Asphalt Rubber Cement Concrete Webster County

Final Report Iowa Department of Transportation

Office of Materials Project HR-555

April 2003

e Highway Division

Iowa Department Of Transportation

Asphalt Rubber Cement Concrete Webster County

Final Report for

Iowa Department of Transportation Project HR-555

by Edward J. Engle, P.E.

Office of Materials Highway Division

Iowa Department of Transportation Ames, Iowa 50010

April 2003

Disclaimer

The contents of this report reflect the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Iowa Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute any standard, specification or regulation.

TECHNICAL REPORT TITLE PAGE

1. REPORT NO.

HR-555

3. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Asphalt Rubber Cement Concrete Webster County

5. AUTHOR(S)

Edward Engle, P.E. Secondary Road Research Coordinator

2. REPORT DATE

April 2003

4. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Final Rep011, 4-92 to 2-93

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION ADDRESS

Iowa Department of Transportation Office of Materials 800 Lincoln Way Ames, IA 500 IO

7. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS/INDIVIDUALS

8. ABSTRACT

Discarded tires have become a 1najor disposal problem in the U.S. Different techniques of recycling these discarded tires have been tried. The state of Iowa has evaluated the use of discarded tires ground into crnmb rubber and blending it with asphalt to make asphalt rubber cement (ARC). This was the sixth project using this process. The project is located on US 169 from the east junction of IA 175 west and north to US 20.

Only the binder course was placed during this research with the surface course to be let at a later date. There were four test sections, two sections with conventional mixtures and two with ARC mixtures.

There were no ~ignificant differences in placement or performance between the two mix types. The cost of the ARC mixture was significantly higher.

9. KEYWORDS

Ground crumb rubber, Recycled tires, Asphalt rubber cement, Crumb rubber modifier, Asphalt concrete

10. NO. OF PAGES

20

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1

Objective .................................................................. : ......................................... 1

Contractors ......................................................................................................... 1

Project Location ................................................................................................. 1

Preconstruction Survey ...................................................................................... 1

Materials ............................................................................................................. 2

Mix Design ......................................................................................................... 2

Plant Operation .................................................................................................. 2

Paving Operation ............................................................................................... 3

Construction Testing .......................................................................................... 3

Performance Monitoring ..................................................................................... 3

Cracking ............................................................................................................. 3

Rutting ................................................................................................................ 4

Structure ............................................................................................................. 5

Cost Comparison ............................................................................................... 6

Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 6

Appendices Appendix A - Project Location Map ............................................................. 7 Appendix B - Mix Designs ........................................................................... 9 Appendix C - Lab Test Results ................................................................. 12

INTRODUCTION

Recycling discarded tires into asphalt rubber cement (ARC) has been evaluated in several research projects by the Iowa DOT and others. The process used in this project involved blending the crumb rubber with AC-5 before mixing it with the aggregates (this is the so­called "wet process").

Only the binder (lower) course was completed as part of this research. There were areas of reconstruction and finally an overlay of the entire project at a later date. The project contained two test sections with ARC and two control sections with conventional asphalt cement concrete (ACC). The control sections were placed on August 13, 1992 and the test sections later on August 24, 1992.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project was to compare the cost and performance of ARC to conventional ACC.

CONTRACTORS

Mathy Construction Company of Onalaska, Wisconsin was the contractor on this project. Rouse Rubber Products of Vicksburg, Mississippi furnished the reactor and the crumb rubber for the project.

PROJECT LOCATION

The project was located on US 169 from the east junction with IA 175 west and north to the junction with US 20. Test sections are shown in Table 1 below. A map is provided in Appendix A.

Test Section

1 2 3 4

Stations (Mileposts! 221+00 (137.76) to 247+00 (138.25) 303+50 (139.32) to 383+50 (140.84) 430+00 (141.72) to 510+00 (143.23) 565+00 (144.27) to 590+00 (144.75)

PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY

Im.!!. Conventional ARC binder ARC binder

Conventional

The original road was a 24-foot wide by 7-inch thick Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement built in 1930. It had been overlaid with three inches of ACC in 1960. The 1991 traffic volume was 2550 VPD with 12 percent trucks.

A preliminary crack and patch survey was conducted and the Road Rater was used to test the structural rating of the test sections prior to construction. Portions of the test sections had been milled. The road had a large number of reflective cracks and was showing signs of distress.

MATERIALS

The ground tire rubber provided by Rouse Rubber Products was listed as GF-50 rubber. Course aggregate was furnished by Martin-Marietta, Fort Dodge Mine, Webster County, Iowa. The crushed limestone, manufactured sand was produced by Martin-Marietta, Hodges, Humboldt County, Iowa. Finally, the natural sand was produced by Northwest Limestone, Yates, Webster County. AC-5 and AC-10 were supplied by Bituminous Materials of Algona, Iowa.

MIX DESIGNS

Low lab voids were a problem with both the conventional mixtures and the ARC mixtures. The mix design for the conventional sections was changed twice and a new mix design adopted for the last two days of production. The asphalt content was reduced from 5.1 to 4.9 percent. Even with the new mix design, including an aggregate interchange and reduced asphalt content, the lab voids remained below three percent.

The ARC mix had low lab voids (1.5 percent on the first day). The asphalt/rubber content was reduced from 6.5 to 6.1 percent. This did increase the lab voids t9 3 .6 percent.

The ARC mix contained 15 percent crumb rubber. This amounted to one percent of the ACC mixture. All of the mix designs are shown in Appendix .B.

PLANT OPERATION

This was the first time a drum plant was used for producing an ARC mixture in Iowa (usually a batch plant was used). It worked satisfactorily with approximately 250 tons per hour being produced. Normally this particular drum plant (Bituma Drum Plant) would be expected to produce 350 tons per hour with conventional mixtures.

Past production of ARC using a Rouse reactor resulted in 150 tons per hour. The lower production was due to difficulties in maintaining temperature in the reaction unit, resulting in longer reaction times. Between 1991 and 1992, Rouse Rubber added an auxiliary heater to the reactor which increased production.

2

PAVING OPERATION

There were no construction problems with the conventional mix and segregation was minimal.

The ARC mix seemed to handle well, but the mix appeared rather dry. The appearance seemed to improve after the first 1500 feet. There was a minor problem with tearing of the mat when the finish roller was working. Mathy backed the finish roller off some behind the paving operation which helped reduce the problem. This same problem had occurred in previous ARC projects such as the one for HR-330 in Muscatine county. With both the Muscatine project and this one, the tearing was not apparent by the next day. The temperature of the mat behind the paver was between 275 °F and 300 °F with the conventional mixture and approximately 290 °F with the ARC.

Mathy used a Blaw-Knox PF-180H paver and a Dynapac vibratory roller with a steel finish roller on this project.

CONSTRUCTION TESTING

A sample of the GF-50 rubber was tested for gradation. The rubber and AC-5 were tested for viscosity. Finally, samples of the mix were subjected to creep and resilient modulus testing. These laboratory results are provided in Appendix C.

PERFORMANCE MONITORING

This road was evaluated approximately annually from just before the construction until 2001. The results of this testing are shown below.

CRACKING

Crack surveys were performed six times over the course of this project. Figure I shows the results of these surveys.

3

0.6

- 0.5

~ I 04

gi 0.3 t3 5 ~ 0.2

!!!

~ 0.1

Crack Survey Results HR-555 Webster County

/-...--. -----8 8 __--IS

;_= --<D- ARC -e- Control

0.0 ~---~--~-~--------~-1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

The data in this graph have been normalized. That is to say that because almost all of the cracks in the overlay are reflective, the cracks in the underlying pavement have a strong effect on the number of cracks in the overlay. These data were normalized by dividing the cracks-per-hundred feet by the original (pre-construction) cracks-per-hundred feet. As can be seen from the figure, there are no significant differences apparent between the ARC sections and the control sections.

RUTTING

Rutting measurements were made using a standard four-foot straight edge in each wheel track. Figure 2 shows the results of rut measurements between 1992 and 2001. The level of rutting was not significant within the accuracy of the measurements.

0.07

0.06

m-l 0.05

5

Oiil"

0.04

& t 0.03 <I>

~ 0.02

Rut Survey Results HR-555 Webster County

Approximate Error of Measurements:+/- 0.015 in

-e- ARC -0- Control

0.01 ~~--------~--~--~----1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

4

STRUCTURE

The structural support of the road - a measure of its strength was measured using the Iowa DOT's Road Rater. This device non-destructively determines the thickness, and strength of pavement by measuring its stiffuess. It accomplishes this by vibrating a large mass resonantly against the surface and measuring the deflection of the pavement in response. The values obtained are structural numbers (bigger is better) which can be correlated with equivalent thicknesses of various types of pavement.

Figure 3 shows the results of Road Rater testing for this project. Once again the data have been normalized. This is because the structural number is strongly affected by the strength and moisture content of the subgrade. Under certain conditions, such as a wet spring, the structural numbers are lower across the board. Because this research was mostly concerned with comparison between ARC and control sections, ir was assumed that the subgrade values were similar for all of the projects. So the structural numbers were normalized to a fixed average. This makes the data inappropriate for absolute measures but useable for comparison purposes.

6

5

2

Road Rater Results HR-555 Webster County

(normalized to 1993 post overlay values)

-0- ARC -a- Control

1992 : 1993 1994 1005 1996 1997 1999

Before After Overlay Overlay

2001

The data for the control sections straddle the data for the ARC sections. As a result, there is no indication of a significant difference between the two.

5

COST COMPARISON

A major difference between conventional mixtures and the ARC mixtures was the cost. On this project, the asphalt cement was bid at $84.00 per ton while the bid for ARC was $190.00 per ton. The cost of the conventional ACC and ARC mix are shown in Table 2 below.

Conventional Mix Aggregate $14.53 4.9 % AC-10 $ 4.12

Total $18.65 per ton mix

CONCLUSIONS

Aggregate 6.1%ARC

ARC Mix $14.53 $11.59

Total $26.12 per ton mix

1. The ARC mixture can be constructed with little or no difference from that of a conventional mixture.

2. The performance of the two mixes was very similar in terms of cracking, rutting and strength.

3. The cost of ARC mix was significantly higher than that of conventional mixes (this could change with improved technology and possible patent issues).

4. Under the conditions of this research project there is insufficient benefit of using ARC to outweigh the higher cost.

6

APPENDIX A Project Location Map

7

R-29\'I

R-29\'I

STA. 1035+00 ENO PROJECT M.P. 153.l 7

R-28\'I

f I

8

T-87N

STA. 21'1+00 BEGIN PROJECT M.P. 137.72

APPENDIXB Mix Designs

9

!OWA O(PARtttsNr OF iRANSPO~YAilO~ OFFICE Of MATERIALS

TEST REPORT· ASPHALT MIX OESIG~ LAB LOCATION • AMES

NATERIAL .•...•.. :TYPE A ARC INTENO~ij ws~.~ .. :e1NDER PROJECT NO ..••.. :NHS-169•6(43)••19•94 COUN7Y •••••••••• :WESSTER SPEC NO ......... :5040.00 SA~PUO av ...... :

LAB NO •.•. :AS02·0183

CONTRACTOR:llATHY SIZE ...... : )/4 srnorn Mo.,

OATE SAttflEO: DATE RECEIVEID: OATE REPORTED: 08(21192 PROJ. LOCATION: FRON E. JCT. lOWA 175 TO U.S. 20

AGG .. SOURCES: CR. LST. & CHIPS· MARTIN MARIETTA, FORT OQOGE t'i!NE:, W£S.STER co.; HAN. SANO~ MARTrN ~ARIETTA~ HOOGES, HU~SOLDT CO.; SANO • NORTHWEST LST., YHES, WEBSTER CO./ l~% RUSSER AOOfO TO AC.

JOS MIX FORMUU·COM. GRAOATIO~ I I I 2" I" 3/4" l/2° J/8" N0.4 N0.8 NG; 16 NO, JO N0.50 N0.100

100 .o 92.0 79.0 $G.O 4$.0 33.0 22 .-0 11.0

TOLERANCE (100 98 1 7 5 '·

M.ATt~tA.L Ml X A940-0l A~loOOl '46006 A94SOl % AGGR. PROP • 51.50 IZ.SO 10.00 25.00

% ASfHUT IN MIX ).25 6.25 7 .25 NUMBER OF MARSHAlL Stows 50 so 50 MARS~ALL STA'81LITY - L8S, l933 1777 1600 FLOW • 0.01 IN. 9 12 13 SP GR ~y 0 I $PLAC~MEMT (LAS O(MS) l. )32 2.)38 2.354 SULK S~. GR. COMS. ORY AGG. 2.697 1.697 2.697 SP. ~R. AS~H.@ 77 ~- 1.0ll 1 .Oll 1.012 CALC. SOLID Sf. GR. 1.497 1,459 2.42J % \IOIOS · CALC. f..60 4.94 2.85 RICE SP.~R. 2.469 2.4)8 2.405 % VOIOS · RICE :;.55 4. rn 2 .12 % WATER A8SQ~PTION · AOO~EGATE 0.47 Q.47 0.4) % VOIDS IN MINtRAL AGGREGATE 18.07 18.73 19.05 t V.ft.A. FILLEO WITH ASP"AtT b).47 7 3.65 85.04 CALC. ASPH. FILM THICK. ftlCRONS 10.41 11.48 14.56 FILLE~/il!TUM£N. RATlO 0.00 0.62 0.00

A CONTENT OF 6.5~ Sl~OER TARGET VOIDS 3.5%

!$ RECllJIMtNDED TO STARJ TH! J<)S.

COPl tS TOt CENTRAL LAB O. HEINS 0 IST. 1

DISPOSITION:

R. MONROE MAT HY JEfFERSON RES.

J, ADAM W. OPPEOAL

5.) N0.200

4.0

l

o.oo

o.oo 0 0 0 ().000 0.000 o.ooo o.ooo o.oo o.ooo 0.00 o.oo 0.00 0.00 o.oo 0.00

SIGNED: ORRIS J. LANE, JR. TESTlNU EN'GINE!R

10

AB02•0182 BO !OWA DEPARTMENT OF iRANSPQRTAi!ON

Off!CE Of MATERl<LS TEST R!?ORT - ASPHALT ltlX OESIGN

LAB LOCATION - AMES

MIX Of.SIGN:

LAB NO .••. :AB02-0l8Z MATERIAL •••••••• TYPE A INTENOfO USE ..•• BINOER PROJECT NO ...... NHS-169·6 (43) ·-19·94 CQUNT'Y •••• .•.••• :WE.0STER SPEC NO ......... :SOLO.OD SAMPUO av ...... .

CONTRACTM :MA THY SIZE. ..... :3/4 srnorn No.:

OATE SAMPLED: OHE REC! IVEO: OATE REPORHO: 06/20/92 PROJ. LOCATION: FROM E. JCT. IOllA 17S T<l U.S. 20

AGG. SOURCES: CR. LST. & ml PS • MARTIN MAR1 ETTA, FORT DODGE ~!NE, wa$$!~~ CQ.; ~A~~ SAN~ - ttARTIN MARIETtAt HQ~GES, HUMBOLOT CO.: SANO - NORTHWEST LST., YATES, WEBSTER CO.

JOS MIX FORl'\ULA•COJ18, GRADATION \1 1 3/fiti l/211 3/$ 11 NO~lii N0.8 N0.16 NO.JO NO.SO M0.1()0 N0.2.:'.10

100.0 91.0 79.0 56.0 ~5.0 33.0 12.0 11.0 5.3 4.0

TOLERANCE /JOO 98 7 7

MHEf\IAL MIX A9400l A94002 % AGGR. PROP. 52.$0 I 2.$0

ASPHALT SOURCE' ANO APPROXIMATE VISCOSITY POISES % ASPHALT IM MIX NUMeER OF ~ARSHALL SLOWS MARSHALL STABILITY • LBS. fl(IW ~ 0,01 lN, SP GR BY DISPLACEMENT (LAB DENS) 13Ul.K Sf:>~ CR~ Ct.JMS. llRY AG<C~ SP. GR. ASPH.@ 77 f. CALC. SOLID SP. GR. % VOIDS • CALC. Rl(E SP.OR. % VOIDS - RICE % WATER ABSORPTION • AGGREGATE % VOIDS IN MINER" MGREGAH % V.tt.A. FILLED WITH ASPHALT CALC. AS~H. FtlM TH!Ck. MIC~QNS FILLER/BITUMEN RATIO

ALMNA 0913 4.50 50 2482 6 2.3)6 >.637 1.023 2.526 5,94 2.497 4.$5 0.47 15-87 62.59 8.85 0.00

5

A46006 10 .oo

5.50 50 2390 8 2.395 2.69; 1.023 2.488 3.73 2.462 2. 7l 0.4) 16.oS 7&.84 10.~) O.]~

4

0.00 0 0 0 o.ooo 0.-000 o.ooo 0 .000 0 .oo 0,000 o.oo 0.00 0.00 0 ,OQ o.oo 0.00

0.00

0.00 0 0 0 0.00-0 o.ooo 0.001) 0.000 o.oo 0.000 Q .. 00 o.oo 0 .. 00 o.oo 0.00 o .. oo

2

A CQNT<NT Of 5.1% AC TARGET VO I OS 3 .S% COP1t$ TO:

~O IS RECOMMENOEO TO START THE J05.

CENTRAL LAS O. HEINS J€ffERSON R~S.

01 SPOS ITI ON:

R. ttONROl' MhTHV

11

J. AO.AM DIST. 1

s IGWED: onRI s J. U»E. JR. TESTl:UG €iHG I NEER

APPENDIXC Lab Test Results

12

([)

13

...

ti,~ Iowa Department of Transportation ~ DAILY PLANT REPORT

S;TUM!NOUS TREl-SED C,.\SE, ;.SP.HAL 1' iFIE:A.TEi) SASE, ASPHALT CONCRETE

c.:.,~""

Pr~J&<;;\

;;..,nu.a<:tN¢,

ld.tL / __ ,.h_ J, .5 I f,' r' .1 " I ,, 'I<> 0"' ·--~-~"-"{!<;~~~:''."" ----.-.-- F';arilLoililKin~~ .5UJ'?J r~f vo~~"L-!?~~t.LL i'!!Pf;l\b. II

il!"'<'!rnT)iW --~--- ,,;;;;:==-e~La.. ___ --:-- >-~!14'6>1 £--·"'1'~f'l-~~S@ A:in.id(n;-E:r.s41%r _iil~l!s,K..

:J't"

,_.,:<T)<M~-A__ CfaJf -·;~~~ c,,,.,.,~..,1;t_s~~ /',Lt# I'd-ti;.. ~\!~.,., --- ... " As:.""r.:;:,.,,t-ts~(l<ad~ 6itV.m~_Q.s' Sa.'!G&furt111< ~ fa"ft'J l"lat.10oer;1:t;i1!1SA~01'»M. MUt./O._ A/JtJ2-... c?/4k

SIEVE AUAlY$1$ Of COMS!nW >'UHlllEGAlE$ ,,; 1j $.AMllLlS: SUSMl'tT;;O l :J;J.Miilt!iSi.$:MITttll

S.M!~t~ . " "f"~~~EV~NO.·%PAS$1"1G , , '_ •'. M!:;y;,.;-_, l Stmd~'sr.:c. '. M~lc•la•S. !_.}*"'*'!1'><1-. ~iW,_r,t_;o»>~<1""''1v;r,s !'$;~22·8111'1'"'*b-$'-Oj ~/$·~~ . t- i £.. '. ~--S;;-&.!O ! fi,"1~ I eow1 ,,., i }' :1 "· _ 4 , 1' i 1& 1 J<i l si:i 1 100 l zoo ,, •• <."'S- _ __ltl'('.C .. 03

J!.E·lill (j)fil <' {) O I . ' · ?:2J "' I - $" I ·~-L_l'._ I <J t;. II<-.$" Ji!!;V·o; qi t j \ ~AC. TMl<M~S.~~'~AC I %AC.

" tAU.O.Ett, J • .J u U1itt:?hll t!t~u

¥l;l ~a;.:i J Suw•m i <:ffute• D<IM La ~--- , ,-:n,..?>.,,,' .s,, A... ,... ."l'.n

RECYClEOM!XON!..'f

J l"a.ialAw.Uw4T~"$ ~-· -~--~·-

.,L I ~- -T 11 •. uwo-%·~--c--...-------"'----------

"""" f,61Cel':i';l'.}:.9,\~1 ::Z~?() f )_,.l;'fi PAOOUCTIO»AM)PLACEME!fltr£COJIG.,---·--~-. --~~-·~~---·

-:::;~'-:::-;:, ''.;:' . .,,,,. z- ;-o-<iJ L!J-Tr:t-· ~";;);; ; sf<l~n;:vi';f:z 9 \. ,j~ :;? •. 't<i.:~·G .. 03k •

A~-t•,,f,e<jj~·-M'. 5,<> i~r ; ~./"'! ;ft¥J:..~'ii:!lz'i···,.···2a; 2of.Jit : =:: . "'~"~"1;;;;;+ ~::<) r- i : .. ~AA· '30 • 3Q8~"" Q ' !°*% '/, , CL- ' l -----,---~.,--,,-.--,--+' --:---r-c--,--:.,.--+c--r--c--r-=-i!l~ .... ~it't~WQll) 7 ! t.~em;.m:gC\l-1<:!~00!! : l t. I 1' i % t ~ i s 1 1€ ! Si} ; MJ; l i0:[ ~

q7.110 ~ "fS:O • ::(. 33 v OOMM<m ' "'""'"'"'"«"¢•;;; I """JJJlti 'l''bTFTTS'iJ'i'~2 !:.;?j' 'l,Z v:::L:tfi J. fi:-:J 5if44e-J rv/,/,u 11u1< ~ -f,,d.;

A~WP'""«' ,<";'<~ii<'<l•:u""'o ~al#;"'- *; O-S2-____ _ _,,_-----·~'. ~ •"

C0';;?,~"H$. !;1,~j(;;. Uf#a~\t:)"MS. CWIAft>NA~i>lll\l;W ''tti4~UM; \ll' Ac\;;a\ lZf ll!l~<¥.l<."'i.! <l't>;r:,H1w~ 'frtt!tY.! f;>A'* !iiNo/% !!til~W!!." !" "i VQj;:~ (,'.-G;t;m,'>

- ,[/., it ez.. ~ ,,,,,,,:,'7,,,_;>,_f --

t · ~ "'"""- ~ A. at:.:. si? f Vt<J !tlaimtiw CT cen . .,~ tl:.i\1\}~lAL2 0rrre:e:- R::"..G:)f<t'.JS CC;>-.ft£ft (;:';':IY

"'

~ Iowa o~partment of Transportation • O:A!LY Pt.ANTR:EPO.RT

B~'<'VM!N.01.JS 'fflotA'fl!:C il:AS-E. ;.,SP HAL 'Y tA;EA:ff!:D-6.A!=!E. ASPHAL 't CONCR!'li'O:

C¢.<mly

F<\tit!;;l

~r~tNO.-~~~---

A1 t.1 c ) ,, .f,• ,., '. . ' 1,11 . " ""' li'~;!6· 71 c"'°"'.unct>:-•q_- ;\¥ ,p.,,t!J:J:!t_,,~ Plf!n! ~~~1'0" -.'>. 1 ;:::' SW V" f 't.,,, · • J/;. ~'l;Xltl1*;.. J.9 ~ i"lWl_T);» All.&. M<l~tl ~{b f'@;i¢1! fqwpm~~:.~ R-0$~i l;:!l/f'11$W - J4 ue11;J!.. '-h TyN- C~ $i:~ ~'$'" Ct(l;NdA$;•-~""· J"I;~ _,,.. -. -

M1>Ni1S»wte&il•M-> s.·~s A4--os= ~mfS<:il>I~® Jl.J 1->J 4· < "-'JCP.M, "'"' ~(1..2... SlE.VEAHAl.lfStsOf COMB!Ht!O AflU!U:OAl'£S --· --- -- -··------ - ··-· -- A .. _.

fliAMPU

.IO'd>.~J(f0lM;?_,._-~~ r··--- Z#r-,--~·9'117.,,

~1i.A~-1 1~ 1kfi l1ob Jq2l 1

~""""-' ''

l i ~=-~ s :: 9£6' ..... ; ~:,~:~_'_'_;m1t_°' ___________ ,r--------·-----rt, ,, .,,,~ ~-v.oi'· I'"'~~·

- ' '"' j _ • ____ _____'. • .:.\}~' Ur;e<!% A;, f~:Q'l.u1:-Si:;-W11n J ,3.2? ----,.~----4~ ~ PR"o"o"ucconcocNc,.ccoc•cW>cCc,,,,.=,c.,.cc•ccccooc,.::---~-------------A~. ~"'1~0.-;!)Sii'ft~: .,~ [ ·~;n Siefo l Ce,"*U<.;.\ ~mrnSimkirifoS!a:kl'!! T()<l:stcili

A<:1h(;rr~ ;1<'!we~..-mw f!;;W> "'-~ :. Ct ~ 3 ~·~ kVIL%,~>i!V{>i<l~,;, 'f,'8 S:.31

'fol'S 'f{;<ll{l;e

tn~ ~Vci.c1 ,,,J .:;. C I

qg.1.11 ·• '1>.o

J .3 il& 2 .:JS"'

1/-i/ - "' LI A~~·~"l;:~;,.,ijSi't!•ti<(r'~I'!~'~"" ...-g".3 7 .. \,,/, i;i l ~ft~,':~~;1}~~ ~~~"l~;;· C;)111l!:\l>-O'l<CWJ!1. l)lC

B~<>=M<;§ T<'t'~~~.; "'™'' EN~<'% 1-tc~1 .... e ill ~~ ~l® 01~,>i<!f!

COMMl\'.NTS

12 -h~ "°~4 /vJl:cff' /f:if/ .. ,,_,ff,,-<:

J/l~,,,.~ A _ tJL 313'_ I"" t. UJ.$~1~ C~rt: '-'~ f-~.A1TR!f;!.S QftFiC:O:.-.- RiJ:fJRDS CENT£?. CO!'V

. ,, ~

Q "'

w

It) t;;

"' t

g 0 •

0 "

ct. ,.

" ~

·%

I :!; ¢

~

w

~ ...

c: .. " """" '~"

"'"' "'" \r)

~ ="' ()

o~

~.,

f':? ~ =

il' 0

" ..

~

!E :: ~ ~

' " iji

¢~

~-~ ~"

i ~

.T

i~ "

'!-.....

~~ "

!I ~

o~

r.: :, .... F' tl

'lj'. \:::

" m

"8

"'"""

.. 0

< -

~ "'

.., •··

-. ;]

•

~· :; a\

~ -~ "

j .

, "'

. ..

• ""' "I;

~

• 0

~

~ z ~

0

~

;;;

" I~

"' (le

'~ ~

" -ri

~ "'

''

16

17

TEST $ECi:0N'ttOP:KSH2Cf

(.q) TEST S!;CTION t10n~\ ~';1tt:l

DATE: !/Ji/:z.2 STAI£: .Ze!L.11/. COtJN;:'Y: .(:!) e.,_h!;fe> ,-

Pf\OJ~C1 NUMS~R: -----·· h!Gf!WAY: U&.'i. % RU8BEf!; _;£_'AS MARKEA: ------··

UPE. HUS!lf.A:~-StJ.4 UNH fl"'.>1 _AQ_ TO!Al l'!llBBEP. USEOIOAY: LtJ-CZq//e_[."> Nl?i</\LT T£Mi': !>l.f{/_:~)60 "f"

Aft ;"J. O.J"1J ih Gt;;c .{_.. ::: ¢".i Z$"' u #-

llROOKSFHfLD DATA

TJMti --~-S"ff!('!, . .,,,........ . C>"S' 1--$P.t4Dt..E IJ·f ftEADl'~'1 ' r?'1(;rofl \11$'.",;()Stn' I

l-~·..,-,1~'5t.'.:>-~1 -::--.~: ='f--=--=i ffeD~--- -=-0-;~'__·----~ -- •. ,1 _ ~----... ·- r-C!.~ ,,, __ __

I 0" 1·~ i!-· =--~-= "1-=:=_~~-- -

3~ ""' ---" .. -···--· le!'' H! 1:.:.:.:.::--i==---~~=~=-I :Q~-- ::-Q

-:::x;..- .. -,-- §:~;;)..t=- -==·---r-· -..-.. #~-· rm~~,.-;oj-.... ::;:-~-~?t~!A .... to ·--s_ :_;.e-·~:~··- :1.<10~ .v.1;;_ ~'fb- ~~" i===i: f_::__ --·----·i-- . ··---·--· !----+---+-:·_ 3 -j~-:::J:"02::~ _~o~~-o -:u-· s-so - !!:;sc;

-- ·7,-~·-··+~co- Ji-· -;;;- · :.r ;uoo

• ......L. . ---. _·. --- ·-·-r:;_ . .1.1$.cv· . .;;u • "f. <!p-.:. £!.;Le -- ·::.J;;r~--. · ·· ~=:~ 1---=.-=.-:::i':.-:::.-:::.-:.t6·~.a.-4~ ]:,;- --- .: . :tL.:. ~---1-~....,,,..;1------ ..... ---· -· -----T---·-t..---'---1.;l;..L.J.,41.Lt ............... ~----- --·---·

18

1QWA ~EPARfRENT Of TRANSPORTATION OffltE Of ttATERIAtS

TEST RE.PORT - 81TUMJNOU$ AGGREGATES LAS LOCATION ·· AMES

MA1£RtAL .•.•..•• :Gf SO CRUMB ~UBS[R INTENDED USE ..•. :A.R.C. BINDER PR©OUCER ........ •ROUSH PRQJECT N-O •.•.•. :NHS-1~9-6(~J) ·-19-94 COUNTY .......... :WEBSTER CONTRACT-OR: MATaY CONST. UNli or ~ATtRIAL:GF - $0 RUSSER GRANULES SAMPLED aY •.•••. :C. ANDERSON SENDER NO.:CAZ-123 OAT£ SAMPLED: 08/24/92 OAT£ RECEIVED; 0~/27/92 DATE REPORTED: 08/27/92

SIEVE tm. 11> - 100.0

LAB NIJJo\B!R S !EVE AnAtYSIS %

#30 #50

C-OPJ ES TO: CEHTRAL LAB

OlSPOSiT!ON:

GEOLOGY

19

AAT2•0'49

96.0 ;i3.o

V. MARKS

SIGNtO, ORR!$ J. LANt. JR. TESTING ENGiNE.£R

Marshall Stability, Creep and Resilient Modulus Testing

Test Marshall Stability

Creep Resilient Modulus

Material % - inch binder, 50 blows % - inch binder, 50 blows % - inch binder, 50 blows

20

Conventional 2,436

88 710,000

ARC 1,790

77 580,000