Page 13 - GLASGRID GLASPAVE BROCHURE

e RES
used at the potential er is concern
can be (RAP) material properties of ) The dynamic design was sli difference may
) The critical te difference in t would experie The two mix designs
were then tested to p11
at AUBURN UNIVERSITY
RESEARCH SYNOPSIS–NCAT REPORT
Problem Statement
aggregate and binder to produce two 12 5-mm NMAS Superpave mix NationalCenterfor The Effect
of of GlasPaveTM in in in RAP RAP on on on on Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Technology
designs
One design design contained 30 percent of the control RAP RAP by weight
The geosynthetic
material GlasPaveTM has been effectively used at at the the bottom of asphalt surface layers to to help mitigate the the potential Mixture Performance
at at at at AUBURN UNIVERSITY
RESEARCH SYNOPSIS–NCAT REPORT
regarding whether or not pavements containing GlasPave can be binder for thermal
and and and and stress-related cracks However there is concern
– – – a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a mixture of of limestone granite and and and and sand – – – and and and and a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a PG 67-22 virgin
virgin
of of aggregate and the the the other contained 30 percent of of the the the GlasPave RAP by weight
of aggregate aggregate Both mixes used the same virgin
aggregates
recycled Specifically will reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) material The geosynthetic
material GlasPaveTM has been effectively used at at The two mix designs
containing milled-up GlasPave affect the performance properties of Problem Statement
asphalt mixtures containing the RAP?
Objective
performance the the bottom of asphalt surface layers to to help mitigate the the potential for for thermal
and stress-related cracks However there is is concern
by weight
of aggregate aggregate Both mixes used the same virgin
aggregates
This study by the the the the National Center for for Asphalt Technology
(NCAT) was such as moisture
regarding whether or or not pavements containing GlasPave GlasPave can be binder conducted to evaluate the the effect of GlasPave GlasPave in in in in in RAP RAP by comparing
susceptibility stiffness and recycled Specifically will reclaimed asphalt asphalt pavement (RAP) material the the performance performance properties properties of of two asphalt asphalt mixtures: one containing containing The two mix designs
containing containing containing milled-up GlasPave GlasPave affect the the the the performance performance properties properties of of resistance to Description of Study
Objective
To begin the the study study a a a a a a a a a two-layer test section was was constructed at at East
of the same mix The Hamburg wheel-tracking device was used to This study study by the the National Center for Asphalt Technology
(NCAT) was was such as as moisture
moisture
Alabama Paving plant in in in in in Opelika AL The asphalt material used in in in in in assess both moisture
moisture
and and rutting susceptibility susceptibility and and dynamic modulus
conducted to evaluate the effect of GlasPave in in in in in in RAP by comparing
susceptibility both layers was a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 9 5 mm nominal maximum aggregate (NMAS) mix mix testing was performed Ftoigeuvraelu2atCeomnitxrtoulrReAsPtifmfniexstsu rLea(sltelyft )aacnridtiRcaAlP
the the performance properties of two asphalt mixtures: one containing stiffness and mixture containing GlasPave (right) temperature temperature analysis was used to to characterize the low-temperature resistance to cracking cracking performance of the asphalt mixtures using AASHTO T T 322-07 rutting and low-temperature cracking cracking Moisture susceptibility was This analysis involves determining the the the temperature temperature at at at which which the the the tested according to AASHTO T T T 283-07 which which determines the the the the the tensile tensile estimated thermal
stress exceeds the the the testing indirect tensile tensile strength strength strength strength ratio (TSR) between dry and moisture-saturated specimens of of a a a mixture with a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a PG 67-22 binder GlasPave GlasPave fabric was installed at at the the the the interface
control control RAP RAP and the the the the other containing GlasPave GlasPave RAP RAP materials of the the the two layers The control control asphalt mixture was obtained by milling portion of the the the test test section section where the the the GlasPave was was installed of of the same mix mix The Hamburg wheel-tracking device was used to the the upper portion of of the the test section that did not include GlasPave Description of of Study
fabric and the the GlasPave RAP was obtained by milling the the middle
To begin the the the study a a a a a a a a a two-layer test test section section was was constructed at East
Alabama Paving plant in in in Opelika AL The asphalt material used in in in both layers was a a a a a a a 9 5 mm nominal maximum aggregate (NMAS) mix with a a a a a a a a PG 67-22 binder GlasPave fabric was installed at the interface
of the two layers The control asphalt mixture was obtained by milling the the upper portion of the the test section that did not include GlasPave fabric and the the GlasPave RAP was obtained by milling the the middle
portion of the the test section where the the GlasPave was installed assess both moisture
and and and rutting susceptibility and and and dynamic modulus
aggregate and binder to to produce two two 12 5-mm NMAS Superpave mix mix were then tested to designs
One design design contained 30 percent of the the control RAP by weight
evaluate mixture of of aggregate and the the the other contained 30 percent of of the the the GlasPave RAP characteristics
– – a a a a a a a a a mixture of limestone granite and and and sand – – and and and a a a a a a a a a PG 67-22 virgin
Figure 2 Control RAP RAP mixture mixture (left) and RAP RAP mixture mixture containing GlasPave (right) control RAP RAP RAP and the the the the other containing containing containing GlasPave GlasPave RAP RAP RAP materials were then tested to to asphalt mixtures containing containing the the the RAP?
rutting and low-temperature cracking Moisture susceptibility was evaluate mixture tested according to AASHTO T T 283-07 which determines the tensile performance strength ratio (TSR) between dry and moisture-saturated specimens characteristics
Conclusions and and and Recommendations
testing was performed to evaluate mixture stiffness Lastly a a a a a a a a critical temperature temperature analysis was used to to characterize the the low-temperature Overall no significant impact could be linked to to using using the the the GlasPave cracking performance of of the the the asphalt asphalt mixtures using using AASHTO T T T 322-07 RAP RAP instead of of the the the the control RAP RAP in in in in in in in in an an an asphalt asphalt mix mix design The following
This analysis involves determining the the the the temperature at at at which the the the the specific conclusions can be drawn based on on on the the the the the results of laboratory
estimated thermal
stress exceeds the the the testing testing indirect tensile strength testing in in this study:
of a a a mixture 1) Characterization of of the two 12 5 mm NMAS mix mix designs
showed
that they were very similar in terms of aggregate gradation and and Figure 1 Installation of GlasPave fabric on on on a a a a a a a a a a a a test section at at East
Alabama Paving 3) Th Th we 4) Re Figure 1 Installation of GlasPave fabric on on on a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a test section at at at ARCH SYNOPSIS–NCAT REPORT
testing testing in in in in this study:
e e e e e e e e e e TSR results for the the control RAP RAP RAP and GlasPave RAP RAP RAP mix designs
The two RAP RAP RAP materials were brought back to to the the NCAT laboratory
re re re not significantly different dried out and characterized They were then mixed with virgin
sults from the the the Hamburg wheel-tracking device showed
that the the the o o f coG
Gla Gla ailablediffaertenwcewinwth encrcitiacatl luows temperatureatwhichthetwomixdesigns
M i x laboratory
performance testing va 2) The extracted binder content of the the the the the GlasPave RAP was slightly
ntrlolamisxdPesiganhvadealTMowerianveragReruAtdePpthaondnthattAhesp
sPave RAP design had a a a a a a a a a higher stripping inFfluecltilonr epopinot (rStIPs) a a a a a a a a a v v v ture Performance
lue lue However the differences were not not statistically significant and the two mix designs
should have
similar resistances to rutting would experience thermal
cracking control control mix design had a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a lower average rut depth and that that the the the the higher higher than that that of the the the control control RAP RAP most likely due to sampling and and East
Alabama Paving testing variability There was no no significant significant difference difference between the the and moisture
damage value However the the the the differences were not statistically significant significant The two RAP materials were brought back to to the NCAT laboratory
dried out and characterized They were then mixed with virgin
two two mix mix designs
designs
in in in terms of the the the the recovered binder grades and and the the the the Conclusions and Recommendations
volumetric properties making them ideal for comparative
laboratory
performance testing Overall no significant impact could be linked to to using the the GlasPave GlasPave 2) The The extracted binder content of of the the the GlasPave GlasPave RAP RAP RAP was slightly
RAP RAP RAP RAP instead of of of the the the control control RAP RAP RAP RAP in in in in in an an an asphalt mix design The The following
higher than that of of of the the the control control RAP RAP RAP most likely due to to sampling and specific conclusions can can be be drawn based on on on on the the the results of of laboratory
testing testing variability There was no significant difference between the the 5) Thetdwyonmamixicdmesoigdnusluins tesrtmsshofwtehde trheacot vwehreilde bthinedceorngtraodl eRsAaPnmd itxhe
1) Characterization of of the the two 12 5 mm NMAS mix mix mix designs
showed
desigrnadwaatisosnlisgohfttlyhestrieffceorvtehraend tahgegGrelgasaPteasv e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e RAP mix mix mix design design the the the that they were very similar in terms of aggregate gradation and and difference may
not be practically significant 3) The The TSR results for for the the the the control RAP RAP and and GlasPave RAP RAP mix designs
h h h h h h h h h a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a l6)tThe critical temperature analysis indicated that that there was no no no significant significant significant were not significantly different volumetric properties making them ideal for for comparative
4) Results from the the the the the Hamburg wheel-tracking device showed
that the the the the the GlasPave RAP RAP design had a a a a a a a a a a a a higher higher stripping inflection point (SIP)
and and the the the the two two mix mix designs
designs
should have
similar resistances to rutting gradations of the the recovered aggregates
and moisture
damage aggregate and binder to produce two 12 5-mm NMAS Superpave mix designs
One design design contained 30 percent of the control RAP by weight
of of aggregate and the the the other contained 30 percent of of the the the GlasPave RAP by weight
of aggregate aggregate Both mixes used the same virgin
aggregates
– – a a a a a a mixture of limestone granite and and and sand – – and and and a a a a a a PG 67-22 virgin
binder Full reports availab
le at at www ncat us E 5 6