Hugh Donovan, Eight-Year Review of the Full Depth Reclamation Process in the City of Edmonton

8/7/2019 Hugh Donovan, Eight-Year Review of the Full Depth Reclamation Process in the City of Edmonton

1/40

Eight-Year Review of the FullDepth Reclamation Process in the

City of Edmonton

Hugh Donovan, P.Eng.

Transportation Department

C-TEP/APWA Western CanadaPavement WorkshopFebruary 2-3, 2010


2/40

Introduction;

Budget Information/Market Issues;

In-Place Recycling Why we do it;

Roadway Evaluation Techniques; FDR Volumes and Performance of the

roads;

FDR Materials Characterization; Questions

Presentation Outline


3/40

City of Edmonton


4/40

General Road Structures in Edmonton

150 - 300mm

Granular Base

or

Soil CementBase

100-150 mmHot MixAsphalt

50 - 250mmHot MixAsphalt

200-300mmHot MixAsphalt

or

Oil Mix

Deep StrengthAsphalt

orOil Mix

( 10% of Network)

Granular/Soil Cement

(63% of Network)

CompositePavement

( 27% of Network)

150-200mmPortland

CementConcrete


5/40

City of Edmonton Roadway2007-2011 Construction Budget

025

50

75

100125

150

175

Dollars(X0

00,000)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

2007 - 2011 CPP Funded Projects

Growth Art/Collector Rehabilitation Neighbourhood Rehabilitation (FDR)


6/40

95 Million tonnes of Aggregate both Sand and Gravelhad actually been confirmed in 1978

1978

2009

By the end of the 2009 construction season it hasbeen estimated that we had used an additional 505Million tonnes of sand and gravel in the Edmontonregion;

By 2026 given current growth we estimate that wewill have used an additional 400 to 550 Milliontonnes of sand and gravel in the Edmonton region,taking us to almost 1 Billion tonnes

1978 - 2026 Cumulative Aggregate Usage - Predicted

0

100

200

300400

500

600

700

800900

1000

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

Year

Tonnes(Million's

)

Gravel & Asphalt Combined Concrete Sand

2009


7/40

Aggregate Supply Issues

Current Local Aggregate Sources: Are of poorer quality;

Have smaller rock fraction

maximum size; More costly to process;

Secondary processing to remove

deleterious materials; Further aggregate haul distances


8/40

Pavement Distresses Treated Cracking, in the form of:

Age; Fatigue; Block;

Longitudinal; Reflective; Discontinuity

Loss of bond between pavement layers Loss of surface integrity due to

raveling, potholes, and bleeding

Inadequate structural capacity


9/40

Pavement Distresses


10/40

Key Factors For Selection and Design

The outcome is contingent on: Proper analysis of the existing

pavement structure including visual and

structural assessments, investigationsand materials sampling;

Use of an appropriate Mix Design

process;

Use of an appropriate Pavement Designprocess.


11/40

Preliminary Assessments, Investigationsand Materials Sampling

Test Pitting

Coring

Subgrade Evaluation (Dynamic ConePenetrometer -DCP & Backcalculation)

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)

Deflection Testing

Visual distress survey


12/40


13/40

Road Radar - GPR Unit(2004 Current)


14/40

Ground Penetrating Radar

Asphalt on

Soil Cement Base

Asphalt onConcrete on

Granular Base

Asphalton SoilCementBase


15/40

Core #9: 100mm AC

250mm+ Granular

Core #6: 92mm AC

258mm+ Granular

Core #50: 70mm AC

230+ Granular


16/40

Legend:

0 - 25 mm

26 - 50 mm

50 - 100 mm101 - 150 mm

151 - 200 mm

201 - 250 mm

251 - 300 mm

GPR Layer Thickness

Fulton Place Neighbourhood 2010 ProjectAsphaltGranular

l


17/40

Deflection Testing Pre & PostConstruction

Dynaflect Falling Weight Deflectometer

l


18/40

DynaflectEllerslie Road Deflection Profile - 142 to 156 Street

Ebound

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0+000

0+040

0+090

0+140

0+190

0+240

0+290

0+340

0+390

0+440

0+490

0+540

0+590

0+640

0+690

0+740

0+790

0+840

0+890

0+940

0+990

1+040

1+090

1+140

1+190

1+240

1+290

1+340

1+390

Station

Deflection(

mils)

Existing Roadway Prior to Construction


19/40

Pavement Design

City of Edmontons asphalt overlaydesign is based on deflection models

For new construction our designs are

based on the AASHTO 1993Pavement Design Guide;

Gathering Resilient Modulus data foruse in the new AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide.


20/40

Mix Design

Mix Design as per latestversion of the WirtgenCold Recycling Manual

Mix design as per

Appendix 2

Mix DesignProcedures of

Stabilized Materials; Samples obtained

utilizing WR2500;


21/40

Mix Design Laboratory Testing

SIEVE ANALYSES; PLASTICITY;

MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP;

BITUMEN FOAMING CHARICTERISTICS;

PREPARATION OF SAMPLES;

MIX WITH STABILIZING AGENTS; CURING OF SAMPLES;

INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH TESTING

FOAM MIX DESIGN REPORT


22/40

Indirect TensileStrength Testing/

Mix Design

Client: City of EdmontonProject : Ellerslie RoadSample Number : 1

Material to be foamed

Location : Insitu/Camron0/50 blend

Asphalt content :

Optimum moisture content : 5.5

Maximum dry density :

Asphalt cement used for foaming Foam requirementsSupplier : Husky Energy 2 Percentage "foaming" water :

Type: 150-200 pen 160 C Temperature of asphalt cement :

1% cement Additive and percentage :

Foamed asphalt treated material characteristics

Foamed asphalt added : 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Actual foamed asphalt added : 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Diameter of specimen (mm) 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0

Height of specimen (mm) : 64.0 64.7 65.2 64.7

Mass of specimen (g) : 1086.5 1105.0 1105.5 1104.5

Bulk density (kg/m3): 2118 2132 2117 2131

Relative density (kg/m3) :

ITS dry (kPa): 427 355 358 325

ITS soaked (kPa): 262 327 280 291

Retained ITS (%): 61 92 78 90

Resilient modulus (Mpa):

FOAM MIX DESIGN REPORT

Foamed asphalt vs ITS dry

200

250

300

350

400

450

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Foamed asphalt content

ITSdry(kPa)

Foamed asphalt vs ITS soaked

200

220

240

260280

300

320

340

1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00


ITSsoake

d(kPa)

Foamed asphalt vs Retained ITS

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Foamed asphalt vs Bulk relative density

2000

2050

2100

2150

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00


Bulkdensity(kg/m

3)

E i t U d WR2500 WR2500S


23/40

Equipment Used - WR2500 or WR2500S


24/40

Urban Application - WR2500 S

Asphalt Tanker

Wirtgen 2500 SWater Truck

The Recycling Train

R id ti l/C ll t R d R t ti


25/40

150 300mm

Granular Base

orSoil Cement Base

Place 100 mmNew Hot Mix

Asphalt50 - 100mmHot Mix Asphalt

Residential/Collector Roadway ReconstructionProcess Asphalt & Granular/Soil Cement

Existing Structure

Stabilize Subgrade 150mm Depth with 10Kg/m2 Cement

Place 300mm 3-20 or 3-25Granular Base

Reconstructed Roadway

R id ti l/C ll t R d F P


26/40

150 300mm

Granular Base

orSoil Cement Base

Place 50-100 mm

New Hot MixAsphalt

50 - 100mmHot Mix Asphalt

Residential/Collector Roadway Foam ProcessAsphalt & Granular/Soil Cement

50-75mm RemainingGranular materials

Foam and Mix125-250mm

Pre-pulverizedMaterials

Prepulverize

125-250mmExisting Hot Mix Asphalt &

Granular/Soil CementMaterials

Existing StructurePre-pulverization ProcessFoaming & Final Overlay

C t C i E l 2009$


27/40

Cost Comparison Example 2009$Project 20,000 M2 Residential Reconstruction/FDR with Foamed AsphaltExisting Structure 50mm AC over 175mm SC

Item Description unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost

Reconstruction Option 100mm ACR, 300mm 3-20mm Granular Base on Stabilized Subgrade

11.032 Remove Asphalt Course (50mm) m2cm $ 0.97 1000 $ 970.00

11.034 Remove Soil Cement Course m2cm $ 0.90 3500 $ 3,150.00

16.021 Gravel 3-20 Base tonne $ 71.76 13200 $ 947,232.00

31.010 150 Cement Stabilized Subgrade m2 $ 7.28 20000 $ 145,600.00

31.030 Cement for Stabilizing Subgrade 10Kg $ 2.14 20000 $ 42,800.00

40.421 Asphalt Overlay (ACR) Mass tonne $ 114.00 5082 $ 579,348.00

Total Cost Reconstruction $85.96/m2 $ 1,719,100

Foamed Asphalt Option Prepulverize & Foam 150mm Depth with 75mm ACR Surface

31.047 Pre-pulverized Road Base m2 $ 3.91 20000 $ 78,200.00

31.048 Add/Delete 0.2% Oil m2 $ 0.46 20000 $ 9,200.00

31.049 Add/Delete 0.5% Cement m2 $ 0.66 20000 $ 13,200.00

31.051 150mm FDR using Foamed Asphalt m2 $ 13.49 20000 $ 269,800.00

40.421 Asphalt Overlay (ACR) Mass tonne $ 114.00 3811 $ 434,454.00

Total Cost Foamed Asphalt $40.24/m2 (47% Less) $ 804,854.00


28/40

Contract Totals Tendered by the Cityof Edmonton 2001-2009

Year Contracts Locations Total Peryear(m2)

CombinedTotal(m2)

2001 One Contract 3 locations 45,000

2002 One Contract 14 locations 120,000

2003 Two Contracts 13 locations 160,000

2004 Three Contracts 2 neighbourhoods &5 locations 124,000

2005 Six Contracts 4 neighbourhoods &3 locations

369,000

2006 Five Contracts 2 neighbourhoods &7 locations

259,0001,929,000

2007 Six Contracts 3 neighbourhoods &

7 locations

288,000

2008 Seven Contracts 3 neighbourhoods &6 locations

166,000

2009 Ten Contracts 4 neighbourhoods &9 locations

398,000

2010 Nine Contracts 3 neighbourhoods &~15 locations

Total not yetavailable

Does not include 2010locations


29/40

156 Street, 137 to St. Albert Trail Rural Granular Cross-Section

Pre-Construction 2002 Post-Construction 2002 May, 2009

150 A 94 t 88 St t


30/40

150 Avenue, 94 to 88 Street -Urban Soil Cement Cross-Section

Pre-Construction 2001 Post-Construction 2001 May, 2009

Deflection Profile


31/40

150 Avenue, 87 Street to 94 Street

0.00.3

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.82.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.33.5

Station

Deflection

(mils)

Pre - 2001 Post - 2001 Aug -02 May-05 May-07 May-09

Deflection Profile

S C ki


32/40

Some Cracking

93 A 146 t 149 St t


33/40

93 Avenue, 146 to 149 Street

Location Under Evaluation

W t D T ti


34/40

Wet-Dry TestingWet-Dry Testing (Density vs. % Loss)

y = -43.909Ln(x) + 2168.2

R2

= 0.7616

1,900

1,925

1,950

1,975

2,000

2,025

2,050

2,075

2,100

2,125

2,150

2,175

2,200

2,225

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

% Loss

Density(kg/m3) Maximum Allowable loss 11%


35/40

Freeze-Thaw TestingFreeze Thaw Testing (Density vs. % Loss)

y = -127.24Ln(x) + 2237.4

R2 = 0.7112

1,900

1,925

1,950

1,975

2,000

2,025

2,050

2,075

2,100

2,125

2,150

2,175

2,200

2,225

2,250

2,275

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% Loss

Density(kg/m3)

Maximum Allowable loss 11%

Wet/Dry Freeze/Thaw


36/40

Wet/Dry - Freeze/Thaw

Resiliant Modulus FWD Backcalculation


37/40

Asphalt Resiliant Modulus (Backcalculated)

6,000

6,2506,5006,7507,0007,2507,5007,7508,0008,2508,5008,7509,0009,250

9,500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Construction Year

ResiliantModulus(MPa)

Subgrade Resiliant modulus (Backcalculated)

05

101520253035

4045505560657075

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Construction Year

ResiliantModulus(MPa)

Resiliant Modulus FWD BackcalculationFoamed Stabilized Materials Resilient Modulus

(Backcalculated)

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

2,500

2,750

3,000

3,250

3,500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Construction Year

ResilientModulus(MPa)

B fit Of C ld R li


38/40

Benefits Of Cold Recycling Reuse of the material in the existing pavement

generally better quality materials than are

currently available. Derive maximum benefit of existing pavement

structure as a stabilized base course material

Simultaneous addition of make-up (granular)material and/or stabilizing agent(s)

Speed of construction - one or two passoperation vs. a multi-pass operation

Accommodation of traffic - roadway is neverclosed to traffic

Economics ($) 30 to 50% saving

Conclusions


39/40

Conclusions Cold Recycling utilizing Foamed Bitumen is a viable

technology for use on many different types of

roadways; The structural capacity of Foamed Bitumen treated

materials approaches 85% of hot laid asphalt mixesGranular Base Equivalency of between 1.6 and 1.8;

The full depth pulverization completely eliminates anypossibility of reflective cracking;

There is no requirement for lengthy curing periods

prior to overlay of Foamed bitumen treatedmaterials;

Pre-engineering work by the owner is critical;

Imported granular material is definitely an option to

cover any material gradation problem.


40/40

Questions ?

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	eye2i
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Hugh Donovan, Eight-Year Review of the Full Depth Reclamation Process in the City of Edmonton

Documents