Long-Term Aging of Asphalt Mixtures

Fan Yin, Edith Arámbula-Mercado,

Amy Epps Martin, David Newcomb, Nam Tran

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting

Indianapolis, Indiana
 Presentation Outline
 Background
 Objectives
 Experimental Design
 Results and Discussion
o Quantify field aging
o Correlate field vs. lab aging
o Identify factors affecting aging
 Conclusions and Future Work
2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 2
 Background
• Aging of Asphalt Mixtures
– Stiffening with time
– Short-term during production and construction
– Long-term throughout pavement service life
– Significant effect on mixture properties
• Field Aging
– Affected by pavement in-service condition, pavement
density, and mixture properties
– Quantified using pavement in-service time
Construction dates and climates
2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 3
 Background
• Laboratory Aging
– Adopted in binder specification and mixture design
– Correlated with field aging
• AASHTO R30: 5 days at 85°C = 7-10 years
Mixture components and production parameters
o WMA technology
o Recycled materials
Different Aging
o Aggregate absorption
Characteristics
o Plant type
o Production temperature
2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 4
 Objectives
• Quantify field aging of asphalt mixtures considering
pavement in-service time and temperature
• Correlate field aging with laboratory LTOA protocols
by accommodating various mixture components and
production parameters
• Identify factors affecting the long-term aging rates of
asphalt mixtures

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 5

Experimental Design (Materials)

Florida
Indiana
Iowa
New Mexico
South Dakota
Texas
Wyoming
2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 6
 Experimental Design (Materials)
Production Aggregate
Field Project WMA Plant Type RAP/RAS
Temperature Absorption
Florida √ √
Indiana √ HMA vs. WMA √ BMP vs. DMP
Iowa √ √ √
New Mexico √ √
South Dakota √
Texas √ √
Wyoming √ √

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 7

 Experimental Design (Materials)
• Field cores from surface layers
– At construction h: 1-2”
– After 8-22 months in-service AV: 5-9%

• Laboratory specimens
– STOA of 2 hours at 135°C (HMA)
– STOA of 2 hours 116°C (WMA)
– STOA + LTOA of 2 weeks at 60°C h: 2.4”
– STOA + LTOA of 3 days at 85°C* AV: 7±0.5%
– STOA + LTOA of 5 days at 85°C
* selected mixtures
2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 8
 Experimental Design (Laboratory Tests)
• Characterize mixture stiffness and rutting resistance
• Applicable to field cores
Resilient Modulus (MR)

Loading Pulse

MR stiffness at
25°C and 10 Hz
Mixture Response

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 9

 Hamburg Wheel Tracking Test (HWTT)
Measured Rut Depth Predicted Rut Depth Viscoplastic Strain
Permanent Strain Stripping Strain
14.0 4.0E-01

LCSN LCST
12.0

3.0E-01
10.0
Rut Depth (mm)

8.0

Strain
2.0E-01
6.0

HWTT rutting 4.0

Stripping
Number
1.0E-01
resistance parameter
2.0
(RRP) at 50°C RRP
0.0 0.0E+00
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Load Cycle

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 10

 Results and Discussion

• Quantify field aging

• Correlate field aging with laboratory LTOA

• Identify factors affecting aging

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 11

 Cumulative Degree-Days (CDD)
• Sum of the daily high temperature above freezing for
all the days from time of construction to the time of
core sampling 𝐶𝐷𝐷 = (𝑇𝑑𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 32)

Construction Season √
Geographic Location √
Oct. 2012
Winter

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 12

 CDD Curves
Texas New Mexico Wyoming South Dakota

Iowa Indiana Florida

40000
Cumulative Degree Days ( F-days)

35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
Dec-11 Jul-12 Jan-13 Aug-13 Mar-14 Sep-14 Apr-15
Coring Date

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 13

 Property Ratio (PR)
• To quantify effect of aging on mixture properties
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐴𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔
𝑃𝑅 =
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐴𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑔

• Samples before aging

MRR = 1.81 MRR = 2.23
– Field cores at construction
– LMLC specimens with only STOA
• Samples after aging
– post-construction field cores
– LMLC specimens with STOA + LTOA
2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 14
CDD vs. PR (MR Stiffness)

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 15

 Results and Discussion

• Quantify field aging

• Correlate field aging with laboratory LTOA

• Identify factors affecting aging

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 16

 Example – MR Stiffness
Field Project 2w@60C 5d@85C

Florida 1.22 1.38

Indiana 1.30 1.54
Iowa 1.32 1.65
New Mexico 1.89 2.21
South Dakota 1.58 1.95
Texas 1.60 1.94
Wyoming 1.44 1.80
Average 1.48 1.78
2w@60C = 9,100 CDD
Stdev 0.23 0.28
5d@85C = 16,000 CDD
2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 17
 Pavement In-Service Time vs. CDD
Texas New Mexico Wyoming South Dakota

Iowa Indiana Florida

40000
Cumulative Degree Days ( F-days)

35000

30000

25000
11 months
20000 CDD = 17,500
15000 6 months
CDD = 9,600
10000

5000

0
Dec-11 Jul-12 Jan-13 Aug-13 Mar-14 Sep-14 Apr-15
Coring Date

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 18

Field Aging vs. Laboratory LTOA Protocols
Field Project 2w@60C 5d@85C
Texas 6 months 11 months
New Mexico 8 months 14 months
Florida 7 months 12 months
Average 7 months 12 months
Wyoming 12 months 23 months
South Dakota 12 months 23 months
Iowa 12 months 23 months
Indiana 11 months 22 months
Average 12 months 23 months

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 19

 Results and Discussion

• Quantify field aging

• Correlate field aging with laboratory LTOA

• Identify factors affecting aging

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 20

 Factor Analysis*

High Aging Rate WMA Technology

Variable Mixture PR

Insignificant Effect
Production Temperature
Plant Type
Recycled Materials

Low Aging Rate Aggregate Absorption

Control Mixture PR

*STAT Validation by ANOVA Analysis

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 21
 Factor – WMA Technology
TX NM WY SD IA IN FL
4.0

3.0
WMA MR Ratio

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
HMA MR Ratio

WMA vs. HMA: greater increase in mixture stiffness

after long-term aging
2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 22
 STAT Analysis – WMA Technology
Response MR Stiffness Ratio
Summary of Fit
RSquare 0.722275
RSquare Adj 0.68605
Root Mean Square Error 0.241657
Mean of Response 1.603867
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 105 < α = 0.05
Fixed Effect Tests
Source Nparm DF DFDen F Ratio Prob > F
WMA Technology 1 1 86.53 9.2668 0.0031*
Aging Level 11 11 89.51 11.1913 <.0001*

Effect Details
WMA Technology
Least Squares Means Table
Level Least Sq Mean Std Error
HMA 1.5874780 WMA > HMA 0.09972780
WMA 1.7371166 0.09737346
2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 23
 Factor – Plant Type
IN
4.0
DMP Mixture MR Ratio

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
BMP Mixture MR Ratio

BMP vs. DMP: equivalent increase in mixture stiffness

after long-term aging
2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 24
 STAT Analysis – Plant Type
Response MR Stiffness Ratio
Summary of Fit
RSquare 0.528446
RSquare Adj 0.258987
Root Mean Square Error 0.131003
Mean of Response 1.446583
Observations (or Sum Wgts) 12 > α = 0.05
Effect Tests
Source Nparm DF Sum of Squares F Ratio Prob > F
Plant Type 1 1 0.00156408 0.0911 0.7715
Aging Level 2 2 0.12721017 3.7062 0.0798
WMA Technology 1 1 0.00585208 0.3410 0.5776

Effect Details
Plant Type
Least Squares Means Table
Level Least Sq Mean Std Error Mean
BMP 1.4351667 BMP = DMP 0.05348177 1.43517
DMP 1.4580000 0.05348177 1.45800

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 25

 Factor Analysis Summary
Factors Significant? Trends (Aging Rate)

WMA Technology Yes WMA > HMA

Recycled Materials Yes RAP/RAS < Virgin

Aggregate Absorption Yes High Abs. > Low Abs.

Production Temperature (20-30°F) No Equivalent

Plant Type No Equivalent

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 26

 Conclusions
• Proposed CDD and PR to quantify field aging of
asphalt mixtures
• Correlated field aging with laboratory LTOA protocols
for 33 mixtures over a wide range of factors
– 2w@60C = 9,600 CDD = 7-12 months
– 5d@85C = 17,500 CDD = 12-23 months
• Identified factors affecting aging rates
– WMA > HMA
– RAP/RAS mixtures < virgin mixtures
– High absorptive mixtures > low absorptive mixtures
– Plant type & production temperature – no effect
2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 27
 Future Work
• Monitor the performance of field projects (> 2 years)
• Explore additional field aging parameters
– Solar radiation
– Pavement temperature
• Evaluate additional mixture properties
– Fatigue cracking
– Moisture susceptibility
• Verify LTOA protocol of 3d@85C = 2w@60C

2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 28

Thank You

Questions?

Fan Yin
f-yin@tti.tamu.edu
2016 AAPT Annual Meeting 29