Asphalt Binder Cracking Device to reduce Low Temperature Asphalt Pavement Cracking
APPENDIX B. RUGGEDNESS SURVEYS FROM NORTH CENTRAL SUPERPAVE CENTER AND UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
ABCD Ruggedness Testing – Survey
Thank you for participating in the Ruggedness Testing. Please fill out this survey by either bolding or underlining your responses. Comments can be written in non–bolded font. Then email it back to Ken Edwards as an attachment at LMNO@LMNOeng.com . If questions, please call Ken at 740/707–2614 or Dr. Kim (skim@EZAsphaltTechnology.com) at 740/707–6817.
Laboratory: EZ Asphalt NC Superpave Center University of Wisconsin
Please answer the following questions on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being do not agree and 5 being strongly agree. Feel free to add comments.
Setting up the computer, cooling chamber, and data collection that arrived at our lab was easy: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: I did not set it up initially, but it appears to be straightforward
Constructing the pouring spout was easy: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: Nope! I found the spout and holder assembly very cumbersome, and did not use it, per Dr. Kim's suggestion during training. Had better control on the pour without it.
Pouring the binder was easy: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: It was easy for unmodified binders
I always started pouring in the vicinity of the protrusion: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
Some binders poured more easily than others: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: Yes, modified binders were harder to pour, as expected
Creating the cold joint was easy: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: Yes, it was
I was good at monitoring the time that the samples were in the 0oC chamber:
1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
Some binders were harder to trim than others: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: The modified binders formed strings and did not cut/trim as easily
Keeping the spatula hot aided trimming: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
It was easy to connect the wires to the samples: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
It was easy to run the software: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
The computer never locked up: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: Had numerous problems with the old laptop (software) and the new one. Errors appeared to be random, no pattern to them even if the same procedure was adopted every day.
It was easy to run the macro: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
It was easy to disconnect the wires from the samples at the end of the test:
1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
If I had questions, EZ Asphalt was readily available: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
The procedure for preparing a sample was easy to follow: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
I looked at the video on the EZAsphaltTechnology.com website:1 2 3 4 5
Comment: No
The ruggedness testing variables were reasonable: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: Maybe need more cooling rates trials
The ABCD is a promising method for obtaining binder cracking temperature:
1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
I would like our laboratory to purchase the ABCD test apparatus:1 2 3 4 5
Comment: See comment below
Complete the following sentence about the ABCD: I wish
How does sample preparation and usefulness of the results compare to other binder tests you have run (e.g., Direct Tension Test and Bending Beam Rheometer)?
With ABCD we will not need to run both BBR and DTT if Tcracking is the parameter of interest. But some comparative trials using BBR–DTT combination and the ABCD alone are needed on replicate samples to determine if they give "similar" Tcracking estimates.
Other comments:
ABCD Ruggedness Testing – Survey
Thank you for participating in the Ruggedness Testing. Please fill out this survey by either bolding or underlining your responses. Comments can be written in non–bolded font. Then email it back to Ken Edwards as an attachment at LMNO@LMNOeng.com. If questions, please call Ken at 740/707–2614 or Dr. Kim (skim@EZAsphaltTechnology.com) at 740/707–6817.
Laboratory: EZ Asphalt NC Superpave Center University of Wisconsin
Please answer the following questions on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being do not agree and 5 being strongly agree. Feel free to add comments.
Do not agree Strongly agree
Setting up the computer, cooling chamber,
and data collection that arrived at our lab was easy: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
Constructing the pouring spout was easy: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
Pouring the binder was easy: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: The binder needs to be poured really hot and it is hard to pour 4 samples without needing to heat it in the oven again.
I always started pouring in the vicinity of the protrusion: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
Some binders poured more easily than others: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
Creating the cold joint was easy: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
I was good at monitoring the time that the samples were in the 0oC chamber:
1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
Some binders were harder to trim than others: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
Keeping the spatula hot aided trimming: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
It was easy to connect the wires to the samples: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
It was easy to run the software: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
The computer never locked up: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: The computer never locked up, but it was necessary to restart it after every single test, in order to avoid the software to lock up during next test.
It was easy to run the macro: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
It was easy to disconnect the wires from the samples at the end of the test:
1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
If I had questions, EZ Asphalt was readily available: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
The procedure for preparing a sample was easy to follow: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
I looked at the video on the EZAsphaltTechnology.com website: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
The ruggedness testing variables were reasonable: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
The ABCD is a promising method for obtaining binder cracking temperature
: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
I would like our laboratory to purchase the ABCD test apparatus: 1 2 3 4 5
Comment:
Complete the following sentence about the ABCD: I wish more correlation studies with other testing methods will be performed.
How does sample preparation and usefulness of the results compare to other binder tests you have run (e.g. Direct Tension Test and Bending Beam Rheometer)?
Sample preparation is approximately as easy as for other tests. The usefulness of the results has to be investigated, although it looks promising.
Other comments: