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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16 14 Vertical Displacement (%) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Asphalt SBR SBS Neoprene EVA NRL Figure 24: Loaded Wheel Test Results (70) Jones and Ng (1989) have demonstrated similar results, with SBR, NRL, and SBS modifiers offering the greatest improvement in vertical displacement for microsurfacing emulsions as shown in Figure 25 (40). Jones further subjected these same mixtures to the Schulze-Breuer-Ruck abrasion test, which provides estimates of water absorption (soaking), loss (rotary tumbling), adhesion (water boiling), and integrity (largest remaining fragment after tumbling). Measurement parameters from Schulze-Breuer- Ruck are used to derive an overall numerical grade or rating for each test sample, with higher values representing greater compatibility (and thus better adhesion) between the aggregate, binder, filler, and polymer components. Schulze-Breuer-Ruck results from the Jones study are provided in Table 7. As Table 7 illustrates, SBR and SBS modifiers provide for the most significant improvements in abrasion loss. Moreover, SBR demonstrates the highest degree of integrity and the highest overall grade for the microsurfacing mixtures tested. 63
22 20 18 Vertical Displacement (%) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 None- Catimuls 404 None - Quaternary Emulsifier SBR SBS Neoprene EVA NRL Polymer Type Figure 25: Loaded Wheel Test Results (40) Table 7: Schulze-Breuer-Ruck Test Results (40) Polymer Absorption (g) Loss (g) Adhesion (g) Integrity (%) Rating SBR 1.25 0.96 99 98 11 NRL 2.30 1.49 99 95 9 SBS (Fina 416) 2.18 0.82 99 40 8 EVA (150W) 1.64 1.13 99 67 8 Neoprene (671 A) 2.06 1.51 99 96 9 None Catimuls 404 1.35 1.97 99 62 7 None EM26 1.59 2.01 99 33 5 64
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: Holleran (n.d.) recommends using SB
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 and 118: Table 13 illustrates a draft Strawm
Page 119 and 120: Laboratory Design Procedures • Ch
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 ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?