GAUTRANS APT

1
GAUTRANS APT

• ELZBIETA SADZIK
• MAY 2002

2
SPECIFICATIONS FOR HVS MARK III AND MARK IV
3
COST BENEFIT HVS III vs HVS IV

• 57 Decrease in total production cost
• 50 Increase in production
• 19 Decrease in Fuel consumption
• 56 Decrease in down time

4
Comparative Cost HVS III vs HVS IV

• HVS Mk III 80 cents/load repetition
• HVS Mk IV 50 cents/load repetition

5
HVS testing sites
6
Testing subjects
7
HVS accompanied tests

• Laboratory
• Standard laboratory
• Grading, Atterberg, OMC/MDD (untreated)
• CBR, UCS, ITS
• Advanced laboratory
• Flexural beam test (FBT)
• Static and dynamic triaxial (STT and DTT)
• Durability
• Permeability
• Wheel-tracking erosion (WTE) and mechanical brush
  (MBT)

8
HVS accompanied tests

• Field
• HVS
• Material characterisation
• Field moisture and density, environmental data
• Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)
• Deflection, permanent deformation and rut
• LTPP
• Visual evaluation
• Deflections
• Traffic survey

9
Test matrix for foam-treated material
10
Test matrix foremulsion-treated material
11
HVS management
Steering Committee
Scope
Needs
Prioritisation
Technical management
Proposals
Guidelines
Reports
Technical panel
Review Pool
12
Issues discussed

• Unanimous agreement on historical benefit of HVS
  research for pavement engineering in South Africa
  and a need to continue
• Needs identified
• Long-term research objective
• Ad hoc needs (proof testing)

13
Steering Committee identified needs

• Cold-mix recycling
• Rut-resistant solutions
• Ultra-thin thin concrete layers
• Appropriate asphalt overlays seals
• New cement / high UCS layers

14
Steering Committee identified needs

• Composite pavements
• Cost-effective solutions for low-volume roads
• Risk assessment management
• Vehicle-pavement interaction

15
Proposal

• It is proposed that an APT Steering Committee be
  established as a sub-committee of the RPF