2011‐02‐28

1

FDR vs CIRFDR vs CIRFDR vs CIRFDR vs CIR

Alan CarterÉTS, MontréalÉTS, Montréal

38th Annual Rocky Mountain Asphalt Conference & Equipement Show

Introduction / BackgroundObjectiveExperimental process◦ Materials usedMaterials used◦ TestsResultsBenefit-cost RatioConclusion

OutlineOutline of the of the presentationpresentation

2011‐02‐28

2

FDR

Cold Cold rehabilitationrehabilitation techniquestechniques

CIR

2011‐02‐28

3

2011‐02‐28

4

CIR vs FDRCIR vs FDR

2011‐02‐28

5

CIR◦ Asphalt only◦ 75 – 100 mm thick◦ Must be covered

FDR◦ Asphalt + granular base◦ 100 – 300 mm thick◦ Must be covered

CIR vs FDRCIR vs FDR

Compare and characterize different CIR and FDR mixes

Evaluate the effect of post-compaction on Evaluate the effect of post compaction on FDR and CIR

ObjectivesObjectives

2011‐02‐28

6

Mixes prepared◦ MR5 50% RAP / 50% Granularmaterial◦ MR6 – 75% 75% RAP / 25% Granularmaterial◦ MR6 – 85% 85% RAP / 15% Granularmaterial◦ MR7 100% RAP

ExperimentalExperimental ProcessProcess

1 RAP source with 3% asphaltAsphalt emulsion CSS1-P (67% asphalt)100% crushed aggregates

Add d P tl d W t T t l

Mix

Added asphalt

content (%)

Portland cement

content (%)

Water content (%)

Total asphalt

content (%)

MR5 1.8 1 6.5 3.3MR6 - 75% 1.8 1 6.5 4.0

MixesMixes

MR6 - 85% 1.8 1 6.5 4.3MR7 0.8 1 5 3.8

2011‐02‐28

7

90100

MR7

304050607080

Perc

ent p

assi

ng (%

)MR6 - 85%MR6 - 75%MR5MG20

MixesMixes 01020

0.010.1110

P

Sieve (mm)

SlabsSlabs preparationpreparation

2011‐02‐28

8

SlabSlab preparationpreparation

Mix Gmb Gmm

Air voids(%)

MR5 2.311 2.535 8.9

MR6 - 75% 2.260 2.491 9.3

MR6 - 85% 2.213 2.484 10.9

ResultsResults

MR7 2.167 2.531 14.4

2011‐02‐28

9

Loss of water during compaction

2.5

3.0

0 0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0% of w

ater loss

ResultsResults

0.0

MR5 MR6 - 75%MR6 - 85% MR7

Mix

Dry Marshall Stability

dard

dev

iatio

n After soaking Marshall Stability da

rd d

evia

tion

Retained stability (%)

(N)

Stan

d Stability (N) St

and

MR5 20076 2148 12824 1564 63.9

MR6 à 75% 16167 1374 12416 198 76.8

MR6 à 85% 15225 1187 11395 798 74.8

ResultsResults

MR6 à 85% 15225 1187 11395 798 74.8

MR7 17274 777 13071 797 75.7

2011‐02‐28

10

3 0

4.0

5.0

6.0

ten

t (%

) MR5MR6 75%MR6 85%MR7

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

D0 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10

Wate

r co

n

ResultsResults

D0 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10Curing time (days)

10.0

(%)

0 1

1.0

Rut

dep

th (

MR7MR6-85%MR6-75%MR5

ResultsResults

0.1100 1,000 10,000 100,000Cycle numbers

2011‐02‐28

11

MR5 MR6‐85%MR6‐75% MR7

ResultsResults

Post-compaction represents compaction under traffic before being covered◦ Modified Colas method◦ New compaction after 6 hours

EffectEffect of postof post--compactioncompaction

2011‐02‐28

12

EffectEffect of postof post--compactioncompaction

EffectEffect of postof post--compactioncompaction

2011‐02‐28

13

Evaluation of the actualized cost vs the performance over a given period of time

◦ A MTQ studyQ udy

◦ 40 years in this case◦ 199 sections = 450 km

BenefitBenefit--costcost RatioRatio

IRI Evolution

Average

CIR Performance CIR Performance (MTQ (MTQ studystudy))

Age of the pavement (years)

2011‐02‐28

14

30

40

50

Increase in performance (%)

Increase in Value (%)0

10

20

CIRFDR

BCR: 2 8

BenefitBenefit--CostCost Ratio Ratio (MTQ)(MTQ)

BCR: 2,8BCR: 1,4

All 4 mixes respect Quebec’s standardAmount of RAP as an effect on:◦ Rutting resistance◦ Marshall stabilityy

ConclusionsConclusions

2011‐02‐28

15

Alan CarterProfessorÉcole de technologie supérieureMontréal, Qc

alan.carter@etsmtl.ca

Thank youThank you