COMPARISON OF RUTTING AND CRACKING PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES ... 2015/Hveem_SP_TRB2015.pdf ·...

COMPARISON OF RUTTING AND CRACKING PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES FOR

HVEEM AND SUPERPAVE MIX DESIGNS UTILIZING CALME

Erdem Coleri Assistant Professor

Oregon State University

94th Annual TRB Meeting, Washington D.C. January 13th, 2015

Prof. John Harvey, University of California, Davis (PI) Dr. James M. Signore, Nichols Consulting Engineers Venkata Lakshman Mandapaka, Caltrans Khushminder Singh Sahasi, Caltrans

Co-authors:

• Hypothesis tested: Since Superpave mix design produces higher binder

contents than Hveem mix design, Hveem mixes provide better rutting performance and worse cracking performance than Superpave mixes

• Use CalME to investigate the pros and cons of using

Hveem and Superpave mix design

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Caltrans is shifting the HMA design method from Hveem to Superpave.

OUTLINE

Background Materials Testing

CalME simulations

Conclusions

• Mix A, dense graded HMA (NMAS=3/4’’), conventional

PG 64-16 binder (Refinery 1), crushed alluvial aggregate

• Mix B, dense graded HMA (NMAS=3/4’’), conventional

PG 64-16 binder (Refinery 2), crushed basalt aggregate

• Mix I, gap-graded HMA (NMAS=1/2’’), rubberized binder

with PG64-16 base binder (Refinery 2), crushed basalt

aggregate

BACKGROUND Mix types

• Mix A, Hveem binder content = 5.0 %

Superpave binder content = 5.5 %

• Mix B, Hveem binder content = 5.2 %

• Mix I, Hveem binder content = 8.0 %

BACKGROUND Mix types – Binder contents

Testing Program

Rutting Repeated Simple Shear at Constant Height

100 kPa shear stress Temperature: 45 and 55oC

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

Cycles

5% PSS Failure Line

Test Results Rutting Repeated Simple Shear at Constant Height

Testing Program

Cracking Stiffness Flexural fatigue Flexural frequency sweep

200 and 400 micro strain Temperature: 20oC

Temperature: 10, 20 and 30oC Various frequencies

Test Results Flexural fatigue

1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000

Cycles

200 MicrostrainMix A

Rutting performance evaluation

Factorial to evaluate Hveem vs. Superpave mix design methods

2 structures x 2 traffic levels x 3 climates x 3 mixes

Structures: Structure 1: 125mm thick AC layer on top of 300mm thick AB (Eab=250MPa) and a subgrade with 150MPa stiffness.

Structure 2: 175mm thick AC layer on top of 300mm thick AB (Eab=250MPa) and a subgrade with 150MPa stiffness.

Traffic: Traffic 1: Axles 1st year = 3M with a 5% growth rate

Traffic 2: Axles 1st year = 6M with a 5% growth rate

Climates: Inland Valley

High Desert

Low mountain

Mixes: Mix A; Mix B; Mix I

Rutting comparison Hveem vs. Superpave

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Surface rut - Hveem

Surface rut (m

Welch modified two sample t-test for surface rut predicted for Hveem and Superpave mixes

F1 and F2 are two distributions, the possible hypotheses and alternatives concerning these distributions are:

H0: F1(x) = F2(x) HA: F1(x) ≠ F2(x) Decision rule: Reject H0 if p-value < 0.10; accept H0 if

p-value ≥ 0.10

P-value = 0.09 for Hveem vs.Superpave

Predicted surface rutting for Hveem and Superpave mix design method are not equal. Superpave is higher.

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

Rutting comparison Hveem vs. Superpave Surface rut for Mix A - Traffic level 1

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

High Desert – Thin AC High Desert – Thick AC Inland Valley – Thin AC

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

Inland Valley – Thick AC Low mountain – Thin AC Low mountain – Thick AC

Rutting comparison Hveem vs. Superpave AC rut for Mix A - Traffic level 1

01234567

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

01234567

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

01234567

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

01234567

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

01234567

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

01234567

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

Rutting comparison Hveem vs. Superpave Surface rut for Mix B - Traffic level 1

0 10 20 30 40 50YearsSu

SuperpaveHveem

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

Cracking of thin layered structures is causing third stage rutting accumulation.

Cracking performance evaluation

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Years to 0.5m/msq cracking - Hveem

Cracking comparison Hveem vs. Superpave Years to 0.5m/msq cracking – Mix A

3 CASES

Year 40 means no cracking larger than 0.5m/msq in 40 years

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Cracking comparison Hveem vs. Superpave Years to 0.5m/msq cracking – Mix B

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Cracking comparison Hveem vs. Superpave Years to 0.5m/msq cracking – Mix I

Two cases to compare Hveem and Superpave:

1. Evaluate the reflection cracking resistance of thin Mix I (Rubber) layer on top of cracked PCC

2. Do thickness design for Hveem and Superpave

mix designs and answer the question: What is the cost of using Hveem and Superpave mix designs to achieve equal performance?

Superpave uses more binder but higher cracking performance reduces the material volume used for construction

1. 3.2M ESALS - 20 years (1) 2. High Desert; Low Mountain (2) 3. .

4. Hveem and Superpave (2)

24 cases x 1 (with reflection cracking) = 24 Cases

125 and 175 mm Cracked PCC - 35,000MPa 3 mixes – Mix A; Mix B; Mix I

100 mm AB-Class2 - 200MPa

SG – CL - 100MPa

Crack and seat –Crack spacing 1.2m

Case 1:

Low Mountain

Structure 1 – Thin PCC - Hveem Structure 2 – Thick PCC - Hveem

Structure 1 – Thin PCC - Superpave Structure 2 – Thick PCC - Superpave

0 10 20 30 40

P001-Mix AS311-Mix IS410-Mix B

0 10 20 30 40

1. 2.5M ESALS - 20 years: TI10 & 40M ESALS – 20 years: TI14 (2) 2. Inland Valley (1) 3. .

VARIABLE Mix A

SG – CL - 100MPa

(multiple)

Amount of binder required for Hveem and Superpave mix designs to achieve equal performance

Case 2:

156 158 160 162 164 166 168

Thickness (mm)

TI10 - Hveem (103 mm)

98 100 102 104 106

Thickness (mm)

Design criteria: Cracking at year 20 = 1.6m/msq

Rutting at year 20 = 4.8 mm

TI14 - Hveem (162 mm)

TI10 - Superpave (84 mm) TI14 - Superpave (122 mm)

80 82 84 86 88 90

Thickness (mm)

118 120 122 124 126

Thickness (mm)

Amount of binder used for Hveem and Superpave

TI 10 - Vmix (m3) TI 14 - Vmix (m3)

Hveem 555.30 873.39

Superpave 452.87 657.74

Design AC (%) TI 10 - Vbinder (m3) TI 14 - Vbinder (m3)

Hveem 5.00 27.77 43.67

Superpave 5.50 24.91 36.18

Volume of asphalt mix used for a 1 mile section for a 3.35m lane width

For TI 10 - The amount of binder required is 11.5 percent larger for the Hveem mix

For TI 14 - The amount of binder required is 20.7 percent larger for the Hveem mix

To get equal performance:

Conclusions Lower binder content for Hveem mix design results in

• better rutting performance • worse cracking performance

Difference in cracking resistance between Hveem and Superpave

mix designs is not significant for the rubber mix (Mix I)

For TI 10: The amount of binder required is 11.5 percent larger for the Hveem mix TI 14: The amount of binder required is 20.7 percent larger for the Hveem mix Superpave reduces cost for Mix A for the climate and traffic used in the simulations.

WHAT HAPPENS IF RUTTING IS THE CONTROLLING FACTOR FOR DESIGN?

FUTURE STUDY:

Thank you!

http://www.ucprc.ucdavis.edu/

Results • Mix I (Rubber) – Hveem vs Superpave: Close performance • Mix A - Hveem vs Superpave: Superpave design~better perfor.

1,000 10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000

Cycles

200 Microstrain

1. 76M ESALS - 20 years (1) 2. High Desert; Inland Valley; Low Mountain (3)

12 cases x 2 (with and without reflection cracking) = 24 Cases

125 and 175 mm Mix A Mix I

SG – CL - 100MPa

Case 1:

With reflection cracking

Structure 1 – Thin DGAC - Hveem Structure 2 – Thick DGAC - Hveem

Structure 1 – Thin DGAC - Superpave Structure 2 – Thick DGAC - Superpave

0 10 20 30 40

High DesertInland ValleyLow Mountain

0 10 20 30 40

Future research Superpave improved cracking performance and reduced the cost

WHEN CRACKING IS THE CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA.

HVEEM mix design might be more cost effective WHEN RUTTING IS THE CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA WARMER CLIMATES AND HEAVY LOADS

Shift factor between predicted surface rutting for Hveem and Superpave mix design methods

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Surface rut - Hveem (shifted)

Surface rutting predicted for Superpave mixes is 20% larger than rutting for Hveem mixes.

0 2 4 6 8

AC layer rut - Hveem (shifted)

Shift factor between predicted AC rutting for Hveem and Superpave mix design methods

AC layer rutting predicted for Superpave mixes is 56% larger than rutting for Hveem mixes.

Rutting comparison Hveem vs. Superpave Surface rut for S410 – Mix B

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Surface rut - Hveem

Shift factor between predicted surface rutting for Hveem and Superpave mix design methods

Surface rutting predicted for Superpave mixes is 42% larger than rutting for Hveem mixes.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Surface rut - Hveem (shifted)

Cracking comparison Hveem vs. Superpave Surface cracking for all mixes

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Cracking (m/msq) - Hveem

3 CASES

High Desert

Structure 1 – Thin PCC - Hveem Structure 2 – Thick PCC - Hveem

Structure 1 – Thin PCC - Superpave Structure 2 – Thick PCC - Superpave

0 10 20 30 40

Rutting comparison Hveem vs. Superpave AC rut for Mix A

0 2 4 6 8

AC layer rut - Hveem

Welch modified two sample t-test for AC rut predicted for Hveem and Superpave mixes

F1 and F2 are two distributions, the possible hypotheses and alternatives concerning these distributions are:

H0: F1(x) = F2(x) HA: F1(x) ≠ F2(x) Decision rule: Reject H0 if p-value < 0.10; accept H0 if

p-value ≥ 0.10

P-value = 0.05 for Hveem vs.Superpave

Predicted AC rutting for Hveem and Superpave mix design method are not equal. Superpave rutting is higher.

Without reflection cracking

0 10 20 30 40

Structure 1 – Thin DGAC - Hveem

0 10 20 30 40

Structure 2 – Thick DGAC - Hveem

0 10 20 30 40

Structure 1 – Thin DGAC - Superpave

0 10 20 30 40

Structure 2 – Thick DGAC - Superpave

Rutting comparison Hveem vs. Superpave Surface rut for Mix I - Traffic level 1

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

0 10 20 30 40 50YearsSu

SuperpaveHveem

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

0 10 20 30 40 50Years

SuperpaveHveem

AC layer does not rut. All rutting is accumulated in the unbound layers.

COMPARISON OF RUTTING AND CRACKING PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES ... 2015/Hveem_SP_TRB2015.pdf ·...

Documents

Proposed Standards for Measurement of Cracking …...ETG on Quantification of Pavement Cracking and Rutting Proposed Standards for Measurement of Cracking and Rutting May 2009 US Department

Predicting rutting and fatigue cracking using the TSD

2017 ISSA Presidents Award Nominee · 2018. 6. 14. · the boulevards were 5 to 10 years old and showed cracking and minor rutting. These roads were treated with 2 lifts of Micro-surfacing

Damage Functions for Rutting, Fatigue Cracking, and Loss ...onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1983/943/943-001.pdfDamage Functions for Rutting, Fatigue Cracking, and Loss of Serviceability

Cracking And Rutting Performance Of Field And Laboratory

Post-Production Mix Performance Testing MTO’s Experience · 2020. 8. 27. · HMA Performance Tests. MTO reviewed various performance tests available to predict cracking and rutting

07 r11important Rutting

bura.brunel.ac.uk · Web viewThe two outputs of the model, i.e., cracking and rutting, showed excellent agreements with the experimental measurement of cracking and rutting. The

Perpetual Pavement Design and Sustainability · 2019-04-09 · Distresses will initiate at the surface, typically in the form of rutting or cracking. Surface distresses can be removed

Evaluation of a Rutting/Fatigue Cracking Device · Rutting is one of the most critical failure mechanisms in New Jersey’s flexible pavement roadways. A current technology in the

Flexible Pavement Design- State of the Practiceeng.auburn.edu/research/centers/ncat/files/research-synopses/... · pavement performance (e.g., cracking, rutting, ... Flexible Pavement

Development of An Advance Overlay Design System Incorporating Both Rutting and Reflection Cracking Requirements Rick Collins TxDOT

Preventing Pre-mature Rutting

INVESTIGATION OF THE RUTTING PERFORMANCE OF …

Rutting in Flexible Pavements – A Case Study

Modelling Whole-Life Pavement Performanceroad-transport-technology.org/Proceedings/4... · A whole-life pavement performance model attempts to predict damage (rutting, fatigue cracking,

Pavemetrics RPUG 2012 Laurent.pdf · Pavemetrics. Pavemetrics product line . LRIS - Pavement Imaging . LCMS - 3D Pavement Imaging - Pavement Rutting - Macro-Texture - Pavement Cracking

California’s Modified Binders · California’s Modified Binders ... PBA Concept Performance Rutting, Fatigue & Low Temp Cracking Binder Tests Climate Safety Environment

HPMS Reassessment: Pavements - Homepage - …...speed of free-flow traffic. Flexible pavement may have large potholes and deep cracks. Distress includes raveling, cracking, rutting

PREDICTION OF FATIGUE CRACKING AND RUTTING IN ASPHALTonlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp/SHRP-91-516.pdf · SHRP-ID/UFR-91-516 Prediction of Fatigue Cracking and Rutting in Asphalt