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
Thank youThank you