PHASE II REPORT - Caltrans

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• Proceeded to clear water and exhibited cohesive form. • With this emulsion, A2 was not easy to mix and showed poor coating and poor rheology, it also indicated some potential for moisture damage. In addition to the “base mixture” noted above for M4, components were varied to produce mixtures with the following consistencies for further testing: • Soupy • Low Viscosity • Medium Viscosity • Stiff Table 4.2.5: TB-113 Results for Mix M5 (A3+E3) Parts by dry weight of aggregate, g Formulation agg, g cement water additive* emulsion Based on the data contained in Table 4.2.5, the mixture components selected for the AMT for the Mix M5 are as follows: • 100 grams of aggregate • 0.5 gram of cement • 10 grams of Water (Based on the weight of dry aggregate) • 12 grams of emulsion • 0 grams of additive 37 Mix time, sec Blot Test, 30 sec Coating Visual/boiling Consistency Description 1 100 0.0 10.0 0.0 14.0 >120 A 100 LV 2 100 0.0 10.0 0.0 12.0 >120 A 100 LV-MV 3 100 0.0 10.0 0.0 10.0 >120 CW 100 MV 4 100 0.0 8.0 0.0 10.0 >120 CW 100/100 MV 5 100 0.5 10.0 0.0 14.0 >120 A 100 LV-MV 6 100 0.5 10.0 0.0 12.0 >120 CW 100 MV 7 100 0.5 8.0 0.0 10.0 >120 CW 100/100 MV-St * Aluminum Sulfate Consistency Blot Test S = Soupy (Brown free liquid, segregating sample) A = Aggregate and clear water LV = Low Viscosity (Non segregating easy to mix) BT= Brown transfer MV = Moderate Viscosity (Non segregating, moderate resistance to mix) CW= clear water St = Stiff (Hard to mix but workable) B = Broken (Lumps, non consistent)
The resulting mix had the following characteristics: • Very stable and displayed a wide range of compositions • Proceeded to clear water and exhibited a very cohesive form Automated Mixing Test (AMT) As described in Chapter 3, the automated mixing test is used to measure the increase in viscosity with time, by means of a computer-controlled stirrer. From the observed time- viscosity plot, two values of interest are identified: the mix and spreadability indices. The measured mixing times from TB-113 were used as the first cut for initial mixing. Mixing to coating is the mix index and the spreadability is the time for stiffening just prior to setting (see Figure 3.4). The cohesion values that are reported are the mix and spread indices. Mix components, using different levels of additives and fillers to establish a range of values for control purposes, were evaluated. This test was repeated for four levels of environmental conditions: • High temperature 95°F (35°C) low humidity (
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: In addition to the “base mixture
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 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
CAT: COHESION ABRASION TEST (FRENCH
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
2.CAT-Cohesion Abrasion Test: Frenc
Page 151 and 152:
GRADATION ANALYSIS FOR AGGREGATE A1
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Source: Lopke (A2) Aggregate: ISSA
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
GRADATION ANALYSES FOR AGGREGATE A3
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
SODIUM SULFATE SOUNDNESS FOR AGGREG
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 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
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?