Full-Depth Reclamation (FDR) for Suburban/Urban and Local Roads Application
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Full-Depth Reclamation (FDR) for Suburban/Urban and Local Roads Application Mihai Marasteanu, Principal Investigator Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering University of Minnesota December 2016 Research Project Final Report 2016-37 To request this document in an alternative format, such as braille or large print, call 651-366- 4718 or 1-800-657-3774 (Greater Minnesota) or email your request to [email protected]. Please request at least one week in advance. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipients Accession No. MN/RC 2016-37 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Full-Depth Reclamation (FDR) for Suburban/Urban and Local December 2016 Roads Application 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Marcella Hartman, Mugur Turos, Debaroti Ghosh, Mihai Marasteanu 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. Department of Civil, Environmental and Geo- Engineering CTS #2015009 University of Minnesota 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. 500 Pillsbury Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (c) 99008 (wo) 147 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Minnesota Local Road Research Board Final Report Minnesota Department of Transportation 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Research Services & Library 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330 St. Paul, MN 55155 15. Supplementary Notes http://mndot.gov/research/reports/2016/201637.pdf 16. Abstract (Limit: 250 words) Full-depth reclamation (FDR) as a rehabilitation method improves the service life of pavement structures by reusing asphalt materials, thereby reducing costs and allowing for conservation of nonrenewable resources. However, the lack of mechanics- based material testing procedures and performance-based specifications limit the use of FDR processes. First, the FDR design and construction process are presented, then, a literature review focusing on FDR research is completed, and a survey is conducted to obtain relevant information regarding current FDR practices in Minnesota. Next, Indirect Tensile Test (IDT) and Dynamic Modulus Test in IDT mode testing is performed on four FDR materials: Field mixed, Lab compacted; Lab mixed, Lab compacted; FDR with cement additive; and FDR with graphene nanoplatelet (GNP) additive. Two curing times are used to determine how physical properties change over time. Test results are used to perform simulations in MnPAVE software and a Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA). Laboratory observations indicate that cement additive reduces predicted life and increases critical cracking temperature with a slight increase in cost; GNP additive reduces predicted life but also reduces critical cracking temperature with a significant cost increase; Lab mixed samples performed better than Field mixed, suggesting that field methods could be improved; and curing has a positive effect on the FDR materials with cement and GNP additives--for both materials, the dynamic modulus increase, and the GNP samples also had a slight increase in tensile strength. MnPAVE simulations and LCCA results indicate that over a 35-year period, FDR may be a more cost-effective method than traditional mill and overlay. 17. Document Analysis/Descriptors 18. Availability Statement pavement maintenance, full-depth reclamation, asphalt No restrictions. Document available from: National tests, field tests, asphalt pavements Technical Information Services, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 19. Security Class (this report) 20. Security Class (this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 103 FULL-DEPTH RECLAMATION (FDR) FOR SUBURBAN/URBAN AND LOCAL ROADS APPLICATION FINAL REPORT Prepared by: Marcella Hartman Mugur Turos Debaroti Ghosh Mihai Marasteanu Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering University of Minnesota DECEMBER 2016 Published by: Minnesota Department of Transportation Research Services & Library 395 John Ireland Boulevard, MS 330 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1899 This report represents the results of research conducted by the authors and does not necessarily represent the views or policies of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and/or the University of Minnesota. This report does not contain a standard or specified technique. The authors and the Minnesota Department of Transportation and/or the University of Minnesota do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to this report. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The financial and logistical support provided by the Office of Materials and Road Research at the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Local Roads Research Board are gratefully acknowledged. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Objective ............................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Organization of the Report .................................................................................................... 2 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 3: SURVEY ON FDR PRACTICE IN URBAN AND SUBURBAN CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 4: MATERIALS AND TESTING ......................................................................... 10 4.1 Sample Preparation ............................................................................................................. 10 4.2 Indirect Tensile Test (IDT) – Creep Compliance/Stiffness and Tensile Strength .............. 12 4.3 Dynamic Modulus ............................................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER 5: CALCULATIONS ............................................................................................. 14 5.1 Creep Compliance/Stiffness................................................................................................ 14 5.2 Tensile Strength .................................................................................................................. 14 5.3 Dynamic Modulus ............................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 6: RESULTS ........................................................................................................... 17 6.1 Creep Compliance/Stiffness and Tensile Strength Results ................................................. 17 6.2 Dynamic Modulus Results .................................................................................................. 25 6.3 Tensile Strength Results for Aged Samples ........................................................................ 30 6.4 Dynamic Modulus Results for Aged Samples .................................................................... 32 CHAPTER 7: MNPAVE NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS..................................................... 37 7.1 MnPAVE Input and Output ................................................................................................ 37 7.1.1 Project .......................................................................................................................... 37 7.1.2 Climate ......................................................................................................................... 37 7.1.3 Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 37 7.1.4 Structure ....................................................................................................................... 38 7.2 Modeling of TH-5 in MnPAVE .......................................................................................... 38 CHAPTER 8: LOW TEMPERATURE PERFORMANCE ................................................... 42 CHAPTER 9: LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS .................................................................... 45 9.1 LCCA Methods .............................................................................................................. 45 9.2 LCCA Results ................................................................................................................ 46 CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 55 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 56 APPENDIX A SURVEY RESULTS APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL DATA LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Balance between strength and performance for FDR stabilized with cement. ............... 3 Figure 2: Creep stiffness curves at -12°C for all materials ........................................................... 23 Figure 3: Creep stiffness curves at 0°C for all materials .............................................................. 23 Figure 4: Creep stiffness curves at 12°C for all materials ............................................................ 24 Figure 5: Tensile strength for all materials ................................................................................... 24 Figure 6: Fitted dynamic modulus master curves for all materials ..............................................