Final Report COMPARISON AND DEFINITION OF STATE DOTS PRACTICES IN SELECTION OF MATERIALS FOR PAVEMENTS

Prepared in Cooperation With The Ohio Department of Transportation and, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Submitted By Dr. Arudi Rajagopal Jack Croteau, P.E. Infrastructure Management and Engineering Inc. PO Box 42039 Cincinnati, OH 45242-0039 Ph: 513-489-6714 FAX: 513-489-6704 e-mail: info@inframeinc.com

August 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2 Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.3 Background and Significance of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. REVIEW OF PAVEMENT MATERIALS AND THEIR SELECTION PROCESS . . . . . . . . 6 2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2 Flexible Surface Course Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2.1 Mixture Types and Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2.2 Mixture Characterization Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.2.3 Selection of Asphalt Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.2.3 A. Traditional Test Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2.2.3 B. The Superpave System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2.2.3 C. Asphalt Modifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 2.2.4 Aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.2.4 A Available Types of Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 2.2.4 B Aggregate Characterization Tests and Quality Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2.2.4 C Superpave Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 2.2.5 Base and Subbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.2.5 A. Available Types and Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.2.5 B. Dense Graded Granular Base/Subbase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2.2.5 C. Stabilized Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.2.5 D. Treated Permeable Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.2.6 Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 2.3 Concrete Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.3.1 Design Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.3.2 Design Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 2.3.3 Concrete Acceptance Strength requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.3.4 Entrained Air Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.3.5 Water-Cement Ratio Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.3.6 Minimum Cement Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.3.7 Aggregate Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2.3.8 Slump Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 2.3.9 Supplementary Cementing Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 2.3.10 Reinforcement for JRCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.3.11 Reinforcement for CRCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 2.3.12 Control Tests for Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

3. SURVEY OF STATE DOTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 3.2 Pavement type Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3.2.1 Factors Used in the Selection of Pavements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3.2.2 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3.3 Use of Recycled Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3.3.1 Recycling in General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 A. Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 B. Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3.3.2 Legislative Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3.3.3 Factors Dictating Application of Recycled Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3.3.4 Specific Recycling Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4. REVIEW OF ODOTs MATERIALS SELECTION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 4.1 Ohios Materials Management Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 4.2 Pavement Type Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 4.2.1 The Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 4.2.2 Role of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 4.2.3 Superpave status in Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 5. EMERGING MATERIALS AND TEST PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 5.1 Foamed Asphalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 5.2 Warm Mix Asphalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 5.3 Micro Deval Aggregate Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 6.1 Adequacy of ODOTs Materials Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 6.2 Investigation of Improved Materials and Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 6.3 Recycling Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A

LIST OF TABLES

1. ODOTs Flexible Pavement Structural Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 ODOTs Rigid Pavement Structural Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3. Asphalt Mix Types Recommended for Surface Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4. Conditions Appropriate for the Selection of OGFC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5. Test Procedures to Characterize Asphalt Concrete Mixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Measurement of Asphalt Cement Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 7. Superpave Test Procedures for Asphalt Binders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 8 Measurement of Aggregate Properties Used in Asphalt Mixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 9. Granular Aggregates Test Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 10. Stabilized Base and Subbase Material Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 11. Stabilized Base and Subbase Aggregate Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 12. Concrete Aggregate Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 13. Portland Cement and Supplementary Cementitious Materials Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 49 14. Concrete Paving Materials Test Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 15. Design Periods Used by State Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

LIST OF FIGURES 1. Types of Concrete Pavements Built By State DOTs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 2 Concrete Strength Used in Construction Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3. Compressive Strength (psi) Used by State Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4. Concrete Flexural Strength (psi) Specified by States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 5. Entrained Air Content Requirements, % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 6. Maximum Allowable Water Cement Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 7. Minimum Cement Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 8 Grading of Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 9. Maximum Aggregate Size in Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 10. Type of Fly Ash Used by States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 11. Reinforcement for JRCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 12. Steel Grade for CRCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 13. Factors Considered in Pavement Type Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 14. LCCA Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 15. Discount Rates Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 16. Analysis Periods Used in LCCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 17. Extent of Use of Full Depth Asphalt in New Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 18. Extent of Use of Jointed Concrete Pavement in New Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 19. Extent of Use of CRCP in New Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 20. Extent of Use of Composite Pavement (AC over PCC) in New Construction . . . . . . . . . . . 80 21. Extent of Use of Complete Replacement with Flexible Pavement as a Reconstruction Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 22. Extent of Use of Complete Replacement with Rigid Pavement as a Reconstruction Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 23. Extent of Use of Complete Replacement with Composite Pavement as a Reconstruction Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 24. Extent of Use of Asphalt Overlay as a Major Rehabilitation Strategy in LCCA . . . . . . . . . 84 25. Extent of Use of Unbonded Concrete Overlay/White Topping as a Major Rehabilitation Strategy ion LCCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 26. Extent of use of Rubblize and Roll as Major Rehabilitation Strategy in LCCA . . . . . . . . . 86 27. Extent of Use of Break and Seat as Major Rehabilitation Strategy in LCCA . . . . . . . . . . . 87 28. Extent of Use of Crack and Seat as Major Rehabilitation Strategy in LCCA . . . . . . . . . . . 88 29. Blast Furnace Slag as Aggregate in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 30. Coal Bottom Ash as Aggregate in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 31. Coal Boiler Slag as Aggregate in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 32. Foundry Sand as Aggregate in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 33. Mineral Processing Waste as Aggregate in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 34. MSW Incinerator Ash as Aggregate in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 35. Nonferrous Slags as Aggregate in Hot-Mix AC Applications in Hot-Mix AC Applications 95 36. Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) as Aggregate in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . 96 37. Reclaimed Rubber as Aggregate in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 38. Roofing Shingle Scrap as Aggregate in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 39. Steel Slag as Aggregate in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81.

Waste Glass as Aggregate in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Coal Bottom Ash as Aggregate in Cold-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) as Aggregate in Cold-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . 102 Blast Furnace Slag as Aggregate in Surface Treatment or Seal Coat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Coal Boiler Slag as Aggregate in Surface Treatment or Seal Coat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Steel Slag as Aggregate in Surface Treatment or Seal Coat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Baghouse Fines as Mineral Filler in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Coal Fly Ash as Mineral Filler in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Lime Kiln Dust as Mineral Filler in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Cement Kiln Dust as Mineral Filler in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Sewage Sludge Ash as Mineral Filler in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Recycled Plastic as Mineral Filler in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Reclaimed Rubber as Asphalt Modifier in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Roofing Shingle Scrap as Asphalt Modifier in Hot-Mix AC Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Blast Furnace Slag in Granular Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Coal Boiler Slag in Granular Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Mineral Processing Waste in Granular Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 MSW Incinerator Ash in Granular Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Nonferrous Slag in Granular Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) in Granular Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Recycled Concrete in Granular Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Steel Slag in Granular Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Waste Glass in Granular Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Blast Furnace Slag in Embankment or Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Coal Fly Ash in Embankment or Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Mineral Processing Waste in Embankment or Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Nonferrous Slag in Embankment or Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) in Embankment or Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Reclaimed Concrete in Embankment or Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Scrap Tires in Embankment or Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Dredge Soil in Embankment or Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Coal Boiler Slag as Stabilized Base Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Coal Bottom Ash as Stabilized Base Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Reclaimed Concrete as Aggregate in Portland Cement Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Blast Furnace Slag as Supplementary Cementitious Material in Portland Cement Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Class C Coal Fly Ash as Supplementary Cementitious Material in Portland Cement Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Class F Coal Fly Ash as Supplementary Cementitious Material in Portland Cement Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Class C Fly Ash as Aggregate in Flowable Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Class F Fly Ash as Aggregate in Flowable Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Foundry Sand as Aggregate in Flowable Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Quarry Fines as Aggregate in Flowable Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Class C Coal Fly Ash as Aggregate in Supplementary Cementitious Material . . . . . . . . . 141

82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89.

Class F Coal Fly Ash as Aggregate in Supplementary Cementitious Material . . . . . . . . . . 142 Cement Kiln Dust as Aggregate in Supplementary Cementitious Material . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Lime Kiln Dust as Aggregate in Supplementary Cementitious Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Class C Coal Fly Ash as Supplementary Cementitious Material in Stabilized Base . . . . . 145 Class F Coal Fly Ash as Supplementary Cementitious Material in Stabilized Base . . . . . 146 Cement Kiln Dust as Supplementary Cementitious Material in Stabilized Base . . . . . . . . 147 Lime Kiln Dust as Supplementary Cementitious Material in Stabilized Base . . . . . . . . . . 148 Sulfate Wastes as Supplementary Cementitious Material in Stabilized Base . . . . . . . . . . 149

1. Report No.

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipients Catalog No.

FHWA/OH- 2004/011
4. Title and subtitle. 5. Report Date

August 2004 Comparison and Definition of State DOTs Practices in Selection of Materials for Pavements
7. Author(s) 6. Performing Organization Code

8. Performing Organization Report No.

Dr. Arudi Rajagopal and Mr. Jack Croteau

9. Performing Organization Name and Address Infrastructure M anagement & Engineering, Inc. PO Box 42039 Cincinnati, OH 45242-0039
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

State Job No. 14802(0)

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Ohio Department of Transportation 1980 W Broad Street Columbus, OH 43223

Final Report
14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract

This report presents the details of a study conducted by Infrastructure M anagement and Engineering (INFRAME) to review Ohio Department of Transportations (ODOTs) current pavement material selection practices and suggest improvements where necessary. The present study was initiated by ODOTs Office of Materials Management as part of its continuing effort to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of the materials used to construct pavements in Ohio. This report synthesizes the state-of-thepractice review of pavement materials selection procedures and criteria in Ohio and other State Department of Transportation. The study was conducted in three parts: (i) a review of the literature, (ii) a survey of state DOTs, and (iii) a critical review of ODOT practices, including recommendations for improvement. The results of the literature review and the survey of the states (presented as an interactive computer database) will primarily be of interest to the ODOT technical staff who are involved in the day-to-day details of the materials selection process. The critical review of ODOTs practices will be of interest to ODOT managers responsible for charting the future course of the program. No significant changes in ODOTs material selection procedures are needed. Indeed, a review of ODOTs procedures, in comparison to the practices presented in the published literature and described in a survey of states agencies (conducted as a part of this study), conveys an extremely positive impression, which reflects favorably upon the department as a whole. The Office of Materials Management provides necessary support services and at the same time constantly strives to identify areas in need of improvement. The principal recommendations of the study are that two asphalt materials (foamed asphalt and warm mix asphalt), several recycled materials, and an improved aggregate test procedure (the M icro Deval procedure) be further evaluated to determine their potential for providing better performing and/or more economical Ohio pavements.
17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Pavement Materials, Mixture Characterization, Base and Subbase, Superpave, Supplementary Cementitious Materials, Recycling, LCCA, Pavement Type Selection,

No Restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
21. No. of Pages 190 22. Price

19. Security Classif. (Of this report)

20. Security Classif. (Of this page)

Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

Unclassified

Reproduction of completed page authorized

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The investigators wish to convey their appreciation to Mr. Lloyd Welker, Mr. Roger Green and Mr. Dave Powers of the Ohio Department of Transportation for their help throughout the life of the project. The researchers acknowledge the invaluable contribution made by the following DOTs for responding to the survey: Arkansas State highway and Transportation Department Arizona Department of Transportation California Department of Transportation Georgia Department of Transportation Idaho Transportation Department Indiana Department of Transportation Iowa Department of Transportation Kansas Department of Transportation Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Maine Department of Transportation Maryland Department of Transportation Minnesota Department of Transportation Missouri Department of Transportation New York Department of Transportation Rhode Island Department of Transportation South Carolina Department of Transportation South Dakota Department of Transportation Tennessee Department of Transportation Texas Department of Transportation Utah Department of Transportation Virginia Department of Transportation West Virginia Department of Transportation Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Thanks are also due to Ms. Geetha Rajagopal for developing the interactive database. The cooperation extended by the Office of Research and Development is duly acknowledged.

DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Ohio Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.

The Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Research & Development Executive Summary Report
COMPARISON AND DEFINITION OF STATE DOTS PRACTICES IN SELECTION OF MATERIALS FOR PAVEMENTS
Start Date: April 2002 Duration: 2 years Completion Date: May 31, 2004 Report Date: August 2004 State Job Number: 14802(0) Report Number:

Funding: Principle Investigators: Dr. Arudi Rajagopal Mr. Jack Croteau, P.E. Infrastructure Management & Engineering ODOT Contacts: Technical: Lloyd Welker Roger Green

Administrative: Monique R. Evans, P.E. Administrator, R&D 614-728-6048

F o r c o p i e s o f th is fin a l r e p o r t g o t o http://www.dot.state.oh.us/divplan/research or call 614-644-8173.

Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Research & Development 1980 West Broad Street Columbus, OH 43223

Objective In its continuing effort to improve the quality and costeffectiveness of the materials used to construct Ohio pavements, ODOT initiated a research study to evaluate its current pavement material selection practices. The primary objective of this study was to conduct a stateof-the-practice review of pavement materials selection procedures and criteria in the United States, compare the results to ODOTs current procedures, and identify materials/procedures that have potential applicability to Ohios conditions. The ultimate goal is to generate meaningful information that will help ODOT maximize the cost-effectiveness of its program of providing and maintaining pavements. Procedure The literature review comprehensively summarizes available information concerning new and/or improved pavement materials and testing procedures. The report reviews all of the materials used in flexible surface course, rigid surface course, base and subbase layers. For each material, the methods and objectives of traditional material characterization tests and the extent of use are discussed in detail. Also included is an exhaustive review of recent advances due to Superpave, recycling techniques, and the use of supplementary cementitious materials. The survey of state DOTs generated additional information about the material selection practices and criteria used by various state agencies. Responses received are summarized in the report and an interactive database called Pavement Material Selection Practices PMSP. The database can be used to view individual responses as well as a summary of response for each question. Applicability The results of the literature review and the survey of the states (presented as an interactive computer database) will primarily be of interest to the ODOT technical staff who are involved in the day-to-day details of the materials selection process. The critical

review of ODOTs practices will be of interest to ODOT managers responsible for charting the future course of the program. Findings ODOT has a formalized, objective procedure for selecting pavement type. ODOTs pavement type selection committee considers many engineering and economic factors and applies a criteria-based scoring system to generate cost-effective alternatives. Also, the department considers various alternative strategies that use asphalt and concrete based products. Further improvements to the current procedures are envisaged following the review and recommendations by the Neutral Party. ODOTs Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) procedure entails consideration of full depth asphalt, jointed concrete, composite, fractured techniques and unbonded concrete overlays. The department has included crack and seat and rubblize and roll as major rehabilitation alternatives. Break and seat is currently being considered to be added. ODOT is always looking for cost effective ways to use recycled pavement materials. Currently, there is no legislative mandate to initiate recycling in Ohio. Superpave is fully implemented for heavy traffic designated routes (greater than 1500 trucks)and high stress designated areas. Stone Mix Asphalt (SMA) and Open Graded Friction Course (OGFC) have not been used with Superpave. OGFC was used in District 4 for many years but due to excess salt required in winter they are no longer using it. OGFC is not being used in District 4 or elsewhere in the state. SMA is used in District 2. ODOT would like to see more use of SMA, but its use is currently limited due to high cost. SMA can be specified as a requirement on warranty jobs. In order to get more binder in Superpave mixes, ODOT has changed compaction requirements by reducing gyrations from 100 to 75 Ndes. The department is further changing the specifications by reducing the required gyrations from 75 to 65 Ndes,to get more binder. Performance of Superpave projects has so far been good. A couple of projects had skid resistance problems, due to the limestone. ODOT is concerned that this problem may grow and they will have to use more natural sand to improve skid resistance.

Conclusion No significant changes in ODOTs material selection procedure are needed. Indeed, a review of ODOTs procedures in comparison to the best practices presented in the published literature and described in our survey of state agencies conveys an extremely positive impression, which reflects favorably upon the department as a whole. The Office of Materials Management provides necessary support services and at the same time constantly strives to identify areas in need of improvement. The division is very active in developing and implementing advanced technology. Their active involvement in developing materials and testing procedures for constructing perpetual pavements, continued research on DEL-23 test road, various pooled fund studies, and ongoing research with universities help to establish good practices that are essential to the success of ODOTs pavement management system. Action Plan A. Near-term. Several emerging materials and test procedures are have shown promise for near-term success based on their performance in Europe. Considerable research effort has been initiated by some agencies to systematically investigate the applicability of these materials in the United States. Two materials that deserve consideration by ODOT are Foamed Asphalt and Warm Mix Asphalt. Also, a new testing procedure that is recommended for adoption is Micro Deval Apparatus. B. Long-term. Over the long-term, ODOT may be able to provide better performing and/or more economical pavements by increasing the use of recycled materials. Some of the specific materials suggested for consideration by ODOT, depending on their availability, are as follows: 1. Reclaimed concrete in PCC 2. Reclaimed concrete in granular base 3. Reclaimed asphalt pavement in cold asphalt mix 4. Reclaimed asphalt pavement in granular base 5. Scrap tires in embankment or fill 6. Coal boiler slag, coal fly-ash and lime kiln dust; many states have used these with successful results.

COMPARISON AND DEFINITION OF STATE DOTS PRACTICES IN SELECTION OF MATERIALS FOR PAVEMENTS

ABSTRACT This report presents the details of a study conducted by Infrastructure Management and Engineering (INFRAME) to review Ohio Department of Transportations (ODOTs) current pavement material selection practices and suggest improvements where necessary. The present study was initiated by ODOTs Office of Materials Management as part of its continuing effort to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of the materials used to construct pavements in Ohio. This report synthesizes the state-of-the-practice review of pavement materials selection procedures and criteria in Ohio and other State Department of Transportation. The study was conducted in three parts: a review of the literature, a survey of state DOTs, and a critical review of ODOT practices, including recommendations for improvement. The results of the literature review and the survey of the states (presented as an interactive computer database) will primarily be of interest to the ODOT technical staff who are involved in the day-to-day details of the materials selection process. The critical review of ODOTs practices will be of interest to ODOT managers responsible for charting the future course of the program. No significant changes in ODOTs material selection procedures are needed. Indeed, a review of ODOTs procedures, in comparison to the practices presented in the published literature and described in a survey of states agencies (conducted as a part of this study), conveys an extremely positive impression, which reflects favorably upon the department as a whole. The Office of Materials Management provides necessary support services and at the same time constantly strives to identify areas in need of improvement. The principal recommendations of the study are that two asphalt materials (foamed asphalt and warm mix asphalt), several recycled materials, and an improved aggregate test procedure (the Micro Deval procedure) be further evaluated to determine their potential for providing better performing and/or more economical Ohio pavements. 1

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of the Problem Pavement design is the process of determining the combination of materials for the surface and underlying layers that is best suited for specific project conditions. Key project conditions include the availability and cost of alternate materials, environmental conditions, and projected traffic. To determine the total thickness of pavement structure required, as well as the type and thickness of individual layers, design engineers are guided by agency-specific procedures. In Ohio, the governing procedures are outlined in the Ohio Department of Transportations (ODOTs) Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual [1]. This manual provides guidelines for the design and rehabilitation of flexible, rigid and composite pavement types, including a descriptive procedure for the life-cycle cost analysis to evaluate the economic worth of each of pavement alternative. The physical and engineering properties of the materials selected for the structural layers of a new or rehabilitated pavement obviously can have a significant effect on the safety, service life and life-cycle cost of the project. Simply, selection of the proper type and quality of materials is key to the performance of pavements. Recently, significant advances have been made in the types of pavement materials available and in the procedures for analyzing their engineering properties and performance. For example, several agencies have reported studies whose findings have advanced our understanding of the fundamental physical and chemical nature of pavement materials. Such studies assist materials engineers in addressing problems in existing materials. In addition, material scientists and

engineers continue to develop and deploy new construction materials. A significant amount of

research is also underway regarding the use of recycled materials and industrial wastes. As a result, many new materials, recycled materials and high-performance materials are increasingly being used in new roadway construction and in the rehabilitation of in-service pavements. Thus, a considerable amount of information exists concerning new or improved pavement materials and testing procedures . Unfortunately, not all of this information is available from an easily accessible source or in a useable format. Furthermore, much of this information focuses on one or two materials, rather than examining all the available materials. This makes it very difficult for practicing engineers who seek to improve their materials selection process. Consequently, as part of its continuing effort to improve the quality and cost-effectiveness of the materials used to construct Ohio pavements, ODOTs Office of Materials Management has undertaken a state-of-the-practice review of pavement materials selection procedures and criteria. The basic focus of this study is on two issues: What new or improved pavement materials and/or materials analysis procedures are in use or under investigation by other agencies? Do these new materials/procedures have potential applicability to Ohios conditions?

1.2 Objectives of the Study The specific objectives of this study are as follows: 1. 2. 3. Review published literature; Conduct a survey of State Departments of Transportation (DOTs); Collect and compile data from the survey, documenting procedures for pavement material selections, tests being used, reasons for those tests, known materials problems requiring 3

those tests, weather and/or environmental conditions of those states, and life cycle or other cost methods states use or have used to validate their procedures; 4. Review and evaluate ODOTs current material selection process and criteria, including test procedures used, reasons for those tests, and known material problems or special concerns; 5. 6. Compare the data from above with Ohios current materials selection procedures and criteria; Where applicable, recommend changes to Ohios current materials selection procedures and criteria; 7. Discuss the implication of suggested changes on initial costs and life cycle costs of pavements.

1.3 Background and Significance of Work Historically, pavement material selection has received considerable research and development attention. The Materials Engineering function has always been recognized as a very important part of the national highway program. The current trends indicate that in the foreseeable future, materials engineering will become even more important in the highway program. A number of resources are available to assist materials engineers in the task of developing and implementing improved materials technology. One such key resource is the Materials Engineering program within the Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA) Office of Pavement Technology. This program is designed to support state highway agencies in assuring the highest standards of quality for the materials and construction practices used on Federally-funded highway infrastructure by facilitating the exchange of information regarding materials and quality

control/quality assurance (QC/QA) issues more quickly and easily via the FHWA division offices [2]. Another key resource is the AASHTO Design Guide, which contains materials

characterization guidelines to assist engineers in applying appropriate materials property inputs in the analysis portion of the design process [3]. Additional sources of information regarding improved material selection and evaluation practices can be found in various publications of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and state DOT research reports . The present research is intended to consolidate the available material selection information from these and other sources and to document the current best practices used by the states in a simple, straightforward format. The ultimate goal is to generate meaningful information that will help the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) maximize the cost-effectiveness of its program of providing and maintaining pavements.

2. REVIEW OF PAVEMENT MATERIALS AND THEIR SELECTION PROCESS 2.1 General Highway pavements are divided into two broad categories: rigid and flexible. A flexible pavement structure may consist of two or more layers including subbase course, base course, and surface course. A rigid pavement structure generally consists of two layers, designated as the pavement slab and the subbase course. When the subgrade soils are granular in nature, or otherwise free-draining, the subbase course is often omitted. In selecting various combinations of materials for a flexible pavement, the basic idea is to use the highest quality, most load-resistant materials in the upper layers which are subjected to the highest stresses; the materials in the lower layers are intended to provide drainage and/or to reduce the stresses on the subgrade by distributing the load over a wider area in accordance with layer theory [4]. The surface course of a flexible pavement consists of a mixture of aggregates and asphaltic materials. It provides characteristics such as friction, smoothness, noise control, rut and shoving resistance and drainage. In addition, it prevents the entrance of excessive quantities of surface water into the underlying base, subbase and subgrade. This top structural layer is sometimes subdivided into two layers: Wearing Course and Intermediate/Binder Course. The wearing course is is in direct contact with traffic loads; the intermediate course is just below the wearing course and is meant to reduce the stresses on the underlying layers. Well-graded aggregates with a maximum size of about 3/4 to 1 in. (19 to 25mm) are commonly specified for surface courses for highways. However, a wide variety of coarser and opengraded mixtures have also been successfully used. 6

The base course of a flexible pavement usually consists of aggregates such as crushed stone or slag, gravel, sand, or combinations of these materials. The aggregates may be treated or untreated with stabilizing admixtures such as Portland cement, asphalt, or lime. Subbase for a flexible pavement usually consists of a compacted layer of granular material, either treated or untreated, or a layer of soil with a suitable admixture. Generally, specifications for base course materials are considerably more stringent than those for subbase materials in requirements for strength, stability, hardness, aggregate types, and gradation. Although the aggregates typically are required to meet specific American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) specifications, materials varying in gradation and quality from these specifications have been used in certain areas and have provided satisfactory performance [5]. The flexible pavement structural layers currently used in Ohio, as described in tables 301-1 and 401-1 of ODOTs Pavement Design Manual, are shown in Table 1. Detailed specifications for the materials used in these layers are presented in ODOTs Construction and Material Specifications Manual [6]. ODOT has also developed several supplemental specifications for many other materials (e.g.,recycled products) used in major and minor rehabilitations. Complete details of additional specifications and supplements can be seen on ODOTs web site at http://www.dot.state.oh.us/spec/ [7]. Rigid pavements are normally constructed using Portland cement concrete. Various types of jointed and unjointed concrete pavements [i.e., Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP), Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement (JRCP), and Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP)] have been built over the years , in thicknesses ranging from 6 in. to 13 in. (15 to 30 cm). In Ohio, the predominant type of rigid pavement is JRCP, 9.0 inches (22.9 cm) thick. 7

Table 1. ODOTs Flexible Pavement Structural Layers [1] Items 446, 448: Asphalt Concrete Surface Courses Items 446, 448: Asphalt Concrete Intermediate Courses Item Special: Stone Mix Asphalt (SMA) mixes, Superpave Mixes Items 301, 302: Bituminous Aggregate Base Courses Item 304: Aggregate Base Items 306, 307, 855: Free Draining Base Layers The subbase of a rigid pavement consists of one or more compacted layers of granular or stabilized material placed between the subgrade and the rigid slab. Table 2 illustrates ODOTs rigid pavement structural layers. In rigid pavement structure, subbase materials serve one or more of the following purposes: a. b. c. d. provide uniform, stable and permanent support, increase the modulus of subgrade reaction ( k), minimize damaging effects of frost action, or prevent pumping of fine grained soils at joints, cracks, and edges. Table 2. ODOTs Rigid Pavement Structural Layers [1] Item 450 Rigid Pavement Item 301, 302: Bituminous Aggregate Base Courses Item 304: Aggregate Base Stabilized (Treated) Free Draining Base with Item 304 Non-Stabilized Free Draining Base with Item 304 A detailed discussion of the various types of materials currently used in pavement layers are presented in the following report subsections. 8

2.2 Flexible Surface Course Materials 2.2.1 Mixture Types and Selection Over the years, the State agencies have developed a variety of specifications and guidelines to select asphalt concrete mixes appropriate for particular job conditions. The most commonly used types of surface course mixtures are dense-graded and open-graded mixes. Selection of the most suitable type of mixture for a given application is usually based on consideration of the following factors: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Stability (resistance to deformation under load), Durability (resistance to weathering and abrasion), Surface appearance (texture), Drainage, and Lift thickness. The asphalt pavement associations in some thirty-six states have developed web sites that provide valuable information about the current Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) practices in their respective states. A list of these sites is presented in the Bibliography. In 2001, the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) issued a very comprehensive report on HMA pavement mix-type selection [8]. The report presents detailed guidelines for the selection of appropriate mix types and constituent materials, based on the analysis of factors such as traffic, environment, pavement condition, and economics. These guidelines were derived from an extensive literature review, analysis of current State DOT and local government practices, and input from DOT and industry experts. The mix types discussed in the in the NAPA guide are the

traditional Dense-Graded Asphalt Concrete (DGAC), Open-Graded Friction Course (OGFC) and Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) . Table 3 shows the mix types recommended based on a review of current practices and extensive discussion among industry representatives. Table 3 summarizes the mix types recommended by NAPA for wearing and binder courses, based on anticipated traffic loadings. As shown, for low traffic roads, NAPA recommends that only traditional dense-graded mixes be used . For moderate traffic levels, DGAC is highly recommended, but, SMA and OGFC may be considered as options for the surface course. For high traffic levels, either of the three mixes (DGAC, SMA or OGFC) may be viable alternatives [8, 9]. As its name implies, OGFC is a specialty mix, designed primarily for situations where skid resistance is an issue. OGFCsometimes referred to as popcorn mix or porous pavementis an asphalt mix that incorporate a skeleton of uniform aggregate size with a minimum of fines. As a result of its high void content (typically, 12-16%), the mix is very free-draining. As a consequence, OGFC contributes to improved wet skid resistance, reduced water splash and spray, less hydroplaning, reduced night-time wet pavement glare, and better visibility of pavement markers [10]. In combination, these properties can result in a considerable reduction in wet pavement accidents and an overall improvement in motorist safety. Another reported major benefit of OGFC is highway noise reduction. As a result of the attenuating effect of its open graded structure on the sound energy generated at the tire/pavement interface, OGFC reportedly can reduce pavement noise levels on the order of 3-7 decibels [11]. (A reduction of 3 decibels reportedly has a significant impact on most people). Table 4 lists situations where use of OGFC may assist in improving motorist safety. 10

Table 3. Asphalt Mix Types Recommended for Surface Layers [8, 9] Course Low Traffic <300,000 ESALs
D G AC SM A O G FC

Medium Traffic 300,000 to 10 million ESALS

D G AC SM A O G FC

High Traffic >10 million ESALs

D G AC SM A O G FC

Surface (wearing) Intermediate (binder) Key:

! !

! !

"

"

! !

! "

ESAL = 18 kip Equivalent Single Axle Loadings ! = Appropriate

"

= Moderately Appropriate Empty = Not appropriate

Table 4. Conditions Appropriate for the Selection of OGFC New Construction Projects Rehabilitation Projects Hydroplaning is a problem High rainfall Cross slope < 2% on facilities with 3 or more lanes in one direction Moderate to high rainfall coupled with high traffic volumes Areas with high wet weather accidents Hydroplaning is a problem Pavements with severe and extensive raveling Cross slope < 2% on facilities with 3 or more lanes in one direction Moderate to high rainfall coupled with high traffic volumes

Some of the situation where OGFC should not be used are: As a routine surface seal, In snow areas where there is a potential for exposure to tire chains and studded tires, In parking areas, In areas where tracking of mud from unsurfaced side roads is common and frequent,

11

When a life-cycle cost comparison shows significant cost savings and/or other benefits for alternative mixes, or

At intersections where dripping of oil or fuel from slow or stopped vehicles and short turning actions could cause the surface to deteriorate rapidly. OGFC is used primarily on DGAC, although it has also been successfully used on Portland

cement concrete pavements. Generally, when OGFC mixtures are placed in thicknesses of 18mm or less, a 9.5mm maximum size aggregate gradation is used. When the thickness exceeds 18mm, a 12.5mm maximum size aggregate should be used. Historically, mixed performance results have been obtained with OGFC. A recurring problem over the years was that because the asphalt cements used in OGFC were not stiff enough, they drained to the bottom of the pavement layer, leaving a surface which was subject to raveling [12]. However, with the advent of improved mix design methods [13] and (particularly) use of improved polymer-modified asphalts [14], much more consistent good performance has been observed for these mixes. Recently, more than 70% of the agencies that use open-graded surface courses reported service life of eight or more years. Given the premium price for OGFC up to 35% more than conventional DGAC adequate service life is a key to the cost-effectiveness and viability of this specialty mix. A review of the revival of open-graded friction courses is found in Reference 15. SMA is a gap-graded asphalt mix which combines strong coarse aggregates with a high asphalt content (6 to 8%), together with mineral filler and a fiber agent. Like OGFC, SMA is designed to develop stone-to-stone contact in the aggregate skeleton, thereby increasing internal friction and resistence to shear. Because of its ability to control rutting, more than 28 states are using SMA in wearing course applications. Georgia and Maryland have extensively used SMA on their 12

priority system [16]. Based on over ten years of field experience, SMA projects were observed to result in the following benefits: control rutting; enhance durability; spray reduction; noise attenuation; and extended service life. Based on literature reports, use of SMA can increase pavement service life by 20 to 30% when compared to DGAC. Despite these performance advantages, the cost of SMA can be a prohibiting factor and hence being able to evaluate its cost-effectiveness is a challenge to the engineers. Compared to conventional hot-mix asphalt, SMA typically has a cost premium of 10 to 30% and according to some estimatesas much as a 50% premium. The extra cost for SMA mixes stems from higher liquid asphalt content, stronger crushed aggregate, and, frequently, the need for fibers or other additives. The mix also requires higher mixing temperatures and longer mixing times at the plant, and more intensive quality control at plant and on job site [16]. A study carried out at the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) developed comprehensive specifications, practices, and test methods for the design and construction of SMA. The details of the study are synthesized in NCHRP Report 425 [17]. Most of the SMA projects constructed have a 12.5- or 19.0- mm nominal maximum aggregate size. As a result, the use of SMA has been confined to thick overlays projects. Of late, the applicability of SMA for thin overlays is being investigated through a study at NCAT [18]. SMA

13

with 4.75- or 9.5- mm nominal size aggregate, if found suitable, can be considered as a viable option in pavement preventive maintenance program. Other types of asphalt concrete mixtures used by States agencies include Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) and Sulfur Extended Asphalt Concrete (SEAC). Rubberized asphalt is formulated by mixing granulated rubber with hot asphalt to form a tough and elastic binder with less susceptibility to temperature changes. RAC is specified for the following conditions: to resist tire chain wear, to resist thermal stresses due to temperature variations, and to retard reflection cracking. In the 1990's, federal legislation (ISTEA) mandated the use of rubber in hot-mix asphalt. At that time, some 21 state DOTs were using rubber in HMA. However, since the mandate was repealed, the use of asphalt rubber has dropped or ceased in many parts of the United States. Now, the use of RAC is confined primarily to three western states (Arizona, California, and Texas) and Florida [19] SEAC is a mixture of graded aggregates, asphalt and sulphur. The use of SEAC is highly dependent on the availability of sulphur, a by-product of some manufacturing processes, at a price that would make it competitive with asphalt. Consequently, the use SEAC is generally confined to experimental projects [10]. 2.2.2 Mixture Characterization Tests The most commonly used laboratory test procedures for characterizing the properties of hotmix asphalt are shown in Table 5. For each laboratory procedure, the table lists the reason for the 14

test and range of values (where applicable), together with the corresponding AASHTO and ASTM test standard designation. As shown, the tabulation is divided into two classes of tests: physical and mechanical. The physical tests are routinely performed by state agencies and paving contractors for material acceptance, volumetric mix design , or for both of these purposes. The mechanical tests are generally more involved and are used to characterize the asphalt mixes with respect to fundamental properties. Some of the mechanical tests (notably, Marshall and Hveem Stabilometer tests) are somewhat outdated, and thus less widely used. In these tests, the relationships between materials characteristics and pavement performance were determined using experience, experimentation or a combination of both. Since relationships based strictly on historical data are not reliable when conditions change, such empirical tests are often not very useful for predicting future pavement performance (e.g., for new materials and heavier traffic loadings). As a consequence, some of the other listed tests (e.g., modulus of elasticity) that are used in the newer, mechanistic design procedures are becoming more widely used. These mechanistic procedures rely on basic principles of engineering mechanics to determine the relationship between pavement performance and materials properties, hence, the associated laboratory tests focus on determining fundamental engineering properties.

15

Table 5. Test Procedures to Characterize Asphalt Concrete Mixtures

Test Property/Equipment Reason for Test AASHTO/ ASTM Designation

Physical Properties Percent Air Voids Correlated to performance; affects stability and durability. Typical specification requirement is 3 to 5%; mixtures with <3% air voids are susceptible to rutting; >6% allow air, water, and increase rate of oxidation, resulting in cracking and raveling. Affects stiffness of binder and performance of the mix in terms of cracking, rutting and stripping; Results used to develop volumetric mix design T269/D3203

Aging

T240/D1754 /D2872 T275/D1188 T209/D2041

Bulk Specific Gravity Maximum Theoretical Specific Gravity Bulk Specific Gravity of SSD Mix Mechanical Analysis of Extracted Aggregate

T166/D2726

Routinely used for quality assurance

T30/D5444

M echanical Tests Marshall Stability, lbs (min.) Measures resistance to plastic deformation; indicates strength of asphalt mix at zero vertical stress; minimum specified value ranges from 750 to 1800 (depending on traffic) Determines the maximum amount of asphalt needed to obtain the greatest stability by measuring the internal fiction of the mineral aggregate. The Stabilometer values can range from 0 to 100. Typical values for the design are 30 (low traffic), 35 (medium traffic), and 37 (high traffic) Can be used to measure aging characteristics of modified binders. The cohesiometer determines the cohesive or tensile properties of asphalt films by bending and breaking a specimen. This test procedure is seldom used because of inconsistency of test results and lack of correlation with performance. Determined through (i) repeated triaxial tests, (ii) indirect tensile tests in the lab, or (iii) back-calculation algorithms using the field deflection data. Modulus values are needed in MechanisticEmpirical design and rehabilitation of pavements. T245/D1559

Hveem Stabilometer Value

D560/D1561

Rotovapor Recovery Cohesiometer

D5404

Modulus of Elasticity

16

Resilient Modulus

Used for measuring HMA stiffness. Resilient Modulus at low temperature can be indicative of cracking. In this test, a confined or unconfined test specimen is repeatedly loaded and unloaded at a prescribed rate. The resilient modulus is a function of load duration, load frequency, and number of loading cycles. Resilient Modulus values are used in mechanistic-empirical design, evaluation and analysis of pavements. Used to determine the stress-strain relationship of HMA mix under external load. The test is complex and time-consuming. Conducted to evaluate the flexural properties of asphalt mixtures and to estimate pavement life. Beam specimens are subjected to repeated load applications in constant stress or strain mode. Test procedure is time-consuming, hence, used mainly for research purposes. The Indirect Tension Test applies a compressive load across the diameter of a hot mix asphalt specimen creating a state of uniform tension across most of the diameter and measures the creep compliance and tensile creep of hot mix asphalt. Application of compressive load across the diameter of the specimen results in a nearly uniform state of tension is created across a vertical plane. Creep compliance is measured by holding this load constant and measuring the creep deformation of the sample under the constant load. Tensile strength of the sample is measured by increasing the compressive load until the specimen fails in tension. Tests are conducted at low and intermediate temperatures and the data are used to analyze low temperature and fatigue cracking. Can be used to measure resistance of asphalt mixtures to rutting. Uniaxial static unconfined creep test is the most widely used method to measure rutting in research. This is not a routine test for checking mix design. However, the static confined creep test is relatively simple and more closely simulates field conditions, and hence, better predicts the performance. Used to measure rutting of asphalt beam samples in the lab using Asphalt Pavement Analyzer, formerly known as Georgia Loaded W heel Tester. Several states require paving contractors to perform this test on Superpave mixes. Some states, including Georgia, Florida, and Virginia, have used the APA successfully in ranking a limited number of different asphalt mixtures for their potential for rutting. Efforts are underway to correlate field rutting values with the laboratory data.

D4123

Dynamic Complex Modulus Flexural Test

D3497

Indirect Tension

D4123

Creep and Permanent Deformation

Lab W heel Tracking

17

Moisture Susceptibility

Tests are conducted by State agencies to determine if the asphalt mixtures are susceptible to moisture induced damage. Numerous test methods have been developed and are grouped as either Quantitative Subjective Tests or Quantitative Strength Tests . Superpave system uses Modified Lottman Test (T 283). In this pass-fail test, compacted samples of a mix are saturated with water, and then subjected to an optional freeze cycle if appropriate for the project location; the samples are then warmed to 60C (140F) for 24 hours, and the samples' stiffness is measured. If a mix becomes too soft, it fails the test, and the mix designer knows anti-stripping agents should be added to make the mix resistant to moisture damage.

T283/D3625 /T182/T274/ T165

2.2.3 Selection of Asphalt Grade 2.2.3 A. Traditional Test Methods The selection of an appropriate asphalt for a HMA mixture requires consideration of climate, traffic, and mix gradation. Product cost clearly is also a consideration. Ideally, the selected asphalt will have the following properties: Resistance to low temperature cracking, Stability at high ambient temperatures, Proper consistency during construction, Resistence to excessive hardening during the production and paving process, Safe handling characteristics, and Freedom from impurities.

The AASHTO and ASTM test procedures currently used by the states for testing asphalt binders are listed in Table 6.

18

Table 6. Measurement of Asphalt Cement Properties

Property Equipment Reason for Test Application Unit Practic al Range 36 to 80,000 Test Designati on ASTM D2171

Absolute Viscosity 60 0C (140 0F)

CannonManning Vacuum Viscometer Asphalt Institute Vacuum Viscometer

To measure resistance to flow at the maximum HM A pavement surface temperature during summer months

QC/QA, Grading

pois e

180 to 52,000

Kinematic Viscosity at 135 0C (275 0F) Penetration Softening Point

Zeitfuchs Cross-Arm Viscometer Penetrometer Ring and Ball

To measure binder characteristics at mixing and laydown temperatures during construction To measure consistency at average service temperature To determine temperature at which phase change occurs

QC/QA, Grading

centi stok es 0.1 mm

0

6 to 100,00 0 40 to 300 30 to 157 0C

ASTM D2170 /T201 ASTM D5/T49 ASTM D36/T53

QC/QA, Grading Standard in Europe, US Roofing industry QC/QA

Hardening (Aging)

Thin Film Oven Rolling Thin Film Oven

To approximate short-term hardening conditions which occur in normal HMA mixing facilities

ASTM D1754 /T179 ASTM D2872

Purity Tests

Solvent, Filter paper, fiber pad Flash Point apparatus Ductility apparatus Pycnometer

To determine impurities in asphalt cement To determine safe handling temperature Approximates pavement performance (i) To identify source of asphalt cement; (ii) To use in volumetric analysis To determine if asphalt cement is damaged during processing due to overheating or presence of unwanted additives

QC/QA

>99%

ASTM D2042 ASTM D92/T48 ASTM D113 ASTM S70/T228 T102

Safety Ductility Specific Gravity Spot Test

QC/QA QC/QA QC/QA, Mix design QC/QA

57 to 107 10 to 100 0.97 to 1.02

cm

Filter paper

Visu al

The current physical tests and specifications for asphalt cement have many limitations. The temperatures at which the tests are conducted often do not reflect the expected in-service project conditions. Also, the test procedures fail to simulate the conditions prevalent at the production plant 19

facilities and placement procedures. More importantly, they are not suitable for determining the properties of the modified asphalt binders which are increasingly being used by state agencies. In short, the current test procedures and specifications are empirical and do not relate to performance of pavements. 2.2.3 B. The Superpave System Recognizing the limitations of the traditional system, the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) in 1987 began developing a new system for specifying asphalt materials. The final product of the SHRP asphalt research program is a new system referred to as Superpave, which is an acronym for Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements. One part of Superpave is a new asphalt binder specification and a new set of tests to match. The document is called a binder specification because it applies to modified as well as unmodified asphalts. The unique feature of the new system is that it is a performance-based system. Binders are specified on the basis of the climate and associated pavement temperatures at the project site. Superpave is designed to obtain pavements that are better performing and longer lasting by significantly reducing problems like rutting, low temperature cracking, and fatigue cracking. As a consequence, most agencies have now converted to Superpave Performance Graded specifications, wherein asphalt grades are selected based on average 7- day maximum pavement temperature, minimum design pavement temperature and the load. Software programs have also been developed to assist in the selection of appropriate asphalt grade.

The advantages of the Superpave system include the following [20]: Tests and specifications are applicable to both modified and unmodified asphalt cements;

20

The physical properties measured by Superpave tests are directly related to field performance and engineering principles;

The test procedures consider the prevalent conditions at the production plant facilities, placement, and future performance;

The entire range of pavement temperatures experienced at the project site is considered; and The test procedures are designed to control distresses that ultimately lead to failure of pavements.

Table 7 lists the Superpave test procedures for asphalt binder specifications along with the reason for the test and the test designations. A recent review of Superpave projects conducted by the Asphalt Institute [21] concluded that: the system is not perfect yet and there are many gaps in knowledge about the performance characteristics of binders. However, the gaps are being closed and in the near future, answers to many of the questions about the performance characteristics of binders will be available. Until that time, the highway agencies will have to use engineering judgment in specifying modified asphalt binders.

21

Table 7. Superpave Test Procedures for Asphalt Binders

Property Reason for Test AASHTO/ ASTM Designation

Durability Properties
Pressure Aging Vessel Simulates long-term aging (5to 10years) or hardening that occurs in the field during HMA service life. This test exposes binder samples to heat and pressure in order to simulate, in a matter of hours, years of in-service aging in a pavement. This aging process follows short-term aging in the RTFO. Simulates short-term aging during plant mixing and construction. This test exposes films of binder to heat and air and approximates the exposure of asphalt to these elements during hot mixing and handling. Binder flows around inside the RTFO bottles as the carriage rotates, exposing the thin film of asphalt binder to heat and air. PP1

Rolling Thin Film Oven Test

T240/D2872

High and Intermediate Temperature Properties

Dynamic Shear Rheometer Measures viscous and elastic behavior of binders at intermediate and high temperatures. The test involves measuring the complex shear modulus (G*) and phase angle ( d) of asphalt binders. G* is a measure of the total resistance of a material to deformation when repeatedly sheared. It consists of two parts: a part that is elastic (recoverable) and a part that is viscous (non-recoverable). d is an indicator of the relative amounts of recoverable and non-recoverable deformation. Measures binder workability at intermediate and high temperatures at the plant or in the field. High temperature binder viscosity is measured to ensure that the asphalt is sufficiently fluid when pumping and mixing. A rotational coaxial cylinder viscometer, such as the Brookfield apparatus, is used rather than a capillary viscometer. Some asphalt technologists refer to this measure as "Brookfield Viscosity." TP5

Rotational Viscometer

TP48/D4402

Low Temperature Properties

Bending Beam Rheometer Measures binder stiffness at very low service temperatures. The test uses engineering beam theory to measure the stiffness of a small asphalt beam sample under a creep load. A creep load is used to simulate the stresses that gradually build up in a pavement when temperature drops. Two parameters are evaluated: creep stiffness , a measure of how the asphalt resists constant loading; m-value , a measure of how the asphalt stiffness changes as loads are applied. Measures binder properties at low service temperatures. The test is performed at relatively low temperatures ranging from 0 /C to -36 /C on binders that have been aged in a RTFO and PAV. This test is not fully developed or adopted by state agencies. TP1

Direct Tension Tester

TP3

22

2.2.3 C. Asphalt Modifiers Over the years, a seemingly limitless number and type of additives have been promoted to modify the properties of asphalt cement and HMA mixtures. While such materials continue to be used for a variety of purposes (e.g., as anti-stripping agents or as extenders that substitute a cheaper material such as sulfur or recycled roofing shingles for a portion of the asphalt), the focus of todays specialized asphalt modifiers is on improved performance. As described earlier, asphalt modifiers have helped solve long-standing performance problems with some traditional mixes (OGFC) and helped foster the introduction of new high-performance mixes (SMA). In addition, modifiers have permitted asphalt refiners/producers to upgrade lower-performing asphalt cements to the point where they can meet stringent PG specifications for Superpave mixes. (This application of asphalt modifiers for Superpave work is under extensive study by the FHWA under its Superpave Plus program [22, 23]). Modified asphalt binders are principally used to address areas of high traffic volume, heavy loading, and extreme climatic conditions. In these applications, modifiers have yielded one or more of the following advantages: Increased strength and stability of mixtures Improved abrasion resistance and reduced raveling Reduced low temperature cracking of pavements Improved fatigue resistance of mixes Improved bonding and reduced stripping Thicker asphalt films on aggregate Stiffer mixes at high temperatures and consequent reduced rutting

23

Improved resistance to aging and oxidation Reduced structural thickness of pavement layers Reduced life cycle costs

Nationally, the usage rate of asphalt modifiers is increasing annually. The FHWA recently estimated that modifiers are now being employed in about eight percent of asphalt pavements. Importantly, they also note that some of the more widely-used modifiers can increase the cost of the binder anywhere from 30% to 100%, which in turn results a significantly higher cost for the finished HMA mixture (i.e., a 10% to 40% premium) [22]. It is imperative then that the use of a candidate modifier be carefully evaluated to determine its cost-effectiveness. A good source of information regarding currently available modifiers is the Specifiers Guide to Asphalt Modifiers, a continuing series of articles published in Roads and Bridges [24]. 2.2.4 Aggregates Aggregates are the principal load- carrying component of a HMA , constituting 90 to 95% of the mixture by weight (75 to 85% by volume). Proper aggregate selection is thus essential to good mix performance. Selection of HMA aggregate for a specific application depends on the availability, cost, and quality of the material, as well as the type of construction for which it is intended [25]. 2.2.4 A Available Types of Aggregate Paving aggregates are often classified according to their source or means of preparation, as follows:

24

Pit or bank-run aggregates. This classification is applied to materials which are essentially used in their natural state, requiring only screening to proper size and washing before being used in paving construction. Notable examples are sand and gravel.

Processed aggregates. Some natural or bank-run aggregate must be crushed to make it suitable for asphalt mixes. Crushing typically improves the particle shape (by making the rounded particles more angular) and the surface texture (by making the surface rougher). The resultant product is referred to as processed aggregate.

Quarry aggregates. Paving aggregates are also produced by removing rock from the face of a quarry (by blasting or other means) and then crushing and sizing the materials to produce the desired construction material. Quarry aggregates, because of their rough texture and angular shape, are often used to obtain high stability mixes.

Synthetic aggregates. Aggregates produced by altering both the physical and chemical properties of the parent material are called synthetic (or artificial) aggregates. These aggregates can be produced by upgrading (beneficiating) an existing low-quality aggregate (e.g., expanded clays) or they may be a manufacturing by-product (e.g., blast furnace slag).

2.2.4 B Aggregate Characterization Tests and Quality Requirements An excellent discussion of currently used HMA aggregate tests is presented in NCAT Report No.97-6 [26]. This report outlines the state-of-the- practice for aggregate characterization tests and quality requirements used by transportation agencies. A summary of those tests is presented in Table 8.

25

Table 8. Measurement of Aggregate Properties Used in Asphalt Mixtures Property Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate and Mineral Filler Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse and Fine Aggregate Surface Texture Test Designation T27/C136 T 11/C117 T85/C127 T84/C128 D 3398 Extent of Use Routinely used Comments

Routinely used

Maximum permissible water absorption varies from 2 to 6%

Not routinely used; used primarily for research Routinely used by some states; some states, including Ohio, beginning to specify Routinely used Maximum permissible values vary from 5 to 30% depending on specified ratio of maximum to minimum dimensions Minimum area specified is 25% of maximum cross-sectional area of aggregate particle Maximum allowable loss in sodium sulfate test: 5 to 25%, average 14%; Maximum allowable loss in magnesium sulfate test: 10 to 30%, average 16%;

Uncompacted Void Content of Fine Aggregate

T33/C1252

Flat and Elongated Particles of Coarse Aggregate Fractured Particles

D4791/CRD C119/CRD C120 D 5821

Routinely used

Soundness (Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate) Soundness (Freeze Thaw) Polishing

T 104/C 88

T103/C 666

One of these methods routinely used; most states use Sodium Sulfate method Not routinely used

T 278/E 303

26

L.A. Degradation (Coarse/Fine) Cleanliness (Clay Lumps) Cleanliness (Sand Equivalency) Cleanliness (Plasticity Index) Cleanliness (Lightweight pieces)

T 96/C535/C1 31 T 112/C 142 T176/D2419 D 1073 C 123

Routinely used

maximum allowable loss specified is 40 or 45% Most states require minimum of 45% sand equivalent values; Plasticity Index is limited to a value of 4 or less; Clay lumps are limited to 1%;

One of these methods is routinely used

The following discussion highlights the purpose of the tests listed in Table 8 and typical DOT quality requirements [27]: Size and grading: The performance of an asphalt mixture is significantly influenced by the maximum size aggregate used and the distribution of sizes smaller than the maximum (i.e., gradation). Generally, aggregate blends with a higher maximum size aggregate result in a HMA mix with higher stability. In recent years, this has lead to an increase in the use of

large stone mixes to minimize the potential for rutting. On the other hand, field experience indicates that if the top size aggregate is too large, problems of mix

constructability/workability and segregation may occur. Specifically, it is observed that the use of a maximum aggregate size greater than about one inch can result in harsh mixes that tend to segregate during placement. For that reason, asphalt concrete mixtures frequently employ a 1-in. nominal size in surface courses and as much as a 2-in. nominal size in base course mixtures. ASTM D 3515 contains general gradation requirements for HMA mixes; expectedly, the specific gradation limits specified by state agencies vary considerably.

27

Absorption: Absorption can refer to either absorption of asphalt or water by the aggregates. The amount of asphalt absorption determines the effective asphalt content and is important when applying voids criteria. Aggregates with water absorption values greater than 2 % are considered absorptive, and thus must be properly addressed in mix design..

Toughness and Abrasion: Toughness or hardness is the ability of the aggregate to resist crushing or disintegration during production and mixing, placing, compacting, and under traffic loading. The most commonly used test of abrasion resistance is the Los Angeles degradation test. The level of abrasion resistance required by State agencies varies based on local experience, (particularly) the relative availability of local sources of high- quality aggregate. In general, aggregates with a Los Angeles abrasion value of 30 or less are considered tough and abrasion resistant.

Durability: Durability or soundness is the ability of the aggregate to resist disintegration due to action of weather. The most widely used durability test involves soaking the aggregate in either magnesium and sodium sulfate, followed by oven drying and measurement of weight loss. For coarse aggregate, ASTM D 692 allows a maximum total percentage loss after five cycles of immersion in a saturated solution of sodium or magnesium sulfate of 12% and 18%, respectively. For fine aggregate, the corresponding maximum losses are 15% and 20%, respectively (ASTM D 1073) .

Particle shape and texture: The shape and surface texture of aggregate particles influence the strength and workability of the resulting mix. The combined effects of particle shape and surface texture can be determined using ASTM D 3398. The most commonly used test for particle shape involves determining the relative percentage of flat or elongated particles. For

28

this purpose, a flat or elongated particle is one where the ratio of its maximum to minimum dimensions exceeds some set value (typically, 3:1 or 5:1). In general, state agencies limit the content of flaky and elongated particles to a maximum of 15% of the total aggregate. The FHWA Technical Advisory Committee T 5040 recommends at least 60% of the coarse aggregate have at least two mechanically induced, fractured faces. Some state agencies require that at least 75 to 85% of the coarse aggregate fractions have two crushed faces and that at least 90% have one crushed face. The particle shape and texture of fine aggregate can have even more influence on the strength of dense-graded HMA than that of coarse aggregate. Consequently, some agencies place limits on the proportion of natural sand in the mix (e.g., to about limited to 15 to 25% ) since it is generally rounded and hence is less desirable than crushed fine aggregates. Cleanliness and Deleterious Materials: Foreign or deleterious substances make some materials unsuitable for paving mixtures. Various test procedures are adopted to measure the amount of deleterious materials in aggregates namely, Sand Equivalence Test (ASTM D 2419), Clay Lumps and Friable Particles (ASTM C 142), and Plasticity Index (ASTM D 4318). Specifications for aggregates in HMA often specify a minimum sand equivalent in the range of 25 to 35. The amount of clay lumps and friable particles are normally limited to 1 percent. ASTM D 1073 and D 22 limit the plasticity index of the aggregate fraction passing the No. 40 sieve of both the fine aggregate and mineral filler to 4 or less. Moisture sensitivity: Some in-service pavements experience a type of distress in which the asphalt film separates from the aggregate because of the action of water. This moistureinduced damage is called stripping. While it is well-known that stripping basically results

29

from an incompatibility between the aggregate and asphalt used in the mix; the actual mechanism of the disbonding is very complex. (One simple case: an excessive amount of dust on the aggregate can result in a weak asphalt bond that leads to stripping.). Aggregates susceptible to stripping usually are not suitable for asphalt paving mixtures unless the asphalt/aggregate incompatibility problem can be remedied by use of an anti-stripping agent.

2.2.4 C. Superpave Requirements The SHRP research did not develop any new HMA aggregate test procedures. Instead, the researchers essentially fine-tuned the quality test procedures and criteria already in common use by highway agencies so that they would meet the high-performance goals of the Superpave system. To that end, two classes of aggregate properties are specified in Superpave: consensus properties and source properties. Consensus properties are those which are deemed critical in achieving high performance HMA. The quality requirements for these critical properties vary, depending on traffic level and position within the pavement. High traffic levels and surface mixes are subject to the strictest specification requirements. The four consensus properties are: coarse aggregate angularity, fine aggregate angularity, flat elongated particles, and clay content.

The high angularity requirements are intended to provide mixes with a high degree of internal friction and high shear strength for resisting rutting. Limiting elongated pieces promotes mix

30

compactability and lessens the potential for aggregate breakage during construction and under traffic. Limiting clay content helps avoid disbonding Source properties are those which agencies use to qualify local sources of aggregate. Because the prevailing/achievable quality level for these properties varies so much from agency to agency, the Superpave system does not specify limiting values. The three source properties are: Toughness, as measured by the LA abrasion test; Soundness, as measured by the sodium or magnesium sulfate soundness test; and Deleterious materials, as measured by the clay lumps and friable particles test.

2.2.5 Base and Subbase 2.2.5 A. Available Types and Usage A wide variety of materials and mixtures are used by state DOTs for base and subbase courses. Indeed, of all the structural layers, for a given generic type of base and subbase course, these materials generally display the greatest state-to-state variation in composition and quality requirements. This variation primarily reflects engineering economics: differences in the quantity, quality, and cost of local sources of materials between the states. Another source of variation is the design objective of the structural layer: while base and subbase courses all serve to reduce the stresses applied to the subgrade, in some cases, the focus of the design is on promoting drainage. The most frequently specified type of base and subbase course consists of dense-graded granular material. Next in popularity are various types of treated and untreated permeable layers. Another widely used class of materials is stabilized base: local aggregates blended with stabilizing materials that yield a finished mixture with upgraded physical properties. Finally, about one-quarter of the states use lean concrete base.

31

A discussion of the test procedures and quality requirements used for three of the most widely-used base and subbase courses the dense-graded, stabilized, and permeable classesare presented in following subsections. 2.2.5 B. Dense Graded Granular Base/Subbase The dense-graded granular base and subbase layers are generally 150 mm (6.0 in) to 200 mm (8. 0 in) thick. Aggregates used in granular base and subbase generally consist of sand and gravel, crushed stone or quarry rock, slag, or other hard, durable material. The specified gradation requirements vary considerably. In general, for both subbase and base, states require that the compacted mix have less than 10% voids. The amount of fines is limited to promote drainage. Typically, the coarse aggregate is required to have a crushed stone content in excess of 50 percent. Cubical particles are desirable, with a limited amount of flat or thin and elongated particles. Granular subbase tends to be somewhat coarser than granular base. A specified minimum crushed content for granular subbase is usually not required, although provision of 100 percent crushed aggregates for base and subbase use is increasing in premium pavement structures to promote rutting resistance. In addition to the above-described gradation requirements, base and subbase aggregates are also subjected to a number of quality requirements. The most common of these deal with absorption, abrasion resistance, soundness, and content of deleterious materials. As might be expected, these requirements are less strict than those applied to HMA aggregates. For example, while the maximum weight loss in the Los Angeles abrasion test is about 30% for HMA aggregates, Indiana DOT [28] permits 40 to 50% , Massachusetts [29] permits 45%, while the limit set by Michigan DOT [30] is 50%. Similarly, while an HMA aggregate having an absorption of more than

32

2 % is suspect, INDOT permits as much as 5% absorption for base/subbase. Table 9 lists the standard test procedures for base and subbase aggregates.

Table 9. Granular Aggregates Test Procedures [31]

Property General Specifications Gradation Test Procedure Graded Aggregate Material for Bases or Subbases for Highways or Airports Sizes of Aggregate for Road and Bridge Construction Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate Particle Shape Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregate Uncompacted Voids Content of Fine Aggregate (As Influenced by Particle Shape, Surface Texture, and Grading Index of Aggregate Particle Shape and Texture Base Stability California Bearing ratio Moisture-Density Relations of Soils Using a 5.5 lb (2.5 kg) Rammer and a 12-in. (305 mm) Drop Moisture- Density Relations of Soils Using a 10-lb (4.54 kg) Rammer and an 18-in. (457 mm) Drop Permeability Plasticity Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head) Determining the Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils Plastic Fines in Graded Aggregates and Soils by Use of the Sand Equivalent Test Abrasion Resistance Resistance to Degradation of Large-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine Resilient Modulus Resilient Modulus of Unbound Granular Base/Subbase Materials and Subgrade Soils - SHRP Protocol P46 Reference D2940 D448/M43 C136/T27 D4791 TP33 D3398 D1883/T193 D698/T99 T180 D2434/T215 D4318/T90 D2419/T176 C535 C131/T96 T274

33

2.2.5 C. Stabilized Base Local base course materials are often combined with asphalt, cement, lime, fly-ash or other so-called stabilizing agents to enhance the stability, strength and plasticity characteristics of the finished mix . The use of such stabilized base materials depends on a number of variables including types and properties of locally available materials, the economics of the stabilization process, performance goals, and expected in-service environmental and traffic conditions. While stabilized base or subbase materials may be used to provide support for either flexible or rigid pavements, they are most frequently used with flexible pavements. Stabilized base or subbase materials are either mixed in place at the job site, or are produced at a mixing plant and transported to the site. The materials are spread evenly in loose layers on a prepared subgrade or subbase, using either a blade-grader, bulldozer, spreader box, or paving machine. Once the material has been spread, it is then densified by means of conventional rollers of compaction equipment. Aggregates comprise between 80 to 95 percent by weight of a stabilized base or subbase mix. The basic requirement for these aggregates is that they should have the proper particle size, shape, gradation, and particle strength to contribute to a mechanically stable mixture. A wide range of different types and gradations of aggregates have been used in stabilized base and subbase mixtures. These include conventional aggregate sources, such as crushed stone or sand and gravel, as well as recycled materials, such as blast furnace slag and bottom ash or boiler slag from coal-fired power plants. Reclaimed pavement materials have also been successfully recycled into stabilized base and subbase mixtures.

34

The strength of the matrix depends primarily on the type and quantity of stabilizing material used in the mixture. The amount of cementitious material in a stabilized base or subbase mix usually ranges from 5 to 10 percent by weight of the mix, but may in some cases comprise as much as up to 20 percent by weight if a lightweight aggregate is used. A number of different cementitious materials have been successfully used to bind or solidify what otherwise would be a marginal aggregate into a finished stabilized base or subbase with good performance properties. The material most frequently used is Portland cement. In some parts of the United States, mainly west of the Mississippi River, fly ash from the burning of sub-bituminous coal is widely available and, because it exhibits self-cementing characteristics when mixed with water, it can be used by itself with no other cementitious material to bind aggregate particles together. Coal fly ash, produced during the combustion of bituminous coal, is frequently used in stabilized base mixtures. Since this type of fly ash is a pozzolan, the mixtures in which it is used are often referred to as pozzolanic stabilized base (PSB) mixtures. Pozzolans are materials composed of amorphous siliceous or siliceous and aluminous material in a finely divided (powdery) form (similar in size to Portland cement particles) that will, in the presence of water, react with an activator to form compounds possessing cementitious properties. Pozzolan activators are alkaline materials that contain calcium and magnesium compounds present in sufficient amounts to chemically react in the presence of water with the silicate and aluminates in the pozzolan. Descriptions of various kinds of pozzolans and their specifications are provided in ASTM C618 [32]. Table 10 provides a list of standard laboratory test methods that are used to evaluate the mix design properties and performance characteristics of stabilized base or subbase mixtures.

35

Table 10. Stabilized Base and Subbase Material Test Procedures [32] Property Compressive Strength Test Method Fly Ash and other Pozzolons for use with Lime Making and Curing Soil-Cement Compression and Flexure Test Specimens in the Laboratory Freeze-Thaw Durability Fly Ash and Other Pozzolans for use with Lime Freezing and Thawing Tests of Compacted SoilCement Mixtures Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and SoilAggregate Mixtures using 5.5 lb (2.49 kg) Rammer and 12 in (305 mm) Drop or Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures using 10 lb (4.59 kg) Rammer and 18 in (457 mm) Drop Density of Soil in Place by the Sand Cone Method Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by the Rubber Balloon Method Volumetric Stability Resilient Modulus One-Dimensional Expansion, Shrinkage, and Uplift Pressure of Soil-Lime Mixtures Resilient Modulus of Unbound Granular Base/Subbase Materials and Subgrade Soils Reference C593 D1632 C593 D560 D698 (Standard) or D1557 (Modified)

Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content

Compacted Density

D1556 D2167 D3877 T274

The following is a list and brief comments on some of the more important properties of aggregates that are used in stabilized base and subbase mixes [32]: Gradation: A wide range of aggregate sizes and gradations can be used in stabilized base and subbase mixtures, provided that the mixture is capable of satisfying applicable strength and durability criteria. To maximize mix density, minimize void spaces, and not compromise the durability of the stabilized base mix, it has been recommended by the Portland Cement

36

Association (PCA) and others that at least 55 percent of the aggregate used be finer than 4.75 mm (No. 4 sieve). Abrasion Resistance: Aggregate particles in stabilized base and subbase mixtures must possess sufficient particle strength to resist degradation and breakdown during construction and under repeated traffic loadings. Durability: Aggregates used in stabilized bases and subbases must be sound and durable and able to meet the soundness quality requirements. Unit Weight: The unit weight of the aggregate used in stabilized base and subbase mixtures is an indicator of the compacted density of the mix containing this aggregate. Deleterious Substances: Aggregates used in stabilized base and subbase mixtures should be reasonably free of deleterious substances, such as clay, shale, coal, coke, vegetation, or other debris. Plasticity: The fraction of the aggregate that passes the No. 40 sieve should have a liquid limit no greater than 25 and a plasticity index less than 4 (essentially non-plastic). Standard test methods typically used to assess the suitability of candidate aggregates stabilized base and subbase are listed in Table 11.

37

Table 11. Stabilized Base and Subbase Aggregate Test Procedures [32] Property General Specifications Test Method Materials for aggregate and Soil-Aggregate Subbase, Base and Surface Courses Graded Aggregate Material for Bases or Subbases for Highways or Airports Gradation Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates Sizes of Aggregate for Road and Bridge Construction Particle Shape Index of Aggregate Particle Shape and Texture Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregate Abrasion Resistance Resistance to Degradation of Large-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine Soundness Unit Weight Deleterious Components Liquid and Plastic Limit Soundness of Aggregates by Use of Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate Unit Weight of Voids in Aggregate Sand Equivalent Value of Soils and Fine Aggregate (Indirect measure of clay content of aggregate mixes) Liquid Limit, Plastic Plasticity Index of Soils M147 D2940 C136/T27 D448/M43 D3398 D4791 C535 Reference

C131/T96

C88/T104 C29/C29M/T19 D2419

D4318

2.2.5 D. Treated Permeable Bases Treated permeable bases are mixtures of high- quality, coarsely-graded crushed aggregate and a binder material. The binder material may be either asphalt or Portland cement. However, asphalt treated permeable bases (ATPB) are used more often than cement treated permeable bases

38

(CTPB). The decision to use either ATPB or CTPB is base primarily on economic considerations and materials availability. The treated permeable layer is intended to effectively drain the pavement structure, while fulfilling the strength function normally required of the base layer. A NCHRP study completed in 1999 indicate that most states that have experimented with permeable bases report improved pavement performance [33]. Other references on permeable bases are NCHRP Synthesis 239 , Pavement Subsurface Drainage Systems (19970 and the NAPA report, Asphalt Treated Permeable Material - Its Evolution and Application (1994). 2.2.6 Recycling Recycling of pavement materials is common place in new construction as well as rehabilitation of worn-out pavements. Highway agencies at all levels o government Local, State and Federal are increasingly using various materials and recycling techniques in their annual rehabilitation program. If anything, it is expected that this trend will continue in the future primarily due to technological advances and the initiative by the FHWA and its partner agencies. The FHWA, in partnership with the AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials and Environment, has taken a proactive role in establishing a recycling policy. This policy outlines the importance of using recycling and calls upon the highway agencies to consider recycling in the development of every project. However, it is recognized that recycling may not always a cost-effective alternate, hence, the decision to recycle or to overlay should be based on cost and performance on a life cycle basis rather than initial cost [34]. An important step taken by the FHWA to further promote the use of recycling is the creation of Recycled Materials Resource Center (RMRC). The center, operated at the University of New Hampshire, works to systematically evaluate recycling opportunities, develop guidelines for the

39

implementation of recycling techniques, and disseminate the information to the highway agencies. Many states have responded to this initiative by establishing a Recycling Task Force or appointing a Recycling Coordinator to promote the use of recycled materials in the respective states. Because of the importance recycling, an exhaustive review of State practices was conducted in the present study. A summary of the responses is provided in Section 3 of this report. 2.3 Concrete Pavements 2.3.1 Design Types Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavements (or rigid pavements) consist of a PCC slab built on a granular or stabilized base, and/or a subbase. Over the years, a variety of jointed and unjointed designs have been used by State DOTs, with varying degrees of success. Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement (JPCP) is the most widely used type of rigid pavement. JPCP slabs are typically 3.7m (12 ft.) wide. Length of these slabs very from 4 m (13 ft.) to 9 m (30 ft.). Thickness usually ranges from 15 cm (6 in.) to 30 cm (12 in.). JPCP does not use any reinforcing steel but does use dowel bars and tie bars. Jointed plain concrete pavements are constructed on granular and stabilized bases. Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavements (JRCP) contain steel mesh reinforcement. The JRCP slabs are generally 3.7 m (12 ft.) wide; length varies from 7.5 m (25 ft.) to 30 m (100 ft.). Thickness of JRCP slabs have varied between 15 cm (6 in.) and 40 cm (16 in.). The amount of steel mesh used is about 0.1 to 0.2% of cross-sectional area. These pavements are constructed on granular and stabilized bases. Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) is a Portland cement concrete pavement that has continuous longitudinal steel reinforcement and no intermediate transverse

40

expansion or contraction joints. The pavement is allowed to crack in a random transverse cracking pattern and the cracks are held tightly together by the continuous steel reinforcement [35]. Like JRCP slabs, thickness of CRCP has varied between 15 cm (6 in.) and 40 cm (16 in.). The amount of steel mesh used is about 0.6 to 0.7% of cross-sectional area. Pavements constructed over stabilized or crushed stone bases have generally resulted in better performing pavements than those constructed on unstabilized gravel. ODOTs concrete pavements are primarily 22.5 cm (9 in.) or 25.4 cm (10in.) thick JRCPs. A vast majority of these pavements have been rehabilitated with AC overlays, and thus transformed into composite pavements. However, ODOTs current standard is JPCP, 25.4 cm (10 in.) or 30.5 cm (12 in.). The official web site of the American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA), http://www.pavement.com [36], is an excellent source of information for concrete pavement practices in the United States. An interesting feature of the site is a database of concrete pavement practices by state highway agencies based on a survey completed by ACPA in 1999. A summary of the relevant parts of the survey is presented in the following subsections. 2.3.2 Design Usage The types of concrete pavements built by the state highway agencies is shown in Figure 1. As seen in the figure, JPCP is the most widely constructed type of concrete pavement. At least 38 state highway agencies in the United States use JPCP, while 9 states build JRCP, and 8 state highway agencies build CRCP, most notably on high-volume, urban roadways. No data is available for Arkansas, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia.

41

2.3.3 Concrete Acceptance Strength requirements In about 20 percent of the states, the agency provides the job mix formula, while 50 percent of the states require the contractor to provide the formula that has to be approved by the DOT. Concrete pavement strength is usually evaluated in compression or in flexure using standardized tests. Another term for the flexural strength is the modulus of rupture. Twenty- two states use compressive strength for construction acceptance and most of these states use 28-day strength. Fourteen states have adopted flexural strength as acceptance criteria. While all the states use third point test, Ohio reports using mid- point test method. The time of test is either 7, 14 or 28 days. Only Maryland indicated the use of split tensile strength as an acceptance criteria. These results are shown in Figure 2. A range of minimum compressive strength values have been specified, from 20 M Pa (2900 psi) to 28 M Pa (4000 psi). However, majority of the states have specified a minimum value ranging from 21 M Pa (3000 psi) to 24 M Pa (3500 psi). Figure 3 shows the distribution of minimum compressive strengths among state highway agencies. Specified values for flexural strength, also known as modulus of rupture, range from 3 M Pa (450 psi) to 5 M Pa (650 psi), wth 4 M Pa (550 psi) being the predominantly used value, as depicted in Figure 4. 2.3.4 Entrained Air Requirements The target air content in DOT paving mixtures typically varies from 1 percent to 7 percent with 6 percent as the target values adopted by most states. In general, the states specify a tolerance value of 1.5 percent. Variations in air content of concrete can cause a number of problems,

42

including fluctuations in compressive strength, yield, and freeze-thaw durability. Figure 5 shows the various requirements for entrained air content. 2.3.5 Water-Cement Ratio Requirements The ratio of the weight of water in a concrete mixture to the weight of cement is well-known to be the prime determinant of the strength and durability of the finished mixture. In general, concrete with a lower water-cementitious ratio is stronger and less permeable, thus more durable. Most of the states specified a water-cement ratio of 0.4 to 0.5. The water-cement ratio requirements of state highway agencies are illustrated in Figure 6. 2.3.6 Minimum Cement Content Portland cement combined with water forms the cement paste component of the concrete mixture. The paste normally constitutes about 25 to 40 percent of the total volume of the concrete. In terms of absolute volume, the cementing materials make up between about 7 and 15 percent of the mix, and water makes up 14 to 21 percent. As shown in Figure 7, the minimum cement requirement specified by most states is 296 to 355 kg/m3 (500 to 600 lbs/yd3). 2.3.7 Aggregate Requirements Aggregates for PCC paving mixtures make up about 80 to 85 percent of the mix by mass (60 to 75 percent of the mix by volume). Fine aggregates typically consist of natural sand or crushed stone with most particles passing through a 9.5 mm (3/8in.) sieve. Coarse aggregates are any particles greater than 4.75mm (0.19 in.), but generally range between 9.5 mm and 37.5 mm (3/8 and 1.5 in.). Gravels constitute the majority of coarse aggregate used in concrete, with crushed stone making up most of the remainder. Ideally, aggregates will be clean, hard, and free of absorbed chemicals or coatings of clay and other fine materials that could cause deterioration of concrete.

43

Figures 8 and 9 illustrate grading practices and maximum size of aggregates used by the state highway agencies, according to the ACPA survey. NCHRP Research Digest 281 [37] summarizes the findings of NCHRP Project 4-20 to identify aggregate tests related to the performance of PCC pavements and to provide guidance on their use for evaluating and selecting aggregates for use in specific pavement applications. The NCHRP digest presents guidelines for the selection of aggregate for pavement applications based on the following factors: Climatic/environmental conditions, Traffic loading, Materials and mixture proportions, Test limits and acceptance criteria, Frequency of aggregate testing, and Field performance histories of aggregates.

The report states that : because of the inherent lack of acceptable performance field histories in most areas, some laboratory testing is generally required. As adequate performance records become available, more confidence can be placed on directly using these records to accept or reject aggregates for a specific use. Nevertheless, caution should be taken in the interpretation of field performance data and in their use in selecting aggregate sources.

44

Table 12 provides a list of standard test methods that are used to assess the suitability of aggregates in Portland cement concrete paving applications [38, 39], along with significance of each test. 2.3.8 Slump Requirements The range of slump values specified by the states varies from 0 to 7 in. (0 to 18 cm). Expectedly, slump values specified for fixed- form paving are higher than that for slip-form paving.

45

Table 12. Concrete Aggregate Test Procedures[38, 39]

Property General Specifications Gradation Test Method Concrete Aggregates Definition of Constituents Size Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregate Absorption Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate Particle Shape and Surface Texture Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregate Uncompacted Voids Content of Fine Aggregate Particle Shape and Texture Abrasion Resistance Resistance to Degradation of Large-Size Coarse Aggregate - LA Test Resistance to Degradation of Small-Size Coarse Aggregate - LA Test Durability Durability Index Soundness by Freezing Thawing Deleterious Components Petrographic Examination Organic Impurities in Fine Aggregate Clay Lumps and Friable Particles Plastic Fines by Sand Equivalence Test Volume Stability Potential Volume Change Resistance to volume change Related to porosity, absorption, permeability, and pore structure Affects chemical stability, weathering resistance, or volumetric stability Index of aggregate quality and wear resistance Workability of fresh concrete Workability, pumpability, economy, porosity, shrinkage and durability Control of concrete quality (water-cement ratio) Significance Clear understanding and communication Test Designation C33 C125 D448/M43 C136/T27 C127/T85 C128/T84 D4791 C1252/TP33 C535 C535

C131/T96

D3744/T210 T103 C295 C40 C142 D2419 C342

Accelerated Detection Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction

C227

46

2.3.9 Supplementary Cementitious Materials Supplementary cementitious materials-- called mineral admixtures--are used in various proportions to modify or enhance the properties of Portland cement concrete. Such materials include natural pozzolans, fly ash, ground granulated blast-furnace slag, and silica fume. These materials react chemically with calcium hydroxide released from the hydration of Portland cement to form cement compounds. The benefits of supplementary cementitious materials include reduced

permeability, increased strength, and reduced mix cost. Table 13 lists the common test procedures for Portland cement and supplementary cementitious materials, as reported by the FHWA [38]. Fly ash is often classified according to the type of coal from which it has been derived. ASTM divides fly ash into two classes: Class F Fly ash produced from the burning of anthracite or bituminous coal, and Class C Fly ash produced from the burning of lignite or sub-bituminous coal. Class F fly ash is pozzolanic, but class C ash can also be hydraulic or self-setting because it has higher lime content than Class F fly ash. The leading use of fly ash is as a partial replacement for Portland cement in ready-mixed concrete or as a component of blended Portland-pozzolan cement. To be acceptable for use in cement or concrete, fly ash must meet certain physical and chemical requirements. In most states, fly ash substitution rates range from 15 to 25 percent by weight of the cement in the concrete. Concrete containing high volumes of fly ash has demonstrated good strength and durability.. Most states allow the use of both Class C and Class F Fly Ash ( see Figure 10). Thirty- two states allow the use of Class C Fly Ash, and 36 states allow the use of Class F Fly Ash. The maximum allowable fly ash/pozzolan content varies from 15 to 20 percent.

47

Table 13. Portland Cement and Supplementary Cementitious Materials Test Procedures [38] Property General Specifications Test Method Portland Cement Blended Hydraulic Cement Expansive Hydraulic Cement Pozzolan Use as a Mineral Admixture Ground Blast Furnace Slag Specifications Silica Fume Specifications Chemical Composition Fineness Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cements Fineness of Hydraulic Cement by the 150 m (No. 100) and 75 m (No. 200) Sieves Fineness of Hydraulic Cement and Raw Materials by the 300 m (No. 50), 150 m (No. 100) and 75 :m (No. 200) Sieves by Wet Methods Fineness of Hydraulic Cement by the 45 m (No. 325) Sieve Fineness of Portland Cement by Air Permeability Apparatus Fineness of Portland Cement by the Turbidimeter Cement Soundness Setting Time Autoclave Expansion of Portland Cement Time of Setting of Hydraulic Cement by Vicat Needle Time of Setting of Hydraulic Cement by Gillmore Needles Time of Setting of Hydraulic Cement Mortar by Modified Vicat Needle False Set Early Stiffening of Portland Cement (Mortar Method) Early Stiffening of Portland Cement (Paste Method) Reference C150 C595 C845 C618 C989 C1240 C114 C184/T 128 C786

C430/T192 C204/T153 C115/T98 C151/T107 C191/T131 C266/T154 C807 C359/T185 C451/T186

48

The minimum slag content allowed by the states varies from zero to 50 percent. States allow a maximum slag content of 5 to 70 percent. Minimum silica fume content by weight allowed by states varies from 3 to 7.5 percent. Maximum silica fume content by weight allowed by states varies from 6 to 50 percent. 2.3.10 Reinforcement for JRCP Thirteen states allow the use of wire mesh in JRCP, while 4 states do not allow its use. Bar mats are not allowed in JRCP by 9 states while 7 states allow them (Figure 11). 2.3.11 Reinforcement for CRCP Many states reported the adoption of AASHTO M31 or ASTM 615 for CRCP reinforcement specifications. Most states reported no coatings for the steel in CRCP, while Maryland reported the use of epoxy coating for the steel. All states, except Arizona, use of transverse steel for

reinforcement in CRCP. Steel grade 60 is adopted for reinforcement of CRCP by about 15 percent of the states while steel grade 40 and 60 are most commonly adopted, as shown in Figure 12. The percentage of steel in CRCP most commonly adopted by states is 0.6 to 0.7 percent. 2.3.12 Control Tests for Concrete Table 14 lists standard laboratory test procedures currently used by state highway agencies to evaluate the performance of concrete paving mixtures.

49

Table 14. Concrete Paving Materials Test Procedures [39]

Property General Specifications Test Method Ready Mixed Concrete Concrete made by Volume Batching and Continuous Mixing Concrete Aggregates Terminology Related to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates Possolan Use as a Mineral Admixture Ground Blast Furnace Slag Specification Chemical Admixtures for Concrete Air Entraining Agents Silica Fume Specifications Slump Workability Hydration and Setting Strength Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete Bleeding of Concrete Time of Setting of Concrete Mixtures by Penetration Resistance Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with ThirdPoint Loading) Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens Air Content Microscopical Determination of Parameters of the Air-Void System in Hardened Concrete Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Volumetric Method Unit Weight, Yield, and Air Content of Concrete Density Durability Specific Gravity, Absorption, and Voids in Hardened Concrete Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic-Cement Mortar and Concrete Length Change of Concrete Due to Alkali-Carbonate Rock Reaction Reference C94/M157 C685/M241 C33 C125 C618 C989 C494 C260 C1240 C143/T119 C232/ T158 C403 C39/T22 C78/T96 C496/T198 C457 C231/T152 C173/T196 C138 C642 C157 C1105

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

3. SURVEY OF STATE DOTs 3.1 General A survey of State DOTs was conducted to: (i) review pavement type and materials selection practices prevailing in other states, (ii) develop a benchmark, (iii) review ODOTs current practices, and (iv) suggest improvements. This section presents a summary of the survey responses. The first step in the survey was to design a questionnaire that would advance the overall study objective of verifying ODOTs current procedures for the selection of materials for pavements. To that end, the survey focused on two major subjects: the pavement type selection process used by the state departments of transportation, including any associated life-cycle cost analyses, and the states use of recycled materials in general and in specific applications.

The pavement selection process is of obvious importance because it dictates the types of pavements built and hence has an overwhelming influence on the type and quantity of materials used in construction and maintenance. Indeed, the importance and timeliness of this topic was recently evidenced by the Ohio legislatures mandate for a review of ODOTs pavement selection process by a neutral third party. The results of the study are presented in a report by the Neutral Third Party, Ohio Pavement Selection Process Analysis, prepared for the Ohio Pavement Selection Advisory Council, December 2003. The use of recycled materials was included as a survey topic because of the many challenges and opportunities these materials present, as well as the high level of interest in the highway community, as evidenced by recent initiatives by AASHTO and the FHWA to further promote the

63

use of these materials. While great deal of information has recently been made available regarding the beneficial use of waste materials in particular applications (e.g., NCHRP Project 4-21), the intent of the survey questions were to update and expand on the available information, and not to duplicate research by others. The questionnaire (shown in Appendix A) was mailed to all the DOTs. Responses were received from 23 DOTs. The responses have been summarized and included in an interactive database called Pavement Material Selection Practices (PMSP). Using the interactive database, it is possible to view responses from various DOTs for individual questions. The states that responded to the survey are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. A summary of the responses follows. 3.2 Pavement type Selection Process States with a formal pavement type selection committee are Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, and South Dakota. The pavement type selection committees are generally made up of representatives from the offices of pavement design, roadway engineering, construction and maintenance, materials office, planning, central and regional offices. Typically, all major rehabilitation/reconstructions are considered by these committees. The committees typically approve pavement type based on life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA), constructability, and other factors. The pavement type selection procedures with states that do not have formal committee are also fairly similar, except that the selection is done by pavement design engineers in consultation

64

with regional offices, often in cooperation with other engineering departments. The state agencies usually get involved in the selection of pavements for roads off of the state system only when state and/or federal funds are used . Traditionally, the state agencies consider both asphaltic and concrete materials to generate a preferred strategy. Iowa, explicitly considers the balance of work between hot- mix asphalt and. PCC, as well as LCCA and constructability, in the decision- making process. One state (Maine ) has not used PCC since 1970. 3.2.1 Factors Used in the Selection of Pavements A host of factors are considered in the pavement type selection process. Most agencies follow the general guidelines outlined in the AASHTO Guide. However, the set of factors and the relative level of importance to these factors vary considerably among agencies. Figure 13 illustrates the results of the survey. Clearly, traffic and life-cycle cost comparisons dominate the pavement type selection process, followed closely by soil characteristics, adjacent pavements and performance of similar pavements. 3.2.2 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis The state agencies were requested to furnish details about their LCCA procedures. In particular, the questions were related to efforts toward refining of traditional LCCA procedures, design and analysis periods, construction and rehabilitation strategies, and pavement management policies. Figures 14 through 28 summarize the results. Very few agencies reported using sophisticated statistical analysis techniques (e.g., analysis of input variability, sensitivity analyses, and risk analysis) to refine their traditional LCCA procedures (see Figure 14).

65

While a wide a range of discount rates are used by the states in their LCCA, the majority use a 4% rate (Figure 15). The pavement design periods used by the state agencies vary with the functional classification of pavements. Some agencies reported using different design periods for asphalt and concrete pavement types, while others use the same design period for both. A summary of the survey responses is presented in Table 15. Table 15. Design Periods Used by State Agencies Type of Project PCC Interstates Principal Arterials Other Routes - High Traffic Other Routes - Low Traffic Major Rehabilitations Minor Rehabilitations 20 - 40 20 - 40 20 - 40 20 - 25 20 15 Design Period, Years AC 10 -20 11 - 21 10 - 22 10- 15 12 12 PCC or ACC 8 - 50 10 - 50 10 - 60 10 - 50 10 -30 5 - 30

The analysis periods used by the state agencies in their LCCA is summarized in Figure 16. As shown, the majority of the agencies use 30 to 40 years. To a question about various alternative strategies used in new construction, the survey revealed that several states consider full-depth asphalt as a requirement. However, five states (Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, South Dakota and Utah) seldom (or never) consider full depth asphalt as a strategy during new construction (Figure 17). On the other hand, Jointed Concrete pavement received an overwhelming response; 19 out of 22 responding states indicated Jointed Concrete pavement as a required alternative strategy in new construction and the remaining three as optional

66

(Figure 18). Continuous Reinforced Concrete pavements and Composite pavements are preferred design alternatives in very few agencies (Figures 19 and 20). With regard to reconstruction, it is interesting to observe that the states have similar preferences for complete replacement with flexible pavement and rigid pavement (Figure 21 and 22). The majority of the states do not consider complete replacement with composite pavement (Figure 23). For major rehabilitations, asphalt overlay is the most widely used strategy; 13 states stated it as a required strategy, 7 as optional, and none as seldom/never (Figure 24). Use of an unbonded concrete overlay is perhaps on the increase in the recent times with many agencies indicating as either required and optional; only five states stated that this strategy is seldom/never considered in their LCCA procedure (Figure 25). Various forms of fractured slab techniques are used by states to rehabilitate in-service concrete and composite pavements. The fractured slab techniques include rubblize and roll, break and seat, and crack and seat. These techniques have become increasingly important with the growing need to maintain and rehabilitate deteriorating concrete pavements. The survey results indicate that some states find one of these techniques as cost-effective rehabilitation solution ,while some do not, (Figures 26, 27 and 28). Information was sought from the state agencies about their pavement management policies and threshold values of pavement condition indicators used for identifying appropriate maintenance and rehabilitation actions. It is evident that the states have different types of pavement condition indicators and it is difficult to compare all of them on a same scale. Only five responses were received to this question. Conceptually, states adopt a similar procedure to develop corrective

67

actions, but the threshold values may vary between agencies. The details of the responses can be viewed in the interactive database, Practices for Selecting Pavement Materials (PSPM). 3.3 Use of Recycled Materials 3.3.1 Recycling in General Recycling is an important activity and many states have initiated plans to promote the increased use of recycled materials. California, Kansas, Minnesota, New York, and Texas reported to have appointed a Recycling Coordinator or a Task Force that encourages use of recycled materials. Generally, these agencies encourage the use recycled materials as long as they meet or exceed required performance and/or quality standards. The states were requested to indicate the most promising areas for innovation in the use of recycled materials in pavement construction and the most problematic recycling issues. A good number of responses were received for this question, as shown below: A Opportunities Use of crumb rubber, plastics and other materials as modifiers to improve the properties of asphalt cement Utilization of materials on-site that are designated to be removed on an individual project basis Use of rubber in concrete recycling of tires and other rubber products in light weight fill Cold-in-Place recycling of existing pavements Reclaimed concrete in base construction Recycled concrete to replace aggregate in PCC

68

Use of foamed asphalt

B Challenges Designing, testing, and producing products that combine recycled and virgin materials Construction time frame : If construction time is short, this constraint tends to prelude the use of recycled materials Determining cost-effectiveness, specifications, and parameters for using reclaimed concrete as a base material Assuring consistent quality of the combined (recycled and virgin) material Environmental, durability and performance issues.

3.3.2 Legislative Mandates Recycling is sometimes initiated in response to federal, state and/or local legislative mandates. For example, In California, legislation is continually being considered on the use of tires for recycling. New York reported legislation to require use of fly ash in embankment applications. Utah indicated a state legislative mandate for the use of recycled materials, up to 25% in hot mix application. The other states reported that there currently is no legislation requiring the use of recycled materials at present and none foreseen in the near future. 3.3.3 Factors Dictating Application of Recycled Materials Frequently, a new application of a recycled material in pavement construction will make sense from a performance and environmental standpoint, but economics will favor continued usage of virgin materials. In such cases, an agency may take a permissive stance and let market forces

69

dictate the choice of materials selected by the contractor, or may tip the economic scales by requiring a minimum content of recycled material in the item or by temporarily paying a unit price premium for the recycled option. The responses from the survey indicated four factors that, in general, dictate the appropriateness of a particular application of recycled materials. They are: Market forces, Performance, Contractors choice, and Cost.

3.3.4 Specific Recycling Applications The survey questionnaire inquired about the states use of each of the major beneficial uses of waste/by-products proposed for highway construction: as an ingredient in embankments, bases, and pavements. For each application, information was sought regarding the extent of use (routine, never, or experimental), any observed differences in cost or performance compared to virgin material, and the critical properties affecting performance and environmental safety. The responses of each of the 23 participating states can be accessed through the (separately published) PSPM interactive database. For the convenience of the reader, these individual responses are graphically summarized in the following Figures 29 through 89. While these summaries give a quick overview of the recycling survey results, as with many summaries, some caution must be exercised in interpreting the results. For example, any conclusions regarding observed cost or performance differentials for a particular recycled material are obviously most probative when received from states who have extensively used that material ,

70

as opposed to findings from states whose experience is more limited in terms of the number of experimental projects and/or the scope and duration of the evaluation. Since the summary combines findings from agencies with varying levels of experience and/or from agencies which have all had limited experience with a particular recycling application, care must be exercised in evaluating the significance of summary cost and performance statistics.

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

4. REVIEW OF ODOTs MATERIAL SELECTION PROCESS 4.1 OhioS Material Management Program In Ohio, the Office of Materials Management (OMM) assists the Office of Pavement Engineering and District offices in all aspects of pavement design, construction, rehabilitation and maintenance. OMM engineers provide expertise in the fundamental properties of pavement materials as well as the latest specifications and current test methods employed in materials evaluation. Administratively, OMM consists of three functional units: the Asphalt Materials Section, the Cement and Concrete Section and the Aggregate Section [40]. These organizational units take the lead in developing design systems, specifications, standards, manuals and guidelines in addition to providing planning, design, materials testing and characterization associated with pavement construction, maintenance and rehabilitation within their respective assigned areas of responsibility. The Asphalt Materials Section performs routine and special testing in support of the Districts and ODOT project contract administration, supplier certification, material investigations, and implementation of new specifications and technology. Also, in conjunction with the hot-mix industry, the section works to further the goal of achieving quality paving through specification development and evaluation of contractor procedures. The Asphalt Materials section is AASHTOaccredited and can perform all of the standard AASHTO and ASTM tests relating to asphalt mixes and asphalt binders. They also conduct a variety of specialized tests (e.g., gyratory compaction, loaded wheel rut and fatigue tests). The Cement and Concrete Section is responsible for conducting compression testing of concrete cylinders and cores, hardened air testing of concrete cores, freeze-thaw testing, equipment calibrations, and inter-lab testing of concrete items. This section also tests cement, fly-ash, and other

149

supplementary cementitious materials. The Cement and Concrete Section also reviews and approves concrete mix designs as well as performing research projects. The Aggregate Section is responsible for evaluating all of the aggregates that are used in Ohio's highways. These aggregates are used in a variety of pavement layers, such as aggregate bases, hot-mix asphalt bases, Portland cement concrete bases, hot-mix asphalt and and Portland cement concrete surface pavement. The unit also performs tests on aggregates used for a variety of other purposes, such as pipe backfill, slope and channel protection, and shoulders. The section is responsible for interpreting specifications related to the various aggregate uses and the implementation of new specifications as needed. The districts, project personnel, and contractors rely upon the aggregate section for technical support, testing procedures, and techniques. 4.2 Pavement Type Selection 4.2.1 The Process As a logical prerequisite to evaluating the adequacy of an agencys material selection procedure, it is obviously important to fully understand their process for selecting the types of pavement to be built. Traditionally, in selecting a preferred design, state agencies consider (a) both asphaltic and concrete materials as potential options and (b) base their decision primarily on considerations of expected performance and cost-effectiveness. Expectedly, departures from this norm occur. For example, Maine has not used PCC since 1970. Also, at least one state (Iowa) explicitly considers the balance of work between hot- mix asphalt and PCC in selecting a design alternative. Based on the results of the literature review and survey of state practices conducted during this study, it is concluded that ODOT has one of the most comprehensive and objective processes

150

for selecting pavement type (A recently completed comprehensive review of the ODOT pavement type selection process mandated by the Ohio legislature reached this same basic conclusion [41]). In a nutshell, ODOTs pavement type selection committee formally considers many relevant engineering and economic factors (e.g., cost, user delay, constructability, and environment) in an objective, criteria-based scoring system to generate cost-effective alternatives. The department invariably considers both asphalt and concrete-based products as design alternatives. Further refinements to the current procedures are under consideration. While the department oversees all pavements in its jurisdiction, its involvement in initiating or approving the pavement type selection process for roads off the state system (i.e., county and local roads) is very limited. 4.2.2 Role of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) In most states, including Ohio, the choice of a particular type of pavement material is ultimately based on principles of engineering economics (i.e., Life Cycle Cost Analysis). The LCCA analysis period for new pavements and major rehabilitations used in Ohio ( 35 years) and the design period (12 years) are both typical of values in use by other states. Ohios LCCA procedures consider a full panoply of options: full-depth asphalt, jointed concrete, composite pavement, fractured pavement techniques and unbonded concrete overlays. The department currently includes crack-and- seat and rubblize-and- roll as major rehabilitation alternatives; break- and- seat is under consideration as an additional option. Also, ODOT is always looking for cost- effective ways to use recycled materials in pavement. CRCP in never considered in LCCA. With the encouragement of the FHWA, one emerging trend in LCCA is to use more sophisticated, probabilistic analyses to account for the uncertainty in LCCA inputs (e.g., user costs,

151

discount rates). Currently, ODOT does not generally use advanced statistical analysis techniques in LCCA, although the sensitivity of discount rates in the life cycle cost analysis is considered. ODOTs LCCA procedure is currently under review to ensure that it continues to provide a basis for wise investment decisions. 4.2.3 Superpave Status in Ohio Superpave is fully implemented for routes with heavy truck traffic (i.e., greater than 1500 trucks/day) and high levels of pavement stress. Superpave designs of Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) and Open Graded Friction Course (OGFC) have not been used with Superpave. OGFC designed using conventional procedures was used in District 4 for many years, but is no longer in use due to the excessive amounts of deicing salts salt it requires during winter maintenance operations. SMA is used in District 2 and ODOT would like to see more statewide use of this type of mix, but its use is currently limited due to high cost. However, it can be specified as an alternative on warranty jobs. ODOTs general experience with Superpave projects has thus far been good. To obtain mixes with a higher content of binder (and, thus, higher potential durability), ODOT modified the Superpave compaction requirements by specifying a lower number of required gyrations in the compaction apparatus (i.e., Ndes = 75 vs. a standard 100). The department expects to further reduce the required gyrations from Ndes = 75 to 65. Several Superpave projects experienced a skid resistance problem, due to the use of limestone aggregate. To avoid this problem in future, ODOT expects to use more natural sand in mixes with limestone aggregates.

152

5. EMERGING MATERIALS AND TEST PROCEDURES Two emerging asphalt materials (Foamed Asphalt and Warm Mix Asphalt) and an alternate aggregate test procedure ( the Micro- Deval test) have shown promise for success based on their performance in Europe, and appear to warrant further evaluation by ODOT. A considerable research effort has already been initiated by some agencies to systematically investigate the applicability of these materials/procedures in the United States. 5.1 Foamed Asphalt Foamed asphalt, also known as expanded asphalt, is gaining momentum as an alternate, cementing agent for high-strength, base course in the United States. Foamed asphalt is created in a recycling process when a predetermined amount of cold water is injected into hot penetration-grade asphalt in a mixing chamber. Water, in presence of hot bitumen, instantly evaporates causing an explosive expansion of the bitumen in the saturated steam 15 to 20 times its original volume. The air bubbles in the expanded asphalt froth carry the liquid asphalt to fines in a reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) aggregate mix. In less than 15 seconds the froth subsides and the dispersion of asphalt is completed, eliminating the waiting or curing time required when using more expensive processed asphalt emulsions. Although foamed asphalt does not completely coat all the aggregate particles, it reportedly does bond or cement all the materials in the roadway including particles of 75 microns or less [43]. Reported benefits of using famed asphalt include the following [44]: The foamed bitumen increases the shear strength and reduces the moisture susceptibility of granular materials. The strength characteristics of foamed asphalt approaches that of cemented materials, but foamed asphalt is flexible and fatigue resistant.

153

Foam treatment can be used with a wider range of aggregate types than other of cold- mix processes.

Lower binder and transportation costs because foamed asphalt requires less binder and water than other types of cold- mixing.

Saving in time because foamed asphalt can be compacted immediately and can carry traffic almost immediately after compaction is completed.

Energy conservation because only the bitumen needs to be heated while the aggregates are mixed in cold and damp (no need for drying).

Environmental benefits: curing does not result in the release of volatile. Foamed asphalt can be stockpiled with no binder runoff or leaching. Since foamed asphalt remains workable for very extended periods, the usual time constraints for achieving compaction, shaping and finishing the layer are avoided.

Foamed asphalt layers can be constructed even in adverse weather conditions, such as cold or light rain, without affecting the workability or the quality of the finished layer.

To date, a few local, state, and federal agencies have used reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) treated with foamed asphalt. The results, so far, have been mixed with some states (e.g., Louisiana) considering it an acceptable base material. However, continued studies are required to evaluate the long-term behavior and cost effectiveness before foamed asphalt can be accepted routinely in pavement construction.

154

5.2 Warm Mix Asphalt The National Asphalt Pavement Association is aggressively pursuing the introduction of Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) in the United States. A two-stage process is required to produce WAM. In the first stage, the mixture is made with a soft binder that enables effective coating and mixing at a lower temperature (typically 100 - 120/C) than normal hot mix. In the second stage, a harder binder is added in the form of a powder, emulsion or foam. The final mixture can be readily handled and compacted at temperatures as low as 80 90/C. This energy-conservative and environmentalfriendly material has been in practice in some European countries since 1994. The most obvious benefits of WAM, as claimed by its proponents, are reduction in fuel consumption and reduced plant emissions, and less aging of the binder. In order to investigate the use of WAM in the United States and to promote the product, NAPA has initiated a study with the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration and European technology sponsors. The primary goals of this research effort are to evaluate field performance of WMA pavements by using demonstration projects, develop field and laboratory test procedures to measure the material characteristics, and to investigate the compatibility of WMA with prevailing mix design procedures, plant operations, construction techniques, and climatic conditions. While the WAM technologies seem very promising, it will be necessary to study then thoroughly to determine their applicability to the U.S. [45]. 5.3 Micro Deval Aggregate Test Experience has shown that the results of the most widely used test of aggregate resistance the Los Angeles Abrasion Test are not always a good predictor of actual field performance. This is particularly true in the case of lightweight aggregates. Also, some aggregates such as soft

155

limestone which perform well in the field often have high LA abrasion losses. For that reason, a number of states are looking into an alternate test procedure. The Micro-Deval test was developed in France during the 1960's to test the resistance of fine/coarse aggregates to degradation by abrasion. In this test procedure, the abrasion resistance and durability of mineral aggregates are measured through the actions of abrasion between aggregate particles and between aggregate particles and steel balls in the presence of water. The test method for the Micro-Deval apparatus has been standardized in AASHTO TP 58-00, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Coarse Aggregate to Degradation by Abrasion in the Micro-Deval Apparatus. The test apparatus differs from the conventional L.A. test in that the Micro-Deval apparatus consists of smaller diameter drum (194 2 mm) and smaller steel charges (9.5 mm diameter). The aggregate samples are soaked in two liters of water for an hour and then both aggregate and water are transferred to the drum for testing. The drum is rotated at a rate of 100 5 rpm for two hours before the samples are removed to determine percentage of loss by gradation. An exhaustive review of Micro-Deval testing was undertaken through an European experiment involving 20 labs from 11 countries and a French experiment involving 37 French labs. The results of the experiment proved results of Micro-Deval tests are repeatable and reproducible [46]. Several highway agencies in North America have been actively pursuing research to evaluate toughness/durability aggregate test methods for characterizing aggregates within granular bases, Portland cement concrete, and HMA, using Micro-Deval test. Most notable among them are studies reported by Ontario Ministry of Transportation and NCAT. The NCAT is most recent (completed in October 2002) and includes testing of 72 aggregates from eight Southeastern States in the US.

156

The study involved comparisons between Micro-Deval test results and typically used toughness/durability tests. Interestingly, the study could not establish a meaningful relationship between either L.A. Abrasion and Impact or Sodium Sulfate Soundness test results and the MicroDeval test results [47]. On the contrary, a study performed by Texas Tech University found that there exists a fair to good correlation between soundness and Micro-Deval values. It was concluded that Micro-Deval test could be used as a good quality control tool. The study also reported that Micro-Deval test is more repeatable and reproducible test than the soundness test[48]. It is thus seen that, while reportedly Micro-Deval tests may offer repeatable and reproducible results, more work is needed to establish a correlation with the traditional toughness/durability tests and more importantly with actual field performance. ODOT is currently in the process of developing a research effort to investigate the adaptability of Micro-Deval test method in Ohio after evaluation of its results as compared to ODOTs current soundness testing and/or LA abrasion testing methods.

157

6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Adequacy of ODOTs Materials Selection Process Ideally, a pavement material selection process should consider the following factors: Economics (e.g., material cost, production cost, transportation, life cycle benefit), physical and chemical properties, mechanical properties (e.g., stress/strain behavior, time dependent properties, temperature effects), and production/construction considerations (e.g., constraints on the availability of materials, contractor capabilities). It is evident that ODOTs material selection procedure appropriately considers all the above factors. Indeed, a review of ODOTs procedures in comparison to the best practices presented in the published literature and described in our survey of state agencies conveys an extremely positive impression, which reflects favorably upon the department as a whole. The Office of Materials Management provides necessary support services and at the same time constantly strives to identify areas in need of improvement. The division is very proactive in developing and implementing advanced technology. Notable examples include the divisions leadership role in developing materials and testing procedures for constructing perpetual pavements, continuing research on DEL23 test track, various pooled fund studies, and ongoing research with universities help to establish good practices that have been instrumental in the the success of ODOTs pavement management system.

158

6.2 Investigation of Improved Materials and Test Procedures The most promising avenues for achieving a near term improvement performance are offered by two materials and a new testing procedure. The two materials that deserve consideration are Foamed Asphalt and Warm Mix Asphalt. The new testing procedure that is recommended for adoption is Micro Deval Apparatus. 6.3 Recycling Opportunities A second potential area for improvement in performance and costs over the long term is various promising recycling techniques. Highway agencies at all levels of government Local, State and Federal are increasingly using various waste materials, industrial byproducts, and recycling techniques in their construction and annual rehabilitation programs. This trend will continue in the future primarily due to technological advances and encouragement by the FHWA and its partner agencies. The FHWA, in partnership with the AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials and Environment, has taken a proactive role in establishing a recycling policy. This policy outlines the importance of using recycling and calls upon the highway agencies to consider recycling in the development of every project. However, it is recognized that recycling may not always a costeffective alternate, hence, the decision to recycle or to overlay should be based on cost and performance on a life cycle basis rather than initial cost [42]. Another important step taken by the FHWA to further promote the use of recycling is the creation of a Recycled Materials Resource Center (RMRC). The center, operated at the University of New Hampshire, works to systematically evaluate recycling opportunities, develop guidelines for the implementation of recycling techniques, and disseminate the information to the highway

159

agencies. Many states have responded to this initiative by establishing a Recycling Task Force or appointing a Recycling Coordinator to promote the use of recycled materials in the respective states. Because of the importance of recycling, an exhaustive review of State practices was conducted and documented in this study. Based on our analysis of those results, at least six recycling applications which have successfully been used in other states may warrant further consideration/evaluation by ODOT as a means of enhancing performance and/or decreasing costs. Those materials include: 1. Reclaimed concrete in PCC: ODOT has used this product in the past, but the results were not satisfactory. Higher shrinkage and lower strength discouraged continued use of this material. Eight state agencies are routinely using the material with no performance problems reported. It thus appears that these agencies have overcome the described problems. 2. Reclaimed concrete in granular base: ODOT has used recycled concrete in granular in two projects with unsatisfactory results because of aggregate breaking during freeze-thaw process. However, 13 state agencies have routinely used this material with improved performance. 3. Reclaimed asphalt pavement in cold asphalt mix: Five states routinely use this material and another five other states have used on a trial basis with satisfactory performance. 4. Reclaimed Asphalt pavement in granular base: Nine states routinely use this product. The amount of material used has varied from 15 to 100%, sometimes with an increase in cost up to 20%. 5. Scrap tires in embankment or fill: ODOT has never used this material. Five states have used it on a trial basis with satisfactory results.

160

6.

Recycled materials as a Substitute Cementitious material: A number of states routinely use a variety of industrial byproducts (e.g., coal boiler slag, coal fly-ash and lime kiln dust) with successful results as a supplementary/substitute cementitious material in various pavement layers .

161

REFERENCES 1. 2. Pavement Design & Rehabilitation Manual, The Ohio Department of Transportation, 1999. The Materials Engineering Program, Federal Highway Administrations (FHWA) Office of Pavement Technology. 3. Development of 2002 Guide Using Mechanistic Principles to Improve Pavement design, NCHRP Project 1-37A, http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+1-37 4. 5. Pavement Analysis and Design, Y. H. Huang, Prentice Hall, 1993. Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers, Third Edition, Frederick S. Merritt, Editor, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1983. 6. Construction and Material Specifications, State of Ohio, Department of Transportation, Columbus, Ohio 1997. 7. www.dot.state.oh.us/spec/, Construction and Material Specifications, State of Ohio, Department of Transportation. 8. HMA Pavement Mix Type Selection Guide, Information Series 128, National Asphalt Pavement Association and Federal Highway Administration, 2001. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Washington Asphalt Pavement Association Inc., www.asphaltwa.com Highway design Manual, California Department of Transportation, 2001. http://www.asphaltinstitute.org/environ/ogoffer.htm#Sound%20Reduction). Kuennen, T. Asphalts Generation of Change, Better Roads (Nov 2003). Kandahhl, P and Mallick, R. Design of New Generation Open-Graded Friction Courses, NCAT Report 99-3 (Dec 1999), t http://www.eng.auburn.edu/center/ncat/reports/rep99-3.pdf

162

14.

Kuennen, T. Open-Graded Mixes: Better the Second Time Around, American City and C o u n t y ( A u g 1 9 9 6 ) ,

http://americancityandcounty.com/ar/government_opengraded_mixes_better/index.htm 15. 16. Kuennen, T. A New Era for Permeable Pavements, Better Roads, p. 28 (April 2003). Stone Matrix Asphalt is Catching on in the U.S., Better Roads, September 2003, http://www.betterroads.com/articles/sept03b.htm 17. Designing Stone Matrix Asphalt Mixtures, NCHRP Report 425, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1994. 18. Cooley, A.L. and Brown, E.R., Potential for Using Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) for Thin Overlays, NCAT Report 03-01, April 2003. 19. Hicks, G. and Epps, J. Life-Cycle Costs of Asphalt Rubber Pavements, available at www.rubberpavements.org. 20. Roberts, F.L. et. al, Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design and Construction, Second Edition, National Center for Asphalt Technology, NAPA Foundation, Lanham, Maryland, 1996. 21. What We Have Learned About Superpave,

http://www.asphaltinstitute.org/superpav/splessons.htm 22. DAngelo, J. Modified Binders and Superpave Plus Specifications, available online at http://www.asphaltinstitute.org/hot/modbindspplus.htm 23. Whats New, FHWA Turner-Fairbank Research La b o r a t o r y,

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pavement/asphalt/whatsnew/whatsnew.htm 24. Specifiers Guide to Asphalt Modifiers, Roads and Bridges, May 1998, pp: 36 - 40.

163

25. 26.

Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon, http://www.apao.org/design2.shtml Kandhal, P.S., Parker, F. and Mallick, R.B., Aggregate Tests for Hot Mix: State of the Practice, http://www.eng.auburn.edu/center/ncat/reports/rep97-6.pdf, NCATReport 97-6, November 1997.

27.

Barksdale, R.D., The Aggregate Handbook, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 1993.

28.

Indiana Department of Transportation, Aggregate Specification and Requirements, http://www.in.gov/dot/div/testing/manuals/inspection/chapter_05.pdf

29. 30.

Massachusetts DOT Los Angeles Specs Michigan Department of Transportation, Aggregate Specifications ,

http://www.mdot.state.mi.us/specbook/902%20Aggregates.pdf. 31. Turner Fairbank Highway R e s e a rc h Center, Granular Base,

http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/app3.htm 32. T u r n er F a i rb an k Hi g h wa y R esear ch Cen ter , St a b i l i z e d Base,

http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/app5.htm 33. NCHRP Research Results Digest, Performance of Pavement Subsurface Drainage, November 2002, No.268, http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_268.pdf. 34. 35. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycle.htm U.S. department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Technical Advisory Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement, June 1990,

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t508014.htm 36. www.pavement.com, Official web site of American Concrete Pavement Association.

164

37. 38. 39.

http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_281.pdf http://www.tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/app2.htm. Kosmatka, S.H., B. Kerkhoff and W.C. Panarese, Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, 14th Edition, Engineering Bulletin 001, Portland Cement Association, 2002.

40.

Official Web Site of the Office of Material Management, Ohio Department of Transportation.

41.

ERES Consultants, Neutral Third Party Ohio pavement Selection Process, Final Report, Prepared for ODOT Pavement Selection Advisory Council, December 2003.

42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycle.htm http://rocktoroad.com/n02foamedasphalt.htm http://asphalt.csir.co.za/foamasph/ Hot mix Asphalt Technology, Volume 8, Number 2, March/April 2003 http://projects.bre.co.uk/aggregate/MDtest/MDsummry.htm. http://www.eng.auburn.edu/center/ncat/reports/rep02-09.pdf http://www.ce.ttu.edu/centers/techmrt/home/researchproj/microdeval.html

165

BIBLIOGRAPHY Web links to Asphalt Associations State Alabama Arkansas California Florida Illinois Indiana Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi New Jersey New York North Carolina North/South Dakota Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Washington West Virginia Wisconsin www.alasphalt.com www.arkansasasphaltpavementassoc.com www.norcalasphalt.org, www.apaca.org www.acaf.org www.il-asphalt.org www.ind-asphalt.com www.apai.net www.paiky.org www.lahotmix.org www.mdasphalt.org www.miasphalt.com www.asphaltisbest.com www.superpave.com www.njapa.com www.nymaterials.com www.carolinaasphalt.org www.dakota-asphalt.org www.flexipavements.org www.apao.org www.pahotmix.org www.trba.org www.txhotmix.org www.asphaltwa.com www.asphaltwv.com www.wispave.org Link

166