National Academies Press: OpenBook

Field Verification of Proposed Changes to the AASHTO R 30 Procedures for Laboratory Conditioning of Asphalt Mixtures (2019)

Chapter: Appendix A - Resilient Modulus Stiffness and Air Void Content Values for All Field Sites

« Previous: References
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Resilient Modulus Stiffness and Air Void Content Values for All Field Sites." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Field Verification of Proposed Changes to the AASHTO R 30 Procedures for Laboratory Conditioning of Asphalt Mixtures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25608.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Resilient Modulus Stiffness and Air Void Content Values for All Field Sites." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Field Verification of Proposed Changes to the AASHTO R 30 Procedures for Laboratory Conditioning of Asphalt Mixtures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25608.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Resilient Modulus Stiffness and Air Void Content Values for All Field Sites." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Field Verification of Proposed Changes to the AASHTO R 30 Procedures for Laboratory Conditioning of Asphalt Mixtures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25608.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Resilient Modulus Stiffness and Air Void Content Values for All Field Sites." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Field Verification of Proposed Changes to the AASHTO R 30 Procedures for Laboratory Conditioning of Asphalt Mixtures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25608.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - Resilient Modulus Stiffness and Air Void Content Values for All Field Sites." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Field Verification of Proposed Changes to the AASHTO R 30 Procedures for Laboratory Conditioning of Asphalt Mixtures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25608.
×
Page 38

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.

34 Resilient Modulus Stiffness and Air Void Content Values for All Field Sites Tables A-1 through A-8 contain the MR stiffness and AV content values for the eight field sites of NCHRP Project 09-52A. A P P E N D I X A CDD (months) 543 (0) 13,813 (8) 21,188 (14) 34,684 (22) 89,777 (60) Mix Type MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % HMA 494 7.0 796 7.0 966 6.3 1,147 5.3 1,243 8.7 Evotherm 305 9.9 716 7.2 767 7.4 1,015 8.5 1,286 7.4 Foaming 404 7.0 789 7.0 828 6.0 1,028 6.7 1,425 6.5 HMA + RAP/RAS 1,214 7.0 1,214 — 957 — — — 1,637 7.5 Evotherm + RAP/RAS 664 7.4 837 — 719 — — — 1,576 8.3 Table A-1. Comparison between average MR stiffness and AV content for Texas I mixtures. CDD (months) 744 (0) 13,482 (10) 66,262 (51) 80,318 (60) Mix Type MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % HMA 204 4.1 368 6.3 783 3.6 440 2.4 Evotherm + RAP 398 7.8 612 7.8 455 7.2 1,052 6.4 Foaming + RAP 596 4.0 748 6.2 1,189 3.6 794 5.7 HMA + RAP 568 5.7 728 6.5 1,189 4.5 1,043 4.6 Table A-2. Comparison between average MR stiffness and AV content for New Mexico mixtures.

35 CDD (months) 837 (0) 7,153 (10) 43,730 (51) 49,490 (59) Mix Type MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % HMA 260 6.9 230 5.9 364 4.4 399 3.0 Evotherm High Temperature 206 8.0 197 6.5 403 4.6 312 4.5 Evotherm Low Temperature 244 7.4 169 9.7 387 5.0 281 5.6 Foaming Low Temperature 222 6.5 262 5.9 392 4.7 459 2.4 Foaming High Temperature 231 7.7 193 7.0 332 3.0 400 2.4 Table A-3. Comparison between average MR stiffness and AV content for Wyoming mixtures. CDD (months) 434 (0) 8,951 (11) 47,785 (57) Mix Type MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % HMA 167 7.0 245 6.6 338 5.7 Evotherm 138 9.2 271 7.7 314 6.9 Foaming 158 8.2 261 7.2 352 6.3 Advera 153 8.4 280 7.0 395 6.8 Table A-4. Comparison between average MR stiffness and AV content for South Dakota mixtures. CDD (months) 434 (0) 8,951 (10) 47,785 (40) Mix Type MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % HMA High Absorption Control 187 7.3 244 — 494 6.9 HMA High Absorption High 179 8.5 200 — 463 7.2 WMA High Absorption Control 162 8.9 210 — 439 7.0 WMA High Absorption High 164 8.0 230 — 482 6.9 HMA Low Absorption Control 181 8.7 220 — 478 6.9 HMA Low Absorption High 207 9.3 296 — 635 7.0 WMA Low Absorption Control 161 9.3 245 — 495 6.8 WMA Low Absorption High 161 7.9 199 — 437 6.8 Table A-5. Comparison between average MR stiffness and AV content for Iowa mixtures. CDD (months) 884 (0) 11,443 (9) 23,576 (15) 66,638 (44) 78,565 (51) Mix Type MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % Limestone/HMA 470 8.2 820 6.8 875 6.7 1,239 6.6 1,105 5.9 Limestone/WMA 448 8.9 833 5.9 850 6.7 950 5.3 1,018 6.2 Granite/HMA 604 6.5 998 4.8 1,026 5.5 1,278 5.9 1,374 5.4 Granite/WMA 625 7.2 811 7.2 894 5.5 824 4.9 1,014 5.7 Table A-6. Comparison between average MR stiffness and AV content for Florida mixtures.

36 CDD (months) 822 (0) 6,555 (9) 44,065 (47) Mix Type MR stiffness ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % HMA BMP 454 10.1 769 7.6 — — HMA DMP 519 8.6 717 6.9 1,008 7.4 WMA BMP 522 8.2 685 7.6 — — WMA DMP 453 9.5 718 7.5 1,164 8.6 Table A-7. Comparison between average MR stiffness and AV content for Indiana mixtures. CDD (months) 0 (0) 61,764 (42) 74,287 (51) Mix Type MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % MR stiffness, ksi AV, % DMP Binder A 414 9.2 1,275 8.0 1,293 8.5 DMP Binder V 343 9.4 1,047 7.7 1,034 7.9 Table A-8. Comparison between average MR stiffness and AV content for Texas II mixtures.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED ISBN 978-0-309-48073-4 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 8 0 7 3 4 9 0 0 0 0 N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88

Field Verification of Proposed Changes to the AASHTO R 30 Procedures for Laboratory Conditioning of Asphalt Mixtures Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Laboratory conditioning of asphalt mixtures during the mix design process to simulate their short-term aging influences the selection of the optimum asphalt content. In addition, long-term conditioning affects the mixture and binder stiffness, deformation, and strength evaluated with fundamental characterization tests to assess mixture performance. The current standard conditioning procedure, AASHTO R 30, Standard Practice for Mixture Conditioning of Hot-Mix Asphalt, was developed over two decades ago.

In reviewing whether to update the standard, TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Research Report 919: Field Verification of Proposed Changes to the AASHTO R 30 Procedures for Laboratory Conditioning of Asphalt Mixtures seeks to (a) develop a laboratory short-term aging protocol to simulate the aging and asphalt absorption of an asphalt mixture during production and transportation based on factors thought to affect aging, and (b) develop a laboratory longer-term aging protocol to simulate the aging of the asphalt mixtures after construction.

The key outcome of the research is that the current long-term oven aging (LTOA) procedure in AASHTO R 30 is not realistic. Replacing the aging of a compacted specimen with aging of loose mix for 5 days at 85°C (185°F) before compaction for testing should be considered by the AASHTO Committee on Materials and Pavements.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!