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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Block Cracking; • Rutting (caused by high pavement temperatures in combination with tight, relatively stationary wheel turns); and • Oxidation. Cracking and oxidation are also found on hiking trails and bike paths, with the former representing the most common and problematic form of distress. FLH reports that slurry seals in particular, are the favored preventive maintenance treatment applied to parking lot pavements, owing to their ability to waterproof the underlying base pavement while reducing closed-to-traffic times, reducing energy consumption, and minimizing environmental impacts. As the research presented elsewhere in this report clearly illustrates, the use of PME in thin surface treatments does appear to enhance stone retention, improve low temperature susceptibility, and reduce the effects of high temperature deformation (i.e., rutting). Moreover, PME-based slurry has been anecdotally found to cure at a somewhat faster rate than its non-modified counterparts (thereby reducing closed-totraffic times). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the use of PME could be expected to provide similar benefits in non-roadway applications, although it is not possible at this time to assess the resulting cost-benefit implications. 2.8 Climate, Environmental and Timing Considerations Serfass et al (1992) have examined the impact of climate on stone retention in surface dressings using SBS-modified hot mixes and emulsified asphalt (18). In modified hot mixes, the researchers note that an adequate period of warm weather is required to facilitate the evaporation of aromatics to allow aggregate to “firm” into its final position. The researchers recommend an application period extending from late May to late August in northern or mountainous climates, and mid-May to mid-September in southern regions for modified hot mix asphalt binders (18). Conversely, SBS-modified emulsions were found to exhibit good stone retention characteristics even at relatively cool temperatures and high humidity as determined through Vialit cohesive testing. 69
Thus, the cohesive properties of SBS-modified emulsions appear to offer a longer application season when used for surface dressings, although Serfass does not provide a specific application calendar. With respect to chip seals, minimum ambient air and pavement application temperatures of at least 10º C. and 21º C., respectively, are generally accepted standards to prevent against excessive and prolonged stone loss (75, 68). Indeed, early stone loss as a result of late season application under cool temperatures is perhaps the most common reason for chip seal failure. In general, low application ambient and/or pavement temperatures can result in high binder viscosity which hampers bitumen-to-aggregate adhesion (68). Conversely, excessively high ambient or pavement temperatures may produce viscosities which are too low to permit in-place fixation of the stone. There is little consensus concerning maximum pavement temperatures for chip seal application projects, but most recommendations vary between approximately 54º C. and 60º C. (68). Typically, a maximum ambient air temperature of approximately 43 º C. is recommended for most chip seals (68). In hot climates, the primary issues that impact bituminous pavements and surface dressings are 1) deformation caused by high temperature susceptibility; and 2) binder aging (76). Vonk and Hartemink (2004) have shown that when comparing the accuracy of ring-and-ball softening point and zero shear viscosity (ZSV) test results, the latter produces a much more reliable measure of high temperature deformation potential in modified binders than does the former, as illustrated in Table 10 (76). Table 10: Physical Properties and Deformation Results (76) Binder Ring & Ball Temp. ºC. ZSV Pa.s Deformation Rate in Test Road Test Temp.: 40º C. 50º C. 40º C. 50º C. 40º C. 50º C. 100 pen 45.5 45.5 2.5 x 10 3 6.3 x 10 2 24.0 56.2 100 pen + 3% SBS 49.5 49.5 3.2 x 10 5 1.0 x 10 4 4.0 12.6 60 pen 51.0 51.0 7.9 x 10 3 2.0 x 10 3 10.1 23.6 70
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: Microsurfacing applications by defi
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?