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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Other forms of determining cost-effectiveness include life-cycle costing, longevity cost index, and cost-effectiveness analysis using pavement performance curves. As Table 11 suggests, the increased longevity realized through the appropriate use of PME in thin surface treatments, can offset somewhat higher initial material costs associated with the addition of polymer modifiers. In 2007 and 2008, the FHWA developed the Transportation System Preservation (TSP) Research Roadmap by garnering the input of numerous SHAs, private industry, and academia at three workshops held across the U.S. Several of the resulting problem statements generated by the Roadmap working groups were specifically targeted at identifying research needs that would better quantify the cost-effectiveness of preventive maintenance treatments in general, and of specific material components more specifically. The literature review contained herein serves to further emphasize the need for additional research in the area of assessing the cost-benefit relationships between polymer modifiers and thin surface treatments. However, it is worthwhile to note that the comparatively small cost of polymer modifiers relative to overall material and construction costs, coupled with the demonstrable benefits of polymer modification illustrated throughout this report, indicate that the benefits of PME likely far outweigh its additional cost. 77
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING AND SPECIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Task 2 in the Statement of Work articulated four areas for recommendations. Following the literature search, there were several industry outreach initiatives to collect information from current practitioners. Presently, there are several other in-progress research projects addressing some of the same issues as this work, and the principal investigators of those projects were contacted for idea sharing and possible coordination of on-going and future efforts. There is a general consensus that current test methods and specifications can be greatly improved, and there are several performance-related protocols and methods currently being evaluated that look very promising. Because the proposed performance tests are not yet ASTM or AASHTO approved, and because there are still major data gaps, these protocols are not yet ready for full implementation by FLH. Based on the findings of this investigation, it is recommended that FLH continue to use the best practices of existing specifications for acceptance and pay supplemented with the “report only” performance tests listed in Table 12. It is further recommended that the data thus reported be combined with field performance evaluations, and that those results be used to gain statistical validation and acceptance as AASHTO/ASTM standards. More detailed information on the background for these recommendations is given in the following sections. 3.1 Industry Outreach Initiatives 3.1.1. Initial Discussions with Industry Representatives Asphalt emulsion material suppliers, study participants from the NCPP, and FLH representatives participated in an initial information gathering session on September 25, 2006 in St. Louis, Missouri. Koichi Takamura and Chris Lubbers of BASF Corporation (BASF); Joe Thrasher and Barry Baughman of Ultrapave; Dennis Muncy and Jon Wingo of SemMaterials; Paul Morris of Ergon; and Roger Hayner of Terry Industries represented the industry viewpoint. Gary Evans, Scott Saunders and Mike Voth represented FLH, and the NCPP participants were Larry Galehouse and John Johnston. 78
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: Numerous decision tools and best pr
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?