Performance Specifications for Asphalt Mixtures (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 29-38
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 29... ...
29 chapter three Survey on uSe of Performance SPecificationS for aSPhalt mixtureS introduction In this survey, 90% of the state DOTs (45/50) provided input on their use of performance testing and performance specifications for plant-produced asphalt mixtures.
|
From page 30... ...
30 FIGURE 3 Geographic distribution of state DOT responses to Question 1 on the types of asphalt mixtures produced in each state. : Use of WMA and RAP : No response : Use of WMA, RAP, RAS, GTR : Use of WMA, RAP, GTR : Use of WMA, RAP, RAS : Use of RAP and RAS : Use of RAP, RAS, GTR : Use of WMA Map source: diymaps.net Type of Approach Agency Respondents Use of Blending Charts Alberta, California, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio Further Classification of RAP (percentage of RAP, gradation of RAP, etc.)
|
From page 31... ...
31 Roadway Type and Use of Performance Specifications Currently Using Performance Specifications Planning to Use Performance Specifications No Plans to Use Performance Specifications Interstate Pavements 49% (22/45)
|
From page 32... ...
32 overlay) are shown in Figure 5.
|
From page 33... ...
33 and when test methods are both easy to perform and affordable to operate for the contractor. The most common tests used to support performancebased mixture designs reported in Question 20 are shown in Table 9.
|
From page 34... ...
34 Performance Test Types Agencies HWTD Test California, city of Edmonton, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, New York, Pennsylvania, Québec, Saskatchewan, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin APA Test Alabama, Arkansas, city of Edmonton, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Québec, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia Mixture BBR Test Alabama, city of Edmonton, Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Québec, Saskatchewan, South Carolina Flow Number Test Using AMPT Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota Dynamic Modulus Test Using AMPT City of Edmonton, Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota Flexural Beam Fatigue Test California, city of Edmonton, New York, Pennsylvania, Québec, Saskatchewan SCB Test Louisiana, South Dakota, Wisconsin RSST Test California, Pennsylvania, Vermont DCT Test Colorado, South Dakota, Wisconsin Overlay Tester New Jersey, New York, Texas TABLE 9 AGENCY RESPONSES TO QuESTION 20 ON MOST COMMON PERFORMANCE TESTS FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGNS the Texas Overlay Tester (three of 45 state DOTs)
|
From page 35... ...
35 FIGURE 7 Summary of responses to Question 34 on the types of performance testing research for PBS that is conducted or sponsored. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Fatigue properties Stiffness modulus (i.e., dynamic modulus, flow number, flow time, etc.)
|
From page 36... ...
36 Agency Respondent Response Colorado DOT Currently performing AMPT and recently began testing for fracture energy using DCT specimens Georgia DOT AMPT pooled fund study and has sponsored research regarding moisture susceptibility of asphaltic concrete mixtures and best anti-stripping agents research. Maine DOT Performance testing as part of SHRP 2 R07 project Maryland DOT AMPT/MEPDG pooled fund study investigating integration with MEPDG models Minnesota DOT AMPT pooled fund study, as well as a 2013 DCT pilot project.
|
From page 37... ...
37 primarily on volumetric properties) as a basis for acceptance and/or pay factor adjustments.
|
From page 38... ...
38 FIGURE 9 Issues reported in Question 38 on the challenges of moving toward using performance specifications for the design and acceptance of asphalt mixtures. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Cost of equipment and/or testing by Consultant laboratories Delays in project schedule completion Lack of familiarity or confidence in the paving industry Insufficient funds for including the additional test frequencies required Lack of training for agency and industry Gaps in knowledge or insufficient informaton on how to successfully implement the use of performance specifications for asphalt mixtures Lack of evidence that the cost is worth the benefit of implementing a performance-based system Other Not applicable Percentage of state DOT Respondents 25 out of 43 DOTs 15 out of 43 DOTs 18 out of 43 DOTs 14 out of 43 DOTs 21 out of 43 DOTs 29 out of 43 DOTs 17 out of 43 DOTs 12 out of 43 DOTs 5 out of 43 DOTs FIGURE 8 Reasons reported in Question 29 on cost as a deciding factor for implementation of PBS.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.