Spray Applied Polymer Surface Seals - TSP2

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Fog Seal Low Temperature Mix Stiffness & m-value Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) • Standard BBR rectangular beams – 500 g load $200 tile saw cuts surface mix specimens • Condition & test in BBR at -18 to -6ºC Although age-hardening is typically characterized using high temperature rheological tests on mix specimens or extracted binders, it is much more likely that age-induced block cracking occurs at lower pavement temperatures where binders are stiff and brittle. Furthermore, research studies report that asphalt oxidation is particularly deleterious to low temperature relaxation properties as might be reported by Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) m-value, Direct Tension Test (DTT) failure strain, low temperature ductility, or the R-value as derived from the rheological mastercurve. Since results from DSR testing indicated that extracted binder rheology can be misleading when fog seals can not infiltrate the surface, the Static Bending Test ([i]) was selected to characterize low temperature mixture properties. The procedure only became available late in the project, so data is limited to only the later trials. Thin mixture specimens are cut from field cores to standard BBR specimen geometry and tested for low temperature stiffness and m-value at temperatures ranging from -18 C to -6 C. This test monitors the effectiveness of rejuvenating seals and might be used to set “trigger” parameters whereby appropriate preventive maintenance strategies can be implemented as aged pavements approach critical cracking conditions. ([i]) Zofka,A, Marasteanu,M, Clyne,T, Li,X, and Hoffmann,O. Development of Simple Asphalt Test for Determination of RAP Blending Charts. Mn/DOT report MN/RC – 2004-44, June, 2004. 88
Lessons Learned Static Bending Test on Rectangular Specimens Cut from Field Cores (BBR) m-value at -12 C 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Control ERA '01 Reclam it e '01 Reclam it e '01 & '06 Reclam it e '06 Pass QB '01 CSS '01 m-value S [MPa] Control Reclam it e '02 Reclam it e '04 CRS-2Pd '06 LD-7 '06 Pass QB '02 CRF '02 Chip Seal CRS-2Pd 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Stiffness at -12C (MPa) AZ 87 (dense-graded) MN TH 251 Static Bending Test on Rectangular Specimens from Field Cores Tested by Bending Beam Rheometer Cores taken in Sept and Oct 2006 - year is date of seal - Samples prepared and tested at UMinn BBR testing on cores taken from the Arizona and Minnesota projects are reported in the graph. <strong>Polymer</strong> in the CRS-2P(d) and Pass QB had a slightly positive effect on the m-value. The rejuvenator products did not improve the m-value, but in some cases did reduce the BBR stiffness below that of the control. It appears that the best protection from aging as measured by m-value was accomplished by chip sealing the pavement so that no further oxygen or moisture could enter the mix from the surface. Given the variability of testing such thin mixture specimens, each of these conclusions is only marginally significant and needs further verification. 89
Page 1 and 2:
Foundation for Pavement Preservatio
Page 3 and 4:
Research Participants Acknowledgeme
Page 5 and 6:
An Effective Preservation Program
Page 7 and 8:
Fog Seal AEMA Definition: a light
Page 9 and 10:
CALTRANS MTAG: Rejuvenating Fog Sea
Page 11 and 12:
What do we know about Fog Seals? L
Page 13 and 14:
Spray Applied Surface Seal : The Pr
Page 15 and 16:
DOT Survey Why Fog Seal? Constructi
Page 17 and 18:
DOT Survey Pavement Age When Fog Se
Page 19 and 20:
Upper Midwest Experiences Nebraska
Page 21 and 22:
Unsealed Shoulders 21
Page 23 and 24:
MN shoulders: Shedding Light Rain 2
Page 25 and 26:
MNDOT - Fog Sealing Chip Seals Ligh
Page 27 and 28:
Fog Seals Reduce Snowplow Damage
Page 29 and 30:
Fog Seals can reduce: •Moisture I
Page 31 and 32:
Lessons Learned Why Fog? Improve Ag
Page 33 and 34:
Lessons Learned Why Fog? Prevent Da
Page 35 and 36:
Asphalt Oxidation Chemistry The Pro
Page 37 and 38: Asphalt Oxidation Chemistry The Mec
Page 39 and 40: Asphalt Durability Predicting Block
Page 41 and 42: ARIZONA VALIDATION SITE Constructed
Page 43 and 44: EFFECT OF PAVEMENT DEPTH ON AGED AS
Page 45 and 46: Increasing m-control with aging for
Page 47 and 48: Lessons Learned Fog Seal Product Se
Page 49 and 50: Test Section Locations AZ - US 87,
Page 51 and 52: Lessons Learned Fog Seal Where to U
Page 53 and 54: Lessons Learned Fog Seal Where NOT
Page 55 and 56: Lessons Learned Fog Seal How to Use
Page 57 and 58: Lessons Learned Fog Seal Emulsion P
Page 59 and 60: Lessons Learned Fog Seal over Chip
Page 61: Lessons Learned How to Apply Seals
Page 64 and 65: Lessons Learned How to Apply Seals
Page 66 and 67: Lessons Learned Controlling Frictio
Page 68 and 69: Lessons Learned IFI (International
Page 70 and 71: Lessons Learned Pavement Permeabili
Page 72 and 73: Lessons Learned Fog Seal Emulsion I
Page 74 and 75: Lessons Learned Fog Seal Pavement F
Page 76 and 77: Lessons Learned Comparison of Frict
Page 78 and 79: Lessons Learned Fog Seal Binder Pro
Page 80 and 81: Rheology Testing of Field Samples G
Page 82 and 83: Permeabilities - MN 251 & OCR 112 1
Page 84 and 85: Permeabilities for AZ & CA 1 All da
Page 86 and 87: G*, Pa, 10 radians/sec, 64C Core Sl
Page 90 and 91: Lessons Learned Static Bending Test
Page 92 and 93: Asphalt Emulsion • Emulsion = A n
Page 94 and 95: Lessons Learned Fog Seal Emulsion P
Page 96 and 97: Field Observations Notes & photos
Page 98 and 99: Summary Findings Seals are particu
Page 100 and 101: Need for Improved Specifications fo
Page 102 and 103: Recommendations for Future Study N
show all

Spray Applied Polymer Surface Seals - TSP2

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?