Field Validation of Wisconsin Modified Binder Selection Guidelines - Phase II

The purpose of this project was to continue phase I of the study with the objective of identifying promising procedures and applicable modified binder specification criteria for use in Wisconsin, based on comparison of test results to field performance. Field performance was assessed through condition surveys conducted between 2004 and 2012 as part of both phase I and phase II of the project. The Linear Amplitude Sweep test, standardized under AASHTO TP101, was considered and evaluated as a potential test. The test related very well to field performance when performed at the required Superpave intermediate temperature grade of the project location, and the fatigue life parameter, Nf, was determined at the peak stress. A set of preliminary performance criteria were proposed based on the target mix design type and target traffic grade. The Single Edged notched Bending procedure (BBR-SENB), based on the modification of the Bending Beam Rheometer test, currently under consideration by AASHTO for provisional standardization, was used to assess resistance to thermal cracking. The BBR-SENB results correlated well with the observed field thermal cracking when tests were conducted at the project location low temperature PG specification temperature. A specification and preliminary performance criteria is developed and suggested for use of the BBR-SENB as a binder selection and characterization test. In terms of rutting resistance it was shown that the studied Wisconsin binders exceeded the most extreme binder rutting grade requirements according to AASHTO MP 19 (MSCR) at the local high performance temperatures. The binder test results were unable to accurately relate to the observed field conditions. It was shown that the aggregate structural properties could capture a trend that better reflected that of the field rutting behavior. Results indicate that proper ranking of material in terms of rutting resistance is not possible without consideration of both binder properties and aggregate structure, as both factors contribute significantly to the pavement rutting performance.

[1]  Mouillet,et al.  Determination of the Low Temperature Bitumen Cracking Properties: Fracture Mechanics Principle Applied to a Three Points Bending Test using a Non Homogeneous Geometry , 2006 .

[2]  David E. Newcomb,et al.  PARAMETERS TO DEFINE THE LABORATORY COMPACTION TEMPERATURE RANGE OF HOT-MIX ASPHALT , 1998 .

[3]  Hussain U Bahia,et al.  Estimating Results of a Proposed Simple Performance Test for Hot-Mix Asphalt from Superpave Gyratory Compactor Results: , 2005 .

[4]  Ni Kamel,et al.  Critical Laboratory Evaluation of Asphalt Binders Modified by Refining Processes , 2004 .

[5]  Hussain U Bahia,et al.  Development of Guidelines for PG Binder Selection for Wisconsin , 2005 .

[6]  R. Kluttz,et al.  Revision of the Superpave High Temperature Binder Specification: The Multiple Stress Creep Recovery Test (With Discussion) , 2007 .

[7]  Prithvi S. Kandhal,et al.  Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design and Construction , 1996 .

[8]  S. Dreessen,et al.  A new performance related test method for rutting prediction: MSCRT , 2009 .

[9]  Ulf Isacsson,et al.  International Journal of Road Materials and Pavement Design , 1999 .

[10]  R M Anderson,et al.  CHARACTERIZATION OF MODIFIED ASPHALT BINDERS IN SUPERPAVE MIX DESIGN , 2001 .

[11]  T. W. Kennedy,et al.  MIXING AND COMPACTION TEMPERATURES FOR SUPERPAVE MIXES , 2000 .

[12]  Henderikus Lodewikus ter Huerne,et al.  Compaction of asphalt road pavements : using finite elements and critical state theory , 2004 .

[13]  Dong-Woo Cho,et al.  Critical Evaluation of Use of the Procedure of Superpave Volumetric Mixture Design for Modified Binders , 2005 .

[14]  John D'Angelo,et al.  Creep and Recovery , 2007 .

[15]  Eyad Masad,et al.  Internal Structure Characterization of Asphalt Concrete Using Image Analysis , 1999 .

[16]  Simon A M Hesp,et al.  Low-Temperature Fracture Testing of Asphalt Binders: Regular and Modified Systems , 2000 .

[17]  Menglan Zeng,et al.  CONSIDERATION OF STRAIN AT FAILURE AND STRENGTH IN PREDICTION OF PAVEMENT THERMAL CRACKING , 2000 .

[18]  P Turner,et al.  Development of binder specification parameters based on characterization of damage behavior , 2001 .

[19]  R Delgadillo,et al.  Rational Fatigue Limits for Asphalt Binders Derived from Pavement Analysis (With Discussion and Closure) , 2005 .

[20]  J. Haddock,et al.  Investigation of the Performance of Neat and Modified Asphalt Binders , 2006 .

[21]  Hussain U Bahia,et al.  Why do we Need to Change G*/Sinδ and How? , 2006 .

[22]  Dong-Woo Cho,et al.  Nonlinearity of Repeated Creep and Recovery Binder Test and Relationship with Mixture Permanent Deformation , 2006 .

[23]  R J Cominsky,et al.  THE SUPERPAVE MIX DESIGN MANUAL FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND OVERLAYS , 1994 .

[24]  Hussain U Bahia,et al.  Distribution of Strains Within Hot-Mix Asphalt Binders: Applying Imaging and Finite-Element Techniques , 2000 .

[25]  H. Bahia,et al.  Mixing and compaction temperatures for modified binders using the Superpave gyratory compactor , 2001 .

[26]  Raj Dongré,et al.  Evaluation of Repeated Creep and Recovery Test Method as an Alternative to SHRP+ Requirements for Polymer Modified Asphalt Binders , 2006 .

[27]  Han Zhu,et al.  Contact based analysis of asphalt pavement with the effect of aggregate angularity , 2000 .

[28]  Gerald A Huber,et al.  RATIONAL METHOD FOR LABORATORY COMPACTION OF HOT-MIX ASPHALT (WITH DISCUSSION AND CLOSURE) , 1994 .