Superpave Implementation Across Canada ( ) Results from the 2001 Canadian Superpave Implementation Tracking Study (C-SITS) Steve Goodman C-SHRP Program Manager

Overview C-SHRP and Superpave Past C-SHRP Implementation Surveys 2001 Survey Methodology Results Summary Some Current SP Research The Future of C-SHRP and Superpave

C-SHRP and Superpave Considerable attention from C-SHRP as major product of SHRP  Equipment purchase assistance  Test roads at Lamont, Hearst and Sherbrooke (low temp. cracking)  1998 Briefing Tour  Canadian Directory of Resources  Technical briefs, technical briefs and more technical briefs  Implementation surveys

Past Implementation Surveys 1998 Provincial Agency Survey  Conducted by C-SHRP and Golder Associates  3 Parts  Superpave testing capability  Implementation Plans  Supply and Construction  Main conclusions  Implementation much slower than US  Some concerns with technology  Some agencies to implement by 2000/01

Past Implementation Surveys 1999 University Curriculum Study  Survey sent to all Canadian university Civil Engineering Depts. and some technical colleges  13 of 30 responses  All 13 offered some form of Superpave instruction  Some specific courses, mostly added to existing courses  All provinces covered except BC

2001 C-SITS Survey Expanded distribution  Provincial and territorial transportation agencies  Numerous municipalities 2 Parts  Part 1 – Total tonnages by year  Full Superpave  PG Binders with Marshall Design  Part 2 – Detailed Project level data

2001 C-SITS Survey Part 1 Questions  Tonnages placed  Full Superpave (as per AI/AASHTO)  PG Binder with Marshall Design  Has your Agency adopted SP? If not, why?  Construction Concerns?  Tenderness, Compaction, Segregation, Pickup, Stripping  Average % increase in cost for SP asphalt  Is cost justified?

2001 C-SITS Survey Responses  41 responses (20%)  10 provinces, 1 federal, 30 municipalities  19 agencies have experimented with Superpave mix design  All 10 provinces, federal, 8 municipalities  Many of the large municipalities responded  Expected that unresponsive agencies do not have experience

How Much Down? 4.13 million tonnes

4.13 million tonnes Full Superpave 28.3 million tonnes PG Binder with Marshall design

Tonnages Placed ProvinceTonnes Placed (Full SP) MOT/DOTMunicipal% Municipal BC , AB1,436,900210, SK5000* MB3, ON18,0002, QC**1,934, NB104, NS26, PEI000.0 NF000.0

Municipal Users MunicipalityTonnes of Superpave Placed ( ) City of Surrey, BC96,290 City of Vancouver, BC270,000 City of Edmonton, AB45,100 City of Calgary, AB165,500 City of Regina, SK23,187 Municipality of Durham, ON 2,500

How Many Agencies Have Adopted SP? None.

Why Not? Limited experience with mix design and testing. Performance still under evaluation. Mixed results to date. Used only for high traffic areas. Scarcity of acceptable aggregates (costs related to aggregate production). Want to gain experience with PG binders first. Want to ensure that Superpave does not exclude materials that have provided good performance in the past.

Why Not? Technical issues  FAA test  Restricted Zone  Software Absence of performance related test. Concern with industry’s testing and mix design ability and capacity. Waiting for acceptance/adoption by Province. High cost of testing equipment

Why Not? Low Benefit:Cost Ratio. Current mixes perform well against rutting. Only low temp cracking a concern (PG binders have improved situation) Will eventually replace Marshall, but gradually.

Construction Concerns? ConcernNo. of Agencies YesNo Tenderness811 Compaction Difficulty 613 Segregation514 Roller Pickup109 Stripping217

Concerns Remedied with Experience? Mostly “Yes” Comments  Insufficient experience  Handwork difficult  Increased pickup with modified binders (one agency removed rubber tired roller from job)  Some increased segregation with >25mm NMAS mixes

Tonnages Placed ProvinceMOT/DOTMunicipality BC 5-10%Undetermined AB $1 per tonne (non-PG binder) 0-10% (Calgary) 15% (Edmonton) SK n/a MB 25-30% (PG Binder w/ Marshall) ON Undetermined QC* 0-5% NB n/a NS 0% Field 75% PG testing PEI n/a NF n/a

Survey Summary 2.6 million more tonnes of SP since 1998  Much faster implementation rate Municipalities are experimenting with and using Superpave Only one agency has adopted SP mix design Many agencies have adopted PG binder spec  West has good crude, use CAN-CGSB specs Experience has reduced construction problems

Survey Summary Canadian agencies will likely adopt Superpave  Some outstanding technical issues  Concerns about performance of test sections  Waiting for performance test  Need industry experience and capacity

Some SP Related Work New RAP Guidelines for SP (NCHRP Research Results 253) NCAT report on Restricted Zone  Should be a “Caution Zone” or Eliminated Entirely Simple Performance Test soon (NCHRP 9-19 and 9-29)  Dynamic Modulus (E*)??? NCHRP Report on Modified Binders (NCHRP 459) Testing and Inspection Levels for HMAC (NCHRP 447) Ndesign Table Literature Review (NCHRP Web Doc) Many online through TRB at and NCAT

The Future of C-SHRP and Superpave Continue collecting survey information  Look at Part II information with time Technical Briefs  Superpave vs. SMA?  Results of MTQ/LCPC/Heritage Research Experiment  Any other new technologies/procedures from NCHRP projects Second Superpave Briefing Tour?  May tie in with AASHTO 2002