER
Final Report
(Item 2153; ORA 125-6660)
Submitted to:
David Streb
Planning & Research Division Engineer
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
200 N.E. 21st Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
I
Prepared by:
I
Rafiqul Alam Tarefder
&
I
Musharraf Zaman
School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science
The University of Oklahoma
Norman, Oklahoma 73019
From:
The Otlice of Research Administration
1000 Asp Avenue
The University of Oklahoma
Nom13n, Oklahoma 73019
October 2002
ii
TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE
1. REPORT NO. 12. GOVERNMENT ACCESS NO. 3. RECIPIENTS CATALOG NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE October 2002
"Evaluation of Rutting Potential of Hot Mix
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Asphalt Using the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer"
7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
Rafiqul Alam Tarefder ORA 125-6660
Musharraf Zaman
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO.
The University of Oklahoma
Norman, Oklahoma 73019
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 11. CONTACT OR GRANT NO.
Oklahoma Department of Transportation Item No. 2153
Planning & Research Division 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
200 N.E. 21" Street., Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Final Report (September 1999 - September 2001)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTARCT
A comprehensive study involving rut potential of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) was conducted. Both cylindrical and beam specimens
of HMA were prepared using a Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC) and an Asphalt Vibratory Compactor (AV C),
respectively. Mixture rutting performance was determined in the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (AP A). Initially, rut tests
were conducted on three laboratory-prepared HMA for 8000 cycles of loading with 100 psi hose pressure, 100 Ib wheel
load, and 50 seating cycles. The rut values (8,000 cycles) varied between 2.0 mm and 6.4 mm. Rut depths were found to be
sensitive to temperature when compared that to asphalt content.
Subsequently, this study evaluated rut potential of ten plant-produced mixes. Three of these mixes were of type A and six
type B insoluble and one Type C. Oulyone mix showed a rut depth of more than 4 mm. The AV C beam specimens showed
higher rut depth compared to cylindrical specimens. The AP A rut test data were analyzed to identify the important
contributing factors. Type A mixes were sensitive to percent asphalt content, where as Type B insoluble mixes were
sensitive to material passing number 200 sieve.
This research investigated the relationship between rheological and mechanical properties for various Oklahoma
unmodified and modified binders based on the asphalt mixture's rutting performance. The tests result showed that binder's
Performance Grade (pG) affects mixture performance significantly. In general, modified binder showed better performance
compared to the unmodified binders. Modified binders of same PG grade did not show the same performance when test
parameters were held constant. Binder's viscosity and rut factor (G'/sinB) did not show significant effects on rutting
performance of both modified and unmodified binders. Linear and noulinear regression analyses were performed to
investigate the contribution of binder properties to rutting. The noulinear regression prediction of rutting was better than the
linear prediction.
This study identified the most significant factors from a number of factors, which affect rut potential of HMA. Seven
factors: binders PG, specimen type, test temperature, moisture, wheel load, asphalt content, and hose pressure,. each at two
defined levels were incorporated in a Superpave mix. Rut tests were designed to be the elements of an experimental matrix.
The matrix test results were analyzed statistically. The analysis results showed that binders PG, specimen type, test
temperature, and moisture, affected a mixture's rutting performance significantly. This study developed and described a
statistical procedure to design and analyze an experimental matrix oftest results.
This research investigated the repeatability and reproducibility of laboratory test data. An inter-laboratory study was
performed on rut tests using the AP A between the 'asphalt design laboratory' at the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation (ODOT) and the 'asphalt laboratory' at the University of Oklahoma (OU). The tests result showed no
significant variability in the collected data from two laboratories. This study developed a rut database for future model
development. The APA rut results ofHMA materials, which were used in a road section (funded by ODOT) of the National
Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) Test Track at Alabama, were also included in the rut database.
17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Rutting, Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (AP A), Asphalt No restrictions. This publication is available
Vibratory Compactor (AV C), Superpave, hot mix from the Office of Planning & Research,
asphalt, binder, mix design, polymer, G'/sinB, rut factor. Oklahoma Department of Transportation.
19. SECURUTY CLASS (OF TIDS REPORT) 20. SECURUTY CLASS (OFTIDS PAGE) 21. NO. OF PAGES 22.PRlCE
Unclassified Unclassified 163
Disclaimer iii
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible
for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the official views of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation
(ODOT). This reports does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Oklahoma Department of Transportation University of Oklahoma
Acknowledgements iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work reported herein was sponsored by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation
(ODOT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA ). The Asphalt
Vibratory Compactor used in this study was purchased with funds from the Oklahoma Asphalt
Pavement Association (OAP A). The authors are grateful to the members of OAP A for their
contribution.
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude and appreciation to Gary Ridley,
David Streb, Jack Telford, Larry Senkowski, and Reynolds Toney ofODOT for their support and
encouragement that continue to play an important role in the evolving development of the Ray
Broce Materials (Asphalt) Laboratory at the University of Oklahoma.
The authors thank Kenneth Hobson for his continuous encouragement, valuable help and
support throughout this study. Specifically, the authors thank him for collection and supply of
materials.
The authors would like to thank Emad Al Namasy, former graduate student of Civil
Engineering for his valuable help. Also, the authors would like to thank Professor, Luther White
form Department of Mathematics at OU for his suggestions in the analysis and presentation of
results.
The authors are thankful to Mike Schmitz of the School of Civil Engineering and
Environmental Science at the University of Oklahoma for his assistance with technical problems
during laboratory testing. The authors are thankful to Glen Oliver and Eric Robert of ODOT
Materials Division for their technical assistance.
The authors are indebted to T. J. Campbell Construction Company at Oklahoma City for
providing aggregates for this study.
Many students have generously helped in laboratory testing. Specially, we acknowledge the
contribution of Brent Caswell, Don Still, Cheong Ting Fu, Sazzad Khan, Matt Gearhart,
Parabarooban Singhana, Michael Ruckgaber and others.
Finally, the authors thank Garry Williams and Wilson Brewer of ODOT who contributed
their time to review and proofread the report.
Oklahoma Department of Transportation University of Oklahoma
Table o/Contents v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1LI1lI-Il ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i
1LIlCHNICAI., REPOR1L S1LANDARD 1LI1lI-Il PAGIl------------------------------------------
ii
I>ISCI-I\1l\1IlR --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iii
AC}(]\[O~IlI>GIlJV[Il~S ------------------------------------------------------------------------ iv
1LJ\J3I-Il OIl CO~Il~S -------------------------------------------------------------------------- v
I-IS1L OIl1L J\J3I-IlS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ix
I-IS1L OIl HGURES---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
xi
EXIlCUTIVIl SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------------------------------ xiv
CHAP1LER 1 IN1LRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------- 1-1
1.1 General I-I
1.2 Hypotheses 1-4
Hypothesis I 1-4
Hypothesis 2 1-5
Hypothesis 3 1-5
1.3 Objectives 1-5
1.4 Report Outline 1-6
CHAP1LER 2 I-ITERATURE REVIEW------------------------------------------------ 2-9
2.1 Liboratory Rut 1Lesting 2-9
2.2 APA Rut1Lesting 2-11
2.2.1 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer 2-12
2.2.2 AP A Results Versus Held Performance 2-14
2.3 Compaction of Rut Speoimens 2-15
2.3.1 Superpave Gyratory Compactor 2-16
Oklahoma Department of Transportation University of Oklahoma
Table ofC ontents vi
2.3.2 Asphalt Vibratory Compactor 2-17
2.3.3 SGCVersusAVC 2-18
2.4 Rutting Mechanisms 2-19
2.4.1 General 2-19
2.4.2 Distortion 2-20
2.4.3 Consolidation 2-21
2.4.4 Attrition 2-21
2.5 Rut Prediction Model 2-22
2.5.1 Empirical Rut Models 2-22
2.5.2 Mechanistic-Empirical Rut Models 2-24
2.5.3 Neural Network-Rut Models 2-28
2.5.4 Other Rut Models 2-32
Elastic Layered Approach 2-32
Viscoelastic Layered Approach 2-32
VESYS Approach 2-33
CHAPTER 3 EXPLORATORY AND BASELINE TESTS ------------------------ 3-39
3.1 General 3-39
3.2 Aggregate Tests 3-40
3.3 Mixture Test 3-42
3.4 Data Analysis 3-43
CHAPTER 4 PLANT MIX EVALUATION --------------------------------------------- 4-58
4.1 General 4-58
4.2 Experimental Methodology 4-58
4.2.1 Mix Selection 4-58
4.2.2 Material Collection 4-59
4.2.3 Specimen Preparation 4-59
4.2.4 AP A Rut Test 4-60
4.3 Mixture Analysis 4-61
4.4 Mix Ranking 4-62
4.5 Rut Parameter Interpretation 4-63
Oklahoma Department of Transportation University of Oklahoma
Table ofC ontents vii
4.5.1 Asphalt Concrete Type 4-63
4.5.2 Asphalt Content and PG 4-64
4.5.3 Materials Passing No. 200 Sieve 4-64
4.5.4 Gradation 4-65
4.5.5 Dust to Asphalt Ratio 4-65
4.5.6 Sand 4-65
4.5.6 Compaction and Sample Geometry 4-66
4.5.7 Air Voids 4-66
4.5.8 OUVersus ODOTData 4-67
4.6 Summary 4-67
CHAPTER 5 BINDER EVOLUTION ------------------------------------------------ 5-81
5.1 Background 5-81
5.2 Binders Description 5-84
5.3 Binders Properties 5-85
5.4 Aggregate and Mix Design 5-86
5.5 Rut Testing 5-87
5.6 Analysis of Test Results 5-88
5.6.1 Overall Rankiog 5-88
5.6.2 Effect ofPG 5-89
5.6.3 Effect of Source 5-90
5.6.4 Effect of Rutting Factor 5-90
5.6.5 Effect of Viscosity 5-91
5.7 Statistical Analysis 5-91
5.7.1 LMRModel 5-92
5.7.2 NRModel 5-93
5.8 Comparison of Measured Rut Depth with Model Predictions 5-95
5.9 Cycle-500 Versus Cyc1e-8000 Rut 5-95
5.1 0 Concluding Remarks 5-96
CHAPTER 6 RUTTING FACTOR ------------------------------------------------------- 6-112
Oklahoma Department of Transportation University of Oklahoma
Table ofC ontents
V111
6.1 General 6-112
6.2 Background 6-113
6.2.1 Loading 6-113
6.2.2 Material Behavior 6-114
6.2.2.1 Asphalt Cement Properties 6-114
6.2.2.2 Mineral Aggregate Properties 6-115
6.2.2.3 Mix Properties 6-117
6.2.3 Environment 6-119
6.3 Experimental Design 6-120
6.4 Identification of the Rutting Factors 6-121
6.5 Selection ofthe Factor's Levels 6-121
6.6 Optimization of the Test Matrix 6-122
6.7 Analysis of Data 6-123
6.8 Estimation of Rut Interval 6-126
6.9 Confirmation of Factor Levels 6-127
6.10 Gravel Mix 6-128
6.11 Conclusions 6-129
CHAPTER 7 REPEATABILITY AND EPRODUCmILITY------------------------- 7-145
7.1 General 7-145
7.2 Outlier 7-146
7.3 Test Results 7-147
7.4 Data Analysis 7-148
7.5 Conclusion 7-148
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8-152
8.1 Conclusions 8-152
8.2 Recommendations 8-153
REFERENCES 9-154
Oklahoma Department of Transportation University of Oklahoma
Table oJContents
IX
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 APA Testing Protocol 2-37
Table 2.2 Prediction Equations from Repeated load Tests 2-38
Table 3.1 Mix Infonnation 3-46
Table 3.2 Mixing and Testing Temperature 3-47
Table 3.3 Rut Parameter for Mix ID: 3012-0APA -99037 3-47
Table 3.4 Rut-Cycle Relations 3-48
Table 4.1 Mix and Traffic Infonnation 4-76
Table 4.2 Types of Aggregate 4-76
Table 4.3 Mix Aggregate Gradations 4-77
Table 4.4 HMA Mix Properties 4-77
Table 4.5 Effect of Asphalt Concrete Type 4-78
Table4.6a Comparison of OU AP A Data with ODOT Data 4-79
Table4.6b Comparison ofOU Rut Data with ODOT Data 4-80
Table 5.1 Properties of Una ged and RTFO Aged Binder 5-109
Table 5.2 Aggregate Infonnation 5-109
Table 5.3 Blended Aggregate Properties 5-110
Table 5.4 Volumetric Properties for Optimum Asphalt Content 5-110
Oklahoma Department of Transportation University of Oklahoma
Table o/Contents x
Table 5.5 LMR Model Summary 5-111
Table 5.6 NR Model Summary Statistics 5-111
Table 6.1a Factors Affecting Rutting 6-137
Table 6.1b Limestone Mix's Aggregate Infonnation 6-137
Table 6.2 Blended Aggregate Properties (Limestone Mix) 6-138
Table 6.3 Volumetric Properties for Optimum Asphalt Content 6-138
Table 6.4 Factor and Levels 6-139
Table 6.5 Test Matrixes 6-139
Table 6.6 Experimental Total and Average Rut Depth 6-140
Table 6.7 Trial Combinations for Factor in an Ls Array 6-140
Table 6.8 Level Sums for Factor F at Levell 6-141
Table 6.9 Level Sums Table 6-141
Table 6.10 Sums of the Squares Calculations 6-142
Table 6.11 Calculations of Variance, F Statistic and Percent Contribution 6-142
Table 6.12 Parameters for Calculation of Predicted Results 6-143
Table 6.13 Test Matrix-1 for Gravel Mixes 6-143
Table 6.14 Test Matrix-2 for Gravel Mixes 6-144
Table 6.15 Significant Parameters in Gravel Mixes 6-144
Table 7.1 Outlier for Rut Depth Calculation 7-150
Table 7.2 Between and Within Analysis for Rut Tests 7-150
Oklahoma Department of Transportation University of Oklahoma