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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Following this meeting, Gayle and Helen King were brought into the project as consultants to contribute asphalt emulsion materials expertise and a better understanding of supplier needs and concerns. Several teleconference calls and meetings have followed since the initial meeting in St. Louis to garner relevant input from other industry representatives, academics and FHWA personnel. A summary list of these meetings includes: • September 2006 Meeting in St. Louis, Missouri; • March 2008 Meeting in Okemos, Michigan; • Teleconference Calls with Industry and FLH in October, November, and December 2007; and July 2008. Discussions of the input received during these meetings are presented in the following subsections, and detailed meeting minutes are provided in Appendix A. 3.1.2 Findings from the Survey and Follow-up Communication Based on comments gathered from the previously referenced meetings, the study participants developed a survey for the industry at large. Invitations were sent to members of the Binder Expert Task Group (ETG); the Transportation Research Board (TRB) committee AFK20 (Asphalt Binders); the TRB Pavement Preservation Task Force; and the International Technical Committees of the American Emulsion Manufacturers Association (AEMA), the Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association (ARRA), and the International Slurry Surfacing Association (ISSA) to respond to a webbased questionnaire. Appendix B contains a PowerPoint summary presentation as well as the full survey results. In support of the survey, numerous research resources and proposed test procedures were posted on the NCPP website. These documents can be found in Appendix C. While a majority of the 33 survey respondents were technical people, there was a good cross-section of industry leaders and experts representing SHAs, suppliers, contractors, academics, and consultants involved in regulatory, technical, construction, marketing, management and business roles. Industry had previously opposed innovative ideas for polymer modified emulsion testing 79
and performance-related specifications - often because of concerns about shipping and payment delays or extensive testing requirements. The survey indicates that the private sector of the asphalt emulsion industry would be willing to accept more performancebased methods and specifications, so long as emulsion suppliers and contractors are included in the change process and their existing operations can continue to produce and place products efficiently. To make this happen, emulsion suppliers generally support a standardized certified pre-compliance testing program and acceptance. Overall, there was a good mandate for contractor, supplier, and lab certification, but not individual certification. Specific comments on test protocols included: PME Emulsion Test Methods and Specifications All of the experts consulted agreed that the ASTM D-244 specification covering test procedures for asphalt emulsions needs to be updated. Changes discussed in the survey include: • Emulsion Viscosity – Lab Tests: Experts agree the Saybolt-Furol method for measuring asphalt emulsion viscosity is antiquated and unable to measure shear rate. Brookfield rheometers are used to determine asphalt viscosities at high temperatures for prediction of HMA mix and compaction temperatures, and are therefore standard equipment in asphalt laboratories. Although asphalt emulsion viscosity can be measured with this same rheometer, survey comments revealed that recent work by Salomon (81) indicates some problems with Brookfield testing that might be overcome with a Paddle Rheometer as used by the paint industry. Survey comments on the Paddle Method were generally favorable, but a follow-up phone call indicated that one lab (Flint Hills Resources) conducting work in support of the ASTM committee on asphalt emulsion test methods had problems with temperature control and suggested that additional work is required to validate the method. Improving the method for measuring asphalt emulsion viscosity in the lab remains a data gap. Although not critical for the improvement of FLH PME specifications as outlined in this study, it would be appropriate to include any new viscosity test methods under review by ASTM in the report-only field study. 80
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: 3.0 LABORATORY TESTING AND SPECIFIC
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?