moisture damage in asphalt pavements: forensic analyses...

Moisture Damage in Asphalt Pavements: Forensic Analyses and Research Needs

Wednesday, October 31, 20182:00-4:00 PM ET

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

The Transportation Research Board has met the standards and

requirements of the Registered Continuing Education Providers Program.

Credit earned on completion of this program will be reported to RCEP. A

certificate of completion will be issued to participants that have registered

and attended the entire session. As such, it does not include content that

may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by RCEP.

Purpose

Provide a practical discussion of moisture damage in asphalt pavements.

Learning ObjectivesAt the end of this webinar, you will be able to:

• Identify moisture-related damage in asphalt pavements• Describe various methods to make asphalt pavements less

susceptible to moisture damage and understand the steps to address moisture damage taken by state highway agencies

• Discuss a cost-benefit analysis performed to determine the applicability of anti-strip additives

• Discuss the existing research related to asphalt moisture damage and identify gaps

Moisture Damage in Asphalt Pavements

Concepts and fundamentals

Silvia CaroTRB Webinar — October 2018

Definition

Definition

Moisture damage is a degradation process that leads to the overall degradation of the mechanical properties of the material due to the

presence of moisture in a any state (liquid, vapor, solid).

“the progressive functional deterioration of a pavement mixture by loss of the adhesive bond between the asphalt cement and the aggregate surface

and/or loss of the cohesive resistance within the asphalt cement, principally from the action of water.”

— Kiggundu and Roberts (1988)

Factors impacting moisture damage susceptibility

Materials components of the mixture

Properties of individual phases, Volumetric properties, Type of mixture, etc.

Moisture Damage

System attributes intrinsic factors


Moisture Damage

Construction procedures and quality control

Methodologies, Compliance QA

regulations.

Extrinsic factors impacting internal factors


Project characteristics

Project relevance/traffic, Supporting systems (drainage), Maintenance strategies.

Moisture Damage

Extrinsic factors


Environment

Relative humidity Rainfall regimes Water table Winter regimens (freeze-

thaw cycles, etc.)

Moisture Damage

https://imagens-de-fundo.blogspot.com/2011/07/imagem-de-fundo-nuvens-brancas-em-ceu.html

Extrinsic factors

Moisture damage mechanisms

https://pixabay.com/en/clock-mechanism-gears-976234/

Mechanisms

Moisture Damage Mechanisms

Water transport modes

System attributes

Response of the system Water infiltration

Vapor water diffusion Capillary rise

Aggregate mineralogy Asphalt properties Mixture volumetric

properties

DistressesExtrinsic Factors

Construction Weather Traffic

Debonding

Cohesive degradation

aggregate

Asphalt coating

Moisture

https://www.pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/testing/asphalt-tests/moisture-susceptibility/

Distresses – damage manifestation

Stripping, raveling.….. potholes

https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/indianapolis-extra-145m-deal-potholes-143888/

Summary

Moisture Damage Mechanisms

Water transport modes System attributes

Moisture damage is a complex phenomenon that involves physical, chemical,

thermodynamics and mechanical processes, each one occurring at a different magnitude and rate.

Main difficulty for finding ‘the’ best moisture susceptibility test

Project or extrinsic factors (weather, traffic)

&

FORENSIC INVESTIGATION OF HMA RAVELING AND MOISTURE DAMAGE IN MAINEDerek Nener-Plante, M.S., P.E.Asphalt Pavement EngineerMaineDOT

1

Integrity – Competence - Service

Talking Points2

MaineDOT Background Maine Raveling Issue Forensic Study - Methodology Observations / Conclusions Questions

Background - MaineDOT3

Responsible for over 8,400 centerline miles of the 24,000 total miles in Maine

Average capital program of $269 million per year

Superpave mix design – full QA system on volumetrics

What is the problem?

Raveling of the HMA surface, primarily from the wheelpaths

Two different loss components: Coarse aggregate Matrix

Statewide PMS data shows a marked increase in rutting

No current moisture damage test used in Maine

4

HMA Raveling5

HMA Raveling6

HMA Raveling7

HMA Raveling - Interstate8

HMA Raveling - Interstate9

HMA Raveling - Differing Texture10

HMA Raveling Impact

Numerous major failures in Region 5

High profile failure in Bangor on I-95 Mill & Fill paved in

2007-2008 Required partial

repair in 2012 UTBWC in 2014

Statewide in at least some severity

11

HMA Raveling - Forensic Study12

Partnership with FHWA – formed a team Tim Aschenbrener, FHWA Office of Pavement

Technology Mike Praul, FHWA Division Office Rick Bradbury, Materials Engineer Brian Luce, Pavement Quality Derek Nener-Plante, Asphalt Pavement Engineer Kevin Cummings, Quality Assurance John Bither, Region 5 Project Manager Bruce Yeaton, Consultant

Project List13

ID Route: Nearby City Age Treatment Raveling Rut

G1 1A: Dedham-Ellsworth 8 6” HMA and ABC Very Low 3/16”

G2 1: Mars Hill 10 6” HMA and ABC Very Low

G3 9: Augusta 8 1-1/2” mill and shim*

Low 4/16”

M1 1A: Ellsworth 4 6” HMA and ABC Low - Mod 4/16”

M2 163: Castle Hill 5 6” HMA and ABC Low - Mod 4/16”

M3 9: Chelsea 3 ¾” and shim Low - Mod 2/16”

P1 1: Westfield 5 ¾” and shim Gone 16/16”

P2 163: Mapleton - Presque Isle

10 1-1/4” mill and shim Gone 20/16”

Poor Performers14

P1P2

Possible Causes15

Climate and Traffic High moisture

environment Studded tires

Construction Factors Time of paving along

with mixing, compaction and ambient temperatures In-place density

Constructability including joints, segregation and mat tearing

Increase in percent passing No. 200 sieve

Aggregate Properties Quality of P200 Dust coating Durability Thickness of overlay to

nominal maximum aggregate size (t / NMAS) along with fine and coarse gradations

Possible Causes (continued)16

Binder Properties Performance grading Reclaimed binder ratio (RBR) Chemistry of binder: re-refined

engine oil bottoms (REOB) Chemistry of binder:

polyphosphoric acid (PPA) Chemistry of binder: presence

of copper Rapid-aging of the binder from

drum mixer or silo storage Difference in critical low

temperature (∆Tc)

Mixture Volumetric Properties Asphalt content Air voids Voids in the mineral aggregate

(VMA) Aggregate bulk specific

gravity (Gsb) Dust to asphalt ratio (F / Be)

Mixture Characterization Permeability Moisture susceptibility

measured with the tensile strength ratio

Moisture susceptibility measured with Hamburg wheel-track testing

Causes Related to Performance17

1) Quantity of P200 with F/Be2) Aggregate durability with

the Micro-Deval abrasion loss

3) thickness / NMAS4) Gsb verification5) Permeability6) Moisture susceptibility

testing

1) Quantity of P200 with F/Be18

50

60

70

80

90

100

G1 G2 G3 M1 M2 M3 P1 P2

PWL

for

F/Be

Project ID

* Taken from Acceptance testing results LSL = 0.6, USL = 1.2

1) Quantity of P200 with F/Be19

* Increase = P200 (Acceptance) – P200 (Design)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

G1 G2 G3 M1 M2 M3 P1 P2

Incr

ease

in P

200

(%)

Project ID

2) Aggregate Durability20

* Blend – composite design at approval / Source – individual source aggregate

05

1015202530

G1 G2 G3 M1 M2 M3 P1 P2

Loss

(%

)

Project ID

Blend (Project) Coarse (Source)

2) Aggregate Durability21

* Performed on residual agg. after solvent extraction of forensic cores

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

G1 G2 G3 M1 M2 M3 P1 P2

Loss

(%

)

Project ID

Fine Micro-Deval (ASTM D7428)

3) Thickness / NMAS22

* P2 – NMAS changed during construction from 9.5 mm to 12.5 mm

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0

G1 G2 G3 M1 M2 M3 P1 P2

t / N

MA

S

Project ID

4) Gsb Verification & Volumetrics23

MaineDOT Policy:

Contractor submitted Gsb is used for calculation – must

be within 0.02 of MaineDOT value to verify

8 of 9 projects had Contractor values higher

than the DOT values2.55

2.60

2.65

2.70

2.75

2.80

2.85

2.55 2.65 2.75 2.85

Con

trac

tor G

sb

MaineDOT Gsb

5) Permeability24

* Calculated based upon NMAS & in-place density (NCAT, Mallick, 2003)

0

50

100

150

200

250

G1 G2 G3 M1 M2 M3 P1 P2

Perm

eabi

lity

(x10

E-05

)

Project ID

6) Moisture Susceptibility Testing25

* AASHTO T 283 TSR from remolded, forensic cores

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

G1 G2 G3 M1 M2 M3 P1 P2

Tens

ile S

tren

gth

Ratio

Project ID


* G3 & M1 had no SIP identified

0

5

10

15

20

G1 G2 G3 M1 M2 M3 P1 P2

Strip

ping

Infle

ctio

n Po

int

Thou

sand

s

Project ID

Preservation Projects

Plastic Flow28

Stripping29

Stripping30

Findings - Reconstruction Projects31

G1 G2 M1 M2Construction F/Be PWL 100 100 72 72Aggregates Durability C C F

t / NMAS 3 3 3 3Volumetric Properties

Gsb

Mixture Properties

PermeabilityHamburg * *

Findings - Preservation Projects32

G3 M3 P1 P2Construction F/Be PWL 100 75 63 65Aggregates Durability C C F C F

t / NMAS 3 2 3 2.4VolumetricProperties

Gsb

Mixture Properties

PermeabilityHamburg

Recommendations33

Improve the weighting of pay factors for control of the P200, either the ∆P200 or F / Be.

Improve the verification process for the Gsb. Implement moisture susceptibility testing such as the

Hamburg wheel-track testing using the stripping inflection point.

Implement aggregate durability test for fine and coarse aggregates such as the Micro-Deval.

Establish guidelines for the use of thin overlays that includes the t / NMAS and gradation (coarse vs. fine).

Not one thing will “fix” all of Maine’s HMA issues

Mixtures selected on basis of historic performance in terms of moisture susceptibility

Various moisture susceptibility tests evaluated

Research Team: Eshan V. Dave (PI), Chris DeCarlo, Jo Sias Daniel (CoPI) from University of New Hampshire -Rajib Mallick (CoPI), Ram Kumar Veeraragavan, Nivedya MadankaraKottayi from Worcester Polytechnic Institute

NETC 15-3: Moisture Susceptibility Testing for Hot Mix Asphalt Pavements in New England

AASHTO T283 No clear distinction between good and poor mixes.

Hamburg Wheel Tracker Clear distinction between good and poor performers

MiST conditioning has good potential to discriminate between mixtures, especially when combined with Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) test

NETC 15-3:Outcomes

Any Questions?

Derek Nener-Plante, M.S., PEAsphalt Pavement Engineer

[email protected]

Thank you for the opportunity.36

mailto:[email protected]

Evaluating Performance of Asphalt Pavements in Arkansas

TRB Webinar: Moisture Damage in Asphalt Pavements: Forensic Analyses and Research Needs

October 31, 2018

Andrew Braham, University of ArkansasZahid Hossain, Arkansas State University

Timothy Aschenbrener, Federal Highway Administration

vs.(I-30 east of Little Rock)

(I-40 west of Little Rock)

Acknowledgements

• Shu Yang and Nazmul Chowdhury – graduate students on project

• Leslie Parker, Slater Smith, Cory Bramlett, Erica Yeung, Marius Kabera, Chris Siebenmorgen and Seth Cagle –undergraduate students

• ArDOT (Arkansas Department of Transportation)- Funded TRC research project 1404- Mark Greenwood (research project coordinator)- Crews that helped with sampling (250+ cores)

2

From 2000 – 2005, Arkansas completed an Interstate Rehabilitation Program (IRP)

(Wilson, 2002)

3

Some roads are doing just fine from the IRP

4

I-30 near Brinkley, AR

Unfortunately, other roads are prematurely deteriorating – why?

5

I-40 near Ozark, AR

Interstate locations sampled

6

Four good sections, two medium sections, four poor sections

(map from: googlemaps.com)

Analysis focused on the following

• Structural adequacy• In-place air voids• Moisture damage• Lack of bond strength• Mix properties

- Lab mix design- Field acceptance

7

Did these factors influenced deterioration?




8

Structural adequacy:Typical thicknesses

• Surface course (S2): 1-2”• Surface course (S1): 1.5-3”• Binder course (B3): 3”• Binder course (B2): 4”• Base course (B1): NA to 3”

9

Structure adequate:Not a structural issue




10

In-place air voids

• After approximately fifteen years of traffic• After this time period, air void evaluation:

- Good performance < 7%- Medium performance 7-8%- Poor performance ≥ 8%

• Two analysis slides:- Color representation- Graphical representation

11

Air voidsGreen good, , red poor

12

• Poor performing sections had poor levels of air voids

• Good performing sections had good levels of air voids




13

Moisture damage

• Visual rating:- Stripping rating from

fracture samples- Stripping rating from

AASHTO T283- Performance

o Good 1-2o Medium 3o Poor 4-5

14

• Core degradation:- By photo observation of

cores- Performance

o Good: intact core with smooth sides

o Moderate: separation of lifts and smooth sides

o Severe: separation and degradation form an hour-glass shape

o Very severe: hour-glass shape and/or substantial loose material

Moisture damageGreen good, , red poor

15

• Poor performing sections had poor levels of stripping ratio

• Good performing sections had good levels of stripping rating

Moisture damage: core degradation

16

G1Good: intact core with smooth sides

M1Severe: separation

and degradation form an hour-glass shape

P4Very severe:

hour-glass shape and/or substantial

loose material




17

Layer debonding

• Debonded lifts:- Cores arrive in lab

debonded- “Zero” bond strength- Performance

o Good ≤20%o Medium 20 – 35%o Poor ≥35%

18

• Bond strength:- Only on intact cores

o 70F, zero normal stress

- Run ono Top surface to bottom surfaceo Bottom surface to binder

- Performance based on NCAT Report 12-04

- Performance: guillotine bond strengtho Good: >100psio Medium: 50 – 100psio Poor: ≤ 50psi

Layer debondingGreen good, , red poor

19

• In general, poor performing sections had higher percentages of debonded lifts

• Many poor sections had much lower replicates for bond strength

Bond strengthGreen good, , red poor

20

• Results were mixed

• If a core was intact, regardless of pavement performance, bond strength should be decent

With these mixed results, a new factor is introduced combining debonding percentage and bond strength

Bond strength factorGreen good, , red poor

21

• Multiply bond strength by total decimal of bonded cores (both S2/S1 and S1/B3)

• Performance (psi)- Good > 40- Medium 20-40- Poor < 20




22

• Focused on four properties:- Optimal asphalt content- Voids in Mineral Aggregate (VMA) (for12.5mm NMAS,

>14% per AHTD)- Dust – asphalt content (0.6 – 1.2 per AHTD)- Retained stability (>80% per AHTD)

• Missing three “good” and one “poor” section- G1, G2, G3, P4

• Nmax = 205 for all mixtures- Per AASHTO R 35-15, ESALs > 30 million- Ninit = 9, Ndes = 125, Nmax = 205

Mix design

23

Mix Design – no results out of specification

24However, data is not complete

Three recommendations for ArDOT

25

• Improve moisture susceptibility testing procedures- Move from retained stability to AASHTO T283

• Examine the mix design requirement to ensure adequate air voids are obtained after trafficking- Includes air void requirements, VMA, number of

gyrations during mix design- These could increase optimal asphalt content

• Review cleaning inspection of roadways and application of tack coat specifications- Consider incorporating a field test to measure tack rate

and/or coverage

Summary

• Structural adequacy – not a problem• In-place air voids – potentially part of the problem• Moisture damage – potentially part of the problem• Lack of bond strength – potentially part of the

problem• Mix properties – potentially part of the problem,

need more information- Binder data supports mixture data findings

26

ArDOT recommendations: change moisture testing, examine mix design requirements, and review specifications

27

Additional resources• Yang, S., Braham, A., Underwood, S., Hanz, A., Reinke,

G. “Correlating Field Performance to Laboratory Dynamic Modulus from Indirect Tension and Torsion Bar,” Road Materials and Pavement Design, Vol. 18, Issue S1, January 2017, pp. 104-127.

• Braham, A., Aschenbrener, T., Hossain, Z. “Forensic Investigation of Ten Asphalt Interstate Pavements with Varying Performance in Arkansas,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part B: Pavements, June2018, Vol. 144, Issue 2.

Moisture Damage in Asphalt Pavements: Forensic Analyses and Research Needs

Cost/Benefit Analysis of Antistrip Additives in HMA

AcknowledgmentsDon Christensen, Advanced Asphalt

Technologies, LLCDennis Morian and William Wang,

Qualtiy Engineering Solutions, Inc.Neal Fannin, Garth Bridenbaugh,

Heather Heslop and others of PennDOTProducers who participated in surveysReport FHWA-PA-2015-004-110204

Today’s PresentationBased on situation in PennsylvaniaResearch completed in 2015Emphasis in this talk not on details of

laboratory testing program but general issues and benefit/cost analysisLife cycle cost analysis (LCCA)Benefit/cost analysis (BCA) and

Conclusions

Asphalt pavements and moisture sensitivity in PennsylvaniaPennsylvania has a severe climate: wet

with many freeze-thaw cyclesA mix of aggregates, some susceptible

to moisture damage, some notPavements for heavier traffic levels

require varying amounts of aggregates with higher skid resistance levels (SRLs)

Asphalt pavements and moisture sensitivity in PennsylvaniaAggregates with high SRLs tend to be

moisture susceptibleAntistrip usage dependent on results of

AASHTO T 283 testingBetween 2003 and 2014, PennDOT

used a low-saturation Lottman method that produced saturation levels of only 30 to 50 %.

Significance of Moisture Resistance Testing ErrorsType I error

– “Good” mixes that fail testing– Cost of error is unnecessary use of

antistrip—relatively minorType II error

– “Bad” mixes that pass testing– Cost of error is high maintenance,

premature failure--expensive

Accuracy of High SaturationT 283 Testing: Overall, Including Results of From Similar Research

Type I error rate: 6 %Type II error rate

– 23 % for highly susceptible aggregates– 62 % for moderately susceptible

aggregates

Accuracy of Low SaturationT 283 Testing

Type I error rate: 0 %Type II error rate: 100 %

LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS…

IC PMCiPMCj

PMCn

NPV=?

0 1 2 3 n

EUAC=?

−+

+=

1)1()1(

n

n

iiNPVEUAC

k

n

kk i

PMCICNPV)1(

11 +

+= ∑=

Net present value (NPV) and estimated uniform annual cost (EUAC)

Fixed Input Values

Variable ValueDiscount Rate* 2%

Analysis Period (Years) 24

Assumed Project Length (Mile) 1

Lane Width (Feet) 12

HMA Density (lb/sy/in) 110

Asphalt Adjustment Multiplier (AAM)*(values from ECMS)

1.12

Performance Assumptions w/ ExperimentalDesign: Performance Cycle Assumptions

GeneralPerformanceAssumption forSusceptible Mixes Antistrip

Resistant Mixes

Performance Cycles:

No. Duration Total

RealisticWithout 2 12 24

With N/A N/A N/A

OptimisticWithout 2 12 24

With N/A N/A N/A



Highly Susceptible Mixes

Performance Cycles:

No. Duration Total


With 3 8 24


With 2 12 24



Moderately Susceptible Mixes

Performance Cycles:

No. Duration Total


With 2 12 24


With 2 12 24

LCCA Results for Realistic Scenario

Comparison of EAUC (Including User Cost) among Realistic Scenarios

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000EU

AC

($/L

ane-

mi.)

SRL-M $14,647 $27,804 $22,670 $21,977 $14,696

SRL-G $15,728 $29,793 $24,172 $23,479 $15,777

SRL-H $16,757 $31,606 $25,644 $24,951 $16,806

SRL-E $21,466 $39,863 $31,998 $31,305 $21,515

C RHN RHS RMN RMS

C= no moisture damage; RHN= highly susceptible mix, no antistrip; RHS = highly susceptible mix with antistrip; RMN = moderately susceptible mix, no antistrip; RMS = moderately susceptible mix with antistrip.

BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

Benefit/Cost AnalysisAnalyze all costs and benefits of a

possible decisionUse net present value (NPV) or

equivalent annual uniform cost (EAUC)B/C = 1 at break evenB/C > 1 indicates economical outcomeB/C < 1 indicates uneconomical

BCA of Moisture Resistance Testing and Antistrip UsageCost = cost of testing and cost of AS;

relatively smallBenefit = increased pavement life, lower

maintenance costsCBA must consider costs, benefits and

accuracy of testing

BCA Sensitivity Analysis

Discount rateTraffic growth ratePercentage of susceptible aggregatesRelative performance of poor

aggregates Improvement resulting from antistripMandatory vs. conditional AS usageWith and without user delay costs

Final Estimates of Resistant/Susceptible Aggregates70 % resistant

– 80 % limestone/dolomite/other resistant aggregates

– Reduced by blending for skid resistance20 % moderately susceptible, other

crushed stone and aggregate blends10 % highly susceptible, all crushed

gravel, some other aggregates

Other AssumptionsPercentage of susceptible aggregates:

20 % (10 % and 40 %); 50/50 split between highly and moderately susceptible (conservative)4 million tons per year subject to

moisture resistance testingAverage thickness 1.75 in, 12 ft. width1,500 tests per year at $320 per test

B/C Ratio, w/o Delay Costs, Realistic Scenario, Discount Rates

Benefit/Cost vs. Overall Savings

Benefit/cost ratio should only be used to determine whether or not a given course of action is economical—B/C ratios should not be used to decide among viable optionsAmong viable options (B/C >> 1),

selection should be based on net savings or similar criteria

Yearly Saving from Mandatory Antistrip Usage, without User Delay Costs

Scenario/Savings% Susceptible Aggregates

40 20 10Realistic/Conditional $8,000,000 $4,000,000 $1,900,000Realistic/Mandatory $14,700,000 $7,200,000 $3,400,000Savings Mand./Cond. $6,700,000 $3,200,000 $1,500,000Percent 6.0 3.2 1.6Optimistic/Conditional $6,600,000 $3,300,000 $1,600,000

Optimistic/Mandatory $8,500,000 $4,100,000 $1,800,000Savings Mand./Cond. $1,800,000 $800,000 $300,000Percent 1.9 0.8 0.3

Yearly Savings with Mandatory Antistrip Usage, with User Delay Costs

Scenario/Savings% Susceptible Aggregates

40 20 10Realistic/Conditional $9,100,000 $4,600,000 $2,200,000Realistic/Mandatory $16,700,000 $8,200,000 $3,900,000Savings Mand./Cond. $7,500,000 $3,600,000 $1,700,000Percent 5.9 3.2 1.6Optimistic/Conditional $7,300,000 $3,600,000 $1,800,000

Optimistic/Mandatory $9,400,000 $4,500,000 $2,100,000Savings Mand./Cond. $2,000,000 $900,000 $300,000Percent 1.8 0.8 0.3

PennDOT policy changesPennDOT abandoned the low-

saturation Lottman method in October 2014 and returned to the high-saturation procedureDistrict material engineers may require

antistrip in mixes known to be moisture susceptible, even if they pass moisture resistance testing without antistrip

Conclusions

B/C of low saturation testing is zeroB/C of high saturation testing with AS

usage always much greater than oneB/C for both conditional and mandatory

AS usage both much greater than one

ConclusionsMandatory usage of AS appears to be a

more economical approach than AS usage conditional on test outcome– Cost of AS very low relative to cost of

moisture damage– Mandatory usage avoids high cost of type

II errors (susceptible mixes pass test)

Needs for further research

Liquid antistrip additives may not be as effective in actual pavements as in laboratory testingSome evidence suggests that hydrated

lime is much more effective in practiceEffect of mix/pavement permeability on

moisture damage

Research need gaps

Moisture Damage in Asphalt Pavements

Silvia CaroTRB Webinar -October 2018

Methodology

Two main sources of information were used:

183 published papers in the last 7 years in some of the most relevant international indexed journals in the area of pavement engineering.

Survey to US DOTs (39% response rate) and researchers (18 experts).

1

2

Trends in moisture damage research

Papers in moisture damage published per year

3 46

86 6

8

16 1519

33

21

42

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Num

bero

f pap

ers

Year

56%

20%

4% 2% 3%6%

2%8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

HMA

WM

A

CMA

RAP

or R

AS

Mas

tic

Bitu

men

/Agg

reg

ate

Asph

alt

Oth

er

Perc

enta

ge o

f pap

ers

Papers published per type of material


Papers per scale of study

Macro79%

Micro18%

Nano1%

Other 2%



0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Num

ber o

f pub

lishe

d pa

pers

Netherlands Thailand India Lithuania Australia

Canada Malaysia China Spain USA

Iran United Kingdom Pakistan Normay Italy

South Africa Qatar UAE Turkey Sweden

Chile Colombia Korea Japan Costa Rica

Singapore Brazil Bahrain

ColombiaMalaysia

Canada

Italy

CostaRica

SouthAfricaPakistan

Sweden

USA

China

UK

Spain

Iran KoreaTurkey

IndiaNetherl.

Papers per country

Papers per institution


0

5

10

15

20

Num

ber o

f Pap

ers

Nottingham Leicester Scott Wilson LtdLiverpool De Montfort University Amirkabir University of TechnologyShahid Rajaee Teacher Training University Babol Noshirvani University of Technology Iran University of Science and TechnologyUniversity of Tehran Texas A&M Arizona State UniversityArgon National Laboratory Clemson University IndependantIowa Department of Transportation Iowa State University Louisiana State UniversityLouisiana Technical University Michigan Technological University Mississippi State UniversityNorth Carolina State University Oregon State University Paragon Technical ServicesPennsylvania State University Rutgers University South Dakota State UniversityTemple University Texas Transportation Institute The American University in CairoUniversity of California University of Illinois University of Louisiana LaffayetteUniversity of Kansas University of Maryland University of MinnesotaUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln University of Nevada University of New HampshireUniversity of New Jersey University of New Mexico University of MassachusettsUniversity of Oklahoma University of Texas at Austin University of Winsconsin-MadisonUniversity of Wyoming US Army engineer research and development center US Federal Highway AdministrationVanderbilt University Washington State University Western Research InstituteWorcester Polytechnic Institute Laboratorio de Ingenieria de la Construcción Universidad de CoruñaUniversity of Granada Universidad de Huelva Hunan UniversityNanjing University of Aeronatutics and Astronautics Tongji University Huazhong University of Science and TechnologySouthwest Jiaotong University Shandong University Northeast Forestry UniversityHarbin Institute of Techonology China University of Petroleum Wuhan University of TechnologyChina Academy of Engineering Physics Southeast University Dessign And Research Insitute

Texas A&MNottingham

Amirkabir Wuham UTWisconsin

TU Delft

New Mexico

Nebraska

Michigan

Louisiana

IranUST

IIT Bombay U. AndesClem-

son NCST

Nevada

UT Austin

SainsMalaysia

Harbin ITTongjiKansas

Kyung Hee

DOTs perception on moisture damage

Survey to DOTs

Is moisture damage considered a major issue affecting the durability of flexible pavements in your State?

Q1

57%43%

YesNo


Survey to DOTs

Q2 Does your DOT has/or had any type of specification for preventing/controlling moisture damage? Which one?

16

1 1

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

TSR-AASHTO T283 Hamburg Wheel Test Various None

Num

ber o

f sta

tes


Survey to DOTs

Q3 Does your DOT require the use antistripping agents? If yes, which type?

9

6

5

2

2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Number of States

Addi

tive

Discretion contractor

No need

Liquid antistriping

Hydrated lime

Other types


Survey to DOTs

Q4 Which are the main topics that, based on the experience in your State, require immediate attention:

1. Understanding the role and efficiency of certain additives used in asphalt mixtures moisture damage (e.g. aggregate treatments, oil additive treatments, impact of ARAs, etc.).

2. A better and more reliable characterization test.

3. Moisture damage of mixtures with RAP/RAS.

4. Methods to improve material selection (e.g. aggregates) to prevent moisture damage.

5. Correlation between lab characterization and field performance.

Researchers experience and perception on moisture damage

Survey to researchers

Q1 Your experience working on moisture damage has been mainly focused on:


Q2 Your experience working on moisture damage has been mainly focused on which type of mixtures?



Q3 From your personal point of view, what is the best test currently available for quantifying moisture susceptibility of asphalt mixtures (if any)?

29%

41%

24%

6%

AASHTO T283 (or related)

HWTNone

SATS



Q4 Which are the topics in this area that require our attention:

1. Relationship between moisture damage and oxidation.2. Test methods and characterization of moisture susceptibility

of specific mixtures.3. Relationship between lab characterization and field

performance.4. Considerations to include moisture damage as part of current

mechanistic-based pavement design methodologies.5. Adhesion and interface issues.6. Fundamental mechanisms and processes.7. Others.


Summary

Moisture damage continues being a topic of interest in pavement engineering.

Several DOTs seem to have implemented procedures to prevent moisture damage. However, there are new challenges regarding the use of new and/or recycled materials and the increasing offer of new additives in the market.

Main research gaps:

• Tests procedures to characterize moisture susceptibility, • coupled environmental phenomena, and• fundamental mechanisms driven this degradation process.

Today’s Participants• Tim Aschenbrener, Federal Highway Administration,

[email protected]• Silvia Caro, Universidad de Los Andes,

[email protected]• Derek Nener-Plante, Maine Department of Transportation,

[email protected]• Andrew Braham, University of Arkansas, [email protected]• Donald Christensen, Advanced Asphalt Technologies LLC,

[email protected]

Advanced Asphalt Technologies, LLC






Panelists Presentations

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/webinars/181031.pdf

After the webinar, you will receive a follow-up email containing a link to the recording

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/webinars/180321.pdf

Get Involved with TRB• Getting involved is free!• Join a Standing Committee (http://bit.ly/2jYRrF6)

– Search for AFK40 (Surface Requirements of Asphalt Mixtures)

• Become a Friend of a Committee (http://bit.ly/TRBcommittees)– Networking opportunities– May provide a path to become a Standing Committee

member• For more information: www.mytrb.org

– Create your account– Update your profile

http://bit.ly/2jYRrF6

http://bit.ly/TRBcommittees

http://www.mytrb.org/

Receiving PDH credits

• Must register as an individual to receive credits (no group credits)

• Credits will be reported two to three business days after the webinar

• You will be able to retrieve your certificate from RCEP within one week of the webinar

moisture damage in asphalt pavements: forensic analyses...

Documents