Long Term Assessment Trackbed Component Materials’jrose/papers/AREMA 2008 Paper.pdfBASIC ASPHALT...

Long-Term Assessment of Asphalt Trackbed Component Materials’ Properties and Performance

by

Jerry G. Rose, PE Professor of Civil Engineering

161 OH Raymond Bldg University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY 40506-0281 859/257-4278, [email protected]

and

Henry M. Lees, Jr., PE

Sr. Engineer-Track & Structures BNSF Railway Company

920 SE Quincy Street Topeka, KS 66612-1116

785/435-6459, [email protected]

Submitted for Presentation at the 2008 AREMA Annual Conference

Salt Lake City, September 2008 and Publication in the Proceedings

Word Count: 5,794

June 1, 2008

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The uses of Hot Mix Asphalt as subballast layers within railroad track structures for new

trackbed construction and trackbed maintenance applications have grown steadily in the

United States during the past 25 years. The asphalt layer (termed underlayment) is

used in lieu of an all-granular subballast layer. This paper documents the results of a

characterization and evaluation study to ascertain the effects of long-term exposure in

various trackbed environments on the material properties of the trackbed materials –

asphalt and underlying (roadbed) subgrade. The primary purpose of the testing program

was to determine if any weathering or physical/chemical deterioration of the materials

were occurring that could adversely affect long-term performance of the trackbeds. Six

asphalt trackbeds, ranging in age from 12 to 25 years; on heavy traffic revenue lines in

three states were recently core drilled. Test data on the trackbed materials were

compared to data obtained previously. The expected benefits and trackbed life

projections are discussed relative to current basic design and construction practices.

Keywords: hot-mix asphalt, railway trackbeds, trackbed performance, subgrades,

subballast

INTRODUCTION

From its beginnings in 1830, the railroads have been a primary mode of freight transport

in this country. Its dominance is becoming significant in recent years as train speeds,

gross ton-miles, and axle loads have increased. The latest Association of American

Railroads statistics (1) indicate that in 2005 an all-time record 1.7 trillion ton-miles of

freight was carried over the nation’s nearly 141,000-mile (227,000 km) railroad network.

The average freight car weight has increased to 129 tons (117 metric tons) with most

new cars having gross weights of 143 tons (130 metric tons). The importance of

developing and specifying premium track structures and components to adequately

carry the increased tonnage is a current reality of the industry. Failure of the track

structure and components results in difficulty maintaining track geometric features

necessary for efficient and safe train operations. Maintenance costs and track outages

increase due to frequent maintenance and renewal cycles.

The inability of the track structure to adequately carry the imposed loadings can

be categorized into two primary failure types. The first one is failure of the subgrade

when the pressure transmitted to the subgrade is higher than the inherent hearing

capacity of the particular subgrade. The subgrade soil’s ability to accommodate loading

pressures is a function of its shear strength, cohesion, plasticity, density, and moisture

content. A well-compacted subgrade soil that is confined and maintained reasonably dry

will normally perform adequately for an indefinite period of time. A possible exception is

a highly compressible soil such as peat. Subgrade failures adversely affect track

geometry and are normally difficult and expensive to correct.

The second type of trackbed failure occurs when one or more of the trackbed

structural components fail to perform satisfactorily for a reasonable period of time.

This is commonly manifested by the subballast, and particularly the ballast, becoming

clogged (fouled) with excessive quantities of fine size material. This lowers the shear

strength of the ballast and bearing capacity of the subballast. Fouling is normally due to

degradation of the ballast, infiltration of subgrade soil particles, extraneous droppings

from hopper cars, or an accumulation of wind-blown fine particles. Track geometry is

adversely affected to varying degrees. It is difficult to rectify track geometry in fouled

ballast with typical trackbed maintenance surfacing equipment.

Periodic replacement of the track components (rails, ties, fasteners, and special

trackworks) cannot be avoided (2). It is desirable to increase the service life of the

components. The adequacy of the trackbed structural components supporting the track

can have a significant effect on the life of the track components by reducing impact

stresses and minimizing deflections of the track.

The solution for minimizing subgrade failures involves a combination of reducing

the pressure on the top of the subgrade, improving drainage (effectively improving the

properties of the subgrade), adding thickness to the trackbed structural components, or

utilizing higher quality/load bearing trackbed components. The solution for minimizing

structural component failure is designing and selecting reasonable fasteners and

track components so that an optimum track structural support stiffness will be achieved.

In order to design optimum track structural support stiffness, it is necessary to

determine the applied pressures at different levels in the track support structure and

select a combination of materials and thicknesses to withstand the applied pressures.

ASPHALT TRACKBEDS

The most common trackbed is composed of all-granular materials consisting of layers of

ballast and subballast over a prepared subgrade, as noted in Figure 1a. During the past

twenty-five years, the use of Hot Mix Asphalt as a subballast layer within the track

structure has steadily increased until it is becoming standard practice in many areas of

the United States. The asphalt-bound impermeable layer, typically 5 to 6 in. (125 to 150

mm) thick, provides a “hardpan” to protect the underlying roadbed and to support the

overlying ballast and track. Various tests and performance evaluations have shown

numerous advantages over traditional all-granular (ballast) trackbeds, particularly on

heavy tonnage lines traversing areas of marginal geotechnical engineering

characteristics (3, 4, 5).

The most common asphalt trackbed, termed asphalt underlayment as depicted in

Figure 1b, incorporates the layer of asphalt in lieu of the granular subballast. Ballast is

used above the asphalt layer in a similar manner as conventional all-granular trackbeds.

The ballast provides a protective cover for the asphalt by blocking the sunlight,

protecting the surface from air and water, and maintaining a relatively constant

temperature and environment. The ballast provides a means to adjust the track

geometry, when necessary, with typical maintenance equipment and procedures.

Recent studies involve instrumenting asphalt trackbeds with earth pressure cells

and displacement transducers to measure pressure levels and distributions within the

track structure and rail deflections under moving trains. These tests, conducted in real

time domain train operations with 286,000 lb (130 metric ton) cars, confirm the positive

attributes of the asphalt layer (6, 7). Peak dynamic pressures range from 13 to 17 psi

(90 to 120 kPa) on top of the asphalt layer. These are further reduced to 7 to 8 psi (50

to 55 kPa) under the asphalt layer at the subgrade interface. Dynamic track deflections

average 0.25 in. (6.4 mm) for wood tie track and 0.05 in. (1.3 mm) for concrete tie track.

These are considered optimum for quality trackbeds. Dynamic track modulus values

consistently average 2,900 lb/in/in (20 MPa) for wood tie track and 7,200 lb/in/in (50

MPa) for concrete tie track, also considered optimum stiffness levels.

BASIC ASPHALT TRACKBED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES

The asphalt mix is similar to that used for highway applications, but can be slightly

modified for optimum performance in the trackbed environment. It is placed as a layer or

mat of specified thickness and the common term is “underlayment” since the layer is

placed under the ballast and above the subgrade or old roadbed. It basically serves as

a subballast. A lesser used technique, known as “full-depth or overlayment” is

applicable for special situations and involves placing the track directly on the asphalt

layer with no ballast between the ties or slab and the asphalt. This technique is primarily

used in Europe and Japan (8, 9, 10).

The most common asphalt mix is produced as a hot mix asphalt, thus the

acronym – HMA. Cold mix asphalt mixtures and in-place stabilization of roadbeds with

liquid asphalts have been used sparingly. Normally the asphalt mix is produced in a

local mixing plant, at a temperature around 275°F (135°C), hauled to the site in dump

trucks, spread to the desired thickness, and compacted while being maintained at an

elevated temperature.

The asphalt underlayment system is equally applicable for heavy tonnage freight

lines, high-speed passenger lines, commuter and transit lines, freight and intermodal

yards, ballast loadout facilities, and practically all types of special trackworks including

crossing diamonds, turnouts, tunnel floors, bridge approaches, and highway crossings.

The majority of the asphalt trackbed applications are on existing lines. The applications

number in the thousands and most have been used on in-service lines in conjunction

with rehabilitation or renewal of special trackworks, particularly when existing subgrade

support and drainage conditions are inferior. Current installation practices, which require

removal of the track, are not applicable for long sections of in-service lines since the

time required to remove and replace the track is not commensurate with typical work

windows. Studies are underway to develop equipment to place asphalt under a raised

track on in-service lines without removing the track.

New construction, particularly double-tracking and yard installations, account for

the largest projects. At these selected locations, conventional trackbed designs were

considered to be inadequate or uneconomical to provide the required level of long-term

performance because of inherent poor qualities of the roadbed support materials and

drainage conditions. The roadbed/subgrade is readily available for regular highway

paving practices prior to track placement (11, 12).

Recommended asphalt mixture specifications and trackbed section designs have

evolved over the years. Following is a summary of prevailing practices. Detailed

information is available elsewhere (5, 13).

Normally a local dense-graded asphalt highway base mix is specified, slightly

modified with an additional 0.5% asphalt (binder) cement content. The ideal design air

void content for the compacted asphalt layer is 2 to 3%. Typical asphalt layer width is 12

ft (3.7 m) and thickness ranges from 5 to 6 in. (125 to 150 mm). Ballast thickness above

the asphalt is from 8 to 12 in. (200 to 300 mm).

The roadbed should be reasonably well-compacted, well-drained, and capable of

accommodating the hauling and spreading equipment without excessive rutting or

deformation. A slight crown or side slope is desirable. The need to purposefully improve

sub-surface drainage, or improve support with additional granular material prior to

placing the asphalt, will depend on an analysis of the conditions at the specific site.

ASPHALT TRACKBED MATERIALS TESTS AND EVAULATIONS

Eight asphalt trackbeds, located in five different states, ranging from 12 to 29 years old

and having various asphalt thicknesses and trackbed support materials, were selected

for materials characterization studies. Pertinent classification and descriptive data for

the projects are presented in Table 1. Samples were obtained during summer 2007.

Previous characterization studies, primarily conducted in 1998 (14, 15), were available

for selected projects and are included herein for comparison purposes.

Samples normally were taken at three randomly selected locations at each

project. Samples were removed from the field side crib area (Figure 2). The following

sequence was followed at each location:

• Remove and sample ballast from crib area down to top of asphalt layer

• Measure ballast thickness and observe condition

• Obtain 6 in. (150 mm) diameter core sample with core drill

• Protect samples from core drilling water so as to not contaminate the

underlying roadbed

• Measure asphalt core thickness, observe condition, and place in sealed

plastic bag

• Auger out roadbed samples, note distance below asphalt, separate if layered

conditions existed, place in sealed plastic bags

• Repeat drilling sequence, normally three cores were taken at each location

• Fill core holes with cold mix patch and replace ballast

Geotechnical Tests and Evaluations

The following geotechnical laboratory tests and evaluations using standard ASTM

procedures were conducted on the subgrade/roadbed samples:

• Moisture Content; in-situ condition – as sampled

• Grain Size Analysis; sieve and hydrometer

• Atterberg Limits; liquid limit, plastic limit, plasticity index

• Soil Classification Determinations; unified system

• Standard Proctor Moisture-Density

• California Bearing Ratio; unsoaked and soaked

The samples were recorded by depth below the asphalt and placed in separate

containers when differences in size, color, texture, or moisture content were observed.

The sealed containers were transported to the geotechnical laboratory at the Kentucky

Transportation Cabinet for subsequent tests.

Table 2 contains the geotechnical evaluations for the subgrade/roadbed

samples. Data from the 1998 sampling is included for comparison with the recent 2007

data. Subgrade samples were obtained from four projects. The subballast and subgrade

were sampled separately at the Hoover site. This was the only project where granular

subballast was used below the asphalt. The Quinlan site had two distinctly different

subgrades due to differing topography. Thus, six different samples were analyzed for

the four projects.

The initial testing phase involved in-situ moisture content tests, grain-size

analysis, and Atterberg limits tests followed by soil classifications by the Unified

procedure. Based on the classifications, similar materials from a site were combined to

accumulate samples of sufficient size for the subsequent standard Proctor moisture-

density test to determine optimum moisture content for maximum dry density and for the

California bearing ratio (CBR) test.

In-Situ Moisture Contents

There was significant interest in determining the existing moisture contents of the

subgrade materials directly under the asphalt layer and subsequently comparing these

with previous measurements with the optimum moisture contents for the respective

materials. Every effort was made to remove core drilling water to protect subgrade

samples. No significant water penetrated the soil (particularly clay) subgrades. No

sample appeared to be overly wet or wet of optimum based on initial observations.

In-situ moisture contents are provided in Table 2 for both the 1998 and 2007

sampling operations. The values varied relative to the type of subgrade soil, but were

very site specific comparable with values obtained during the 1998 sampling. These

data are shown in Figure 3. There was an average net decrease of 0.1% change in

moisture contents over the span of nine years.

Two of the projects had in-situ moisture tests taken during similar coring

operations on several previous occasions, dating to the early 1980s. This data is

presented in Figure 4. The Oklahoma City trackbed has a highly plastic clay under the

asphalt. The range in moisture values is minimal. The Conway trackbed has the existing

old roadbed under the asphalt that is highly variable mixture of large-size ballast, small-

size ballast, cinder, coal, soil, etc. The significance of the data is that the average

moisture contents of the materials underlying the asphalt have remained essentially

unchanged at each respective site over the years from the time the asphalt was placed.

Previous concerns about pore water pressure, and its effects on lowering subgrade soil

strengths, are not founded.

Unified Soil Classifications

The soil classifications, based on grain size analyses and Atterberg limits tests, are

provided in Table 2. The test projects were selected to include a wide variety of

subgrade materials, ranging from reasonably high plastic clays to more silty/sandy

materials having little or no plasticity. As expected, little difference in soil classifications

was noticed at individual sites for the samples taken in 1998 and 2007.

Standard Proctor Moisture-Density

The standard Proctor moisture-density test was conducted to determine the optimum

moisture content for achieving maximum density. The minus 0.50 in. (12.5 mm) size

material was removed. The optimum moisture content data is included in Table 2.

Figure 5 shows the change in optimum moisture contents for the six samples between

1998 and 2007 sampling. The changes were typically less than 1 percent, indicating

similar materials.

Figure 6 is a graphical comparison of the measured in-situ moisture contents and

the Proctor optimum moisture values. The linearity of the relationship is shown in Figure

7. Note that the R2 value is in excess of 0.9 indicating very good correlation. The in-situ

moisture contents were very close to optimum values. These findings indicate that the

subgrade materials under the asphalt layer can be considered, for design purposes, to

have a prevailing moisture contents very near optimum for maximum compactability and

strength.

In addition, strength or bearing capacity values used in design calculations

should be reflective of optimum moisture content values. It is common practice, when

designing conventional all-granular trackbeds, to assume the subgrade is in a soaked

condition, which for most soils is a weaker condition than when the soil is at optimum

moisture.

California Bearing Ratio

California Bearing Ratio (CBR) specimens were prepared at moisture contents

determined from previous Proctor tests to be optimum for maximum density. Specimens

were tested immediately in the unsoaked condition. Companion specimens were

soaked in water for 96 hours prior to testing. Tests were conducted at 0.1 in. (2.5 mm)

penetration.

The CBR data is presented in Table 2. The values were typical for the types of

materials tested. For example, the highest CBR value was in the 50 range, which was a

select river gravel used as a subballast (locally known as “Tex-Flex” base), for the

Hoover project. A select crushed stone product is considered to have a CBR value of

100. The other subgrade materials have CBR values significantly lower, as expected,

even for the unsoaked condition.

A comparison of unsoaked and soaked CBR test values is presented graphically

in Figure 8. CBR values were significantly lower for the soaked samples, particularly

those containing clay size material, which had values in the low single digits. Test

results for the 1998 and 2007 sampling were reasonably close considering that

materials sufficient for only one unsoaked and one soaked specimen per site were

available for tests. Likely the 1998 and 2007 test comparisons would have been less

variable had additional tests been conducted to obtain averages based on several

replicable tests.

As noted previously, the in-situ moisture contents for individual samples were

very close to the those determined from the Proctor test to be near optimum. This

relationship is shown graphically in Figure 7. Since the unsoaked CBR values are

derived from tests on samples at optimum moisture contents, and the test results from

samples under asphalt trackbeds were determined to be at or very near optimum

moisture contents, it is obvious that the unsoaked CBR bearing capacity values are

appropriate to use for structural design calculations. The soaked (lower) CBR values

result in a conservative overdesign. The preceding statements are not necessarily

applicable to the open all-granular trackbeds, which are prone to variable moisture

contents depending on the amount of rainfall and surface drainage conditions, and

corresponding variations in support strength. The subgrade/roadbed materials

underlying the asphalt layers were at moisture contents near optimum, and based on

long-term monitoring at two sites, maintain optimum moisture conditions for indefinite

periods.

Asphalt Mixture and Core Tests and Analysis

The following laboratory tests were conducted on the asphalt mixtures and cores at the

National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) at Auburn University:

• Density and Voids Analysis

• Asphalt (binder) Content

• Extracted Aggregate Gradation

• Resilient Modulus @ 5°C (41°F) and 25°C (77°F) @ 1 loading cycle per

second

• Dynamic Modulus @ 5°C (41°F) and 25°C (77°F) @ 1 hertz load frequency

• Recovered Asphalt Binder Properties

Penetration @ 25°C (77°F)

Absolute Viscosity @ 60°C (140°F)

Kinematic Viscosity @ 135°C (275°F)

Dynamic Shear Rheometer @ 25°C (77°F)

Figure 9 depicts typical asphalt cores as obtained from the trackbeds. Table 3

contains results for the Mix Extraction Tests and Core Analysis. Table 4 contains test

results on the Recovered Asphalt Binders. The most recent test results are listed in the

far right columns. This represents 2007 data for six of the projects. The significance of

the prior tests is so that the changes in the properties and weathering characteristics of

the asphalt layers can be evaluated over a period of time.

Mix Extraction Tests and Core Analysis

The extraction test results (Table 3) are indicative of dense-graded base mixes with 1.0

in. (25 mm) maximum size aggregate and about 6 percent passing the No. 200 sieve.

These are basically in conformance with guidelines previously described (5, 15).

Asphalt binder contents vary somewhat, ranging from 4.5 to 7.0 percent. No particular

changes are evident in aggregate gradations or asphalt binder contents over the period

of years.

Tests on the asphalt cores included density and voids analyses and dynamic and

resilient modulus tests. The air voids were typically higher than desirable for five of the

sites ranging from 5 to 9 percent. The air voids were purposefully maintained at 2 to 3

percent range at three of the sites. This range is considered to be optimum to resist

premature oxidation of the binder. Average air voids for each site were less than the 8%

maximum normally believed to represent the upper limit to provide an impermeable

layer.

The industry standard dynamic and resilient modulus tests were used to measure

the modulus of elasticity of the asphalt cores. In both tests, repeated loads were applied

to a cylindrical specimen and the displacements were measured. The values, reported

in Table 3, were measured under uniaxial compression loading for the dynamic modulus

and under indirect tensile loading for the resilient modulus. Tests were conducted at two

standard temperatures which represent the nominal lowest, 5°C (41°F) and highest,

25°C (77°F), temperature asphalt experiences in the insulated trackbed environment.

Recent tests were limited to resilient modulus since it is now considered as more

representative of the actual stiffness of the asphalt core.

Values were typically several orders of magnitude higher at the lower

temperature, which is normal for a viscoelastic, thermoplastic material – and is

characteristic of the asphalt binder in the mix. At lower temperatures, the asphalt

becomes stiffer, as reflected in higher modulus (or stiffness) values. At higher

temperatures, the asphalt becomes less stiff. Obviously, for asphalt highway

environments, where the asphalt is exposed to greater temperature extremes, the

stiffness differences from winter to summer are significantly greater than those existing

in the insulated trackbed environment.

Figure 10 is a plot of Resilient Modulus versus Age of the asphalt mixes. The

circled symbols represent data for cores (obtained from the trackbed in 1998) that cured

the final nine years in the laboratory environment. They are plotted directly above the

railroad cured data for similar ages. Note that the modulus values for the cores cured

the last nine years in the laboratory were higher than the cores in the railroad

environment.

The measured modulus values are reasonably consistent for the various sites.

There is no particular trend or changes in modulus as a function of time. The mixes vary

in asphalt contents, densities, aggregate gradations, and binder properties from site-to-

site, which can be expected to produce variations in modulus values. However, these

variations are minimal. The significant factor is that the values are reasonably typical for

new, unweathered mixes not exemplifying fatigue and cracking – thus low values, or

exemplifying hardening/weathering of the binder – thus high values. The values are

basically intermediate in magnitude, even after many years of loading and weathering in

the trackbed. The asphalt appears to be undergoing little, if any, weathering or

deterioration in the trackbed environment.

Recovered Asphalt Binder Tests

Test results for Penetration, Absolute and Kinematic Viscosities, and Dynamic Shear

Rheometer on the recovered asphalt binders are contained in Table 4. Plots of

Penetration and Absolute Viscosity versus Age of the Asphalt Underlayments are

contained in Figures 11a and 11b. The data points circled at the ends of the trend lines

represent the 2007 values. The preceding data points are nine years prior, or 1998

values.

Penetration values will tend to decrease and viscosity values will tend to increase

with time due to expected oxidizing and hardening of the asphalt binders. There is

indication of this phenomenon when comparing the 1998 and 2007 test values.

However, the Abson method (ASTM D1856) was used for the 1998 and prior asphalt

recoveries; whereas, the Rotary Evaporator method (ASTM D5404) was used for the

2007 recoveries. The Rotovapor method is considered more effective at removing the

solvent. Therefore, the 2007 penetration values would be expected to be lower and the

2007 absolute viscosity values would be expected to be higher than their respective

1998 values. These trends are evident from Figures 12a and 12b respectively.

It is likely that the original asphalt binders were PAC 60-70 penetration or AC-20

viscosity graded. The effects of short-term aging (elevated temperatures) during the

pavement construction process and long-term aging for several years will reduce the

binder penetration to the 25 to 40 range and the absolute viscosity at 60°C (140°F) will

be maintained to less than 15,000 poises (17). These samples meet these criteria,

indicating minimal oxidation and weathering.

The Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) procedure for evaluating asphalt binders

was developed in the mid-1990s. Fortunately this test was conducted in 1998 on

samples from 5 of the 6 sites and this data is compared to the 2007 data in Figure 13.

The standard for performance grade asphalt binders, after short- and long-term aging, is

that the DSR at 25°C (77°F) should be less than 5,000 kPa. Note in Figure 13 that all of

the samples are well below 5,000 kPa, another indication that the asphalt binders in the

trackbed cores are not oxidizing and hardening excessively (17).

Discussion

It is not surprising that the asphalt binder in the trackbed cores are not oxidizing and

hardening to the extent normally observed for asphalt highway pavements. This is

largely due to two factors. The surface of the asphalt is typically submerged 20 in. (500

mm) from the surface (atmosphere) by the ballast/tie cribs and the depth of ballast

below the ties. The lack of sunlight and reduced oxygen largely negates normal

weathering which occurs in highway pavements exposed to sunlight.

Secondly, the range in temperature extremes which the HMA mat undergoes

from summer to winter is significantly less in the insulated trackbed environment than

for exposed highway pavements. This information was developed initially during 1982

and 1995 tests in Kentucky from buried thermistors, and reported previously (14) and

reproduced in Table 5. Additional tests during 2000 at the AAR Pueblo test site

confirmed the previous tests (6).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The primary purpose of this investigation was to determine, based on test results,

current materials properties of the asphalt and underlying materials in order to assess if

any weathering or deterioration of the materials was occurring in the trackbed

environment which could adversely affect long-term performance.

Material characterization evaluations were conducted on asphalt cores and

subgrade/roadbed samples from eight asphalt trackbeds. The trackbeds were from 12

to 29 years old when tested and were distributed over five states. The inherent

conditions varied significantly from site-to-site. These included asphalt thickness and

composition, ballast thickness, trackbed support, and traffic. Previous characterization

evaluations were available for the projects and the results were included for

comparisons with recent evaluations.

The significant finding relative to the materials (old roadbed/subgrade) directly

under the asphalt layer, is that the in-situ moisture contents are very close to laboratory

determined optimum values for maximum density of the respective materials. The

asphalt layer is not performing as a membrane to collect and trap moisture, thus

weakening support. Actually, since the in-situ moisture contents are at or near optimum

for maximum density, the strengths and load carrying capacities of the underlying

materials are also at or near optimum. Furthermore, average moisture contents remain

essentially unchanged, at or near optimum, for the two projects from which previous

data was available. For design purposes, it is reasonable to base strength or bearing

capacity values at optimum conditions (moisture content and density) for the material

under the asphalt layer. Using strength or bearing capacity values determined for the

soaked condition, common for highway designs, is inappropriate for asphalt trackbed

designs. The unsoaked, optimum moisture content condition is consistent with in-

service trackbed conditions.

An equally significant finding, relative to the asphalt cores characterizations, is

that the asphalt binders and asphalt mixes do not exhibit any indication of excessive

hardening (brittleness), weathering, or deterioration even after many years in the

trackbed environment. This is considered to be primarily due to the insulative effects of

the overlying ballast which protects the asphalt from excessive temperature extremes

and oxidation and hardening of the asphalt binder. These factors will contribute to a

long fatigue life for the asphalt layer. There is no indication that the asphalt layers are

experiencing any loss of fatigue life based on resilient modulus test on the extracted

cores.

The typical failure modes experienced by asphalt highway pavements are 1)

rutting at high temperatures, 2) cracking and fatigue at low temperatures, 3)

stripping/raveling under the suction of high tire pressures on wet pavements, and 4)

progressive fatigue cracking due to inadequate subgrade support, generally augmented

by high moisture and improper drainage. These conditions do not exist in asphalt

railroad trackbeds. For example, the temperatures are not sufficiently high to promote

rutting. Conversely, the temperatures are not sufficiently low to promote low

temperature cracking and decreased fatigue life, nor does the asphalt binder weather or

harden excessively in the insulated trackbed environment which would have further

negative influence on cracking and fatigue life. Obviously the tendency to strip/ravel is

essentially eliminated in the trackbed environment since there is no rubber suction

action. Also, the moisture contents of the underlying subgrade/roadbed support

materials are maintained at or near optimum for maximum density and support strength.

In addition, peak dynamic vertical pressures on top of the asphalt layer are

typically less the 20 psi (138 kPa) under 286,000 lb (130 metric ton) locomotives and

heavily loaded cars. (16) This is only two to three times larger than the pressure exerted

by an average-size person standing on an asphalt pavement, and much less than

pressures exerted by heavily loaded highway tracks, which can be in excess of 100 psi

(690 kPa). These peak dynamic pressures are further reduced to less than 10 psi (69

kPa) under the asphalt layer at the subgrade interface (6).

Based on the findings and analyses of the research reported herein, asphalt

underlayments installed in conformance with the basic design and construction

practices also reported herein, should have an extremely long service life as a premium

subballast to properly support railroad tracks. There is no indication of any deterioration

or cracks of the asphalt after many years of heavy traffic under widely varying

conditions.

Ancillary benefits of a long-lasting premium subballast support material for

railroad tracks include the following: increased strength, decreased abrasion, and

increased life of the ballast; decreased wear and improved fatigue life of the ties, rail,

and premium-cost track components such as special trackworks; a consistent level of

track stiffness (modulus) designed for optimum levels; reduced maintenance activities

and associated track closures; and improved adherence to track geometric parameters.

All of these benefits impact favorably on achieving efficient operation of the rail

transportation system.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research was primarily supported by CSX Transportation and the BNSF Railway

Company. The geotechnical laboratory testing was performed by the Geotechnical

Branch of the Kentucky Department of Transportation. The asphalt laboratory testing

was performed by the National Center for Asphalt Technology at Auburn University.

William (Zack) Dombrow, BNSF Summer Intern from the University of Illinois, assisted

with the sample collections and tests.

REFERENCES

1. Association of American Railroads (2006) Railroad Facts, 2006 Edition, 84 pages.

2. Lopresti, J., Davis, D., and Kalay, S. (2002) Strengthening the Track Structure for Heavy Axle Loads, Railway Track & Structures, September, pp. 21-26.

3. Rose, J. and Anderson, J. (2006) Long-Term Performance of Asphalt

Underlayment Trackbeds for Special Trackbed Applications, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Assoc. 2006 Annual Conference Proceedings, Louisville, KY, September, 27 pages.

4. Rose, J., Li, D., and Walker, L. (2002) Tests and Evaluations of In-Service Asphalt Trackbeds, Proceedings of the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, 2002 Annual Conference & Exposition, September, 30 pages.

5. Rose, J. (2006) Hot-Mix Asphalt in Railway Trackbeds, ASPHALT, Asphalt Institute

Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 22-25.

6. Li, D., Rose, J., and LoPresti, J. (2001) Test of Hot-Mix Asphalt Trackbed over Soft Subgrade Under Heavy Axle Loads, Technology Digest-01-009, Assoc. of American Railroads, April, 4 pages.

7. Rose, J., Su, B., and Twehues, F. (2004) Comparisons of Railroad Track and

Substructure Computer Model Predictive Stress Values and In-Situ Stress Measurements, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Assoc. 2004 Annual Conference Proceedings, Nashville, TN, September, 17 pages.

8. European Asphalt Pavement Association (2003) Asphalt in Railway Tracks,

www.eapa.org, October, 11 pages.

9. Teixeira, P., Pita, A., Ubalde, L. and Gallego, I. (2005) New Possibilities to Reduce Track Maintenance Costs on High-Speed Lines by Using a Bituminous Sub-ballast Layer, Proceedings of Railway Engineering 2005, London, June, 11 pages.

10. Momoya, Y., Horiike, T., and Ando, K. (2002) Development of Solid Bed Track on

Asphalt Pavement, Quarterly Report, Railway Technical Research Institute, Vol. 43, No. 3, September, pp. 113-118,

11. Frailey, F. (2004) BNSF Reborn, TRAINS, Vol. 64, No. 10, October, pp. 34-49.

12. Lustig, D. (2007) Paving a Way for a Railroad Line, TRAINS, Vol. 67, No. 3, March,

pp. 26-27,

13. Rose, J. and Hensley, J. (2000) Design, Construction, and Maintenance Practices for Asphalt Trackbeds, Proceedings, Transportation Systems 2000 Workshop, San Antonio, February, pp. 275-281.

14. Rose, J., Brown, E., and Osborne, M. (2000) Asphalt Trackbed Technology

Development; The First 20 Years. Transportation Research Record 1713, Transportation Research Board, pp. 1-9.

15. Rose, J. (1998) Long-Term Performances, Tests, and Evaluations of Asphalt

Trackbeds. Proceedings of the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association 1998 Conference, September, 27 pages.

http://www.eapa.org/

16. Rose, J. (2008) Test Measurements and Performance Evaluations of In-Service Railway Asphalt Trackbeds, Proceedings of the Transportation Systems 2008 Workshop, Phoenix, April, 24 pages.

17. American Society for Testing and Materials (2007) Standard Specification for

Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder, ASTM D6373, Book of Standards Volume: 0403, 5 pages.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Asphalt Test Trackbeds

Table 2. Subgrade/Roadbed Geotechnical Evaluations

Table 3. Mix Extraction Tests and Core Analyses from Asphalt Trackbeds

Table 4. Tests on Recovered Asphalt from Asphalt Trackbeds

Table 5. Temperature Range from Winter to Summer in Trackbed Environment

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Cross-Sectional Views of Typical All-Granular and Hot Mix Asphalt Trackbeds.

Figure 2. Core Drilling Operation to Obtain Asphalt Cores and Underlying

Roadbed/Subgrade Samples. Figure 3. Changes in In-Situ Subgrade Moisture Contents Between 1998 and 2007. Figure 4. Subgrade/Roadbed In-Situ Moisture Tests After Coring. Figure 5. Changes in Optimum Subgrade Moisture Contents Between 1998 and 2007. Figure 6. Comparison of 1998 and 2007 Measured In-Situ Moisture Contents and

Optimum Moisture Contents for the Roadbed/Subgrade Samples. Figure 7. Relationships for Roadbed/Subgrade In-Situ and Optimum Moisture

Contents. Figure 8. Comparison of 1998 and 2007 Unsoaked and Soaked CBR Test Values for

the Roadbed/Subgrade Samples. Figure 9. Typical Asphalt Cores of Various Compositions and Thicknesses. Figure 10. Resilient Modulus versus Age of Asphalt. Figure 11. Penetration and Absolute Viscosity versus Age of Asphalt. Figure 12. Penetration and Absolute Viscosity Values for Railroad and Laboratory Cured Asphalt Cores. Figure 13. Dynamic Shear Rheometer Values for 1998 and 2007 Tests.

Table 1. Asphalt Test Trackbeds Location

(Railroad) Conway, KY

(CSXT) Deepwater, WV

(CSXT) Cynthiana, KY

(CSXT) Guthrie, OK

(BNSF) Oklahoma City,

OK (BNSF) Quinlan, OK

(BNSF) Hoover, TX

(BNSF) Raton, NM

(BNSF)

Type of Facility

High Speed Mainline

Open Track

High Speed Mainline Bridge

Approaches

High Speed Mainline Open Track/ Road Crossings

High Speed Mainline Bridge

Approaches

Slow Speed Yard Lead

High Speed Mainline

Open Track

High Speed Mainline

Open Track

Slow Speed Branch Line Open Track

Traffic Type (million gross tons per year)

Unit Coal Intermodal Mixed

freight (40+)


Freight (40+)


freight (40+)


freight (40+)

Mixed Freight (10)


freight (40+)


freight (40+)

Unit Coal (3)

Year Roadbed Constructed

≈1900 (original)

≈1900 (original)

≈1900 (original)

1989 (new alignment)

1980 (new yard)

1995 (new double track)

1994 (new double

track)

1969 (new coal spur)

Year HMA Placed (Age of HMA)

1983 (24 years)

1984 (23 years)

1984 (23 years)

1989 (18 years)

1982 (25 years)

1995 (12 years)

1994 (13 years)

1969 (38 years)

HMA Section Length and Thickness

1000 ft, 8 in. (305 m, 200 mm)

1000 ft, 5 in.

(305 m, 125 mm)

200 ft, 8 in. (61 m, 200 mm)

280 ft, 4 in.

(85m, 100 mm)

1300 ft, 6 in. (396 m, 150 mm)

3100 ft, 4 in. (945 m, 100 mm)

532 ft, 8 in. (162 m, 200 mm)

7.9 miles, 6 in. (12.7 km, 150 mm)

4.4 miles, 4 in. (7.1 km, 100 mm)

700 ft, 2 ½ in. (213 m, 65 mm)

700 ft, 5 in.

(213 m, 125 mm)

700 ft, 7 ½ in. (213 m, 190 mm)

Ballast Thickness

5 – 7 in. (125 – 175 mm)

8 – 12 in. (200 – 300 mm)

10 in. (250 mm)

10 in. (250 mm)

8 in. (200 mm)

12 in. (300 mm)

12 in. (300 mm)

10 in. (250 mm)

Type of Roadbed existing mixture existing mixture

existing mixture

select subgrade

clay soil subgrade

clay & silt soil subgrades

select subballast soil mixture subgrade

Select subgrade

Table 2. Subgrade/Roadbed Geotechnical Evaluations* Test Project Location

Grain Size Analysis Atterberg Limits Unified Soil Classification Proctor California Bearing Ratio Values

In-situ % Moisture

Content % Retained No. 4 Sieve

% No. 4 to No. 200

Size Material

% Passing No. 200 Sieve

LL PL PI

Group Symb

ol Group Name

Optimum %

Moisture Content

Unsoaked CBR, %

2.5 mm (0.1 in.)

Soaked CBR, %

2.5 mm (0.1 in.)

Guthrie, OK Select Subgrade

10.8 - 16.0 (13.2)** 1 67 32 Non Plastic SM

Silty Sand 11.5 16.0 6.0

Select Subgrade

10.1 - 13.5 (11.8) 0 67 33 Non Plastic SM

Silty Sand 12.5 12.1 3.9

Oklahoma City, OK Clay Subgrade

16.7 - 20.4 (18.1) 1 6 93 38 20 18 CL

Lean Clay 17.6 8.5 3.2

Clay Subgrade

15.1 – 22.4 (17.6) 0 4 96 34 18 17 CL

Lean Clay 18.0 8.2 2.8

Quinlan, OK Clay Subgrade

15.9 – 20.5 (18.0) 4 11 85 37 19 18 CL

Lean Clay 17.0 10.0 3.8

Clay Subgrade

15.4 – 19.8 (17.6) 0 12 88 30 17 13 CL

Lean Clay 17.0 8.8 4.2

Silt Subgrade

8.4 – 15.2 (11.6) 12 38 50 Non Plastic ML

Sandy Silt 13.0 23.1 22.7

Silt Subgrade

10.6 – 13.2 (11.9) 0 50 50 20 18 2 ML

Sandy Silt 13.2 42.1 30.0

Hoover, TX

Subballast (river gravel)

5.1 – 11.4 (6.9) 51 43 6 Non Plastic

GP-GM

Poorly graded

gravel w/ silt and sand

9.2 59.1 54.1

Subballast (river gravel)

6.2 – 9.6 (7.6) 39 50 11 Non Plastic SM

Silty sand 9.1 51.7 38.6

Subgrade 7.6 - 14.2 (10.7) 39 36 25 27 18 9 GC-GM

Silty clayey

gravel w/ sand

11.4 4.8 2.8

Subgrade 9.1 – 13.6 (11.0) 36 34 30 21 14 7 SC Clayey sand 10.0 8.6 4.7

* 1998 data in normal print, 2007 data in bold print ** Test data in parenthesis represents averages

Table 3. Mix Extraction Tests and Core Analyses from Asphalt Trackbeds Project Location (Date Constructed) Conway, KY (1983) Hoover, TX (1994)

Age After 1 Day After 2 Years After 11 Years After 15 Years* After 24 Years** After 4 Years* After 13 Years**

Exposure RR RR RR RR RR RR RR Lab (9 Years)

Extraction Results

Maximum Aggregate Size, mm (in.)

25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1)

Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve

3.5 – 5.3 4.6 – 5.9 5.8 – 6.9 4.5 – 11.7 Avg. 6.3 -- 4.8 – 5.0 Avg. 4.9 -- --

Asphalt Binder % by Weight of Total Mix

4.8 – 4.9 4.5 – 4.8 5.1 – 5.3 5.0 – 5.4 Avg. 5.3 4.4 – 4.7 Avg. 4.6

5.7 – 6.4 Avg. 6.2

6.6 – 6.8 Avg. 6.7 6.8

Core Analysis

Thickness, mm (in.)

108 – 213 (4 1/4 – 8 3/8)

121 – 216 (4 ¾ - 8 ½)

114 –210 (4 ½ - 8 ¼)

102 – 210 (4 – 8 ¼)

114 – 216 (4 ½ - 8 ½)

64 – 102 (2 ½ - 4)

51 - 102 (2 – 4)

64 – 102 (2 ½ - 4)

Density, kg/m3 (lb/ft3)

2260 – 2340 (141 – 146)

2225 – 2340 (139 – 146)

2305 – 2420 (144 – 151)

2327 – 2427 (145 – 151)

2242 – 2391 (140 – 149)

2171 – 2286 (136 – 143)

2213 – 2325 (138 – 145)

2267 – 2286 (141 – 143)

Gmb bulk 2.390 2.242 – 2.391 Avg. 2.316 2.237 2.213 – 2.325

Avg. 2.270 2.267 – 2.286

Avg. 2.277

Gmm max 2.492 2.511 – 2.534 Avg. 2.522 2.372 2.350 – 2.405

Avg. 2.383 2.383

Air Voids, % 7.0 – 10.1 6.9 – 13.2 3.5 – 10.9 2.4 – 6.4 Avg. 4.4 4.8 – 11.5 Avg. 8.2

3.3 – 8.5 Avg. 5.8

2.5 – 7.9 Avg. 5.1

4.1 – 5.1 Avg. 4.5

Dynamic Modulus psi x 103 @ 1 Hz 5ΕC (41ΕF) 25ΕC (77ΕF)

517 – 914

84 - 171

--

--

921

230

225 – 400 Avg. 308

101 – 186 Avg. 143

--

--

--

127 – 174 Avg. 154

--

--

--

--

Resilient Modulus psi x 103 @ 1 Hz 5ΕC (41ΕF) 25ΕC (77ΕF)

--

--

--

--

--

--

655 – 976 Avg. 796

267 – 508 Avg. 363

--

206 – 508 Avg. 387

328 – 728 Avg. 580

140 – 232 Avg. 185

--

228 – 384 Avg. 309

--

386 – 465 Avg. 423

*1998 data **2007 data

Table 3 (Cont.). Mix Extraction Tests and Core Analyses from Asphalt Trackbeds Project Location (Date Constructed) Cynthiana, KY (1984) Deepwater, WV (1984) Raton, NM (1969)

Age After 1 Year After 10 Years After 14 Years* After 23 Years** After 1 Year After 14 Years* After 14 Years After 29 Years*

Exposure RR RR RR RR Lab (9 Years) RR RR RR RR

Extraction Results


25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1)


6.1- 8.6 8.1 - 8.4 5.1 - 9.3 Avg. 7.0 -- -- 1.8 – 2.0 1.5 – 1.9 Avg. 1.7 9.3 – 10.1

8.8 – 10.4 Avg. 9.5


4.7 – 5.0 4.9 – 5.3 4.5 – 5.2 Avg. 5.0 5.1 4.9 – 5.3 Avg. 5.1 4.0 – 4.4

4.7 – 5.1 Avg. 4.9 6.9 – 7.3

6.6 – 7.4 Avg. 7.1

Core Analysis

Thickness, mm (in.)

102 – 254 (4 –10)

127 – 229 (5 – 9)

127 – 279 (5 – 11)

102 – 203 (4 – 8)

127 – 279 (5 – 11)

102 – 178 (4 – 7)

76 – 178 (3 – 7)

67 – 194 (2 5/8 – 7 5/8)

127 – 190 (5 – 7 ½)


2194 – 2339 (137 – 146)

2179 –2355 (136 – 147)

2196 – 2375 (137 – 148)

2217 – 2343 (138 – 146)

2236 (139)

2115 – 2243 (132 – 140)

2132 – 2317 (133 – 145)

2180 – 2225 (136 – 139)

2232 – 2278 (139 – 142)

Gmb bulk -- -- 2.302 2.217 – 2.343 Avg. 2.272 2.236 -- -- -- --

Gmm max -- -- 2.456 2.438 – 2.506 Avg. 2.483 2.482 -- -- -- --

Air Voids, % 6.2 – 12.6 6.9 – 8.1 4.0 – 11.2 6.2 4.9 – 11.2 Avg. 8.5 9.9 9.4 –14.1

6.7 – 13.0 Avg. 8.8 3.1 – 4.7

0.9 – 4.2 Avg. 2.2


--

--

678

261

--

90 – 108 Avg. 97

--

--

--

--

197 – 340

52 - 60

--

46 – 66 Avg. 56

895 – 1461

95 - 127

--

51 – 90 Avg. 64


--

--

--

--

500 – 600 Avg. 555

185 – 236 Avg. 206

--

199 – 391 Avg. 270

--

417 – 511 Avg. 464

--

--

428 – 804 Avg. 693

168 – 347 Avg. 287

--

--

479 – 748 Avg. 609

172 – 576 Avg. 401

*1998 data **2007 data

Table 3 (Cont.). Mix Extraction Tests and Core Analyses from Asphalt Trackbeds Project Location (Date Constructed) Guthrie, OK (1989) Quinlan, OK (1995)

Age After 9 Years* After 18 Years** After 3 Years* After 12 Years**

Exposure RR RR RR RR Lab (9 Years)

Extraction Results


19 (3/4) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1)


7.3 -- 4.0 – 5.8 Avg. 4.9 -- --


5.7 5.3 – 5.6 Avg. 5.5 4.5 – 4.5 Avg. 4.5

3.8 –3.9 Avg. 3.9 4.1

Core Analysis

Thickness, mm (in.)

102 – 140 (4 – 5 ½)

102 – 114 (4 – 4 ½)

152 – 171 (6 – 6 ¾)

127 – 190 (5 – 7 ½)

152 – 171 (6 – 6 ¾)


2458 – 2463 (153 – 154)

2399 – 2423 (150 – 151)

2292 – 2389 (143 – 149)

2293 – 2341 (143 – 146)

2293 – 2341 (143 – 146)

Gmb bulk -- 2.399 – 2.423 Avg. 2.410 2.355 2.293 – 2.341

Avg. 2.322 2.293 – 2.341

Avg. 2.312

Gmm max -- 2.445 – 2.478 (2.465) 2.539 2.510 – 2.525

Avg. 2.516 2.513 – 2.520

Avg. 2.516

Air Voids, % 1.7 – 4.3 Avg. 2.8

1.7 – 3.0 Avg. 2.2

6.0 – 9.4 Avg. 8.3

5.2 – 7.5 Avg. 6.7

7.1 – 8.8 Avg. 8.1


--

20 – 25 Avg. 21

--

--

68 – 177 Avg. 132

46 – 68 Avg. 54

--

--

--

--


1431 – 2130 Avg. 1680

351 – 415 Avg. 383

--

232 – 315 Avg. 276

1142 – 1441 Avg. 1262

419 – 571 Avg. 502

--

366 –572 Avg. 450

--

589 – 644 Avg. 628

*1998 data **2007 data

Table 3 (Cont.). Mix Extraction Tests and Core Analyses from Asphalt Trackbeds Project Location (Date Constructed) Oklahoma City Yard (1982)

Age After 2 Months After 3 Years After 7 Years After 16 Years* After 25 Years**

Exposure RR RR RR RR RR Lab (9 Years)

Extraction Results


25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1) 25 (1)


7.0 6.0 – 6.5 -- 5.2 – 6.4 Avg. 5.9 -- --


5.7 5.5 – 5.6 -- 5.3 – 5.7 Avg. 5.5 5.7 5.9 – 6.2 Avg. 6.1

Core Analysis

Thickness, mm (in.)

152 – 241 (6 – 9 ½)

241 – 267 (9 ½ - 10 ½)

203 – 229 (8 – 9)

178 – 229 (7 – 9)

190 – 229 (7 ½ - 9)

178 – 229 (7 – 9)


2385 – 2420 (149 – 151)

2385 – 2405 (149 – 150) --

2352 – 2414 (147 –151)

2381 – 2406 (149 – 150)

2368 – 2382 (148 – 149)

Gmb bulk -- -- -- 2.388 2.381 – 2.406 Avg. 2.393 2.368 – 2.382

Avg. 2.374

Gmm max -- -- -- 2.445 Avg. 2.422 Avg. 2.415

Air Voids, % 0.9 – 2.7 0.9 – 2.3 -- 0.9 – 4.0 Avg. 2.3 0.7 – 1.7 Avg. 1.2

1.4 – 1.8 Avg. 1.7


1090 – 1110

145 - 163

--

151

--

125 - 175

--

69 – 244 Avg. 137

--

--

--

--


--

--

--

--

--

--

703 – 940 (827)

199 – 341 Avg. 262

--

335 – 474 Avg. 377

--

424 – 966 Avg. 695

*1998 data **2007 data

Table 4. Tests on Recovered Asphalt from Asphalt Trackbeds Project Location (Date Constructed) Conway, KY (1983) Hoover, TX (1994)

Age After 1 Day After 2 Years After 11 Years After 15 Years* After 24 Years** After 4 Years* After 13 Years**

Exposure RR RR RR RR RR RR RR Lab (9 Years)

Recovered Asphalt

Penetration, dcm 25ΕC (77ΕF) 50 35 41 - 44

39 – 44 Avg. 42 25

50 – 54 Avg. 52 31 34

Viscosity, P 60ΕC (140ΕF) 4400 - 4410 6250 - 14060 9780 - 12034

6334 – 9378 Avg. 7983 13214

3020 – 3358 Avg. 3210 6022 5107

Viscosity, cSt 135ΕC (275ΕF) 530 - 540 610 - 840 750 - 760

650 – 932 Avg. 731 1752

596 – 627 Avg. 612 778 722

Dynamic Shear Rheometer, G*/sin 1.00 kPa, ΕC

72.6 68.6 66.6

Dynamic Shear Rheometer, kPa 25ºC (77ºF)

1213 1819 – 2249 Avg. 2043 1080 2084 1790

*1998 data **2007 data

Table 4 (Cont.). Tests on Recovered Asphalt from Asphalt Trackbeds Project Location (Date Constructed) Cynthiana, KY (1984) Deepwater, WV (1984) Raton, NM (1969)

Age After 1 Year After 10 Years After 14 Years* After 23 Years** After 1 Year After 14 Years* After 14 Years After 29 Years*

Exposure RR RR RR RR Lab (9 Years) RR RR RR RR

Recovered

Asphalt

Penetration, dcm 25ΕC (77ΕF) 43 - 51 41

30 – 51 Avg. 40 42 21 53 -60

25 – 35 Avg. 29 62 - 82

61 – 77 Avg. 68

Viscosity, P 60ΕC (140ΕF) 6440 - 9177 13880 - 14480

8440 – 15405 Avg. 11855 13290 4193 - 5699

19201 – 33891 Avg. 25129 1060 - 1610

1314 – 1477 Avg. 1361

Viscosity, cSt 135ΕC (275ΕF) 631 - 688 886 - 894

760 – 1159 Avg. 936 763 1347 496 - 543

1003 – 1104 Avg. 1050 270 - 310

290 – 318 Avg. 301


77.3 78.3

Dynamic Shear Rheometer, Kpa 25ºC (77ºF)

1188 1111 3706

*1998 data **2007 data

Table 4 (Cont.). Tests on Recovered Asphalt from Asphalt Trackbeds Project Location (Date Constructed) Guthrie, OK (1989) Quinlan, OK (1995)

Age After 9 Years* After 18 Years** After 3 Years* After 12 Years**

Exposure RR RR RR RR Lab (9 Years)

Recovered

Asphalt

Penetration, dcm 25ΕC (77ΕF) 42 28

28 – 34 Avg. 31 22 21

Viscosity, P 60ΕC (140ΕF)

5922 – 6136 Avg. 6029 8276

7827 – 10751 Avg. 8927 11745 12949

Viscosity, cSt 135ΕC (275ΕF)

678 – 782 Avg. 730 826

856 – 1085 Avg. 941 1127 968


70.0 75.9 73.5


1387 – 2378 Avg. 1883 2197 3308 3842

*1998 data **2007 data

Table 4 (Cont.). Tests on Recovered Asphalt from Asphalt Trackbeds Project Location (Date Constructed) Oklahoma City Yard (1982)

Age After 2 Months After 3 Years

After 7 Years

After 16 Years* After 25 Years**

Exposure RR RR RR RR RR Lab (9 Years)

Recovered

Asphalt

Penetration, dcm 25ΕC (77ΕF) 58 57 59

45 – 67 Avg. 54 28 24

Viscosity, P 60ΕC (140ΕF) 3870 3490 2495

2197 – 4482 Avg. 3368 8678 12735

Viscosity, cSt 135ΕC (275ΕF) 580 700 - 730 471

482 – 834 Avg. 620 1105 869


71.6 75.3


1172 2821 2478

*1998 data **2007 data

Table 5. Temperature Range from Winter to Summer in Trackbed Environment* Year Tested 1982 1982 1995

Location and System

Average Within HMA Layer

4 in. (100 mm) Below HMA

4 in. (100 mm) Below HMA

Ravenna, Ky Overlayment

35ºF - 80ºF (2ºC - 27ºC)

37ºF - 77ºF (3ºC - 25ºC) —

Cynthiana, KY Underlayment — —

39ºF – 67ºF (4ºC - 19ºC)

Conway, KY Underlayment

41ºF - 74ºF (5ºC - 23ºC)

44ºF - 70ºF (7ºC - 21ºC)

39ºF - 65ºF (4ºC - 18ºC)

*Typical range in Kentucky from winter to summer for highway pavement expected to be from 14ºF to 122ºF (-10ºC to 50ºC).

Figure 1. Cross-Sectional Views of Typical All-Granular and Hot Mix Asphalt

Trackbeds.

Figure 2. Core Drilling Operation to Obtain Asphalt Cores and Underlying

Roadbed/Subgrade Samples.

Figure 3. Changes in In-Situ Subgrade Moisture Contents Between 1998 and 2007.

Figure 4. Subgrade/Roadbed In-Situ Moisture Tests After Coring.

Figure 5. Changes in Optimum Subgrade Moisture Contents Between 1998 and 2007.

Figure 6. Comparison of 1998 and 2007 Measured In-Situ Moisture Contents and Optimum Moisture Contents for the Roadbed/Subgrade Samples.

Figure 7. Relationships for Roadbed/Subgrade In-Situ and Optimum Moisture Contents.

Figure 8. Comparison of 1998 and 2007 Unsoaked and Soaked CBR Test Values for the Roadbed/Subgrade Samples.

Figure 9. Typical Asphalt Cores of Various Compositions and Thicknesses.

Figure 10. Resilient Modulus versus Age of Asphalt. Figure 10. Resilient Modulus versus Age of Asphalt.

Figure 11. Penetration and Absolute Viscosity versus Age of Asphalt.

Figure 12. Penetration and Absolute Viscosity Values for Railroad and Laboratory-Cured Asphalt Cores.

Figure 13. Dynamic Shear Rheometer Values for 1998 and 2007 Tests.

Rose, LeesbyAREMA Annual ConferenceASPHALT TRACKBEDSBASIC ASPHALT TRACKBED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICESASPHALT TRACKBED MATERIALS TESTS AND EVAULATIONS

Geotechnical Tests and EvaluationsIn-Situ Moisture ContentsUnified Soil ClassificationsStandard Proctor Moisture-DensityCalifornia Bearing Ratio

Asphalt Mixture and Core Tests and AnalysisMix Extraction Tests and Core AnalysisRecovered Asphalt Binder TestsDiscussionSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSREFERENCES

Rose, Lees Tables & FiguresTable 3. Mix Extraction Tests and Core Analyses from Asphalt TrackbedsTable 3 (Cont.). Mix Extraction Tests and Core Analyses from Asphalt TrackbedsTable 3 (Cont.). Mix Extraction Tests and Core Analyses from Asphalt Trackbeds *1998 dataTable 3 (Cont.). Mix Extraction Tests and Core Analyses from Asphalt Trackbeds *1998 dataRecovered AsphaltRecovered AsphaltRecovered AsphaltRecovered Asphalt

Long Term Assessment Trackbed Component Materials’jrose/papers/AREMA 2008 Paper.pdfBASIC ASPHALT...

Documents

Transcript of Long Term Assessment Trackbed Component Materials’jrose/papers/AREMA 2008 Paper.pdfBASIC ASPHALT...