Field Experience with Acid Modified Asphalt in Arizona Workshop/2009/PPA... · 2011-03-01 · Field Experience with Acid Modified Asphalt in Arizona. Glendale Terminals Artesia and

Field Experience with Acid Modified Asphaltin Arizona

Glendale

Terminals

Artesia and

Lovington

Refineries

Albuquerque

Terminal

Artesia

Terminal

Holly Asphalt Company“Who are those guys?”

outside asphalt

Once Upon a Time…

There was Holly Asphalt Company dba Navajo Western Asphalt Company mostly PG 70-10 to fixed HMA plants in S. AZ

occasional ADOT project (86 deg PG spread)

ADOT PG strategy changes in 1999 PG 70-16 and PG 76-10 become PG 76-16

use of 110 deg PAV aging

Created significant technical challenge!

The Technical Challenge (1999)

Figure out PG 76-16 for ADOT market Most obvious choice is PMA but…

not enough heat, people, time, or tanks

competition with “modification by process”

need something effective, easy, economical, perform

Research Approach literature review

networking thru industry contacts

develop/test hypothesis thru lab study try polyphosphoric acid

Effect of PPA on PG

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

A A+1% B B+1% C C+1%

PG

Cro

ssove

r T

em

p,

C

Stability of PPA Modification

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0 10 20 30

Time in Bucket Heater, days @ 165 C

Vis

cosi

ty @

60 C

, Pois

e

B

B+1%

Effect of PPA on TSR

0

20

40

60

80

100

C C+1% PPA C+ 0.75%

Lime

C+1% PPA +

0.75%lime

TSR

, %

Bullhead City Aggregate, ADOT/SP 19 mm

Effect of PPA on Rutting Susceptibility

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

C C+1% PPA C+1% PPA +

0.75%lime

Rut

Depth

(50 C

), m

m

Salt River Aggregate, MAG 3/4-inch

Proposed to ADOT (2000)

A.H.B.L. 2002 - 2003

King, et al. AAPT paper PPA failures in OK, KS

problems with amine antistrips

Ho, et al. TRB paper PPA effect temporary

“washed away bywater?”

“pollute groundwater?” Somewhere inNebraska

Facts in 2003 About PPA Use in Arizona and New Mexico

5 yrs experience with AMA

We heard of no epidemic of distress

No onerous effect on construction

Mitigating factors to consider? prevalent use of OGFC (NM) and AR-ACFC (AZ)

dry/moderate climate

mandated use of lime on DOT systems

no amine antistrips

Projects seemed okay, but…

Somewherein Arizona…

do AMAprojects turn out looking likethis???

October 2003 Performance Review in Arizona

7 projects using AMA PG 76-16

2001 thru 2003 construction

roads in good shape,

contractors got paid,

roads smooth and

quiet, didn’t wash away

SR 68

BH City

US 93

Wikieup

US 60

Surprise

SR 85

Buckeye

US 60

@ Thomas Rd

US 60

Florence Jct.

IH-10

@ GRIR

PSR = f(Ride)

SR 68, Bullhead City, PSR = 4.36, RD 0.03, PC 0

PG 76-16, 2001

PSR = 4.13

IH-10 @ GRIR, PSR = 4.03, RD 0.10, PC 2.9

PG 76-16, 2001

PSR = 4.09

US 93, S of Wikieup, PSR = 4.60, RD 0.05, PC 1.2

PG 76-16, 2001

PSR = 4.33

US 60, Surprise, PSR = 4.07, RD 0.12, PC 0.6

PG 76-16, 2002

PSR = 3.85

SR 85, Buckeye, PSR = 3.79, RD 0.16, PC 3.5

PG 76-16, 2003 (rated before this?)

PSR = 3.80

US 60 @ Thomas Rd (no AR-ACFC yet)

October 2003

US 60 @ Thomas Rd, PSR = 4.24, RD 0.08, PC 0

PG 76-16, 2003

February 2004

Road didn’twash away!

PSR = 2.68

Road still didn’twash away!(No ACFC)

US 60, Florence Jct, PSR = 4.16, RD 0.09, PC 2.0

PG 76-16, 2003

PSR = 4.26

QC Data (G*/sin d) 2005 - YTD

PG 76-16, Glendale Terminal

0.00

0.40

0.80

1.20

1.60

Lot No.

10 20 30 40

QC Data (G*/sin d) 2005 - YTD

PG 70-10, Glendale Terminal

0.00

0.40

0.80

1.20

1.60

Lot No.

100 200 300 400 500

QC Data 2005 - YTD

Ease of manufacture Consistency Constructability Performance

G*/sin d, kPa Grade Avg SD n TonsPG 70-10 1.180 0.055 533 752,000PG 76-16 1.176 0.046 47 50,000

Summary

AMA implemented based on specification environment in AZ circa 2000

Up to 8 years performance history in AZ

No epidemic of (or undue) distress

2009 condition similar to 2003 condition

Comparatively easy to manufacture

variability similar to unmodified binders