Laboratory evaluation of asphalt binder rutting, fracture, and adhesion tests.

Details

• Creators:
  Zhou, Fujie ; Li, Hongsheng ; Chen, Peiru ; Scullion, Tom
• Corporate Creators:
  Texas A&M Transportation Institute
• Corporate Contributors:
  United States. Federal Highway Administration
• Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Binders
  • Rutting
  • Pavement cracking
  • Pavement performance
  • Laboratory tests
  • Bituminous binders
  • Adhesion
  • Performance based specifications
  • Mechanical analysis
• Publication/ Report Number:
  FHWA/TX-14/0-6674-1
• Resource Type:
  Tech Report
• Geographical Coverage:
  Texas
• Corporate Publisher:
  Texas Department of Transportation. Research and Technology Implementation Office
• Abstract:
  The current performance grading (PG) specification for asphalt binders was developed based on the Strategic Highway ; Research Program (SHRP) and is based primarily on the study of unmodified asphalt binders. Over the years, experience has ; proven that the PG grading system, while good for ensuring overall quality, fails in some cases to predict rutting and cracking ; performance, particularly as it applies to softer but highly modified binders. Therefore, it is necessary to improve current ; asphalt binder performance parameters and associated specification limits, especially for modified binders. ; This report documents the laboratory evaluation of several new tests for rutting, fatigue, and adhesion property of asphalt ; binders, including the multiple stress creep and recovery (MSCR) test, linear amplitude sweep (LAS) test, double edged ; notched tension (DENT) test, elastic recovery test, pull-off test, pneumatic adhesion tensile testing instrument (PATTI), ; dynamic mechanical analyzer (DMA) test, and surface energy test. It was found that the MSCR test and associated ; specification works better than the current G*/sin -based PG specification, especially for those highly modified asphalt binders ; (such as PG64-34). MSCR round robin results among five laboratories clearly indicated that both Jnr0.1 and Jnr3.2 results are very ; repeatable and reproducible, but both Jnrdiff and R0.1 have pretty high variability. Since Jnrdiff is one of the parameters for grading ; asphalt binder, caution should be exercised when applying the MSCR specification. The R3.2 results are acceptable in terms of ; repeatability and reproducibility. Based on the laboratory test results, users should exercise some caution when grading the ; slightly modified asphalt binders (such as PG64-28) using the MSCR test and associated specification. This study further ; confirms the poor relationship between the parameter G*sinδ and the binder fatigue resistance. Neither the MSCR nor the ; elastic recovery test shows good correlation with the asphalt mix OT cracking test. Both the LAST and the DENT tests provide ; similar ranking to that of asphalt mix OT cracking test. The DSR-based LAS test is recommended for asphalt binder fracture ; test, since the DSR has been widely used in the last 20 years. Additionally, only the PATTI test is a promising test for ; evaluating adhesive properties of asphalt binders. All three other tests (the pull-off test, DMA, and surface energy test) were ; not successful in this study for evaluating asphalt binder adhesion property. ; Obviously, these laboratory findings need further field validation. Additionally, one needs always to keep in mind that the ; binder alone does not determine field performance of asphalt mixes. Mix characteristics as well as the pavement structure itself, ; traffic, and the environment within which it is located have a significant role in determining pavement performance.
  More +
• Format:
  PDF
• Funding:
  Project 0-6674
• Download URL:
  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/27289/dot_27289_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 4.03 MB]
• Collection(s):
  US Transportation Collection
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:2c18dcc26a58f5e8ed03471fa10697cb894a00ba87fe3fc02e1ace64e7d00bb12d037763776a8808386543710598055c9b221cc07c153d496f5b3e0e4de35e6f