Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
GEORGIA GEORGIA LOCAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SEPTEMBER 2004<br />
LTAP<br />
FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION<br />
FDR<br />
FOAMED ASPHALT – PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
PART 1 (AM) TECHNOLOGY<br />
FULL DEPTH ROADWAY RECLAMATION<br />
FOAMED ASPHALT STABILIZATION<br />
PART 2 (PM) PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
JOHN EMERY, ALAIN DUCLOS, EMILY CHANG, JESSICA HERNANDEZ<br />
JOHN EMERY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING LIMITED<br />
TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA<br />
www.jegel.com JEGEL – ISO 9001 jemery@jegel.com<br />
THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OF BLAIR BARNHARDT (BLOUNT CONSTRUCTION)<br />
IS GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGED.<br />
COUNTY OF WELLINGTON WR 50 FDR PROJECT COMPLETED IN 1997<br />
CONDITION IN DECEMBER 1999
FOAMED ASPHALT PART 1 CONCLUSIONS<br />
• ADVANTAGES<br />
– EASY APPLICATION<br />
– FLEXIBLE LAYER WITH GOOD RUTTING AND FATIGUE PROPERTIES<br />
– ECONOMIC (LCCA)<br />
– RAPID STRENGTH GAIN - ROAD CAN BE OPENED AFTER COMPACTION<br />
– REFLECTIVE CRACKING MITIGATION<br />
• DISADVANTAGES<br />
– REQUIRES A SUPPLY OF HOT (~160°C, 320°F PLUS) ASPHALT CEMENT<br />
– STABILIZED MATERIAL SHOULD HAVE 5 TO 15 PERCENT PASSING 75 µm<br />
• FOAMED (EXPANDED) ASPHALT STABILIZATION WELL ESTABLISHED, PROVEN<br />
AND COST EFFECTIVE<br />
• REFLECTIVE CRACKING MITIGATION<br />
• PROFILE CORRECTION AND SUPERELEVATION RESTORATION<br />
• RECOMMEND AGENCY EVALUATE PAVEMENT/SET PERFORMANCE<br />
SPECIFICATIONS AND ACCEPTANCE (QA)<br />
• RECOMMEND CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN/PROCESS/MATERIALS<br />
PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL<br />
• RECOMMEND STABILIZATION PROCESS BE SEPARATE PAY ITEM<br />
• a 1 OF ~ 0.35 TO 0.40 FOR AASHTO SN (GBE OF ~ 1.8) FOR PROPERLY DESIGNED<br />
AND CONSTRUCTED FOAMED ASPHALT STABILIZATION (QUALITY VERY<br />
IMPORTANT)
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
THE QUALITY OF WORK PERFORMED<br />
DIRECTLY INFLUENCES THE USEFUL LIFE OF<br />
THE PAVEMENT, MAINTENANCE COSTS, LEVEL<br />
OF SERVICE AND USER COSTS<br />
CHALLENGING TIME FOR PAVEMENTS<br />
• INCREASING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND TRUCK LOADINGS<br />
• LIMITED CAPITAL AND MAINTENANCE FUNDS<br />
• NETWORKS IN NEED OF MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT<br />
• MANY BRIDGES ARE DEFICIENT<br />
DON VALLEY PARKWAY IN TORONTO<br />
LONG-LIFE ASPHALT PAVEMENT – PERPETUAL PAVEMENT
PART 2<br />
F<br />
E<br />
E<br />
D<br />
B<br />
A<br />
C<br />
K<br />
INVENTORY<br />
INVENTORY<br />
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
INPUT<br />
INPUT<br />
INFORMATION<br />
INFORMATION<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
CRITERIA<br />
CRITERIA<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
MODELS<br />
MODELS<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
SERVICEABILITY<br />
SERVICEABILITY<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
MATERIALS<br />
MATERIALS<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
DESIGN<br />
DESIGN<br />
NEW,<br />
NEW,<br />
OVERLAY,<br />
OVERLAY,<br />
REHABILITATION<br />
REHABILITATION<br />
CONSTRUCT<br />
CONSTRUCT<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
OR<br />
OR<br />
OVERLAY<br />
OVERLAY<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
OR<br />
OR<br />
REHABILITATE<br />
REHABILITATE<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
SYSTEMATIC<br />
SYSTEMATIC<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
MAINTENANCE<br />
MAINTENANCE<br />
MAINTENANCE<br />
MAINTENANCE<br />
MANAGEMENT<br />
MANAGEMENT<br />
SYSTEM<br />
SYSTEM<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
MANAGEMENT<br />
MANAGEMENT<br />
SYSTEM<br />
SYSTEM<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
MONITORING<br />
MONITORING<br />
SAFE,<br />
SAFE,<br />
SMOOTH,<br />
SMOOTH,<br />
SURFACES<br />
SURFACES<br />
HAPPY<br />
HAPPY<br />
CUSTOMERS<br />
CUSTOMERS<br />
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS AND VALUE ENGINEERING<br />
• TRAFFIC (ESALs)<br />
•SUBGRADE<br />
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS<br />
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS<br />
• BUDGET<br />
• RUTTING<br />
•FATIGUE<br />
• THERMAL<br />
•INITIAL<br />
•TERMINAL<br />
• PCI - PSR<br />
•IRI<br />
• SUBBASE<br />
• BASE<br />
• ASPHALT CONCRETE<br />
SUPERPAVE<br />
PGAC, VOLUMETRIC, PERFORMANCE<br />
•GBE<br />
• AASHTO 93<br />
• COMING SOON - AASHTO 2002<br />
• LCCA AND VE<br />
•QC<br />
•QA<br />
• CRACK SEALING<br />
• SUMMER MAINTENANCE<br />
• WINTER MAINTENANCE<br />
• PAVEMENT PRESERVATION<br />
• INVENTORY (DATA BANK)<br />
• MONITOR PERFORMANCE<br />
• NETWORK LEVEL<br />
• PROJECT LEVEL<br />
• BUDGET<br />
• WINTER SURFACE CONDITION<br />
• MOVING TO PMS/MMS/AMS<br />
•PERPETUAL FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS<br />
• STRONG<br />
• DURABLE<br />
• SMOOTH<br />
• SAFE<br />
• ECONOMIC<br />
HIGHWAY AND AIRPORT<br />
CITY OF TORONTO ROYAL YORK ROAD 1997 CIR PROJECT WITH HMA SURFACE<br />
CURRENT CONDITION
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
ASPHALT<br />
GRANLAR BASE OR FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
GRANULAR SUBBASE<br />
SUBGRADE<br />
TYPICAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURE
• PERFORMANCE CRITERIA<br />
– RUTTING AND FATIGUE<br />
• PAVEMENT DESIGN INPUT REQUIRED<br />
– TRAFFIC<br />
– SUBGRADE<br />
– DRAINAGE CONDITIONS<br />
- KEY TO PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE<br />
- DRAINAGE, DRAINAGE, DRAINAGE<br />
- TAKE THE WATER OUT, KEEP THE WATER OUT<br />
– ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS<br />
– MATERIALS<br />
- GRANULAR MATERIALS<br />
- FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
- ASPHALT CONCRETE<br />
– SERVICEABILITY<br />
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
- INITIAL AND TERMINAL
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
• PERFORMANCE CRITERIA<br />
RUTTING<br />
TOTAL PAVEMENT - SUBGRADE, GRANULAR SUBBASE,<br />
GRANULAR BASE, FOAMED ASPHALT AND/OR ASPHALT<br />
CONCRETE<br />
FATIGUE<br />
ASPHALT CONCRETE AND FOAMED ASPHALT
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
CRITICAL STRAINS FOR MECHANISTIC ANALYSIS<br />
HORIZONTAL STRAIN AT BOTTOM<br />
OF ASPHALT CONCRETE<br />
OR FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
VERTICAL STRAIN AT TOP OF SUBGRADE
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
INPUT REQUIRED<br />
•TRAFFIC<br />
TYPE, MASS AND NUMBER (AADT)<br />
ESALs
• TRAFFIC<br />
• SUBGRADE<br />
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
INPUT REQUIRED<br />
BOREHOLE INVESTIGATION<br />
CBR TESTING<br />
LABORATORY MR TESTING<br />
DYNAMIC CONE PENETROMETER TESTING<br />
FWD TESTING<br />
PARTICULARLY FOR REHABILITATION
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
PAVEMENT EVALUATION<br />
• VISUAL CONDITION SURVEY<br />
• CORING/BOREHOLE INVESTIGATION TO DETERMINE THE<br />
THICKNESS OF THE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT<br />
LAYER(S) AND GRANULAR BASE/SUBBASE AND TO OBTAIN<br />
SAMPLES FOR LABORATORY TESTING<br />
• FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER (FWD) LOAD/DEFLECTION<br />
TESTING TO DETERMINE THE STRUCTURAL CAPACITY OF<br />
THE PAVEMENT<br />
• LABORATORY TESTING OF MATERIALS OBTAINED ON SITE<br />
• EMPIRICAL OR MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL PAVEMENT<br />
STRUCTURE ANALYSIS (DESIGN)<br />
IS THIS A SUITABLE SECTION FOR FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
•DRAINAGE?<br />
•STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY? FWD
• TRAFFIC<br />
• SUBGRADE<br />
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
INPUT REQUIRED<br />
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS<br />
KEY TO PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE<br />
1. DRAINAGE<br />
2. DRAINAGE<br />
3. DRAINAGE<br />
TAKE THE WATER OUT. KEEP THE<br />
WATER OUT.
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
• TRAFFIC<br />
• SUBGRADE<br />
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS<br />
IMPROVE OR INSTALL AS NECESSARY
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
INPUT REQUIRED<br />
• TRAFFIC<br />
• SUBGRADE<br />
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS<br />
• ENVIRONMENTAL<br />
CONDITIONS<br />
FROST SUSCEPTIBILITY
• TRAFFIC<br />
• SUBGRADE<br />
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS<br />
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS<br />
• PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY<br />
INITIAL<br />
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
INPUT REQUIRED<br />
LOW TRAFFIC EXAMPLE
• TRAFFIC<br />
• SUBGRADE<br />
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS<br />
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS<br />
• PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY<br />
INITIAL<br />
TERMINAL<br />
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
INPUT REQUIRED<br />
IS THIS A CANDIDATE FOR FOAMED ASPHALT?<br />
FWD<br />
LOW TRAFFIC EXAMPLE
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT EMPIRICAL DESIGN METHODS<br />
AASHTO 93 IS COMMONLY USED AASHTO 2002 COMING SOON<br />
• TRAFFIC<br />
• SUBGRADE<br />
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS<br />
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS<br />
• PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY<br />
• MATERIALS<br />
GRANULAR SUBBASE<br />
GRANULAR BASE<br />
FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
ASPHALT CONCRETE<br />
GBE<br />
AASHTO 93 a i<br />
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS<br />
SN = a 1 D 1 + a 2 D 2 m 2 + a 3 D 3 m 3
• TRAFFIC<br />
• SUBGRADE<br />
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS<br />
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS<br />
• PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY<br />
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
INPUT REQUIRED<br />
• MATERIALS<br />
GRANULAR SUBBASE<br />
GRANULAR BASE<br />
FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
ASPHALT CONCRETE<br />
GBE<br />
AASHTO 93 α i<br />
AASHTO 93 GRANULAR SUBBASE LAYER COEFFICIENT
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
PAVEMENT LAYERS THICKNESS DESIGN<br />
AASHTO 93<br />
SN = a 1 D 1 + a 2 D 2 m 2 + a 3 D 3 m 3<br />
WHERE<br />
SN<br />
a 1 , a 2 , a 3<br />
D 1 , D 2 , D 3<br />
m 2 , m 3<br />
=<br />
=<br />
=<br />
=<br />
DESIGN STRUCTURAL NUMBER<br />
LAYER COEFFICIENTS REPRESENTATIVE<br />
OF SURFACE (INCLUDING FOAMED<br />
ASPHALT) BASE, AND SUBBASE<br />
COURSES, RESPECTIVELY<br />
ACTUAL THICKNESS OF SURFACE<br />
(INCLUDING FOAMED ASPHALT), BASE,<br />
AND SUBBASE COURSES, RESPECTIVELY<br />
DRAINAGE COEFFICIENTS FOR BASE<br />
AND SUBBASE COURSES, RESPECTIVELY<br />
CHECK FOR FATIGUE<br />
DESIGN STRUCTURAL NUMBER
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
WHY AASHTO 93?<br />
AASHTO 93<br />
• STRONG EMPIRICAL BACKGROUND<br />
AASHO ROAD TEST 1960s<br />
• WIDELY RECOGNIZED<br />
• EVOLVING INTO AASHTO 2002<br />
• DARWIN TM
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
DARWIN IS A PAVEMENT DESIGN SOFTWARE<br />
PROGRAM BASED ON “AASHTO GUIDE FOR THE<br />
DESIGN OF PAVEMENT STRUCTURES, 1993”.
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
LANE DISTRIBUTION FACTOR<br />
AASHTO 93<br />
NUMBER OF LANES<br />
IN EACH DIRECTION<br />
PERCENT OF 18-kip<br />
ESAL IN DESIGN<br />
LANE<br />
1 100<br />
2 80 – 100<br />
3 60 – 80<br />
4 50 - 75
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
LEVELS OF RELIABILITY<br />
AASHTO 93<br />
FUNCTIONAL<br />
CLASIFICATION<br />
INTERSTATE<br />
AND OTHER<br />
FREEWAYS<br />
PRINCIPAL<br />
ARTERIALS<br />
LEVEL OF RELIABILITY<br />
URBAN RURAL<br />
85 – 99.9 80 – 99.9<br />
80 – 99 75 – 95<br />
COLLECTORS 80 – 95 75 – 95<br />
LOCAL 50 - 80 50 - 80
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
INPUT REQUIRED<br />
AASHTO 93 DRAINAGE COEFFICIENTS<br />
FOR FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
CHECK FOR FATIGUE<br />
AASHTO 93<br />
SHELL
RMRC RESEARCH
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT EMPIRICAL DESIGN METHODS<br />
~ GRANULAR BASE EQUIVALENCY (GBE) FACTORS<br />
ONTARIO EXPERIENCE<br />
• NEW PROJECTS<br />
• HOT-MIX ASPHALT (INCLUDING RECYCLED) 2.0<br />
• GRANULAR BASE (CRUSHED, CBR ≥ 60) 1.0<br />
• GRANULAR SUBBASE (CBR < 60) 0.67<br />
• OGDL (NOT RECOMMENDED) 1.0<br />
• RESURFACING PROJECTS<br />
• OLD HOT-MIX ASPHALT 1.25<br />
• OLD GRANULAR BASE 0.75<br />
• OLD GRANULAR SUBBASE 0.50<br />
• RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS<br />
• OLD HOT-MIX ASPHALT 1.0<br />
• OLD GRANULAR BASE 0.6<br />
• OLD GRANULAR SUBBASE 0.4<br />
• PULVERIZED RAP/GRANULAR BLEND 1.00<br />
• CIP 1.80<br />
• FOAMED/EXPANDED ASPHALT 1.80<br />
• RUBBLIZED BASE CONCRETE 1.0+
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
MTO GBE STRUCTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR FLEXIBLE<br />
PAVEMENTS - SECONDARY HIGHWAYS
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
LOW TRAFFIC ROAD EXAMPLE<br />
• TRAFFIC<br />
• SUBGRADE<br />
• DRAINAGE CONDITIONS<br />
• ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS<br />
• PAVEMENT SERVICEABILITY<br />
• MATERIALS<br />
AASHTO 93
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
DARWIN BASED ON AASHTO 93<br />
EXAMPLE LOW VOLUME
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
AASHTO 93 DARWIN
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
CHECK FOR FATIGUE<br />
AASHTO 93 SHELL BISAR EXAMPLE COMPLETED
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OVERLAY DESIGN<br />
DEFLECTION OF PAVEMENT SECTION<br />
IN ADDITION TO THE SEASONAL VARIATIONS, THE DEFLECTION OF A PAVEMENT<br />
SECTION MAY VARY ALONG ITS LENGTH. TO REDUCE THE EFFECT OF BOTH<br />
VARIABLES, A STATISTICAL PROCESS IS USED WHEN ESTIMATING THE MAXIMUM<br />
DEFLECTION.<br />
• DIVIDE THE PAVEMENT INTO SECTIONS WHICH ARE 300M LONG. THE SECTIONS CAN BE<br />
OF VARIABLE LENGTH PROVIDED THEY ARE HOMOGENEOUS WITH RESPECT TO THE<br />
FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE THE PAVEMENT DESIGN (E.G., SUBGRADE AND TRAFFIC)<br />
• SELECT AT LEAST 10 STRATIFIED TEST POINTS WITHIN EACH SECTION USING A TABLE<br />
OF RANDOM NUMBERS<br />
• OBTAIN THE DEFLECTION MEASUREMENT AT THE SELECTED TEST POINTS USING THE<br />
FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER<br />
• CALCULATE THE AVERAGE DEFLECTION (X) AND THE STANDARD DEVIATION (σ x<br />
)<br />
• CALCULATE THE ESTIMATED MAXIMUM PROBABLE DEFLECTION VALUE<br />
D max = ( X + 2σ x )<br />
WATCH FOR OUTLIERS (LOCAL REPAIR), ADJUST FOR SEASON, SPRING ~ 1.5 x FALL,<br />
CONVERT TO STATIC (BENKELMAN BEAM EQUIVALENT), BENKELMAN BEAM ~ 1.5 X FWD
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OVERLAY DESIGN<br />
FWD<br />
• DEFLECTION<br />
• LAYER MODULI<br />
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF TYPICAL FWD DEFLECTION BASIN
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OVERLAY DESIGN<br />
MTO<br />
ONTARIO PAVEMENT OVERLAY DESIGN CRITERIA<br />
PAVEMENT THICKNESS/DEFLECTION RELATIONSHIP<br />
ASPHALT<br />
INSTITUTE<br />
HAS<br />
SIMILAR<br />
APPROACH
TESTING OF FOAMED ASPHALT AND HMA<br />
PERFORMANCE AND CHARACTERIZATION TESTING<br />
APA<br />
ASPHALT<br />
PAVEMENT<br />
ANALYZER<br />
(PTI)<br />
APA<br />
DESIGN<br />
LABORATORY<br />
PROOF<br />
TESTER<br />
ASPHALT<br />
PLANT<br />
PLACEMENT<br />
LINK BETWEEN LABORATORY TESTING<br />
AND FIELD PERFORMANCE<br />
NAT<br />
RESILIENT MODULUS<br />
PERMANENT DEFORMATION<br />
FATIGUE ENDURANCE<br />
FOR RESILIENT MODULUS OF SUBGRADES AND GRANULAR MATERIALS<br />
JEGEL USES FWD, DCP AND LABORATORY SOIL DYNAMICS TESTING<br />
ASPHALT PAVEMENT ANALYZER AND NOTTINGHAM ASPHALT TESTER IN JEGEL LABORATORY
TECHNICAL LITERATURE INDICATES THE STRUCTURAL<br />
COEFFICIENTS FOR FOAMED ASPHALT ARE GENERALLY<br />
SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR CIR FOR PROPERLY DESIGNED<br />
AND CONSTRUCTED FOAMED ASPHALT STABILIZATION<br />
(QUALITY VERY IMPORTANT)<br />
MTO HIGHWAY 3 CIR COMPLETED IN 1992<br />
1.4 PERCENT HF 150P, CONDITION IN 1997
CIR STRUCTURAL EQUIVALENCY FACTOR<br />
CORES FROM MTO HIGHWAY 3<br />
THE CIR BASE HAS THE APPEARANCE OF HMA
CIR STRUCTURAL EQUIVALENCY FACTOR<br />
MECHANISTIC DESIGN MODULI<br />
GRANULAR BASE EQUIVALENCY (GBE)<br />
• NOTTINGHAM ASPHALT TESTER (NAT)<br />
– RESILIENT PROPERTIES<br />
– LABORATORY AND FIELD SAMPLES<br />
• REPRESENTATIVE FIELD SAMPLES TESTED<br />
– PROJECTS COMPLETED FROM 1991 TO 1996<br />
• MECHANISTIC DESIGN SUBGRADE STRAINS<br />
(BISAR)<br />
• GBE OF ~ 1.8 (a 1 ~ 0.35 - 0.40) NOTE – GBE AND a 1 ARE FOR<br />
PROPERLY DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED FOAMED<br />
ASPHALT STABILIZATION (QUALITY VERY IMPORTANT)
CIR STRUCTURAL EQUIVALENCY FACTOR<br />
GRANULAR BASE EQUIVALENCY (GBE) FACTOR INCREASE WITH AGE<br />
OF COLD IN-PLACE RECYCLED ASPHALT
FOAMED ASPHALT STABILIZATION<br />
CHARACTERIZATION IN JEGEL NAT<br />
• RESILIENT MODULUS<br />
• PERMANENT DEFORMATION (RUTTING)<br />
• FATIGUE ENDURANCE
CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FDR (FOAMED ASPHALT) CORES<br />
FROM TYPICAL GEORGIA PROJECTS – BLOUNT CONSTRUCTION<br />
LOCATION AND DEPTH OF CORES SUPPLIED BY CONTRACTOR<br />
GEORGIA<br />
LOCATION<br />
HOUZE WAY<br />
CORE<br />
ID.<br />
AVERAGE LAYER<br />
DEPTH<br />
HMA FOAMED<br />
(mm) ASPHALT<br />
(mm)<br />
DESCRIPTION<br />
H-1 44 125 CENTERLINE EB TURNING LANE INTO FUDDRUCKERS<br />
H-2 35 132 CENTERLINE WB TURNING LANE INTO ROSWELL BICYCLE PATH<br />
H-3 32 118 CENTERLINE WB TURNING LANE INTO 600 HOUZE WAY<br />
TRAMMEL<br />
ROAD<br />
JOTTEM DOWN<br />
ROAD<br />
MCGINNIS<br />
FERRY ROAD<br />
T-1 32 189 CENTERLINE LEFT SIDE, APPROX. 150M FROM PROJECT END<br />
T-2 38 159 CENTERLINE RIGHT SIDE, IN FRONT OF MAIL BOX 3711<br />
T-3 25 150 CENTERLINE LEFT SIDE, IN FRONT OF MAIL BOX 378<br />
J-1 49 156 CENTERLINE OF LANE, IN FRONT OF MAIL BOX 8700<br />
J-2 41 151 CENTERLINE OF LANE, ACROSS FROM MAIL BOX 9030<br />
J-3 50 152 CENTERLINE OF LANE, IN FRONT OF MAIL BOX 7865<br />
M-1 35 120 CENTER TURNING LANE AT WINDWARD RIDGE<br />
M-2 32 152 CENTER TURNING LANE AT JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPE<br />
M-3 25 165 CENTER TURNING LANE AT BROOKWOOD SUBWAY<br />
NOTE: 1. THREE CORES WERE SUPPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT EACH LOCATION DESCRIBED ABOVE.
CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
SUMMARY OF FOAMED ASPHALT MIX DESIGN PROPORTIONS<br />
AT VARIOUS PROJECT LOCATIONS<br />
GEORGIA<br />
LOCATION<br />
ASPHALT<br />
MATERIAL<br />
(%)<br />
EXISTING<br />
GRANULAR<br />
(%)<br />
MATERIAL<br />
ASPHALT<br />
CEMENT<br />
(67-22)<br />
(%)<br />
HYDRATED<br />
LIME<br />
ADDITION<br />
(%)<br />
ASPHALT<br />
MATERIAL<br />
(%)<br />
EXISTING<br />
GRANULAR<br />
(%)<br />
MIX<br />
ASPHALT<br />
CEMENT<br />
(67-22)<br />
(%)<br />
HYDRATED<br />
LIME<br />
ADDITION<br />
(%)<br />
TOTAL TOTAL<br />
ASPHALT MOISTURE<br />
CEMENT CONTENT<br />
CONTENT (%) [2]<br />
(%) [1]<br />
HOUZE WAY<br />
(SECTION A)<br />
HOUZE WAY<br />
(SECTION B)<br />
TRAMMEL<br />
ROAD<br />
JOTTEM<br />
DOWN ROAD<br />
MCGINNIS<br />
FERRY ROAD<br />
85.0 15.0 - - 83.1 14.7 2.2 - 6.73 6.3<br />
49.5 49.5 - 1.0 48.2 48.2 2.6 1.0 5.22 5.9<br />
75.0 25.0 - - 73.1 24.4 2.5 - 7.14 6.0<br />
74.5 24.5 - 1.0 73.0 24.0 2.0 1.0 6.72 6.5<br />
- - - - - - - - - -<br />
NOTES: 1. INCLUDING RESIDUAL PLUS ADDED.<br />
2. INCLUDING IN-SITU PLUS ADDED.
CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
FOAMED ASPHALT MIX DESIGN DATA VS. LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS<br />
AT VARIOUS PROJECT LOCATIONS<br />
GEORGIA<br />
SIEVE<br />
SIZE<br />
PERCENT<br />
PASSING<br />
Section<br />
A,<br />
JMF<br />
HOUZE WAY TRAMMELL ROAD JOTTON DOWN<br />
ROAD<br />
Section Top Lower JMF Top Lower JMF Top Lower<br />
B, FDR FDR<br />
FDR FDR<br />
FDR FDR<br />
JMF Layer Layer Layer Layer Layer Layer<br />
MCGINNIS FERRY<br />
ROAD<br />
JMF Top Lower<br />
FDR FDR<br />
Layer Layer<br />
50.0 mm 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0<br />
37.5 mm 100.0 95.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0<br />
26.5 mm 98.9 91.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0<br />
19.0 mm 97.7 82.6 98.6 98.3 97.6 100.0 100.0 97.0 94.7 100.0 - 98.6 98.9<br />
16.0 mm 94.7 77.1 98.2 97.1 94.5 96.9 99.1 94.2 92.2 99.0 - 97.9 98.9<br />
13.2 mm 89.2 73.3 95.7 95.0 91.8 96.0 99.1 92.3 90.2 97.2 - 97.7 98.5<br />
9.5 mm 81.8 68.1 88.8 91.4 86.7 94.1 96.9 89.5 87.6 94.7 - 96.5 95.1<br />
4.75 mm 62.4 49.8 73.4 76.4 60.8 76.4 82.0 72.8 74.9 84.5 - 81.4 77.9<br />
2.36 mm 46.8 39.5 57.4 60.1 43.1 58.2 62.5 61.5 63.5 72.9 - 62.5 60.6<br />
1.18 mm 38.3 34.4 47.1 49.0 34.5 45.7 50.9 54.0 53.9 62.7 - 51.4 49.1<br />
600 µm 31.9 30.6 38.8 40.1 28.6 35.9 43.4 48.3 44.2 51.6 - 44.1 39.5<br />
300 µm 25.3 25.6 30.4 31.1 22.5 26.9 35.8 35.5 32.2 37.3 - 36.4 30.3<br />
150 µm 18.9 19.6 21.2 21.6 15.6 17.2 25.1 24.2 19.4 21.9 - 25.2 19.8<br />
75 µm 13.9 14.4 13.3 14.3 9.9 9.7 15.7 15.5 10.9 12.6 - 15.0 12.0<br />
ASPHALT CEMENT<br />
CONTENT 6.73 5.22 5.83 5.59 7.14 5.97 6.27 6.72 6.03 3.89 - 6.43 5.36<br />
Percent by Mass<br />
AIR VOIDS (%) 8.2 10.1 11.8 14.9 9.8 14.1 14.9 8.9 19.4 24.8 - 15.8 19.4<br />
BRD 2.118 2.100 2.197 2.127 2.198 2.065 2.044 2.091 1.974 1.907 - 2.018 1.956
CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE BRD, MRD, AIR VOIDS AND RESILIENT MODULUS<br />
OF ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TOP FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
COURSE AND BOTTOM FOAMED ASPHALT COURSE SAMPLES<br />
GEORGIA<br />
SAMPLE<br />
HMA<br />
TOP<br />
FOAMED<br />
ASPHALT<br />
LOWER<br />
FOAMED<br />
ASPHALT<br />
SAMPLE<br />
LOCATION<br />
AVERAGE<br />
BULK<br />
RELATIVE<br />
DENSITY<br />
(BRD)<br />
COMPOSITE<br />
MAXIMUM<br />
RELATIVE<br />
DENSITY<br />
(MRD)<br />
AVERAGE<br />
AIR<br />
VOIDS<br />
(%)<br />
AVERAGE<br />
RESILIENT<br />
MODULUS<br />
@ 20°C<br />
(MPa)<br />
AVERAGE<br />
RESILIENT<br />
MODULUS<br />
AFTER<br />
CONDITIONING<br />
@ 20°C<br />
(MPa) [2]<br />
HOUZE WAY 2.363 2.538 6.9 7957 -<br />
TRAMMEL ROAD 2.303 2.498 7.8 9031 -<br />
JOTTEM DOWN ROAD 2.380 2.492 4.5 7668 -<br />
MCGINNIS FERRY ROAD 2.296 2.535 9.4 4442 -<br />
HOUZE WAY 2.197 2.491 11.8 4804 -<br />
TRAMMEL ROAD 2.065 2.405 14.1 2398 -<br />
JOTTEM DOWN ROAD 1.974 2.450 19.4 2989 -<br />
MCGINNIS FERRY ROAD 2.018 2.396 15.8 3337 -<br />
HOUZE WAY 2.127 2.499 14.9 2540 -<br />
TRAMMEL ROAD 2.044 2.403 14.9 2492 1564<br />
JOTTEM DOWN ROAD 1.907 2.535 24.8 1829 1199<br />
MCGINNIS FERRY ROAD 1.956 2.424 19.4 2566 1786<br />
NOTES: 1. ALL AVERAGE VALUES WERE OBTAINED BASED ON THE TEST OF THREE SAMPLES<br />
EXCLUDING OUTLIERS.<br />
2. LOWER LAYER FOAMED ASPHALT SAMPLES WERE IMMERSED IN WATER FOR 24 HOURS AT<br />
TEMPERATURE RANGED BETWEEN 20 TO 25°C, THEN DRAINED AND DRIED UNDER<br />
LABORATORY AMBIENT AIR FOR 1 HOUR PRIOR TO TESTING.
CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
SUMMARY OF RESILIENT MODULUS TESTING RESULTS<br />
HOT MIX ASPHALT AND FOAMED ASPHALT MIX<br />
HOUZE WAY, CITY OF ROSWELL, GEORGIA<br />
LAYER<br />
TYPE<br />
AVERAGE RESILIENT MODULUS (MPa)<br />
10°C 25°C 35°C 20°C<br />
HMA 11809 5236 2115 7957<br />
TOP FOAMED ASPHALT 6582 4947 3087 5319<br />
LOWER FOAMED ASPHALT 5831 4536 2566 4457<br />
BOTTOM FOAMED ASPHALT 1970 1639 994 2540<br />
NOTES: 1. ALL RESILIENT MODULUS VALUES WERE OBTAINED BASED ON THE TEST OF THREE<br />
SAMPLES EXCLUDING OUTLIERS.<br />
2. TESTING RESULTS AT 20°C WERE CONDUCTED USING A DIFFERENT SET OF SAMPLE<br />
SPECIMENS FROM THE SAME CORING LOCATION AS THE REST OF THE TESTING<br />
SPECIMENS.
CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
RESILIENT MODULUS (MPa)<br />
20000<br />
18000<br />
16000<br />
14000<br />
12000<br />
10000<br />
8000<br />
6000<br />
RESILIENT MODULUS VS. TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP<br />
HOT MIX ASPHALT AND EXPANDED ASPHALT MIX<br />
(HOUZE WAY, CITY OF ROSWELL, GEORGIA)<br />
HMA<br />
TOP FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
LOWER FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
BOTTOM FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
HMA AT 20°C<br />
TOP FOAMED ASPHALT AT 20°C<br />
MIDDLE FOAMED ASPHALT AT 20°C<br />
LOWER FOAMED ASPHALT AT 20°C<br />
TYPICAL RANGE OF RESILIENT MODULUS<br />
FOR DENSE-GRADED ASPHALT MIXTURES<br />
4000<br />
2000<br />
0<br />
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40<br />
TEMPERATURE (°C)
CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
LTPP DESIGN SUMMER PAVEMENT TEMPERATURES ( O C)<br />
98% RELIABILITY<br />
CITY<br />
DEPTH (mm)<br />
0 50 100 150<br />
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 60.1 55.2 52.4 50.5<br />
DETROIT, MICHIGAN 56.4 51.5 48.7 46.8<br />
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 60.6 55.7 52.9 50.9<br />
TORONTO, ONTARIO 54.9 50 47.2 45.2
CHARACTERIZATION OF HMA AND FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
RESILIENT MODULUS (MPa)<br />
20000<br />
18000<br />
16000<br />
14000<br />
12000<br />
10000<br />
8000<br />
6000<br />
RESILIENT MODULUS VS. TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIP<br />
HOT MIX ASPHALT AND EXPANDED ASPHALT MIX<br />
(HOUZE WAY, CITY OF ROSWELL, GEORGIA)<br />
HMA<br />
TOP FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
LOWER FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
BOTTOM FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
HMA AT 20°C<br />
TOP FOAMED ASPHALT AT 20°C<br />
MIDDLE FOAMED ASPHALT AT 20°C<br />
LOWER FOAMED ASPHALT AT 20°C<br />
TYPICAL RANGE OF RESILIENT MODULUS<br />
FOR DENSE-GRADED ASPHALT MIXTURES<br />
4000<br />
2000<br />
0<br />
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40<br />
TEMPERATURE (°C)
FOAMED ASPHALT STABILIZATION CHARACTERIZATION IN JEGEL NAT<br />
0.7<br />
AASHTO 93 a 1 STRUCTURAL LAYER COEFFICIENT<br />
FOR HOT-MIX ASPHALT AND FOAMED ASPHALT<br />
0.65<br />
STRUCTURAL LAYER COEFFICIENT a 1<br />
0.6<br />
0.55<br />
0.5<br />
0.45<br />
0.4<br />
0.35<br />
0.3<br />
0.25<br />
0.2<br />
HMA<br />
UPPER FOAMED<br />
ASPHALT<br />
LOWER FOAMED<br />
ASPHALT<br />
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40<br />
TEMPERATURE ( o C)<br />
a 1 DETERMINED FROM<br />
a<br />
⎡ E ⎤<br />
0.40Log<br />
⎢ 450⎥<br />
⎣ ⎦<br />
RT<br />
1<br />
= +<br />
0.44<br />
a 1 IS DOTTED WHEN GREATER THAN 0.5<br />
AS GIVEN IN FHWA-RD-97-077
FOAMED ASPHALT STABILIZATION CHARACTERIZATION IN JEGEL NAT<br />
2.45<br />
GRANULAR BASE EQUIVALENCY FOR HOT-MIX ASPHALT<br />
AND FOAMED ASPHALT BASED ON MTO (GBE OF HMA = 2)<br />
GRANULAR BASE EQUIVALENCY<br />
2.25<br />
2.05<br />
1.85<br />
1.65<br />
1.45<br />
HMA<br />
UPPER FOAMED<br />
ASPHALT<br />
LOWER<br />
FOAMED<br />
ASPHALT<br />
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40<br />
TEMPERATURE ( o C)<br />
GRANULAR BASE EQUIVALENCY (GBE) OF HOT-MIX ASPHALT<br />
TAKEN AS 2 BASED ON MTO<br />
GBE IS DOTTED WHEN GREATER THAN 2.0
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS<br />
“WE GO OUT AND BUY PAVEMENTS LIKE WE WOULD ZUCCHINI.<br />
ALL WE CARE ABOUT IS PRICE.”<br />
DAMIAN J. KULASH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC<br />
HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM, 1993
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS<br />
• ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF COMPETING, TECHNICALLY<br />
SUITABLE SYSTEMS OVER DESIGN LIFE<br />
• COST COMPONENTS<br />
INITIAL COSTS (CAPITAL COSTS)<br />
MAINTENANCE COSTS<br />
REHABILITATION COSTS<br />
RESIDUAL/SALVAGE VALUES<br />
USER COSTS (TRAFFIC DELAY FOR INSTANCE)<br />
• PRESENT WORTH METHOD<br />
ANALYSIS PERIOD (TYPICALLY 30 TO 40 YEARS – AT LEAST ONE<br />
REHABILITATION)<br />
DISCOUNT RATE (TYPICALLY ABOUT 4 PERCENT)<br />
PRESENT WORTH (REMEMBER RULE OF 72)<br />
• FOAMED ASPHALT WITH HMA OVERLAY LIFE-CYCLE COST<br />
ANALYSES GENERALLY VERY FAVOURABLE COMPARED TO<br />
PULVERIZE/'THICKER ' HMA OR MILL/RECYCLED HMA/HMA
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS<br />
INITIAL COSTS<br />
LARGELY DETERMINE THE LIFE-CYCLE COST<br />
FOR 20 YEAR PAVEMENT DESIGNS<br />
TYPICAL ONTARIO FDR PROJECT
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS<br />
MAINTENANCE COST EFFECTIVENESS<br />
ASSET MANAGEMENT
EXAMPLE OF FOAMED ASPHALT OR CIR<br />
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS<br />
• INTEREST RATE 8 PERCENT, INFLATION RATE 4 PERCENT<br />
- DISCOUNT RATE 3.85 PERCENT<br />
• ALTERNATIVES BASED ON EQUIVALENT GRANULAR BASE<br />
EQUIVALENCIES (GBE)<br />
- EXISTING PAVEMENT 100 mm ASPHALT CONCRETE<br />
150 mm GRANULAR BASE<br />
GRANULAR SUBBASE<br />
SUBGRADE<br />
• GBE OF 1.8 USED FOR FOAMED ASPHALT AND CIR<br />
• INITIAL COST OF PAVEMENT STRUCTURE ONLY<br />
- AVERAGE MTO 1996 UNIT PRICES<br />
• MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION SCHEDULE BASED ON<br />
JEGEL EXPERIENCE
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT DESIGN<br />
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS<br />
PULVERIZE 200 mm<br />
40 mm HL 8<br />
50 mm OF HL 3<br />
EXAMPLE<br />
FOAMED COLD IN-PLACE ASPHALT<br />
OR RECYCLE CIR 100 mm<br />
50 mm OF HL 3<br />
MILL 40 mm<br />
65 mm OF RECYCLED HL 8<br />
50 mm OF HL 3<br />
INITIAL COST 29,526 31,275 35,700<br />
PRESENT<br />
WORTH OF<br />
MAINT. COSTS<br />
PRESENT<br />
WORTH OF<br />
REHAB. COSTS<br />
PRESENT<br />
WORTH OF<br />
RESIDUAL<br />
COSTS<br />
TOTAL<br />
PRESENT<br />
WORTH OF<br />
COSTS<br />
12,322 13,715 12,332<br />
22,478 8,706 22,478<br />
(10,178) (2,175) (10,277)<br />
54,158 51,521 60,233<br />
RANK 2 1 3
EXAMPLE OF VALUE ENGINEEING<br />
SUPERPAVE PLUS<br />
FOAMED ASPHALT OR CIR AND<br />
SUPERPAVE OVERLAY
AASHTO 2002<br />
AT EARLY IMPLEMENTATION STAGE<br />
GENERAL DESIGN APPROACH<br />
ENVIRONMENT<br />
MATERIALS<br />
<br />
TRAFFIC<br />
PROCESS RAW INPUT FOR DISTRESS MODELING<br />
<br />
ASSEMBLE INPUT AND TRIAL DESIGN<br />
INFORMATION FOR EACH DISTRESS MODEL<br />
<br />
STRESS DEFLECTION ANALYSIS<br />
CALCULATE STRESS ∪ CALCULATE DAMAGE ∪ PREDICT AMOUNT OF DISTRESS<br />
<br />
PREDICT SMOOTHNESS OVER TIME<br />
<br />
CHECK PREDICTED PERFORMANCE<br />
AGAINST DESIGN STANDARDS<br />
<br />
[ REVISE DESIGN AS NECESSARY ]<br />
TO SATISFY DESIGN STANDARD<br />
<br />
DESIGN COMPLETE
QUESTIONS ?<br />
PLEASE CONTACT JOHN EMERY AT JEGEL WITH YOUR QUESTIONS<br />
416-213-1060 jemery@jegel.com www.jegel.com