Using Polymer Modified Asphalt Emulsions in Surface Treatments A ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 22: Strawman “Report Only” Draft Specification - PME Residue Purpose Test Conditions Report Residue Recovery Forced Draft Oven 24 hrs @ambient + 24 hrs @60ºC % Residue Tests on Residue from Forced Draft Oven High Temperature (Rutting/Bleeding) Polymer Identifier (Elasticity/Durability) DSR-MSCR DSR freq sweep DSR-MSCR High Float Identifier (Bleeding)* DSR – non-linearity T h T h T h @3200 Pa T h Jnr G* & phase angle % Recoverable Strain Test to be developed Tests on PAV (run on emulsions evaporated in the PAV pan using the Forced Draft Oven procedure) Low Temperature (Aged 10ºC & 20ºC G* DSR freq sweep Brittleness)* Model Low Temperature Phase Angle Polymer Degradation Recoverable DSR-MSCR T (Before/After PAV)* h @3200 Pa Strain Ratio Design and Performance Testing This section presents guidance on design and performance testing. Covered areas include aggregate-asphalt interactions, and laboratory design procedures. Aggregate-Asphalt Interactions Both the short and long term performance (curing time, adhesion, skid resistance, long term chip retention and durability) are dependent upon the aggregate physical properties and the asphalt-aggregate compatibility as well as the physical properties of the emulsion. Performance testing is needed on both aggregates and the combination of PME and aggregate. There are several well-accepted performance tests for aggregates. It is clear that cleanliness, shape and durability (as tested by MicroDeval or LA abrasion) are directly related to performance. Aggregate surface chemistry becomes increasingly more important when cure-time-to-traffic is critical to performance. 111
Laboratory Design Procedures • Chip Seals: The literature review mentions a few of the many design procedures for chip seals, most of which have evolved from McCloud’s original work. Dr. Kim’s recent studies for NCDOT specifically address aggregate quality, evaluate various design procedures for chip seals, and offer excellent recommendations that should be considered for FLH guidelines (103). Although the current ASTM method needs modest revision, the Sweep Test is viable for ranking curing time, and should be included in the FLH field study. While there are several laboratory test methods for long-term chip seal performance, none has universal acceptance. This is an area where further study is needed, and that is currently being investigated by other research projects such as NCHRP 14-17. If possible, the FLH report-only study should remain flexible to include recommendations from such projects as they become available. The MMLS3, as developed in S. Africa and as investigated by Dr. Kim and Dr. Epps, remains a valuable performance testing tool (100). It can be run wet or dry and its rubber tires simulate uni-directional traffic loading on samples. At approximately $100,000, the machine cost is prohibitive as a specification tool, but it can serve as an accelerated simulator for field performance to accelerate validation of other methods. • Microsurfacing / PME Slurry: Current ISSA mix design and performance testing guidelines offer acceptable performance standards for microsurfacing (39). However, better residue specifications and improved mix design protocols are still needed. As discussed elsewhere, the Fugro pooled-fund study should serve as a source for new tests and methods applicable to microsurfacing mix design. Leveraging Resources and Information Sharing This project has begun leveraging available knowledge and pooling information (test methods, data, pavement performance) with suppliers, and other researchers and agencies (Federal, State, City and County). The recently released “TSP Preservation Research Roadmap” also recognizes the need for improved, performance-related 112
Page 1 and 2:
Using Polymer Modified Asphalt Emul
Page 3 and 4:
2.10 SURFACE TREATMENTS, DISTRESS,
Page 5 and 6:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Needs to be Compl
Page 7 and 8:
DISCLAIMER This document is dissemi
Page 9 and 10:
1. Compile published research on th
Page 11 and 12:
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW OF POLYMER MO
Page 13 and 14:
the emulsion solution is termed the
Page 15 and 16:
molecular weights ranging up to 100
Page 17 and 18:
Elastomeric polymers exhibit a low
Page 19 and 20:
The first commercial process that w
Page 21 and 22:
2.2.3 Synthetic Rubber and Latex Sy
Page 23 and 24:
Latex Modified Unmodified 80 Chip R
Page 25 and 26:
of residual asphalt (3). Additional
Page 27 and 28:
Sabbagh and Lesser (1998) note that
Page 29 and 30:
2.2.6 Plastics The plastic polymer
Page 31 and 32:
high temperature performance, but w
Page 33 and 34:
2.2.7 Polymer Blends Select polymer
Page 35 and 36:
Table 2: Polymer Modification Metho
Page 37 and 38:
Forbes et al found that asphalt emu
Page 39 and 40:
Lubbers and Watson (2005) present t
Page 41 and 42:
Takamura and Heckmann (1999) sugges
Page 43 and 44:
Neat Asphalt + 8% LDPE1 + 8% LDPE2
Page 45 and 46:
Figure 16: Effect of SBS Concentrat
Page 47 and 48:
destruction of the polymer modifier
Page 49 and 50:
emulsified and non-emulsified aspha
Page 51 and 52:
However, in developing the SPG, Epp
Page 53 and 54:
• Forced Air-Drying Method - This
Page 55 and 56:
• Wet Track Abrasion Loss - used
Page 57 and 58:
ductility (61). King characterizes
Page 59 and 60:
Polymer modified asphalt emulsions
Page 61 and 62:
3 40-120º F 5.02 12.81 6.04 14.92
Page 63 and 64:
emulsions require a much longer set
Page 65 and 66:
Figure 20: Chip Seal Aggregate Rete
Page 67 and 68: design specifications are meticulou
Page 69 and 70: Holleran (n.d.) recommends using SB
Page 71 and 72: 22 20 18 Vertical Displacement (%)
Page 73 and 74: seal stone retention, and to provid
Page 75 and 76: Microsurfacing applications by defi
Page 77 and 78: Thus, the cohesive properties of SB
Page 79 and 80: dimensional polymer network is pres
Page 81 and 82: Moreover, although the moduli of th
Page 83 and 84: Numerous decision tools and best pr
Page 85 and 86: 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING AND SPECIFIC
Page 87 and 88: and performance-related specificati
Page 89 and 90: were consistently twice as high as
Page 91 and 92: • Polymer/Asphalt Compatibility a
Page 93 and 94: angle at the lowest pavement temper
Page 95 and 96: damaged by temperature. The problem
Page 97 and 98: Because the industry survey and oth
Page 99 and 100: conforming to the following criteri
Page 101 and 102: with faster curing and longer wear.
Page 103 and 104: Table 17: Comparison of Microsurfac
Page 105 and 106: Emulsion/Aggregate Performance Test
Page 107 and 108: the FLH report-only format be used
Page 109 and 110: leading the negatives. If post-blen
Page 111 and 112: opportunity to evaluate performance
Page 113 and 114: traffic areas, as are durable, poli
Page 115 and 116: esearchers, with the leading candid
Page 117: Table 13 illustrates a draft Strawm
Page 121 and 122: • Develop/improve performance met
Page 123 and 124: specification tests will cost appro
Page 125 and 126: PROPERTY TEST METHOD SPEC. RESULT B
Page 127 and 128: 14. Takamura, Koichi, “SBR Latice
Page 129 and 130: 38. Turk, Johannes, and Schmidt, Ma
Page 131 and 132: 62. Desmazes, C., Lecomte, M., Lesu
Page 133 and 134: 86. European Standard EN 14895, “
show all

Using Polymer Modified Asphalt Emulsions in Surface Treatments A ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?