Superpave Implementation Across Canada (1994-2001)

Results from the 2001 Canadian Superpave Implementation

Tracking Study (C-SITS)

Steve Goodman

C-SHRP Program Manager

Overview

C-SHRP and Superpave Past C-SHRP Implementation

Surveys 2001 Survey Methodology Results Summary Some Current SP Research The Future of C-SHRP and

Superpave

C-SHRP and Superpave

Considerable attention from C-SHRP as major product of SHRPEquipment purchase assistanceTest roads at Lamont, Hearst and

Sherbrooke (low temp. cracking)1998 Briefing TourCanadian Directory of ResourcesTechnical briefs, technical briefs and

more technical briefs Implementation surveys

Past Implementation Surveys

1998 Provincial Agency SurveyConducted by C-SHRP and Golder

Associates3 Parts

Superpave testing capability Implementation Plans Supply and Construction

Main conclusions Implementation much slower than US Some concerns with technology Some agencies to implement by 2000/01

Past Implementation Surveys

1999 University Curriculum StudySurvey sent to all Canadian

university Civil Engineering Depts. and some technical colleges

13 of 30 responsesAll 13 offered some form of

Superpave instruction Some specific courses, mostly added to

existing courses

All provinces covered except BC

2001 C-SITS Survey

Expanded distributionProvincial and territorial

transportation agenciesNumerous municipalities

2 PartsPart 1 – Total tonnages by year

Full Superpave PG Binders with Marshall Design

Part 2 – Detailed Project level data

2001 C-SITS Survey

Part 1 Questions Tonnages placed 1994-2001

Full Superpave (as per AI/AASHTO) PG Binder with Marshall Design

Has your Agency adopted SP? If not, why?

Construction Concerns? Tenderness, Compaction, Segregation,

Pickup, StrippingAverage % increase in cost for SP

asphalt Is cost justified?

2001 C-SITS Survey

Responses41 responses (20%)

10 provinces, 1 federal, 30 municipalities

19 agencies have experimented with Superpave mix design

All 10 provinces, federal, 8 municipalities

Many of the large municipalities responded

Expected that unresponsive agencies do not have experience

How Much Down?

4.13 million tonnes

4.13 million tonnes Full Superpave 28.3 million tonnes PG Binder with

Marshall design

Tonnages PlacedProvince Tonnes Placed 1994-2001 (Full SP)

MOT/DOT Municipal % Municipal

BC 1800 366,000 99.5

AB 1,436,900 210,600 12.8

SK 5000* 23180 82.3

MB 3,250 0 0.0

ON 18,000 2,500 12.2

QC** 1,934,400 0 0.0

NB 104,300 0 0.0

NS 26,650 0 0.0

PEI 0 0 0.0

NF 0 0 0.0

Municipal Users

Municipality Tonnes of Superpave Placed

(1994-2001)

City of Surrey, BC 96,290

City of Vancouver, BC 270,000

City of Edmonton, AB 45,100

City of Calgary, AB 165,500

City of Regina, SK 23,187

Municipality of Durham, ON

2,500

How Many Agencies Have Adopted SP?

None.

Why Not? Limited experience with mix design and testing. Performance still under evaluation. Mixed results to

date. Used only for high traffic areas. Scarcity of acceptable aggregates (costs related to

aggregate production). Want to gain experience with PG binders first. Want to ensure that Superpave does not exclude

materials that have provided good performance in the past.

Why Not? Technical issues

FAA testRestricted ZoneSoftware

Absence of performance related test. Concern with industry’s testing and mix

design ability and capacity. Waiting for acceptance/adoption by

Province. High cost of testing equipment

Why Not?

Low Benefit:Cost Ratio. Current mixes perform well against rutting. Only low temp cracking a concern (PG binders have improved situation)

Will eventually replace Marshall, but gradually.

Construction Concerns?Concern No. of

Agencies

Yes No

Tenderness 8 11

Compaction Difficulty

6 13

Segregation 5 14

Roller Pickup 10 9

Stripping 2 17

Concerns Remedied with Experience?

Mostly “Yes” Comments

Insufficient experienceHandwork difficult Increased pickup with modified

binders (one agency removed rubber tired roller from job)

Some increased segregation with >25mm NMAS mixes

Tonnages PlacedProvince MOT/DOT Municipality

BC 5-10% Undetermined

AB$1 per tonne

(non-PG binder)

0-10% (Calgary)

15% (Edmonton)

SK n/a

n/a

MB25-30%

(PG Binder w/ Marshall)

ON Undetermined

QC* 0-5%

NB n/a

NS0% Field

75% PG testing

PEI n/a

NF n/a

Survey Summary 2.6 million more tonnes of SP since 1998

Much faster implementation rate Municipalities are experimenting with and

using Superpave Only one agency has adopted SP mix design Many agencies have adopted PG binder spec

West has good crude, use CAN-CGSB specs Experience has reduced construction

problems

Survey Summary

Canadian agencies will likely adopt SuperpaveSome outstanding technical issuesConcerns about performance of test sectionsWaiting for performance testNeed industry experience and capacity

Some SP Related Work

New RAP Guidelines for SP (NCHRP Research Results 253)

NCAT report on Restricted ZoneShould be a “Caution Zone” or Eliminated Entirely

Simple Performance Test soon (NCHRP 9-19 and 9-29) Dynamic Modulus (E*)???

NCHRP Report on Modified Binders (NCHRP 459) Testing and Inspection Levels for HMAC (NCHRP 447) Ndesign Table Literature Review (NCHRP Web Doc) Many online through TRB at and NCAT

The Future of C-SHRP and Superpave

Continue collecting survey informationLook at Part II information with time

Technical BriefsSuperpave vs. SMA?Results of MTQ/LCPC/Heritage Research

ExperimentAny other new technologies/procedures from

NCHRP projects Second Superpave Briefing Tour?

May tie in with AASHTO 2002