Investigation of 4.75-mm Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size Superpave Mix in Kansas

A Superpave asphalt mixture with a 4.75-mm nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) is a promising, low-cost pavement preservation treatment for the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT). The objective of this research study was to develop an optimized 4.75-mm NMAS Superpave mixture for use in Kansas. In addition, the study evaluated the residual tack coat application rate for the 4.75-mm NMAS mix overlay. Two hot-in-place recycling (HIPR) projects in Kansas, on US-160 and K-25, were overlaid with a 15- to 19-mm thick layer of 4.75-mm NMAS Superpave mixture in 2007. The field tack coat application rate was measured during construction. Cores were collected from each test section for Hamburg wheel tracking device (HWTD) and laboratory bond tests after construction and then after one year in service. Test results showed no significant effect of the tack coat application rate on the number of wheel passes to rutting failure from the HWTD testing. The number of wheel passes to rutting failure was dependent on the aggregate source as well as on in-place density of the cores, rather than tack coat application rate. Laboratory pull-off tests showed that most cores were fully bonded at the interface of the 4.75-mm NMAS overlay and the HIPR layer, regardless of the tack application rate. The failure mode during pull-off tests at the HMA interface was highly dependent on the aggregate source and mix design of the existing layer material. This study also confirmed that overlay construction with a high tack coat application rate may result in bond failure at the HMA interface. Twelve different 4.75-mm NMAS mix designs were developed using materials from the aforementioned projects, two binder grades and three different percentages of natural (river) sand. Laboratory performance tests were conducted to assess laboratory mixture performance. Results show that rutting and moisture damage potential in the laboratory mixed material depends on aggregate type irrespective of binder grade. Anti-stripping agent affects moisture sensitivity test results. Fatigue performance is significantly influenced by river sand content and binder grade. Finally, an optimized 4.75-mm NMAS mixture design was developed and verified based on statistical analysis of performance data.

[1]  Laith Tashman,et al.  Evaluation of the Influence of Tack Coat Construction Factors on the Bond Strength between Pavement Layers , 2006 .

[2]  Linda M Pierce,et al.  Evaluation of Construction Practices That Influence the Bond Strength at the Interface between Pavement Layers , 2008 .

[3]  Adam J. T. Hand,et al.  Impact of Gradation Relative to Superpave Restricted Zone on Hot-Mix Asphalt Performance , 2001 .

[4]  Fujie Zhou,et al.  DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF VERY THIN OVERLAYS IN TEXAS , 2009 .

[5]  Maurice Wheat,et al.  Evalu[t]ation of bond strength at asphalt interfaces , 2007 .

[6]  Imad L. Al-Qadi,et al.  Tack Coat Type and Application Rate Optimization to Enhance HMA Overlay-PCC Interface Bonding: Laboratory and APT Testing , 2008 .

[7]  Tom Scullion,et al.  Thin HMA Overlays in Texas: Mix Design and Laboratory Material Property Characterization , 2008 .

[8]  R. West,et al.  Evaluation of Bond Strength Between Pavement Layers , 2005 .

[9]  E R Brown,et al.  USE OF SCREENINGS TO PRODUCE HMA MIXTURES , 2002 .

[10]  Gary Fick.  I 7. Author's) , 1993 .

[11]  S. Weisberg.  Applied Linear Regression: Weisberg/Applied Linear Regression 3e , 2005 .

[12]  Gilda Ferrotti,et al.  Influence of Contact Surface Roughness on Interlayer Shear Resistance , 2006 .

[13]  Ramon Bonaquist,et al.  Laboratory Development and Field Trials of Thin-Lift Hot Mix Asphalt Overlays Incorporating High Percentages of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement with Warm Mix Asphalt Technology , 2009 .

[14]  Reynaldo Roque,et al.  Evaluation of Thick Open Graded and Bonded Friction Courses for Florida , 2006 .

[15]  Yetkin Yildirim,et al.  Development of a Laboratory Test Procedure to Evaluate Tack Coat Performance , 2005 .

[16]  E. Turiel.  The Development of Morality , 2007 .

[17]  Rajib B. Mallick,et al.  AN EVALUATION OF FACTORS AFFECTING PERMEABILITY OF SUPERPAVE DESIGNED PAVEMENTS , 2003 .

[18]  David Rausch.  Laboratory Refinement of 4.75 mm Superpave Designed Asphalt Mixtures , 2006 .

[19]  L. Cooley,et al.  Coarse- Versus Fine-Graded Superpave Mixtures: Comparative Evaluation of Resistance to Rutting , 2002 .

[20]  Walaa S Mogawer,et al.  Incorporating High Percentages of Recycled Asphalt Pavement and Warm-Mix Asphalt Technology into Thin Hot-Mix Asphalt Overlays as Pavement Preservation Strategy , 2009 .

[21]  Stacy G Williams.  Development of 4.75 mm Superpave Mixes , 2006 .

[22]  S. H. Carpenter,et al.  Interface Bonding between Hot-Mix Asphalt and Various Portland Cement Concrete Surfaces , 2008 .

[23]  Baoshan Huang,et al.  Influence of Asphalt Tack Coat Materials on Interface Shear Strength , 2002 .

[24]  Evaluation of North Dakota's 4.75 mm Local Gyratory HMA Mixtures for Thin Overlay Applications , 2009 .

[25]  Imad L. Al-Qadi,et al.  Tack Coat Optimization for HMA Overlays: Accelerated Pavement Test Report , 2009 .

[26]  Robert S James,et al.  Development of Mix Design Criteria for 4.75-mm Superpave® Mixes , 2003 .

[27]  O Takahashi,et al.  Refinement of Mix Design Criteria for 4.75mm Superpave Mixes , 2006 .

[28]  P.En Donath M Mrawira PhD.,et al.  Field Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Tack Coats in Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving , 2006 .

[29]  Transportation Officials.  Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Handbook 2000: AC150/5370–14A Appendix 1 , 2000 .

[30]  Gilda Ferrotti,et al.  Interlayer Bonding Design of Porous Asphalt Course Interface , 2009 .

[31]  Trenton Clark.  Trackless Tack Coat Materials: A Laboratory Evaluation for Performance Acceptance , 2010 .