TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

Performance Grade Specifications for

Emulsions Used in Pavement Preservation
Treatment

Monday, October 23, 2017

2:00-3:30PM ET
The Transportation Research Board has met the standards and requirements of
the Registered Continuing Education Providers Program. Credit earned on
completion of this program will be reported to RCEP. A certificate of completion
will be issued to participants that have registered and attended the entire session.
As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an
approval or endorsement by RCEP.
Purpose
Discuss NCHRP Research Report 837.

Learning Objectives
At the end of this webinar, you will be able to:
• Describe emulsion and residue test methods
• Describe the relationships between emulsion/residue
performance and mixture performance
• Identify emulsion performance grade specifications
NCHRP Research Report
837: “Performance-
Graded Specifications for
Asphalt Emulsions Used
in Pavement Preservation
Surface Treatments”

NCHRP Project 09-50

NCHRP is a State-Driven Program
• Sponsored by individual state DOTs who

– Suggest research
of national interest
– Serve on oversight
panels that guide
the research.

• Administered by TRB in cooperation with the

Federal Highway Administration.
Practical, ready-to-use results
• Applied research aimed at
state DOT practitioners
• Often become AASHTO
standards, specifications,
guides, syntheses
• Can be applied in planning,
design, construction,
operations, maintenance,
safety, environment
 Additional NCHRP Publications
Available on this Topic
• TRB’s Transportation Research Record,
No. 2612: Maintenance and Preservation

• TRB’s Transportation Research Record,

No. 2550: Maintenance and Preservation

You can learn more about these publications by visiting [Link]

Today’s Speakers
• Dr. Richard Kim, Prof. NC State Univ.
• Dr. Cassie Castorena, Assist. Prof. NC State
• Gary Hoffman, Dir. Tech Services, PAPA
 Performance Grade
Specifications for Emulsions
Used in Pavement Preservation
Treatment
NCHRP Project 09-50

Y. Richard Kim, Cassie Castorena

NC State University

Presented at the TRB Webinar

October 23, 2017

 Outline
 Overview of Emulsion PG (EPG) Specification
Framework
 EPG Test Methods and Material Properties
 EPG Specification Development
 Recommendations for Future Research
 NCHRP 09-50 Research Objective

 Develop Performance-Related Specifications for

PSTs (i.e., spray seal, chip seal, and slurry
seal/microsurfacing) that provide a direct
relationship between the key quality
characteristics of asphaltic binders and PST
performance.
 Material Acquisition
 Seven emulsion suppliers provided materials
 All emulsions formulated to meet the AASHTO
specifications.
 Standard emulsions: supplier’s typical commercial
formulations that have been used successfully in
actual projects at different locations nationwide.
Therefore, all standard emulsions should pass the 9-
50 PG specification limits at low traffic level.
 Poor Performing emulsions: emulsions modified by
supplier to exhibit inferior performance compared to
supplier’s standard emulsion product, while still
meeting the current emulsion specification.
 Emulsion List
C-CRS-2 (A) M-CSS-1H (A) F-CRS-2 (A)
C-CRS-2P (A) M-CSS-1H (B) F-SS-1 (B)
C-HFRS-2P (A) M-CSS-1H (C) F-CSS-1 (B)

Spray Seal
C-CRS-1-(B) M-CSS-1HP (C) F-Revive (E)
C-CRS-1H-(B) M-CSS-1HP (D) F-SS-1H (E)

Microsurfacing
C-RS-1-(B) M-CQS-1H (E) F-CSS-1H (E)
C-CRS-2P/L (C) M-CQS-1HP (E) PP-F-CSS-1 (B)
C-HFRS-2 (C) M-CSS-1HL (F) PP-F-CSS-1H (E)
Chip Seal

C-CRS-2 (E) M-CSS-1H (F) No. of Emulsions: 8

C-CRS-2P (E) M-CSS-1HL-NC (field)
C-CRS-2P-HP(E) PP-M-CSS-1H (F)
C-CRS-2 (F) PP-M-CSS-1HP (D)
C-CRS-2L (F) PP-M-CSS-1H (B)
C-CRS-2 (NC) PP-M-CQS-1HP (E)
C-CRS-2L (NC) No. of Emulsions: 13
PP-C-CRS-2 (A)
PP-C-HFRS-2 (C)
PP-C-CRS-2P (E)
No. of Emulsions: 18
 EPG Specification Framework
 Materials are considered in two phases:
• Fresh emulsion - Constructability
• Residue - Performance
 Consider critical failure mechanisms for each
type of surface treatment
• Test methods to address specific, common distresses
in field
 Retain designation for emulsifier type and set
rate (e.g., RS, CRS)
 Replace 1 vs. 2 viscosity designation with
Emulsion Performance Grade (EPG)
 EPG Framework – Cont’d
 Introduce climatic considerations
• Test temperatures selected based on climate
 Spec limits independent of test temperature
• EPG will be 3°C higher than PG
 EPG grades for PG 58-22 climatic region are EPG 61-19.
 Introduce traffic considerations
• Different spec limits for different traffic levels
• Low: 0-500 AADT; Medium: 501-2,500 AADT; High: 2,501-20,000 AADT
 Example grade: CRS-EPG61-19M
 PG Grades vs. EPG Grades
High Temp. Grade

 HMA high PG based on

High PG at
20 mm Depth temp. at 20 mm depth
whereas EPG based on
surface temp.
 About 3.9°C difference
between 20 mm depth
and surface
 Use 3°C bump for
practicality
EPG high PG map will be identical to
PG high PG map except 3°C increase!
 E.g., PG 58 => EPG 61,
PG 64 => EPG 67, etc.
 PG Grades vs. EPG Grades
Low Temp. Grade
Low PG Thresholds
 Both HMA low PG and EPG low
PG based on surface
temperature
 98% reliability for HMA low PG
too conservative for surface
(a) treatments with shorter life =>
Low EPG Thresholds
67% reliability (one std. dev.) is
used for EPG low PG
 Rounding up to the nearest
grade in HMA PG
 Use 3°C bump for consistency
Add 3°C to your current PG grades to
(b)
obtain the EPG grades for your region!
 Base Asphalt Not Affected!
Base Asphalt
Emulsion High Temp. EPG
High Temp. PG
CRS-2-NC 58 67 Lowa
CRS-2-F 58 61 Low
CRS-2-E 58 61 Low
CRS-2-A 58 61 Med
PP-CRS-2-A 58 61 Med
CRS-2L-C 58 61 Med
CRS-2L-F 64 67 Low
CRS-2L-NC 58 67 Med
CRS-2P-A 64 67 High
CRS-2P-E 58 67 High
CRS-2P-HP-E 58 67 High
 Underlying Concept for the EPG
Specification
Using optimum EAR and AAR
100
Mixture Performance

90 Target Mix Performance

80
70
% Bleeding

60
50
Corresponding
40
Binder Property
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Jnr (in kPa-1)
Binder Property
EPG Test Methods
Specification Tests for Chip Seal Emulsions

Residue Fresh Emulsion

MSCR
DSR Temperature-
Frequency Sweep Minimum Jnr
RV
G* at critical phase angle Sprayability
Drain-out
Storage stability
(Supplier Spec)

Low Temperature Bleeding Workability & Stability

Aggregate Loss
Specification Tests for Microsurfacing Emulsions

Residue Fresh Emulsion

MSCR
DSR Temperature-
Frequency Sweep Minimum Jnr
RV
G* at Critical phase angle Mixability
Storage stability
(Supplier Spec)

Thermal Cracking Rutting Workability

Fresh Emulsion
 Storage Stability
Modified ASTM D6930

Samples stored at high

temperature

Top

Mixed

 Rotational Viscometer to measure:

Bottom
• Separation Ratio (Rs): ηTop/ηBottom
 Stability under sedimentation, creaming
• Stability Ratio (Rd): ηMixed/ηReference
 Potential for flocculation, coagulation
 Workability
Modified AASHTO TP48

 Rotational Viscometer
• 3-step-shear test: Vary the shear rate to simulate
spraying and drain-out potential

Tank to Sprayer Spraying PST

30 rpm Drain-out

5 rpm 5 rpm
Residue
 Residue Recovery
 ASTM D7497 Method B
• Best represents field aging conditions
• Repeatable
• Provides sufficient residue for testing

Oven @ 60°C
Cure for 6 hours

Thin film of
emulsion spread on
silicone mat
 High Temperature Testing
 Dynamic Shear Rheometer (DSR) with 25 mm Plate
 Use Multiple Stress Creep and Recovery (MSCR) Test
• Conducted at high temperature
• 2 stress levels
• Monitor non-recoverable creep compliance (Jnr) and strain
recovery – Low Jnr favorable
 Low Temperature Testing
 DSR Frequency Sweep Test Using 8 mm Plate
• Frequency sweep tests conducted at 5°C and 15°C
regardless of PG
• Determine G* at the critical phase angle for the low
temperature PG
Specification Development
Fresh Emulsion Properties
 Storage Stability (Chip Seal)
ηTop
Separation Ratio ( RS ) =
η Bottom
3.0 3.0
Unmodified Unmodified
Modified
2.5 Modified 2.5 90% Reliability

Separation Ratio
95% Reliability
Separation Ratio

2.0 2.0 98% Reliability

Outlier 1.5
1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Emulsion Number Emulsion Number

Treatment Temperature (°C) Limit

Chip Seal 60 0.5 to 1.5
Separation Ratio >
Microsurfacing 25 0.2 to 1.5
Spray Seal 25 0.5 to 1.5
 Fresh Emulsion Summary
Performance
Treatment Type Temperature (°C) Specified Limit
Parameter
Separation Ratio 0.5 to 1.5
Stability Ratio Maximum 2
Chip Seal 60
Sprayability Maximum 400 cP
Drainout Minimum 50 cP

Separation Ratio 0.5 to 1.5

Stability Ratio Maximum 1.5
Spray Seal 25
Sprayability Maximum 100 cP
Drainout Minimum 100 cP

Separation Ratio 0.2 to 1.5

Microsurfacing Stability Ratio 25 Maximum 1.5
Mixability Maximum 600 cP
Specification Development
Residue Binder Properties
 Selected Mixture PST Tests
 Chip Seal
• Bleeding/Rutting – MMLS3 test
• Low temperature aggregate loss – Modified Vialit test
 Microsurfacing
• Rutting – MMLS3 test
• Low temperature cracking – Single-Edge Notched
Bending (SENB) test
High Temperature Specification
Bleeding and Rutting
One Third Scale Model Mobile Loading
Simulator (MMLS3)
Laboratory Chip Seal Specimen
Fabrication Using ChipSS
 Chip Seal
MMLS3 Test Preparation
MMLS3 Bleeding and Rutting
Bleeding vs. Rutting Correlation
Measured at 46°, 52°, and 58°C

100
90 y = 15.878e0.0968x
R² = 0.7745
80
70
% Bleeding

60
50
40
30
20
2970 MMLS3 wheels
10
17820 MMLS3 wheels
0
0 5 10 15 20
Rut Depth (mm)
 G*/sin delta vs. MSCR Jnr
Chip Seal
100
90 46C
80 52C
70 58C
% Bleeding

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
G*/sin delta
 G*/sin delta vs. MSCR Jnr
Microsurfacing
5
46C
4 52C
Rut Depth (mm)

58C
3

0
0 500000 1000000 1500000
G*/sin delta
% Bleeding (Mixture) vs. Jnr (Binder)
Chip Seals
 80% Bleeding Limit in MMLS3 Test
Lightweight Aggregate Granite Aggregate

100 100

80 80

Bleeding (%)  
Bleeding (%)  

60 60

40 40

20 20 0.15 EAR 0.20 EAR

0.20 EAR 0.25 EAR 0.30 EAR
0.35 EAR 0.40 EAR 0.25 EAR 0.30 EAR
0 0
6 8 10 12 14 10 12 14 16 18
Aggregate Application Rate (lb/yd )2
Aggregate Application Rate (lb/yd2 )
Determining MSCR Jnr Limits
Chip Seals

Bleeding Limit
High Temperature EPG Limit Summary
Surface Test
Performance Traffic
Treatment PG Test Temp. EPG Limit
Parameter Level
Type Range

Low < 8 kPa-1

DSR Maximum Jnr

Chip Seal Med < 5.5 kPa-1
MSCR @ 3.2 kPa

High High < 3.5 kPa-1

Low < 5 kPa-1

DSR Maximum Jnr
Microsurfacing
MSCR @ 3.2 kPa Med &
< 1.5 kPa-1
High
Why are Jnr specification values higher for
surface treatments than in HMA?
 Chip seal residual binders are not aged as the
HMA binders are for testing.
• Aging raises the hardness of the binder and therefore
makes it more resistant to non-recoverable strains.
Low Temperature Specification
Raveling for Chip Seals &
Thermal Cracking for Microsurfacings
 Chip Seal
Modified Vialit Test

 Inverted chip seal subjected

to gravity and impact.
• Plate roughness, plate thickness,
and drop height modified to
mitigate debonding of the
sample from the plate
 Aggregate loss occurred due
to cohesive fracture of the
binder.
PG Parameters for Low Temperature
Chip Seal
45 45
40 (a) 40 (b)
Aggregate Loss (%)

Aggregate Loss (%)

35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 Unmodified 10 Unmodified
5 5
Modified Modified
0 0
0 500 1000 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
S(60) (MPa) m(60)
45
40 (c)
Aggregate Loss (%)

35
30
25
20
15
10 Unmodified
5
Modified
0
0 500 1000 1500
S(8) (MPa)
Other Candidate Low Temp. Parameters
Chip Seal
45 45
40 (a)
(a) 40 (b)

Aggregate Loss (%)

Aggregate Loss (%)

35 35
30 30 CRS-2L-F
25 25
20 20
Unmodified (-16C)
15 15 Unmodified (-16C)
Unmodified (-22C) Unmodified (-22C)
Unmodified (-28C) CRS-2L-F 10 Unmodified (-28C)
10
Modified (-16C) Modified (-16C)
5 Modified (-22C) 5 Modified (-22C)
Modified (-28C) Modified (-28C)
0 0
-10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0E+00 1.0E+03 2.0E+03 3.0E+03
∆Tc (°C) |G*|·cos2δ/sinδ @ 15°C and 0.0008 Hz (Pa)
45 45
40 (c) (d)
40
Aggregate Loss (%)

Aggregate Loss (%)

35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 Unmodified (-16C) Unmodified (-16C)
Unmodified (-22C) 15
Unmodified (-22C)
10 Unmodified (-28C) 10 Unmodified (-28C)
CRS-2L-F Modified (-16C) Modified (-16C)
5 Modified (-22C) 5 CRS-2L-F
Modified (-22C)
Modified (-28C) Modified (-28C)
0 0
0.0E+00 2.0E+07 4.0E+07 6.5E+08 7.0E+08 7.5E+08 8.0E+08
|G*|c (Pa) |G*| @ δ=5° (Pa)
 EPG Low Temperature Testing
 EPG specification
recommends DSR 1.00E+08

frequency sweep test |G*| @ δc

1.00E+07
using 8 mm plate

|G*| (Pa)
1.00E+06
• Frequency sweep tests
conducted at 5°C and 1.00E+05

15°C regardless of PG 1.00E+04

δc
• Determine G* at the 30 40 50 60
Phase Angle (°)
70 80

critical phase angle for

the low temperature PG
 G* at Critical δ vs. Chip Seal
Aggregate Loss
45 45
R2 = 0.63 R2 = 0.86
40 40

35 35

Aggregate Loss (%)

Aggregate Loss (%)

30 30

25 25

20 20
CRS-2L-F
15 15
CRS-2L-F
10 10
-19 -19
5 -25 5 -25
-31 -31
0 0
0.E+00 1.E+07 2.E+07 3.E+07 4.E+07 5.E+07 0.E+00 1.E+07 2.E+07 3.E+07 4.E+07 5.E+07
G* @ δ = 45⁰ (Pa) G* @ δc (Pa)
Low-Temperature Emulsion PG (°C) δc (°)
-7 54
-13 51
-19 48
-25 45
-31 42
-37 39
Chip Seal Low Temperature
Raveling Performance
45
40
Aggregate Loss (%)

35
30
25
20
15 CRS-2-NC
CRS-2-F
10 CRS-2L-C Low
CRS-2P-A Medium
5 CRS-2L-NC High
CRS-2L-F
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10
Temperature (°C)
Chip Seal G* at Critical δ Limits to Address
Raveling at Low Temperature
45
Low Traffic Treshold
40 Medium Traffic Treshold
High Traffic Threshold
35
Aggregate Loss (%)

30

25

20

15
CRS-2-NC
CRS-2-F
10
CRS-2L-C
CRS-2P-A
5 CRS-2L-NC
CRS-2L-F
0
0.E+00 1.E+07 2.E+07 3.E+07 4.E+07 5.E+07
G* @ δc (Pa)
Microsurfacing G* at Critical δ Limit to
Address Thermal Cracking
0.0035 0.0035
CSS-1H-C R² = 0.852 -16C (Delta = 47)
CSS-1HL-F -22C (Delta = 45)
0.0030 CQS-1HP-E 0.0030
-28C (Delta = 43)
CQS-1H-E
0.0025

Fracture Energy (J)

CSS-1HP-D
Fracture Energy (J)

0.0025

0.0020 0.0020

0.0015 0.0015

0.0010 0.0010

0.0005 0.0005

0.0000 0.0000
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 0.E+00 1.E+07 2.E+07 3.E+07 4.E+07
Temperature (⁰C) |G*| @ δc (Pa)

(a) (b)

Beam Specimen

Cutting Saw

Supporting Steel Frame

Steel Base
Low Temperature EPG Limit Summary
Surface Test
Performance Traffic
Treatment PG Test Temp. EPG Limit
Parameter Level
Type Range

DSR Low < 30 MPa

Maximum |G*|
Chip Seal Frequency Med < 20 MPa
@δc 5°C
Sweep High < 10 MPa
and
DSR All 15°C
Maximum |G*|
Microsurfacing Frequency Traffic < 16 MPa
@δc
Sweep Levels

 Raveling resistance at intermediate temperatures should be

assessed during mix design.
 EPG on
Chip Seal
Emulsions
Fresh Emulsion
EPG on Chip Seal Emulsions
Residue
Recommendations for Future Research

 Long Term Aging Study

 Long-Term Field Validation Study

 Acknowledgment

 Funded by NCHRP
 Team Members
• NCSU: Javon Adams, Mohammad Ilias
• Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison: Hussain Bahia, Preeda
Chaturabong, Andrew Hanz, Petrina T. Johannes
Questions?
 Today’s Participants
• Gary Hoffman, Pennsylvania Asphalt
Pavement Association, gary@pa-
[Link]
• Y. Richard Kim, North Carolina State
University, kim@[Link]
• Cassie Castorena, North Carolina State
University, cahintz@[Link]
 Get Involved with TRB
• Getting involved is free!
• Join a Standing Committee ([Link]
• Become a Friend of a Committee
([Link]
– Networking opportunities
– May provide a path to become a Standing Committee
member
• For more information: [Link]
– Create your account
– Update your profile

97th TRB Annual Meeting: January 7-11, 2018

 Get involved with NCHRP
• Suggest NCHRP research topics
• Volunteer to serve on NCHRP panels
• Lead pilot projects and other
implementation efforts at your agency
• For more information:
[Link]
Take Part in the Careers in Motion
Networking Fair

[Link]