Performance of Paving Interlayer-Reinforced Asphalt Pavement Jenny - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
performance of paving interlayer reinforced asphalt
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Performance of Paving Interlayer-Reinforced Asphalt Pavement Jenny - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 10, 2023 260 likes •644 views

Performance of Paving Interlayer-Reinforced Asphalt Pavement Jenny Liu, Ph.D., P.E. University of Alaska Fairbanks September 7, 2016 CESTiCC September Webinar Acknowledgments Tencate Geosynthetics North America AKDOT&PF Northern

slide-1
SLIDE 1

CESTiCC September Webinar

Performance of Paving Interlayer-Reinforced Asphalt Pavement

Jenny Liu, Ph.D., P.E. University of Alaska Fairbanks September 7, 2016

slide-2
SLIDE 2

 Tencate Geosynthetics North America  AKDOT&PF Northern Region  Emulsion Products  CESTiCC  Jenny Liu’s Materials and Pavement group

Acknowledgments

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

 Introduction  Materials and laboratory tests  Pavement structural analysis  FEM simulation analysis  Field test sections  Conclusions

3

Outline

slide-4
SLIDE 4

 AC overlay is one of the most effective methods used in pavement maintenance and rehabilitation  Paving interlayers have been used in AC overlays for a number of benefits:

 waterproofing control against infiltration of free surface water into base and subgrade  retarding of reflection of existing cracks and distresses

 Bi-axial interlayer (traditional) reinforces pavement in two directions only

Introduction

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

 In cold regions such as Alaska and other northern states, pavement and paving interlayers are more prone to distresses due to severe climatic conditions.  Identify/validate expected performance of multi-axial interlayer and added value over the conventional biaxial interlayers  Explore how paving interlayers function in AC pavements in cold regions

Introduction

5

 Multi-axial interlayer may provide potentially more efficient reinforcement in multi-directions

slide-6
SLIDE 6

 HMA

 Job mix formula from Rich Hwy North Pole Interchange paving project, Surface mix, Marshall mix design  NMAS 12.5 mm (1/2”), PG 64-34 binder, 5.4%  VTM 4%, VMA 16% and VFA 75%

 Paving interlayers

Material

6

PGM-G50/50 Bi-axial, two-yarn PGM-G100/100 Bi-axial, three-yarn PGM-G4 Multi-axial

slide-7
SLIDE 7

 Property tests of interlayers

 Asphalt retention  Grab strength

 Performance tests for interlayer-reinforced HMA

 Shear strength  Permeability  Indirect tension test (IDT)

Laboratory Testing

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Asphalt Retention

8

ASTM D6140 (135oC) PG 64-34: 145oC PGM-G4 PGM-G50/50 PGM-G100/100 Asphalt Retention liter/m2 0.828 1.236 1.281 gal/yard2 0.183 0.273 0.283

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Grab Strength

9

PGM-G4 PGM-G50/50 PGM-G100/100 Saturated 2290 2023 4071 Unsaturated 1941 1926 3783 % Difference 18% 5% 8%

Breaking Tensile load (N), ASTM D4632

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Specimen Fabrication

10

Place the fabric Spray binder

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Specimen Fabrication

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Shear Test

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Shear Test

13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Shear Test

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Permeability

15

ASTM PS 129-01

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Permeability

16

Maximum acceptable permeability, 125×10-5 cm/s

slide-17
SLIDE 17

IDT Creep

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

IDT Creep

18

Temperature (oC) Material Time (s) 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 20 Control 4.90 18.39 46.22 68.08 90.64 121.33 145.55 G4 5.23 12.31 25.03 35.19 46.20 63.59 78.94 G50 7.96 19.87 34.17 44.58 55.30 70.97 83.98 G100 5.09 14.54 30.74 44.70 60.00 82.36 100.45

  • 10

Control 0.27 0.34 0.60 1.04 1.31 1.71 1.84 G4 0.19 0.26 0.52 0.81 1.00 1.16 1.23 G50 0.19 0.26 0.45 0.70 0.90 1.11 1.24 G100 0.14 0.19 0.40 0.63 0.82 0.97 1.06

  • 30

Control 0.09 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.17 0.20 0.20 G4 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.17 0.16 G50 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.17 G100 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.13 0.15 0.15

Summary of Creep Compliance (1/MPa)

slide-19
SLIDE 19

IDT Creep

19

a) 20oC, 0.15kN vertical load b) -10oC, 1.5kN vertical load c) -30oC, 12kN vertical load

a) b) c)

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Laboratory Tests Summary

20

 G4 (multi-axial) had lowest asphalt retention, 2nd highest grab tensile strength.  The fabrics need to be placed glass side facing down to achieve the maximum interface bonding strength in the field application.  Permeability of reinforced was 1/10 of control.  G4 reinforced had highest creep stiffness at 20°C, twice higher than control.  Paving interlayer would provide extra resistance to thermal contraction in cracked pavement.

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Pavement Structural Analysis

21

Dynamic Modulus (|E*|) Master Curve

slide-22
SLIDE 22

 Bitumen Stress Analysis in Roads (BISAR) - |E*|, 21°C, 10 Hz, Surface layer

Pavement Structural Analysis

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

 AKFPD - Alaska Flexible Pavement Design

23

Pavement Structural Analysis

slide-24
SLIDE 24

FEM Simulation

24

Model configuration

slide-25
SLIDE 25

FEM Simulation

25

G50/50 (bi-axial)

Meshed model

G4 (multi-axial)

slide-26
SLIDE 26

FEM Simulation

26

Final meshed FEM model

slide-27
SLIDE 27

FEM Simulation

27

Distribution of tensile stress G50/50 (bi-axial) G4 (multi-axial)

slide-28
SLIDE 28

FEM Simulation Results

28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

FEM Simulation Results

29

slide-30
SLIDE 30

 Test sections – Richardson Highway, Alaska  2 in HMA, 4 in ATB, 4 in D-1 granular base, 300 ft paving interlayer  Pre-construction field evaluation in May 2013  Four 300-ft sections established in July, 2013

 G4, G50/50, G100/100 and control section

 Regular field evaluations since 2013

Field Test Sections

30

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Field Construction

31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Field Evaluation Results

32

Control section

No visible cracks (October 2013) New minor transverse crack (June 2015) 266 ft of longitudinal cracks (May 2014) New minor transverse and moderate longitudinal cracks (June 2016)

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Field Evaluation Results

33

New minor transverse and longitudinal cracks (June 2016)

G4 interlayer test section

No visible cracks (October 2013) Both longitudinal and transverse cracks present (May 2014) New minor transverse crack (June 2015)

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Field Evaluation Results

34

New minor longitudinal crack on the shoulder (June 2016) No visible cracks (October 2013) Both longitudinal and transverse cracks present (May 2014) New minor longitudinal crack (June 2015)

G50/50 interlayer test section

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Field Evaluation Results

35

No new transverse or longitudinal crack, but polishing is very obvious (June 2016) No visible cracks (October 2013) New major transverse cracks (May 2014) No new crack (June 2015)

G100/100 interlayer test section

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Field Evaluation Results

36

Section Transverse crack (#) Longitudinal crack, NB (ft) Longitudinal crack, SB (ft) Control (area 4) Previous1 7 minor 300 medium-major 13 minor New2 4 minor 4 medium-major Total 11 minor 304 medium-major 13 minor G4 (areas 2 & 3) Previous 8 minor 63 minor 14 minor New 2 minor 14 minor Total 10 minor 77 minor 14 minor G50/50 (area 9) Previous 1 major 78 minor 60 minor New 20 minor Total 1 major 78 minor 80 minor G100/100 (area 10) Previous 1 major New Total 1 major

1 Previous−Data collected by June 2015; 2 New−Data collected in June 2016.

slide-37
SLIDE 37

 Laboratory investigation confirmed the benefits of adding a paving interlayer  Pavement structural analysis showed fatigue resistance of reinforced was higher than control  G100/100 reinforced showed the highest fatigue resistance, G4 ranked 2nd  FEM analysis revealed G4 reinforced had more effective stress distribution and less maximum tensile strain than G50/50 reinforced  All interlayer-reinforced test sections showed better pavement performance than the control

Conclusions

37

slide-38
SLIDE 38

CESTiCC September Webinar

Thank you!