Copy
This is the Fall 2019 edition of the quarterly BINDER TECHNICIAN NEWS brought to you by the Asphalt Institute.


Ask Mike

Michael T. Beavin
Technical Training Coordinator
Asphalt Institute

Question: I have a client that is asking me to give him the ΔTc from BBR failure. I have never calculated this before and was hoping you could give me a hand in learning how to do this.
- Peter Ragusa, Lab Manager, SGS North America.

 
Answer: We are glad you asked because ΔTc (Delta Tc) has been gaining a lot of interest in the last few years in the asphalt world as an indicator of durability. We will get to the calculations in a bit but let me give a quick explanation of ΔTc for our readers.
 
As a binder ages, we expect stiffness to increase and m-value (relaxation properties) to decrease but we know they don’t happen at the same rate. Maintaining good relaxation properties is important even as stiffness increases. This was recognized by the original proponents of the PG Binder Specification system, who believed that the binder’s ability to relax thermal stresses (m) is an important property that may be able to compensate for a slightly higher stiffness (S). They addressed this belief in the form of a seldom-used note in AASHTO M 320 Table 1 that states that the Direct Tension failure strain requirement (strain to failure minimum of 1.00%) can be used for acceptance in place of the BBR creep stiffness requirement if S is between 300 and 600 MPa and the m-value is greater than or equal to 0.300. In other words, if a binder maintains the ability to tolerate strain, stiffness may not be as critical at low temperatures. Although this note is still in AASHTO M320 it is rarely used today because of a lack of functioning Direct Tension testers.
 
ΔTc gives us a similar indication of an aged binder’s ability to relax. It is calculated by subtracting the temperature where m-value is exactly 0.300 (identified as Tc,m) from the temperature where S is exactly 300 MPa (identified as Tc,S) as shown below:
 
ΔTc = Tc,S – Tc,m
 
Calculations for determining Tc,S and Tc,m can be found in lots of places, including our “MS-25, Asphalt Binder Testing Manual.” Since m-value decreases more rapidly than S increases as a binder ages the difference between the two (ΔTc) becomes more negative, indicating a loss of relaxation ability. Eventually, it is expected that a loss of relaxation properties may lead to cracking as internal stresses exceed the strength of the asphalt.
 
I hope that helps answer your question. You can also read about ΔTc and the steps needed to determine it from BBR testing in a 2016 Lab Corner article in “Asphalt” magazine.
 


New instrument paddles the competition

By Mike Beavin

You arrive at the lab, grab a lab coat and safety glasses and scan the day’s testing load. A few flashpoints – you knock those out first thing. A million DSRs – no problem, just hit cruise control. A few other tests you have varying levels of enthusiasm about and then you see it, the test you’d rather have a root canal than perform: Saybolt viscosity. I’d probably no longer be employed at AI if this test was my primary responsibility. Why? Here’s an incomplete list:  

1. The side squirt After cork removal, emulsion shoots sideways in defiance of the laws of gravity. Rerun test after doing a better job of Number 4.
2. The toilet flush Emulsion swirls down the receiving flask completely covering the timing mark. Rerun test after redoing Number 4.
3. The flask flop Pull cork, knock over flask and watch the emulsion shower. Rerun test after redoing Number 4 and much, much more.
4. The clean-up When you think you’re done, you usually aren’t. Likely cause of Number 1.

The Saybolt Furol test can be a headache, yes, but we needed a way to measure the flow properties of an emulsified asphalt. Until a few years ago, the test was the only accepted way to determine if there was a risk of emulsion run-off in chip seals, if it was thin enough to be sprayed but thick enough to stay where it was intended to be and if it would provide a proper film thickness on aggregate. For decades there was no competition until the paddle viscometer (PV) was introduced.

I first saw a demonstration of the paddle viscometer at an AASHTO conference a few years ago and immediately my ears perked up. The concept is simple. There is a cup to hold an emulsion sample, a rotating paddle, a torque transducer and a thermoregulation system. The paddle and the temperature probe are immersed in the emulsion sample and the paddle rotates. Once the appropriate sample temperature is reached, a viscosity reading is taken which can be converted (sort of) to Saybolt Furol Seconds (SFS). At the conclusion of the test, the paddle, cup and temperature probe can be cleaned with water and minimal solvents. Cleanup takes about two minutes and the whole process, start to finish takes about 20 minutes. On the other hand, a properly conducted Saybolt Furol test, cleaning included, takes a minimum of an hour. Finally, the entire PV unit occupies about the space of a toaster oven. It all sounded too good to be true.

Like any new-kid-on-the-block, the introduction of the paddle viscometer has met push-back. The early models didn’t have the excellent thermal control we see now. There have been reports of viscosity-related variability. Additionally, converted SFS values derived from the paddle viscometer tend to be slightly higher than those obtained with the Saybolt Furol test. The question I would ask is why are we asking for conversion to Saybolt Furol seconds in the first place? Familiarity? The loading modes for the two tests are completely different. The Saybolt Furol test relies on gravity and empirical test conditions while the paddle viscometer relies on an applied force and fundamental stress/strain relationships. We don’t see perfect correlations between the elastic recovery and MSCR tests for the same reasons. Ultimately, we are looking for an indication that an emulsion will flow as intended, not necessarily a specific viscosity unit.

The paddle viscometer seems to have gained traction. Both ASTM and AASHTO have published standards for the instrument. The push now is to make it an option, rather than a replacement for the Saybolt Furol viscometer, so you traditionalists out there have nothing to fear. Your cleaning time is secure.
 



TECH TIP



Mold around the collar

There are two interesting sections in “ASTM D139, Float Test for Bituminous Materials: Section 7.3” that discuss specimen pouring temperatures and section 7.7 which admonishes the technician against any funny business.

I’m pretty sure Shakespeare penned section 7.7. The dead giveaway is a discussion of whether tis nobler to suffer outrageous intentional spinning or to take arms against it. Nay, it clearly reads “Lateral drift of the assembly shall be permitted, but no spinning motion shall be intentionally imparted thereto.” I guess intentional spinning is particularly egregious because there is malice of forethought (I’m imagining an evil emulsion technician scanning the lab for witnesses before gleefully spinning the heck out of that float). Unintentional spinning is much more innocent, obviously, and thus shall be permitted.

Section 7.3 has less intrigue but does present a variety of problems. It rightfully notes that “The pouring temperature for high float emulsion residue can be critical.” What it fails to mention, however, is that reheating the residue to the correct pouring temperature often causes lower float times. I’m guessing that the act of reheating further damages the polymers needed to produce a high float residue. So, if I were boss, I’d require that float collars are poured from the still directly after the distillation is complete.

Problem: How many times have you poured a float collar from the still without making a huge mess? Never? Try this: grab an old silicone DSR mold and cut a hole in it with a cork cutter that’s slightly smaller than the pouring end of the float collar. Now fit it over the collar leaving a little space between the top of the collar and the surface of the mold and pour away. No more digging residue from the collar threads and no more worries about under-filled collars due to thermal contraction.  

- Mike Beavin, Asphalt Institute Technical Training Coordinator

TECHNICIAN SPOTLIGHT



Maria Teresa Delgado Torres
Dynasol Group
Analytical Services Technician

Maria has been with Dynasol for five years - she was assigned to the asphalt lab two years ago. She is involved with asphalt binder applications that involve pavements, roofing and emulsions.

"The NBTC program was an incredible opportunity to reinforce my abilities in asphalt binder testing. The course gives you very detailed information not only about the testing, but also properties, background and the new developments." said Torres.


Learn more about this program at www.bindertechnician.com​




The Asphalt Institute, in cooperation with the North East Transportation Training and Certification Program (NETTCP) and working with the AASHTO Materials Reference Lab (AMRL) and industry leaders, has developed one consistent, national PG binder technician certification. This map indicates the states that have USERS/PRODUCERS (in yellow), PRODUCERS (in green) and USERS (in brown) who have been nationally certified by the Asphalt Institute’s National Binder Technician Certification program.
 
Ultimately, the Asphalt Institute would like to see both certified users and producers in every state. There are now 45 states with users and/or producers who are nationally certified by the AI NBTC and the NETTCP programs. 
FREE TRAINING
Certification: What You Should Know About Training Binder Technicians (free)
Using the MSCR Test in Asphalt Binder Specifications (free)

(affordable technology, schedule at your convenience, pause-rewind-understand and email your questions)

 
BUY THE BOOK

Available in the Asphalt Institute online store. The second printing includes an Appendix on Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) testing.
UPCOMING CLASSES
NBTC
January 21-23, 2020
Lexington, KY
February 25-27, 2020
Lexington, KY
April 21-23, 2020
Taylorsville, UT
October 27-29, 2020
Lexington, KY

RECORDED WEBINARS
Asphalt Binder Series
Part 1 - Introduction
Part 2 - Testing & Specs
Part 3 - Testing & Specs (cont.)
Part 4 - Modification, Emulsions and Cutbacks
Copyright © 2019 Asphalt Institute, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you have participated in or expressed interest in Asphalt Academy or Asphalt Institute training and publications.
Learn more at www.bindertechnician.com