AMAP 15 th Annual Meeting February 18-20, Mike O Leary MWV RMAUPG

Transcription

1 AMAP 15 th Annual Meeting February 18-20, 2014 Mike O Leary MWV RMAUPG

2 MSCR Progress and Direction from the Western US Rocky Mountain Asphalt UPG PG+ and MSCR History at RMAUPG Collaboration with UW-Madison, Asphalt Research Consortium, and Modified Asphalt Research Center Where to Next

3 Overview of RMAUPG 10 Western States: Mixture Subcommittee Binder Subcommittee Western Cooperative Test Group (54 labs) Binder Technician Workshop Task Group Standardization Task Group

4 Overview of RMAUPG March and October Conferences March in conjunction with WCTG March Binder Technician Workshop - Testing PG Binders, Emulsions, Calibration Standardization, Verification, etc. Conference and Workshop topics regularly include marketing, engineering value, and testing procedures for MSCR

5 Overview of RMAUPG Binder Technician Workshops since 2007 Facilitated by AMRL Designed for bench-level technicians Review of AASHTO Standards with open discussion Access to manufacturer tech support for equipment specific questions. Better understanding of methods Uncover sources of variation Share best practices Venue for techs to interact with peers Attempt to standardize testing across RMAUPG Propose testing improvements through AASHTO

6

7 PG+ and MSCR in RMAUPG As of 2005 Ductility, TT & TT & DT Ductility, TT, Duct. PA & FD & TT & PA FD SB/SBS Required SB/SBS Required FD & & PA PA PA TT, Soft. Pt. PG + PG Agency PG+ confidence - Standardization Challenges

8 PG+ and MSCR in RMAUPG RMAUPG Goal to reduce number of plus tests MSCR as possible new common ground Ductility Duct., TT & TT & DT, TT, Duct. MSCR (& few Plus?) TT, Soft. Pt.

9 MSCR in RMAUPG Beginning in with presentations, proficiency testing and workshops on MSCR Early challenges with equipment, engineer and technician capability in RMAUPG states Colorado included High variability in early WCTG test data Reporting errors, varied interpretation of test procedure, inexperience Addressed with data analysis, MSCR Technician Workshops, detailed instructions on each sample PMAC for ALL WCTG proficiency samples

10 RMAUPG and ARC/MARC Research Agreement since Statistical analysis of binder proficiency samples 10 per year, 54 member- labs, multiple properties, over 15,000 results Superpave PG, PG-Plus, and MSCR tests are run by all labs avg 40 labs report for each sample Project Mixtures from each binder sample - Lab mix performance testing - Field pavement performance monitoring Goals: Correlate to mix performance, reduce PG- Plus tests specified, Improve MSCR testing

11 Phase Angle at High PG RMAUPG and ARC/MARC Phase Angle 100% R² = 0.05 %R (T301) 95% 90% 85% R² = % 75% 70% 65% 60% Mixture Flow Number MSCR Jnr at 46C % (T301) Performance Correlations Jnr at 100 Pa Jnr at 3200 Pa R² = 0.50 R² = Mixture Flow Number

12 RMAUPG and ARC/MARC Ductility at 4 C Unaged (0.1 cm) Toughness Tenacity R² = 0.37 R² = % 200 Evaluate relative value of Plus Tests Toughness/Tenacity (in-lb) T301 Elastic Recovery (%) 90% 80% 70% 60% R² = % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% MSCR R% at 3.2 kpa (%)

13 RMAUPG and ARC/MARC COV Comparison of Superpave PG Tests, Samples ( ) Reported Parameter Maximum Minimum Average Median Standard Limit Viscosity, 20 rpm 22.6% 5.2% 9.7% 7.4% 4.3% NOT OK G*sinδ, Unaged 12.8% 2.1% 6.1% 4.5% 6.0% OK G*sinδ, RTFO 10.6% 5.4% 7.8% 7.8% 7.8% OK G*sinδ, PAV 21.1% 9.0% 12.9% 10.8% 14.2% OK BBR Stiffness,1 hr 35.0% 4.6% 10.0% 7.4% 9.5% OK BBS Stiffness, 24 hr 10.7% 5.6% 8.5% 8.0% 9.5% OK BBR m-value, 1 hr 4.5% 1.7% 2.5% 2.3% 4.6% OK BBR m-value, 24 hr 4.7% 1.6% 2.8% 2.8% 4.6% OK DTT Stress 10.8% 3.7% 6.9% 6.1% 8.5% NOT OK DTT Strain 44.7% 17.5% 26.2% 26.4% 22.8% NOT OK Average (10 Binders) 9.4% 8.3% Improve repeatability

14 RMAUPG and ARC/MARC COV Comparison of Superpave PG Plus Tests, Samples ( ) Reported Paramter Maximum Minimum Average Median Standard Limit Ductility, Unaged 15.8% 7.8% 11.3% 11.4% 12.5% OK Ductility, RTFO 39.5% 12.9% 18.2% 15.8% 12.5% NOT OK Toughness, Unaged 33.6% 8.1% 18.2% 14.6% 11.3% NOT OK Tenacity, Unaged 37.4% 14.4% 23.8% 22.8% 11.5% NOT OK Phase Angle, Unaged 5.9% 0.3% 1.2% 0.6% 10.0%* OK Phase Angle, PG 2.8% 0.4% 1.1% 0.9% 10.0%* OK Jnr, 0.1 PG Temp. 28.8% 8.0% 17.3% 16.9% 9.1% NOT OK Jnr, 3.2 PG Temp. 30.0% 9.8% 19.0% 17.9% 7.9% NOT OK Jnr, 10 PG Temp % 30.1% 57.4% 49.6% 10.0%* NOT OK % Rec, 0.1 PG Temp. 9.3% 2.3% 4.2% 4.0% 5.4% OK % Rec, 3.2 PG Temp. 22.4% 2.8% 10.1% 9.0% 6.5% NOT OK % Rec, 10 PG Temp. 96.5% 12.2% 37.1% 30.0% 10.0%* NOT OK % Elastic Recovery, 25 C 11.0% 1.8% 3.5% 2.7% 1.7% NOT OK Average (10 Binders) 17.1% 15.1% Improve repeatability

15

16 Where to next Continue to improve MSCR testing Work to provide PG-Plus alternatives and common ground for RMAUPG states Continue to present on the benefits of adopting MSCR specification and procedures Currently: Nevada uses %R in lieu of T&T only for a stiff grade that has adhesion problems in T&T testing No others in RMAUPG use TP70 in binder specifications

17 Where to next Most RMAUPG states are testing for information only on construction project material and for WCTG proficiency samples MSCR %R being considered by some as possible shared alternative to current Plus tests like Improved mixture and binder tests that discern fatigue and durability properties would facilitate increased confidence and use of new tests and specifications across the western US

18 Thank You Thank You Easy Questions Only