Caltrans Implementation of PG Specs. Caltrans. Presentation Overview. HMA in California. Why, When & How? How will if affect YOU?

Similar documents
SUPERPAVE BINDER SPECIFICATIONS & SELECTIONS. Superpave Binder Specs & Selections 1

Superpave Asphalt Binders

- New Superpave Performance Graded Specification. Asphalt Cements

Superpave Asphalt Binder Specification

Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR): New Binder Grade Testing and Terminology

SECTION 916 (Pages ) is deleted and the following substituted: SECTION 916 BITUMINOUS MATERIALS

What s going on with European Specifications?

Louisiana s Experience

Heritage Research Group 940 N. Wynn Rd - Oregon, OH Phone (419) Fax (317)

Background. Asphalt Soluble in petroleum products. Tar Resistant to petroleum products Generally by-product of coke (from coal) production

Use of New High Performance Thin Overlays (HPTO)

New Tools from EN Standards for high performances mixes

NCHRP Project Short- and Long-Term Binder Aging Methods to Accurately Reflect Aging in Asphalt Mixtures

Basics of test: Sand cylinder of mix is 10 Hz either in stress or strain a target temperature until specimen fails Test uses a

CHARACTERISTICS OF REJUVANATED BITUMEN WITH USED LUBRICATING OIL AS REJUVENETING AGENT

TRB Workshop Implementation of the 2002 Mechanistic Pavement Design Guide in Arizona

Oregon Department of Transportation Standard Specifications For Asphalt Materials 2004

NEAT ASPHALTS 40-50, 60-70, , , , & Complies to ASTM D 946 & AASHTO M20, BS 3670 DIN 1995

FHWA Pavements program What s s Happening. John D AngeloD Office of Pavement Technology

AC Binder Characterization Containing Crumb Tire Rubber

Improved Aging Characteristics of Crosslinked Polymer Modified Asphalt Binders

DMS-9202 Asphaltic Concrete Patching Material (Stockpile Storage or Bagged)

EFFECT OF SUPERPAVE DEFINED RESTRICTED ZONE ON HOT MIX ASPHALT PERFORMANCE

Warm Mix Technology. Sasobit. Sasobit. Available WMA Technologies SEAUPG 2005 CONFERENCE - NASHVILLE, TN CONCERNS: Frankfurt Airport

Update NCHRP Project 9-61 Short- and Long-Term Binder Aging Methods to Accurately Reflect Aging in Asphalt Mixtures

Pavement Performance Prediction Symposium July 17, 2008 University of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming

Innovative Warm Mix Asphalt Projects: The Contractor s Perspective

Darwin-ME Status and Implementation Efforts_IAC09

Developing Affordable GTR Asphalt Mixes for Local Roadways

Thomas Bennert, Ph.D. Rutgers University Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation (CAIT)

Developing Affordable GTR Asphalt Mixes for Local Roadways

WARM MIX ASPHALT TECHNOLOGY

I.D.O.T. Update Version -

Development of long life structural asphalt

2016 NJDOT Research Showcase 10/26/16

DMS-9202, Asphaltic Concrete Patching Material (Stockpile Storage)

TRB Webinar: Design and Production of High-Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Mixes. May 7, 2009, 2:00 PM EDT

DMS ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PATCHING MATERIAL (STOCKPILE STORAGE)

3.5. PMA for Airports in India. When Quality Means Profit

SECTION 118 ASPHALT MATERIAL

North Eastern States Materials Engineers Association (NESMEA) October 18 th 19 th, 2016 Newark, DE

Industry/PennDOT Initiative On Performance Testing. AN UPDATE January 22, 2019

SonneWarmix Addtives A Warm Mix Asphalt Technology

NCAT/MnROAD Cracking Group Update. March 29, 2018

Long Life Asphalt Performance Testing January 17, 2018

ASPHALT 101. Robert B. McGennis, P.E. The HollyFrontier Companies Phoenix, AZ

SEAUPG 2009 CONFERENCE-HILTON HEAD ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA

EME2 Pavement and mix design. Laszlo Petho, Pavements Manager Fulton Hogan.

DMS-9203, Asphaltic Concrete Patching Material (Containerized)

SULFUR EXTENDED ASPHALT INVESTIGATION - LABORATORY AND FIELD TRIAL

Structural Considerations in Moving Mega Loads on Idaho Highways

Section 4 DMS-9203, Asphaltic Concrete Patching Material (Containerized)

ACC Technology Showcase November 10, 2015 Newport Beach, CA. Ronald Corun Axeon Specialty Products LLC Director - Asphalt Technical Services

Implementation and Thickness Optimization of Perpetual Pavements in Ohio

Do I have a problem?

Rutting of Caltrans Asphalt Concrete and Asphalt-Rubber Hot Mix. Under Different Wheels, Tires and Temperatures Accelerated

Performance Tests of Asphalt Mixtures

2017 Local Roads Workshop Local Agency HMA Acceptance Specification

Impact of Environment-Friendly Tires on Pavement Damage

The INDOT Friction Testing Program: Calibration, Testing, Data Management, and Application

Products for Asphalt Testing

Subject: Dr. Witczak s letter to AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials and AASHTO Joint Technical Committee on Pavements

Asphalt Technology Guidance Program (ATGP)

Schedule of Accreditation issued by United Kingdom Accreditation Service 2 Pine Trees, Chertsey Lane, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 3HR, UK

Minnesota DOT -- RDM Experience. Dr. Kyle Hoegh, MnDOT Dr. Shongtao Dai, MnDOT Dr. Lev Khazanovich, U. of Pittsburgh

Demand for soft grades of Binder

ISO 2909 / ASTM D

Low Temperature Assessment of Current Engine Oils. Charles K. Dustman Evonik Oil Additives USA, Inc.

BITUTECH RAP & PER HIGH RAP AND WARM-MIX ASPHALT SOLUTIONS. Green Asphalt Technologies LLC. Technology developed by:

Fuel Resistant. Punishing Conditions. Supreme Production.

USING ENGINE OIL TO IMPROVE FUEL ECONOMY

Performance Based Lab Tests to Predict Pavement Fatigue

Asphalt Emulsion VOC Testing

COMPARING RUTTING PERFORMANCE UNDER A HEAVY VEHICLE SIMULATOR TO RUTTING PERFORMANCE AT THE NCAT PAVEMENT TEST TRACK. Dr. R. Buzz Powell, P.E.

Developing Affordable GTR Asphalt Mixes for Local Roadways

Special Provision No. 111S12 July 2017

Equivalent Loading Frequencies to Simulate Asphalt Layer Pavement Responses Under Dynamic Traffic Loading

MATERIAL SPECIFICATION FOR EMULSIFIED ASPHALT

Performance and Safety Enhancements using New Preservation Techniques

Crash Testing Growth Common Roadside Hardware Systems Draft FHWA and AASHTO Requirements for Implementing MASH 2015

A Crack is a Crack Mn/DOT s Perspective on Cracking in Asphalt Pavements

Simulation, Rheology and Efficiency of Polymer Enhanced Solutions April 5, 2017

EFFECTS OF DUAL VERSUS SUPER SINGLE TRUCK TIRE ON FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE; A MECHANISTICAPPROACH

Sealant Troubleshooting. CAPTG Workshop Toronto September 13 th Tim Morris Crafco Inc

All Regional Engineers. Omer M. Osman, P.E. Special Provision for Hot-Mix Asphalt Mixture Design Composition and Volumetric Requirements July 25, 2014

Effect of Different Axle Configurations on Fatigue Life of Asphalt Concrete Mixture

DRAFT Jamaican Standard Specification for Bituminous materials

Implementation Process of Pavement ME Design in Maricopa County 2016 Arizona Pavements/Materials Conference November 17, 2016

Asphalt Layer Pavement Responses Under Dynamic Traffic Loading

MUNICIPALITY OF MONROEVILLE

MATERIAL SPECIFICATION FOR EMULSIFIED ASPHALT

VISCOSITY DATA FOR ASPHALTS USED BY THE TEXAS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT. R. N. Traxler Research Engineer Texas Transportation Institute

Median Barriers in North Carolina

MATERIAL SPECIFICATION FOR EMULSIFIED ASPHALT

2018 NACE Conference Wisconsin Dells, WI. Joseph Cheung P.E. FHWA Office of Safety

HMA Thin Lifts for Pavement Preservation in Tennessee

APPENDIX C CATEGORIZATION OF TRAFFIC LOADS

Bandmill Strain System Response

Viscosity & Flash Point Standards For Reference, Validation, and Calibration

Control of Pavement Smoothness in Kansas

Transcription:

Caltrans Implementation of PG Specs PG - Performance Graded Presentation Overview Why, When & How? How will if affect YOU? Caltrans Local Agencies Industry Consultants HMA in California ~ 1 Ton HMA/Person/Yr ~ 34 Million Tons/Yr 1

Binder Specifications Then & Now Specification Systems Penetration Viscosity PBA Superpave PG Penetration Grading System Introduced in 1918 by Bureau of Public Roads (now the FHWA) At least 9 penetration grades 1956 PCCAS formed Goal was to reduce the number of grades & standardize specs 1957 PCCAS adopted 5 grades PCCAS = West Coast User-Producer Group 2

Penetration Grading System 0 sec 5 sec Pen (dmm( dmm) 100g 100g Based on magnitude of the penetration of a standard needle at 25 C Penetration Spec Classification based on pen at 25 C Also considers Penetration at 4 C4 Flash point Viscosity at 135 C Solubility Thin Film Oven Aging Penetration at 25 C Ductility Temp Susceptibility Penetration, 0.1 mm 25 C C (77 F) Temp 3

Viscosity Grading System Original Binder (AC) Aged Residue (AR) Viscosity Grading System AC Developed in 1960s Replace penetration system Based on unaged binder consistency at max in-service temp AASHTO M226 & ASTM D3381 AR Caltrans in the 1960s Based on aged binder to simulate post-mixing binder consistency AC Spec Tests Classification based on vis at 60 o C Also considers Vis at 135 o C Pen at 25 o C Flash Point Solubility TFO-aged residue Vis at 60 o C Ductility at 25 o C 4

Viscosity Grades (AC-xx) AC - 2.5 5 10 20 30 40 PCCAS and the AR 1967 1969 1972 1974 RTFOT adopted as alternative to TFOT Use of RTFOT-conditioned asphalt began Formally adopted Implementation Caltrans Grades & Tests Classification based on aged-residue vis at 60 o C AR Grades* AR -1000-2000 -4000-8000 -16000 * Caltrans Std Specs, Section 92 Greenbook Section 203-1 5

Caltrans Grades & Tests Also considers tests on RTFO-aged residue Vis at 60 o C & 135 o C Pen at 25 o C % of Original Pen Ductility Properties of unaged asphalt Flash Point Solubility Comparison of Pen & Vis Grades Pen AC AR Log of Relative Stiffness 40 50 60 70 85 100 120 150 200 300 AC 40 AC 20 AC 10 AC 5 AR 16000 AR 8000 AR 4000 AR 2000 AR 1000 AC 2.5 6

Relationship Between Vis & Pen Pen at 25ºC C (0.1 mm) 1000 100 10 100 1000 10000 Vis at 60ºC C (Poise) AC-2.5 AC-5 AC-10 AC-20 AC-40 Coastal Valley NB: Asphalt Institute Data Limitations of Pen & Vis Grading Systems Penetration: Empirical measurement Viscosity: Viscous effect only No low temp properties (except PCCAS-pen ratio) Long-term aging not considered Inadequate for modified binders PCCAS to the Rescue 1987 Paving Asphalt Committee charged to develop specs for modified asphalts Representatives from Industry Chevron & Golden Bear ODOT Caltrans 7

PBA Concept Performance Rutting, Fatigue & Low Temp Cracking Safety Environment Purity Compatibility Climate PBA Grade Binder Tests 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Test Criteria PBA Spec - 1992 Precursor to SHRP PG Climatic guidelines to select grade Conventional tests to relate to performance Unique grades PBA (performance-based asphalt) Identifies modified binders by grade Current PBA Spec - Handout 8

PG Asphalt Binder System PG - Performance Graded PG System Developed in 1990s during SHRP in concert w/ PCCAS Fundamental Properties, ie,, stress and strain Unmodified binders Performance Considerations Rutting, Cracking (Fatigue & Low Temp), & Aging Environment FHWA Resources http://www.fhwa.dot.gov Asphalt Institute http://www.asphaltinstitute.org NAPA (National Asphalt Paving Assn) http://www.hotmix.org NCAT (National Center for Asphalt Tech) http://www.eng.auburn.edu/center/ncat 9

PG Spec (eg( eg,, PG 64-16) Viscosity/Stiffness In-Service Construction Original -6 C 28 C 64 C 135 C PG Spec System Based on Climate - In-Service Pavement Temps PG XX - YY Min Pavement Performance Surface Temp (ºC)( Grade Average 7-day 7 Max Pavement Temp (ºC)( Determination of Pavement Temp Used in PG Spec Determine-Project Specific Air Temps Compute Design-Specific Pavement Temps from Air Temps 10

Air Temps Superpave Weather Database NOAA ~ 40 years of data 7,900+ stations in US & Canada 308 stations in California Uses Annual Air Temps Hottest, consecutive 7-day 7 temp (average & standard deviation) Coldest temp (average & standard deviation) Calculated Pavement Temps used in PG Selection Reliability Percent Probability of Not Exceeding Design Temp Generated from Site Specific Mean and Standard Deviation Frequency of observed temperatures (Total area under curve = 100 %) PG High Temp Reliability is area under curve to the Left of T des T des = T avg ± 2σ T avg T des Observed Air Temps 50% reliability = X average summer very hot summer 98 % reliability = X + 2σ2 36 40 7-Day Max Air Temps ºC 11

Observed Air Temps San Diego (La Mesa) very cold winter -3 average winter 1 average summer 35 very hot summer 39-5 5 30 40 ºC Pavement Temps -3 1 Max Air Temp Calculated Pavement Temp 54 61-10 0 10 ºC 20 30 40 50 60 70 ºC PG Binders PG 64-10 (98% reliability) PG 58-10 (50% reliability) ºC -20-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 12

PG Concept & Equipment Low temp Service temps Intermediate temp Mixing High temp DTT (optional) DSR RV BBR -20 20 60 135 Temp ( C)( PG Spec Testing Low Temp Cracking Fatigue Cracking Rutting Pumpability DTT (optional) BBR DSR RV Age Conditioning No aging RTFO (Short Term) PAV (Long Term) 13

PG Spec Testing Pumpability RV Age Conditioning No aging RTFO (Short Term) PAV (Long Term) PG Spec Testing Rutting DSR Age Conditioning No aging RTFO (Short Term) PAV (Long Term) PG Spec Testing Fatigue Cracking DSR Age Conditioning No aging RTFO (Short Term) PAV (Long Term) 14

PG Spec Testing Low Temp Cracking DTT (optional) BBR Age Conditioning No aging RTFO (Short Term) PAV (Long Term) Low temp properties Service Temps Intermediate temp properties Mixing High temp properties DTT (optional) DSR RV BBR -20 20 60 135 Temp ( C)( PG Specification AASHTO M320-04 04 15

Current PG Spec - Handout Tests Used in PG Binder System Safety - Flash Point Pumpability - RV at High Temp (135ºC) Rutting - DSR at High Temps Original & RTFOT-Aged; ie,, 2 conditions Fatigue Cracking - DSR at Intermediate Temps RTFOT PAV-Aged; Aged; ie,, 1 condition Low Temp Cracking - BBR & DTT (optional) at Low Temps RTFOT PAV-Aged; Aged; 1 condition PG Spec Testing Low Temp Cracking Fatigue Cracking Rutting Pumpability DTT (optional) RV BBR DSR -20 20 60 135 Test Temp ( C)( 16

CEC Avg 7-day Max, o C 1-day Min, o C Safety & Pumpability > 230 o C < 3Pa. s @ 135 o C PG 46 PG 52 PG 58 PG 64 PG 70 PG 76 PG 82-34 -40-46 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -46-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-10 -16-22 -28-34 (Flash Point) FP (Rotational Viscosity) ORIGINAL RV > 1.00 kpa > 2.20 kpa 20 Hours, 2.07 MPa (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 (ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN) RTFO Mass Loss < 1.00 % (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ First Checks 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 (PRESSURE AGING VESSEL) PAV >230 C 3.0 Pa s 90 90 100 100 100 (110) 100 (110) 110 (110) (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G* sin δ < 5000 kpa 10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 37 34 28 31 S < 300 MPa m > 0.300 Report Value > 1.00 % ( Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR S Stiffness & m - value -24-30 -36 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 -36-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24 0-6 -12-18 -24 (Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR Physical Hardening (Direct Tension) DT -24-30 -36 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 -36-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24 0-6 -12-18 -24 Pumpability During construction a contractor must be able to pump the binder. Viscosity (η) 3 Pa s at 135 C C for the unaged binder PG Spec Testing Low Temp Cracking Fatigue Cracking Rutting Pumpability DTT (optional) RV BBR DSR -20 20 60 135 Test Temp ( C)( 17

Rutting/Permanent Deformation CEC Avg 7-day Max, o C 1-day Min, o C > 230 o C < 3Pa. s @ 135 o C > 1.00 kpa PG 46 PG 52 PG 58 PG 64 PG 70 PG 76 PG 82-34 -40-46 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -46-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-10 -16-22 -28-34 (Flash Point) FP (Rotational Viscosity) ORIGINAL RV (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 Unaged > 2.20 kpa RTFO Aged 20 Hours, 2.07 MPa (ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN) RTFO Mass Loss < 1.00 % (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 (PRESSURE AGING VESSEL) PAV 90 90 100 100 100 (110) 100 (110) 110 (110) (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G* sin δ < 5000 kpa 10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 37 34 28 31 S < 300 MPa m > 0.300 Report Value > 1.00 % ( Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR S Stiffness & m - value -24-30 -36 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 -36-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24 0-6 -12-18 -24 (Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR Physical Hardening (Direct Tension) DT -24-30 -36 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 -36-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24 0-6 -12-18 -24 How the PG Spec Works Spec Requirement Remains Constant CEC Avg 7-day Max, o C 1-day Min, o C > 230 o C < 3Pa. s @ 135 o C PG 46 PG 52 PG 58 PG 64 PG 70 PG 76 PG 82-34 -40-46 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -46-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-10 -16-22 -28-34 (Flash Point) FP (Rotational Viscosity) ORIGINAL RV > 1.00 kpa (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ 58 64 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 (ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN) RTFO Mass Loss < 1.00 % > 2.20 kpa 20 Hours, 2.07 MPa < 5000 kpa (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 (PRESSURE AGING VESSEL) PAV 90 90 100 100 100 (110) 100 (110) 110 (110) Test Temp Changes (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ DSR G* sin δ 10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 37 34 28 31 S < 300 MPa m > 0.300 Report Value > 1.00 % ( Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR S Stiffness & m - value -24-30 -36 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 -36-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24 0-6 -12-18 -24 (Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR Physical Hardening (Direct Tension) DT -24-30 -36 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 -36-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24 0-6 -12-18 -24 Rutting/Permanent Deformation Addressed by G*/sin δ > 1.00 kpa (unaged binder) G*/sin δ 2.20 kpa (RTFO-aged binder) For the early part of the service life 18

Mass Loss Spec Calculate mass loss after RTFO. Mass loss, % = Original mass - Aged mass Original mass x 100 Mass Loss 1.0% Establishing Grades - DSR Data Relative Values of G*/sin δ (kpa kpa) 2.0 1.0 0.5 NB: 1. Stiffness approximately doubles with each 6ºC decrease in temp. 2. G*/sin δ 1.0 kpa at 60ºC for AC-10 AC-10 58 60 64 70 Temp (ºC) PG Spec Testing Low Temp Cracking Fatigue Cracking Rutting Pumpability DTT (optional) RV BBR DSR -20 20 60 135 Test Temp ( C)( 19

CEC Avg 7-day Max, o C 1-day Min, o C > 230 o C < 3Pa. s @ 135 o C Fatigue Cracking PG 46 PG 52 PG 58 PG 64 PG 70 PG 76 PG 82-34 -40-46 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -46-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-10 -16-22 -28-34 (Flash Point) FP (Rotational Viscosity) ORIGINAL RV > 1.00 kpa (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 (ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN) RTFO Mass Loss < 1.00 % > 2.20 kpa 20 Hours, 2.07 MPa (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 (PRESSURE AGING VESSEL) PAV 90 90 100 100 100 (110) 100 (110) 110 (110) (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G* sin δ < 5000 kpa 10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 37 34 28 31 S < 300 MPa m > 0.300 ( Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR S Stiffness & m - value -24-30 -36 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 -36-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24 0-6 -12-18 -24 Report Value (Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR Physical Hardening > 1.00 % (Direct Tension) DT -24-30 -36 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 -36-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24 0-6 -12-18 -24 PAV Aged Fatigue Cracking Addressed by stiffness at intermediate temp G*sin δ on RTFO & PAV-aged binder < 5000 kpa For later part of pavement service life Fatigue Testing Long-term performance problem Use aged binder Short-term term aging (RTFO) + Long-term aging (PAV) 20

Notes on the Spec Assumed strain controlled distress (thin HMA) Initially a maximum of 3 MPa Over 50% of binders tested failed Raised to max of 5 MPa; ; 15% of binders failed Basis for limiting to 5 MPa PG Spec Testing Low Temp Cracking Fatigue Cracking Rutting Pumpability DTT (optional) RV BBR DSR -20 20 60 135 Test Temp ( C)( CEC Avg 7-day Max, o C 1-day Min, o C > 230 o C < 3Pa. s @ 135 o C Low Temp Cracking PG 46 PG 52 PG 58 PG 64 PG 70 PG 76 PG 82-34 -40-46 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -46-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-10 -16-22 -28-34 (Flash Point) FP (Rotational Viscosity) ORIGINAL RV > 1.00 kpa (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 (ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN) RTFO Mass Loss < 1.00 % > 2.20 kpa 20 Hours, 2.07 MPa (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 (PRESSURE AGING VESSEL) PAV 90 90 100 100 100 (110) 100 (110) 110 (110) (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G* sin δ < 5000 kpa S < 300 MPa m > 0.300 PAV Aged Report Value > 1.00 % 10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 37 34 28 31 ( Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR S Stiffness & m - value -24-30 -36 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 -36-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24 0-6 -12-18 -24 (Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR Physical Hardening (Direct Tension) DT -24-30 -36 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 -36-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24 0-6 -12-18 -24 21

Bending Beam Rheometer Evaluates low temp stiffness Creep stiffness, S(t) Slope of log creep stiffness curve, m-value Log Creep Stiffness, S(t) m 1 8 15 30 60 120 240 Log Loading Time, t (sec) PG Spec Testing Low Temp Cracking DTT (optional) Fatigue Cracking Rutting RV Pumpability BBR DSR -20 20 60 135 Test Temp ( C)( CEC Avg 7-day Max, o C 1-day Min, o C > 230 o C < 3Pa. s @ 135 o C Low Temp Cracking PG 46 PG 52 PG 58 PG 64 PG 70 PG 76 PG 82-34 -40-46 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -46-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-40 -10-16 -22-28 -34-10 -16-22 -28-34 (Flash Point) FP (Rotational Viscosity) ORIGINAL RV > 1.00 kpa (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 (ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN) RTFO Mass Loss < 1.00 % > 2.20 kpa 20 Hours, 2.07 MPa (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ 46 52 58 64 70 76 82 (PRESSURE AGING VESSEL) PAV 90 90 100 100 100 (110) 100 (110) 110 (110) (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G* sin δ < 5000 kpa S < 300 MPa m > 0.300 PAV Aged 10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 37 34 28 31 ( Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR S Stiffness & m - value -24-30 -36 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 -36-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24 0-6 -12-18 -24 Report Value (Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR Physical Hardening > 1.00 % (Direct Tension) DT -24-30 -36 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 -36-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24-30 0-6 -12-18 -24 0-6 -12-18 -24 22

DTT (optional) σ f (no spec criterion) ε f 1.0% Summary Evolution of binder grading systems Penetration Viscosity PBA & PG PG PG Fundamental properties measured. Quantifies binder contributions to rutting, fatigue & low temp cracking. Considers the effect of aging. Summary PG System - Selection based on climatic conditions at project site. Low temp (min pavement surface temp) High temp (average 7-day 7 max pavement temp) Spec requirement remains constant; test temp changes. 23

Binder Topics Needs based on climate Used Special cases California Climate PG Needs CA - High Temp PG Needs Locations 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 40 46 52 58 64 70 76 High Temp PG (C) 50% 98% 24

CA Low Temp PG Needs Locations 300 250 200 150 100 50 0-34 -28-22 -16-10 Low Temp PG (C) 50% 98% CA - PG Needs 40 46 52 58 64 70 76-34 1-28 4 9 1-22 2 5 10 7-16 3 3 13 23 10-10 1 8 23 24 66 77 18 20 PG Binders! PG Binder Distribution Locations 125 100 75 50 25 0 279/308 locations 64-28 64-16 70-10 64-10 PG Binder 25

PG 64-28 PG 64-16 PG 70-10 PG 64-10 PG Binder Map Caltrans Strategy-2006 Special Circumstances PBA 6a & 6b for cold regions PBA at discretion of District with economic justification eg: : Dist 9 PBA-6b eg: : Dist 8 PBA-6a* Caltrans Strategy - 2007 Regular Conventional PG Binder Special Circumstances PG Polymer Modified 26

Caltrans Binder Selection Caltrans vs AASHTO Solubility, min RTFO mass loss, max DSR Caltrans 98.5% 0.60% Min elastic recovery, max phase angle AASHTO 99.0% 1.0% Implementation 4 unmodified PGs Jan 06 Replace modified PBAs with PG Jan 07 Asphalt Rubber base PG by RACTG Jan 06 AMRL Certification Jan 07 Training (Caltrans( Caltrans,, Local Agencies & Industry) Classroom: 12 Locations, Beginning Oct 05 27

PG Binders are not a panacea!!! Aggregate Characteristics Mix Design Construction Quality Control Other Considerations PG for other applications? Mixing PG binders of same grade but from different sources? Critical tests for checking binders? Mix design approval; effect of asphalt different supplier? Effects of PG binders on construction process (eg( eg,, impact on compaction)? PG vs AR grades? PG for Other Applications? Commercial Parking Lots, Truck Terminals Ports Airfields Commercial & General Aviation Residential Hydraulic Local Streets & Highways 28

PG for Other Applications? Tack Coats PG 64-10 or PG 64-16 Surface Treatments, eg, ChipSeals Conventional or polymer modified emulsions AC Dikes PG 70-10 Crack Sealing, Expansion Joints FHWA-RD RD-03-080080 Mixing Binders Same PG But Different Sources? Same precautions as taken for AR binders. Critical Binder Testing? Spec tests BBR DSR (Original & RTFO-Aged) Use AMRL-Certified Commercial Lab! 29

Mix Design- Different Binder Supplier? Same precautions as taken for AR binders do another mix design! PG Binder Influence on Construction? Potential for stiffer binders may require higher mixing and placement temps. Plant production and placement temps ~ 15-20 20ºF F higher than traditional AR- graded binders. Another test strip? Questions? Comments? 30