Comparison of pelletized lime with other antistripping additives.

Details

• Creators:
  Trejo, David ; Porter, Frank ; Chen, Jiaming ; Lee, Hyun Woo
• Corporate Creators:
  Kiewit Center for Infrastructure and Transportation
• Corporate Contributors:
  United States. Federal Highway Administration
• Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Hot mix asphalt
  • Stripping (Pavements)
  • Antistrip additives
  • Calcium oxide
  • Tensile strength
  • Cost effectiveness
  • Moisture content
  • Asphalt mixtures
• Publication/ Report Number:
  FHWA-OR-RD-14-14
• Resource Type:
  Tech Report
• Geographical Coverage:
  Oregon
• Corporate Publisher:
  Oregon. Dept. of Transportation. Research Section
• Abstract:
  Stripping is a common problem in HMA pavements in Oregon, especially in Eastern Oregon. ; Stripping is the degradation of the bond between the aggregate and the asphalt binder due to the ; presence of water – this mechanism of degradation can lead to loss of capacity and cracking in the ; pavement. A common additive used in the industry to mitigate stripping damage is powdered lime. ; However, challenges with air-borne powdered lime have SHAs investigating alternatives to powdered ; lime. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of potential alternatives to ; powdered lime additive in preventing stripping. ; This research evaluated the moisture susceptibility of five anti-stripping additives with three separate ; aggregates. The aggregates exhibited a range of potential stripping from not susceptible to susceptible. ; Results indicate that Aggregates 1 and 3 are likely susceptible to stripping, with Aggregate 3 likely ; being the most susceptible. Powdered lime increased the TSR and ECS ratios for the susceptible ; aggregates. Mixtures with Additive 4 exhibited similar performance to mixes containing powdered ; lime. Additive 2 exhibited improved performance compared to the control but TSR and ECS ratios ; were lower than the specimens with powdered lime. Results from mixtures with Additive 3 exhibited ; limited improvements in TSR and ECS ratios. Additives 4 and 2 should be considered for future use in ; HMA when stripping could be an issue. ; One practice in ODOT is to inlay HMA pavements 15 years after construction. If the pavement is ; exhibiting damage resulting from stripping, the inlay can be specified to be 4 inches (102 mm) deep. If ; the pavement is not exhibiting damage from stripping, the inlay can be specified at 2 inches (51 mm) ; deep. Using this information, an economic analysis was performed. Other options are available but ; these were not included in the analysis. The economic analysis indicates that when a reduction in inlay ; thickness is realized, there is significant value in using additives. The sensitivity analyses indicated ; that large changes in the input variables do not make the cost of using additive cost ineffective – that ; is, there is significant value in using additives even when input variables (rate of return, number of ; future inlays, inlay depth, cost of inlay HMA, original construction cost, and additive cost) change ; significantly.
  More +
• Format:
  PDF
• Funding:
  SPR 732
• Download URL:
  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/27419/dot_27419_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 1.03 MB]
• Collection(s):
  US Transportation Collection
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:6fb4f8577992d4b535d3f5de2a96d32b78947e56321a04a48be3dc6173573df471fc4041261b4f4c5cfd0cf4de3a60daea11c8f4c1e6ef71cb70813f8717f527