Emulsion Task Force Meeting

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
ROAD PAVEMENT FORUM MAY 2007 Technical Guideline: The use of Modified Bituminous Binders in Road Construction TG1: 2 nd Edition – May 2007.
Advertisements

From… Maintenance Technical Advisory Guide (MTAG) Chapter 7 Fog and Rejuvenating Seals.
Karl Zipf DelDOT February 2014
New Zealand Performance Based Chip Seal Bitumen Specification Opus Research Austroads Workshop 4 December 2014.
ROAD PAVEMENT FORUM GUIDELINES ON MODIFIED BINDERS FOR USE IN HOT- MIX ASPHALT AND SURFACING SEAL APPLICATIONS.
ASPHALT RUBBER BINDER Properties Quality Control An overview of the
SuperPave Asphalt Specifications
Aggregates Usually refers to a soil that has in some way been processed or sorted. Soils are materials that are used as-is. An example would be a finished.
Chapter 6 Chip Seals From… Maintenance Technical Advisory Guide (MTAG)
Lecture #13 Properties of Hardening Concrete Curing.
Fog Seals, Sand Seals, Scrub Seals, and Rejuvenators.
New Technologies Land on Airport Pavements Rocky Mountain Asphalt Conference February 18-20, 2009.
Types, Properties and Grades of Asphalt-Part B
Strategic Alliance Reference Group 5 November 2009 #13 Binders – Sharon Forbes & Russell Spies 1 Binders Russell Spies Sharon Forbes / Jonathan Hoffman.
Binders Trevor Distin.
AAPA 2010 Study Tour – Warm Mix Asphalt Warm Mix Asphalt Warren Carter | Cassandra Simpson Andrew Bethune.
AAPA STUDY TOUR QUESTIONS LIST & STATE OF BINDERS RESEARCH IN SA 7 th September 2011 Johan O’Connell.
Quality Assurance D R Rossmann South African National Road Agency Ltd.
AAPA Q TMR Senior Management Meeting 23 June 2010 – Sustainability - issues & options Sustainability - issues & options Rob Vos Queensland Executive.
Stress and Strain – Axial Loading
AAPA 2012 Study Tour to Europe – High performance asphalt and binders – Part 2 v1 High performance asphalt and binders Part 2.
Introduction to Soils Testing & Mechanics
Asphalt Concrete Mix Design
 The methods used for the characterization and testing of asphalt materials have advanced considerably in the past 20 years. The State of Qatar has.
Product Requirements, Handling and Storage M Dickinson Bituguard, SA.
Recent Changes “FAQ’s” added to WMTC webpage Nuclear testing eliminated from asphalt class Correlation/comparison test results required to accompany qualified.
Using Reflective Crack Interlayer-
CRACK SEAL SUBTASK GROUP Kelly McClain – CalTrans Co-chair Jim Chehovits – Crafco, Industry Co- Chair Wally Smith – Deery Corporation Steve Escobar - Apart.
1 Aggregate Primary function: TRH 3 : Surface Seals for Rural and Urban Roads Components  Resistance to abrasion of base  Transfer of wheel load to pavement.
Road Pavement Forum May 2006 Technical Guideline: The use of Modified Bituminous Binders in Road Construction (TG 1: 2001)
Chip Seal Design Chapter 2. North America (ranked by prevalence) Empirical / Past Experience No Design Method Own Method McLeod (1960’s) - Asphalt Institute.
6th China Asphalt Summit
Marshall & Superpave Mix Design
Critical Factors Affecting Asphalt Concrete Durability
Thin Hot Mix Asphalt Overlays PennDOT Research Findings
Haritha Musty and Mustaque Hossain Kansas State University MATERIALS
Update from FHWA Emulsion Task Force
Material Testing under Tension
Evaluation of Cracking Resistance and Durability of 100% Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Mixtures Hesham Ali, PhD, PE. Mojtaba M. Afzali.
Research Implementation WHRP Flexible Group
Stress and Strain – Axial Loading
TxDOT Implementation Project Darren Hazlett, Jerry Peterson
Stress and Strain – Axial Loading
Viscoelasticity & Performance of Polymer Modified Mastic Binders
WenFeng Wang JSTI GROUP Boston, Nov 29, 2017
QC Document Update Todd Shields, INDOT.
Binders Trevor Distin.
Performance Graded Specifications for Emulsified Asphalt
Chip Seal Quality Assurance Guide
2018 Pavement Workshop May 23-24, 2018
Emulsion Task Force (ETF)
Performance Assessment of 100% Recycled Hot Mix Asphalt
ETF Emulsion/Residue Testing Program
Withrow University High School May 2008
ZHENG Nanxiang BI Jiefu ZHANG Feilong
Scrub Seal Emulsions with Rejuvenators
Emulsion Task Force (ETF)
Paving Asphalts (PA) Liquid / Cutback Asphalts Emulsified Asphalts
ADOT SPR-742 PROJECT Akshay Gundla, Ph.D. Applied Research Associates
Structure I Course Code: ARCH 208 Dr. Aeid A. Abdulrazeg.
Structure I Course Code: ARCH 208 Dr. Aeid A. Abdulrazeg
2019 NRRA Preventive Pavement Workshop
ETF Emulsion/Residue Testing Program
Recovery Method Comparison
ETF Rejuvenator Task Force
NCHRP Project Update: A Calibrated and Validated National Performance-Related Specification for Emulsified Asphalt Binder Greg Harder AASHTO TSP•2.
Rethinking PP Timing Strategies
Emulsion Task Force (ETF) Meeting
TSP2 - ETF Meeting ETF Indianapolis, IN June 12-13, 2019
ХВТ Fracturing fluid.
Presentation transcript:

Emulsion Task Force Meeting Scrub Seal Update Andrew Hanz Mathy Construction Emulsion Task Force Meeting Indianapolis, IN June 21, 2018

Subcommittee Membership Codrin Daranga Andy Clayton Hussain Bahia Ken Gryzbowski Jeff Schoger Kevin Carlson Katy Fleury

Why have a specification? Scrub seal is being used effectively throughout the US. All based on proprietary specifications. Universal specification Reduces confusion Promotes competition Promotes innovation

Components of the Materials Spec Polymer Modified Rejuvenating Emulsion Emulsion Emulsion Residue Rejuvenating Agent Polymer Aggregate Gradation Quality Requirements

Why was the spec. pulled back Why was the spec. pulled back? Emulsion Residue Properties – Polymer Identification Original Proposed test was MSCR %R, 3.2kPa at 10C >55%. Elastomeric Systems Test could not differentiate between PMAs and CRS-2. Test temperature too low and material too stiff. Solution: MSCR at 52°C and 0.1kPa Non-Elastomeric Systems MSCR or other elasticity test does not identify polymer presence. Solution: TBD

Scrub Seal vs Conventional Chip Seal Emulsions DSR at 52°C MSCR %R 0.1 %R 3.2 G*/sind delta 10 52 58 CMS-2P 2.86 77 75.5% 29.9% 19.4% 68.3% 8.7% 3.0% CRS-2 3.228 85.3 63.0% 4.2% -0.4% 61.1% 0.8% 0.0% CRS-2P 4.494 74.4 77.7% 48.7% 47.7% 69.8% 26.8% 14.0% HFRS-2 5.13 76.8 79.5% 61.8% 53.9% 72.3% 10.5% 3.4% HFRS-2P 5.228 66.8 86.4% 83.0% 80.7% 78.4% 59.7% 35.0%

Emulsion Specification Table - Elastomeric   PMREa Grade Min Max Tests on residue from distillationd:    Penetration, 4°C (39°F), 200 g, 60 s, 0.1 mm 40 Or G* at 4°C 10 rad/s, 1% strain at TBD Elastic Recovery, 25C T301 50?    OR MSCR Percent Recovery at 0.1 kPa, 52°C (50°F), % 20 —    Ash Content, % 1    Viscosity, 60°C (140°F), Pa∙S 500 Or Jnr at 52°C 4.5?? D Residue preparation for testing may use the alternate methods, R 78, ASTM D7403, or ASTM D7944, so as not to negatively affect the properties of any polymer modifiers contained therein

Motivation for Changes Allow “Old” and “New” Test Methods Old: Penetration, viscosity, elastic recovery New: All DSR based Why? – Testing Time and Effort All residue approval tests could be conducted on one machine. Use of moisture balance significantly reduces time.

Next Steps All scrub seal emulsions Elastomeric Systems Evaluate demulsibility requirements. Considering removing from specification or a very high maximum (i.e. 80%) Elastomeric Systems Distribute data table and solicit test results using “Old” and “New” approaches. Non-elastomeric Systems Evaluate NCHRP 9-50 approach for polymer identification.