Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

Race Track Report

Submitted By:
Jan Bloomfield
Jason Brynick
Robert Green
Mike Halloran
Kyle Kaliniak
Andrew Konyha
Benjamin Weaver

Pavement Design, Construction, and Materials Enterprise


712 Materials and Metallurgy Building
Michigan Technological University
Houghton, Michigan 49931
Phone: 906-487-2790
Facsimile: 906-487-2770
E-mail: jjbrynic@mtu.edu
Submitted to:
Dr. R. Christopher Williams
Michigan Technological University
Grover C. Dillman Hall
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Houghton, MI 49931

April 19, 2004

This report titled Race Track Report represents the efforts


of undergraduate students in the Pavement Design,
Construction, and Materials Enterprise of Michigan
Technological University. While the students worked
under the supervision and guidance of associated faculty
members, the contents of this report should not be
considered professional engineering.

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................4
2.0 Binder Modifications .....................................................................................................4
2.1 Viscosity ..................................................................................................................5
2.2 SBS Additives ..........................................................................................................6
2.3 Direct Shear Rheometer ...........................................................................................7
3.0 Aggregates .....................................................................................................................8
3.1 Selection ...................................................................................................................8
3.2 Batching ...................................................................................................................9
4.0 Mixing and Compacting ..............................................................................................10
5.0 Surface Texture Analysis .............................................................................................10
6.0 Timeline .......................................................................................................................11
7.0 Budget ..........................................................................................................................12
8.0 References ....................................................................................................................14

List of Figures
Figure 1: Timeline..............................................................................................................12

List of Tables
Table 1: Rotational Viscometer ...........................................................................................5
Table 2: Surface Course Mixture .......................................................................................10
Table 3: Budget ..................................................................................................................13

1.0 INTRODUCTION
As a continuation from last semester, the Racetrack Committee developed a plan to
create a racetrack asphalt pavement during the spring semester.

Research was

performed in the fall in order to provide enough knowledge and understanding of


racetrack mix design considerations to create and analyze a simulated mix. Some of
the basic components of research included binder modification, aggregate selection,
and the testing methods.

Due to time constraints and limited materials, the

Racetrack Committee agreed that it would only be necessary to create a surface


course design. The main focus of the project was to look at the surface texture of
the pavement and wearing characteristics, which dont require analysis of the base
course material. Although the committee was presented with many obstacles over
the course of the semester, each of these goals was completed.

This 7report

summarizes techniques and methods that may be used to create and evaluate an
actual racetrack asphalt pavement.

2.0 BINDER MODIFICATIONS


A typical asphalt pavement for racetracks designed in the United States requires a
Superpave PG 82-22 binder in the surface course, modified with a Styrene Butylene
Styrene (SBS) additive. Binder selection is critical due to the high temperatures that
the track will be exposed to. These high temperatures are caused by friction from
the tires as well as solar radiation. A high softening point resists the effects of

stripping of the asphalt binder from the aggregates in the surface. The neat binder
used for the mix design was a PG 64-22. In order to achieve a performance grade of
82-22, various amounts of SBS were added to neat binder in Michigan Techs binder
rheology lab. Through trial and error, the optimal amount of SBS to be added was
found. The final product was a binder modified with the addition of an 8% SBS by
weight.

2.1 VISCOSITY
The initial viscosity of the binder was found using the rotational viscometer at both
135 C and 165 C. For the testing done at 135 C, viscosity readings were taken at 20
RPM, 50 RPM, and 100 RPM. For 165 C testing, readings were taken at 55 RPM, 75
RPM, and 100 RPM. The results are displayed in Table 1.

Racetrack
PG 64-22
Spindle #27
Temp:
Spindle Speed
Average Viscosity
Average Viscosity/1000
Torque
Temp:
Spindle Speed
Average Viscosity
Average Viscosity/1000
Torque

135
20
321
0.321
2.6
165
55
93.9
0.0939
2.1

C
RPM
cP
Pa*s
%
C
RPM
cP
Pa*s
%

135
50
335
0.335
6.8
165
75
93.3
0.0933
2.9

C
RPM
cP
Pa*s
%
C
RPM
cP
Pa*s
%

135
100
341
0.341
13.7
165
100
93.3
0.0933
3.8

Table 1: Rotational Viscometer Results of PG 64-22

C
RPM
cP
Pa*s
%
C
RPM
cP
Pa*s
%

2.2 SBS ADDITIVES


Racetrack mixtures do not vary extraordinarily from regular Superpave mix designs.
The fundamental mix components, aggregate and binder, are still included, and the
mix design process is relatively similar as well. Racetrack mixtures vary from regular
mixes when additives are incorporated into the design. One such additive that is
used frequently in race mixes is polystyrene butadiene styrene (SBS). SBS is
commonly used to increase the elasticity of a mix. The polystyrene in the molecule
chain increases durability and longevity of a mix by making the material more elastic
and able to endure factors such as heat, degradation, wearing, and weathering. SBS
is a basic rubber component with rubber-like characteristics. It is also found in shoe
soles, tires, and other rubber materials.

SBS was used in this mix design at a higher percentage than is used in normal mixes.
A content of 8% SBS by weight was included to assist in improving the wearing of
the surface. Both 5% and 8% SBS additive contents were tested in the laboratory.
Because of the heat element that a race track can be exposed to, it is crucial to ensure
that precisely the right amount of binder is used. This ensures that the mix is
capable of withstanding the worst possible exposure conditions. Typical values of
binder grades used in racetrack design are relatively high. This particular binder had
to meet the testing specifications of a PG82-22. This is substantially higher than
most normal binder ranges.

The basic method of incorporating SBS in the mix was to take the basic binder,
weigh it on a mass balance scale, and then calculate an 8% of this mass by weight.
6

The amount of SBS to be added was then measured in accordance to the binder
weight. The heated binder and the SBS were then mixed using a high-shear mixing
device. SBS was added to the neat binder in small increments while a spindle in the
mixer spliced and sheared the particles to promote consistent mixing. When the
binder had been sufficiently mixed, it was ready to be tested.

When using SBS to modify a binder, it is important to keep in mind the added
cost that comes with it. Most engineers who design paved roads in the United
States must consider budget constraints when developing a mix design. When it
comes to racetrack mix design, the budget tends to be larger. A SBS modifier can
increase the cost of liquid binder by up to $100-150 per ton. This cost can add up
quickly, especially for longer tracks.

2.3 DIRECT SHEAR RHEOMETER


The direct shear rheometer (DSR) was used to test shear tension at the maximum
expected temperature. A small sample of the binder was put into a mold and small
discs were made to be tested. The maximum temperature for the test was 82 degrees
Celsius. The DSR uses hot water to regulate the temperature, and a spindle to
oscillate the sample. The G* delta value had to be above one (1.0) in order for the
binder to pass grading specifications for the temperature at which it was being tested.
Michigan Techs binder lab Technician, Ed Tulppo, was very helpful in teaching us
the proper procedure to use when performing tests on the DSR. The first binder
contained 5% SBS by weight and did not pass the test at 82 degrees Celsius, but did

pass when tested at 76 degrees Celsius. The second binder that was tested contained
8% SBS by weight and passed at 82 degrees Celsius.

3.0 AGGREGATES
The wearing characteristics of a racetrack pavement are also a major consideration in
the development of a good performing mix. The aggregate wear index (AWI) must
be very high in order to resist polishing effects that occur with the repetitive use a
racetrack must endure. Additionally, there must be a higher coefficient of friction
between the pavement and the sticky tires. Since limestone is known to be an
aggregate that is susceptible to polishing, it should not be used in a racetrack mix
design. Air-cooled blast furnace slag was the material of choice in our mix design. It
has a low AWI, which makes it least susceptible to polishing and provides a high
coefficient of friction. There has been a great deal research done on this topic in the
past. These prior investigations were researched by the group members and support
the theory stated above.

3.1 SELECTION
The material that was used was obtained from Payne and Dolans asphalt plant
located on Lake Annie Road in Hancock, Michigan. The stockpile of blast furnace
slag contained a large percentage of aggregate that was retained on the #8 sieve.
Because typical racetrack mixes are comprised mainly of fine aggregates passing the
#30 sieve, another aggregate option had to be explored. With an excess of material
8

retained on the #8 sieve, and a shortage of smaller aggregate sizes, it was


recommended that some of the larger material be crushed down to fulfill the
requirements for smaller slag. Technicians in the Michigan Techs Civil Engineering
Department aided the team in crushing down the necessary amounts of slag to
complete the batching totals of each blend. After crushing the aggregate and shaking
it in sieves, enough material was available to create two Superpave samples and one
Rice test sample

3.2 BATCHING
To simplify the process, the gradations used for the Chicagoland speedway was
utilized. Due to communications with representatives from the speedway in the
past, it was possible to obtain the required information. The blends contained a high
amount of smaller aggregate and fines to add to the smoothness of the track. A
smooth pavement surface is a critical safety component of any racetrack due to the
high speeds of vehicles which will be utilizing it. The gradation used consisted of
material retained on the 3/8, #4, #8, #16, #30, #50, #100, and #200 sieves. The
blend that was used contained a majority of finer slag to give a smooth surface for
racing. With the material available, it was possible to batch out enough to mix two
specimens and a 2000 g rice sample. Below is a copy of the batch sheet used for
this mix.

Table 2 Surface Course Mixture


Sieve
3/8"
#4
#8
#16
#30
#50
#100
#200
PG 82-22
Total

Percent retained Grams


3%
135
13%
585
19%
855
19%
855
14%
630
14%
630
7%
315
4.1%
184.5
6.9%
310.5
100%
4500

4.0 MIXING AND COMPACTION


Along with the two 4500 gram Superpave samples that were batched, a rice sample
was made. The two Superpave samples were mixed and compacted at 4% air voids.
Experimentation with different modifiers could have been done with more time,
however many of the decisions were based on existing race track blends discovered
in research from the fall semester.

5.0 SURFACE TEXTURE ANALYSIS

The surface course of a racetrack mix is one of its most important features. This
layer is the first that is susceptible to damage and wearing. Extra precautions
have to be taken to ensure that the track mix can withstand the additional heat and
wearing exposure induced by temperature and surface friction. Racing entails
high rates of speed at extreme banking angles. Therefore, design precautions

10

must be made to ensure that the proper surface friction will be created so as to not
burn up the tires, and yet still act against lateral forces to keep the cars on the
track. It was also in the interest of the Racetrack Committee to do some
preliminary micro- and macro-surface texture readings. This data is vital in the
determination of the coefficients of friction as well as the drainage of the
pavement. As mentioned previously, because of time constraints, it was not
possible to complete this task.

6.0 TIMELINE
As can be interpreted from the table below, most tasks were completed in the final
few weeks of the semester. This was due to difficulties in processing aggregates and
binder modifications. Also at the beginning of the term, Winter Carnival, the Mix
Design Competition, and Spring Break all took away time that could have been used
in the project completion. All of these breaks also came hand in hand with the
preparation that was needed after these breaks to get back in the swing of things.
Getting help with equipment such as the Direct Shear Rheometer, and dealing with
breakdowns in the testing devices set the committee back. Also, heavy use of the
laboratory and equipment by other students delayed the completion of the project as
well.

11

Week
Proposal
Aggregate Processing
Binder Modifications
Batching
Mixing and Compaction
Test Correlations
Final Report
Presentation

January
2
3

February
6
7

March
10 11

12

13

April
14

Figure 1: Timeline

7.0 BUDGET
The proposed budget for the Racetrack committee this semester is significantly
greater than last. The major change is found in the wages. Because this semester
was much more laboratory and labor intensive, the hours put in were much
greater. A field trip was included as travel expenses to allow committee members
to see a racetrack up close. This allowed the students to better understand the
scope of work involved. This was a great benefit to the learning process.
Laboratory facilities and materials also played a major role in the mixing and
testing methods involved. The binder and modifiers used in a racetrack mix are
rather costly, and many different samples were made. Overhead was reduced
from 51% last semester to 10% this semester to better simulate a construction
company in industry. It is believed that 51% is extreme and would reduce the
profitability of a company. A profit margin of 10% will be used to simulate the
profitability of a conventional paving company. Although the budget this term is
higher overall, the final budget is lower than the proposed budget at the beginning

12

15

of the semester. This is due to the lower number of hours worked than expected.
Telephone costs, lab fees, and materials costs are all fixed quantities which
remained constant.

A consultant cost was added due to consulting fees.

Table 3: Budget
Budget
Item
Labor Costs
Telephone
Laboratory Facilities and Materials
Books and Reference Materials
Travel
Overhead @ 10%
Profit @10%
Consultants
Total:

13

Cost
$8768.25
$20.00
$2,000.00
$100.00
$2,000.00
$1,288.83
$1,288.83
$40.00
$15,505.91

8.0 REFERENCES
http://www.psrc.usm.edu/macrog/sbs.htm
http://www.nascar.com/races/tracks/index.html

http://www.mastrad.com/reo.htm
Kevin Forbes, Indianapolis Speedway
Dan Gallagher, Chicagoland Speedway
Karl Peterson, Michigan Technological University

14