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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Agency / Organization FLH (703.10) Caltrans TxDOT (Not AASHTO Standards) Colorado State Study RoadArmor ® recommendations (High Performance) Fractured faces, one or more, ASTM D 5821 90% min. 2 faces, >85% 1 face >98% 2+ >95% Flat and elongated particles, 1:3 ratio. +⅜ inch sieve, calculated by mass, weighted average, ASTM D4791 10% max. Clay lumps and friable particles, AASHTO T 112 1.0% max. Deleterious Materials Tex-217- F P-200 2.0 max* 0.5 % max. 1.0 % max. Cleanness Value, CA 227 80 min Decantation, %, Tex-406-A 1.5 max Adherent coating, ASTM D 5711 0.5% max. Film Stripping CA 302 25% max Do not use lightweight aggregate according to AASHTO M 195. Samples for the aggregate grading and Cleanness Value tests will be taken from the conveyor belt of the spreader prior to application. Micro-Deval For screening, not for acceptance 17% max Flakiness index Tex-224-F 17 max 17 max. Absorption 2% max. Size, grade, and combine the aggregate fractions in mix proportions 91
conforming to the following criteria listed below in Tables 13, 14 and/or 15. Sieve Size Table 13: FL Table 703-7 Target Value Ranges for Single and Multiple Course Surface Treatment Aggregate Gradation 1½ inch 100 (1) Percent by Mass Passing Designated Sieve (AASHTO T 27 & T 11) Grading Designation A B C D E F 1 inch 90 – 100 (3) 100 (1) ¾ inch 0 – 35 (5) 90 – 100 (3) 100 (1) ½ inch 0 – 8 (3) 0 – 35 (5) 90 – 100 (3) 100 (1) ⅜ inch --- 0 – 12 (3) 0 – 35 (5) 85 – 100 (3) 100 (1) 100 (1) No. 4 --- 0 – 12 (3) 0 – 35 (5) 85 – 100 (3) 85 – 100 (1) No. 8 --- 0 – 8 (3) 0 – 23 (4) --- No. 200 0 – ½ (½) 0 – ½ (½) 0 – ½ (½) 0 – ½ (½) 0 – ½ (½) 0 - 10 (1) (1) Statistical procedures do not apply. ( ) The value in parentheses is the allowable deviation (±) from the target value. Table 14: CALTRANS Chip Seal Screenings Sizing Seal Coat Types Size of Screenings Fine 1/4" x No. 10 Medium fine 5/16" x No. 8 Medium 3/8" x No. 6 Coarse 1/2" x No. 4 Double 1 st application 1/2" x No. 4 2 nd application 1/4" x No. 10 Percentage Passing Sieve Coarse Medium Medium Fine Fine Size 1/2" x No. 4 3/8" x No. 6 5/16" x No. 8 1/4" x No. 10 3/4" 100 — — — 1/2" 95-100 100 — — 3/8" 50-80 90-100 100 100 No. 4 0-15 5-30 30-60 60-85 No. 8 0-5 0-10 0-15 0-25 No. 16 — 0-5 0-5 0-5 No. 30 — — 0-3 0-3 No. 200 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 92
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: Because the industry survey and oth
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?