Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 54


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 53
53 Interaction Plot (fitted means) for %Gmm B M 0 15 94.1 Temp 110 130 93.3 150 Temp 170 92.5 94.1 Binder B M 93.3 Binder 92.5 RAP Figure 33. Interaction plot of RAP, binder, and temperature on %Gmm. temperature also shows that the effect of the RAP was greater and analysis was to determine whether the low temperature at higher compaction temperatures. mix properties were affected by the compaction tempera- ture. If an effect was detected, then the results would be analyzed to assess the potential that the change was due to Indirect Tensile Creep Compliance and Strength binder degradation. Gyratory specimens compacted at the four compaction Creep compliance results are summarized in Table 30. temperatures were tested to determine indirect tensile creep Since compliance values are greatly affected by test temper- compliance in accordance with AASHTO T 322. Creep com- ature, separate analyses were performed at each temperature. pliance is the inverse of stiffness. Therefore, at very low tem- Figure 34 through Figure 36 show the change in compliance peratures, a mixture with lower compliance is able to strain values for the modified binders at test temperatures -20C, more and avoid thermal fracture. The goal of this testing -10C, and 0C, respectively. Similarly, Figure 37 through Table 30. Summary of creep compliance results (Dt 90 1 x 10-6 1/kPa) for different compaction temperatures. Test Temp. C -20 -10 0 Comp. Temp. C 110 130 150 170 110 130 150 170 110 130 150 170 Comp. Temp. F 230 266 302 338 230 266 302 338 230 266 302 338 M 85.5 -19.5 0.0770 0.0716 0.0717 0.0661 0.1244 0.1111 0.1340 0.1088 0.3090 0.3001 0.2177 0.1997 N 84.3 -25.5 0.1416 0.1284 0.1077 0.1088 0.3447 0.2106 0.2106 0.1895 0.9503 0.7135 0.4367 0.4355 G 82.5 -24.2 0.1049 0.0834 0.0704 0.0688 0.1595 0.1302 0.1332 0.1006 0.4937 0.3711 0.3191 0.2160 H 78.3 -26.1 0.0851 0.0929 0.0792 0.0706 0.1702 0.1450 0.1678 0.1401 0.5753 0.5835 0.4825 0.2819 C 75.1 -38.7 0.1383 0.1394 0.1682 0.1509 0.3424 0.3527 0.4028 0.3221 1.3254 1.1280 1.1655 0.8607 I 71.8 -29.2 0.2295 0.1712 0.1792 0.1324 0.3237 0.3525 0.3516 0.1324 0.8144 1.0476 0.7209 0.4414 B 69.3 -37.3 0.1847 0.1808 0.1937 0.1926 0.4525 0.2987 0.4698 0.3873 1.6037 1.2855 1.4417 1.0198 F 67.8 -21.3 0.0728 0.0725 0.0527 0.0723 0.1978 0.1881 0.1598 0.1221 0.4417 0.3788 0.3420 0.2619 O 65.6 -29.7 0.1136 0.0737 0.0934 0.0869 0.2123 0.2077 0.1615 0.1493 0.8818 0.5780 0.4572 0.4249 K 65.3 -13.0 0.0580 0.0445 0.0439 0.0407 0.0668 0.0588 0.0551 0.0478 0.1755 0.1288 0.2243 0.1473 J 64.3 -20.7 0.0584 0.0529 0.0509 0.0581 0.0955 0.0795 0.0693 0.0738 0.2154 0.1886 0.1546 0.1691 E 60.9 -33.1 0.1678 0.1341 0.1237 0.1257 0.4213 0.1034 0.4169 0.3110 1.4816 1.2073 1.2343 0.6301 D 60.3 -31.7 0.1130 0.1001 0.0970 0.1034 0.2527 0.2488 0.2022 0.2209 1.1238 0.7832 0.6618 0.6020

OCR for page 53
54 0.25 Dt (90 sec) x 10-6 1/kPa 0.2 B 0.15 C G H 0.1 M N 0.05 0 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 Compaction Temperature C Figure 34. Creep compliance results for modified binders tested at 20C. Figure 39 show the change in compliance for the set of un- low PG true grade of -19.5. This observation confirms modified binders. The compliance results generally follow that a binder's low PG number controls thermal cracking the expected trends: performance. Lower test temperatures yield lower creep compliance From Figure 34 [the lowest test temperature (-20C)], the results (higher stiffness), which means that the mixes modified binders are so stiff that compaction temperature lose their ability to relax thermal strains as the tempera- appears to have a negligible effect. However, for the unmodi- ture decreases. fied binders, shown in Figure 37, most have a slight trend indi- Higher compliance values are generally observed for mixes cating that lower compaction temperatures resulted in slightly having binders with lower low-temperature grades. higher creep compliance values. For example, Mix B, which has a low PG true grade of From Figure 36 and Figure 39, which are plots of the creep -37.3C, is more compliant than Mix M, which has a compliance results at 0C for the modified and unmodified 0.5 Dt (90 sec) x 10-6 1/kPa 0.4 B 0.3 C G H 0.2 M N 0.1 0 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 Compaction Temperature C Figure 35. Creep compliance results for modified binders tested at 10C.

OCR for page 53
55 1.75 1.5 Dt( 90 sec) x 10-6 1/Kpa 1.25 B C 1 G H 0.75 M 0.5 N 0.25 0 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 Compaction Temperature C Figure 36. Creep compliance results for modified binders tested at 0C. binders respectively, it can be seen that the compliance drops tistically significant factors on compliance results. This analy- substantially for some binders, including Binders B, C, and N sis is shown in Table 31. As the data in Table 32 and Table 33 of the modified binder set, and Binders E, D, O, and I for the show, the same is true at the other creep compliance tempera- unmodified binders. These binders are the ones with the low- tures. However, the magnitude of the F-statistic for com- est low temperature grades. This indicates that the binders with paction temperature relative to the F-statistic for Binder ID is the lowest low temperature PG grades are more susceptible to much greater for the test results at 0C, which indicates that the a loss of compliance due to overheating. creep compliance test at this temperature is more sensitive to An ANOVA of creep compliance at -20C with all binders the compaction temperature. Therefore, compaction temper- confirmed that compaction temperature and binder ID are sta- ature does have a significant effect on low temperature prop- 0.25 Dt (90 sec) x10-6 1/kPa 0.2 D E 0.15 F I 0.1 J K O 0.05 0 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 Compaction Temperature C Figure 37. Creep compliance results for unmodified binders tested at 20C.

OCR for page 53
56 0.5 0.4 Dt (90 sec) x10-6 1/kPa D E 0.3 F I 0.2 J K O 0.1 0 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 Compaction Temperature C Figure 38. Creep compliance results for unmodified binders tested at 10C. erties of the mixtures. Increasing the mixing and compaction the original low critical temperature of the binder and how hot temperatures can reduce the ability of a mixture to dissipate the mix was heated. thermal stresses. Following the indirect tensile creep tests, the specimens Figure 40 illustrates a relationship between the creep were tested to determine tensile strengths. Tensile strength compliance results at 0C and binder low PG grade and com- tests were initially conducted at -20C. However, a few spec- paction temperature. This graph shows the strong relation- imens reached the maximum load cell capacity of the IDT ship between the low PG grade and creep compliance, but system, so the remaining tests were conducted at -10C. The also shows the influence of compaction temperature on this tensile strength results are summarized in Table 34. relationship. The main point of this figure is that mixing and An ANOVA on this data, shown in Table 35, indicates that compaction temperatures influence the potential for low tem- the binder ID, compaction temperature, and their inter- perature cracking, but the magnitude of the effect depends on action have significant effects on the tensile strengths. The 1.75 1.5 Dt (90 sec) x10-6 1/kPa D 1.25 E 1 F I 0.75 J K 0.5 O 0.25 0 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 Compaction Temperature C Figure 39. Creep compliance results for unmodified binders tested at 0C.

OCR for page 53
Table 31. ANOVA for creep compliance at 20C. Factor Type Levels Values Binder fixed 13 B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,M,N,O CompT fixed 4 110,130,150,170 Analysis of Variance for Creep -20, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Binder 12 0.1006398 0.1006398 0.0083866 42.98 0.000 CompT 3 0.0031606 0.0031606 0.0010535 5.40 0.004 Error 36 0.0070239 0.0070239 0.0001951 Total 51 0.1108243 Table 32. ANOVA for creep compliance at 10C. Factor Type Levels Values Binder fixed 13 B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,M,N,O CompT fixed 4 110,130,150,170 Analysis of Variance for Creep -10, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Binder 12 0.570865 0.570865 0.047572 18.66 0.000 CompT 3 0.028798 0.028798 0.009599 3.77 0.019 Error 36 0.091769 0.091769 0.002549 Total 51 0.691432 Table 33. ANOVA for creep compliance at 0C. Factor Type Levels Values Binder fixed 13 B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,M,N,O CompT fixed 4 110,130,150,170 Analysis of Variance for Creep 0, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Binder 12 7.08764 7.08764 0.59064 35.14 0.000 CompT 3 0.88120 0.88120 0.29373 17.48 0.000 Error 36 0.60509 0.60509 0.01681 Total 51 8.57393 2 y = 0.0615e-0.0882x 1.8 R2 = 0.8207 110 1.6 y = 0.0517e-0.0881x 130 Creep Compliance x10-6 1/kPa R2 = 0.8108 150 1.4 y = 0.0493e-0.0855x 170 1.2 R2 = 0.8206 1 y = 0.0456e-0.078x 0.8 R2 = 0.871 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 PG Low True Grade Figure 40. Graph of relationships between low PG grade, compaction temperature, and IDT creep compliance at 0C.

OCR for page 53
58 Table 34. Summary of indirect tensile strengths (MPa). Test Temp. C -20 -10 Comp. Temp. C 110 130 150 170 110 130 150 170 Comp. Temp. F 230 266 302 388 230 266 302 388 Avg. 3.57 3.44 3.81 3.46 M 85.5 -19.5 St. Dev. 0.10 0.23 0.22 0.54 Avg. 2.67 3.20 3.04 3.12 N 84.3 -25.5 St. Dev. 0.25 0.29 0.10 0.19 Avg. 2.95 3.56 4.05 3.51 G 82.5 -24.2 St. Dev. 0.55 0.51 0.10 0.52 Avg. 3.89 3.62 3.74 3.09 H 78.3 -26.1 St. Dev. 0.15 0.34 0.39 0.82 Avg. 2.82 2.78 2.96 3.08 C 75.1 -38.7 St. Dev. 0.09 0.39 0.11 0.16 Avg. 2.71 2.63 2.64 2.84 I 71.8 -29.2 St. Dev. 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.20 Avg. 2.99 4.08 3.81 3.39 B 69.3 -37.3 St. Dev. 0.72 0.11 0.18 0.74 Avg. 3.26 3.54 3.68 3.82 F 67.8 -21.3 St. Dev. 0.21 0.43 0.35 0.17 Avg. 2.83 3.14 3.97 3.73 O 65.6 -29.7 St. Dev. 0.20 0.39 0.17 0.60 Avg. 3.14 3.83 3.74 3.79 K 65.3 -13.0 St. Dev. * 0.07 0.23 ** Avg. 3.52 3.31 3.74 3.76 J 64.3 -20.7 St. Dev. 0.35 0.28 0.27 0.07 Avg. 2.78 2.75 2.75 2.95 E 60.9 -33.1 St. Dev. 0.15 0.28 0.29 0.28 Avg. 3.43 3.48 3.64 3.49 D 60.3 -31.7 St. Dev. 0.57 0.43 0.29 0.25 * only one tensile strength result, ** only two tensile strength results interaction plot (Figure 41) shows that there were no consis- have compaction temperature as a significant effect on tent trends. Compaction temperature seems to have different tensile strength. For Binder K, a Tukey's multiple comparison effects on tensile strengths for the different binders. For exam- ( = 0.05) of tensile strengths at the four temperatures showed ple, a few binders show a peak in tensile strength at 130C or that the tensile strength at 110C was significantly lower than 150C, others show lower tensile strengths in the middle of for the other temperatures. However, this data set had a very the temperature range, and others show tensile strengths limited number of samples. For Binder O, the tensile strengths increasing throughout the compaction temperature range. at 110C were significantly lower than the other temperatures, The data were further analyzed for each binder separately and the tensile strength at 130C was significantly lower than to evaluate the significance of compaction temperature. In 150C, but not significantly different than 170C. Overall, the these separate analyses, only Binders K and O were found to tensile strength results varied from binder to binder such that Table 35. ANOVA for indirect tensile strength at 10C. Factor Type Levels Values Binder fixed 11 C,D,E,F,H,I,J,K,M,N,O Temp fixed 4 110,130,150,170 Analysis of Variance for TS, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P Binder 10 17.87942 16.67716 1.66772 17.74 0.000 Temp 3 1.77062 1.84765 0.61588 6.55 0.000 Mix*Temp 30 6.20140 6.20140 0.20671 2.20 0.002 Error 100 9.40024 9.40024 0.09400 Total 143 35.25169 S = 0.306598 R-Sq = 73.33% R-Sq (adj) = 61.87%