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.
58 Appendix B provides a summary of the field performance of HMA and WMA pavements in terms of transverse crack- ing, wheel-path longitudinal cracking, and rut depth for this project. B.1 Transverse Cracking Table B1.1 summarizes the transverse crack lengths for the HMA and WMA pavement sections for each project in terms of climate zone. Three 200-ft sections were selected for each HMA and WMA pavement, and the averaged crack lengths and standard deviations (s) are presented. The transverse crack length comparisons between the HMA and WMA pave- ments are based on a t-test statistical method with a signifi- cance level of 0.05. B.2 Wheel-Path Longitudinal Cracking Tables B2.1 (a) through (d) provide summaries of the wheel-path longitudinal cracking lengths for the HMA and WMA pavement sections for each project in terms of the four climate zones. The means of the crack lengths and standard deviations (s) are presented. The wheel-path longitudinal crack length comparisons between the HMA and WMA pave- ments are based on a t-test statistical method with a signifi- cance level of 0.05. B.3 Rutting Tables B3.1 (a) through (d) provide summaries of the in-service rutting of the HMA and WMA pavement sections for each project in terms of the four climate zones. The rut depth comparisons between the HMA and WMA pavement are based on a practical criterion of 1â16 inch. B.4 Field Performance Comparison among WMA Technologies Tables B4.1 through B4.3 provide summaries of the field performance comparisons among different WMA pavement sections for each project. Only projects that have two WMA technologies or more are included. The projects where field per- formance was not available have not been included. The wheel- path comparisons between any two WMA pavements are based on a t-test statistical method with a significance level of 0.05. A P P E N D I X B Summary of Field Performance
(b) Wet No-Freeze Zone Project Mix Type First-Round Survey Results Second-Round Survey ResultsMean, ft/200 ft r Comparison Mean, ft/200 ft r Comparison SC US 178 HMA 66.3 11.6 - 79.7 3.8 - Evotherm 108.7 23.2 H=W 121 23.8 H<W TN SR 46 HMA Danley 0.0 0.0 - 4.0 6.9 - DBG 3.7 6.4 - 16.3 6.8 - HMA Franklin 1.7 2.9 - 2.7 4.6 - Sasobit 6.0 5.3 - 61.0 15.0 - Evotherm 2.3 4.0 - 7.0 7.0 - Advera 11.3 13.3 30.8 20.9 TX FM 324 HMA 0.0 0.0 H=W 7.4 8.0 - Sasobit 0.0 0.0 H=W 5.3 6.8 H=W Evotherm 0.0 0.0 H=W 8.0 7.0 H=W Rediset - - - - - - Advera - - - - - - LA 116 HMA 53.7 14.4 - 74.0 13.2Foaming 56.7 38.1 H=W 87.0 47.1 H=W LA 3191 HMA 85.7 2.5 109.0 6.6Foaming 56.0 25.2 H=W 84.3 33.5 H=W LA 3121 HMA 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.5 Evotherm 15% RAP 35.3 7.0 H<W 72.7 26.4 H<W Evotherm 30% RAP 0.0 0.0 H=W 6.7 11.5 H=W TN SR 125 HMA - - - 169.3 39.5 Evotherm - - - 159.3 58.5 H=W LA US 61 HMA - - - 34.7 19.7 Sasobit - - - 32.7 19.7 H=W Evotherm - - - 5.7 3.1 H=W Note: A comparison of the HMA and WMA pavements for the TN SR 46 project was not conducted because this project had very thin overlays. (a) Wet Freeze Zone Project Mix Type First-Round Survey Results Second-Round Survey ResultsMean, ft/200 ft r Comparison Mean, ft/200 ft Comparison MD 925 HMA 9.0 15.6 19.3 29.3Sasobit 22.7 18.0 H=W 43.3 17.8 H=W MO Hall St. HMA 160.0 14.9 196.8 19.7 Sasobit 115.7 20.8 H>W 224.7 39.7 H=W Evotherm 69.0 45.4 H>W 181.2 9.5 H=W Aspha-min 117.0 53.5 H=W 139.3 33.2 H=W MO Rte. CC HMA 78.3 27.9 86 34.0 Evotherm 96.3 34.6 H=W 122 49.7 H=W MN TH 169 HMA 84.3 11.1 110 11.1 Evotherm 45.0 5.6 H>W 101 12.1 H=W OH SR 541 HMA 120.3 57.8 222.0 29.7 Sasobit 54.0 29.5 H=W 134.0 11.1 H>W Evotherm 40.7 26.1 H=W 46.7 25.2 H>W Aspha-min 48.3 13.3 H=W 79.5 12.3 H>W PA SR 2012 HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEA 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W Gencor 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W VA I-66 HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0DBG 0.0 0.0 H=W 3.3 3.5 H=W IL 147 HMA 0.0 0.0 5.7 5.1DBG 0.0 0.0 H=W 6.7 2.3 H=W PA SR 2006 HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sasobit 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.7* 1.2 H=W Advera 0.0 0.0 H=W 1.7* 2.1 H=W IA US 34 HMA - - - 57.3 27.4 Sasobit - - - 58.7 24.1 H=W Evotherm - - - 60.7 16.5 H=W Notes: âHâ is HMA, âWâis WMA, â-â is not available, and âÏâ is standard deviation. *The transverse cracks in the PA SR 2006 project were determined to arise from coring. r Table B1.1. Summary of transverse cracking of in-service pavement projects. (continued on next page)
60 (c) Dry-Freeze Zone Project Mix Type First-Round Survey Results Second-Round Survey ResultsMean, ft/200 ft r Comparison Mean, ft/200 ft r Comparison WA I-90 HMA 25.3 13.9 33.0 12.1Sasobit 6.3 7.8 H=W 13.7 15.8 H=W WA SR 12 HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AquaBlack 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W CO I-70 HMA 59.0 22.6 66.0 9.6 Sasobit 37.7 28.0 H=W 51.0 20.0 H=W Evotherm 0.0 0.0 H>W 8.0 6.9 H>W Advera 9.3 9.5 H>W 21.0 13.1 H=W NE US 14 HMA 0.0 0.0 28.0 14.0 Advera 3.3 5.8 H=W 5.3 7.6 H>W HMA 41.7 19.1 52.0 17.1 Evotherm 0.0 0.0 H=W 8.0 6.9 H>W NV HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Ultrafoam 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W MT I-15 HMA - - - 61.3 11.4 Sasobit - - - 40.0 18.3 H=W Evotherm - - - 47.0 5.6 H=W Foaming - - - 67.0 13.1 H=W (d) Dry No-Freeze Zone Project Mix Type First-Round Survey Results Second-Round Survey ResultsMean, ft/200 ft r Comparison Mean, ft/200 ft r Comparison TX SH 251 HMA 53.7 4.9 61.7 9.6 DBG 48.7 1.2 H=W 57.7 15.0 H=W TX SH 71 HMA - - - - - - Evotherm - - - - - - CA HVS 3a HMA 0.0 0.0 - - - Gencor 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - Evotherm 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - Cecabase 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - CA HVS 3b HMA 0.0 0.0 - - - Sasobit 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - Advera 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - DBG 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - Rediset 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - Table B1.1. (Continued).
61 (b) Wet No-Freeze Zone Project Mix Type First-Round Survey Results Second-Round Survey ResultsMean, ft/200 ft r Comparison Mean, ft/200 ft r Comparison SC US 178 HMA 205.0 8.7 212.0 20.8 Evotherm 200.7 1.2 H=W 200.7 1.2 H=W TN SR 46 HMA Danley 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.2 DBG 0.0 0.0 H=W 28.3 24.9 H=W HMA Franklin 2.3 4.0 31.0 52.0 Sasobit 38.0 24.6 H=W 147.7 64.3 H=W Evotherm 20.3 27.8 H=W 106.3 44.7 H=W Advera 11.3 19.6 H=W 84.3 11.2 H=W TX FM 324 HMA 36.9 25.9 148.5 79.2 Sasobit 129.3 40.2 H=W 155.3 30.4 H=W Evotherm 32.0 26.5 H=W 87.7 65.7 H=W Rediset - - - - - - Advera - - - - - - LA 116 HMA 8.7 9.0 19.3 25.3Foaming 15.0 15.0 H=W 30 42.8 H=W LA 3191 HMA 10.7 18.5 36.0 23.8 Foaming 0.0 0.0 H=W 9.7 11.0 H=W LA 3121 HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Evo 15% RAP 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W Evo 30% RAP 0.0 0.0 H=W 12.0 13.7 H=W TN SR 125 HMA - - - 0.7 1.2 Evotherm - - - 48.3 19.8 H<W LA US 61 HMA - - - 0.0 0.0 Sasobit - - - 0.0 0.0 H=W Evotherm - - - 0.0 0.0 H=W (a) Wet Freeze Zone Project Mix Type First-Round Survey Results Second-Round Survey ResultsMean, ft/200 ft r Comparison Mean, ft/200 ft r Comparison MD 925 HMA 0.0 0.0 39.3 10.4Sasobit 0.0 0.0 H=W 8 7.0 H>W MO Hall St. HMA 0.0 0.0 10.7 9.0 Sasobit 35.7 32.3 H=W 96.7 36.1 H=W Evotherm 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W Aspha-min 200.0 0.0 H<W 200.0 0.0 H<W MO Rte. CC HMA 0.0 0.0 139.7 14.0 Evotherm 0.0 0.0 H=W 47.7 60.0 H=W MN TH 169 HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Evotherm 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W OH SR 541 HMA 125.0 50.7 150.3 53.2 Sasobit 200.3 0.6 H=W 213.7 14.0 H<W Evotherm 76.3 86.3 H=W 171.3 67.0 H=W Aspha-min 235.0 13.2 H<W 284 23.3 H<W PA SR 2012 HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEA 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W Gencor 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W VA I-66 HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0DBG 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W IL 147 HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0DBG 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W PA SR 2006 HMA 0.0 0.0 31.7 24.7 Sasobit 0.0 0.0 H=W 40.0 9.2 H=W Advera 0.0 0.0 H=W 3.7 6.4 H=W IA US 34 HMA - - - 0.0 0.0 Sasobit - - - 0.0 0.0 H=W Evotherm - - - 0.0 0.0 H=W Table B2.1. Summary of wheel-path longitudinal cracking of in-service pavement projects. (continued on next page)
62 (c) Dry-Freeze Zone Project Mix Type First-Round Survey Results Second-Round Survey ResultsMean, ft/200 ft r Comparison Mean, ft/200 ft r Comparison WA I-90 HMA 0.0 0.0 25.3 22.5Sasobit 0.0 0.0 H=W 7.3 12.7 H=W WA SR 12 HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AquaBlack 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W CO I-70 HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sasobit 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W Evotherm 0.0 0.0 H=W 10.0 10.0 H=W Advera 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W NE US 14 HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Advera 0.0 0.0 H=W 2.7 4.6 H=W HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Evotherm 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W NV HMA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Ultrafoam 0.0 0.0 H=W 0.0 0.0 H=W MT I-15 HMA - - - 0.0 0.0 Sasobit - - - 0.0 0.0 H=W Evotherm - - - 0.0 0.0 H=W Foaming - - - 0.0 0.0 H=W (d) Dry No-Freeze Zone Project Mix Type First-Round Survey Results Second-Round Survey ResultsMean, ft/200 ft r Comparison Mean, ft/200 ft r Comparison TX SH 251 HMA 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 DBG 0.0 0.0 H=W 47.3 41.5 H=W TX SH 71 HMA - - - - - - Evotherm - - - - - - CA HVS 3a HMA 0.0 0.0 - - - - Gencor 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - Evotherm 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - Cecabase 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - CA HVS 3b HMA 0.0 0.0 - - - - Sasobit 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - Advera 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - DBG 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - Rediset 0.0 0.0 H=W - - - Table B2.1. (Continued).
63 (a) Wet Freeze Zone Project Mix Type First-Round Survey Results Second-Round Survey ResultsMean, in. r Comparison Mean, in. r Comparison MD 925 HMA - - 0.14 0.02Sasobit - - - 0.12 0.02 H=W MO Hall St. HMA - - 0.10 0.04 Sasobit - - - 0.10 0.02 H=W Evotherm - - - 0.13 0.10 H=W Aspha-min - - - 0.16 0.03 H=W MO Rte. CC HMA - - 0.14 0.03 Evotherm - - - 0.14 0.04 H=W MN TH 169 HMA - - 0.00 0.00 Evotherm - - - 0.00 0.00 H=W OH SR 541 HMA - - 0.08 0.02 Sasobit - - - 0.12 0.05 H=W Evotherm - - - 0.07 0.04 H=W Aspha-min - - - 0.13 0.03 H=W PA SR 2012 HMA - - 0.02 0.01 LEA - - - 0.02 0.01 H=W Gencor - - - 0.02 0.01 H=W VA I-66 HMA - - 0.06 0.02DBG - - - 0.02 0.02 H=W IL 147 HMA - - 0.02 0.02DBG - - - 0.05 0.02 H=W PA SR 2006 HMA - - 0.05 0.03 Sasobit - - - 0.07 0.03 H=W Advera - - - 0.03 0.03 H=W IA US 34 HMA - - 0.09 0.04 Sasobit - - - 0.03 0.02 H>W Evotherm - - - 0.02 0.02 H>W (b) Wet No-Freeze Zone Project Mix Type First-Round Survey Results Second-Round Survey ResultsMean, in. r Comparison Mean, in. r Comparison SC US 178 HMA - - 0.12 0.03 Evotherm - - - 0.10 0.04 H=W TN SR 46 HMA Danley - - 0.10 0.04 DBG - - - 0.11 0.03 H=W HMA Franklin - - - 0.13 0.03 H=W Sasobit - - - 0.16 0.04 H=W Evotherm - - - 0.11 0.03 H=W Advera - - - 0.12 0.03 H=W TX FM 324 HMA - - - 0.16 0.03 H=W Sasobit - - - 0.10 0.02 H=W Evotherm - - - 0.11 0.04 H=W Rediset - - - - - - Advera - - - - - - LA 116 HMA - - 0.02 0.02Foaming - - - 0.02 0.02 H=W LA 3191 HMA - - 0.07 0.03Foaming - - - 0.04 0.03 H=W LA 3121 HMA - - 0.01 0.02 Evotherm 15% RAP - - - 0.01 0.01 H=W Evotherm 30% RAP - - - 0.003 0.01 H=W TN SR 125 HMA - - 0.18 0.04 Evotherm - - - 0.14 0.03 H=W LA US 61 HMA - - 0.05 0.02 Sasobit - - - 0.01 0.02 H=W Evotherm - - - 0.08 0.02 H=W Table B3.1. Summary of rutting of in-service pavement projects. (continued on next page)
(c) Dry-Freeze Zone Project Mix Type First-Round Survey Results Second-Round Survey ResultsMean, in. r Comparison Mean, in. r Comparison WA I-90 HMA - - 0.22 0.03Sasobit - - - 0.26 0.02 H=W WA SR 12 HMA - - - 0.20 0.03 AquaBlack - - - 0.09 0.03 H>W CO I-70 HMA 0.20 0.05 0.32 0.04 Sasobit 0.31 0.06 H<W 0.37 0.08 H=W Evotherm 0.21 0.02 H=W 0.39 0.05 H=W Advera 0.24 0.07 H=W 0.37 0.05 H=W NE US 14 HMA - - 0.01 0.01 Advera - - - 0.002 0.01 H=W HMA - - 0.02 0.02 Evotherm - - - 0.01 0.02 H=W NV HMA - - 0.02 0.02Ultrafoam - - - 0.02 0.02 H=W MT I-15 HMA - - 0.0 0.0 Sasobit - - - 0.0 0.0 H=W Evotherm - - - 0.0 0.0 H=W Foaming - - - 0.0 0.0 H=W (d) Dry No-Freeze Zone Project Mix Type First-Round Survey Results Second-Round Survey ResultsMean, in. r Comparison Mean, in. r Comparison TX SH 251 HMA - - 0.01 0.02 DBG - - - 0.02 0.03 H=W TX SH 71 HMA - - - - - - Evotherm - - - - - - CA HVS 3a HMA 0.25 - - - - Gencor 0.26 - H=W - - - Evotherm 0.35 - H=W - - - Cecabase 0.3 - H=W - - - CA HVS 3b HMA 0.31 - - - - Sasobit 0.35 - H=W - - - Advera 0.28 - H=W - - - DBG 0.33 - H=W - - - Rediset 0.31 - H=W - - - Note: The rut depth values for the CA HVS 3a and 3b projects are from the report: Warm-Mix Asphalt Study: Test Track Construction and First-Level Analysis of Phase 1 HVS and Laboratory Testing (Jones et al. 2008). Table B3.1. (Continued). Project Transverse Cracking, 1st Round Transverse Cracking, 2nd Round MO Hall St. Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Aspha-min Sasobit = Aspha-min Evotherm = Aspha-min Evotherm = Aspha-min OH 541 Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit > Evotherm Sasobit = Aspha-min Sasobit > Aspha-min Evotherm = Aspha-min Evotherm = Aspha-min PA 2012 LEA = Gencor LEA = Gencor PA 2006 Sasobit = Advera Sasobit > Advera IA US 34 Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Evotherm TN SR 46 DBG = Sasobit DBG = Sasobit DBG = Advera DBG < Advera DBG = Evotherm DBG = Evotherm Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit > Evotherm Sasobit = Advera Sasobit = Advera Advera = Evotherm Advera = Evotherm LA US 61 Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Evotherm CO I-70 Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit > Evotherm Sasobit = Advera Sasobit > Advera Evotherm = Advera Evotherm < Advera NE US 14 ADV > Evotherm ADV < Evotherm MT I-15 Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Foaming Sasobit = Foaming Evotherm = Foaming Evotherm = Foaming Table B4.1. Summary of transverse cracking comparison among WMA technologies.
65 Project Longitudinal Cracking, 1st Round Longitudinal Cracking, 2nd Round MO Hall St. Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Aspha-min Sasobit = Aspha-min Evotherm = Aspha-min Evotherm = Aspha-min OH 541 Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit > Evotherm Sasobit = Aspha-min Sasobit > Aspha-min Evotherm = Aspha-min Evotherm = Aspha-min PA 2012 LEA = Gencor LEA = Gencor PA 2006 Sasobit = Advera Sasobit > Advera IA US 34 Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Evotherm TN SR 46 DBG = Sasobit DBG = Sasobit DBG = Advera DBG = Advera DBG = Evotherm DBG = Evotherm Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit > Evotherm Sasobit = Advera Sasobit = Advera Advera = Evotherm Advera = Evotherm LA US 61 Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Evotherm CO I-70 Sasobit < Evotherm Sasobit > Evotherm Sasobit = Advera Sasobit > Advera Evotherm > Advera Evotherm = Advera NE US 14 ADV = Evotherm ADV > Evotherm MT I-15 Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Foaming Sasobit = Foaming Evotherm = Foaming Evotherm = Foaming Table B4.2. Summary of wheel-path longitudinal cracking comparison among WMA technologies. Project Rut Depth, 2nd Round MO Hall St. Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit < Aspha-min Evotherm = Aspha-min OH 541 Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Aspha-min Evotherm < Aspha-min PA 2012 LEA = Gencor PA 2006 Sasobit = Advera IA US 34 Sasobit = Evotherm TN SR 46 DBG < Sasobit DBG = Advera DBG = Evotherm Sasobit > Evotherm Sasobit = Advera Advera = Evotherm LA US 61 Sasobit < Evotherm CO I-70 Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Advera Evotherm = Advera NE US 14 ADV = Evotherm MT I-15 Sasobit = Evotherm Sasobit = Foaming Evotherm = Foaming Table B4.3. Summary of rut depth comparison among WMA technologies.
