3/12/2019

Balanced Mix Designs -

Improving Mix Durability

Discussion Items

• Understand the concept of Balanced Mixture

Design.
• Review the most common performance tests (rutting
and cracking) for BMD.
• Learn the current national state of practice for BMD.
• Learn how you can prepare for the future of asphalt
mixture design.
• Discuss theory and reality pertaining to mix design.

2 | Americas Materials - Performance

Balanced Mix Design

Mix design based on balancing mix

rutting and cracking performance
instead of conventional recipe,
restrictive specifications.

3 | Americas Materials - Performance

1
 3/12/2019

Selecting the Correct Mix

• Understand the concept of Balanced Mixture Design. • But if a Ferrari is needed, don’t
provide a Pinto!

• Don’t design a Ferrari, if a Pinto will do the job!

4 | Americas Materials - Performance

Did You Know…..

• Each day, approximately 1.4 Million

tons of HMA are produced in the U.S.
(M-F production basis)
• Equivalent to ~2500 lane miles @ 12’
wide and 1.5” thick
• Distance from New York to Las Vegas

5 | Americas Materials - Performance

Main Pavement Distresses Observed in the Field

6 | Americas Materials - Performance

2
 3/12/2019

What Distress Does Your State Want to Address

with Performance Testing?

Source: NCAT Survey

7 | Americas Materials - Performance

What are the Most Common Performance Tests

(Rutting and Cracking) for BMD?

8 | Americas Materials - Performance

Rutting Tests

9 | Americas Materials - Performance

3
 3/12/2019

Rutting Tests

• Rutting can be evaluated with several available tests based on the user preference.

Hamburg Wheel Test (HWT) Asphalt Pavement IDT - HT AMPT Flow Number /
Analyzer (APA) Dynamic Modulus

Most commonly used tests. Hamburg gaining

popularity due to moisture susceptibility analysis.

10 | Americas Materials - Performance

10

Durability Testing (Cracking)

11 | Americas Materials - Performance

11

Durability/Cracking Evaluation

• Durability/cracking evaluation is
substantially more complicated than
stability with aging being one main
variable.
• No general consensus the best test(s)
or the appropriate failure threshold.
• MANY different tests are available with
more being developed.
• Main question is “What is the
anticipated mode of distress?”

12 | Americas Materials - Performance

12

4
 3/12/2019

First Question for Durability Testing:

What is the Anticipated Mode of Distress for Testing?
• Many test are available with each targeting a
specific specimen response (i.e., field distress)
• Various empirical and mechanistic tests are
available for use.
• Match apples to apples, not apples to oranges!

GOALS
1. MATCH THE TEST TO THE DISTRESS
2. SET APPROPRIATE FAILURE THRESHOLDS

13 | Americas Materials - Performance

13

Fatigue (Bottom Up or Top Down) Related Cracking Tests

Bottom Up /
Top Down

IDEAL CT

14 | Americas Materials - Performance

14

Thermal Cracking Tests

IDT Creep TSRST SCB at Low Temp Disk Shaped Compact

Compliance Tension (DCT)

15 | Americas Materials - Performance

15

5
 3/12/2019

Reflection (Reflective) Cracking Tests

Disk Shaped Compact Texas Overlay Test SCB (IFIT)

Tension (DCT)

16 | Americas Materials - Performance

16

IFIT Background Information

IFIT

17 | Americas Materials - Performance

17

IDEAL CT Background Information

https://www.youtube.com/wa
tch?v=OB4pQDB2Yfs

Time View: 0:40 to 1:40

- Similar to IFIT
- Uncut!
- 62 mm height
specimen

18 | Americas Materials - Performance

18

6
 3/12/2019

Balanced Mix Design

Better Rutting Performance

Good Performance

Better Cracking Performance

19 | Americas Materials - Performance

19

Case Study

• CRH is Funding Balanced Mix Design Proof of Concept Testing

• Staker Parson (Utah) Mix Evaluated
• Testing Conducted at National Center for Asphalt Technology

20 | Americas Materials - Performance

20

Staker Parson Mix Testing Overview

Staker Parson (Keigley Plant)

▪ Control mix: 12.5 mm surface mix with 25% RAP
▪ Alternate mixes: 35% and 45% RAP w/ rejuvenator
HAMBURG
▪ Performance Testing
IDEAL CT
1. Illinois Flexibility Index (IFIT) IFIT

2. IDEAL CT
3. Hamburg

21 | Americas Materials - Performance

21

7
 3/12/2019

Specimen Aging

Short Term Oven Aging (STOA)

▪ 4 hr. @ 135C (275F) as recommended in AASHTO R30 for mixture performance
testing.
Long Term Oven Aging or Critical Aging (CA)
▪ Used NCATs cumulative degree days (CDD) aging protocol.
▪ 8 hr. @ 135C (275F) in addition to the STOA

22 | Americas Materials - Performance

22

Critical Aging Protocol and CDD

• The top down cracking critical aging

protocols of 8 hours at 135C were
proposed based on their correspondence
with 70,000 CDD.
• Aging protocol remains constant regardless
of location, but it would take more years for
a project in a colder climate to reach
70,000 CDD than a project in a warmer
climate.
• For example, PA needs 5.7 years but AL
only requires 4.3 years.

23 | Americas Materials - Performance

23

CDD 5.5 Years to 70,000

CDD for SLC

24 | Americas Materials - Performance

24

8
 3/12/2019

Staker Parson Mix Testing –

Hamburg Results
HA MBURG
14.0

12.0

10.0
RUT DEPTH (MM) @ 20K PASSES

8.0

6.0

4.7
4.2 4.0 3.8
4.0
3.0 3.2
2.4 2.6
2.4
2.0

0.0
BINDER OPT ‐ 0.5 OPT OPT + 0.5 OPT ‐ 0.5 OPT OPT + 0.5 OPT ‐ 0.5 OPT OPT + 0.5
25 | Americas
REJUVENATOR Materials - Performance
0% 8% 8%

RAP 25 35 45

25

Staker Parson Mix Testing – IFIT Results

IFIT
20.0

17.7
18.0

16.0
14.6
14.0
FLEXIBILITY INDEX

12.0
10.1
10.0
8.3
8.0 7.2

6.0 5.2
4.4
3.9 3.7
4.0

2.0

0.0
O P T.   ‐ 0. 5 OPT O P T.   +   0. 5 O P T.   ‐ 0. 5 OPT O P T.   +   0. 5 O P T.   ‐ 0. 5 OPT O P T.   +   0.5 BINDER

26 | Americas Materials -0Performance 8 8 REJUVENATOR

25 35 45 RAP

26

Staker Parson Mix Testing

AGING

BINDER

REJUVENATOR

27 | Americas Materials - Performance RAP

27

9
 3/12/2019

Staker Parson Mix Testing –

IDEAL CT Results
IDEAL CT
250.0

205.3
200.0

160.3

150.0 142.8
IDEAL CT INDEX

100.0
86.2
81.5
69.9

51.5 50.2
50.0
35.0

0.0
OPT. ‐ 0.5 OPT OPT. + 0.5 OPT. ‐ 0.5 OPT OPT. + 0.5 OPT. ‐ 0.5 OPT OPT. + 0.5 BINDER
28 | Americas Materials - Performance
0 8 8 REJUVENATOR
25 35 45 RAP

28

Staker Parson Mix Testing – Performance

Space Diagram (Hamburg vs IFIT)
 $4
MATERIALS COST
$2.66 

 $2
$0.86 

 $‐

 $(2) $(1.58)
$(1.81)
$(2.67)
 $(4)
$(4.47) $(4.24)

 $(6)
BASELINE
MIX $(6.91)
 $(8)

29

Staker Parson Mix Testing –

IDEAL CT vs IFIT
IDEAL CT vs IFIT

250
Takeaway:
Can use IDEAL CT during
production as a quicker
200 control tool.

150
IDEAL CT

y = 11.399x ‐ 1.6644
R² = 0.9916

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
30 | Americas Materials - Performance
IFIT

30

10
 3/12/2019

NCAT BMD Survey Results

31 | Americas Materials - Performance

31

NCAT BMD Survey Results – State Interest in BMD

32 | Americas Materials - Performance

32

Illinois Balanced Mix Design

• Phased implementation
▪ 26 Pilot projects 2016/2017
▪ All Interstate projects 2019
▪ Full implementation 2020

33 | Americas Materials - Performance

33

11
 3/12/2019

Louisiana Balanced Mix Design

• Louisiana DOT implemented

BMD in the 2016 Standard
Specifications for all DOT
projects.

• Hamburg research began prior to 2000

Hamburg
• SCB research began in 2004
Louisiana SCB

34 | Americas Materials - Performance

34

New Jersey Balanced Mix Design

• NJDOT High RAP Design

incorporates BMD

Asphalt Pavement Texas Overlay

Analyzer (APA) Tester

35 | Americas Materials - Performance

35

Texas DOT Balanced Mix Design

• TxDOT currently uses BMD for

selected specialty mixes.
• New SS 344 developed for
Superpave BMD.

• SS 344 allows TxDOT Districts to use on a case by case

basis.
+ • Delta Tc (<6C) and Methylene Blue (<10) requirements
• Grade “dumps” reduced
• Simplified recycle material requirements
Hamburg Texas Overlay
Tester From Robert Lee (TxDOT, Now CRH)
36 | Americas Materials - Performance

36

12
 3/12/2019

Texas DOT Balanced Mix Design Performance

Crack Initiation Parameter

Crack Propagation Parameter

From Robert Lee (TxDOT, Now CRH)

37 | Americas Materials - Performance

37

Oklahoma DOT Balanced Mix Design Performance

(50C)

Notes:
Hamburg + IFIT @ 7% voids, Cantabro @ 4%
Short term aging used (R30)

Hamburg IFIT
38 | Americas Materials - Performance

38

BMD Activities at the 2018 NCAT Test Track

• Balanced Mix Design is a key focus

area
• TXDOT
• OKDOT
• Cargill (w/ VA design)

39

13
 3/12/2019

Current / Completed State DOT Research

State DOT Research Title
• Various State DOTs have research
California Simplified Performance Based Specifications for Long Life AC
activities focused on BMD Pavements (Funding unknown)
Idaho Development and Evaluation of Performance Measures to Augment
Asphalt Mix Design in Idaho (170K)
Indiana Performance Balanced Mix Designs for Indiana’s Asphalt Pavements
(243K)
Minnesota Balanced Design of Asphalt Mixtures (140K)
Texas Develop Guidelines and Design Program for Hot-Mix Asphalts
Containing RAP, RAS, and Other Additives through a Balanced Mix
Design Process (524K)
Wisconsin 1. Analysis and Feasibility of Asphalt Pavement Performance-Based
Testing Specifications (Funding Unknown, completed)
2. Regressing Air Voids for Balanced HMA Mix Design (150K)
Oklahoma Implement Balanced Asphalt Mix Design in Oklahoma (111K)

Nebraska Feasibility and Implementation of Balanced Mix Design in Nebraska

(120K)

| Virginia Performance Mixture Design for Asphalt Mixtures: Phase I, Roadmap

and Specification Development (456K)

40

Balanced Mix Design – The Future

• BMD / Performance Based Mix Design

is Coming!
• New Draft BMD AASHTO Standards

41 | Americas Materials - Performance

41

So…I’m a Agency Engineer, What to Do to Prepare?

1. Remember, it’s still aggregate, asphalt, and air!

2. Be aware of what’s happening
3. Participate in conferences/meetings to learn more
4. Evaluate your readiness (e.g., capabilities / needs). Do you need to
more people, training, equipment?
“By failing to prepare, you
5. Act to increase readiness are preparing to fail.”
6. Establish baseline (test your mixes to see where you are at) - Ben Franklin

7. Establish appropriate protocols for design and acceptance

8. Embrace the opportunity!
9. Be the leader!

42

14
 3/12/2019

So…I’m a Contractor / Producer, What to Do to Prepare?

1. Remember, it’s still aggregate, asphalt, and air!
2. Be aware of what’s happening
3. Participate in conferences/meetings to learn more
4. Understand the impact of BMD on asphalt binder demand, recycle potential /
availability
5. Evaluate your readiness (e.g., capabilities / needs). Do you need to more
people, training, equipment?
6. Act to increase readiness
7. Establish baseline (test your mixes to see where you are at)
8. Optimize mixes (performance + economics)
9. Embrace the opportunity!
10. Be the leader!

43

The Path Forward for Balanced Mix Design

• Long term effort with ups/downs, but we must

start now.
• Utilize available, proven approaches to find
effective, implementable solutions.
• Must consider testing during production.
• IDEAL CT offers promise in this regard for fast,
reliable rutting and cracking performance
prediction.

44

Be Aware of the Total Picture!

Materials

Time Production

Economics Construction

Personnel Equipment

45 | Americas Materials - Performance

45

15
 3/12/2019

Theory and Reality

• Avoid measuring with a micrometer, marking with a piece of chalk and cutting with
an ax.
• Must consider the “total picture” and not just a part.
• Applied Common Sense MUST be used.

46

Final Thoughts
http://twentytwowords.com
• Key Points to Keep in Mind
• “Use What Works”
• “Eliminate What Doesn’t”
• “Be as Simple as Possible,
Be Practical, and Be Correct”

47

Thank You / Questions

http://www.pennyauctionwatch.com/

Shane Buchanan
Asphalt Performance Manager
CRH Americas Materials
205-873-3316
shane.buchanan@na.crh.com

48

16