3.  The objective of this task is to develop a mix design procedure for the various types of FDR  Determine what works and what does not work  Each type of FDR has separate mix design

4. ◦ Unstabilized ◦ Mechanically stabilized with virgin aggregate ◦ Stabilized FDR with Portland Cement ◦ Stabilized FDR with Fly Ash ◦ Stabilized FDR with Asphalt Emulsion ◦ Stabilized FDR with Asphalt Emulsion with 1% Lime ◦ Stabilized FDR with Foamed Asphalt with 1% Portland Cement (2% Portland Cement)

5. ◦ Source: Good and Poor ◦ Quality: Dirty and Clean ◦ RAP: 0, 25, 50, and 75%

6. FDR SourceGradation FDR Type UnstabilizedStabilized with PC (3, 5, 7 %) Stabilized with Fly Ash (10, 12, 15 %) Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion (3, 4.5, 6 %) Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion (3, 4.5, 6 %)+ Lime Stabilized with Foamed Asphalt (2.5, 3, 3.5 %) + PC Poor Dirty-Moisture-density curve -Mr and CBR -Moisture-density curve - Compressive strength -Moisture sensitivity -Moisture-density curve - Compressive strength -Moisture sensitivity -Superpave Gyratory - Bulk density using Corelok - Maximum density using Corelok -Moisture conditioning -Superpave Gyratory - Bulk density using Corelok - Maximum density using Corelok -Moisture conditioning -Superpave Gyratory - Moisture-density curve (use results of unstabilized) - Bulk density using Corelok - Maximum density using Corelok -Moisture conditioning Clean-Moisture-density curve -Mr and CBR -Moisture-density curve - Compressive strength -Moisture sensitivity -Moisture-density curve - Compressive strength -Moisture sensitivity -Superpave Gyratory - Bulk density using Corelok - Maximum density using Corelok -Moisture conditioning -Superpave Gyratory - Bulk density using Corelok - Maximum density using Corelok -Moisture conditioning -Superpave Gyratory - Moisture-density curve (use results of unstabilized) - Bulk density using Corelok - Maximum density using Corelok -Moisture conditioning Good Dirty-Moisture-density curve -Mr and CBR -Moisture-density curve - Compressive strength -Moisture sensitivity -Moisture-density curve - Compressive strength -Moisture sensitivity -Superpave Gyratory - Bulk density using Corelok - Maximum density using Corelok -Moisture conditioning -Superpave Gyratory - Bulk density using Corelok - Maximum density using Corelok -Moisture conditioning -Superpave Gyratory - Moisture-density curve (use results of unstabilized) - Bulk density using Corelok - Maximum density using Corelok -Moisture conditioning Clean-Moisture-density curve -Mr and CBR -Moisture-density curve - Compressive strength -Moisture sensitivity -Moisture-density curve - Compressive strength -Moisture sensitivity -Superpave Gyratory - Bulk density using Corelok - Maximum density using Corelok -Moisture conditioning -Superpave Gyratory - Bulk density using Corelok - Maximum density using Corelok -Moisture s conditioning -Superpave Gyratory - Moisture-density curve (use results of unstabilized) - Bulk density using Corelok - Maximum density using Corelok -Moisture conditioning

7. Testing of Mechanically Stabilized FDR Mixes Resilient Modulus Testing California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Testing

8. Testing of Portland Cement/Fly Ash Stabilized FDR Mixes Unconfined Compression TestingTube Suction Testing

9. Testing of Portland Cement/Fly Ash Stabilized FDR Mixes Moisture Sensitivity Testing with Wire Brush Method Tested Samples

10. Testing of Asphalt Emulsion/ Foamed Asphalt FDR Mixes SuperPave Gyratory Compactor Foamed Asphalt Lab

11. Testing of Asphalt Emulsion/ Foamed Asphalt FDR Mixes CoreLok Device Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) Testing

13.  Strength: ◦ Mr and CBR for unstabilized ◦ UCS for cement and fly ash stabilized ◦ ITS for foamed and emulsion stabilized  Moisture Susceptibility ◦ Tube Suction and ASTM D559(wire brush test)  For cement and fly ash stabilized ◦ AASHTO T-283 (freeze thaw cycle)  For foamed and emulsion stabilized

14.  What works and what does not  What criteria to implement  Repeatability and reliability  Does the measurement make engineering sense

19.  RAP 25% and 50% content did not significantly impact the Mr  The 75% RAP improved the Mr of the Poor source  Relationship between Mr and CBR is un- reliable for FDR: Use Mr

20.  FDR+PC & FDR+FA ◦ Dry UC:300 – 400 psi ◦ Tube Suction:max 9  FDR+Foamed & FDR+Emulsion ◦ Dry TS at 77F:min 30 psi ◦ TS Ratio:min. 70%

21. Material%PCDry UC (psi)Tube Suction GC-25%52834.6 GC-50%74074.6 GC-75%74093.9 GD-25%33526.3 GD-50%54135.3 GD-75%73745.9 PC-25%32956.2 PC-50%53794.0 PC-75%52567.1 PD-25%34545.5 PD-50%34213.1 PD-75%54093.6

22.  UC strength between 300 and 400 psi is achievable in most cases  Higher UCS with higher PC content in all cases  Variability of the UCS test is acceptable  Tube suction test may be applicable

23. Specimen ID Average % loss Poor Clean 75% Rap 5% CEM0.9% Poor Clean 50% Rap 5% CEM0.6% Poor Clean 25% Rap 3% CEM1.5% Poor Clean 25% Rap 12% FA2.1% Poor Clean 50% Rap 12% FA1.0% Poor Clean 75% Rap 10% FA1.6% Good Dirty 25% Rap 3% CEM2.6% Good Dirty 50% Rap 5% CEM1.4% Good Dirty 75% Rap 7% CEM1.0% Good Dirty 75% Rap 10% FA4.1% Good Dirty 50% Rap 10% FA5.4% Good Dirty 25% Rap 12% FA4.7% Good Clean 75% Rap 7% Cem0.7% Good Clean 50% Rap 7% Cem0.6% Good Clean 25% Rap 5% Cem0.7% Good Clean 75% Rap 12% FA9.6% Good Clean 50% Rap 12% FAfailed sample Good Clean 25% Rap 12% FA12.4% Poor Dirty 75% Rap 5% CEM1.5% Poor Dirty 50% Rap 3% CEM12.9% Poor Dirty 25% Rap 3% CEM11.1% Poor Dirty 75% Rap 15% FA12.5% Poor Dirty 50% Rap 15% FA7.5% Poor Dirty 25% Rap 15% FA6.7% Stabilized with PC ASTM D559(wire brush test)

24. Material%FADry UC (psi)Tube Suction GC-25%128955.1 GC-50%123624.1 GC-75%123354.6 GD-25%1057910.6 GD-50%104127.1 GD-75%123309.2 PC-25%105586.0 PC-50%124046.5 PC-75%123275.6 PD-25%151706.9 PD-50%151599.8 PD-75%15639.2

25.  UC strength between 300 and 400 psi is achievable except for the Poor-Dirty material  Higher UCS with higher FA in most cases  Variability of the UCS is acceptable  Tube suction test may be applicable

26. Specimen ID Average % loss Poor Clean 75% Rap 5% CEM0.9% Poor Clean 50% Rap 5% CEM0.6% Poor Clean 25% Rap 3% CEM1.5% Poor Clean 25% Rap 12% FA2.1% Poor Clean 50% Rap 12% FA1.0% Poor Clean 75% Rap 10% FA1.6% Good Dirty 25% Rap 3% CEM2.6% Good Dirty 50% Rap 5% CEM1.4% Good Dirty 75% Rap 7% CEM1.0% Good Dirty 75% Rap 10% FA4.1% Good Dirty 50% Rap 10% FA5.4% Good Dirty 25% Rap 12% FA4.7% Good Clean 75% Rap 7% Cem0.7% Good Clean 50% Rap 7% Cem0.6% Good Clean 25% Rap 5% Cem0.7% Good Clean 75% Rap 12% FA9.6% Good Clean 50% Rap 12% FAfailed sample Good Clean 25% Rap 12% FA12.4% Poor Dirty 75% Rap 5% CEM1.5% Poor Dirty 50% Rap 3% CEM12.9% Poor Dirty 25% Rap 3% CEM11.1% Poor Dirty 75% Rap 15% FA12.5% Poor Dirty 50% Rap 15% FA7.5% Poor Dirty 25% Rap 15% FA6.7% Stabilized with FA ASTM D559(wire brush test)

27. Material%EmulsionDry TS(psi)Wet TS(psi)TSR (%) NO LIME GD-25%4.5411537 GD-50%4.5472043 GD-75%4.5462146 PD-25%4.530Disintegrate PD-50%4.550Disintegrate PD-75%4.551Disintegrate 1% LIME GD-25%4.5452760 GD-50%4.5373286 GD-75%4.5443170 PD-25%4.5221359 PD-50%4.5381745 PD-75%4.5341956

28.  Could not produce a design using the clean materials: too little fines  The ITS is a good indicator  The repeatability of the ITS is very good  Lime was effective

29. Material%ACDry TS(psi)Wet TS(psi)TSR (%) GC-25%3.0*534381 GC-50%3.0*514180 GC-75%3.0*584578 GD-25%3.5453476 GD-50%3.5444398 GD-75%3.5514282 PC-25%3.5543259 PC-50%3.5534075 PC-75%3.5483369 PD-25%3.0432660 PD-50%3.0482960 PD-75%3.0553564

30.  Could not design without the PC  The ITS is a good indicator  The repeatability of the ITS is very good

32.  The objective of this task is to develop a laboratory testing procedure to address material properties needed to support practical pavement design. The focus will be on developing standard test methods to be used specifically for AASHTO related pavement designs.  The FDR process produces a layer that will be modeled as a base course within the structure of a flexible pavement. Task 5 – Development of Standard Laboratory Testing Method

33. FDR SourceGradation FDR Type UnstabilizedStabilized with PC at optimum % Stabilized with Fly Ash at optimum % Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion at optimum % Stabilized with Asphalt Emulsion (at optimum %)+ Lime Stabilized with Foamed Asphalt (at optimum %) + PC Poor Dirty- Resilient Modulus - CBR - Compressive Strength - Modulus of Rupture - Compressive Strength - Modulus of Rupture - E* Master Curve - Repeated Load Triaxial - E* Master Curve - Repeated Load Triaxial - E* Master Curve - Repeated Load Triaxial Clean- Resilient Modulus - CBR - Compressive Strength - Modulus of Rupture - Compressive Strength - Modulus of Rupture - E* Master Curve - Repeated Load Triaxial - E* Master Curve - Repeated Load Triaxial - E* Master Curve - Repeated Load Triaxial Good Dirty- Resilient Modulus - CBR - Compressive Strength - Modulus of Rupture - Compressive Strength - Modulus of Rupture - E* Master Curve - Repeated Load Triaxial - E* Master Curve - Repeated Load Triaxial - E* Master Curve - Repeated Load Triaxial Clean- Resilient Modulus - CBR - Compressive Strength - Modulus of Rupture - Compressive Strength - Modulus of Rupture - E* Master Curve - Repeated Load Triaxial - E* Master Curve - Repeated Load Triaxial - E* Master Curve - Repeated Load Triaxial

34.  Resilient Modulus  Dynamic Modulus  E* Master Curve  Repeated Load Triaxial Simple Performance Tester (SPT)

35. Frequency (Hz) Dynamic Modulus (kPa) Phase Angle (Deg) Average Temp. (C) Average Conf. Press. (kPa) Load Drift (%) Deformation Drift (%) Std. Error for Load (%) Std. Error for Deforms (%) Uniformity Coef. For Deforms (%) Uniformity Coef. For Phase Angles (Deg) 25244873426.336.901.0212.758.437.239.880 10174247526.7336.80-2.91.0819.2714.310.40.37 5150483525.3336.60-0.045.98.866.849.620.47 1963524.623.1936.50-1.8911.6410.487.720.86 0.5812014.921.9736.50-2.0715.179.928.286.070.66 0.1592362.418.0436.40-3.912.944.185.324.930.34 Date:9/9/2008 Specimen Gauge Length (mm):70 Specimen Dia. (mm):100 Specimen Height. (mm):150 Cross Sec. Area (mm 2 )7853.98 Test Temp (C):36.4 Conf. Pres. (kPa):0 Dynamic Modulus Results

36. E* Master Curve

37. Foamed Asphalt Specimen: Poor Dirty Gradation with 75% RAP CoreLok for specific gravity determination. Testing of Asphalt Emulsion/ Foamed Asphalt FDR Mixes

40. Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)

51. Mix Designs  Sampling of Materials ◦ Locations ◦ Quantities  Processing of FDR Materials  Mix Design Properties for each FDR Type  Mix Design Process ◦ Test Methods ◦ Necessary modifications (if required)  Mix Design Criteria  Selection of Optimum Mix Designs  AASHTO Standards

52. Performance Properties of FDR Materials  Selected Properties for each FDR Type  Selected Test Methods ( including any necessary modifications )  Data Analysis from each Test Method  Use of Data Measured from the Performance Testing ◦ AASHTO 1993 Pavement Design ◦ AASHTO MEPDG  AASHTO Standards