Report No. COOT -DTD-R-94- 1

COMP ARISON OF THE HAMBURG WHEEL-TRACKING DEVICE AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONING SYSTEM TO PAVEMENTS OF KNOWN STRIPPING PERFORMANCE

Timothy Aschenbrener

Colorado Department of Transportation 4201 East Arkansas Avenue Denver. Colorado 80222

Ronald L. Terrel. PhD Oregcn state University

Covell Hall 106 Corvallis. Oregon 97331

Richard A. Zamora Federal Hig,way Administration 555 Zang Street. Room 250 Lakewood. Colorado 80228

Final Report January 1994

Prepared in cooperation with the

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

The contents of this report reflect the views of

authors who are responsible for the facts and the

accuracy of the data presented herein. The

contents do not necessarily reflect the official

views of the Colorado Department of Transportation

or the Federal Highway Administration. This report

does not constitute a standard, specification, or

regulation.

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Th6 P200 and Hamburg wheel-tracking tests were performed by Kim Gilbert (COOT) and Richard

Zamora (FHWA - Colorado Division). The Environmental Conditioning System test results were

periormed at Oregon State University by Larry IIg. I am also grateful for the numerous Region

Materials personnel who sampled and delivered the 3 tonnes of aggregate used in this study.

Julie E. Kliewer, P.E. and Ph.D. candidat~ provided valuable assistance in analyzing and writing

the portion of the report about the Environmental Conditioning System.

The COOT research panel provided many excellent comments and suggestions for the study.

It included: Byron Lord and Kevin Stuart (FHWA - Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center),

Doyt Bolling (FHWA - Region 8), Jerry Cloud (FHWA - Colorado Division), Denis Donnelly, Steve

Horton, and Bob LaForce (COOT - Staff Materials), Ken Wood (COOT - Region 4 Materials), and

Donna Harmelink (CDOT- Research).

Special thanks to the panel of Colorado asphalt paving experts who provided numerous ideas and

suggestions which made this study more informational: Bud Brakey (Brakey Consulting

Engineers), Jim Fife (Western Colorado Testing), Joe Proctor (Morton International), Scott Shuler

(Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association) and Eric West (Western Mobile).

ii

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Rcp·:>rt No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

CDOT-DTD-R-94-1

4. Title and Subtitle S. Report Date

Comparison of the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device and the January 1994

Environmental Conditioning System To Pavements Of Known 6. Perfonning Organization Code

Strippinl!_Performance

7 .. \.uthor(s) 8. Perfonnlng Drgol1lzntton Rpt.No.

Timothy Aschenbrener and Ronald Terrel and Richard Zamora CDOT-DTD-R-94-1

9. Pcrfnrming Orgnnl7.ation Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRA[S)

Colorado Department of Transportation

4201 E. Arkansas Ave. 11. Contract or Grant No.

Denver, Colorado 80222

12. Sp6l1Sor:ing Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Rpt. and Period Covered

Colorado Department of Transportation Final Renort

4201 E. Arkansas Ave. [4. Sponsoring Agency Code

Denver, Colorado 80222

IS. Supplcmcnlary Notes

Prepared in Cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

16. Abstract

Moisture damage to hot mix asphalt pavements has been a sporadic but persistent problem in Colorado, even though laboratory

t(~s ting is pcrfonned to identify moisture susceptible mixtures. The laboratory conditioning was often less severe than the

concitioning the hot mL,( pavement encountered in the field. Twenty sites of known fieJd performance with respect to moisture

susceptibility, both <Icceptable and unacceptable, were identified. Materials from these sites were tested using severnl new and

innovative tests: tilt hamburg wheel-tracking device, the SHRP Environmental Conditioning system, and tests only the aggregate

cnll1jx)ncnt of the mix.

r IltfllemcnL1tion:

":est r~sults indicated the Hamburg wheel-tracking device has very severe moisture conditioning. By modifying the City of Hamburg

srx~cific&.tic!1, the results could accurately identify most stales of known perfonnance. The ECS test procedure has a mild

moisture conditioning. fiy making the test specification more severe, the results could accurately identify most sites of know

filed pcrrOnn~l11CL. A combination of met!!yJene blue / Ridgen voids index may identify reasons some sites had ppor Eerfonnance.

17. Key'Vords 18. Distribution Statement

Moisture susceptibility Case histories No Restrictions: This report is

SHRP Environmental Hamburg wheel-tracking available to the public through

the National Technical Info.

Service. Springfield, VA 22161

19'sccurily Classif. (report) 20.ScclirIty ClassiC. (page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 101 .,. 111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... .. . . ....... . ................. . .. . ...•.... . ..

2.0 SITE SELECTION ............. .. . .......... . .. .. . .. . .. . . . .• . . . . ... 2 2.1 Good. . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.2 High Maintenance . . .......... . ...... .. .. . .....•... .. . . . . . . ... 3 2.3 Complete Rehabilitation ......•............ • .. .. . •..... .. .. ..... 3 2.4 Disintegrators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3.0 TEST METHODOLOGY . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF TESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.1 Hamburg Wheel·Tracking Device . .... . ........................... 9

4.1.1 The Equipment and Procedure . . . .. . . . . .. . . ... . .... . ... . .. 9 4.1 .2 The Results and Specification . ................. •... ..... .. 9

4.2 Environmental Conditioning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 4.2.1 The Equipment and Procedure ............. . .............. 13 4.2.2 The Results and Specification . . ... .. .. . .... . .• . . . . . . ... ... 13

4.3 P200 Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 4.3.1 Sand Equivalent .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 4.3.2 Methylene Blue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 4.3.3 Rigden Voids Index Test ........ .. ........ . . . . . . .. . .. . ... 18 4.3.4 Stiffening Power .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .... ... ...• . ...... .. • . ............... ... 20 5.1 Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device .............. . ..... ... ..... .... . 20

5.1.1 Correlation With Pass-Fail Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 5.1.2 Correlation With Measured Parameters .. . ................. .. 22 5.1 .3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . .. 27

5.2 Envirorimental Conditioning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.2.1 Correlation with Pass-Fail Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . .. 29 5.2.2 Correlation with Measured Parameters . ..... .. .. .....• . ..... 30

5.3 P200 Tests .......... ........ ... . ....... ... . .. . •• . .... . . .. .. 32 5.3.1 Sand Equivalent .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 5.3.2 Methylene Blue Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . .. 33 5.3.3 Rigden Voids Index Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 5.3.4 Ability of P200 Tests to Predict Stripping Performance . . . . . ... . .. 37 5.3.5 Dust Coating on Aggregates .. .... . . .. .. ...... . . ........ . . 38 5.3.6 Correlation Between Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

6.0 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . • . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. 39

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . .. .. . .. ... .. . . . . . ...... . ..... . .•. 40

8.0 REFERENCES . .. . ........ . .. . . . .. . ... . .. . . ... . . . . . . . .. . ........ . 41

IV

List of Tables

Table 1. Sites Used in This Study. . . ........ . .. . ... . ............. ... . .... . 2 Table 2. Aggregate Gradations and Optimum Asphalt Contents for HMA Used in This

Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Table 3. Experimental Grid for the Stripping Study. . . . . .. . . . .... . .. .. ........ . . 10 Table 4. Summary of ECS Test Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. 14 Table 5. Relationship of Methylene Blue Values and Anticipated Pavement

Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 17 Table 7. Comparison of Pavements of Known Field Performance with the Hamburg

Wheel-Tracking Device (Pass and Fail) at 50·C. ... ...... ... ........... . . 20 Table 6. Results from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device. . ....... ........... . . 21 Table 8. Comparison of Pavements of Known Field Performance with the Hamburg

Wheel-Tracking Device (Pass and Fail) at 45°C. ......... . ............. . . 22 Table 9. Comparison of Pavements of Known Field Performance with the Hamburg

Wheel-Tracking Device (Stripping Slope and Stripping Inflection) at 50·C. . .... ,. 23 Table 10. Comparison of Pavements of Known Field Performance with the Hamburg

Wheel-Tracking Device (Stripping Slope and Stripping Inflection) at 45·C. .... . .. 25 Table 11. Results 'from the ECS Device. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28 Table 12. Comparison of Pavements of Known Field Performance with the ECS Device

(Pass and Fail, considering ECS-MR ratio only) After 3 Cycles. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 Table 13. Comparison of Pavements of Known Field Performance with the ECS Device

(Pass and Fail, considering ECS-MR ratio only) After 4 Cycles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 14. Comparison of Pavements of Known Field Performance with the ECS Device

(Pass and Fail, considering ECS-MR ratio and trend) After 4 Cycles. . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Table 15. Summary of P200 Test Results. ... .. ....... . .. .. . ... . ..... .. ... .. 32 Table 16. Summary of Methylene Blue Test Results. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 Table 17. Summary of Rigden Voids Index Test Maximum P200/A,. . .•..• .. ••. .. . . . . 35 Table 18. Summary of Ring and Ball Softening Point Test Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .. 37 Table 19. Ability of Methylene Blue and Rigden Voids Index Test to Predict Stripping

Performance .. ......... . . '.' . .................. .. . ............. .. 37 Table 20. Ability of Methylene Blue and Stiffening Power to Predict Stripping

Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37

v

List of Figures

Fig. 1. A "High Maintenance" Mix Experiencing Ravelling After 15 Months. ... ... ... . . 4 Fig. 2. The Surface of a Pavement Requiring "Complete Rehabilitation" in 12 Months. . . . 5 Fig. 3. A Core Showing Stripping Below the Surface from the Pavement in Figure 2. . . . . 5 Fig. 4. Environmental Conditions for the Pavement at Arriba Requiring "Complete

Rehabilitation" After 24 Months. ... ........... ... .... . . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . 6 Fig. 5. A Disintegrator After 6 Months. ... ....... . ... . ... . .... .......... ... . 6 Fig. 6. The Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device. ......... . . . .. .. ... . ... . . .. . . . . . 11 Fig. 7. A Close-up of the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device. ........ . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Fig. 8. Definition of the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Results. . . . . ... . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Fig. 9. Overview of the Environmental Conditioning System . .... ........ . .. ... _ •. _ 15 Fig. 10. Load Frame and Specimen Set-Up Inside the ECS . . . _ ... . .... . . . .• . .• ... 15 Fig. 11. Interpretation of the ECS Modulus Curve. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • • • . . • 16 Fig. 12. Ranked Order of the Stripping Inflection Point from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking

Device at 50°C. . .............................................. . _ 24 Fig. 13. Ranked Order of the Stripping Slope from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device

at 50°C ...................................................... .. 24 Fig. 14. Ranked Order of the Stripping Inflection Point from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking

Device at 45°C. ............................................... . . 26 Fig. 15. Ranked Order of the Stripping Slope from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device

at 45°C .................................. ....... . .. . ... .. . . .... 26 Fig. 16. Mixtures Ranked by ECS-MFi Ratio After 3 Hot Cycles. . ... .. .......... . .. 31 Fig. 17. Mixtures Ranked by Slope of the ECS Curve Between 1 and 3 Hot Cycles. . ... 31 Fig. 18. Ranked Order of Sand Equivalent Values ........................ . .. .. 34 Fig. 19. Ranked Order of Methylene Blue Values ......................... .. .. . 34 Fig. 20. Correlation Between the Actual P200/Aw and the Maximum P200/Aw as

Determined by the Rigden Voids Index Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Fig. 21. Correlation Between the Actual P200/Aw and the Maximum P200/Aw as

Determined by Maximum Ring and Ball Stiffening. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Results from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device. Appendix B: Results from the Environmental Conditioning System.

VI

COMPARISON OF THE HAMBURG WHEEL-TRACKING DEVICE AND

THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONING SYSTEM

TO PAVEMENTS OF KNOWN STRIPPING PERFORMANCE

Tim Aschenbrener, Ronald L. Terrel, and Richard A. Zamora

1.0 INTRODUCTION In September 1990, a group of individuals representing AASHTO, FHWA, NAPA, SHRP, AI, and

TRB participated in a 2-week tour of six European countries. Information on this tour has been

published in a "Report on the 1990 European Asphalt Study Tour" (1). Several areas for potential

improvement of hot mix asphalt (H MA) pavements were identified, including the use of

periormance-related testing equipment used in several European countries. The Colorado

Department of Transportation (COOT) and the FHWA Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

(TFHRC) were selected to demonstrate this equipment.

The first priority of the demonstration was to verify the predictive capabilities of this equipment

by performing tests on mixtures 0f known field performance. Additionally, it was considered

necessary to assist the StrategiC Highway Research Program (SHRP) when possible. Samples

of HMA with a history of moisture susceptibility and of good performance were identified and

tested in the Hamburg wheel-tracking device and the Environmental Conditioning System (ECS)

developed by SHRP.

The purpose of this report is to compare HMA pavements of known field performance with respect

to moisture susceptibility with results from the Hamburg wheel-tracking device and the SH RP

ECS. Additionally the Europeans specify several tests on the material passing the No. 200 (75

microns) sieve that relate to moisture susceptibility. The tests performed for this study include

the Rigden voids index test, methylene blue, and stiffening power.

A conventional moisture damage test, AASHTO T 283, was performed by Aschenbrener and

McGennis (2) on the same sites used in this study. For more information on tests used to identify

stripping susceptible mix1ures and causes of stripping, Stuart (3) and Hicks (4) performed

excellent literature reviews.

1

2.0 SITE SELECTION

Twenty pavement sites were selected throughout Colorado with a known history of performance

with respect to moisture damage. These sites represent a wide variety of performance

characteristics and encompass an equally wide variety of material types used for asphalt paving

in Colorado. Performance of the sites was categorized as good, high maintenance, complete

rehabilitation or disintegrators. The sites are listed in Table 1 by county or nearby city. The

highest, 7 -day average air temperature and annual moisture are also listed.

Table 1. Sites Used In This Study.

S~ LooatiQn Oat~ Iinllironment

High Temp, . MQi$ltIte ("0) ~I!ll~)

1 Glenwood Springs Good 34 409 2 Craig 32 328 3 Delta 36 193 4 Fruita 36 203 5 Grand Junction 36 203 6 Durango 32 566 7 Ft. Collins 32 368

8 Nunn High 35 358 9 Denver Maintenance 34 389

10 Douglas County 34 389 11 Aurora 34 389 12 Jefferson County 34 389

13 Cedar Point Complete 33 240 14 Agate Rehabilitation 33 240 15 Arriba 34 240 16 Limon 33 240

17 Trinidad Disintegrators 33 417 18 Walsenburg 33 378 19 Fleming 36 447 20 Gunnison 29 208

2.1 Good

Some aggregate sources in Colorado have a good history of providing pavements that resist

moistllre damage. Seven different aggregate sources with a history of excellent performance

2

were selected for investigation. A specific project using each aggregate source was then studied

in detail for this investigation.

2.2 High Maintenance

These pavements have received an exceptionally high level of maintenance. Although pavements

in this category are still in service after two to five years, their performance is considered

unacceptable when compared to their design life. The maintenance required to address problems

from moisture damage to the HMA pavements included overlays and Significant patching of

potholes. A 15-month old pavement that required an overlay on some sections is shown in Fig.

1.

2.3 Complete Rehabilitation

Several pavements in Colorado required complete rehabilitation when less than two years old,

and often when less than one year old. The moisture damage was related to a unique pavement

design feature , rut-resistant composite pavement, that utilized a plant mixed seal coat (PMSC)

as described and evaluated by Harmelink (5). HMA pavements directly below the PMSC

exhibited severe mois1ure damage. The pavement surface (Fig. 2) and a core showing the

moisture damage that occurred just below the surface (Fig. 3) are shown for a pavement requiring

complete rehabilitation after 12 months. Even though the PMSC was a contributing factor the

distress in the underlying HMA, the HMA was still considered to be susceptible to moisture

damage since it failed so quickly.

Pavements requiring complete rehabilitation all failed when high levels of precipitation occurred

in the hottest part of the summer. The weather conditions were all very similar to that shown in

Figure 4. The temperature is the monthly mean maximum temperature, i.e. the average of the

daily high temperatures. The precipitation is the total accumulation for the month. The first

month and year in each figure represents the end of construction, and the final month and year

in each figure represents the time of failure.

3

Even though all pavements in Colorado are subjected to· freeze cycles, the severe moisture

damage did not correspond with freezing conditions. The instantaneous failures were directly

related to a simultaneous combination of high temperature, high moisture, and high traffic.

The environmental data used in this report was obtained from the weather station located closest

to each project and reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National

Climatic Data Center.

2.4 Disintegrators

There are several aggregate sources used in HMA pavements that have a notorious history of

severe moisture damage. A 6-month old pavement that disintegrated is shown in Fig. 5. Since

contractors have not used these aggregate sources on COOT projects for many years, specific

mix designs for the "disintegrators" were difficult to obtain. The mix designs with the aggregate

sources thought to be "diSintegrators" were reproduced as closely as possible with the help of

experienced, long-term employees of the COOT.

Fig. 1. A "High Maintenance" Mix Experiencing Ravelling After 15 Months.

4

Fig. 2. The Surface of a Pavement Requiring "Complete Rehabilitation" In 12 Months.

Fig. 3. A Core Showing Stripping Below the Surface from the Pavement In FlgLire 2.

5

Environmental Conditions . Arriba

Temperature 4.5 ~~~~ ________ ~ ____________ ~pr~eC~lp~it~~~iOln 100 i.l 4 90 " 80 . 3.5

ro 2.

:~ . :j i 1 ~uU',~ . l: ~.5 3

40 . ~,: ~ .' J _ .t ; { 1 30 . ". ~. .~ '. 1 : ~ ~ ;. ~.' ~ ~ i ... 4 • 05 20 'J 1 :i :', :, ~ f.~ i -~LJ~JD~~'~~il<ilU~ 0

10 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 I 89 I 90 I 91 I

Month and Year

_ Temperature L:~G Precipitation

Fig. 4. Environmental Conditions for the Pavement at Arriba Requiring "Complete Rehabilitation" After 24 Months.

Fig. 5. A Disintegrator After 6 Months.

6

3.0 TEST METHODOLOGY

The original mix design used at each site was identified. Information retrieved included the

aggregate sources? percentage of each component aggregate stockpile, component and

combined aggregate gradations, optimum asphalt content, asphalt cement source and grade, and

anti-stripping treatment.

It was not possible to use the exact aggregates and asphalt cements from the original projects

placed two to ten years ago. So, virgin aggregates from the original sources used at each site

were samples. Additionally, recently produced asphalt cements and anti-stripping treatments

were obtained form the original suppliers of materials to the sites.

The aggregates from each site were then blended to match the gradation used on the project as

closely as possible. A mix design was then performed to validate the optimum asphalt content

from each site. When the optimum asphalt content of the new mix design matched the optimum

asphalt content of the original mix design, the moisture susceptibility testing proceeded. When

the optimum asphalt content of the new mix design did not match the optimum asphalt content

of the original mix design, it was assumed the aggregates had changed and the new optimum

asphalt content was used. No optimum asphalt contents used in this study varied by more than

0.2% from the original designs.

The aggregate gradations and optimum asphalt contents of the HMA mixtures used for this study

are shown in Table 2.

7

Table 2. Aggregate Gradations and Optimum Asphalt Contents for HMA Used In This

Study.

.Slte AC GradStlOA {mm andlnehd) , . %

... 1&.0 lU 9.50 4.75 2036 fMiO 0.30 0.15 aM .. 314" 112,"318" tI4 118 tI30 #50 *,40 #200. •

1 5.5 100 87 72 51 45 26 18 10 7.0 2 4.5 100 87 72 53 42 24 15 10 6.6 3 5.3 100 93 n 53 37 21 14 9 5.9 4 4.9 100 88 66 50 40 21 14 8 5.1 5 5.0 100 94 80 52 41 31 18 10 7.1 6 6.0 100 100 88 51 37 22 14 10 7.1 7 5.7 100 91 74 49 37 18 12 8 4.7 8 4.8 100 94 77 49 38 24 18 12 8.1 9 5.9 100 100 96 62 41 25 13 10 6.1

10 5.0 100 86 n 55 43 26 18 13 8.6 11 4.9 100 100 97 57 40 21 15 11 7.8 12 5.0 100 86 76 54 42 25 18 13 8.4 13 5.7 100 86 78 60 45 22 15 9 5.7 14 5.3 100 86 78 63 47 25 16 10 7.7 15 5.6 100 85 76 62 49 27 18 13 8.3 16 5.4 100 88 79 61 50 30 20 13 8.3 17 5.6 100 100 95 72 44 24 17 12 7.3 18 5.6 100 100 95 70 39 21 15 11 7.2 19 5.5 100 96 93 83 69 32 20 14 11.7 20 6.5 100 96 80 50 42 26 18 12 8.3

B

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF TESTS Th3 experimental grid of the tests performed on samples from the various sites is shown in Table

3. A description of the tests follows.

4.1 Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device

4.1. 1 The Equipment and Procedure

Th3 Hamburg wheel-tracking device is manufactured by Helmut-Wind Inc. of Hamburg, Germany

as shown in Fig. 6: a close-up in Fig. 7. A pair of samples are tested simultaneously. A sample

is typically 26 cm (10.2 in.) wide, 32 cm (12.6 in.) long, and 40 mm (1 .6 in.) deep. Its mass is

approximately 7.5 kg (16.5 Ibs.), and the sample is compacted to 7 ± 1% air voids. For this

study, samples were compacted with the French plate compactor. The samples are submerged

under water at 50°C (122°F), although the temperature can vary from 25°C to 70°C (77°F to

158°F). A steel wheel, 47 mm (1 .85 in.) wide, loads the samples with 705 N (158 Ibs.) The

wheel makes 50 passes over each sample per minute. The maximum velocity of the wheel is

34 cmlsec (1.1 ftlsec) .in the center of the sample. Each sample is loaded for 20,000 passes or

until 20 mm of deformation occur. Approximately 6-1/2 hours are required for a test.

4.1.2 The Results and Specification

The results from the Hamburg wheel-tracking device include the creep slope, stripping slope and

stripping inflection point as shown in Fig. 8. The results have been defined by Hines (6). The

creep slope relates to rutting from plastic flow. It is the inverse of the rate of deformation in the

linear region of the deformation curve, after post compaction effects have ended and before the

onset of stripping. The stripping slope is the inverse of the rate of deformation in the linear region

of the deformation curve, after stripping begins and until the end of the test. · It is the number of

passes required to create a 1 mm Impression from stripping. The stripping slope is related to the

severity of moisture damage. The stripping inflection point is the number of passes at the

intersection of the creep slope and the stripping slope. It is related to the resistance of the HMA

to moisture damage.

An acceptable mix is specified by the City of Hamburg to have less than 4 mm rut depth after

20,000 passes.

9

Table 3. Experimental Grid for the Stripping Study.

I I ' ~od Pelformel'S liigh Oomplete D.ISlntegraIDrs !

Maintenance ~habiIlt;!.'IlQl'l

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ~o 11 12 la 1-4 1-5 16 17 18· .1>9 to . Hamburg ~ (11&'0) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NT X X X X X!

Hamburg device {'45"Cl X X X X X X X X X . X X X X X NT X X X X X

IiCS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

P200 TeSlS X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

~

o NT - Not Tested

Fig. 6. The Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device.

FIg, 7. A Close-up of the HambUrg WhMt.Tracking Device.

"

-

r---~--'---~---'---'----'---'---~r--,----,~ '::;- r- ! JI

! ,g ~ _---~-ll I rCD ... 1---;;'- a... Cf) f-I yb", =--+---+---+---i--

! c Vi

I ~I )- .~ I I---+-;'_;:::~ 1 y! l ~Hl _---'f-_-j_--+--1---t~

OJ ' .. !i ! i JQ c i · f ~

I---+-;'~ i / ... ~~~--i~. --~--~---+---+---i--~---1

I--+--~!--~I--~--+-~r-~---T--~---- ~ LI IDI-__ -+ __ -+ __ ~----~--~--~--__j---__r0 I---+--; a. ...

~ I ~1---~' +l ---+--~----t---+----r---t----rCD I--+-tl ID ! ;

oi l I i I

f1) (I) ~ f1) 01

f1) "C CIS &:

Il.. m -:J 0 0

.i:

d I-~ Z

(ww) UO!SS9JdWI wnw!xel/ll

Fig. 8. Definition of the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Results.

12

4.2 Environmental Conditioning System

4.2. 1 The Equipment and Procedure

The Environmental Conditioning System (ECS) test procedure was developed at Oregon State

University (OSU) as a part of SHRP. The ECS procedure subjects a membrane encapsulated

specimen measuring 102 mm (4 in.) in diameter by 102 mm in height to cycles of temperature,

repeated loading, and moisture conditioning. The ECS test procedure is summarized in Table

4. The procedure is explained in greater detail by AI-Swailmi and Terrel (7).

For this test program, three different load frames and systems were used. Systems A and Bare

in a large environmental cabinet and this dual system was the prototype ECS developed at OSU.

System C is a single load frame in another cabinet; and was manufactured by OEM, Inc. of

Corvallis, Oregon. The ECS system used for each specimen tested is noted in Appendix B.

Figures 9 and 10 show the configuration for system C with a single load frame.

4.2.2 The Results and Specification

The test results from the ECS procedure are based on the ECS resilient modulus (MR) determined

before conditioning and after each cycle. The ECS-MR ratio (ratio of conditioned to unconditioned)

and the estimate of stripping in the split specimen following conditioning are the bases for

evaluation of water damage.

Figure 11 shows how the data are interpreted in the ECS test. The first hot cycle is an .indicator

of initial water sensitivity. The slope of the curve between cycles 1 and 3 appear to be an

indicator of rate of continued damage. The cycle 4 (freezing) is often damaging to the saturated

aggregate and may result in additional damage. All specimens were subjected to 4 cycles in this

study, but for warm climates, the freeze cycle could be eliminated.

The procedure for interpreting the results are still under development, but the tentative

specification requires that the ECS-MR ratio be greater than 0.70 after the final conditioning cycle.

For mixtures that have a flat or upward slope between cycles 1 and 3, and ratio greater than 0.70,

no water damage is expected. Mixtures that are above 0.70 but with a downward sloping curves

are suspect and may require additives or re-design because they would fail prematurely.

13

Table 4. Summary of ECS Test Procedure.

I Step I Description I 1 Prepare test specimens as per SHRP protocol.

2 Determine the geometric and volumetric properties of the specimen. Determine the triaxial and diametral modulus using the MTS system.

3 Encapsulate specimen in silicon sealant and latex rubber membrane, allow to cure overnight (24 hours).

4 Place the specimen in the ECS load frame, between two perforated teflon disks, determine air permeability.

5 Determine unconditioned (dry) triaxial resilient modulus.

6 Vacuum condition specimen (subject to vacuum of 51 em Hg for 10 minutes).

7 Wet specimen by pulling distilled water through specimen for 30 minutes using a 51 cm Hg vacuum.

8 Determine unconditioned water permeability.

9 Heat the specimen to 60DC (140DF) for 6 hours, under repeated loading. This is a hot cycle.

10 Cool the specimen to 25DC (nDF) for at least 4 hours. Measure the triaxial resilient modulus and water permeability.

11 Repeat steps 9 and 10 for 2 more hot cycles.

12 Cool the specimen to -18DC (OOF) for 6 hours without repeated loading. This is a freeze cycle.

13 Heat the specimen to 25DC fir at least 4 hours and measure the triaxial resilient modulus and the water permeability.

14 Split the specimen and perform a visual evaluation of stripping.

15 Plot the triaxial resilient modulus and water permeability ratios.

Some higher quality mixtures may actually show initial ECS-MR ratios greater than unity, indicating

insEmsitivity to water damage. The stiffer mixture is most likely due to saturation of some or all

voids and the incompressibility of the water under repeated loading.

14

Fig. 9. Overview of the Environmental Conditioning System.

Pneumatic Actuator

Servovalve ...... _--Load Frame ..

Load Ram ;------1f+--

Outpu.!.- ==l'lb:J~::~:.:~i-;: ~:=~=- Load Cell II Teflon Disk

Specimen --l--Jf(i; ~;; 1t~tr~-_-_ -tt~ -~- LVDT Membrane

Fig. 10. Load Frame and Specimen Set-Up Inside the ECS.

15

" cp .... .... S' -II ~

"C iil -III !:!: 1.2 .0 ::l 0 ..... -=r II 1.0 m 0 UI 0 s: .-0

.... Q. ('is

5. CC 0.8

r:: 1/1 III .... 0 ::s m r:: -:2 ::s ~ "C

0.6 0

::lE C/) ()

0.4 W

0.2

0.0

Rate of Early Damage ~ (Initial water sensitivity)

Rate of Long Term Damage -001II ~ (Stripping and migration

of asphalt binder) ---I

I \: Mixture A

Freeze Damage L ~-(Aggregate degradation) Mixture 8

o 1 2 3 4

ECS Cycle

4.3 P200 Tests

It should be noted that the ultimate method for determining the suitability of different combinations

of aggregates and asphalt cements is to conduct performance-related testing on the HMA.

However, when an HMA fails performance related tests, properties of the oomponent aggregates,

particularly the material passing the No. 200 (75 /1) sieve (P200) could reveal areas for improving

the HMA. The purpose of performing tests on the P200 is to glean an Insight into the potential

relationship with performance-related tests and to recommend areas for improving the HMA.

The tests performed for this study are used by the French and/or Germans and could potentially

relate to the 'moisture susceptibility characteristics of an HMA. These tests have been described

previously by Aschenbrener (8).

4.3.1 Sand Equivalent

The procedure used for the sand equivalent test in this study was AASHTO T 176. The purpose

of the test is to quantify the cleanliness of the fine aggregates passing the No.4 sieve (4.75 mm).

The French specify values greater than or equal to 60, 50, and 40 for high, medium, and low

traffic, respectively.

4.3.2 Methylene Blue

The purpose of the test is to identify the presence of harmful clays of the smectite group (poor

quaiity P200) and to provide an indication of the surface activity of the aggregate. Active P200

is less moisture susceptible than P200 with low surface activity. Results from the methylene blue

test can be interpreted as a general rule-of-thumb as shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Relationship of Methylene Blue Values and Anticipated Pavement Performance.

Metbyleme Blue ExpeGt$1i! Pertormance tmglg)

5-6 Excellent

10-12 Marginally acceptable

16-18 Problems or possible failure

20+ Failure

17

4.3.3 Rigden Voids Index Test

The Rigden voids index test can be used to limit the quantity of P200 in an HMA mixture. The

Rigden voids index test is performed by compacting a sample of P200 and calculating the bulk

density and air voids. While the volume of asphalt cement required to fill the air voids is

considered fixed asphalt cement, the remaining asphalt cement in the HMA is considered free.

If the P200 requires a large quantity of "fixed" asphalt cement, there will not be sufficient "free"

asphalt cement to protect the aggregates from moisture damage.

Specifications often require a minimum of 40% free asphalt. Requiring 40% free asphalt cement

and knowing the Rigden voids index, the maximum P200 to asphalt ratio can be calculated by

Equation 1 as derived by Anderson (9):

where:

1 + ~ (1 - G~:w) v = Equation 1 APR D 1 +

Av

V AFA = Percent volume of free asphalt cement,

D/Av = P200 (Dust)/asphalt ratio by volume,

GDS = Specific gravity of P200 (dust) solids,

Yw = Density of water, and

Yoo = Bulk density of compacted P200 from the Rigden voids index test.

4.3.4 Stiffening Power

The stiffening power test used by the French is the increase in the ring and ball softening point

that occurs between a neat asphalt cement and a 60:40 blend by weight of P200 with the same

asphalt cement. Minimum and maximum values are specified for the stiffening power.

The minimum value specified by the French relates to angularity. By using a very high P200 to

asphalt ratio, 1.5 by weight, the angular P200 particles can interlock and create stiffening. The

resultant stiffening of the asphalt cement can be a measure of the P200 angularity. A minimum

18

value of loDe (18°F) is specified to ensure angularity of the P200. The maximum value relates

to the detrimental effects leading to fatigue, thermal cracking, and moisture susceptibility. A

maximum value of 200 e (36°F) is specified.

The actual amount of stiffening is the increase in the ring and ball softening point that occurs

between a neat asphalt cement and a blend of P200 with the same asphalt cement. Variable

blends of P200 and asphalt cement can be used to identify the P200 to asphalt ratio that causes

an increase of 11°e (20°F). An increase of 11°e has been shown by Kandhal (10) to be

detrimental.

19

5.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device

Results from the individual sites tested in the Hamburg wheel-tracking device are shown in Table

6. Results from both the 50°C and 45°C test temperatures are included. The plots of the results

from each site are in Appendix A. The maximum impression plot is the rutting depth at the center

of the sample versus the number of passes. The profile plot is the rutting depth from the back

of the sample (0 mm) to the front of the sample (226 mm) at various passes.

5. 1.1 Correlation With Pass-Fail Criteria

The City of Hamburg specification of a rut depth less than 4 mm after 20,000 passes with a 50°C

test temperature is very severe for many pavements in Colorado. Although all but one of the

stripping sites (Site 11) were predicted to be unacceptable, four of the acceptable sites (Sites 2,

4, 5. and 6) were predicted to be unacceptable as shown in Table 7.

For the Good ' sites that failed the specification, there were some interesting observations.

Although Site 2 failed the specification, it did not strip. Based on visual observation, the sample

failed from plastic flow. Sites 4 and 5 each had less than a 10 mm rut depth. The sites with

stripping in the field had greater than 20 mm rut depth, except Site 16 which had a 14 mm rut

depth. Site 6 was considered a "good" performer, but was representative of a pavement that

lasted about 7 years. Since Site 6 did poorly in the Hamburg device, it is likely the definition of

"good" performer in the field may have to be improved.

Table 7. Comparison of Pavements of Known Field Performance with the Hamburg Wheel­Tracking Device (Pass and Fall) at 50°C.

D Geo.d High Gamplete Disintegtatcr Ma'"tenan~ R$I:f.ab.

I::~II 3 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 4 4 3 4

20

Table 6. Results from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device.

Temperature = 50°C Temperature = 45°C

Site Creep Strip Strip Creep Strip Strip Slope Slope Inll. Slope Slope Inll.

1 19,000 --- +20,000 12,400 --- +20,000

2 1,700 --- +20,000 9,000 --- +20,000

3 9,200 --- +20,000 8,600 --- +20,000

4 4,200 11,000 14,200 17,000 --- +20,000

5 4,300 1,500 14,500 5,900 --- +20,000

, 6 1,100 500 3,500 7,200 --- 18,000

I 7 11,300 --- +20,000 9,100 --- +20,000

I 8 2,900 700 9,600 14,400 --- +20,000

9 --- 800 1,500 --- 1,000 1,500

10 2,200 600 6,200 3,300 1,900 10,700

11 8,800 --- +20,000 12,300 --- +20,000

12 2,000 1,000 4,600 2,600 800 8,400

13 --- 600 2,300 --- 300 3,300

I 14 --- 400 1,500 --- 500 2,000

15 NT NT NT NT NT NT

I 16 --- 1,700 1 --- 1,100 1 ,

17 --- 200 1 --- 400 1,500

18 --- 300 2,200 2,300 500 5,300

19 --- 100 1 --- 100 1

20 --- 200 1 --- 400 1

NT - Not Tested --- No value could be calculated

21

Site 11 was identified as an acceptable site at both test temperatures despite poor field

performance. It is possible that this particular site may not have been replicated properly or the

distress in the field was not related primarily to a material problem.

At the 45cC test temperature, better correlations with known field performance occurred as shown

in Table 8. All but one of the stripping sites (Site 11) were predicted to be unacceptable. Only

two of the acceptable sites (Site 5 and 6) were predicted to be unacceptable.

The two sites (Sites 5 and 6) with good field performance that did poorly in the Hamburg device

had 6 mm of rutting after 20,000 passes, just short of the 4 mm specified. However, of the four

high maintenance sites that failed, two sites (Sites 8 and 10) had less than 10 mm rut depths.

Although the lower test temperature more accurately predicted the good pavements, the lower

test temperature also measured the high maintenance sites more favorably.

Table 8. Comparison of Pavements of Known Field Performance with the Hamburg Wheel­Tracking Device (Pass and Fall) at 45°C.

D Good Hlg'" Compf&te Disintegrator Maintenance Rehab.

~I 5 I 1 I 0 I 0 I 2 4 3 4 Fad

5.1.2 Correlation With Measured Parameters

The stripping inflection point and the stripping slope were compared ·to the known field

performance. Results at the 50·C test temperature are shown in Table 9. A ranked order plot

of the stripping inflection point and stripping slope is shown in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively, for

tests performed at 50cC.

The stripping slope did clearly distinguish between the sites that performed well and stripped.

The stripping slope was not sensitive to the various levels of field stripping performance.

22

Table 9. Comparison of Pavements of Known Field Performance with the Hamburg Wheel­Tracking Device (Stripping Slope and Stripping Inflection) at 50'C.

CJI GoOd I Higlil I Complete I PiSlliltegrator

I Maintenance Rehab ..

Strippmg --- 800 900 200 Slope

$l!fpping 16,000 8,400 1300 600 lliflectllm

The stripping inflection point correlated with the various levels 01 expected pavement

performance. As a rule-of-thumb, a stripping inflection point greater than 14,000 passes may

indicate good pavement performance: a pavement that has a 10 to 15 year life. A stripping

inflection point between 6,000 and 10,000 passes could indicate excessive maintenance problems

before the design life is reached. A stripping Inflection point less than 3,000 passes indicates a

real .problem; a pavement that has a life of less than 3 years.

At the 45'C test temperature, a similar relationship can be obtained as shown In Table 10. A

ranked order plot of the stripping inflection point and stripping slope is shown in Figs. 14 and 15,

respectively, for tests performed at 45°C. Although the stripping slope was not sensitive to the

various levels of pavement performance, the stripping slope did distinguish between the sites that

performed well and stripped in the field.

At 45°C, the stripping inflection point was sensitive to the various levels 01 lield stripping

performance. A rule-ol-thumb could indicate a strippinginfiection point greater than 18,000

passes would indicate good performance, between 8,000 and 12,000 passes would indicate

excessive maintenance, and less than 3,000 would be expected to perform very poorly.

23

20.0-rt"~~-t-"-"'-'--;--;"""T--,--;'-""!'-n,..--;'-n r-+----,

18.0

~

~ 16.0 o o ::. 14.0 .. o .. = 12.0 .. C 10.0 ~ .! 8.0 S

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0 1 2 3 7115 4810126131814916171920 Sites

Good

• High Maint.

'" Compo Rehab.

"­Disintegrator

Fig. 12. Ranked Order of the Stripping Inflection Point from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking

Device at 50°C.

e e ~

0 .. .. 0 ~ .. .. .. 1l .. .. .. .; !!I ... 0 .l2 s: 1/1 t:.

'" .5 ... ... ;: -1/1

12.0-rt"--T-__ ,..-, .... ,......,-..,,--,..-,.., .... ,......,-""Tl .---+----,

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0 1 2 3 711 4165129 8101361418172019 Sites

Good

• High Main'.

'" Compo Rehab.

"­Disintegrator

Fig. 13. Ranked Order of the Stripping Slope from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device at

50°C.

24

Table 10. ComparIson of Pavements otKnown Field Performance with the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device (Stripping Slope and Stripping Inflection) at 45"C.

0 ~d High Complete OlSintegretor Maintenance Renab.

Stripping --- --- 600 300 SlOpe

SlrJpping 19,700 12,000 1800 500 Inffeetitm

25

~ .. 0 0 0 -~ .. .. .. .. II a-r! .2 'G .!! -.E !' a. ~ -III

20.0

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0 1 2 3 4 5 711 B 610121813149171111920 Shes

+ Good

• Ht~1\ l"lnt. .. Compo Rehab . ... Dlalnteg..-tor

Fig. 14. Ranked Order of the Stripping Inflection Point from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking

Device at 45°C.

E E ~ .. a-.. .. .. .. .. "! • a- .. • !!I ... 0 .5! .c III I::.

Z ... ... E III

12.0.,...-+--...... ~----~~~~~.,......,~-,-, ,------, ! + ! Good

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

'!' o.o4-+-h-+-+-h-+-+-h-+-+-h-+-..:;:--t-J

12345 e 7 8111016912141817201319 SHes

• High ":.Int. .. Compo Rehab. ... Dalnt.gnltor

Fig. 15. Ranked Order of the Stripping Slope from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device at

45"C.

26

5. 1.3 Summary

The Hamburg wheel-tracking device applies very severe moisture conditioning cycles. The test

appears to be especially severe on the Good sites. It may be necessary to reduce the severity

of the specification used by the City of Hamburg.

All but two of the Good sites had less than a 10 mm rut depth at 20,000 passes, and all but one

of the stripping sites had greater than a 10 mm rut depth. One of the pavements considered to

have good field performance with greater than a 10 mm rut depth (Site 6), had a 7 -year life. The

expectations of a good performing pavement may have to be increased.

At 10,000 passes all but two of the Good sites had less than a 4 mm rut depth, and all but one

of the stripping sites had greater than a 4 mm rut depth.

The results from the Hamburg wheel-tracking device have better correlation to actual field

performance of pavements in Colorado by specifying either 1) a minimum rut depth of 10 mm

instead of 4 mm at 20,000 passes, or 2) a minimum of 4 mm rut depth at 10,000 passes instead

of 20,000.

The stripping slope and stripping inflection point distinguished between good and poor field

performance. The stripping inflection point related closely with the various levels of stripping

observed in the field .

Additional work should be performed to better correlate the parameters of the Hamburg wheel­

tracking device to actual site conditions. The testing temperature should be related to the actual

temperatures expected at the site. The stripping inflection point could be correlated with the

traffic expected at the site.

27

5.2 Environmental Conditioning System

Results from the individual sites tested using the ECS procedure are summarized in Table 11.

The data and plots from each site are in Appendix B. The data in Appendix B includes the stress

and strain values used to calculate MR' Each mixture had four replicates and the curve for each

specimen is shown. In addition, the average ECS-MR ratio for each site is shown following both

3 and 4 cycles and these are the values summarized in Table 11.

Table 11. Results from the ECS Device.

Site ECS MR Ratio Average ECS MR Ratio Average After 3 Cycles After 4 Cycles

1 1.11 1.08

2 1.34 1.32

3 1.51 1.78

4 1.39 1.43

5 1.17 1.15

6 1.02 1.02

7 1.04 1.02

8 1.28 1.21

9 0.95 0.88

10 Bad Data 0.75

11 . 1.24 1.31

12 0.95 1.02

13 1.12 1.03

14 0.54 0.44

15 0.73 0.53

16 1.01 0.99

17 0.91 0.78

18 1.44 1.71

19 0.95 0.80

20 0.72 0.56

28

5.2.1 Correlation with Pass-Fail Criteria

Using the criteria described earlier (a minimum of 0.70), the ECS-M" data were compared on a

pass-fail basis similar to that used with the Hamburg wheel-tracking device. The data were

compared with field site performance in three ways as shown in Tables 12 through 14. Generally

good correlation was observed for pavements with Good field performance categories for all three

types of correlation. For pavements noted as Complete Rehabilitation and Disintegrator the

comparison shown in Table 14 appears to be best. This comparison utilized a combination of

ECS-MR ratio and the trend or slope (a negative or downward slope was unacceptable) of the.

curve between cycles 1 through 3. In this instance, only six sites appear to perform differently

than predicted by the ECS. The High Maintenance Sites did not correlate with the ECS.

Table 12. Comparison of Pavements of Known Field Performance with the ECS Device

(Pass and Fall, considering EC5-MR ratio only) After 3 Cycles.

Of Good I High

I Complete [ DisitItegtator

I ~fllterlancQ Rahab.

~I 7 I 4 I 3 I 3 I 0 0 1 1

Table 13. Comparison of Pavements of Known Field Performance with the ECS Device

(Pass and Fall, considering ECS-MR ratio only) After 4 Cycles.

01 .Qood [

High

I Complete I OiSiAtegtllfor

I MalntenanCQ Rehab.

~I 7 I 5 I 2 I 3 I 0 0 2 1

Table 14. Comparison of Pavements of Known Field Performance with the ECS Device

(Pass and Fall, considering ECS-MR ratio and trend) After 4 Cycles.

01 Good f High 1 Oomplete l Olsintegra~r I Aetlab. .. ~nCQ . . .

~I 7 I 4 I 1 I 1 I 0 1 3 3

29

5.2.2 Correlation with Measured Parameters

Similar to that for the Hamburg wheel-tracking device, the sites were ranked by order of their

laboratory behavior in the ECS test. Figure 16 shows the sites ranked by order of the ECS-MR

ratio after 3 cycles, but also shows the values for after cycle 4 (freeze). This ordering after 3

cy'c1es is the preferred method, and it is suggested that by including the test values after cycle

4, an indication of whether low ratios were caused by aggregate rupture. When the cycle 3 ECS­

MR ratio was less than about 0.75, the corresponding cycle 4 ratio is significantly lower, indicating

damage during the freeze cycle.

An altemative to Figure 16 is the ranking of sites by slope of the ECS curve between cycles 1

and 3 as shown in Figure 17. A preliminary interpretation of the test results developed in the

SHRP work Is that negative slopes may indicate the rate at which asphalt pavements will be

water damaged, i.e., this slope correlates with expected service life. However it appears that the

interpretation should be based on both the ECS-MR ratio and slope. For example, if a mixture

tested in the ECS marginally passed the 0.70 criteria but had a negative slope (1 through 3

cycles), then it would be suspect; it will fail, but not necessarily in the short term.

30

2r---------------------~------------------~

1.5

1

0.5

o

fIJI CYCLE 3 C1CYCLE4

18 3 , 4 2 8 11 5 13 16 1 7 6 9 12 19 10 17 20 15 14 ,

Fig. 16. Mixtures Ranked by ECS-MR Ratio After 3 Hot Cycles.

0.4

...... 0.3 C')

0 -.... ., 0.2 Ci

>-u E 0

0.1 .::: ., til C as . .c

0 .!!. ., c-o

'w (0.1)

(0.2)

f0-

-

1 o CYCLE 3 ElSLOPE 1-31

R n I..

- U ~ m ~

I I I I • • I I I • I • • I I I I

1;3 1 3 11 5 6 16 9 2 4 7 15 18 19 10 12 14 17 8 20 Mix Number

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

(0.5)

(1 )

Fig. 17. Mixtures Ranked by Slope of the ECS Curve Between 1 and 3 Hot Cycles.

31

., ., Ci >-u -0 .c C') .. CD

4:: as 0 = as .. a: ::;; rn 0 w

5.3 P200 Tests

The methylene blue, sand equivalent, Rigden voids and stiffening power tests were performed

on the blended P200 portion of the aggregates from each site. A summary of these test results

is contained in Table 15.

Table 15. Summary of P200 Test Results.

Sile sand Mlltlilyleff& Rigden StlJf&ntng Dust liqum. mille Vt)ids Power Ctlafii:19

fmglg) ('Yo V.w) (11"C) (%)

P2COf", P200tA.,

1 31 6.8 48.1 1.10:1 0.40:1 0.3

? 60 9.5 47.6 0.90:1 0.33:1 0.6

3 75 2.5 47.8 1.17:1 0.43:1 0.2

4 69 6.4 41.5 1.26:1 0.48:1 0.2

5 56 5.0 45.7 1.18:1 0.44:1 0.4

6 66 12.6 38.7 1.28:1 0.47:1 0.3

7 87 11.9 43.6 1.23:1 0.45:1 0.1

8 33 13.0 48.5 0.95:1 0.35:1 ---

9 69 10.6 46.3 1.04:1 0.38:1 0.7

to 91 8.7 44.3 1.18:1 0.42:1 0.2

1'1 55 4.3 46.3 1.17:1 0.42:1 0.7

1:2 88 8.3 43.9 1.21 :1 0.43:1 0.2

13 55 >20 47.3 1.16:1 0.42:1 0.5

till 35 >20 46.8 1.20:1 0.43:1 1.9

1'5 47 >20 44.8 1.05:1 0.40:1 ---

1"6 64 14.2 45.3 1.23:1 0.44:1 0.3

17 65 >20 46.4 1.23:1 0.44:1 3.8

1;8 80 6.6 51 .0 1.00:1 0.36:1 2.8

1)9 69 >20 54.0 0.88:1 0.33:1 ---

2fi) 32 >20 50.7 0.95:1 0.34:1 0.5

32

5.3.1 Sand Equivalent

As can be seen in Table 15, nearly all sites have acceptable sand equivalent values. A ranked

order plot (Fig . 18) shows there is poor correlation between the sand equivalent value and field

performance with respect to stripping.

5.3.2 Methylene Blue Test

A guideline for interpreting the methylene blue value (MBV) and anticipated pavement

performance is given in Table 5. A ranked order plot (Fig. 19) and Table 16 show a good

correlation exists between the methylene blue value and stripping performance.

Table 16. Summary of Methylene Blue Test Results.

MIW Anoolpated

Pelimmalllle

E;xqelient

.... . Marginal

Failure

Good Hi.. cromp. O!SiIlt. Maint. Rehab.

5 3 o 1

2 2 1 o o o 3 3

All of the test results for the Good and High Maintenance sites fall between the recommended

MBV ranges for excellent to marginally acceptable anticipated performance. All of the Complete

Rehabilitation and Disintegrator Sites have unacceptable methylene blue values except Site 18.

One possible explanation for the poor stripping performance of Site 18 is the presence of a thick

dust coating on the coarse aggregates obtained from this source.

Although the methylene blue value was not able to identify the High Maintenance sites, it is

possible that their performance could be predicted by some of the other tests that follow.

33

C • j :; IT

W

~ • IJ)

100.0

+ .... .. gO.O "' ...... '"t.

0 c-.,,, ..... •

O'.IIIL 80.0

70.0

150.0

50.0

30.0 10 12 7 18 l 19 .. • CJ 17 tIS 2 & 13 l' 15 14 8 20 1

Site Number

Fig. 18. Ranked Order of Sand Equivalent Values:

~

20

,. ~ ,. .!!'! .. 8 , . .2 ~ " 8 iii 10 ~ c • '5; • ,s ~ •

• • 0

~ ..... 111 ........

".,...IOY ....... ...u

ra-l1eM, .......

+ .... .. B',,1l1fNII&,

• e-......... 0 -, -.l-.l

3 11 5 <4 18 1 12 10 2 0 7 15 I lIIS 20 HI 17 13

Silt: Namber " ,.

Fig. 19. Ranked Order of Methylene Blue Values.

34

5.3.3 Rigden Voids Index Test

The Rigden voids index test was performed to determine the fixed asphalt cement and the bulk

density of the compacted P200. The free asphalt cement was then be calculated using Equation

1. Very little, if any, correlation between the fixed asphalt cement and field stripping performance.

The fixed asphalt cement may relate more to cracking rather than stripping.

The maximum P200 to asphalt cement ratio, by weight (P200/A.,), was calculated for each HMA

assuming a minimum free asphalt cement of 45%, as recommended by Anderson (11). The

theoretical maximum P200/A., was plotted against the actual P200/A., in an attempt to find an

explanation for the stripping performance of each site. As can be seen in Figure 20 and Table

17, the majority of the pavements with good stripping performance had P200/A., ratios less than

the maximum determined with the Rigden voids index test. The· majority of the High

Maintenance, Complete Rehabilitation and Disintegrator sites had P200/A., ratios greater than the

theoretical maximum.

Table 17. Summary of Rlgden Voids Index Test Maximum P200/A,..

ActuaJ Sttipping Pertormance

Good High Compo DI$1nt. M!aint, Rehab.

Max> Aotual 4 1 1 0

Max = Aotual 0 0 0 0

3 4 4 4

The ring and ball softening point test was performed to determine the P200/A., which resulted in

an 11°C (20°F) increase in the softening point between the neat asphalt cement and a blend of

P200 and the same asphalt cement. The theoretical maximum P200/A., was plotted against the

actual P200/A.,. Figure 21 and Table 18 show that the majority of the pavements with good

stripping performance had P200/A., less than that determined by the ring and ball softening point

test The majority of the poorer performing sites had P200/A., greater than that determined by

the ring and ball softening point test.

35

"2.2

2.0 ...,. i >- 1.8 e. .2 ;;

1.6 0:: :$. c .. 1 .4 • ::; , • 1.2 " "0 > c 1.0 .. -g, ii:

0.8

~ + lGOOdJ 0 ....

•

1/ H ...... L .. C_p. ._.

a

L ..... L

/ V • •

V c ..... • • jo .. •

/' p

V ~ . , , 0.8 0.6 0.8 1~ " " 1~ 1A 1~ 1~

Aetuat D/A Ratio (by wt.) 2.0 2.2

Flg.20. Correlation Between the Actual P200/A,. and the Maximum P200/A,. as Determined

by the Rigden Voids Index Test.

0 ~

~

~ .. " ~ .e a :; 0::

~ c , 'ii m 0/$

'" c ii:

2~

2.0

1.a

1.8

1.4

1.2

1.0

/ IGood I

V .

V V

• V • .. .. ;/ • ••

'" .. ..

0.8 ~ • p

IV [$ . 0.8 0.6 O.a 1.0 1~ 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

Aetual D/A Ratio (by wt.)

+ -• H .... M.iilL .. 0 .........

a ""'''L

FIg. 21. Correlation Between the Actual PlO0/A,. and the Maximum P200/A,. as Determined

by Maximum Ring and Ball Stiffening.

36

Table 18. Summary of Ring and Ball Softening Point Test Results.

Good Hlgb Comp. Ol$!n!. Maint. Re;hab .•

Max l> Actual 4 0 1 0

Max '" Aeluai 0 1 0 1

Max <AelUal 3 4 3 3

5.3.4 Ability of P200 Tests to Predict Stripping Performance

Assuming a marginal methylene blue value is acceptable, Table 19 and Table 20 summarize the

ability of combinations of the P200 tests to predict the stripping performance of the HMA.

Table 19. Ability of Methylene Blue arid Rigden Voids Index Test to Predict Stripping

Performance.

Mev and OISllllt. RVI (p200fA.,) Gooo High Compo

Maint, Rebab.

Pass Both 4 1 0 0

Pas!! OI'l!'t/Faif Ona 3 4 2 1

Fail Both 0 0 2 3

Table 20. Ability of Methylene Blue and Stiffening Power to Predict Stripping Performance.

MBVand RBiS (P200fA,.)

Pass Both

Pass Ol'lelFail One

4

3

o

Htgh Main!.

1

4

0

Compo Distnt. Rehab.

0 0

2 2

2 2

As can be seen in the above tables, if an aggregate passes both the methylene blue and

37

stiffening power or Rigden voids, the possibility of failure due to stripping is minimized.

5.3.5 Dust Coating on Aggregates

The amount Of P200 coating the aggregates larger than the 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve was measured

by performing a washed gradation on the blend of coarse aggregate from each mix. The P200

washed off the coarse aggregate is shown in Table 15. In most cases the P200 coating the

coarse aggregate was less than 1 %. The most interesting result was the high quantity of P200

coating the large aggregate from Mix 18. Mix 18 passed every P200 test yet performed poorly

in the field. It is possible that the P200 coating the coarse aggregate could have contributed to

the mixture's poor performance by preventing the adhesion of the asphalt cement and aggregate.

5.3.6 Correlation Between Tests

An effort was made to determine if a correlation exists between the sand equivalent and

methylene blue tests. There was poor correlation between these two tests. The sand equivalent

test is more a measure of quantity, rather than quality, of the P200. The methylene blue test is

a measure of the quality of the P200.

Attempts were also made to correlate the fixed asphalt cement with the methylene blue and sand

equivalent tests but were not successful.

38

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

The stripping performance of HMA pavements is greatly dependent on the interaction between

the asphalt cement and aggregates and the quality of the aggregate components in the HMA.

The Hamburg wheel-tracking device and the Environmental Conditioning System are

performance-related tests that were used to test HMAs of known stripping performance. If an

HMA fails in performance related tests, testing the asphalt cement and aggregate portions of the

mix can indicate areas for potential improvement of the mix. The following are conclusions drawn

by testing with performance-related equipment and several P200 tests on the aggregates from

twenty sites of known stripping performance in Colorado.

1) The Hamburg wheel-tracking device applies very severe moisture conditioning cycles. The

test appears to be especially severe on the Good sites. It may be necessary to reduce the

severity of the specification used by the City of Hamburg: less than 4 mm rut depth at 20,000

passes. The results have better correlation to actual field performance by specifying either 1) a

minimum rut depth of 10 mm Instead of 4 mm at 20,000 passes, or 2) a minimum of 4 mm rut

depth at 10,000 passes instead of 20,000.

By modifying the specification, results from the Hamburg wheel-traCking device can accurately

Identify pavements of known field performance. The stripping inflection point correlates to the

known level of stripping performance of pavements. The lower the stripping inflection point, the

worse the stripping was in the field.

Furthermore, some of the "Good" pavements used in this study may not have been so good. The

current definition of good performance may have to be redefined to a higher level of quality.

A future study should examine the use of the 50·C test temperature. This temperature is very

severe for many of the environmental conditions in Colorado. The use of test temperature lower

than 50·C should be examined for pavements that are not placed in the hottest parts of the State.

2) The ECS test procedure moisture conditions the samples very mildly. Using the M,,-ratio, only

39

three of the thirteen sites with poor field performance failed in the lab. When the slope was used

to evaluate the sites, more of the poor performing sites were considered unacceptable. However,

the slope would be very difficult for a state highway agency to quantify and specify. Additional

research is needed to assess the ability of the ECS to predict moisture damage.

3) The methylene blue test is a measure of the quality of the P200 and can give inSight to

potential stripping problems. The rule-of-thumb guidelines for expected performance are very

useful in predicting the potential stripping performance of a HMA.

The Rigden voids index test and the ring and ball softening point can be used to determine the

maximum allowable P200 to asphalt cement ratios. The maximum P200 to asphalt cement ratios

determined by these tests should not be exceeded to minimize potential stripping problems.

When used in conjunction with one another, the methylene blue, Rigden voids and ring and ball

softening point tests accurately identified ali but one of the stripping sites. When an HMA fails

a performance related stripping test, the methylene blue, Rigden voids and stiffening power can

be used to identify some of the problematic components of the HMA.

The sand equivalent test was not a good predictor of stripping performance.

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION

The use of the Hamburg wheel-tracking device or Environmental Conditioning System are not

ready for full implementation at this time. Additional research is necessary for their full

implementation.

At this time, the Hamburg wheel-tracking device could be used as a referee test. After a passing

mix design is obtained, the standard tests could be used to monitor the project. However, the

standard tests are not always reliable. When the contractor or state highway agency had reason

to Question the standard results, the Hamburg wheel-tracking device could then be used as a

referee test to seHle disputes.

40

8.0 REFERENCES

1. Report on the 1990 European Asphalt Study Tour (June 1991), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 115+ pages.

2. Aschenbrener, T. and R.B. McGennis (1993), "Investigation of the Modified Lottman Test to Predict the Stripping Performance of Pavements in Colorado," Colorado Department of Transportation, CDOT-DTD-R-93-3, 73 pages.

3. Stuart, K.D. (1990), "Moisture Damage in Asphalt Mixtures - A State-of-the-Art Report," Office of Engineering and Highway Operations R&D, FHWA-RD-90-019, 125 pages.

4. Hicks, R.G. (1991), "Moisture Damage in Asphalt Concrete: NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 175, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 90 pages.

5. Harmelink, D.S. (1991), "Rut-Resistant Composite Pavement Design," Colorado Department of Transportation, CDOT -DTD-R-91-4, 115 pages.

6. Hines, Mickey (1991), "The Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device," Proceedings of the Twenty­Eighth Paving and Transportation Conference, Civil Engineering Department, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

7. AI-Swailmi , S. and R.L. Terrel (1992), "Evaluation of Water Damage of Asphalt Concrete Mixtures Using the Environmental Conditioning System (ECS)," Preprint of The Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 61.

8. Aschenbrener, T. (1992), ·Comparison of Colorado Component Hot Mix Asphalt Materials with Some European Specifications," Colorado Department of Transportation, CDOl'-DTD-R-92-14, 65 pages.

9. Anderson, D.A. (1987), "Guidelines on the Use of Baghouse Fines," National Asphalt Pavement Association, IS 101,31 pages.

10. Kandhal, P.S. (1981), "Evaluation of Baghouse Fines in Bituminous Paving Mixtures: Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 50, pp. 150-210.

11. Anderson, D.A. and S.M. Chrismer (1984), "Evaluation of Tests for Characterizing the Stiffening Potential of Baghouse Dust in Asphalt Mixes," Transportation Research Record 968, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C:, pp. 31-37.

41

Appendix A

Results from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device

E .§. c

.11 • • !! Q.

£ E " E

.~

::;

E !. I ..

0

·2

·4

·6

·8

·10

·12

·14

·16

·18

·20 o

"'---

2 4 6

Site 1 Temperature = 45 C

8 10 12

No. of Pas". (Thou.end_)

Profiles Temperature ~ 45 C

1 4 18

'2-r-_;t ..... . ~ ... --- -~---~.- ~ .. -.. -~-...... ~.,-b~~~'''''H ~ ......................... -.;:;. ..... .... ~~ __ .J .... ~,,' •• ~ ~ .. "~~' •• '~_' " ' _' •• ~'. -4 ..... I ""

"\ ...................... -.. -st---r--t---r--+--,r--t--,r--t--""1---i

-8t-~r--t---r--+--""11---t--,r--t--""1---i e ... -101+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+_-1 .! • -12+--+--+--+-+_+_+_+_+_+_-1 ... l!

~ -14+--t--iI----t---+-,r--t--t--i--t--1

-16+--t--i---t---+-,r--t--t--i--t--1 -18+---t--t--t--lr--t---t--t--t---+_-I

-201-l---l---I1--f--+-+-+-_-j----J_-+_-J o 00 7~ 100 120 150 170 200 225 2~0

Whe,,1 PosHlon

Al

18 20

15000 P .....

.20000P .....

0,,--

·2

-4

E .s ·8

" .!! • ·8 .. !

·10 D.

.s E ·12 ::I E .~ ·14 :Ii

·18

·18

·20 0 2 4 6

Site 1 Temperature = 50 C

8 10 12

No. of Passes (Thousand.)

Profiles Temperature = 50 C

14 18 18 20

O'---'---r---r---'--'r--.---.---.---'--~ r------, "

'2t.:.,~·, ,§-··~··-·:~······:~ .. :~: .. ~· .. ·:t·:···~· :·'"~-·~···· ·~:-e··;::· "j~ ;~·:;.,~<·t· ~~ ~ - ~~.,. ....... . ·4 ..... -

E S ·6+---~_1--_+--~--4---+---~_1--_+--~ I:

s .B+---+---~--~~~-1--_+---+--~--~--~ .. ! ~ ·10+---~--~---4--~~--~--+---~--~---+--~ S D ·12+---~--~---4--~~--~--+---4---~---+---4

r !

·14+---~--~--4---4_--4_--4_--_r--_r--~--~

·16+---~_1--_+--~--4---+---~_1--_+--~

·1B+---+---~--~~--~---+---+--~--~--~

-20+---+---~--~~--~---+---+--~--~--~ o 50 75 100 12!l 150 175 200 22!l 250

Wheel Position

A2

10000 Pes •••

20000 Passes

E !. c: ,II .. .. ! a.

.E E ::I

,Ii ;

:::;

E !. c

,SI .. co

" ~ a. ! .. '" I! .. ~

0

~ ·2

·4

·8

·8

·10

·12

·14

·18

·18

·20 0 2 4

0

·2

·4

B

81te 2 Temperature = 45 C

8 10 12

No. of Passes (Thou.and.)

Profiles Temperature = 45 C

14 18 18

-,-

--~- .... , ..... ~ \ ,~ .. ............ ' ·6

·8

·10

·12

·14

·16

·18

·20 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200, 225 250

Wheel Position

A3

20

10000 Pas ...

0

·2 I" ....

·4

E E- ·6

c .11 m ·8 m ~

·10 Il.

! E ·12 ::I

.Ii ·14 :!

:::; ·16

·18

2

0

·2

·4 E E ·6 ~

c .!! ·8 ., .. .. ~ ·10 ... ! co ·12

'" I! ·14 .. ,. «

·16

·18

·20 0

f'--------

4 6

'.

Site 2 Temperature = 60 C

~

8

-----. ~

10 12

No. of Pas& •• (Thou.llnd_)

Profiles Temperature = SO C

""--.. ~

14

-~"-" " ........... ,

1'-' oJ····· ....... .:' .•.

~

18 18

\~ :

50

... ~.. .,' .. _....... .~ .......

7~ 100 12~ 150 175 200 22~ 250 Wheel Position

A4

~

20

1000PasSH

toooo Pass ..

0

·2

·4 E e ·8 ~

c .Ii! ·8 .. .. .. ~ ·10 ... .!! .. ·12 '" .. ~ ·14 ~

·18

·18

·20 0 25

4

Sit. 3 Temperature = 45 C

6 8 10 12 14 18 18 20

No. of PUBes (Thou.andl)

Profiles Temperature = 45 C

, .... ~ .... ,' ....... /"-~ ...

75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 Wheel p09nlon

AS

1000 ' •• ses

20000 ' .. ses

0

·2 1'-----

·4

E .§. ·S ~

.!! -8 m m !

·10 Q.

E E -12 " E .~ -14

~ -18

·18

-20 0

0

-2

-4 E !. -8 c .S! -8 .. .. D ~ -10 ... S .. ·12

'" I! -14 D >

00( -18

·18

-20 0

2 4

Site 3 Temperature = 50 C

6 8 10 12 14 IS 18 20

No. of PUBes (Thousand_)

Profiles Temperature = 50 C

-... ~ ... ,. , ..

75 100 125 150 i75 200 225 250 Wheel Position

A6

1000 Passes

10000 Pass ••

2000C) Pass ••

4 8

Site 4 Temperature ~ 45 C

8 10 12

No. ofPu ••• (Thousllnda)

Profiles Temperature = 45 C

14 18 18 20

O~--.--'---.---'--.---~--r--.--~--,r-----.

_21 -.;-~ft~.":~·~._t: ... _= .. ~_--.~ ... -.t.M'~-- -;.;;~- ;;,,-:~. :,-~,~, ~.:-~.----~ •••• -* ... ·ii"· ;-- H r ........ __ . ~__ '"P' " _ •••• , ••• ,_ "

-4+---+---~~r---~~--~---+--_+--_+--~

E 5 -8+---+---r---r---r-~---+---+--_+---r--~

j .. -s-i-----jl---+---+----l---l---+--+--+---l---j ! ~ -10+---~--~---+---+----~--+---+---~--~--~

! D -12+---~--~---+---+--~~--+---+-~~--~--~ ... f

~ -14+---+---t---r---~~---t---+--_+--_+--~

-16+---+---+----r---r---r---r---r---r---r--~

-18-i---j----j---t--+---+----i---j----t---t---i

-20+---~--+---+---+---+--+---1---+---+--~ o ~O 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250

Whee' Position

A7

1000P ......

1OOOOP .....

15000 , .....

20000 P .....

E E-" .11 G G

f ... ~ E

" ~ >< ~

E !. c .2 ., .. I! ... ! .. '" I! .. > «

0

·2

·4

·6

·8

·10

·12

·14

·16

·18

·20 o

0

·2

·4

·6

·8

·10

·12

·14

·18

·18

·20 0

',,---

2

:..;; -..

2S

I-

4

" '. ,

so

Site 4 Temperature = 50 C

r---"" ~

'~

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

No. of P ....... (Thou •• nd.)

Profiles Temperature - 60 C

.... ,J _ .. r"'';;; ,,' _r \..!,..,..I ~ .,"

".~ . /

J j .. '

7S 100 125 1 SO 175 200 22S 2SO Wheel Position

A8

1000P .....

16000' •••••

E E -0: .11 m m f Q.

.E E ~

.Ii :i ~

~

E ~ j .. .. l! ... ~ .. .. I! • ~

0

-2

-4

-8

-8

-10

-12

-14

-16

-18

-20 o

0

-2

I~

4 6

Site S Temperature '" 45 C

8 10 12

No. of PUI •• (Thou •• nd.)

Profiles Temperature", 45 C

. ~

14 18 18 20

10000 Puses -4

-6 ~t(--.. -,,--,-----~ .:'. ~ '-----.- . .------.. ~

-8

-10

-12

-14

-16

-18

-20 0

"h"

75 100 12~ 1~ 175 200 22~ 2~

Wheel Position

A9

20000 ItaSSH

o

·2

·4

E E.. ·6

" .9 .8 .. .. !! Q. -'0 E E ~

.5 :i

::;;

~

E E ~

c .2 CD .. ! ... ! .. CD I!

!

·12

·14

·16

·18

·20 0

0

·2

·4

·6

·8

· 10

·12

·14

·16

·18

·20 0

I",

2 4 8

Site 5 Temperature = 50 C

r---. r--.....

6 10 12

No. Df Pass •• (Thousandti)

Profiles Temperature = 50 C

~ "-".

14 16 18

---. - .~ . -. ,.!~

...;: ·N.· .•• , " ,," " ./ ...... , .... ," ~

"

7~ 100 12~ 150 175 200 22~ 250 Wheel Position

AID

......

20

o

Site 6 Temperature = 45 C

.~

·2

·4

E !. ~6

" .12 ·8 .. .. [ ·10 .E E ·12 ::I E .~ ·14 ::;

E E ~

c .2 .. .. I! ... .!! .. '" I! .. ~

·16

·18

·20 o

0

·2

·4

·6

·8

·10

·12

·14

·16

·18

·20 0

2 4 6 8 10 12

No. of Passes (Thousands)

Profiles Temperature = 45 C

~

r-----"

14 16 18 20

1000 Passes

..... ...... --.. ~~-. 10000PaSSH .. ~. . .. ...,~ ............

25 50

........ ;'

- ..

75 100 125 150 175 200 22~ 2~0

Wheel Position

All

15000 Passes

o

-2

-4

E .E. -6 c .l! -8 .. .. f c. -10 £ E -12

" S :l -14 ::;:

-16

-18

-20 o

1\"

~ " ,

2 4

'- , 1\

6

Site 6 Temperlure z 50 C

\ \ ~

8

\ N

10 12

No. of Pasus (Thousanda)

Al2

14 16 18 20

0

-2

-4 E E -8 ~

c .2 -8 .. .. I! -10 co. .!! .. -12 ... I! -14 .. ~

-16

-18

-20 0 25

G

Site 7 Temperature = 45 C

B 10 12 No. of Passes

(Thousands)

Profiles Temperature = 45 C

14 16 18

. . . ' . -. .. ,,;. .'1"'" ••

50 75 100 12~ 150 17~ 200 22~ 250 Wheel PoSition

AI3

20

~

E .! j ., .. I! ... E ., '" I! .. ~

0

-2

-4

-6

4 .. 8

SHe 7 Temperature = 50 C

8 10 . 1~

No. of Passes (Thou.ands)

Profilss Temperature = 50 C

.:H~:-- ---iii ... ~.~ h __ ...

-~' .;;;itt~ - ..... • .... " .~~~""\ . . ~---__ _

14 18 18 20

tOOOPUSK

10OQO P.ss ••

111000 ,.sses

-8 +_--_+----+_---+----r---~--_1----+_--_+----+_--_1 . z~P •• S"

-10

-12

-14

-18

-18

-20 0 7~ 100 125 1~ 175 200 22~ 250

Whee' Position

A14

E !. 0::

.11 jJ f Q.

.§ E " .Ii :l ~

~

E g c .2 ::I .. ~ ... I! -. .. '" • ~ ~

0

-2

-4

-8

-8

-10

-12

-14

-18

-18

-20 o

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-16

-18

-20

~

0

2 4

2~

Site 8 Temperature = 45 C

.

8 e 10 12 14 18 18 20

No. of Pe •••• (Thou •• nd_)

Profiles . remp,natur4!. ~ 45C

.

~ 100 125 1~ 175 200 225 250 Wheel Position

A15

15000P .. ses

Site 8 Temperalure - 50 C

0,,-- -

·2

·4

E !. .$

" ,51 .8 " .. I!! "- ·10 E E ·12 ~

E '~ ·14

::i

~

E !. c .2 .. .. II ~

a. ! .. .. If ~ .. .::

·18

·18

·20 o

0

-2

·4

·6

·8

·10

·12

·14

· 18

·18

·20 0

--

2 4

-

I----

8

.~ ' . \.,

10 12

No. of Pea ••• (Thou.end_)

Profile • . . Temperalure - 50 C

14 18 18

. '.~ "'-"'''''.,' ",,::S J,--• ..-- \ .. -'" ,"-- ,,~ ' ' ,,;::;..'

1"--.... " .

" \

7~ 100 12~ 150 175 200 22~ 250 -Wheel Pqsllion

A16

.

20

1OOOP., ...

10000P .....

12000 P .... s

°l~ -2

E E. -s c: ,9 ~e

i a. -10 ~ E -12 ::J

~ :! ::;;

-14

-18

-18

'""" ~.

Site 9 Temperalure = 45 C

~ ~

"-~

'" " -20

o 2 4 8 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

No. of PaB ••• (Thou .. nd.)

Profiles Temperalure = 46 C

-2 +-_;;, .. t. .. :; ..... :. .... +r-:::::_ .. _:::.:" .. += .. =.-.::-.-+=-=+=~-+=~::;:,.-+~ " • - '-'-- - --- - --- . "..... . - ....... ••••• JO

-4 +-~"'-.--I---'-+---+-+--+-1----==:::.jI __ ",q....----l E "..,-. '" I" e .8+-~~+--+~~~~~~O-~~~f4-~ C "'-- r

. 2 -B+---+'·~,~~+---+---~~--~---+---+f'--+-----l C/II -.... . .. ,. . ~ ~ -1 o+---+--f"··'"'·.-:--1l.....---1l.....---1f---;f---;k.-~f---+-----l E ':o.~.. ...~.:

- ".~'.., " ," , '''-~'''. ....... . • -12+--+-+~+~~~~~+-~-+--+-~ ... I!!

~ -14+-----lf---+-+-+-----l--+-+-+-----l---1 -18'+---+----1f-----4---+--+--+---+-~---+--__I

-1B:+---t----1f---+---+--+--+---/---j---+--,

-20+---+---I---+---+--+--+---/---I~-4--­a 7~ 100 12~ 1~ 17~ 200 22~ 2~

Wheel PooHion

AI?

1000 .......

8OOO ..... H

12000P •• s ..

E !. " .11 " " i!! a. .5 E ~

E .~

::;

~

E E ~

'" .9 .. .. ! a. ! 0

'" I! .. ~

0

-2

-4

-8

-lI

-10

-12

-14

-18

-18

-20 o

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-16

-18

-20 0

I~

2 .

~

'\

....,

\.

,

'\ l'",

Site 9 Temperature = 60 C

"'1\

4 B

"' .. .. , ...... ~ -. -

'" '-... ......

",

'" "', ~

.. 10 12

No. gf Panes (Thousand_)

Profllss Temperature = 50 C .

.

.

---..... ~ ~~~'

"'" 14

. .:.,/'-

" .f"-

-;/ .A t·

,

"'" r

Ii , ,..r .. ". 1'"

.... , ... ~' " " : ......

"" ... ~ , . ....... ~.,' "\.

20 00 75 100 120 100 170 200 225 Wheel Position

AlB

18 20

tOOOPus ..

8000 Pass ..

10000~ses

1GOOPassH

250

E .5-J: ,II ~ ~

! "-! E

" ,Ii " " ::;

E E ~

c ,S! co co ! ... .!! 0

'" .. ~

~

Site 10 remperature = 45 C

0

-2 ~ -4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-18

-18

-20 o

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-16

-18

-20 0

r------

2 4

--, :-'- '- ' -­.', l"\.

'-' ....... -

... ~ .t ......

6

'----

~ ~

8 10 12

No. of Pass •• (Thouoandol

Profiles remperalure = 45 C

-......... t----......

14 18

1//

18

25 :50 7:5 100 12:5 150 175 200 225 2:50 Wheel Poeltlon

A19

20

1000 Passes

t6oo0, ••• es

E E-" .S!

" " !? Q.

E E ::I E .~

::;

0

-2

-4 ~

E " , I! -6 : - 1. c .2 .. -8 .. .! f -10 Q.

! • -12 ... I!

-14 i ~ ..: -16 J -18

-20 0

0

-2

· 4

·8

·8

·10

·12

·14

·18

·18

·20 o

1'",-r-----

2 4

...•

\ \ \

'.

r----- .

6

Site 10 Temperature = 50 C

, " .

8

~ . "-

"-

10 12

No. of Pass •• (ThouHnda)

'-:-,.

Profiles T"mp"ratur" = 50 C:

.' .- ~ -'.'

.­~'

."

,,/' / f'/

'. '-

'" 14

20 00 70 100 120 100 17:1 200 220 200 Wheel Position

A20

"'" .~

18 18 20

1000P .....

tOOOOP ......

20000Pu ...

~

E E ~

c .2 .. .. D ~ ... .!! D ... I! D

~

0

·2

·4

E S ·6

c .l2 .. ·8

" ! ·10 n.

~ E ·12 ::I E 'x "

·14 ::;

·15

·18

·20 0

·8

·8

·10

·12

·14

I~

2 4

Site 11 Temperature = 45 C

6 8 10 12

No. of Pas •• a (ThOUI811d_j

Profiles Temperature = 45 C

14

·18+---+---r---r-~~-1---+---+--~--~--~

·18+---1----+---+--+--+--+-----,1----+---+----1

·20+---r-~---+---+--+--+-~1---+----+~-I o 7~ 100 12~ 150 175 200 22~ 250

Wheal Position

A21

18 18 20

1000' .....

1ooooP ••• es

1SOOO PlSSes

20000' .....

E .5-c:

.11 " " f Q,

£ E " .; " IS

:::;;

~

E ~ c .2 VI .. 0 ~ ... .E 0 ... L!

l

0

-2

-4

-s

-s

-10

-12

-14

-15

-18

-20 o

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-18

-18

-20 0

r"-..

.

2 4 6

Site 11 Temperature = 50 C

8 10 12

No. of P ..... (Thou.and_)

. Profiles Temperature = 50 C

14

"" .. .'~, ..... ,..' ........... -____ 0·- -.. ,",-- .-_.-. '._ .-v-A~ r __ "" ~~' .~ ...... _ ~~.. .~. ,,1"" .h .......

16

....... .......... ......... . -....

00 70 100 125 100 175 200 2~ 200 Wheel Position

A22

18 20

1000P .....

E E. c ·

.9 .. .. !! Q.

! E ::I E ~ ::;

E E ~

c .52 co co D ~ ... S • '" I! •• > <

0

·2

·4

·8

·8

·10

·12

·14

·16

·18

·20 o

0

·2

·4

·6

·8

·10

-12

·14

·16

·18

-20 0

~ -~

2 4

~.' ~. .. , .......•.

25

------

6

Site 12 Temperature = 45 C

f-..

8

~.

" , ."-.,

10 12

No. of Pasles (Thou •• nd.)

Profiles Temperature = 46 C

i

'-..~

--~

14 18 18 20

. " '''~' .-: 10000Puses

,~

/ 20000 Puses

75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 Wheel Position

A23

E E-c: -9 .. .. f "-

1:: E " E

.~

::;

E E ~

c .2 "' "' • ~ ... .!! • '" I!

~

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-16

-18

-20 o

0

-2

-4

·6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-16

-18

-20 0

',,-----------~

"-

2 4

v .....

Site 12 Telllperature = 60 C

'-----. '---..

~ h

'1\

a 10 12

. No. of PlOSS •• . (Thou_Mda)

Profiles Temperature = 50 C

~ "- r-...,

14 18

".

25

". '. ~.. ,-... -.

';. \ /r---- ./ \ I '\.

\. \ ... V ~,

" .• ,:'-.... , " ,-,,, ," '"

.. :

~O 7~ 100 12~ 1~

Wheel Position

A24

Ily/

, / ..:

17~ 200 225

"-I'-. . vI..,

18 20

tOOOP ... ..

1. 000' .....

20000 ' ... es

2~

E !. c .11 .. .. I!! "" £ E :J

.6 :l :::;

0

·2

·4

·8

·8

·10

·12

·14

·16

·18

·20 o

~

2

~

1\ \

4

Site 13 Tempera' .. e = 45 C

~

6 8 10 12

No. of Pas ••• (Thou.and_)

A25

'.

\

14 16 18 20

0

-2

·4 ~

E E -6 ~

C .2 -8 ., ., • ~ -10 Do

.5 • -12 ... I! ·14 .. ~

-16

·18

-20 0

E !. c

.Q co co ! 0-

J:: E ::I

.~ >< " ;;;

0

-2 ~ -4

-8

-8

-10

-12

-14

-18

-18

-20 o

--~ ... ---.... "" ... ,'

. . '

',.':' . ~ .....

20 50

"

'\ \

2 4

I.\.. " ~,

Site 13 Temperature = 50 C

."\. '" "v

'-, r--

l

i"-~

6 8 10 12

No. of Passe. (Thounnd.)

Profiles Temperature = 50 C

14

'. ...... . ... -.•.. -. .~-.

_. ,r-o_ ., --~- .- -.. ' .. ,

"\ . -', / \ _.- ,

'. "- ,/ r-.,. / , l\. 1/ V

r" \

" v-' ,II " ,. ,oJ" , ." .. ~ \ ~ ,

"- ............ ......... "

70 100 125 150 175 200 220 Wheel Position

A26

, J

•

16 18 20

\

l 1000 Pass ..

3OOO' ... es

eooo, ••• "

10000 ' ••• es

~

250

E !. c .9 .. .. ! D-

E E :J

.~ >( • ::;

E E ~

c . 11 co .. I! ... oS D

'" I!!

~

0

·2

·4

·5

·8

·10

·12

·14

·18

·18

·20 o

0

·2

·4

·8

·8

·10

·12

·14

·18

·18

·20 0

" '-.....

1\ \ \

'.\.

2 4

..........

\.

811e.14 Temperature = 45 C

"'. '\ I~

----....

B . 8 10 12

. No, ofPa.s •• ·, (111ou. llrldti)

Profiles Tempsrat ..... = 45 C

..... . ......... .... ,

\I\... \ -......., r--... I ,

14 16

/ /' f / ,;

~! " , "-~ / ,

•• l '. ........... f

" , ;/

". , "' ... 1""

:

25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Wheel Position

A27

18 20

1000Pa .. "

10000 , •••••

250

0

·2 1\

·4

E E- ·6

" ,S! "

·8

" I! ·10 Q.

!: E ·12 ::I E ';( ·14 • :::;

·18

·18

·20 0

0

·2

·4 ~

E E ·6 ~

c ,II ·8 co

" D ~ · 10 ... S 0 · 12 '" I! ·14 i

·16

·18

·20 0

'" 1\ \ \

1\ \

.

\

Site 14 Temperalure = 50 C

1\ \J

2 4 8 8 10 1

-,!".. ," •••• ~ .... - .... , • •

:.0; .... , .. ~ '.

50

, ", '.

7:1

No. of Passes (Thou.and_)

Profiles Temperatura = 50 C

\ , , , .. i

100 12:1 150 Wheel Posilion

17:1

A28

, \

14\ 16' 18 20

1000 P .. ses

3000P .. ses /'

, .I

\

200 \ 225 \250

\

\ I

E ..s " _9 .. .. I! n. ! E ::I E ~ :::;

~

E E ~

c .2 CD • • ~ "-.!! • ... I! ~

00(

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-18

-18

-20 o

0

-2

-4

-6

F== "'-.~

4 · 8

"' ,\,

Site 16 Temperature. = 45 C

-

I~

' . 8

~'-~

10 . 12.

No. of PUles (Thoueand.)

Profiles Temperature = 45 C

-

~ ~

~ ---

14 18 18 20

.r-"

,-y~. .. 1T/"

-8

..... ", , -- _--'-/ J_.f :+......:\.~ "'1.,.-,,-'_"-1' ---.------'-1---'::--:::--::'-,,¥''::' ':'':-'::--::;--:j..,.-:'''';' ' t---1---/--' ./fI-'---!~---1 . 20000 P •• SH

• ""-1""--- "--' Vi -10

-12

-14

-18

-18

-20 0 20

.... "'\. z

....... ". " V ,,.! ····.1'"\ J

.......... .' /'

75 tOO t25 150 175 200 220 250 Wheel Po. ilion

A29

E .E. c

.S! ~ ~

! D-

E E " .; " a ::;

~

E !. c

.S! co : ~ ... ! • '" I! • .::

0

·2

·4

·8

·8

·10

·12

·14

·18

·18

·20 o

0

·2

·4

·6

·8

·10

·12

·14

·18

·18

·20 0

I~ ~

""--.

Site 18 Telllperature = 50 C

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

I---..

. 1·

I---~ ~

.

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 18 18 20

~""" ". "\. ..... "'\.

'\

No. of Pass •• (Thau~.~d.)

Profiles Telllperature = 50 C

v ........... !

1"1 _,'r"" ;'

.

2~ ~O 75 100 125 1~ 1~ 200 225 2~

Wheel PoSition

A30

tOOOP ... u

10000 , •• s_

11000 P •••••

2ooooP ... _

E E-c ,Il " " ! D.

E E ~

,!; :l :::;

E E ~

c .2 .. .. • ~ ... .!! • '" .. ~

~

0

·2

-4

·6

·8

·10

·12

·14

·16

·18

·20 o

0

·2

·4

·8

·8

·10

-12

·14

-16

-18

-20 0

~

\ \

2 4

\I .

\ \

Site 17 Temperature = 45 C

1\

6

\ 1\ 8 10 12

No. of Passes (ThoUllllnda)

Profiles Temperature = 45 C

14 16 18

- ." .... "', "',,,,', ... , '". --'-',~ --,/'" ....... - "",.,.', ....... " ... .

" . ~

25

, '" " J'

..... ~

"~. .......... .........

75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 Wheal Position

A31

20

o

-2

-4

E E- -6

" .11 -8

i Q. ~10

.§ E -12

" J -14

E E ~

C .!I CO .. f ... .!! .. ... L! II

~

-16

-16 -

-20 o

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-18

-lB

-20

\

0

\ \

\ \ \ " \ \It

2 4

'.-~ ~'.'.' .. '. .... ' ........ r.....

'-'-

'--. ", --. ........

2~ 50 7~

6

Site 17 Temperature = 50 C

8 10 12

No. of Passes (Thou .... ds)

Profiles Temperature = 50 C

'-~'~'. --•... " -.... ,~.-....... ~.---

.'.:'.~ ,. J. ,

14 16

.,.,.--.-..... "' ...........

-"" ~

/

: : .-

~.,;

100 125 150 175 200 22~

Wheel Posilion

A32

18 20

100 Pass,"

SOG Pass ..

1000 P .... s

IOOOPu •••

2~O

E .§. c: .2 m m ! Q.

.§ E ::I E .~

::;

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-16

-18

-20 o

1"-"'--~

2 4

Site 18 Temperature = 45 C

1\

\"

8

\J\

\

10 12

No.ofP ...... (TlIouu"do)

Profiles Temperat .. " = 50 C

~ . ',-

14 16

-ro~~---+--4---~~---+--4---~-4--~ o 2~ ~ 7~ 100 125 1~ 175 200 225 250

Wheel Position

A33

18 20

E 5-c

.Q m m ! a. E E ::I

~ ill ::;

~

E E ~

c .S! CD .. .. ~ ... S .. ... L! .. ~

0

-2

-4

-6

-9

-10

-12

-14

-IS

-19

-20 o

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-16

-18

-20 0

I~ "\

\ \

fAl '\ \

2 4

Site 16 Tomperature= 50 C

\ \

9 10 12

No. of passea -(Thou~.ndl!).

Profiles Temperature = 50 C

--

-

14 18 19

-- .~.,--- .- -- ---.-~ .. --- .. --~- -- . ' -.. -.

20

I

I

70 100 120 150 175 200 225 2:50 Wheel posnian

A34

20

300P .. ses

1000 'ass ..

0

·2

·4

E ~ ·8

c .11 ·8 .. .. ! Q. ·10 E E " 1: ~ ::;

~

E ! ~

c .2 "' : ~

Go

S e

'" II ~

e > <

·12

·14

·16

·18

·20 o

0

·2

·4

·6

·8

·10

·12

·14

·16

·18

·20 0

1\ \ ~

'\ \

2 4 8

Site 19 Temperalure ,; 45 C

8 10 12

No. of P .... e. (Thoualllnde)

Profiles Temperalure z 45 C

14 16

',_ '~ __ "w'" ~ .' ... -.. ' ~"-"~~" -.,- .. ',. ~ ......... ," "-" .. -.- oJ',''' ''','',!

......, ~ L ......

~

" "' , ~

" i ". i

" ,/ "'\. .' .. ..-.... " ,""',,-...

~~'''' " 25 50 75 100 12:5 150 17:5 200 22:5

Wheel Posllion

A35

18 20

100 '.SSM

300 P.sses

1OOO'".H

3OOOP.UH

250

0

-2

-4

E .§. -s s:: .!l m -8 m !?

-10 Q.

.E E -12 ~

E .~ -14 :;

-16

-18

-20 0

0

-2

-4 ~

E E -8 ~

" . . 11 -8 .. .. ! -10 ... .!! .. -12

'" I! -14 .. ~

-18

-18

-20 0

2 4 6

. ',.' .. ~ .. , ....•. -'.-

I\,

2~ ~o 75

Sile 19 Temperature = 50 C

8 10 12

No. of Palles (Thou.llnd.)

Profiles Temperawre = 50 C

14

. ~ -... ~. .--- .~ .. -.. ,.-

v v

18 18 20

100Pe ••••

300 PaSCH

1000 Pus ••

100 125 150 175 200 22~ 250 Wheel Posillon

A36

E .s c .2 .. .. ~ £ E ::I E

" !

0

·2

·4

·S

·8

·10

·12

·14

·16

·18

·20 o

\..

." b,.

2

\ 'I

\

4

\

Site 20 Temperature = 4e C

1\ .• '1\

6 8

A37

\ \

10 12

No. of Pass •• (ThoUlianda)

I. IS 18 20

E !. c:

.11 .. .. e Q.

E e " .!; ~

:::;

0

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-18

-18

-20 o

1\ ~

\

2

\ \ \

1\ \ \

4 6

Slla 20 Temperature = 50 C

8 10 12

No. of Passe. (Thouanda)

A38

14 16 18 20

Appendix B

Results from the Environmental Conditioning System

Specimen ID

CO-OIA

CO'{)lB

CO'{)IC

CO'{)lD

ECS Cond. ECS ECS ECS System Cycle Stress Strain MR

(psi) (ksi) (ksi) 0 34.1 98.2- 347.5 I 35.8 97.0 369.0

A 2 38.2 99.0 385.8 3 - 39.3 102.9 382.3 4 36.1 102.2 353.5 0 43.4 99.5 436.4 I 51.4 101.8 505.6

A 2 40.8 102.4 398.7 3 51.4 101.8 505.6 4 44.9 96.8 464.2 0 31.0 105.0 295.6 1 31.2 101.3 308.4

B 2 39.8 102.6 388.5 3 39.7 99.6 398.3 4 39.7 100.1 396.9 0 31.3 76.6 408.7 I 32.1 90.1 355.9

B 2 32.5 98.0 332.1 3 31.8 93.8 339.2 4 31.3 86.5 363.3

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 1.11 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 1.08

ECS Visual MR Stripping

Ratio (%) 1.00 1.06 1:11 0-5% 1.10 1.02 1.00 1.16 0.91 0-5% 1.16 1.06 1.00 1.04 1.31 0-5% 1.35 1.34 1.00 0.87 0.81 0-5% 0.83 0.89

2.0 -r--------------------,

1.8 .. .. ...... .. .. - .. .......... .. .. .... - .. .............. - - - - - .. - - .. .. -

1.6 .......... ............ .. ...... .. .. .... ..... .............. - - - - - .. ... - .. ,

.g 1.4 ...... .. - - .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. - - - - - .. - .......... : - .... - - ...... ..

~ 1.2 t~-~-~--~:.-~-~-~-~~~-~-:-~~:-~-:-~-~-~-~-:-:-~-:--~-:-:-n::-:-~-:- ~- ;- ~- ~-~-~ 1.0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -..----: - - - - - - - - - - - - -::':08 __ _ __ _____________ -v- __ ____________ _ ",.

U III 0.6

0.4

0.2 60°C 60°C _18°C

0.0 +-----+_-~--+_----+_----_l

o 1 2 Cycle

3

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Glenwood Springs (Mi.x I)

Bl

4

2.0

1.8

1.6

.g 1.4 ., p( gj1.2

~ 1.0

::a 0.8 '" u III 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0

Specimen ECS Cond. ECS ECS ECS ID System Cycle Stress Strain MR

(psi) (ksi) (ksi) 0 70.6 92.4 764.5 1 72.7 92.1 790.1

CO·{)2A C 2 73.3 8L1 904.6 3 75.5 85.9 878.7 4 75.1 Q) 81.0 927.6 0 41.4 104.2 397.6 1 51.4 94.0 546.9

CO-02B A 2 46.5 9704 477.0 3 47.7 97.4 489.5 4 46.3 10204 452.7 0 25.3 98.3 257.0 1 33.8 Q) 76.4 442.5

C0-02C B 2 31.5 95.7 329.8 3 35.1 9004 388.0 4 35.2 93.9 375.4 0 42.8 <1> 67.9 630.0 1 57.0 <1> 66.2 860.3

C0-02D C 2 56.5 <1> 5804 968.3 3 56.6 <1> 60.6 932.9 4 5704 <1> 62.5 917.9

Q) Probable error m stram readmg. <1> Test was ~n at reduced strain level.

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 1.34 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 1.32

ECS Visual MR Stripping

Ratio (%) 1.00 1.03 Ll8 0-5% Lli 1.21 1.00 1.38 1.20 0-5% 1.23 Ll4 1.00 1.72 1.28 0-5% 1.51 1.46 1.00 1.37 1.54 0-5% 1048 1.46

- - - - ~ - - - - - - . -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_._--.. - - - - - .'. - --':;z--

60"C 60"C

1 2 3 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Craig (Mix 2)

B2

-18"C

4

2.0

1.8

1.6

.g 1.4 .. c.: :g 1.2

'3 "8 1.0

~ 08 ", ' (J III 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Specimen ECS Cond. ECS ECS ID System Cycle Stress Strain

(psi) (ksi) 0 50.4 101.0 I 58.1 CD 73.6

C~3A C 2 55.5 CD 69.5 3 51.7 CD 69.8 4 58.0 CD 70.2 0 43.4 97.9 I 45.0 97.0

CO-{)3B A 2 44.1 102.1 3 51.5 91.8 4 51.0 CD 58.3 0 (J) 29.4 ~ 59.6 I 51.1 ~ 59.8

~3C C 2 50.8 ~ 59.6 3 51.6 ~ 59.7 4 48.7 ~ 59.8 0 26.6 100.7 1 32.8 91.6

CO-{)3D B 2 25.3 99.4 3 32.8 93.2 4 32.7 CD 76.1

CD Probable error In strain reading. ~ Test was ran at reduced strain level. (J) Probable error in stress reading

ECS MR (ksi) 499.3 789.6 799.5 740.7 826.4 443.6 464.3 432.5 562.1 883.5 493.8 854.3 851.8 865.0 814.9 264.2 358.0 255.0 352.5 430.5

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 1.46 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 1.73

ECS Visual MR Stripping

Ratio (o/~ 1.00 1.58 1.60 0-5% 1.48 1.66 1.00 1.05 0.97 0-5% 1.27 1.99 1.00 1.73 1.72 0-5% 1.75 1.65 1.00 1.36 0.97 0-5% 1.33 1.63

- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

,

~......,--=--"""'=- --=--_-:>':-~--=-=--~---.:::::,~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -. - --- - - - - - - - - _ . ... - - -60°C

, 60°C

1 2 Cycle

60°C

3

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Delta (Mix 3)

B3

-ISOC

4

.~,

Specimen ECS Cnnd. ECS ECS ECS ECS Visual ID System Cycle Stress Strain MR MR Stripping

(osi) (ksi) (ksi) 0 (J) 11.2 100.8 1l1.0 1 (J) 19.9 100.0 199.3

C0-04A C 2 (J) 21.5 100.3 214.5 3 (J) 20.7 101.0 204.5 4 (J) 21.3 99.9 212.7 0 34.9 100.6 347.4 1 48.0 99.7 481.8

CO-04B C 2 48.5 101.8 476.5 3 46.3 101.0 458.4 4 47.7 100.9 473.1 0 34.9 100.6 347.4 1 41.5 100.8 411.7

CO-04C C 2 45.6 101.5 449.2 3 42.6 100.1 425.2 4 44.4 100.9 440.0 0 19.1 99.9 190.8 1 27.2 101.6 267.5

CO-04D A 2 24.3 97.9 247.7 3 22.3 99.2 225.2 4 22.8 103.1 221.1

(J) Probable error m stress readmg

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 1.39 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 1.43

Ratio (%) 1.00 1.79 1.93 0-5% 1.84 1.92 1.00 1.39 1.37 0-5% 1.32 1.36 1.00 1.19 1.29 0-5% 1.22 1.27 1.00 1.40 1.30 0-5% 1.18 1.16

2.0.-----------__..-----------,

l.8 ........ --. ..-=.-=."":".~. -:. ~ . . :-':.~.~.~. ~. ~. -:-. . :-:.:-:~~.-:-."":". -:-. -=-. ~ .. :-:.:-:.1 1.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - -

~ ~::': e ~ .. : : : : : : . : : : : : : .... : : : : : : : : ~ l.0 I·r- .....•.......................... . . . .

::;'08 ... . ...... . ... • . . . . ... .• . • . . •• . . . •.. -13· III 0.6

0.4 : : : : :I -- CO-04A -'i'-- CO-04B ~ CO-04C -0- CO·04D I: : : :

0.2 _..... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -60°C 60°C 60°C ·JSOC

0.0 +-----+-----+-----+------1 o 123

Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results. Fruita (Mix 4)

B4

4

Specimen ECS Cond. ECS ECS ID System Cycle Stress Strain

(psi) lksi) 0 43.5 100.5 1 46.0 95.4

C()'()5A A 2 39.6 100.9 3 43.5 103.1 4 43.0 102.4 0 30.3 100.2 1 35.4 CD 89.6

CQ.05B B 2 30.0 100.8 3 34.2 CD 82.3 4 34.7 92.3 0 <J) 40.2 ell 59.8 1 49.6 ell 58.5

CO'()5C C 2 53.7 <Z> 60.5 3 55.8 <Z> 59.7 4 55.9 <Z> 59.4 0 54.3 ell 58.8 1 52.6 ell 60.1

C()'()5D C 2 54.9 <Z> 60.1 3 53.3 ell 60.6 4 53.9 ell 60.5

CD Probable error m stram readmg. ell Test was ran at reduced strain level. <J) Probable error in stress reading

ECS MR lksi) 432.4 481.9 392.6 421.5 420.3 303.0 395.6 297.8 415.8 375.8 671.8 848.6 887.1 935.2 942.1 922.4 874.9 913.1 880.0 892.0

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 1.17 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 1.15

ECS Visual MR Stripping

Ratio 1"10) 1.00 1.11 0.91 0-5% 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.31 0.98 0-5% 1.37 1.24 1.00 1.26 1.32 0-5% 1.39 1.40 1.00 0.95 0.99 0-5% 0.95 0.97

2.0 ~-----------~-------_,

1.8

1.6

.g 1.4 :- - - - - - - - - - . - • - - - - - - - - - • - - . - -

~ 1.2 . - -~- .: -~ -T- --... -. --~ 1.0 r~~' :;:-:;:.::;.:.=.:. ~::-.:-.::;:. :.~:-;;;;;:-~::::~.~.===-,;,-'::-"::-'-'eF'=' ';" "';''';'",,';''-:''':''-..:.-1 ::E 08 ",'

u III 0.6

0.4

0.2

- . - - -I ..... CO'()5A ....... CO'()5B -H- CO'()5C -e- CQ.()5D 1- - - . - ---- ----

6O"C 600C 60°C ·18OC 0.0 +------If------+-----+------l

o 1 2 3 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Grand Junction (Mix 5)

B5

4

Specimen ID

C0-06A

C0-06B

~6C

C0-06D

ECS Condo ECS ECS ECS System Cycle Stress Strain MR

(psi) (ksi) (ksi) 0 28.5 102.8 277.2 I 27.6 99.8 276.4

A 2 29.3 102.3 286.8 3 31.5 101.1 311.8 4 30.1 103.l 291.7 0 24.7 lOlA 247.0 I 2804 100.3 283.5

B 2 23.9 104.5 228.3 3 26.0 98.5 263.5 4 28.2 99.7 283.0 0 58.8 100.2 587.1 I 54.6 100.3 544.0

C 2 54.1 100.3 539.3 3 53.2 100.3 530.0 4 52.5 101.1 518.7 0 58.6 100.1 584.9 I 57.1 99.8 571.6

C 2 57.9 94.1 615.1 3 56.5 99.9 565.9 4 57.5 100.1 574.9

Avernge ECS Modulus Ratio after J cycles = 1.02 Avernge ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 1.02

ECS Visual MR Stripping

Ratio (%) 1.00 1.00 1.03 0-5% 1.12 1.05 1.00 1.15 0.92 0-5% 1.07 1.15 1.00 0.93 0.92 5-10"10 0.90 0.88 1.00 0.98 1.05 0-5% 0.97 0.98

: : : : :1-- CO-06A ~ CO-06B ~ C0-06C -- CO-06D I: : : : 6O"C

o

6O"C 6O'C

I 2 3 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Durango (Mi.'t 6)

B6

-18"C

4

.. 2.0

1.8

1.6

.g 1.4

~ !!I 1.2

:g 1.0 0

::.; 08 ell' U III 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0

Specimen ID

c()"o7A

C0-07B

CO~7C

CO~7D

ECS Cond. ECS ECS ECS System Cycle Stress Strain MR

(psi) (ksi) (ksi) 0 25.5 100.6 253.0 I 29.6 101.1 293.3

A 2 29.9 100.6 297.3 3 30.5 102.7 297.4 4 30.3 100.2 302.5 0 42.9 99.2 433.1 I 39.0 101.0 386.6

A 2 36.1 100.3 360.0 3 43.4 98.5 440.7 4 39.0 100.8 387.1 0 21.8 99.7 218.7

.1 25.9 102.4 253 .3 B 2 28.1 99.4 282.6

3 17.2 96.8 177.8 4 18.5 95.3 194.3 0 22.3 103.1 216.4 I 25.8 99.1 26Q.4

B 2 28.9 98.9 292.6 3 25.7 101.9 252.2 4 23.5 99.3 236.9

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 1.04 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 1.02

ECS Visual MR Stripping

Ratio (%) 1.00 1.16 1.17 0-5% 1.18 1.20 1.00 0.89 0.83 0-5% 1.02 0.89 1.00 1.16 1.29 0-5% 0.81 0.89 1.00 1.20 1.35 0-5% 1.17 1.09

',- - - - - - - - .. ~ - . . - - ~ . ...x: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -... - - - - . - - - .. ,~~ . _. - -

: : : : }-- C0-07 A ~ :CO~7~ ~ CO~?C oK- C0-07D I : : : : 60°C 60°C

1 2 3 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Ft. Collins (Mix 7)

B7

·18OC

4

Specimen ECS Condo ECS ECS ECS ECS Visual ID System Cycle Slres.s Strain MR MR Stripping

(osi) 0 Ql 37.0 I 47.4

C0-08A A 2 42.6 3 42.3 4 45.7 0 Ql 34.1 I 51.0

CO'{)8B A 2 47.4 3 46.8 4 43.1 0 Ql 28.1 I 35.2

CO'{)8C B 2 35.2 3 39.4 4 37.1 0 Ql 29.2 I 35.7 (!)

C0'{)8D B 2 34.7 (!)

3 36.2 4 32.6

(j) Probable error m stram readmg. Ql Probable error in stress reading

(ksi) (ksi) 95.0 389.0 81.1 585.0 95.9 444.5

100.0 427.5 100.3 455.3 100.2 340.3 95.9 531.6

103.8 456.4 98.4 475.2

101.8 423.6 98.8 284.2 96.1 366.0 96.4 364.8 97.6 403.8

100.8 367.7 99.3 294.4 79.2 45f.6 73 .1 474.8

102.6 352.6 97.9 332.7

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 1.28 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 1.21

Ratio ("/0)

1.00 1.50 1.14 0-5% 1.10 1.17 1.00 1.56 1.34 0-5% 1.40 1.24 1.00 1.29 1.28 0-5% 1.42 1.29 1.00 1.53 1.61 0-5% 1.20 1.13

2.0.,--------------------.,

1.8 - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ••. - . - - - - - - - - -

1.6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

.g 1.4

~ ~ 1.2

~ 1.0 .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - . - - - - •••••

~ 0.8 en U III 0.6

0.4

0.2

: : : : :I --- CO'{)8A ...... CO-08B -or- CO-08C -<>- CO-08D I: : : : 6O"C _18°e

0.0 +------l-----+-----+------l o I 2 3

Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results NWUI (Mix 8)

B8

4

Specimen II)

CO~9A

CO-09B

CO~9C

CO-09D

ECS Cond. ECS ECS ECS System Cycle Stress Strain MR

losi) /ksi) (ksi) 0 31.2 107.6 290.0 1 32.2 96.8 333;7

A 2 33.3 101.8 327.3 3 36.2 104.4 346.9 4 34.4 106.3 324.3 0 40.6 98.2 413.9 1 38.2 102.2 373.5

A 2 36.5 95.9 380.6 3 36.4 102.9 353.8 4 32.6 99.8 327.3 0 23.8 100.8 236.1 1 23.0 106.2 216.4

B 2 23.8 105.0 227.2 3 22.6 98.1 230.5 4 20.7 100.7 205.8 0 28.6 96.6 296.5 1 27.5 101.6 270.3

B 2 22.2 98.6 225.7 3 23.9 103.1 231.7 4 22.2 100.7 220.7

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 0.95 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 0.88

ECS Visual MR Stripping

Ratio 1%) 1.00 1.15 1.13 0-5% 1.20 1.12 1.00 0.90 0.92 10-20% 0.85 0.79 1.00 0.92 0.96 10-20% 0.98 0.87 1.00 0.91 0.76 20-30% 0.78 0.74

2.o,.--------------------, 1.8

1.6

.g 1.4

~ ., 1.2 ::I

.,- - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- . - - . - . . - - -

~1.°f~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-:- :-=-~-:-~-:-~-:-:-:-~"~-~-~-~-~-~- ;-;- ;- ~-::g08 - --- ------ -~ -------- - - . -----~.

Ul 0.6

0.4

0.2

: : : : }-CO-09A -- CO-09B -- CO~9C -- CO-09D I : : : :

-1 8OC 0.0 +------+---- -+-,-----+-----1

o 1 2 3 4 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Denver (Mix 9)

B9

2.0

1.8

1.6

~ 1.4

'" 1.2 " :l '8 1.0

::a 0.8

'" U III 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Specimen ECS Cond. ECS ECS ECS ID System Cycle Stress Strain MR

(psi) (ksi) (ksi) 0 37.8 98.9 382.2 I 38.2 96.5 396.1

CO-IOA A 2 37.6 104.8 358.6 3 31.3 101.0 310.6 4 30.3 97.1 312.5 0 26.6 101.0 263.4 1 26.2 99.6 263 .1

CO-IOB B 2 21.6 98.1 220.4 3 22.6 100.0 226.4 4 15.7 99.8 157.3 0 31.2 102.6 304.5 I 23.7 99.1 239.5

CO-IOC A 2 25.7 97.1 265.4 3 ® ® ® 4 21.7 105.0 207.0 0 26.6 100.8 264.1 1 22.2 95.4 233.1

CO-IOD B 2 21.6 98.1 220.4 3 ® ® ® 4 23.6 108.8 216.6

® Computer Error

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 0.84 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 0.73

ECS Visual MR Stripping

Ratio <%t 1.00 1.04 0.94 10-20% 0.81 0.82 1.00 1.00 0.84 5-10% 0.86 0.60 1.00 0.79 0.87 10-20%

® 0.68 1.00 0.88 0.83 20-30%

® 0.82

_______ « _____ 0- ____ - __ _

0

------- - -- --- ------ ---------:-.; ____ .1--- CO-lOA -9- CO-lOB -a CO-IOC-<:>- CO-IOD I ___ _

60"C

2 3 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Douglas County (Mix 10)

BlO

-tSOC

4

2.0

1.8

1.6

.g 1.4 .. ~ ;g1.2

~ 1.0

::g 08 en· tJ III 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Specimen ECS Cond. ECS ECS ECS ECS Visual

0

ID System Cycle Stress (Dsi)

0 40.5 I 45.2

CO-IIA A 2 (J) 52.4 CD 3 4J.5 4 44.5 0 59.5 1 69.9

CO-JIB C 2 70.8 3 71.3 4 73.7 0 26.6 I 33.5 .

CO-llC B 2 33.8 3 34.4 4 33.9 CD 0 56.3 1 67.9

CO-liD C 2 68.0 3 70.9 4 69.9

Q) Probable error m stram readmg. (J) Probable error in stress reading

Strain MR ik.<i\ Iksil

96.9 417.6 96.8 467.1 89.0 589.1 98.3 422.2

101.7 437.7 98.0 607.5 96.9 721.5 91.9 770.0 93.0 766.9 95.1 774.6 96.2 276.7 92.5 362.1 93 .0 363.2 91.3 377.2 76.7 442.1 99.1 568.2 94.9 715.3 99.7 682.8 93.8 756.6 93.9 744.4

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 1.24 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = L3 1

MR Stripping Ratio (%)

1.00 Ll2 lA·)- 0-5% 1.01 LOS 1.00 Ll9 1.27 0-5% 1.26 1.27 1.00 1.31 1.31 0-5% 1.36 1.60 1.00 1.26 1.20 0-5% 1.33 1.31

,. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - -~- .

: : : : :1 • CO-llA -9- CO-11B -R- CO-lIC -- CO-llD I: : : : : 600e 600C 600e ,

123 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Aurora (Mix 11)

B11

-tROC

4

1..-.

2 .0

1.8

1.6

.g 1.4

~ ~ 1.2

~ 1.0

::g 0.8 '" (,) III 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0

Specimen ECS Cond. ECS ECS ECS ECS Visual ID System Cycle Stress Strain MR MR Stripping

1%)

CO-12A

CO-l2B

CO-l2C

CO-l2D

Insi) (ksi) (ksil 0 3L1 97.4 319.0 1 32.3 99.4 325.3

A 2 32.1 103.0 312.1 3 33.2 102.7 323.4 4 32.6 98.9 329.8 0 45.8 91.3 502.1 1 48.9 91.5 534.8

C 2 48.2 92.1 523.0 3 41.0 93.6 438.5 4 43 .2 92.7 466.1 0 54.5 93.0 585.9 1 47.7 91.8 520.0

C 2 48.6 92.5 524.9 3 46.8 91.6 510.9 4 50.4 91.7 549.2 0 20.5 99.3 206.3 r 27.0 100.4 268.9

B 2 24.1 104.3 231.2 3 22.3 102.5 217.7 4 25.2 104.0 242.6

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 0.95 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 1.02

Ratio 1.00 1.02 0.98 1.01 1.03 1.00 1.07 1.04 0.87 0.93 1.00 0.89 0.90 0.87 0.94 1.00 1.30 Ll2 1.06 Ll8

" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - . . . . . ..m.. -~-----

----: : : : :I --- CO-12A -v-- CO-12B ;0- CO-12C -0- CO-12D I: : : :

6O"C 60°C 60°C

1 23 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Jefferson County (Mi.'\; 12)

BIZ

-lsoe

0-5%

0-5%

0-5%

0-5%

4

Specimen ECS Cond. ECS ECS ECS 10 System Cycle Stress Strain MR

(osil (ksi) (ksi) 0 39.8 100.1 398.0 I 41.9 103.8 403.7

CO-13A A 2 40.2 101.7 395.0 3 40.3 98.9 407.1 4 35.8 89.6 404.4 0 32.2 103.8 310.0 1 ® ® ®

CO-13B B 2 35.2 97.8 349.5 3 35.1 94.4 372.1 4 34.7 105.6 328.8 0 27.6 103.7 265.9 1 ® ® ®

CO-13C A 2 32.7 102.8 318.4 3 33.3 101.9 327.0 4 29.9 105.7 282.6 0 25.6 ·96.7 265.3 1 26.6 103.2 258.2

CO-13D B 2 27.1 100.2 270.7 3 26.5 98.3 269.2 4 26.8 101.9 263.9

® Computer Error

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 1.12 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 1.03

ECS Visual MR Stripping

Ratio (%)

1.00 1.01 0.99 10-20% 1.02 1.02 1.00

® 1.13 10-20% 1.20 1.06 1.00

® 1.20 10-20% 1.23 1.06 1.00 0.97 1.02 10-20% 1.01 0.99

~- - - - - - - _. _ . - - - - - - - - - - - _ .... - - - - - _. - - -

60°C

o

600C 60°C

1 23 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Cedar Point (Mix 13)

B13

-ISOC

4

Specimen ECS Cond. ECS ECS ECS ECS Visual lD System Cycle Stress Strain MR MR Stripping

(psi) Cksi) lksil Ratio (<Yo)

0 34.7 99.0 350.4 1.00 I 31.8 99.0 321.4 0.92

CO-14A A 2 25.2 97.3 259.1 0.74 10-20% See note 3 24.0 100.1 239.8 0.68 below 4 18.0 103.0 175.3 0.50

0 34.5 79.9 468.6 1.00 I 17.4 81.7 212.7 0.45

CO-14B B 2 18.4 80.8 227.8 0.49 20-30% . See note 3 16.7 100.6 166.4 0.36 below 4 ll .8 77.1 152.9 0.33

0 27.3 100.0 273.1 1.00 1 15.5 99.4 155.7 0.57

CO-14C A 2 13.1 97.2 135.2 0.50 10-20% 3 ·12.0 102.9 116.9 0.43 4 14.4 104.5 137.8 0.50 0 28.8 100.3 287.0 1.00 1 22.4 104.7 213.8 0.75

CO-I4D B 2 19.1 99.8 191.8 0.67 10-20% See note 3 19.9 100.6 198.0 0.69 below 4 11.7 98.1 ll9.6 0.42 Note: Conditioning cycles were accidentally interrupted during test; end ratios may

be slightly low because speCimens were subjected to additional conditioning.

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 0.54 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 0.44

2.0

1.8 - - - - - - - - -1-- CO-14A -9- CO-HB ..... CO-HC""" CO--14D I 1.6 - - - - - - - - -

.g 1.4 ,- - - . - - - - - - - - - - . - -- - -- -- -- _. _- - _. - - -. -os

I>: rg 1.2 - -- - - - -- - - ----- - - - ------- - - --- - - -- -- -

~ 1.0 . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

::.; 0.8 ~---- --~ .- ..... . ------- - - -'" [rl 0.6 - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -",=- - - - -. --.;: -=..

0.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - -;-;;.

0.2 - ----- --------- - -- - -- - ------------- - -6O"e 6O'e 6O'e -ISOC

0.0

0 1 2 3 4 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Agate (Mi~ 14)

814

Specimen ECS Condo ECS ECS ECS 10 System Cycle Stress Strain MR

(psi) (ksi) (ksi) 0 37.7 96.0 393.2 I 32.6 97.7 333.3

CO-15A A 2 28.2 100.3 281.1 3 30.6 96.5 316.9 4 21.6 96.4 224.1 0 52.7 (j) 88.0 598.4 1 34.4 103.3 333.4

CO-15B A 2 34.1 103.3 330.2 3 28.2 99.0 285.1 4 23.6 101.7 232.1 0 25.3 104.4 242.7 1 21.1 101.6 207.5

CO-15C B 2 20.8 102.9 202.2 3 19.2 100.5 190.9 4 14.3 96.6 147.9 0 29.6 92.3 321.1 1 23.2 97.6 238.1

CO-15D B 2 21.8 102.2 213.7 3 21.4 101.7 210.3 4 ·16.2 101.9 159.1

(j) Probable error m stram readmg.

2.0

1.8

1.6

.g 104. ,;j '" 1.2 " "3

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 0.68 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 0.52

ECS Visual MR Stripping

Ratio (%) 1.00 0.85 0.71 10-20% 0.81 0.57 1.00 0.56 0.55 10-20% 0.48 0.39 1.00 0.85 0.83 10-20% 0.79 0.61 1.00 0.74 0.67 10-20% 0.65 0.50

'8 1.0 ---- --. - ---- - - - .- - - ---- -- -- - -- --- --- -

~ 08 en· U III 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0 1 2 3 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Arriba (Mix 15)

BIS

-ISOC

4

" Specimen ECS Condo ECS ECS ECS ECS Visual

ID System Cycle Stress Strain MR MR Stripping (nsi) (ksi) (ksi) (0/0) Ratio

0 26.6 104.2 255.0 1.00 I 30.7 96.1 319.7 1.25

CO-I6A A 2 27.7 102.9 269.1 1.06 5-10% 3 30.7 96.1 319.7 1.25 4 27.5 99.9 274.9 1.08 0 27.6 97.1 284.2 1.00 I 30.5 98.1 311.1 1.09

CO-16B B 2 31.2 104.6 298.1 1.05 5-10% See note 3 31.0 98.2 315.8 1.11 below 4 30.9 106.6 289.6 1.02

0 36.2 100.8 358.9 1.00 I 38.8 99.5 390.3 1.09

CO-16C B 2 40.7 101.2 402.5 1.12 5-10% 3 36.3 100.5 361.4 1.01 4 36.5 105.0 347.2 0.97 0 27.6 97.1 284.2 1.00 1 30.5 98.1 311.! 1.09

CO-I6D B 2 31.2 104.6 298.1 1.05 5-10% 3 31.0 98.2 315.8 1.11 4 30.9 106.6 289.6 1.02

Note: Samples lack of straightness resulted m eccentnc loadmg, It IS unknow if this affected the results.

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 1.12 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 1.02

2.0 -r--------------------~

1.8

1.6

.g 1.4 ;;------ - - ----- - - --- - -- --- -- -- - - - - - - - -

~ --- ......

~ ~:~ ~-:;;:::~;::: :;::~::-:--:--::~:~:~-:=-~:~: :=: ::=:~:~:~:"::=:=:=::~:;::::::: ::-~: -:--=-===-~-;-;:-;:=-'. ::;; 0.8' CI> u tIl 0.6

0.4

0.2 60·C 60·C -IS·C

0.0 +------1------+------1'--------1

o 1 23 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Limon (Mix 16)

B16

4

Specimen ECS Cond. ECS ECS ECS ECS Visual ID System Cycle Stress Strain MR MR Stripping

(osi) (ksi) (ksi) Ratio (%)

0 13.5 98.7 136.8 1.00 1 16.8 101.4 166.0 1.21

CO-l7A C 2 14.9 104.1 142.8 1.04 5-10% 3 "12.8 101.7 126.0 0.92 4 10.9 102.4 106.0 0.78 0 25.4 96.7 262.2 1.00 . 1 20.8 96.8 214.8 0.82

CO-l7B A 2 16.0 99.8 160.6 0.61 5-10% 3 16.0 95.8 167.2 0.64 4 14.5 98.4 147.5 0.56 0 16.0 98.4 162.5 1.00 1 17.3 102.9 167.8 1.03

CO-l7C B 2 ll.8 96.7 121.9 0.75 5-10% 3 13.5 96.6 140.0 0.86 4 10.8 96.6 111.7 0.69 0 17.0 100.9 168.8 1.00 1 17.6 100;1 175.5 1.04

CO-l7D B 2 14.9 100.5 147.9 0.88 5-10% 3 15.0 99.8 150.4 0.89 4 13.1 99.6 131.1 0.78

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 0.83 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 0.70

2.0

1.8 ----- ..... ... . ------ . . --- --- ------ .. ---

1.6 ----- ---- _ ... ---- . --- - -------- - ------ --

.. g 1.4, .. ----- -- _ . ........... . ............... . -

] 1.2· ----- ------ - -------- _ . . ... _--- - . - . __ ....

--------== . .g 1.0

~~:-- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

::;; 08 -- ---- ---<:::: - ... ",'

U ....,

III 0.6 ----- ------------- ------- - - - - - -

0.4 - - - - - 1---CO-17A~CO-17B~CO-17C -o-CO-17DI- - --

0.2 ----- ---------------------- -------- - -60°C 60°C 60°C -\SOC

0.0

0 1 2 3 4 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Trinidad (Mi,< 17)

B17

2.0

1.8

'0 1.6

~ 1.4

ltl 1.2 '3 "8 1.0 ::a CI) O.S U III 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Specimen ECS Condo ECS ECS ECS ECS Visual ID System Cycle Stress Strain MR MR Stripping

(psi) Iksi) (ksi) Ratio O. (J) 14.5 101.0 146.0 1:00 I 27.7 101.2 273.4 1.87

CO-ISA C 2 26.1 100.9 25S.2 1.77 3 24.S 99.9 24S.2 1.70 4 30.5 99.S 306.1 2.10 0 (J) 14.6 102.0 143.6 1.00 I 27.6 100.6 275.0 1.92

CO-ISB C 2 23.9 99.S 239.1 1.67 3 24.6 100.6 244.6 1.70 4 23 .0 99.6 230.4 1.60 0 (J) 19.9 99.S 199.7 1.00 I 23.1 101.9 227.0 1.14

CO-ISC C 2 29.3 100.7 290.7 1.46 3 23.5 100.4 234.1 1.17 4 26.6 100.7 264.5 1.32 0 (J) 14.5 99.9 145.1 1.00 I 24.5 101.0 242.1 1.67

CO-ISO C 2 19.3 99.S 193.7 1.33 3 24.7 101.0 244.6 1.69 4 23.7 99.9 237.0 1.63

(J) Probable error 10 stress readmg

,

0

"Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 1.57 Average EeS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 1.66

><:S:<:- - - - - - - - - - - - - " " "

" " " --1-- CO-18A ........ CO-18B -H- CO-18C -<;>- CO-180 I" " " -"

6O"C 6O"C

1 23 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Walsenburg (Mix 18)

BI8

-18OC

4

(%)

0-5%

0-5%

0-5%

0-5%

Specimen ill

CO-19A

CO-19B

CO-19C

CO-19D

ECS Condo ECS ECS ECS System Cycle Stress Strain MR

(psi) tksil tksil 0 39.4 101.2 389.3 1 34.3 103.4 331.9

A 2 31.2 104.5 298.5 3 32.4 98.7 328.1 4 26.1 98.3 265.4 0 27.9 101.1 276.4 1 32.3 99.7 324.3

A 2 33.6 101.8 329.7 3 28.9 99.7 290.3 4 25.1 98.0 256.5 0 21.5 99.9 215.2 I 20.3 102.9 197.7

B 2 22.4 102.5 219.0 3 18.0 102.4 176.1 4 13.7 101.5 134.7 0 32.6 96.1 339.6 1 30.2 98.7 306.2

B 2 30.4 100.8 301.1 3 25.5 98.5 259.3 4 23.7 102.5 231.5

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 0.87 Average ECS Modulns Ratio after 4 cycles = 0.73

ECS Visual MR Stripping

Ratio (%)

1.00 0.85 0.77 30-40% 0.84 0.68 1.00 1.17 1.19 30-40% 1.05 0.93 1.00 0.92 1.02 30-40% 0.82 0.63 1.00 0.90 0.89 30-40% 0.76 0.68

2.0,-----------------------,

1.8

1.6

.g 1.4

~ ~ - - - - - - - - - ,. - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - . - - - - - - - - -

., 1.2

~ 1.0 r·~~·~·~-~-::=-~--~-~-~-;:--;::-~.~~-=-;;~~-;:--~.~-;.;. -:-::j ::g 0.8 . . - . . - - - - - - - - - - .. - -rJ ~

III 0.6 :::: }~:?~I~~~~~-!~B.:'":C:~-~9:.~_C.o:I?~l::~· 0.4

0.2 600C 60"C -18"C

0.0 t------t------I------+------i

o 2 3 Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Fleming (Mix 19)

B19

4

2.0

1.8

1.6

.g 1.4

" c.: ~ 1.2

" ~ 1.0

::; 08 ", '

u tLl 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0

Specimen ID

CO-2OA

CO-20B

CO-20C

CO-2OO

ECS Cond. ECS ECS ECS Sys. Cycle Stress Strain MR

(osi) (ksil (ksi)

0 35.6 95.9 371.3 I 38.2 96.7 394.6

A 2 29.8 103.8 286.9 3 28.2 100.8 279.8 4 21.6 101.4 213.5 0 23.8 103.0 . 23Q.6

I 24.4 102.0 239.7 B 2 19.4 97.1 200.0

3 19.2 101.9 188.2 4 12.8 IOU 127.0 0 24.2 102.4 236.6 I 21.3 101.6 210.3

A 2 17.6 97.4 180.4 3 16.8 105.6 159.4 4 11.9 98.8 120.1 0 28.1 97.9 288.0 I 25.3 101.6 249.3

B 2 25.0 106.6 234.5 3 22.1 100.8 218.9 4 18.5 106.0 175.0

Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 3 cycles = 0.75 Average ECS Modulus Ratio after 4 cycles = 0.56

ECS Visual MR Stripping

Ratio ("/o)

1.00 1.06 0.77 5-10% 0.75 0.58 1.00 1.04 0.87 5-10% 0.82 0.55 1.00 0.89 0.76 5-10% 0.67 0.51 1.00 0.87 0.81 5-10% 0.76 0.61

- . ........ .... .... .. - .... .. ~ .... .... .... .... .. - - - .. .......... .. .... .. ,

. - . - . - - . - - - - .. - . " - . - • - .. " - -~ """"'I'

60'C 6O'C 60'C . 1 23

Cycle

ECS Modulus Ratio Results Gwmison (Mix 20)

B20

-..,

-18"<:

4