(PMB) Spray Seal Trials

Austroads Polymer Modified
Binder (PMB) Spray Seal Trials
Steve Patrick
Research Engineer,
ARRB Group
Today’s moderator:
Angela Juhasz
Webinar Program Coordinator
ARRB Group
Ph: +61 3 9881 1694
[email protected]
Housekeeping
Webinar is = 40 mins
Question time = 20 mins
+
=
Go To Webinar functions
Please type your
questions here:
Contents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Background
Site selection and assessment
Trial construction and layout
Sampling and testing
Observations to date
Conclusions
5
Introduction
• Use of PMB in sprayed
seals is increasing
• The latest Austroads PMB
specification framework
AGPT/T190
– Revised PMB classifications
– New grade
– Bounded specifications
• Trials will provide field
validation
6
What is a PMB?
A PMB
consists of
bitumen,
polymer, and
other
blending
additives and
digesting oils.
7
History of T190
• Specification framework for polymer modified binders
(1992)
– Revised in 1997 and 2000
• Austroads provisional specification for multigrade binders
(AP-T01)(2000)
• Specification Framework for Polymer Modified Binders and
Multigrade Bitumens (AP-T41)(2006)
• Commentary to AG:PT/T190 – Specification framework for
polymer modified binders and multigrade bitumens (2010)
8
8
PMB grades used in sprayed sealing
PMB grade
Typical polymer type
S10E (~ 3%)
S15E (~ 4%)
S20E (~ 5%)
SBS
S25E (~ 6%)
S35E
PBD
S45R (~ 15%)
Crumbed rubber
9
Objectives
• To validate and rank
the performance of
PMB sprayed seal
binders
– as a crack inhibitor
– by quality of the seal
10
Site selection and assessment
11
Site selection
• Road jurisdictions asked to
identify potential sites
• Suitability based on a number
of criteria
–
–
–
–
Horizontal curvature
Significance of cracking
Climatic conditions
Traffic concentration
• Inspected by Austroads
Bituminous Surfacings Working
Group representatives
12
Site selection
Stuart Hwy, Coober Pedy, SA
330 vehicles/day AADT
19% commercial, 35% EHV
13
• Stuart Hwy, Coober Pedy, SA
14
Site selection
Monaro Hwy, Cooma, NSW
4,000 vehicles/day AADT
15
Site selection
• Monaro Hwy, Cooma NSW
70
Mean rainfall (mm)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Cooma - Mean rainfall
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Canberra - Mean rainfall
16
Site assessment
• Network survey
vehicle
– Road geometry
– Road condition (IRI,
texture)
– Cracking
– Visual record
17
On-site visual inspection
• Inspections
– Aggregate condition
• Mosaic
• Loss of particles
• Shape / breakdown /
polishing
– Binder
• level up the aggregate
particle
• condition
– Crack severity and
extent
18
Questions
Construction of the trials
Pre-construction data
• Sand patch for surface
texture
• Ball embedment
• Detailed crack mapping
21
Pre-construction data
22
Trial construction - binders
•
•
•
•
•
•
C170 (Control)
S10E
S20E
S35E
S45R (Coober Pedy) / S15RF (Cooma)
S15E
Coober Pedy
• BP S15E
• SAMI S20E SS
• Shell S5E.
Cooma
• FH Surfix 70X emulsion
• SAMI Samiflex emulsion
• SAMI Polyseal emulsion.
23
Trial layout
• Binders layed
adjacent to each
other
– Coober Pedy
• 250 m full width
sections
• Two application rates
for each product
– Cooma
• 300 m single-lane
sections
24
QUICK
POLL
Poll Question 1
Do you take samples from your road building
activities?
A. Yes
B. No
QUICK
POLL
Poll Question 2
When do you take samples of materials?
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
From the factory
Upon arrival at work site
After they have been applied
Other
All of the above
Sampling and testing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Consistency at 60 °C
Stiffness at 15 °C
Viscosity at 60, 135, 165 °C
Torsional recovery at 25 °C
Softening point
Storage stability
Penetration at 25 °C
Percent increase in viscosity
at 60 °C after RTFO test
• Matter insoluble in toluene
• Durability
27
Additional information
• Morphology
sample
• Infrared camera
• Transverse
distribution
measurement
28
Monitoring and outcomes
Monitoring
Scheduled at 6 months, 1,
2, 4, 6, 8, 10 years
• photographic records
• visual inspection to rate
seal characteristics
• ball penetration and
texture depth
• sampling for binder
viscosity
• crack mapping
30
Texture data – Coober Pedy
31
Texture data – Cooma
32
Binder testing results
• 6 of the 12 specified PMB binders showed ‘as manufactured’ test results
which met the requirements of AS2008 or AGPT/T190.
• All ‘as manufactured’ binders, except the crumb rubber binders, met the
storage stability requirements of the European PMB specification
• As a number of binders meet asphalt grade PMB requirements, they may
give an indication of how asphalt grade PMBs will perform in sprayed seals
• Most of the binders studied did not show marked differences between ‘as
manufactured’ and ‘as delivered’ properties.
– Changes in test properties during transport did not occur for the bitumen
samples and PMBs that contained lower amounts of polymer (C170, Shell S5E,
S10E, S35E)
33
Observations – Coober Pedy
34
Observations – Coober Pedy
• Aggregate spread rate had a big
influence on performance
– aggregate spread rate was quite variable
– this was the first job on a first contract.
Truck drivers not practiced.
– the first runs of each day were the worst
• C170 and shandy as good as the rest
• Asphalt binder in sprayed seal – no
difference (asphalt stiffness spec
met)
• design – low volume design rates too
low
35
Observations – Cooma
36
Observations – Cooma
• Emulsion had better
aggregate wetting
• Design application
rate was a problem
• Downhill rates should
be different to uphill
rates
• Insufficient cutter
levels in the PMBs
37
Conclusions
• All PMBs in current
specification included in trials
• Field trials assist appropriate
binder selection
– Longer seal lives
– Reduced maintenance costs
• Collaboration between ARRB,
road jurisdictions and industry
38
Reports
• Polymer modified binder sprayed seal trials:
construction report – AP-T242-13
• PMB Sprayed Seal Trials: 12 Month Summary
Report – AP-T253-13
• Report to be issued under TT1906 this year
Questions
Thank you for your participation
today.
For further information on the topic, please
contact: Steve Patrick +61 3 9881 1678
[email protected]
Website: www.arrb.com.au
www.austroads.com.au

Download Report