Variability of Ignition Furnace Correction Factors (2017)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

B-1 Summary States Test Method Compared with AASHTO T 308 State: Arizona Test Method – ARIZ 427a Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 • Separate test method for mixes containing RAP (ARIZ 428) • Test sample must be within ±150 g of calibration sample mass • Sample size uses a range based on NMAS • If calibration factor exceeds 1.0% at 1,000°F, repeat test at 900°F. If calibration factor exceeds 1.0% at 900°F, repeat at 800°F. If calibration factor exceeds 1.0% at 800°F, use calibration factor measured at 800°F • Uses a coarse and fine sieve factor in determining final gradation results State: Colorado Test Method – Colorado Procedure – Laboratory 5120-15 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 • Sample size uses a range based on NMAS • Contains multiple calculations when using RAP • Contains separate single-operator and multi-laboratory precision values for virgin (0.15/0.30) and RAP mixes (0.20/0.40) State: Florida Test Method – FM-5-563 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 • Sample size based on mixture type • Aggregate correction factors for the #8 and #200 sieves are required if the asphalt correction factor is greater than 0.50% • Testing precision based on field or laboratory prepared samples State: Indiana Test Method – ITM 586-11T Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 • If dolomite is used in the mix, 800°F (427°C) may be used for the calibration test State: Kansas Test Method – KT-57 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 • Test samples shall not be more than 400 g greater than maximum recommended mass • Calibration factor cannot be less than 0. If measured to be less than 0, it is recorded as 0 • Residual gradation analysis compared to blank sample is for information only • Performs test at 500°C • Sample is allowed to cool to room temperature before testing • Calculates AC content % differently based on Superpave or Marshall State: Montana Test Method – MT 319-14 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 • Test samples shall not be more than 400 g greater than maximum recommended mass State: Nevada Test Method – Nev. T761G Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 • New calibration factor required when AC content % change is ±0.4 A p p e n d i x B Summary of State Test Methods Compared with AASHTO T 308

B-2 • New calibration factor required when aggregate bin % change is ±4.0 • Calibration factor verified weekly State: Oklahoma Test Method – OHD L-26 (Method A) Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 • Minimum sample size slightly different, and based on maxi- mum aggregate size (not NMAS) • Mandates a new asphalt correction factor every 50,000 tons per mix State: Texas Test Method – TEX-236-F Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 • Sample size uses a range based on mixture type • Calculates asphalt correction factor based on six test samples; two at design optimum AC content and two at ±0.5% design optimum AC content • Test samples can be reheated at 250°F for 30 min, but not for longer than 1 h • Test samples shall not be more than 400 g greater than maxi- mum recommended mass • Contains recommended sample masses for measuring RAP and RAS asphalt content • Use of a fan to aid in sample cooling after removing from ignition furnace prohibited State: Virginia Test Method – Virginia Test Method 102 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 • Test ends when mass loss does not exceed 0.02% for 2 consecutive minutes • Test samples can be reheated at 125°C for 25 min • Mixes with unusually high calibration factors can be tested at 900°F, as approved by the engineer, but method does not specify the threshold value • Contains procedure for slurry seal and micro-surfacing • Contains procedure for RAP asphalt content determination • Single-operator and multi-laboratory precision values 0.11% and 0.17%, respectively • No gradation correction factor State: Wisconsin Test Method – WisDOT Modified AASHTO T 308 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 • Lists specified number of testing increments for minimum specimen size (e.g., 3,000 g = three 1,000 g test samples) • Samples tested at 482°C • Contains a production/reflux method for calculating cor- rection factor using field samples Province: Ontario Test Method – MTO LS-292 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 • Test method is modified version of ASTM D6307 Province: Saskatchewan Test Method – STP 204-27 Differences compared to AASHTO T 308 • Test procedure only used for 9.5 or 12.5 mm NMAS mix types • Samples tested at 540 ± 5°C • Calibration factor measured from average of three samples mixed at design asphalt content