SUPERPAVE Digest 217
Topics covered in this issue include:
5) DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
by
· To:
· Subject: DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
· From:
· Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:50:31 -0500
Is anyone using the dust proportion ratio as a field control criteria?
SUPERPAVE Digest 218
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
by Stephen Baughn <>
2) Re: DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
by "Kenneth Hobson" <>
· To:
· Subject: Re: DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
· From: Stephen Baughn <>
· Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 20:09:38 -0500
Arkansas is using a fines to asphalt ratio for field control. The ratio
is the #200 sieve passing divided by the effective asphalt content. The
field limits are 0.6 to 1.20.
Stephen Baughn
Delta Asphalt of Arkansas, Inc.
· To: <>
· Subject: Re: DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
· From: "Kenneth Hobson" <>
· Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:22:02 -0700
>Arkansas is using a fines to asphalt ratio for field control.
..snip
Interesting, in Oklahoma we use 0.6 to 1.6 #200/Eff. AC but just for the
superpave design phase. We have 0.6 to 1.2 #200/%AC for regular modified
Hveem designs but no field control. I was told that 80% of our past field
samples would fail if we used this criteria. I wonder though, sounds like a
good research project.
I will start another topic/thread about hump or restricted zone field
controls perhaps.
Either DP or hump/restricted zone boundaries would have potential "tender
mix" properties when field samples exceed the designed limits. Lately, I've
been seeing more and more mixes with dull, dry, non-sticky, failing retained
strength tests (OHDL-36 similar to AASHTO T283). Designs that previously
did not require anti-strip additives are now requiring them and still not
passing test limits in some cases. While these concerns of mine are not new
I am wondering if they could be a factor now. As a general rule the binders
passed all PG testing though binder problems were perceived as the problem
initially. Maybe it is a binder problem. If it is, we are all in trouble.
PG64-22, PG70-22 and PG70-28 from varying sources have shown sporadic
problems of this nature.
Another thread that might be interesting concerns asphalt content for field
AASHTO T283 tests. In the design phase one might use a higher AC content
but tolerences could allow the AC to be low in field mixes causing T283
failures. When the AC content exceeds low AC content limits it could then
cause T283 tests to fail.
Kenneth Hobson
Bituminous Branch Manager
Oklahoma DOT
405-522-4918
405-522-0552 fax
SUPERPAVE Digest 219
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re:DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
by Wade McClay <>
2) Re: DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
by
· To: ,
· Subject: Re:DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
· From: Wade McClay <>
· Date: 30 Jul 1999 06:14:24 -0400
Maine is using 0.6 to 1.4 #200/Effective Binder as a field requirement.
· To:
· Subject: Re: DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
· From:
· Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:49:20 EDT
Absolutely...
0.6 < P200 / Total AC < 1.2
Tim Murphy
JFG / CTL
708-774-9958
SUPERPAVE Digest 220
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
by
· To:
· Subject: Re: DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
· From:
· Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 15:17:51 EDT
1.0 maximum for design and 1.2 maximum for production...
Both Marshall and Superpave.
Regards,
Tim Murphy
SUPERPAVE Digest 222
Topics covered in this issue include:
2) Re: DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
by "Christopher Bacchi" <>
· To:
· Subject: Re: DP Ratio for Field Requirement?
· From: "Christopher Bacchi" <>
· Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 15:31:10 -0400
In North Carolina.....
#200/ eff ac. Limits are 0.6-1.2 for all mixes except 25 mm and 37.5 mm,
where the upper limit is 1.4.