8/3/2011 1 Increased Sustainability of Asphalt Through Fiber-Reinforcement Co-Sponsors: OK Hardware & Construction Supply Hawaii Asphalt Paving Industry (HAPI) University of Hawaii FORTA Corporation Honolulu International Airport Department of Transportation State of Hawaii August 2, 2011 Kamil E. Kaloush , Ph.D., P.E. Agenda • Sustainability • Asphalt Modifiers • Fiber Reinforced Asphalt Concrete (FRAC) – Boeing, Mesa, AZ – Evergreen Drive, Tempe, AZ • Independent ASU research efforts – Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Graduate Student Award Program – Dosages and lab mixing studies • Other projects and fiber addition techniques (FORTA)
69
Embed
Increased Sustainability of Asphalt Through Fiber ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/3/2011
1
Increased Sustainability of Asphalt Through Fiber-Reinforcement
Co-Sponsors: OK Hardware & Construction Supply
Hawaii Asphalt Paving Industry (HAPI)University of HawaiiFORTA Corporation
Honolulu International AirportDepartment of Transportation
State of Hawaii
August 2, 2011
Kamil E. Kaloush , Ph.D., P.E.
Agenda• Sustainability
• Asphalt Modifiers
• Fiber Reinforced Asphalt Concrete (FRAC)
– Boeing, Mesa, AZ
– Evergreen Drive, Tempe, AZ
• Independent ASU research efforts
– Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Graduate Student Award Program
– Dosages and lab mixing studies
• Other projects and fiber addition techniques (FORTA)
8/3/2011
2
Michael M. Crow
President, Arizona State University
“sustainability represents one of the most challenging
interface problems in science today.
the design of a sustainable interface between the natural
environment and the built or designed environment is as
essential to our collective well-being as any intellectual
pursuit of the age.”
u-pass, light rail, zipcar, bike co-op
energy, water, toxins and pollutants, bio-based products, landscaping,
forest conservation, recycling, packaging, green building
water
building and grounds
waste and recycling
Practicing
purchasing and policy
transportation
aramark, engrained
sustainability
food services
8/3/2011
3
Criteria for Sustainable Pavements?
• Performance / Durability
– Material / Design
• Safety
• Ride Quality or Comfort
• Life Cycle Cost
• Energy Consideration
• Quality of Life Issues
– Highway Noise
– Air Quality
– Urban Heat Island
• Recyclability
Expert Panel Ratings
8/3/2011
4
U.S. Green Building Council’s Rating System
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED™)
LEED Rating System
• Sustainable Sites
• Water Efficiency
• Energy and Atmosphere
• Materials & Resources
• Indoor Environmental Quality
• Innovation & Design Process
For more information: www.usgbc.org
1st LEED Platinum in AZ:
The Arizona Biodesign
Institute at ASU
TRB on Transportation and Climate Change
“Reducing transportation-related emissions of carbon dioxide--the primary greenhouse gas--that contribute to climate change and adapting to the consequences of climate change will be among the biggest public policy challenges facing the transportation profession over the coming decades. “
8/3/2011
5
US GHG Estimates• Fact: coal is the primary generator of
electricity (~50%) in the US
• Electric power generation: ~80% of total GHG emissions , EPA 2006
• Transportation Sector: 15-30%
• Pavements??? – Raw materials production, manufacturing, placement,…
Model
Y
TpDiMnPnDnWTkmEqkgCOannualTotal
***1000**/.2
Where,T = thickness of pavement layer, metersW = width of road, metersDn = density of pavement material, kg/m3
Pn = material production value, kg CO2 Eq. /kg Mn = material mixing value, kg CO2 Eq. /kg Di = distance from material production site to application site, kmTp = transport from production site to application site value, kg CO2 Eq. /kg material-kmY = road life, years
8/3/2011
6
CO2 Emissions
12
Why are Modifiers Used?
• Mitigate both traffic- and environmentally induced HMA pavement distresses
Characterization of Modified Asphalt Binders in Superpave Mix Design. Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council. 2001.
Evaluation of FORTA Fiber-Reinforced Asphalt Mixtures Using
Advanced Material Characterization Tests – Arizona
8/3/2011
11
Fiber Reinforced HMA ?
FORTA® Manufacturer of Synthetic Fibers for Concrete and Asphalt
Developed Asphalt fibers in 1982
Three-dimensional reinforcement of HMA
FORTA® AR® Fiber
FORTA® AR® FiberSynergistic blend of collated fibrillated Polypropylene and Aramid fibers
8/3/2011
12
FORTA® AR®
Polypropylene
• Chemically Inert
• Non-Corrosive
• Non-Absorbent
Aramid
•High Tensile Strength
•Non-Corrosive
•High Temperature Resistance
Physical Characteristics of the FibersMaterials Polypropylene Aramid
FormTwisted Fibrillated
Fiber
Monofilament
Fiber
Specific Gravity 0.91 1.45
Tensile Strength (MPa) 483 3000
Length (mm) 19.05 19.05
Color tan yellow
Acid/Alkali Resistance inert inert
Decomposition
Temperature ( C)157 >450
8/3/2011
13
Why ASU ?
• National Studies since 1999. – NCHRP 9-19 / MEPDG
• Large database of HMA Engineering Properties
• Recognized Research Support:NCHRP - ADOT – FORD Maricopa County - Texas DOT,
Caltrans – Canada, Sweden, Brazil
ObjectivesConduct an advanced laboratory experimental
program to obtain typical engineering materialproperties for FORTA fibers reinforced asphaltmixtures using the most current laboratory testsadopted by the pavement community.
8/3/2011
14
Two Projects
• Boeing Mixture –Pilot Study
• City of Tempe –Evergreen Drive
Binder Mix Design Data Mix Type
Binder Type Design AC (%) Target Va (%) Gmm
FORTA Boeing PHX D-1/2 PG 70-10 5.10 7 2.4605
Binder Mix Design Data Mix Type
Binder Type Design AC (%) Target Va (%) Gmm
PHX C-3/4 Control PG 70-10 5.00 7 2.428
PHX C-3/4 1 lb/Ton PG 70-10 5.00 7 2.458
PHX C-3/4 2 lb/Ton PG 70-10 5.00 7 2.471
Evergreen Drive
8/3/2011
15
Evergreen Drive as Constructed
Pavement Ctr Ctl 1-F Ctl
Mid Portion 1-F 2-F 1-F Ctl
Curb Side 1-F
1-F
FORTA Project: Evergreen Test Section, City of Tempe, Arizona
1-F 1-F Ctl 2-F
-2.5
0, Fire
Hydrant
40 86 132 186 211
-2.5
-2.5
30 86 139 179 211
2116 53
1-F
2-F
Ctl
1-lb of FORTA Fibers per ton
2-lbs FORTA Fibers per ton
Control Mix without FORTA Fibers
8' Curb Side
8' Middle Portion
8' Pavement Center
8/3/2011
16
8/3/2011
17
ASU Materials Characterization Program
• Laboratory testing procedures and models to predict performance.
• How do we truly capture the known field performance in the laboratory?
8/3/2011
18
Laboratory Tests
• Binder Tests
• Triaxial Shear Strength
• Dynamic Modulus
• Permanent Deformation– Repeated Load
– Static Creep
• Beam Fatigue
• Indirect Tensile Strength and Creep
• Fracture and Crack Propagation
Polypropylene Modified Binder
Mix time and temperature:
Time: 30 min
Temperature: 329 and 365 °F
(165-185 °C)
8/3/2011
19
Conventional Tests
Superpave /
SHRP Tests
Penetration AASHTO T49-93
Softening Point AASHTO T53-92
Rotational Viscosity AASHTO TP48
Dynamic Shear
Rheometer (DSR):
AASHTO PP1
Bending Beam Rheometer
(BBR): AASHTO TP1-98
Binder Tests
Viscosity - Temperature Relationship (Original Binder)
ARAC PG 58-28: y = -2.4795x + 7.6903
R2 = 0.989
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 2.95
Log (Temp, oRankine)
Lo
g (
Lo
g v
isco
sity
, cP
)
(41) (103) (171) (248) (335) (432)(deg F)
Pen
59, 77oF
Soft. Point
139oF
Brookfield Viscosity
200-350oF
Viscosity – Temperature
8/3/2011
20
BINDER TEST RESULTSViscosity
y = -3.37x + 10.14
R2 = 0.99
y = -3.88x + 11.51
R2 = 0.99
y = -3.84x + 11.45
R2 = 1.00
y = -3.63x + 10.87
R2 = 1.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90
Log (Temp) (Rankine)
Lo
g (
Lo
g v
isco
sity)
(cp
)FORTA Modified
PG 64-22 PG 70-10 PG 76-16
BINDER TEST RESULTS
Temperature - Viscosity Relationship for:
FORTA Virgin and Modified Binders
1 lb/Ton
y = -3.6589x + 10.949
R2 = 0.9965
2 lb/Ton
y = -3.3896x + 10.2
R2 = 0.9875
Virgin
y = -3.6529x + 10.919
R2 = 0.9981
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
2.70 2.75 2.80 2.85 2.90 2.95
Log (Temp) (oR)
Lo
g L
og
(V
isc)
(cP
)
Virgin 1 lb/Ton 2 lb/Ton
8/3/2011
21
Mixture Tests
Modulus
Permanent
Deformation
Indirect Tensile Creep
Flexural Fatigue
Field Laboratory Mixes
8/3/2011
22
Field Laboratory Mixes
Visual Observation
8/3/2011
23
60X10X
60X200X
Figure 9. Mohr-Coulomb Envelope for Cell 22, T = 37.7oC (100
oF)
= 0.7487* + 15.0 (
R2 = 0.98
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 (psi)
(p
si)
Sigma3 = 0
Sigma3 = 20 psi
Sigma3 = 40 psi
Sigma3 = 60 psi
Figure 10. Mohr-Coulomb Envelope for Cell 22, T = 54.4oC (130
oF)
= 0.8532* + 4.4 (
R2 = 1.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 (psi)
(p
si)
Sigma3 = 0
Sigma3 = 20 psi
Sigma3 = 40 psi
Sigma3 = 60 psi
Triaxial Shear Strength Tests
8/3/2011
24
Triaxial Shear Strength Results
Fiber-Reinforced Asphalt
= 66.12 + 0.577
c = 66, = 30o
MnRoad Cell 16
= 9.13 + 0.8057
c = 9, = 39o
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Normal Stress, (psi)
Sh
ea
r S
tress
, (
psi
)
(b)
Boeing
EvergreenMohr-Coulomb Failure Envelope
FORTA Control
y = 1.0793x + 27.541
R2 = 0.9976
c = 27.541
= 47.2o
FORTA Evergreen One Pound
y = 1.122x + 34.604
R2 = 0.9998
c = 34.6
= 48.3o
FORTA Evergreen Two Pound
y = 0.967x + 43.938
R2 = 0.972
c = 43.9
= 44o
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Normal Stress (PSI)
Sh
ea
r S
tre
ss(P
SI)
TRIAXIAL SHEAR STRENGTH TEST
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Time, sec
Str
ess
, k
Pa
40-psi Confinement
20-psi Confinement
0-psi Confinement
(a)
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
0 kPa (0 psi) 138 kPa (20 psi) 276 kPa (40 psi)
Are
a u
nd
er t
he
Cu
rve
(kP
a-s
ec)
Control 1 lb/Ton 2 lb/Ton
8/3/2011
25
DYNAMIC COMPLEX MODULUS (E*)
- E* = Dynamic Complex Modulus = o / o
- o = peak dynamic stress amplitude (kPa / psi)
- o = peak recoverable strain (mm/mm or in/in)
- = phase lag or angle (degrees) = VISCOELASTIC PROPERTY
Time
t
t
Str
ess
-Str
ain
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
Str
ess
-Str
ain
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
Str
ess
-Str
ain
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
Str
ess
-Str
ain
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
Str
ess
-Str
ain
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
Str
ess
-Str
ain
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
Str
ess
-Str
ain
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
Str
ess
-Str
ain
, ε
, ε
, ε
, ε
o o
o sin( t – )
o sin( t)
E* MASTER CURVEConstruction of Master Curve - Average of Three Replicates, FORTA
Conventional Mix
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6Log Reduced Time, s
E*
psi 14 F
40 F
70 F
100 F
130 F
Predicted
8/3/2011
26
E* MASTER CURVE
1.E+04
1.E+05
1.E+06
1.E+07
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4Log Reduced Time, s
E*
psi
1 lb/Ton
2 lb/Ton
Control
E* TEST RESULTS
747,179
479,964
1,097,269
242,350133,365148,180
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
Salt River 3/4" PG70-10 Salt River 3/4" PG64-22 Fiber-Reinforced
E*
, p
si
100 F 130 F
Evergreen
Boeing
4,027,411
5,132,366
2,981,436
803,000
1,500,000
818,000
209,000466,000294,000
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
Control 1 lb/Ton 2 lb/Ton
E*
, p
si
40 F 100 F 130 F
8/3/2011
27
Repeated Load Permanent Deformation Tests
Secondary
Primary
Tertiary
FN Defines N/Time When
Shear Deformation Begins
Repeated Load Permanent Deformation Test (Flow Number)-Fiber Reinforced Asphalt
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
2.4
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Cycles, N
Acc
um
ula
ted
Str
ain
(%
) WesTrack Section 19
Fiber-Reinforced Asphalt
(a)
Boeing
8/3/2011
28
0.0000
0.0020
0.0040
0.0060
0.0080
0.0100
0.0120
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
Number of Cycles during the Tertiary Stage
Ax
ial
Str
ain
Slo
pe
FEC02
FEC03
FEC04
FE101
FE102
FE104
FE202
FE203
FE204
2 lb/Ton
Control
1 lb/Ton
Flow Number-Evergreen Dr.
Static Creep Results
401
2,155
3,678
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Control 1 lb/Ton 2 lb/Ton
Flo
w T
ime (
Sec)
1.15
0.16
0.055
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Control 1 lb/Ton 2 lb/Ton
Slo
pe
of
Cre
ep C
om
pli
an
ce,
m
8/3/2011
29
Flexural Fatigue Tests
SHRP M-009
Fatigue Cracking Tests
32
111
kk
t
fE
KN
Fatigue Cracking TestsComparison of the FORTA 2 lb/Ton Mixes at Control Strain and 40,70 and 100oF
and at 50% of Initial Stiffness
y = 0.002x-0.1851
R2 = 0.9412
y = 0.0007x-0.1155
R2 = 0.9408y = 0.0009x
-0.1646
R2 = 0.9643
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E-02
1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Cycles to Failure
Str
ain
Lev
el
8/3/2011
30
TEST RESULTS – Boeing Mix
Comparison of the FORTA Evergreen Mixtures at Control Strain and 70 oF and at
50% of Initial Stiffness
FORTA Control 70 °F
y = 0.0017x-0.1898
R2 = 0.9385
FORTA 1 lb/Ton 70 °F
y = 0.0011x-0.1604
R2 = 0.9592
FORTA 2 lb/Ton 70 °F
y = 0.0007x-0.1155
R2 = 0.9408
1.E-05
1.E-04
1.E-03
1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Nf, Cycles to Failure
Str
ain
Lev
el
Test Results - Evergreen
8/3/2011
31
524,371
4,426,113
637,384
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
Control 1 lb/Ton 2 lb/Ton
Nf
Un
til
Fa
ilu
re
Comparisons at 70F and 250 micro-strains
1,152
1,0491,110
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Control 1 lb/Ton 2 lb/Ton
Init
ial
Sti
ffn
ess
(ksi
)
Flexural Strength and Post Peak Energy
Force vs Deflection-FEC20
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
Deflection, in
Fo
rce,
Lb
s
8/3/2011
32
Comparative Plot – Cyclic LoadComparative Plot
0
50
100
150
200
250
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
Deflection (in)
Fo
rce (
lb)
Control
1 lb/Ton
2 lb/TonPeak =176 lb
Peak = 170 lb
Peak = 111 lb
Residual Strength and Post Peak Energy
242.6277.4
188.1
67.7
110.8
82.5
310.3
388.1
270.6
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
Str
eng
th (p
si)
Flexural Residual Corrected Flexural
Control
1 lb/Ton
2 lb/Ton
Mix Specimen
ID
Peak
Load
(lb)
Flexural
Strength
(psi)
Post Peak
Energy
(lb-in)
Residual
Strength
(psi)
Corrected
Flexural
Strength (psi)
Control Average 164.9 242.6 14.2 67.7 310.3
1 lb/Ton FE106 171.4 277.4 17.6 110.8 388.1
2 lb/Ton FE204 111.1 188.1 11.2 82.5 270.6
8/3/2011
33
Indirect Tension Tests
• Disk shape specimen (6.0 x 1.5 inch) with vertical and horizontal LVDTs on both sides
• The tensile creep– Three temp: 0, -10, and -20oC
– Static load along the diametral axis of a specimen
– Deformations used to calculate tensile creep compliance as a function of time
• The tensile strength– Determined immediately after the tensile
creep test
– Constant rate of vertical deformation to failure
• Binder Content and Aggregate gradation –– Experimental and target values in close
proximity
8/3/2011
47
Summary Overall
– The viscosity-temperature susceptibility relationship showed positive and desirable modification process.
– Higher fracture energy represented by peak and post peak failure in the triaxial tests
– Gradual accumulation in permanent strain in the permanent deformation tests, and higher tertiary flow values => desirable properties to resist rutting.
– 1.5 to 2 times higher Dynamic Modulus E* values compared to the conventional mixtures. Higher moduli at high temperatures are indicative of better resistance to permanent deformation or rutting.
– Higher fatigue life compared to conventional mixes.
– higher crack propagation resistance as represented by the C*-Line Integral test procedure.
USE of Data in the MEPDG
“The overall objective of the Guide for the Mechanistic-
Empirical Design for New and Rehabilitated
Pavement Structures is to provide the highway
community with a state-of-the-practice tool for the
design and rehabilitated pavement structures, based
on mechanistic-empirical principles.”
8/3/2011
48
MEPDG:
An Analysis Method
An Iterative Design Method
The output is:
An amount of distress over time
Fatigue Cracking
Thermal Cracking
Longitudinal Cracking
IRI
Rutting
Predicted Distresses
8/3/2011
49
Design Process
Climate Inputs
EICM
Material Properties
Transfer Functions
Predicted Performance Mechanistic Analysis
Traffic
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design
Guide-MEPDG
Relates pavement material characteristics with their
performance in the field
Calibrated based on data from the LTPP Project.
Capability to adapt to local conditions
New & rehabilitated pavement designs
8/3/2011
50
Hierarchical Design Inputs in the
MEPDG
Level 1: Accurate data from laboratory testing
Level 2: Intermediate level of accuracy. Inputs estimated through correlations
Level 3: Lowest level of accuracy. Default values provided by the program
Approach Description
• A total of 10 runs were performed for each of the control and fiber reinforced asphalt (1 lb/ton) mixtures as follows:
- 2 Traffic Levels, 1500 and 7000 AADT (intermediate and high traffic)
- 5 Different Asphalt Concrete (AC) layer thicknesses (2-6 in)
• Project Location: Phoenix
• Design Life: 10 years
• Distress Evaluated: Rutting and Fatigue Cracking