Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Non-Recoverable
Creep Compliance
(Jnr) @ 3.2 kPa
Elastic Recovery
Update
PG64-28 “Original” Formulation 2.3 79 25
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: Materials can be provided in alternative formats for Title VI Statement to Public: WSDOT ensures full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by
people with disabilities by calling Shawn Murinko at 360-705-7097 or murinks@wsdot.wa.gov. Persons who are prohibiting discrimination against any person on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the provision of
deaf or hard of hearing may contact Office of Equal Opportunity through the Washington Relay Service at 7-1-1. benefits and services resulting from its federally assisted programs and activities. For questions regarding WSDOT’s
12-01-1095 Title VI Program contact Jonté Sulton at 360-705-7082 or SultonJ@wsdot.wa.gov.
Hamburg Mix Design Verification Test Data
0
‐2
Rut Depth in Millimeters
‐6
‐8
‐10
‐12
0% Antistrip
‐14
0.50% Antistrip
‐16
5 1000 3500 6000 8500 11000 13500 16000 18500
Axis Title
Number of Wheel Passes
Photo 1 - Mix design samples after 20,000 HWTD wheel passes Chart 1 - HWTD test data for mix design in Photo 1 Photo 3 - Close-up of PG asphalt binder DSR test sample Photo 4 - Sample of PG asphalt binder after ER testing
(sample on left 0% anti-strip, sample on right 0.50% anti-strip) Note: The increased rutting when 0.50% anti-strip added
Note: The increased rutting when 0.50% anti-strip added
graded (PG) asphalt binder that likely required some form of polymer modified PG binder and tested in the HWTD with and
What the Hamburg Testing Data modification in order to meet the standard AASHTO PG binder
What the Hamburg Testing Data without anti-strip additive. As seen in Photo 5 and Chart 3 the
Identified specification requirements. Identified, cont. polymer modified binder performed significantly better than the
original binder.
During an analysis of the 2010, 2011 mix design test data the Typically, asphalt manufactures produce neat (unmodified) In addition to the HWTD evaluation the State Materials
HWTD helped identify a compatibility problem between certain asphalt binders that meet specification for grades such as Laboratory has been conducting multiple stress creep In addition to the HWTD experiment, samples of the polymer
asphalt binders and the anti-stripping additives that are used to PG58-22 and PG64-22 and then modify the asphalt in order to recovery (MSCR) research testing using a dynamic shear modified binder were tested using the MSCR and the ER
deter the effects of moisture susceptibility that cause the loss of rheometer (DSR, Photo 3) and elastic recovery (ER) research test protocols. The results of this testing is shown in Table 1
meet the higher temperature requirements of grades such as
bond between the asphalt and the aggregate interface. The mix testing using a ductility tester (Photo 4) on many of the PG along with the original binder test data. As seen in Table 1 the
PG64-28, PG70-22, PG70-28, etc.
designs with compatibility problems showed significant rutting asphalt binders being used on WSDOT paving projects. Both “Original Formulation” binder would not meet the recommended
The typical modification processes include air blowing, the MSCR and ER testing confirmed the HWTD findings that MSCR percent difference (% diff) or the Elastic Recovery
and raveling on the samples treated with anti-strip while the
polyphosphoric acid (PPA) modification and use of polymer the PG binders used in these mix designs was modified with (%ER) specification requirement of either test but the “Polymer
samples with no anti-strip performed considerably better.
modifiers such as plastomers or elastomers to increase the something other than polymer and this modified binder could Modified” binder succeeded in meeting both.
Photo 1 and Chart 1 show a visual and graphical representation
high temperature stiffness of the asphalt binder to help mitigate not meet the recommended specification requirements of
of the HWTD test data for one of these mix designs. Photo 2 and Use of asphalt binders like the PG64-28 used in the mix design
permanent deformation or rutting of asphalt pavements. either research test protocol.
Chart 2 show a visual and graphical representation of the HWTD that demonstrated compatibility problems can reduce the
test data for a typical mix design with no compatibility problems. Availability and cost will likely determine which product or process As an experiment to validate the suspect PG binder service life of the pavement or reach a point of complete failure
modification product or process, the same mix design that from stripping and raveling under traffic and inclement weather.
the asphalt manufacturer uses to produce a binder capable of
Each of the mix designs that demonstrated compatibility exhibited the compatibility problem was remixed with a
meeting the administrating agency’s specification requirements.
problems was designed and tested with a performance
Hamburg Mix Design Verification Test Data Hamburg Mix Design Verification Test Data
(Polymer Modified Asphalt)
0 0
‐2 ‐2
Rut Depth in Millimeters
Rut = 5.6mm Rut = 5.0mm ‐6 ‐6
‐8 ‐8
‐10 ‐10
‐12 ‐12
0% Antistrip 0% Antistrip
‐14 ‐14
0.25% Antistrip 0.50% Antistrip
‐16 ‐16
5 1000 3500 6000 8500 11000 13500 16000 18500 5 1000 3500 6000 8500 11000 13500 16000 18500
Number of Wheel Passes Number of Wheel Passes
Photo 2 - Typical mix design samples after HWTD 20,000 passes Chart 2 - HWTD test data for mix design in Photo 2 Photo 5 - Polymer modified mix design samples after 20,000 HWTD Chart 3 - HWTD test data for mix design in Photo 5
(sample on left 0% anti-strip, sample on right 0.25% anti-strip) Note: The decreased rutting when 0.25% anti-strip added passes (sample on left 0% anti-strip, sample on right 0.50% anti-strip) Note: The decreased rutting when 0.50% anti-strip added
Note: The decreased rutting when 0.25% anti-strip added Note: The decreased rutting when 0. 05% anti-strip added