Develop Draft Chip Seal Cover Aggregate Specification Based on AIMS Angularity, Shape and ...

105 Pages·2013·3.18 MB·English

ECONOMIC ENHANCEMENT THROUGH INFRASTRUCTURE STEWARDSHIP
D D C S C
EVELOP RAFT HIP EAL OVER
A S B
GGREGATE PECIFICATION ASED ON
AIMS A , S T
NGULARITY HAPE AND EXTURE
T R
EST ESULTS
MUSHARRAF ZAMAN, PH.D., P.E.
DOUGLAS GRANSBERG, PH.D., P.E.
RIFAT BULUT, PH.D.
SESH COMMURI, PH.D.
DOMINIQUE PITTENGER PH.D.
OTCREOS11.1-65-F
Oklahoma Transportation Center           Phone: [phone]  
2601 Liberty Parkway, Suite 110       Fax: [phone]  
Midwest City, Oklahoma 73110      www.oktc.org
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the
facts and accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated
under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation University
Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S.
Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.
i
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT NO. 2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENTS CATALOG NO.
OTCREOS11.1-65-F

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
Develop Draft Chip Seal Cover Aggregate Specification Based on March 2013

AIMS Angularity, Shape and Texture Test Results 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT

Musharraf Zaman, Douglas Gransberg, Rifat Bulut, Sesh Commuri
and Dominique Pittenger
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO.

The University of Oklahoma, Office of Research Services

Three Partners Place, Suite 150, 201 David L. Boren Blvd Norman, 11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.
DTRT06-G-0016
Oklahoma 73019

12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Oklahoma Transportation Center Final November 2011 to March 2013

(Fiscal) 201 ATRC Stillwater, OK 74078 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
(Technical) 2601 Liberty Parkway, Suite 110
Midwest City, OK 73110
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
University Transportation Center
16. ABSTRACT

The objective of the study is to improve Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) chip
seal design and performance through introducing new criteria for the selection of cover
aggregate and binder. These criteria will be based upon the recent technological advances in
the characterization of aggregate shape and texture as well as aggregate-binder compatibility.
The study evaluates the shape and texture-related index properties, as well as durability, of
commonly used cover aggregates in chip seal programs in Oklahoma. Additionally, it will
provide a methodology for inclusion of these characteristics as a metric in future chip seal
specifications. The study includes both laboratory testing and construction and performance
evaluation of chip seal test sections. The study is ongoing and is quantifying how well the
newly developed performance-based uniformity coefficient (PUC) correlate with chip seal
performance in Oklahoma, and if it should be incorporated into state chip seal specifications. It
has generated aggregate-binder compatibility data, based on the surface free energy
(compatibility ratio) approach, for commonly used aggregates and asphalt emulsion binders in
Oklahoma. Moreover, the chip seal construction practice followed by different ODOT
Maintenance Divisions was documented and the best practice identified. This repository of
information will be a useful resource for ODOT maintenance divisions.

17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Chip seal, pavement management, skid No restriction. This publication is available at www.oktc.org and
resistance, aggregate-binder compatibility, from the National Technical Information Service.
maintenance, pavement preservation

19. SECURITY CLASSIF. (OF THIS 20. SECURITY 21. NO. OF PAGES 22. PRICE

REPORT) CLASSIF. (OF THIS 104 + covers
PAGE)

ii
SI (METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
Approximate Conversions to SI Units Approximate Conversions from SI Units
Symbol When you Multiply by To Find Symbol Symbol When you Multiply by To Find Symbol
know know
LENGTH LENGTH
in inches 25.40 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.0394 inches in
ft feet 0.3048 meters m m meters 3.281 feet ft
yd yards 0.9144 meters m m meters 1.094 yards yd
mi miles 1.609 kilometers km km kilometers 0.6214 miles mi
AREA AREA
square square square square
in² 645.2 mm mm² 0.00155 in²
inches millimeters millimeters inches
square square square square
ft² 0.0929 m² m² 10.764 ft²
feet meters meters feet
square square square square
yd² 0.8361 m² m² 1.196 yd²
yards meters meters yards
ac acres 0.4047 hectares ha ha hectares 2.471 acres ac
square square square square
mi² 2.590 km² km² 0.3861 mi²
miles kilometers kilometers miles
VOLUME VOLUME
fluid fluid
fl oz 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.0338 fl oz
ounces ounces
gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.2642 gallons gal
cubic cubic cubic cubic
ft³ 0.0283 m³ m³ 35.315 ft³
feet meters meters feet
cubic cubic cubic cubic
yd³ 0.7645 m³ m³ 1.308 yd³
yards meters meters yards
MASS MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.0353 ounces oz
lb pounds 0.4536 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb
short tons short tons
T 0.907 megagrams Mg Mg megagrams 1.1023 T
(2000 lb) (2000 lb)
TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact)
ºF degrees (ºF-32)/1.8 degrees ºC ºC degrees 9/5+32 degrees ºF
Fahrenheit Celsius Celsius Fahrenheit
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
lbf poundforce 4.448 Newtons N N Newtons 0.2248 poundforce lbf
lbf/in² poundforce 6.895 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.1450 poundforce lbf/in²
per square inch per square inch
iii
Develop Draft Chip Seal Cover Aggregate Specification
Based on AIMS Angularity, Shape and Texture Test
Results

Final Report
OTCREOS11.1-65
June 30, 2013
Musharraf Zaman, PhD, PE
Principal Investigator

Douglas D. Gransberg, Ph.D, P.E.
Co-Principal Investigator

Rifat Bulut, Ph.D.
Co-Principal Investigator

Sesh Commuri, Ph.D.
Co-Principal Investigator

Dominique Pittenger, Ph.D.
Research Associate

Oklahoma Transportation Center
Oklahoma Transportation Center (OkTC)
2601 Liberty Parkway, Suite 110
Midwest City, Oklahoma 73110

June 2013

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
2.0 CHIP SEAL DESIGN .......................................................................................................... 7
3.0 CHIP SEAL PERFORMANCE ......................................................................................... 19
4.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROTOCOLS..................................................... 33
5.0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ..................................................... 57
6.0 FIELD TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 73
7.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................ 85
8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 87
APPENDIX A SESSILE DROP RESULTS............................................................................... A-1

v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Chip Seal Schematic [3] ................................................................................. 1
Figure 2.1 Chip Seal Installation ..................................................................................... 8
Figure 2.2 Kearby Nomograph [1] ................................................................................. 10
Figure 2.3 Schematic of McLeod’s Failure Criteria [2] ................................................... 17
Figure 2.4 Gradation Range to Maximize Performance (after [10]) ............................... 18
Figure 3.1 Aggregate Imaging System in OU Lab ......................................................... 22
Figure 3.2 Sessile Drop Device ..................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.3 Pavement Surface Microtexture and Macrotexture [42] ............................... 28
Figure 3.4 Pavement Friction Model [43] ....................................................................... 29
Figure 3.5 TNZ T/3 Sand Circle Testing in Progress [4] ............................................... 31
Figure 3.6 ODOT Skid Truck ......................................................................................... 32
Figure 4.1 Study Aggregate Sources ............................................................................ 34
Figure 4.2 Validation of AIMS1 Gradient Angularity ...................................................... 36
Figure 4.3 Validation of AIMS1 2D Form ....................................................................... 37
Figure 4.4 Validation of AIMS1 Texture......................................................................... 39
Figure 4.5 Prepared Sample from Dolese Cooperton ................................................... 41
Figure 4.6 Bleeding and Aggregate Loss Values for Three ½” Gradations ................... 46
Figure 4.8 Chip Seal Test Section Layout ..................................................................... 48
Figure 4.9 Geosynthetic (Paving) Fabric Being Installed in Test Sections .................... 49
Figure 4.10 Dipstick Device (Rutting) Output ................................................................ 51
Figure 4.11 Dipstick Device Output Histogram .............................................................. 51
Figure 4.12 FWD Results, Pre- and Post-Construction (Chip Seal) .............................. 52
Figure 4.13 Fog Seal Application to Chip Seal Test Sections ....................................... 56
Figure 5.1 AIMS1 Output for Gradient Angularity .......................................................... 59
Figure 5.2 AIMS1 Output for Sphericity I ....................................................................... 60
Figure 5.3 AIMS1 Output for Sphericity II ...................................................................... 60
Figure 5.4 AIMS1 Output for Texture ............................................................................ 62
Figure 5.5 Sessile Drop Results Graph for Dolese Cooperton ...................................... 64
vi
Figure 5.6 Typical DCA Specimens Prepared from Asphalt Binder .............................. 67
Figure 5.7 Emulsion Coated Glass Cover Specimens ................................................... 68
Figure 5.8 The Cahn Dynamic Contact Angle (DCA) Analyzer ..................................... 69
Figure 5.9 Total SFE (ergs/cm2) of Tested Emulsion ................................................... 69
Figure 6.1 Macrotexture Values for 3/8" Test Sections ................................................. 75
Figure 6.2 Macrotexture Values for 1/2" Test Sections ................................................. 76
Figure 6.3 Macrotexture Values for Test Sections with and without Fabric ................... 77
Figure 6.4 Chip Seal Construction: Distributor, Chip Spreader and Dump Truck .......... 78
Figure 6.5 Chip Seal Rolling Operation ......................................................................... 81
Figure 6.6 Dump Trucks in Staggered Pattern .............................................................. 82
Figure 6.7 Traffic Control Signage and Pilot Car for Test Section Installation ............... 83

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Effect of Aggregate Gradation/Aggregate Treatment on Retention [18] ......... 13
Table 2.2 Asphalt Application Rate Correction Factor for Traffic [15] ............................... 16
Table 2.3 Asphalt Application Rate Existing Surface Correction Factors [15] ................. 16
Table 4.1 Surface Energy Components of Liquid Probes [54] ............................................ 43
Table 4.2 PUC Values for ½” Gradations ............................................................................... 47
Table 4.3 Test Section Gradations .......................................................................................... 47
Table 4.4 Chip Seal Test Section Shot Rates ....................................................................... 49
Table 5.1 Preliminary LA Abrasion and Micro-Deval Results ............................................. 57
Table 5.2 Descriptive Statistics for AIMS1 Output for 2 Aggregate Samples .................. 58
Table 5.3 AIMS1 Results for Two 3/8" Aggregate Sources ................................................ 63
Table 5.4 Sessile Drop Results for Dolese Cooperton ........................................................ 65
Table 5.5 SFE Components of Study Aggregates and Emulsion ...................................... 65
Table 5.6 Free Energy of Adhesion Values for Aggregate and Emulsion Sources ......... 66
Table 5.7 Compatibility Ratios for Aggregate-Binder Compatibility ................................... 70
Table 5.8 SFE Components of Typical PG 64-22 Asphalt Binder ...................................... 71
Table 5.9 Compatibility Values for Aggregates with PG 64-22 Asphalt Binder ................ 71
Table 6.1 Microtexture Values at Month 1 and Month 6 ...................................................... 74
Table 6.2 Macrotexture Values at Month 1 and Month 6 ..................................................... 75
Table 6.3 Chip Seal Best Practices: Equipment (After [3]) .................................................. 79
Table 6.4 Chip Seal Best Practices: Construction (After [3]) .............................................. 80

viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The study seeks to improve Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) chip seal
design and performance through introducing new criteria for the selection of cover
aggregate and binder. These criteria will be based upon the recent technological
advances in the characterization of aggregate shape and texture as well as aggregate-
binder compatibility. Specifically, the study includes evaluating aggregate index
properties obtained from the Aggregate Imaging System (AIMS) and performance-
based uniformity coefficients (PUC) in tweaking ODOT chip seal cover aggregate
specifications. It also uses the surface free energy (compatibility ratio) approach in
evaluating the aggregate-binder compatibility. Moreover, the chip seal construction
practice followed by ODOT Maintenance Divisions has been documented and the best
practice has been identified. The study includes both laboratory testing and construction
and performance evaluation of chip seal test sections. Division THREE (Ada) has been
actively involved in the construction of the chip seal test sections as well as
performance monitoring.

This study has three objectives. The first objective is to evaluate the shape and texture-
related index properties, as well as durability, of commonly used cover aggregates in
chip seal programs in Oklahoma, and provide a methodology for inclusion of these
characteristics as a metric in future chip seal specifications. The second objective is to
quantify how well the newly developed performance-based uniformity coefficient (PUC)
correlate with chip seal performance in Oklahoma, and if it should be incorporated into
state chip seal specifications. The last objective is to generate aggregate-binder
compatibility data, based on the surface free energy (compatibility ratio) approach, for
commonly used aggregates and asphalt emulsion binders in Oklahoma, which will be a
useful resource for ODOT maintenance divisions.

ix