PHASE II REPORT - Caltrans

More documents

Recommendations

Info

GRADATION ANALYSES FOR AGGREGATE A3 Source: Texas (A3) Aggregate: Grade 2 Texas (between Type 2 & Type 3 ISSA specs) Sampled ID: 3-10 SIEVE ANALYSIS per AASHTO T27 0 Dry Weight of Sample before #200 Wash, g Cumulative Results Grade 2, Texas specs Weight, g Sieve Size Sieve Size % Passing Min Max 0.0 3/8" 9.5 #DIV/0! 99 100 0.0 #4 4.75 #DIV/0! 86 94 0.0 #8 2.36 #DIV/0! 45 65 0.0 #16 1.18 #DIV/0! 25 46 0.0 #30 0.06 #DIV/0! 15 35 0.0 #50 0.03 #DIV/0! 10 25 0.0 #100 0.015 #DIV/0! 7 18 0.0 #200 0.0075 #DIV/0! 5 15 10 1 0.1 Sieve Size, mm 175 0.01 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 0.001 Percent Passing % Passing Min Max
SODIUM SULFATE SOUNDNESS FOR AGGREGATES A1, A2, AND A3 Sodium Sulfate Soundness per AASHTO for Fine Aggregate Samples Sodium New CEL Number: 10-17749 Solution: Aggregate: A1 (Table Mountain) Solution: ` Initial Bulk Test Sample Size, g: 1021.7 Weighted % Passing Percentage FINE FRACTION To make Weight of designated Loss Sieve Ind'l Wt Cum Wt Cum % Cum % Ind'l % grading equal Fraction sieve after for Fine Size Retained Retained Retained Passing Retained check to 100% before test, g test Fraction 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3/8" 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 #4 130.8 130.8 12.8 87.2 12.8 12.8 13.8 300.0 6.2 0.9 #8 232.9 363.7 35.6 64.4 23 22.8 24.6 100.0 4.9 1.2 #16 241.1 604.8 59.2 40.8 24 23.6 25.5 100.0 5.2 1.3 #30 141.0 745.8 73.0 27.0 14 13.8 14.9 100.1 4.3 0.6 #50 101.2 847.0 82.9 17.1 10 9.9 10.7 100.0 4.5 0.5 #100 49.0 896.0 87.7 12.3 5 4.8 5.2 0 0.0 #200 50.1 946.1 92.6 7.4 5 4.9 5.3 0 0.0 176 pan+wash 75.6 0.0 7.4 sum 100.0 sum= 5 (TOTAL final result reported to nearest whole number) Check: 1021.7 93 100.0
Page 1 and 2:
PHASE II REPORT Slurry Seal / Micro
Page 3 and 4:
CALTRANS Fugro Consultants, Inc. Co
Page 5 and 6:
CALTRANS Fugro Consultants, Inc. Co
Page 7 and 8:
For the Phase II work, the research
Page 9 and 10:
2.0 CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 BACK
Page 11 and 12:
3.0 Findings from the ruggedness te
Page 13 and 14:
START Test Mix Components Accept Ma
Page 15 and 16:
For all the above considerations, t
Page 17 and 18:
Type II and III microsurfacings are
Page 19 and 20:
“M” Refers to an ASSHTO Standar
Page 21 and 22:
Viscosity: A property of the mix th
Page 23 and 24:
3.6.2 The European Mixing Test Base
Page 25 and 26:
Mix Torque kg-cm 70 60 50 40 30 20
Page 27 and 28:
Clamping Pressure 200Kpa Interface
Page 29 and 30:
Samples Holes 0.8 inches (~0.20 mm
Page 31 and 32:
• Abrasion: CAT. This test may be
Page 33 and 34:
3.7.1 Step 1: Materials Selection T
Page 35 and 36:
3.7.6 Step 6: Evaluate the Long Ter
Page 37 and 38:
4.2 LABORATORY TEST METHODS DEVELOP
Page 39 and 40:
Table 4.2.2: TB-113 Results for Mix
Page 41 and 42:
In addition to the “base mixture
Page 43 and 44:
The resulting mix had the following
Page 45 and 46:
Features: Produces a tangential flo
Page 47 and 48:
Mixing Containers type and size: a.
Page 49 and 50:
• 50 rpm mixing speed This config
Page 51 and 52:
The shape of the traces for differe
Page 53 and 54:
Figure 4.10: Mix M4 Trace with Stan
Page 55 and 56:
The recommended mixing procedure fo
Page 57 and 58:
Figure 4.14: AMT Trace for Mix M1,
Page 59 and 60:
Figure 4.16: Automated Cohesion Tes
Page 61 and 62:
As illustrated in Figures 4.17 and
Page 63 and 64:
Note that the ratio of the two aver
Page 65 and 66:
• Dry Loss Method - Two identical
Page 67 and 68:
Loss (%) 35 30 20 15 10 5 0 Effect
Page 69 and 70:
The differences in the samples were
Page 71 and 72:
Both systems were correctly defined
Page 73 and 74:
Time (Min) Wet Loss M1 (g) Table 4.
Page 75 and 76:
observation. For long term abrasion
Page 77 and 78:
4.3.2 Evaluation of Cohesion-Abrasi
Page 79 and 80:
4.4 REVISED MIX DESIGN METHOD (VERS
Page 81 and 82:
Step 5: Evaluate the Cohesion Prope
Page 83 and 84:
5.0 CHAPTER 5 RUGGEDNESS TESTING 5.
Page 85 and 86:
These levels will be far enough apa
Page 87 and 88:
5.3.3 ACT Test For this test, the c
Page 89 and 90:
6.1.2 AGGREGATE Mineral aggregate s
Page 91 and 92:
shall perform the mix design. The p
Page 93 and 94:
6.5.2 TEST STRIP. With the coordina
Page 95 and 96:
6.6.5 MACHINE CALIBRATION. Each uni
Page 97 and 98:
6.7 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT 6.7.1 ARE
Page 99 and 100:
Delays in the progress of the resea
Page 101 and 102:
2.4 IDA Werke EUROSTAR Power contro
Page 103 and 104:
4.3 If the mix does not break, the
Page 105 and 106:
8.0 PROCEDURE 8.1 Maintain the aggr
Page 107 and 108:
11.2.1.1 BT: brown color transfer t
Page 109 and 110:
Note: Closing all other programs ru
Page 111 and 112:
− Eurostar mixer - the parameter
Page 113 and 114:
Figure A.5: Display of Functional U
Page 115 and 116:
To stop the test, select the drop d
Page 117 and 118:
2.3 ISSA TB-100, Test Method for We
Page 119 and 120:
5.4 Suitable specimen casting mold
Page 121 and 122:
8.2 The amounts of material compone
Page 123 and 124:
9.2 Completely cover the specimen w
Page 125 and 126:
APPENDIX C RESULTS OF RUGGEDNESS AM
Page 127 and 128:
Figure C.2: Ruggedness Trials Trial
Page 129 and 130: Figure C.4: Ruggedness Trials Trial
Page 131 and 132: CEL#: 10-17749 LAB #: Date Tested:
Page 139 and 140: CAT: COHESION ABRASION TEST (FRENCH
Page 149 and 150: 2.CAT-Cohesion Abrasion Test: Frenc
Page 151 and 152: GRADATION ANALYSIS FOR AGGREGATE A1
Page 161 and 162: Source: Lopke (A2) Aggregate: ISSA
Page 171 and 172: GRADATION ANALYSES FOR AGGREGATE A3
Page 179: GRADATION ANALYSES FOR AGGREGATE A3
Page 183 and 184: SODIUM SULFATE SOUNDNESS FOR AGGREG
Page 185 and 186: ABRASION LOSS BY AASHTO T-96 FOR AG
Page 187 and 188: SAND EQUIVALENT FOR AGGREGATES A1,
Page 189 and 190: ABRASION LOSS BY ASTM D6928 FOR AGG
Page 191 and 192: CEL# 10-17749 Source: Sem Materials
Page 193 and 194: CEL# 10-17749 Source: VSS Emultech
Page 195 and 196: CEL# 10-17749 Source: Ergon Materia
Page 197 and 198: Automated Mixing Test Mix: M3 Agg:
Page 199 and 200: CEL#: 10-17749 1)apply tack coat to
Page 229 and 230: Aggregates: Emulsions: Mixes: CAT R
Page 231 and 232:
ACT RESULTS FOR ALL MIXES TEST RESU
Page 233 and 234:
ACT RESULTS FOR ALL MIXES 228
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
not effective if placed on pavement
Page 249 and 250:
Table F.1: Draft Outline for Refere
Page 251 and 252:
David Peshkin will take the lead in
Page 253 and 254:
Ride quality has been shown to impa
Page 255 and 256:
agency will be held prior to constr
Page 257 and 258:
An agency that desires to participa
show all

PHASE II REPORT - Caltrans

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?