Superiority of the AR Grading System


AR Grading. The Asphalt Residue (AR) grading system used in the Western part of the United States for decades grew out of the fact that the asphalts in this area differed greatly. While various grades were in use, the workhorse grade was AR 4000 which meant that the asphalt in the pavement, irrespective of crude source, would have the same consistency. AR 4000 meant that the viscosity at 60° C of the asphalt after the RTFO test would be 3000 (2500 in Washington) to 5000 poises. A viscosity of 4000 poise was selected as it was found that at 4000 poises tenderness in oversanded mixes was easier to handle.  60° C is used as in most cases that is about the highest temperature the pavement reaches although in the deserts it can reach considerably higher temperatures. On the other hand, the viscosity at 60° C from the RTFO of equivalent asphalts graded by the AC grading system (2000 ± 400 poises based on original viscosity at 60° F) or by penetration grading system (85/100 based on penetration at 25° C) can vary greatly. For the 85/100 penetration grade, the range of the 60° C viscosity after the RTFO of those asphalts evaluated during the development of the AR grading system varied from about 1600 to over 7000 poises. For an AC 2000 grade asphalt, the probable viscosity after the RTFO aging would range over about 4000-8000 poises, depending on the crude source. The equivalent PG grade is PG 64-XX.

PG Grading. There is an astounding number of PG grades, 7, and up to 6 subgrades within each grade, based upon low temperature properties. If there was consistency within the grades it might make sense, but we have regressed even back beyond the AC grading system. These grades were set up primarily to control tenderness and rutting even while leaving the gradation specification so open that gradations that would allow grievous rutting are included. The equivalent PG grade is based upon the Dynamic Shear test of G*/sinδ of 1.00 kPa at 64° C with no maximum. For a sinδ of 1.00 (close to that of unmodified asphalt) the viscosity is G*· sinδ or 1000 poises. The G*/sinδ value from the RTFO test would be 2.20 kPa min or 2200 poises with sinδ = 1.00 and again there is no maximum. Sinδ for modified asphalts is less than one thus that drops the specification minimum viscosity below that of non-modified asphalt.` In other words, for the asphalt as placed in the pavement, the AR 4000 specification is 3000-5000 poises at 60° C. For the PG 64-XX , the-in place viscosity at 64° C can vary from somewhat less than 2200 poises to as high as one wishes.



Philosophical Inconsistency of the PG Grading System. I am only addressing the grading system, not the value of the low temperature specification. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the use of the DSR, as it is a handy tool. I am suggesting that the grading should have been based upon the consistency of the RTFO residue whether viscosity tubes are used or the DSR. The value of the DSR data is that we can get information about the effect of polymer modification from the phase angle, sigma (δ).

We have shown above that the range of the allowed viscosity from the RTFO test of any particular PG grade is greater than that of any previous grading system even though there is are 7 specific grades in order to control rutting. The implication is that controlling rutting requires fine tuning. Yet, at the same time there is a movement to use warm mixes, one of the benefits of which is that the asphalt will have a considerably lower viscosity than the intention of the grade.

Controlling Rutting. The prime control of tenderness and rutting should be with aggregate gradation.  As long as the gradation specification allows badly oversanded mixes, rutting will be a problem.

Robert L. Dunning, chemistdunning@gmail.com, www.petroleumsciences.com


Chip Seals

The application of a seal coat has a number of functions however one of the most important is to waterproof the pavements, protecting them from water damage and oxidation. If pavements were sealed early in their life, e.g. within a year, the pavements would last a lot longer. Chips seals are used especial on highways.

Chip Seal Emulsion. The emulsified asphalt used for chip seals are specially designed to break very fast on contact with aggregate. Emulsions can be either anionic (basic) or cationic (acidic) although the cationic are very popular. With asphalts from some crude oils the amount of emulsifier required for anionic chip seal emulsions is very small, approaching zero as a result naphthenic acids in the asphalt which serve as emulsifiers when neutralized with caustic soda.

Special Seal Emulsion. There is a product called PASS that has the ability to re-seal cracks and regenerate pavements.

Where to Use. A chip seal does an excellent job as a seal. While it can be used in cities, in my opinion a slurry seal would be better, unless it is a Capeseal in which a slurry is placed over the chip. The disadvantage of use in cities is that the chips can spread over lawns, in driveways, etc.

Mix Design. It is very important that a mix design is done, otherwise there can be failures.

Problems. One of the causes of failure is dirty aggregate. The chip seal emulsions are designed to break immediately on a surface thus when it hits the dust it breaks on the dust and not on the surface of the aggregate. An emulsion type called High Float is more tolerant of dust. Not enough emulsion can cause loss of chips while too much emulsion can called bleeding.  Also when used in cities, loss of chips can occur at the centerline as along the centerline there can be less asphalt as a result of less overlap of the spray. For rural roads this isn’t a big problem as there is not that much turning stress on the aggregate, however in the city, there can be turning traffic out of driveways. Also, there is another important problem; it is difficult to skate on chips.

It isn’t a good career move for a director of public works to place a chip seal on streets in expensive neighborhoods, especially if chips end up on the lawns, sidewalks and driveways.

Robert L. Dunning, chemistdunning@gmail.com, www.petroleumsciences.com