Accelerated Pavement Testing: Validating Models for Porous Asphalt

prof. dr. ir. Andr A. A. Molenaar

January 29, 2008 1

Why do we use very porous asphalt wearing courses

25 % of inhabitants are hindered by traffic noise. Noise reduction is therefore a hot topic. Measures taken at the source are the most effective. Sound barriers are not only very costly but also dont reduce noise production. Solutions should be found in tire and pavement surface.
January 29, 2008 2

Noise reducing technologies

Po s sib le N o is e R e du c tion Te ch n o log ie s (8 5 % lig h t a n d 1 5 % h e av y tr a ffic)

10 9 8 7

P ote n tia l R e d u ction [d B ]

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 4 0 km / h 7 0 km / h R o ad Ty re E n gin e 1 00 km /h

Speed
January 29, 2008 3

Noise production of wearing coarses

N ois e P ro d u ctio n W e a rin g C o u r se s tra v e lle d b y T ru ck s
90 88

N o ise L e v el [d B ( A )]

86 84 82 80 78 76 74 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Tw in la y D rain A sp h a lt 6 / 1 6 S u rfa c e D res s in g 4 / 8 D e n se A sp h a lt 0 / 16

S p e e d [k m / h ]
January 29, 2008 4

Double layer porous asphalt concrete or twinlay

Top layer 25 mm 4/8 mm aggregate. Bottom layer 40 mm 11/16 mm aggregate.

January 29, 2008

Be careful with selection of aggregate sizes ! Otherwise clogging of interface.

January 29, 2008

Noise reducing surfacings

Decrease noise production (texture). Decrease noise reflection (porosity). Increase noise absorption (porosity). Layer thickness influences which frequencies are going to be absorbed.

January 29, 2008

Influence of texture
Noise level [dB(A)] in relation to texture and absorption coefficient
77

76

75

noise level [dB(A)] 74

2/6 gradation 4/8 gradation

73

72

71 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 absorption coefficient [%]

January 29, 2008

Problem is too short lifetime and too much variation there-in

January 29, 2008

Reducing variability

Reduction of maintenance costs of 20% (costs for traffic management measures are appr. 40% of total costs!). Reduction of 10% in delay hours due to maintenance work. Maintenance is done from 21.00 h 5.00 h.

January 29, 2008

10

Variability in void content

Variation in void content over the width of the paved lane
27

25

location 1, v=4 23 location 2, v=6 location 3, v=8 location 4, v=4 location 5, v=6 void content [%] 21 location 6, v=8 location 7, v=4 location 8, v=6 location 9, v=8 19 upper limit lower limit

17

15 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

January 29, 2008

distance from edge [m] (0m=edge, 5.15m=joint)

11

Variation in bitumen content

bitumen content of samples taken at various locations
4,7

4,5

4,3

sample from truck at departure from plant bitumen content [%] 4,1 sample from truck on arrival at site sample from screed

3,9

3,7

3,5 1 2 3 4 5 location 6 7 8 9

January 29, 2008

12

Main sources of variability

Bitumen (asphalt cement) drainage. Segregation of aggregate.

January 29, 2008

13

Contractual issues
Contractors have to guarantee quality for a period of 7 years. In spite of all good intentions, projects are still mainly awarded based on lowest price. Contractors know precisely what they need to do to obtain good quality but this adds to the price. - aggregate selection, - bitumen content, - drainage prevention, - type of mixer, etc.
January 29, 2008 14

Major damage type is raveling, potential reasons are:

Traffic Temperature, UV, Oxygen Aging Moisture De-icing Oil spillage Working conditions during placement Skills of the paving crew

January 29, 2008

15

What is raveling

January 29, 2008

16

What is raveling

black rock
January 29, 2008

naked stone
17

Observations from field cores

Raveling is restricted to top part of PAC. Raveled cores come out in one piece. It looks like there is degradation/desintegration of the mortar.

January 29, 2008

18

Definition of mortar

Bitumen. Filler (fines) < 63 m includes 25% hydrated lime. Fine sand fraction (< 425 m).

January 29, 2008

19

LOT contract

Develop in one year a model that allows to predict damage initiation and progression in PAC. Tool should be user friendly to contractors. Verification and validation of model is required.

January 29, 2008

20

Organisation of the project

Meso Mechanical Model

Road and Railway Eng TU Delft

Material Test Program

Road and Railway Eng TU Delft Adhesion Institute TU Delft TU Wuhan

Contact Stress Distribution

TU Eindhoven

Circular Test Track

TU Aachen STUVA Heijmans contractors BASt

January 29, 2008

21

Tyres

still used on driven axles

200 mm, 25 kN, 700 kPa

340 mm, 50 kN, 850 kPa

January 29, 2008

22

Wheel load study: determine contact pressure distribution under rolling wheel at 80 km/h (Goodyear super single in TyreView)

January 29, 2008

23

Mathematical tool

Develop a meso mechanical model that allows ravelling to be predicted for Two Layer Porous Asphalt Concrete (TLPAC)

January 29, 2008

24

January 29, 2008

25

Energy dissipated during four successive load cycles

0.1 0.05 0 -0.05 Stress [MPa] -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 -0.25 -0.3 -0.35 -0.4 -0.45 -0.05% -0.04% -0.03% -0.02% Strain [-] -0.01% 0.00% 0.01%

January 29, 2008

26

Fatigue relation based on dissipated energy

10000000 1000000

Fatigue life, N

100000

10000

1000 0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

Dissipated Energy
January 29, 2008 27

Preparation cohesive test samples

January 29, 2008

28

Shear fatigue tests on mortar using DSR

Upper clamp

Mortar sample

Lower clamp (fixed)

January 29, 2008

29

Fatigue Life VS dissipated energy

10000000

High E*!!

1000000

W = d

Fatigue life, N

100000

0oC
10000

10oC

1000 0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

Dissipated Energy

January 29, 2008

30

Preparation of adhesion test samples

January 29, 2008

31

Sample preparation

January 29, 2008

32

Shear fatigue tests adhesive zone in DSR

Clamp Stone sample

2-comp. adhesive Film thickness 15 m

January 29, 2008 33

APT is fine but which device should be selected ?

January 29, 2008

34

Vermelding onderdeel organisatie

Examples

January 29, 2008

35

Selection of APT device

The goal is not to simulate practice but to do a test that can be simulated with the mathematical model. So an APT needed to be selected from which we know as good as possible what is happening. Realistic in terms of magnitude of load and speed. Should generate raveling within a reasonable number of load repetitions. Controlled conditions in terms of moisture and temperature. Not too far away from Delft.
January 29, 2008 36

Consequences

No LINTRACK (too slow, too little damage). No MMLS (load not realistic enough, too little damage). No Mange de Fatigue (no control over moisture and temperature, too foar away). Circular track of STUVA in Cologne, Germany was finally selected.

January 29, 2008

37

Validation by means of test track

January 29, 2008

38

Some features of the device

Diameter 10 m. Length of section 31.5 m. Width of section 1.2 m. Circle is made of16 trapezoidal subsections.
V 07 V 14 V 04 V 09 V 06 V 11

V 01

V 05

V 16

V 12

V 03 V 02 V 15 V 10 V 13

V 08

January 29, 2008

Schleuse

39

Some features of the device

Speed 10 km/h 100 km/h. Room temperature between -30 oC till + 60 oC. Wheel load between 5 till 65 kN. Selected conditions: - asphalt temperature 10 oC, - speed 80 km/h, - wheel load 50 kN, - super single Goodyear 425/R65 at 850 kPa pressure.

January 29, 2008

40

Double layer porous asphalt concrete

30 mm top layer. 45 mm bottom layer. 2 types of aggregate for top layer. 2 void/bitumen contents for top layer. SBS modified bitumen for top layer. Composition bottom layer decided by contractor.

January 29, 2008

41

Materials tested
Type 1 Type of aggregate in top layer Aggregate size top layer Bitumen content top layer Void content top layer Type of bitumen in top and bottom layer Type of aggregate In bottom layer Aggregate size bottom layer Void content bottom layer Bitumen content lower layer
January 29, 2008

Type 2 Greywacke from Lisertal-Germany 4/8 mm 5.2 % 27.4 % Cariphalt XS, SBS modified

Type 3 Bestone from Bremager-Norway 4/8 mm 6.6 % 21.6 % Cariphalt XS, SBS modified

Type 4 Bestone from Bremager-Norway 4/8 mm 5.4 % 25.0 % Cariphalt XS, SBS modified

Greywacke from Lisertal-Germany 4/8 mm 6.3 % 24.9 % Cariphalt XS, SBS modified

Augitporphyrit 11/16 mm 28.8 % 4.2 %

42

Construction of test sections

90 m long 3.2 m wide pavement was built. 4 subsections of 22.5 m long. Subgrade was sand. 300 mm thick granular subbase of crushed concrete and masonry (0/40 mm aggregate size). 40 mm sand cement layer + 20 mm sand cement layer for smoothness. Maximum height difference was 3 mm.
January 29, 2008 43

Construction of the test section

January 29, 2008

44

Measurement program

Laser texture measurements after 0, 100, 400, 1 E3, 4 E3, 1 E4, 1 E5, 2 E5, 3.5 E5, 5 E5, 7 E5 cycles. Detailed visual condition survey after 7 E5 cycles. Material tests to get necessary input for mathematical model.

January 29, 2008

45

Observed damage

raveling

tire wear

January 29, 2008

46

Laser measurements

January 29, 2008

47

Data interpretation
example of surface profile
14 12 10 8 height [mm] 6 4 2 0 0 10 20 position 30 40

January 29, 2008

48

Data interpretation
cumulative distribution of profile height
120 100 80 cumulative 60 percentage 40 20 0 0 5 10 profile height [mm] 15 20

January 29, 2008

49

Data interpretation
example of surface profile
14 12 10 8 height [mm] 6 4 2 0 0 10 20 position 30 40

January 29, 2008

50

Data interpretation
change in cumulative distribution due to raveling
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 profile height [mm] profile after raveling original profile cumulative percentage

January 29, 2008

51

Results of laser measurements

Greywacke Greywacke Bestone Bestone

Void content Bitumen content Area between cumulative curves Ranking

24.9 % 6.3 % 0.0367 3

27.4 % 5.2 % 0.0423 4

21.6 % 6.6 %

25 % 5.4 %

0.0116 0.0266 1 2

January 29, 2008

52

Predicted and observed life time

Section Lifetime according to LOT 124401 adhesive failure 32779 adhesive failure 294006 adhesive failure 113820 adhesive failure Raveling score based Raveling score based on on laser measurements visual condition survey 0.0367 21

Greywacke 24.9 % voids, 6.3 % bitumen Greywacke 27.4 % voids, 5.2 % bitumen Bestone 21.6 % voids, 6.6 % bitumen Bestone 25 % voids, 5.4 % bitumen

0.0423

32

4
0.0116 16

1
0.0266 21

January 29, 2008

53

Conclusions

Advanced modelling allows useful predictions to be made. APT as performed was an excellent way to validate model predictions. Predicted performance was in good agreement with observed performance.

January 29, 2008

54

Thank you for your attention

January 29, 2008

55