02‐Oct‐12 1 SUPERPAVE SUperior PERforming Asphalt PAVEments History of Hveem Mix Design Hveem mix design was created by Francis Hveem in the 1920’s Basic premise of the design methodology is to coat each aggregate particle with an optimal amount of binder. Methodology updated by Hveem in the 1950’s to account for traffic loadings.
25
Embed
Superpave Overview Local-2Oct12 - CalAPA · SUPERPAVE Mix Design Handbook AASHTO T 312 SGC Mixture Compaction AASHTO T 324 ... Moisture Susceptibility AASHTO T 283 CT371 Plant produced
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
02‐Oct‐12
1
SUPERPAVESUperior PERforming Asphalt PAVEments
History of Hveem Mix Design
Hveem mix design was created by Francis Hveem in the 1920’s
Basic premise of the design methodology is to coat each aggregate particle with an optimal amount of binder.
Methodology updated by Hveem in the 1950’s to account for traffic loadings.
02‐Oct‐12
2
Mix design based on 1950’s traffic loading
Limitations of Hveem Mix Design
Todays Traffic Loading
02‐Oct‐12
3
Limitations of Hveem Mix Design
Does not take into account: Weather/Environmental conditions
Binder properties PG grading
Polymer Modified
Rubber
Changing quality of aggregates
New testing criteria
Why Change
Traffic volumes and loading have skyrocketed
Axle configurations have changed
Super single
Increased tire pressure (pizza cutters)
Quality aggregate sources are dwindling
PG Binder grading
Mechanistic Empirical design
HMA volumetrics
02‐Oct‐12
4
Why Change
Testing equipment availability
Hveem Compactors
Stabilometers
Why Change
Old dry pavementOld dry pavement
02‐Oct‐12
5
Why Change
RuttingRutting
Why Change
ffiTraffic
02‐Oct‐12
6
Implementation planTime Line
2012
Implement approximately 6 pilot projects
Revise Superpave specification
Implement 12 to 16 pilot projects2013
Revise Superpave specification
2014 Full implementation
Immediate ImpactsCities and Counties
02‐Oct‐12
7
Current Project ListDistrict EA County/Route PM Est. Ad Date Est. Bid Open By
04 3E4401 CC‐580 0.0/5.8 RTL 1/13 Bid Pkg
Superpave Pilot ProjectsTons/Type
40,000 RHMA; 500 HMA
04 0A5344 Sol‐80 11.3/12.9 RTL 1/13 Bid Pkg
04 2G5104 CC‐4 31.1/32.4 RTL 1/13 Bid Pkg
04 229101 CC‐680 10.5/15.1 RTL 1/13 Bid Pkg
04 0A0801 CC‐80 3.8/5.3 RTL 10/12 Bid Pkg
05 0161E4 Mon‐101 In Construction CCO
06 430701 Tul‐216 1.9/2.9 8/1/2012 9/1/12 Bid Pkg
07 3Y3001 LA‐405 16.4/19.4 In Construction Bid Pkg
07 3Y9401 LA 110 20 1/30 5 I C i Bid Pk
12,530 RHMA; 33920 HMA
3,490 RHMA; 10,480 HMA
3,160 RHMA; 22,000 HMA
1265 RHMA; 19025 HMA
50,000 HMA Type A
14,000 HMA Type A
9,280 RHMA‐G
5 200 RHMA G WMA LSM07 3Y9401 LA‐110 20.1/30.5 In Constuction Bid Pkg
OBC is specified by “Total Weight of Mix” OBC is specified by Total Weight of MixWork sheets are available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Translab/ofpm/superpave/index.htm
02‐Oct‐12
13
Specification Changes
JMF Design: Aggregate AASHTO T335 CT205
Percent of crushed particles HMA‐SP RHMA‐SP OGFCCoarse aggregate (% min.)
One fractured face 95 90 90
Two fractured faces 90 90 90
Fine aggregate (% min)
(Passing No. 4 sieve
and retained on No. 8 sieve.)
Two fractured faces 70 70 90
02‐Oct‐12
14
Specification Changes
JMF Design: Aggregate
Los Angeles Rattler (% Max loss) AASHTO T69 CT211
Sand Equivalent AASHTO T176 CT217
Average of 3 tests from same sample
FAA AASHTO T FAA AASHTO T304 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Flat and Elongated ASTM D4791 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Specification Changes
JMF Design: RAP 25% +/‐ 1% at JMF Design, +/‐3% during producti0n RAP fractionated into:
+ #4 Sieve
‐ #4 Sievell bl k l b d / Allowable stockpile variance, binder content: +/‐2.0%
Air Voids (+/‐ 0.5%) AASHTO T 269 HMA‐SP RHMA‐SP‐G
Ninitial =8.0% Ndesign =Specifications
Ndesign =4.0%
Nmax =2.0%
02‐Oct‐12
17
Specification Changes
JMF Design: Volumetrics
VMA SP‐2 LP‐2Grading Type‐A RHMA‐SP‐G
No. 4 18 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
3/8” 16.0 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐3/8 16.0
½” 14.5 19.0 ‐ 24.0
¾” 13.5 19.0 ‐ 24.0
Specification Changes
JMF Design: Volumetrics
VFA SP‐2 LP‐3Grading Type‐A RHMA‐SP‐G
No. 4 65‐75 Report Only
3/8” 65‐75 Report Only3/8 65 75 Report Only
½” 65‐75 Report Only
¾” 65‐75 Report Only
02‐Oct‐12
18
Specification Changes
JMF Design: Volumetrics
Dust Proportion SP‐2 LP‐4Grading Type‐A RHMA‐SP‐G
No. 4 and 3/8” 0.9‐2.0 Report Only
1/2" and ¾” 0.6‐1.3 Report Only/ 3 p y
Specification Changes
JMF Design:
Moisture sensitivity/rutting/raveling AASHTO T324
Plant produced material Maximum rutting depth: 0.5”
Binder Grade Type‐A RHMA‐SP‐Gyp
PG 58 10,000 15,000
PG 64 15,000 20,000
PG 70 20,000 25,000
PG 76 25,000 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
02‐Oct‐12
19
Specification Changes
Moisture sensitivity/rutting/raveling AASHTO T324
10,000 passes minimum for inflection pointinflection point
JMF Design:
Specification Changes
JMF Design:
Moisture Susceptibility AASHTO T 283 CT371
Plant produced material
Minimum dry strength 120 psi
Minimum TSR 70%
Gyratory prepared samples 4” or 6” specimens
Freeze/Thaw conditioning is optional
Required for HMA –SP & RHMA‐SP‐G
You Must meet both
02‐Oct‐12
20
Specification Changes
JMF Design:
For RHMA‐SP‐G you may increase SGC pressure to a maximum of 825 Kpa (120 psi)
For RHMA‐SP‐G you may hold specimen at constant height for a maximum of 90 minutesg 9
Specification Changes
JMF Verification: “For JMF verification, use the optimum binder content specified on your CEM‐3512SP, no adjustments are allowed”.
“When RAP is used, binder set point for HMA must be the optimum binder content specified on the CEM‐3512SP optimum binder content specified on the CEM 3512SP minus the percent RAP multiplied by the combined average binder content of the processed fractionated RAP stockpiles”.
02‐Oct‐12
21
JMF Verification:
Specification Changes
For VMA, VFA and DP, HWT & T283: Testing is on Plant Produced Material HMA quality specified in the table titled "Hot Mix Asphalt Mix Design Requirements”