Toward Performance Guideline

for Selection of Hot-Poured

Bituminous Crack Sealant

Shih-Hsien Yang

Advanced Transportation Research and Engineering Laboratory

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
 What is Crack Sealant?
  Blends of bitumen and
  styrene-butadiene copolymer (SB, SBS)
  recycled rubber
  additives
  inorganicfiller
  bonding agent

A B E
A M
H
H E

5 00 µ m 500 µm
50 0 µm 500 µm

500 µm
 Crack Sealing
  Crack sealing/ filling is the most widely used
maintenance activity of in-service pavements
  Inexpensive, quick, and a well-proven
technique to delay pavement deterioration
  Reduce water penetration
  Maintain pavement structural capacity
  Improves road rideability
  Extend pavement service life (3 to 5 years)
 Field Performance of Crack Sealant

  Installation related parameters (QC/QA,

crack cleaning and preparation, etc.)
  Sealant related parameters (viscosity,
softness, bond strength, compatibility, etc.)
 Sealant Failure Mode
  Tracking: sealant is
smeared on the pavement
due to passing traffic
  Adhesive failure: loss of
bonding between sealant
material and its substrate
  Cohesive failure: failure
within sealant material
  Intrusive failure: foreign
objectives intrude into
sealants
 Available Specifications
ASTM
Sealant Property Test Method
Spec.
Application Characteristics Viscosity (binder) D4402
Bond Test D5329
Adhesion
Asphalt Compatibility D5329
Elongation (rubber) D412
Extensibility
Ductility (binder) D113
Durability Track Abrasion (slurry) D3910
Flexibility D5329
Flexibility
Cone Penetration D5329
Flow D5329
Tracking
Softening Point D36
Objective
  Development of performance-based
guidelines for the selection hot-poured
crack sealant
  Make
use of SuperPave™ binder-testing
equipment
  Adapting
spirit of the binder Performance
Grade (PG) specification
Viscosity Test (SC-2)

  At Installation Temperature
 Test Development
  Instrument and Testing Optimization
  Rigid rod
  Melting time
  20min
5
  Spindle size 9 VV
BB NN ADQQ
  SC-27 4
(Pa.s) AE
  Shear rate
Viscosity(pa.s)
36 WW
  60rpm
Viscosity

  Waiting time 2

  30s 3
1
  Test variable
0
  Temperature 0
130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
0 30 60 90
Temperature
Time (s) (C)
Apparent Viscosity Threshold
5
4.5
Apparent Viscosity (Pa.s)

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

ZZ
U

D
M
W
BB
PP

EE
AE

VV

YY

AB
Q
AD
U

D
Q
M
W

Sealant
Vacuum Oven Aging (SC-3)

  Simulate Crack Sealant Weathering in

Kettle & Field
Test Development
  Microwave aging
  Small-kettle aging and pressure aging
  Small-kettle aging, pressure aging and
vacuum oven aging
  Pressure aging
  Vacuum oven aging
Test Development

Method Output
GPC Separation of bitumen and polymer
FTIR Fingerprint of composition
TGA Weight loss upon heating
DSR Stiffness, relaxation
Test Procedure
  35g in each pan
  Vacuum oven at 30″ Hg
and 115°C for 16hr
  Shelves spacing designed
to allow uniform
temperature profile
Test Verification
1.E+07

1.E+06
Viscosity, Pa.s

1.E+05

1.E+04
virgin 1 year 9 year 16h
24h 40h 64h
1.E+03
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Temperature, °C
Dynamic Shear Rheometer Test (SC-4)

  Intermediate Temperature for Tracking

Resistance
 Test Development
Year 1
  Taber Abraser to
simulate field failure
  Correlate tracking flow
as measured with DSR
  Shear stress is applied
for 2s then removed to Year 4
allow recovery for 18s
  8 levels of stresses
were applied
Test Parameter
10000
  Ostwald-DeWaele γ

power-law
1000

Stress, Pa
P
σ = C(γ )
46C
γ
52C
58C
100 64C
  C: flow coefficient 70C
76C
  P: shear thinning 82C
10
exponent
0.0001 0.01 1
Shear rate, 1/s
Selection Criteria
100000

E
10000
Flow coefficient (C)/ Pa.s

D
C
B
1000
A

100
no tracking
1 sample tracks
2 samples track
10
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Shear thinning exponent (P)
Bending Beam Rheometer (SC-5)

  Low Temperature Flexural Properties

Test Development
  Deflection of the sealant bean is above the limit
of the current BBR device
  Doubling the beam thickness
  Modifying BBR device to support both binder and
sealant beams

Standard Binder Specimen 6.35mm

Crack Sealant Specimen 12.7mm

 Test Parameter
  Stiffness @ 240s
0.71 1200
PL
S( t ) = 0.6 1000

(mm)
4bh3δ( t ) 0.5
Deformation

Strain (%)
Load 800

Load (N)
Deformation
0.4
0.1
600
  Average creep rate 0.3  = 0.0966(t)0.3428
R2 = 0.9999 400
0.2
C
ε( t ) = At 0.1
0.01
0 0.1 1 10 100
200

0 1000
0 100 200 300Time
400(sec)
500 600 700
Time (s)
CSBBR Threshold
0.5
50 2°C
2°C -4°C
-4°C -10°C
-10°C -16°C
-16°C -22°C
-22°C -28°C
-28°C -34°C
-34°C -40°C
-40°C
45
40
0.4
of Creep

S(-10°C)=85MPa
35
Rate(MPa)

30
0.3

25
Stiffness

20
0.2
Average

15
10
0.1
5
00
AB
QQ

AD
NN

BB
AE
YY

VV

WW
MM
UU

DD
EE

PP
ZZ

AB

DD

NN
EE

AE

PP
UU

AD

BB
YY

VV
ZZ

WW
MM
QQ

Sealant
Sealant
CSDTT Test (SC-5)

  Low Temperature Extendibility

 Test Development
  Crack movement in the field
  Simulates sealant extension in the field
  Modification for existing testing
  Extension of SuperPaveTM specimen: 33%90+%
  Utilize FE tool to select appropriate specimen Dim.
  Select appropriate loading rate  6%/min

Type A and B Max Crack Min Crack Fast Move.

Type C Slow Move.
Studies
Disp. Rate, (%)
Strain Rate, (%) Rate,(mm/min)
Disp. (mm/min)
Strain Rate,
mm/min
Smith & Romine, 1993 mm/min18 mm/min 5x10-3 mm/min
2.5 2.77x10-4
Linde,20
1988 60.0% 63 N/A12 8x10-3 60.0%
5x10-5
Cook et2 al., 1991 6.0% +90 6 1.2 N/A 6.0% N/A
0.2& Lacasse, 19990.6% 16
Masson 7 0.12 N/A 0.6%
N/A
 Test Parameters
  Extendibility (l)
  Effective gauge length (Leff=20mm)
ΔL
λ=
L eff
  The extendibility criterion is suggested
based on various climatic conditions
T (°C) -4 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40
λ (%)
10% 25% 40% 55% 70% 85% 85+
CSDT Threshold
90
90 -22 -28
-4 -10
-34 -40
80
80 -40°C Grade + -40°C Grade + -16 -22

70
70
Extendibility(%)
(%)

-34°C Grade -34°C Grade

60
60
Extendibility

50
50 -28°C Grade -28°C Grade
40
40
-22°C Grade
30
30 -22°C Grade

20
20 -16°C Grade
-16°C
10
10
-10°C
00 -10°C
DD
QQ AE EE MM WW
ZZ NNYY AD AB PP BB
VV
Sealant
Sealant
Adhesion Test (SC-7)

  For Low Temperature Bonding

Test Development
  Surface Energy Method (Work
of Adhesion)
  A compatibility test for sealant
producers
  Direct Bond Method
  A quality control test for DOT
  Blister Test Method
  Fundamental test for advanced
research
Substrate Selection
  Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
  Surface Energy
  Surface Roughness
  Limestone>Sandstone>Quartzite>Granite>
Steel>Aluminum
  Pore Size
  Sandstone>Quartzite>Aluminum
1st Level Adhesion Test:
Work of Adhesion
100
Work of Adhesion (mJ/m 2)

total
Limestone Wa = γ s (1 + cos θ )
80 Quartzite
Granite
60 Aluminum

40

20

0
UU BB AE PP AD WW MM
 2nd Level Adhesion Test:
Direct Bond Test (CS-7)
  Fixture Modification to be used
in the DT device
  Two aluminum half-cylinders
  Diameter: 25mm
  Sealant thickness: 10mm

  Simulates sealant installation

  Simulates crack expansion
  Displacement rate: 0.05mm/s
  Specific failure location
Test Parameter
  Pmax
  De-bond Energy
120

100
Pmax
Energy
80
Load (N)

60

40

20

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Displacement (mm)
 Bonding Threshold
200
A
B
150 PP
LL
Pmax (N)

100

50

0 160
Non-aged Oven- Kettle Less than More than A
aged aged 3yr 3yr B
120

Energy (J/m2)
PP
LL
80

40

0
Non-aged Oven- Kettle Less than More than
aged aged 3yr 3yr
 3rd Level Adhesion Test:
Blister Test

IFEprop. = AVG[IFE( t )] IFEini. = CPd

IFEini .

p(t )
∝ E (t )
IFEprop.
E (t
d (t ) )
Test Parameter
400
EE
DD
300
UU
(J/m2)2)

AB
ini(J/m

200 QQ
IFE
IFE

100

1200
0 AD
2 -4 -10 -16 -22 1000
BB

2 2)
800

(J/m
Temperature (°C) PP

(J/m )
600 NN

IFEini
LL
IFE 400 AE
200 MM

0
-22 -34 -40
Temperature (°C)
SG

-34 -28 -28 >70 -28

-40 -34 -34 >85 -34
-46 -40 -40 >85 -40
-10 -4 -4 >10 -4
-16 -10 -10 >25 -10
-22 -16 -16 >40 -16
SG-70

70

-28 -22 -22 >55 -22

-34 -28 -28 >70 -28
-40 -34 -34 >85 -34
-46 -40 -40 >85 -40
Installation Temperature

-10 -4 -4 >10 -4
-16 -10 -10 >25 -10
-22 -16 -16 >40 -16
SG-64

0.31
64

-28 -22 -22 >55 -22

3.5

0.7
Vacuum Oven Residue (SC-3)

25

50
40
1

-34 -28 -28 >70 -28

-40 -34 -34 >85 -34
-46 -40 -40 >85 -40
-10 -4 -4 >10 -4
-16 -10 -10 >25 -10
-22 -16 -16 >40 -16
SG-58

58

-28 -22 -22 >55 -22

-34 -28 -28 >70 -28
-40 -34 -34 >85 -34
-46 -40 -40 >85 -40
-10 -4 -4 >10 -4
-16 -10 -10 >25 -10
-22 -16 -16 >40 -16
SG-52

52

-28 -22 -22 >55 -22

-34 -28 -28 >70 -28
-40 -34 -34 >85 -34
-46 -40 -40 >85 -40
-10 -4 -4 >10 -4
-16 -10 -10 >25 -10
-22 -16 -16 >40 -16
SG-46

-28 -22 -22 >55 -22

46

-34 -28 -28 >70 -28

-40 -34 -34 >85 -34
-46 -40 -40 >85 -40

Min. Extendibility (%)

Dynamic Shear, SC-4

Min. Flow Coefficient

Min. Avg. Creep Rate

Max. Viscosity (Pa.s)

Max. Stiffness (MPa)

Min. Viscosity (Pa.s)

Min. Shear Thinning

Crack Sealant BBR,

Performance Grade

Apparent Viscosity,

Crack Sealant DBT,

Crack Sealant DTT,

Min. Energy (J/m2)

Crack Sealant

Min. Load (N)

SC-2

SC-5

SC-6
(kPa.s)

SC-7
Outcome of the Study
  Comprehensive tests based on sealant
rheological properties was developed
  Selection criteria is proposed
  A significant impact on the sealant industry
and the pavement preservation program is
expected
Future Plan
  Laboratory validation
  Field validation
  Monitoring test section for four years
  Fine tuning thresholds
  Quantify cost effectiveness of crack
sealant
Acknowledgements
  Federal Highway Administration Pool-fund
TPF5 (045)
  The US-Canadian Crack Sealant
Consortium
  Participating US states, Canadian
provinces, airport and city agencies, and
industry