[ t Brandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 1 ‘7418 words Field and Laboratory Investigation of Permeable Asphalt Mixes on Georgia Highways by James M. Brandon, E.LT. Special Projects Engineer, Bituminous Construction james. brandon @ dot state. ga.us David M. Jared, P.E. Special Research Engineer david jared@ dot state.ga.us Peter Y. Wu, Ph.D., P.-E. Assistant State Materials & Research Engineer peter.wu@dot state ga.us Georgene M. Geary, P.E. State Materials & Research Engineer georgene.geary @dot.state.ga.us Georgia Department of Transportation 15 Kennedy Drive Forest Park, GA 30297-2599 Phone: (404) 363-7500 Fax: (404) 363-7684 ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submit.Brandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 2 ABSTRACT Georgia DOT (GDOT) investigated possible high permeability in asphalt mixes statewide, in response to reports of prolonged wetness on pavements around the state following rainfall. In these locations, high permeability manifested itself as wet areas on pavement surfaces where wetness remained after natural conditions should have removed all moisture from the surfaces. Sixteen project sites were inspected for problem areas statewide, and core specimens were taken from six of the sites. Specimens were taken from areas considered representative of the problem i areas in each project. The specimens were tested to determine the permeability, bulk specific gravity, maximum theoretical specific gravity, percent air voids, percent asphalt cement, and gradation of the mix. Per the findings of this investigation, some Superpave mixes that were designed in accordance with GDOT specifications exhibited undesirable permeability. The investigation determined that both mix design and construction are contributory to permeable mixes; hence, permeability problems are to be corrected by a balanced adjustment to these processes, per the following recommendations: (1) for each Superpave mix type used in Georgia, develop mix-specific acceptance criteria for maximum in-place air voids; (2) include evaluation ‘of mix permeability in mix design; and (3) provide continued quality control during construction ‘operations to ensure the success of the mix-specific acceptance criteria. ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submitalr Brandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 3 INTRODUCTION Georgia DOT (GDOT) Office of Materials and Research (OMR) received problem reports in 2001-2 that placement of highly permeable (hereafter, permeable) hot mix asphalt (HMA) mixes could be occurring on GDOT construction projects. Permeability is a predictor of HMA t performance, and high permeability may be caused by poor construction and ultimately reduce mix longevity. In response to the permeability problem reports, OMR initiated a study of HMA. f mixes currently placed by GDOT that were thought to be permeable in-place. Sixteen project t sites were inspected for problem areas statewide, and core specimens were taken from six of the sites. The cores were tested at OMR to characterize the mixes and provide insight on the causes f of high permeability. t The permeability problems reported in 2001-2 manifested themselves as wet areas of pavement. These wet areas remained wet after natural conditions should have removed all moisture from the pavement surfaces. Some wet areas only had a discoloration. Other areas had actual water accumulation on their surfaces. ‘These wet spots on the pavement were believed to be the result of asphalt mix design and/or construction operations. PREVIOUS RESEARCH: EFFECTS OF MIX DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OPERATION ON PERMEABILITY Previous research indicates that both mix design and construction operations may affect permeability in pavements. Studies conducted on conventional fine-graded mixes suggest that gradation, particle shape, and ait void level can affect permeability (1) and, furthermore, that permeability is dependent on the size of air voids within a pavement, not just the percentage of t voids (2). For conventional dense-graded mixes, previous research indicates that pavements become excessively permeable to water at air void contents above 8 percent (3). This finding was ‘ later confirmed by Brown et al. during the 1980's (4). ‘A recent survey of Superpave designed pavements suggested that one of the most significant problems observed was permeability (5). This survey stated that coarse-graded Superpave mixes appear to be more permeable than conventional dense-graded mixes at similar air void levels. Recent work by the Florida DOT has indicated that coarse-graded Superpave mixes can be excessively permeable to water at air void levels around 6 percent (6). f High permeability of coarse-graded mixes is primarily due to the presence of relatively high amounts of interconnected air voids. The amount of interconnected voids present in a mix is significantly affected by gradation and nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS). Hence, permeability potential of mixes increases with an increase in air voids, coarseness, and NMAS M. Results from a study by Cooley et al. on permeability characteristics of coarse-graded Superpave mixes indicated a good relationship between permeability (measured in the field and Jab) and pavement density. Both the gradation’s NMAS and the lift thickness placed in the field were shown to affect the permeability-density relationship. Increasing the NMAS requires higher densities to ensure an impermeable pavement. Also, as the lift thickness of a given pavement (and mixture) increases, permeability decreases at a given density level (8). ‘The findings above corroborate with the following GDOT inferences concerning the relationship of interconnected air voids and permeability: (1) At low air voids percentages, a pavement will typically have low permeability, while at high air voids percentages, water may freely flow through the pavement. (2) In the intermediate range of air voids, water may be able { l ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittalBrandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 4 to penetrate the pavement, but if any air voids happen to be interconnected, due to mix design or poor construction, the water may or may not be able to escape. If it is able to escape, it may result in a wet spot on the pavement surface. If it js not able to escape, it may be subject to freezing in winter months, possibly leading to pavement damage when the water thaws in warmer months. ON-SITE PERMEABILITY INVESTIGATION Sixteen problem projects were reported statewide. Ten of these were field evaluated by OMR personnel, The evaluation for each site consisted of the following: (1) photographs of the site and problem areas reported; (2) six-inch (150 mm) diameter core specimens, as necessary; (3) observations of the wet areas, cores, and core holes; (4) discussion with GDOT project personnel on possible causes of the permeability problems. The site visits allowed OMR personnel to observe, as possible, the permeability problems firsthand. OMR personnel attempted to visit the problem sites within @ week after the last rainfall at the site, but this was not always possible. Wet areas were marked, nonetheless, by GDOT field personnel, in the event that the site visit was delayed and the pavement surface dried before OMR personnel arrived. The wet areas were recorded by size and general frequency within the project area. Any abnormal conditions were noted as well. For six of the sixteen projects, remedial action had already been taken by the GDOT districts in which the areas were reported. For two of the projects field evaluated, the problem areas resulted from geotechnical problems, rather than asphalt permeability problems, hence core specimens were not taken at these locations. For another two projects field evaluated, problem areas were not confirmed, hence core specimens were not taken at these locations either. Core specimens were taken from the remaining six projects over a six-month period. OMR obtained a number of cores that would represent the project as whole as well as the in- place asphalt mixes from the reported problem areas, These cores were then tested and evaluated at the central GDOT laboratory. LABORATORY INVESTIGATION ‘The laboratory investigation began with a visual review of the core specimens. It is noteworthy that the four mix types examined in the laboratory consisted solely of Superpave mixes (9.5 mm, 12.5 mm, 19 mm, and 25 mm), though GDOT had only changed to Superpave mix design procedures in 1997. GDOT determined that the top two pavement layers should be tested for permeability, since the problems reported from the field pertained to the pavement surfaces. Several properties of the layers were also determined, for comparison with the original job mix formula (MF) of the mixes and comparison by mix type between projects. ‘The properties included permeability, maximum theoretical specific gravity (Gan), bulk specific gravity (Gna), percent air voids (V.), percent asphalt cement (% AC), and mix gradation. The following test methods were used to determine these properties: Florida Method (FM) 5-565 (permeability), AASHTO T-209 (Grn), AASHTO T-166 (Gys, VIM), AASHTO T-308 (% AC), and AASHTO T-30 (mix gradation). ‘TRB 2004 Annval Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittalBrandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 5 Florida Method 5-565 Background of Test Method In 1996, Florida DOT developed a laboratory testing device and a standardized test procedure, Florida Method (FM) 5-565, to investigate the permeability of Superpave mixes. This device utilized a falling-head concept to test the permeability of cores cut from pavements (6). The relatively simple device, which is shown in Figure 1, consists of a pressurized specimen chamber and associated fixtures for controlling the flow of water through the specimen (9). Although a nationally recognized “standard” test does not exist at present, a provisional ASTM standard for a permeability test using the a flexible-wall permeameter, PS 129-01, has been developed, based on the device and procedure developed by Florida DOT (/0). The method uses a slightly modified asphalt permeameter, an apparatus with a latex membrane liner. ‘The method also includes a rising tail element facilitated by an outlet pipe added by ASTM Subcommittee D4.23. This is felt to more closely simulate flow conditions in the field (21). Arkansas, Louisiana, and Virginia have all investigated use of the flexible-wall permeameter to evaluate the permeability of Superpave mixes (9, 2-13). GDOT Use of Florida Method FM 5-565 The Florida Method (FM) 5-565 test method was used to measure the water permeability of all the core specimens collected for this study. In this method, the Karol-Warner Asphalt Permeameter (KWAP) is used. In preliminary trials before the laboratory investigation began, the KWAP produced reliable and repeatable results. From the calculation section of the FM 5-565 procedure, a coefficient of permeability, k, is calculated, based on recorded test data using the KWAP. The resultant k is expressed in fi/day or cav/s, and it is compared to an established standard for a pass or fail result (14), The standard applied to all study results was 2.8 fliday (100 x 10° cm/s) or less (passing). A clear determination of pass/fail was made for all study samples based on the application of this standard. Florida recently changed the standard to 125 x 10-5 cm/s, and this standard has tentatively been adopted by Virginia as well (13,15). AASHTO Tests AASHTO T-209 was used as a standard volumetric test to determine the Gnm of the roadway core specimens. The results of the T-209 were used to calculate the Gye of the core specimens AASHTO 7-166 was used as a standard volumetric test to determine the Gn of the core specimens. T-166 results were also used in conjunction with the Gay results from T-209 to calculate the V, as a percentage of the whole specimen. AASHTO T-308 was used to determine the percent asphalt cement (% AC) of the roadway core specimens. The binder contents were compared to the original JMF for each of the corresponding projects. The aggregate obtained from T-308 was used for the AASHTO T-30 test. T-30 was used to obtain a combined gradation for the core specimens. As with the binder contents, the gradations for each of the core specimens were compared to the original JMF for each of the corresponding projects. Comparison with New England Transportation Consortium Findings A New England Transportation Consortium (NETC) study (NETC 00-2) was conducted to evaluate the permeability of Superpave mixes and develop procedures for permeability testing. ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittalBrandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 6 ‘The scope included testing of mixes in the laboratory and in the field, determination of relationships between mnix properties and permeability, and development and recommendation of t new mix design and in-place testing methods (7). Results from NETC 00-2 were used to : evaluate GDOT’s current in-place air void specification with regard to permeability. GDOT { conducted laboratory permeability testing on a representative 25 mm Superpave mix for C comparison with results from NETC 00-2 and evaluation of the air voids specification. t ‘TEST RESULTS Description of Tabulated Data { Two of the six projects from which core specimens were taken were excluded from the I comparison of test results. Review of the laboratory test results for these two projects indicated that the mixes used in these projects had low permeability values in both the top layer and the layer immediately under it; also, the wet spots where the cores were taken at these two projects were observed. along longitudinal joints. Hence, it was concluded that the reported wet spots were not attributable to mix permeability within the surface pavement layer, but rather to longitudinal joint construction. 1 ‘The four locations from which the specimens were taken are shown in Table 1, along with the types of mixes constituting the top two layers at each location at the time core specimens were taken. ‘The typical thickness for a layer of 12.5 mm mix was 1-1/2 in, (40 mm), for a 19 mm mix, 2 in. (50 mm), and for a 25 mm mix, 3-4 in, (75-100 mm). ‘On US 411, 12.5 mm mix was placed on top of 9.5 mm mix, since this was an overlay on f a section of US 411 where traffic levels had increased significantly since the 9.5 mm had been L placed years before. Also, it should be noted that construction on the US 341 project was not complete at the time the core specimens were taken, hence the 19 mm and 25 mm mixes were ik not the final top two layers for the project (12.5 mm mix was ultimately placed on top of the 19 M mm mix). Specimens from these two layers, however, were included in the evaluation, to provide additional insight on the permeability problem. Table 2 summarizes the permeability test results for the core specimens evaluated in the laboratory investigation. Specimen numbers in Table 2 are numbered per the system shown below. ‘* 1" number: location of reported problem area on project; 2" number: specimen number in problem area; © 3 number: first letter of project county Note that the specimen numbers are the same for Layers 1 and 2, since each core specimen contained mix from Layers 1 and 2. Distance between sampling areas ranged from 0.3 mi, to I mile (0.5-1.6 km). Specimens were typically taken 10-30 ft. (3-9 m) apart. Table 3 is a summary of the permeability test results by mix type, with the mixes ' arranged by layer and ascending V,. The specimen numbers correspond to the specimens in | Table 2. It should be noted, however, that Table 3 summarizes only the results of asphalt mixes that are permeable and had corresponding wet spots on the pavement surfaces, hence the 9.5 mm results from Table 2 were excluded. It should also be noted that Table 3 includes only those projects that were complete or near completion at the time of the field investigations, hence the ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original subrmital,Brandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary a results from US 341 were excluded, as this project was not complete at the time of the field investigation. Tables 4 through 7 summarize the test results for the core specimens evaluated in the laboratory investigation. The results include the following items: (1) gradations of the core specimens compared with the JMF for each of the mixes; (2) % AC, Gran, and Gap of the core ' specimens compared with the JMF values for these properties; and (3) Va of the core specimens. | Analysis of Results Laboratory Permeability Testing The results shown in Tables 2 and 3 generally indicate that the top layer in each project was highly permeable and that the second layer in each project had lower permeability. Where wet spots were observed in the field investigations, core specimens taken in these areas indicate that trapped water escaped the pavement areas studied due to a permeable surface layer being t underlain by a lower permeability layer. For example, the specimens indicated that the 12.5 mm mixes placed on top of the 19 mm mixes generally were highly permeable, while the 19 mm { mixes generally had lower permeability. An exception to this was the US 341 project. On US 341, the 19 mm mix was the top layer at the time core specimens were taken, rather than the 12.5 mm mix; however, the 19 mm mix was highly permeable and the underlying 25 mm mix had low permeability (see Figure 2). As above, though, the results from US 341 were excluded from the results comparison, since construction was not yet complete on this project. A core specimen of a permeable 19 mm mix is shown in Figure 3. A laboratory sample of a low permeability Superpave 19 mm mix is shown in Figure 4. The sample in Figure 4 illustrates a balance between compactive effort and increased material passing the #8 sieve, as discussed below. Laboratory Volumetric Testing Results from the volumetric tests performed using AASHTO T-209 (Gmm), T-166 (Gm, Vs), T- 308 (% AC), and T-30 (mix gradation) indicated the following: 1. US 278, Paulding County (Table 4): For Layer 1 (12.5 mm), the in-place air voids exceeded the in-place maximum of 7.8% (/6) by 1.5%, and per Table 3, the mix was permeable. For Layer 2 (19 mm), in-place air voids were acceptable (i.e. did not exceed in-place maximum), but the mix was still permeable in places, though not to the degree in Lift 1. 2. US 441, Wilkinson County (Table 5): For Layer 1 (12.5 mm), the in-place air voids exceeded the in-place maximum by 3.6%, and per Table 3, the mix was permeable. For Layer 2 (19 mm), in-place air voids were acceptable, and the mix was much less permeable than Layer 1. US 411, Murray County (Table 6): For Layer 1 (12.5 mm), the in-place air voids exceeded the in-place maximum by 0.7%, and per Table 3, the mix was permeable, For : Layer 2 (9.5 mm), the in-place air voids were acceptable, and per Table 3, the mix had } Jow permeability. 2 { “TRB 2008 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revise from original submit.Brandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 8 4, US 341, Dodge County (Table 7): For Layer 1 (19 mm), the in-place air voids exceeded the in-place maximum by 0.7%, and per Table 3, the mix was permeable. For Layer 2 (25 mm), the in-place air voids were acceptable, and the mix had low permeability. The results above indicate that both the mix design and construction processes are contributory to permeable mixes. Where in-place air voids were excessive per current GDOT specifications (6), and the mix was permeable, construction operations was likely the primary contributor to the mix permeability. Where the in-place air voids were acceptable per current GDOT specifications (6), yet the mix was still permeable, the mix design was likely the primary contributor to the mix permeability. Also, the gradations of the core specimens from the permeable areas are noticeably gap-graded. This is indicative of segregation or excessive air voids in the pavement; hence, segregation during production/placement of a mix, excessive air voids in the pavement, or a coml ion of both are contributory to the permeability of the pavement. Excessive air voids in the field and variability of the mix in the field due to ‘segregation are both construction issues to be addressed by quality control. Comparison with New England Transportation Consortium Findings As discussed above, results from NETC 00-2 were used to evaluate GDOT’s current in-place air void specification with regard to permeability. GDOT currently allows up to a maximum of 7.8% in-place air voids for acceptance of all Superpave mixes (J6). The information in Table 8 (NETC 00-2 Table 6.1.4) shows percentages of material that may pass the 2.36 mm (#8 sieve) to achieve corresponding in-place air voids values. It is felt that the information in Table 8 demonstrates the need for in-place air voids criteria that is mix-specific, for the following reason. ‘The amount of compaction required for each Superpave mix type (9.5 mm, 12.5 mm, 19 mm, and 25 mm) is different. Results from NETC 00-2 and the GDOT laboratory investigation indicate that a mix such as GDOT’s 25 mm Superpave would require an excessive level of compaction to meet an in-place air voids requirement that would create a low permeability mix. ‘This level of compaction could cause aggregate breakdown during construction. GDOT's current specification for 25 mm mix allows 25-30% retention on the #8 sieve (/7). Table 8 shows that this mix would need to be compacted to an in-place air voids of 5-6%. GDOT laboratory results on a representative 25 mm mix compacted to various percentages of air voids are shown in Table 9. These results indicate that in-place air voids of less than 4.8% is needed to achieve a passing permeability value. This information indicates that one in-place air voids specification, such as 7.89 in Georgia, is to0 broad to be applicable to all Superpave mix types. A balance between compactive effort and the amount of fine material (#8 sieve or finer) in the mix must be achieved in order to create a low permeability mix that can be constructed in the field. This balance would be achieved by increasing the amount of material passing the #8 sieve and decreasing the in-place air voids specification below 7.8%. ‘This balanced mix will have low permeability and can be constructed with a moderate amount of compactive effort. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings of the field and laboratory investigations, some Superpave mixes that were designed in accordance with GDOT specifications exhibited undesirable permeability. The investigations determined that both the mix design and construction processes are contributory t0 ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal{ Brandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary N LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES: Tables Project Locations and Mix Constituents of Core Specimens Core Specimen Permeability Results by Project ‘Summary of Core Specimen Permeabilities by Asphalt Layer Gradation and Mix Property Comparison: Core Specimens, US 278 @ State Route 61, Paulding County Gradation and Mix Property Comparison: Core Specimens, US 441, Wilkinson County Gradation and Mix Property Comparison: Core Specimens, US 411, Murray County Gradation and Mix Property Comparison: Core Specimens, US 341, Dodge County List of Critical Percent Passing the #8 (2.36 mm) Sieve for Specific Air Voids (NETC 00-2 Table 6.1.4) GDOT Laboratory Permeability Results, 25 mm Superpave Level B: Comparison with NETC Study 00-2 yoBepe eI 2 Figures Detail of Karol-Warer Asphalt Permeameter Permeable pavement (US 341, Dodge County) Core specimen: permeable 19 mm Superpave mix Laboratory sample: low permeability Superpave mix Perr ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submital,Brandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 12 TABLE 1 Project Locations and Mix Constituents of Core Specimens Project Location ‘Top Layer Mix Second Layer Mix US 278, Paulding County 12.5 mm 19mm US 441, Wilkinson County 12.5 mm 19mm US 411, Murray County 12.5 mm 9.5 mm US 341, Dodge County 19 mnt 25 mm Top lift at time of site visit; 12.5 mm mix was subsequently placed over 19 mm mis. { L ‘TRB 2004 Annual Mesting CD-ROMoe Brandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary TABLE 2 Core Specimen Permeability Results by Project 2B Layer 1 Project [Specimen] Mix Specimen Fr | type | Kaayy | SPO TIP | 125] 233 TIP Peaiding | #2e_| mm | ‘oz 1-22 Coun | ZIP 103 2iP comly | 22P 16 2.2P raw | 125 7 1w mm 2-1W i. 33.1 2-1W Witeas [22 4 22 conee" | 3-1W a7 31W 3.2 36.2 3.2. 4-1W ie 17.6 4-1W 4.2W. 26.1 W TIM | 1235 [29 IM seeeouee | eteade [eninge ‘County 21M 63 2-1M 22M. 3.1 Tip | 19 13 TD OT 1.20__|_mm 07 i 21D = 25.8 2D = ot Done 22D 35.7 31D |. 39 sD | 00 County 32D 66 ‘41D 21 aADae tay 23 4-2D 68 * Permeability (k) pass/fail limit: 2.8 fuday (100 x 10° cm/s). ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittalBrandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 15 TABLE 4 Gradation and Mix Property Comparison: Core Specimens, US 278 @ State Route 61, Paulding County Layer 1 | JOPMIS | Layer 2 Se eee 125mm | 49 4qmq | 19mm Average Average Ta Gr | 10 100 100 | 100 1" 25) 100 100 too | 100 waa) | 100 100 95 w125) | 94 963 ‘i 385) | 79 810 64 #47) | - 513 7 #8036) | 38 375 29 #618) | 305 - #30 (0.60) ts pres : #50(030)| 15 189 9 #100 (0.15) : ae #200 oar | 6 16 52 %AC | 408 % ai Gee | 2454 | 2409 | 2584 Ge | 2355 | 2184 | 2480 Vii%) | 40 93 40 "TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittalBrandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 16 TABLE 5 Gradation and Mix Property Comparison: Core Specimens, US 441, Wilkinson, County ‘Job Mix Tob Mix | Formula | ™¥4 | Formula | b¥er? Sieve Size : 125mm 19mm smn | Pome | mm | came t 1-172" 37.5) 100 100 : 1" 5) 100 100 100 100 : 3/4" (19) 100 992 96 963 { 272.5) | 98 938 89 762 ' 3/8" (9.5) 89 12 n 613 #4 (4.75) - 458 “4 398 | wo3) | 38 322 9 287 t #16 (1.18) - 243 7 20 #30 (0.60) : 186 - 171 { #50 (0.30) - 146 9 136 j #100 (0.15) : 103, - 97 #2000075) | _6 68 35 63 | %AC 32 45 43 42 i Gon 2526 | 2556 | 2558 | 2569 ce 24x3 | 2264 | 2450 | 2420 7 Va (%) 40 114 40 58. i : 1 ft 1 I { ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittal[ Brandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary TABLE 6 Gradation and Mix Property Compan County Layer 1] Layer 2 Sieve Size] 125 | 15 | 95mm mm mm | average | Averase Ta 61s) | 1 | 100 | 100 ™@s) | 100 | 100 | 100 aia"(gy | 100 | 100 | 100 1a s7 | 966 | 100 (12) 3 3895) | 85 | 832 | 999 #4475) | 509 | 759 #32.36)| 33 | 345 | 496 #16(1.18)} 257 | 362 #30(0.60) | - 196 | 275 #500030)| 12 | 145 | 201 #100 99 | 133 64 83 32 Si 2509 | 2.486 2.296 ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM 7 : Core Specimens, US 411, Murray Paper revised from original submitaBrandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 18 TABLE 7 Grad: County n and Mix Property Comparison: Core Specimens, US 341, Dodge Job Mix Job Mix Layer Layer2 I Stove | Formata Formula é Sie) 9mm 22™ | 25mm | 25mm Average Average ' (75) | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 res] wo | 991 | 99 | 995 sari] 99 | 955 | a9 | 867 ws | 8 86.2 Or 615 38° a | om | m0 : 327 ‘4 : 46.1 : 266 f 475) i bs 30 | a3 | 2 | 304 e3) | 3 : : : #16 : | ais) | ae : fn ‘ #30 fee Ge 195 : 245 #50 L om 148 i 112 #100 [ ois) | oe : tes | #200 cor | * an a a r wac | 38 | a7 | 40 | 41 t Gen | 2541 | 254 | 2530 | 2508 Ge | 2437 | 2327 | 240 | 2445 vim | 40 | 3s | 40 | ‘25 I ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submitBrandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 19 TABLE 8 List of Critical Percent Passing the 2.36 mm Sieve for Specific Air Voids (NETC 00-2 Table 6.1.4) : Allowable % j lend Sell #8 (2.36 mm) sieve : 3 > 35 6 >3L + >4l 8 >45 f i } t f L f I } f L { [ ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submistalBrandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary TABLE 9 20 GDOT Laboratory Permeability Results, 25 mm Superpave Level B: ‘Comparison with NETC Study 00-2 Percent passing #8 (2.36 mm) sieve for all samples: 29% Optimum asphalt cement content: 4.3% Sample sate Sampls | sie | vaca /Paabi (mm) Al TB 29 1.6 Ad 73 2.5 02 BI 74 49 11.9 B2 74 48 3.0 cl 75 5.2 4.2 C2 75 54 14 DI 76 65 171 D2 76 54 72 BL 7 57 243 E2 7 73 26.7 Fl ary 68 69.0 F2 7B 18 45.9 ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submital,f I Brandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary Upper ming mare Gradunted cinder fetsie tienen) emma nd cH 21 cane sssembly | Howe Lg i ote Merrane pesatine ap Seaton. eeoete ‘ahe i Sr we Peseta ‘in. 0. = “ine” @626/\.. oan FIGURE 1 Detail of Karol-Warner Asphalt Permeameter. ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submittalBrandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 22 FIGURE 2 Permeable pavement (US 341, Dodge County). ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submit.Brandon, Jared, Wu, and Geary 23 FIGURE 3 Core specimen: permeable 19 mm Superpave mix. ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submitBrandon, Jared, Wu, and FIGURE 4 Laboratory ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM. Geary sample: 24. Jow permeability 19 mm Superpave mix. Paper revised from original submittal.Hale and Kuss 1 A New In-situ Test for Determining the Permeability of Concrete \W. Micah Hale Mark L. Kuss Assistant Professor Master Scientific Research Technician University of Arkansas University of Arkansas 44190 Bell Engineering Center 4190 Bell Engineering Center Fayetteville, AR 72701 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Tel: (479) 575-6348 ‘Tel: (479) 575-4147 Fax: (479) 575-7168, Fax: (479) 575-1168 mica @uark.edu mik@engr.vark.edu A key factor influencing the longevity of a highway bridge deck is the concrete's permeability. Ifthe in-place Permeability of the concrete is too great a deck will be susceptible to premature failure. Failure could be the result ‘of physical attack, chemical attack, or both. While there are several means for reducing the permeability of @ ‘concrete mixture, there are few reliable standard tests for measuring permeability. ‘There are even fewer that are capable of determining in-situ permeability. ‘This paper presents prefiminary results from the development and evaluation of a new device that measures the in-situ permeability of conerete, Data collection is very flexible, with collection intervals rom less than a minute upto 12 hours. The proposed permeability device works by applying very low air pressure to the surface ofthe concrete. While maintaining a constant vacuum, the movement of air through the concrete is measured. TThis technique overcomes the high pressure and falling head problems that exist ‘with current test methods and equipment. In addition, the airflow through the concrete is measured with extreme precision, INTRODUCTION ‘The longevity of a concrete structure is influenced by the permeability ofthe concrete. Ifthe amount of water entering @ concrete structure can be reduced, the life of te structure can be extended. ‘The presence of water in hardened concrete can eventwally deteriorate the concrete dhrough continuous freeze-thaw cycles. Damage from freeze-thaw cycles is not the only concer of highly permeable concrete, Water can also carry harmful chemicals (such as deicing salts) ito the structure, which can lead to the corrasion ofthe reinforcement and loss ofthe siructural capacity of the member. Therefore, 10 produce durable concrete structures, the permeability ofthe ‘concrete must be considered Even though permeability is an important property of concrete, there are very few standardized tests that measure permeability. AASHTO T 259 "Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride [on Penetration (90 day salt ponding)” and AASHTO T 277, “Standard Method of Test for Rapid Determination of the Chloride Permeability of Concrete” are the only to standardized permeability tesis, Furthermore, both of these tests ‘measure the permeability of concrete specimens prepared in the Iab or from concrete cores taken in the field, There are no standardized tests that measure the permeability of in situ concrete. ‘The goal of this research program is to develop and quantity the effectiveness of a device that measures the permeability of in situ concrete, BACKGROUND “The permeability of concrete is influenced by the pore system of the concrete paste. The porosity of conerete isthe ‘measure ofthe total volume of pores within the concrete. The size, spacing, distribution, and continuity ofthe pores all have an effect on the permeability of concrete. To increase permeability, pores must be interconnecting 10 provide a path for water to flow (I) In 1986 a test was adopted by AASHTO that measured the concrete's permeability in six hours. This testis known as the Rapid Chloride Ton Penetrability Test (RCIP). The test measures the number of chloride ions that pass through a sample of concrete in a six-hour period of time, In general, the lower the permeability of the conerete the lower the amount of coulombs passed. Therefore, concrete with a high permeability will pass mre coulombs, However, the RCIP has come under scrutiny. Some researchers believe that the Rapid Chloride Ton Peneirability Test (ASTM C 1202) measures the concrete’s conductivity but not necessarily the concrete's permeability (2). The addition of mineral admixtures such as fly ash, blast furnace slag, and silica fume may alter the concrete's conductivity by altering the pH ofthe pore solution, which could either increase or decrease the RCIP value. ‘The pore fluid of hardened concrete consists mainly of Na, K, and OH ions. Shi-et al reported thatthe ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal ~ not revised by author.Hale and Kuss 2 ‘addition of mineral admixtures might increase or decrease the concentrations of these ions. Other researchers have reported similar findings (3, 4,5, 6). ‘Some researchers have developed their own in-situ permeability devices. Meletiou et al developed a field permeability test (FPT) apparatus that measured the in-situ water permeability of concrete (7). Their test method required 76 em of Hg, a water pressure of 1.0 t0 3.4 MPa, and a 22 x 152 mm hole drilled into the concrete. Their tests resuts were compared to that ofa laboratory permeability test, and the data indicated thatthe FPT produced results that were “consistent and reliable” (7). Guth and Zia developed a non-destructive device to measure the air permeability of concrete (6). Their device consists of two concentric chambers and utilizes a vacuum of 1.4 KPa absolute to create an air flow through the concrete. Their test results showed that their device ‘can differentiate the air permeability characteristics” of different types of concrete. Even though these devices and others that are similar have been developed, there stills a need for a low cost and easily used apparatus that ean measure the permeability of concrete EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM ‘The need of a device to measure the in situ permeability of concrete structures and pavements led to the ‘development of the Concrete Air Permeability device (CAP). Researchers at the University wanted to develop a ‘device that was easily used, did not require a high pressure head, and was light weight and low cost. The proposed permeability device works by applying very low air pressure to the surface of the concrete. The movement of air through the concrete is measured while maintaining a constant pressure vacuum (Figure 1) Materials ‘The CAP consists of @ plastic plate, vacuum pump, vacuum control and data acquisition system, and a laptop (Figure 2). The plastic plate isa pressure injected molded plate with a diameter of 10 inches. AA spray sealant and impermeable putty are also required. Both the spray sealant and putty needed to be impermeable to provide a seal between the plastic plate and the conerete sample, thereby preventing any air flow from coming through the sealant ‘or putty. (One of the first steps in developing the CAP was to find a suitable spray sealant for the device, ‘The sealant needed to provide an impermeable, $0 mm width, circular seal on the surface of the concrete (Figure 3). Many sealants were examined until one was found that Successfully sealed the concrete surface, To test the adequacy of the sealant, a concrete sample was covered completely with a sealant. A CAP test was performed on the sealed surface and allowed to run for 24 hours. Different sealers were investigated until one was found that hada flow rate ‘of 0 ml/min on the sealed surface for a 24 hour period. Several different widths of sealers were also examined. A. 25 mm strip of sealer was determined to be too small, because the resulting airflow was too large for the vacuum control system. A 75 mm stip of sealer was determined to be too large, because the resulting airflow was {00 small, 50 mm wide sirip provided the best option based on the range of air flows measured by the CAP. A similar procedure was done to find a suitable product to seal the injected mold plate to the concrete sample. The material needed to completely seal the plate to the sample to prevent any ar flow between the plate ‘and the sealed concrete surface. To test the material, the injection molded plate was sealed to a non-permeable surface using various types of sealers, and the test was run for 24 hours. Different sealers were tested until one was found that was able to maintain a flow rate of O mi/min for 24 hours. After many unsuccessful attempts, an adequate putty was found that was able to maintain the O ml/min flow rate for 24 hours. Since a vacuum of only 50 mm of water is required for the CAP, a large vacuum pump is not required. The ‘yacuum control and data acquisition system measures the air flow by counting open cycles on a high speed metering valve. For example, a single open-closed cycle based on the difference between the 50 mm water head and the sample allows a known volume of air out of the vacuums. The known volume released from the vacuum is converted into a flow rate (ml/min.). The data acquisition system records data points every minute, anda laptop is used to store the test results CAP Procedure (One of the many benefits of the CAP is its ease of use. With a small amount of experience, the permeability of a ‘conerete specimen can be measured within 30 minutes. Before each test, the CAP is calibrated. A manometer is attached to the vacuum control and date acquisition. Adjustments are made to the system if vacuum of 50 mm of ‘water is not measured on the manometer. ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal — not revised by author.| I Hale and Kuss 3 (Once calibrated, a template is placed on the concrete and a two inch wide, circular stip ofthe scaler is applied to the surface (Figure 3). ‘Three coats ofthe sealer are applied tothe surface. Once the third cont is dry, a 12.5 mam stip of impermeable putty is applied to the edge of the plastic plate (Figure 2). The plate is then placed ‘within the 50 mm wide sealed ring and altached to the vacuum control and data acquisition system For 20 minutes. RESULTS ‘Several field tests using the CAP have been performed. ‘The field tests are part of an ongoing research programm that is examining the concrete properties of precast bridge beams in Arkansas. An experimental program is also ‘currently underway to quantify the results ofthe CAP. ‘Shown in Figures 4 and 5 are the results of two laboratory CAP tests. The laboratory tests were conducted 10n 0.60 m x 0.60 m x 90 mm concrete specimens. Two tet specimens were cast for each mixture, The mixture proportions are shown in Table 1. ‘The two mixtures were chosen because they represent low permeability and high permeability concrete. As shown in Figure 4, the mixture with a water to cementitious material ratio (wicm) of 0.26 hhad an air flow rate of approximately 2.0 ml/min, whereas the mixture with a wlem of 0,60 had an air Flow rate of approximately 20 ml/min (Figure 5). A greater flow rate for the 0.60 wfem mixture was expected due to the increased porosity of the 0.60 w/em mixture when compared to that of the mixture with a wlem of 0.25. Also shown in Figures 4 and 5 isthe stabilization of the slow rate. The flow rate begins to stabilize within approximately five minutes, ‘The initial high rate of flow is caused by the removal ofthe existing air within the injection molded plate. For consistency, cach test was run for 20 minutes Further testing is now being done to quantify the results of the cap. Concrete mixtures with wem ranging from 0.26 to 0.70 are being tested. Also included in the testing matrix are different types of supplementary ‘cementitious materials. Each mixture will be subjected tothe CAP and RCIP test, and the results will be compared. ‘The effect ofthe surface texture ofthe concrete will also be examined. CONCLUSIONS ‘The goal ofthe research program was to develop and evaluate a device that measures the permeability of in situ concrete. Researchers at the University of Arkansas believe that a device, such asthe CAP, has the potential for acceptance at not only the state Ievel but also the national level, Field testing ofthe CAP has shown the ease at ‘which it ean be used on different types of structures. Further testing will be conducted to quantify the results of the CAP. Testing is currently underway on mixtures with wlem ranging from 0.26 to 0.70. Mixtures containing supplementary cementitious materials such as fly ash, silica fume, and blast furnace slag are also being examined, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ‘The authors would like to acknowledge the Mack-Blackwell Transportation Center and the Arkansas Highway and ‘Transportation Department for providing the funding and support for the project. REFERENCES 1, Neville, AIM. Properties of Concrete, John Wiley and Sons, lnc., New York, 1997. 2, Shi,C., Stegemann, J.A., and RJ. Caldwell. Effect of Supplementary Cementing Materials on the Specific Conductivity of Pore Solution and its Implications on the Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (AASHTO ‘T277 and ASTM C1202). ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 95, No. 4, July-August 1998, pp. 389-394, 3. Zhao, TI, Zhu, .Q., and P-Y. Chi. Modification of Pore Chemicals in Evaluation of High-Performance Concrete Permeability. ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 96, No. 1, January-February 1999, pp. 84-89, 4, Wee, TH, Suryavanshi, A.K., and $.S. Tin. Evaluation of Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT) Results for Concrete Containing Mineral Admixtures. ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 97, No.2, March-April 2000, pp. 221-232. 5. Pfiefer, D.W., McDonald, D.B., and P.D, Krauss, The Rapid Chloride Permeability Test and Its Correlation to the 90-Day Chioride Ponding Test, PCI Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1, January-February 1994, pp. 38-47. 6. Seanton, J.M. and M.R. Sherman. Fly Ash Concrete: An Evaluation of Chloride Penetration Testing Methods. Concrete International, Vol. 18, No. 6, June 1996, pp. 57-62 7. Meletiou, C. A., Tia, M., and D. Bloomquist. Development of a Field Permeability Test Apparatus and Method for Concrete. ACI Mareriais Journal, Vol. 89, No. 1, January-February 1992, pp. 83-89, ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal ~ not revised by author,Hale and Kuss 4 8, Guth, DLL. and P, Zia. Evaluation of New Air Permeability Test Device for Concrete. ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 98, No. 1, January-February 2001, pp. 44-51 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE | Diagram of CAP. FIGURE 2 CAP set-up. FIGURE 3 Two-inch width circular sea FIGURE 4 CAP results for wlem of 0.26. FIGURE 5 CAP results for wiem of 0.60. TABLE | Mixture Proportions I L ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal — not revised by authorHale and Kuss “To Vacuum Control & Data Injection Molded Plate Concrete Sample FIGURE I Diagram of CAP. ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal ~ not revised by author.r Hale and Kuss 6 F FIGURE 2 CAP set-up. k ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal ~ not revised by author.7 Hale and Kuss 7 rece oS es Ronen t t FIGURES Two-inch width circular seal. ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM. Original paper submittal ~ not revised by authorprevent poemne pmo prem femme ney pet mem fem fm fine Hale and Kuss 8 Air Flow (mVminute) 2 4 6 8 © w 4 1% 1 2 ‘Time (minute) FIGURIS4 CAP results for wem of 0.26. ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal ~ not revised by author.Hale and Kuss 9 i = 3 8 8 & Air Flow (m¥/minute) "Time (minutes) { t FIGURES CAP results for w/em of 0.60. “TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal —not revised by author.Hale and Kuss TABLE 1 Mixture Proportions Mixture Proportions Materials (ke/m3) Mixture 1 Mixture 2 Cement 534 534 Coarse Aggregate 1062 1062 Fine Aggregate m2 2as Water 139 320 whem 026 0.60 ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM (Original paper submittal not revised by author,L f i ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM raper ne. 04-4490 TITLE: COMPARISON OF FIELD AND LABORATORY PERMEABILITY OF HMA MIXTURES AUTHORS: Kunnawee Kanitpong" Robert Schmitt” Hussain Bahia! Jeffery Russell’ “Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The University of Wisconsin — Madison 2210 Engineering Hall, 1415 Engineering Dr. Madison, WI 53706, (608) 265-4481 kanitpon@cae.wisc.edu, bahia@ engr. wisc.edu, russell @engr.wise.edu *Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering ‘The University of Wisconsin — Platteville 1 University Plaza Platteville, WI 53818, (608) 342-1566 schmitro@uwplatt.e Paper submitted for presentation and publication at the ‘Transportation Research Board 83rd Annual Meeting January 11-15, 2004 Washington, D.C. Paper revised from original submit‘TRB 2004 Annval Meeting CD-ROM Kanitpong, Schmitt, Bahia, and Russell 1 Comparison of Field and Laboratory Permeability of HMA Mixtures By Kunnawee Kanitpong, Robert Schmitt, Hussain Bahia, and Jeffery Russell Abstract: Ficld permeability testing of asphalt mixtures is very important since it can measure an actual rate of water infiltration into the pavement structure based on the finished pavement layer. It is however necessary to estimate the permeability before construction during the mixture design process. The laboratory permeability testing is, therefore, necessary. This study was conducted based on four fine-graded mixes projects to compare field permeability testing result using the NCAT field permeameter device and the laboratory permeability testing results for field cores and laboratory compacted specimens by using a Flexible wall permeameter following the ASTM DS084 method. In addition, the study included evaluating the relationships between the density, thickness, and permeability in the lab and in the field. The results indicate that the field permeability correlates well to the lab permeability measured on the field cores taken from the field. There is, however, a significant difference between the two measurements as the field measurements are on the average an order of magnitude higher than the lab permeability. The relationship between field and lab measurements of SGC specimens is not as good. There is only a fair relationship between the lab permeability of field cores and lab compacted specimen. Therefore, it appears that the lab permeability testing of the field cores can be used as a good predictor of field permeability but this is not true for the fab compacted specimens. The lab compacted specimen does not offer a good representation of field permeability and thus cannot be used for designing and predicting the permeability of the field layers. The density shows some effect on permeability, however, the thickness do not show any significant effect, Key words: ficld, laboratory, permeability, permeameter, asphalt, density, thickness Paper revised from original submittal: Kanitpong, Schmitt, Bahia, and Russell 2 INTRODUCTION i ‘There is a concem in Wisconsin regarding flow of water into flexible pavement structures vie infiltration through the pavement surface. It is well known that the infiltration of ‘water into underlying granular layers could result in a significant reduction in pavement support. Tn the past few years a number of research studies has been focused on developing laboratory equipment and measuring laboratory permeability. The relationship of the different laboratory measurements to the field permeability is not well documented however, and only limited studies have covered this important topic. There is a need, therefore, for more studies to evaluate and establish the relationship between I the laboratory permeability and the ficld permeability, and to estimate the effect of t pavement layer thickness and density on such a relationship. This study was started to evaluate field permeability of newly constructed pavements in various locations in Wisconsin, and to evaluate the relationship between field and laboratory measurements between cores taken from the field and on lab-compacted mixtures using the Superpave Gyratory Compactor to measured field density and lift thickness. I PREVIOUS RESEARCH. f A number of research studies have conducted with the focus on measuring of the field € permeability attempting to evaluate various factors affecting the field permeability. Factors studied included density, lift thickness, gradation, and nominal maximum £ aggregate size (NMAS) of the mixtures used in construction L ‘Choubane (J) claims that coarse-graded Superpave mix causes the problem of high permeability, since it results in more interconnected voids, and hence increases the { air void content in the mix. I Mallick et al. (2) conducted a study on the field permeability of Superpave designed mixes. The results show that air void content, NMAS, and lift thickness have a I significant effect on in-place permeability of the pavements. { Cooley et al. (3) and Hainin et al. (4) state that there is a good relationship between in-place air voids and permeability measured in the lab and field on coarse i graded Superpave mixes, NMAS and lift thickness shows an effect on the permeability, and there exists a relationship between the permeability of lab compacted and field specimens. Hainin et al. also indicates that Ndes, coarse aggregate ratio, and percent passing 12.5 mm and 1.18 mm sieves have a significant effect on the permeability, The | review of these studies indicates that ther a wide scatter in such relationships and that there is a need for more verification of the relationships found. After an extensive : laboratory study in 2001 the Wisconsin Department of Transportation extended the study t to include field projects to verify effect of lift thickness and aggregate types. This paper _ is to report on analysis of data collected during the summer of 2002 and the summer of 2003, i OBJECTIVES ‘Two main objectives were selected for this study: L ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM riginal submittal.‘TRB 2004 Annval Meeting CD-ROM Kanitpong, Schmitt, Bahia, and Russell 3 1) Comparing in-place field permeability measured using the NCAT field permeability system with laboratory permeability measured on field cores as well as SGC lab-compacted specimens. 2) Evaluating the relationship between the density, thickness, and permeability in the lab and in the field. ‘TESTING PLAN Four Superpave construction projects were selected according to the Superpave guideline of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT). All projects were constructed with fine-graded mixes placed in two lifts, a binder lift using 19 mm NMAS and a surface lift using 12.5 mm NMAS. In order to evaluate the effect of the lift thickness on the permeability, at least three different thicknesses were compacted in each. project. The gradations for each project are illustrated in Figure 1 for 12.5 mm NMAS and 19 mm NMAS mixes. Two major aggregate sources, crushed limestone and gravel, which represent the most widely used aggregate in Wisconsin highway construction, were selected. The paving projects had different pavement structures including overlay of HMA over existing concrete pavement, overlay of HMA over existing asphalt pavement, and new HMA layer over crushed aggregate base. ‘The summary of project information is shown in Table 1. Field Testing For each field project and each lift, at least six test sections were randomly selected based on the variation in the lift thickness. After paving and compaction, the final in-place density was immediately measured by using the nuclear gauge device, as shown in Figure 2. ‘The nuclear gauge can be used to quickly determine the density of an asphalt layer, and the readings are very repeatable, The results of this device were correlated to the density of those cores taken from the field. Field permeability testing was performed immediately after the density was measured. The field permeameter used in this study is based upon the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) design (Figure 3). The NCAT permeameter uses the principle of the falling head permeability test. The device is comprised of four different diameter tier standpipes. The use of these tiers depends on the rate of water flow through the pavement. Smaller diameter tier on the top is for an impermeable pavement because water flows very slowly, and larger diameter tier at the bottom is for a very permeable pavement where water flows quickly. The device is seated on the selected test site, and the sealant gasket material is then placed on the bottom channel of the permeameter base to provide a watertight seal. After the permeameter is sealed on the test area, a 20-kg weight is added to the base plate in order to resist the uplift forces exerted by the head in permeameter, and hence, to ensure a better seal. Without this weight, the water pressure can casily break the seal. The water is filled completely in the permeameter, and the time interval is then measured as the water flows through the pavement, and passing between two marked lines. The procedure and the equation used to calculate the field permeability are described in a previous publication (5). Paper revised from original submittal.‘TRB 2004 Annval Meeting CD-ROM Kanitpong, Schmitt, Bahia, and Russell 4 It was observed that as the testing time continues, the field permeability decreases continuously. This is possibly an effect of saturation in the pavement as indicated in Kanitpong et al. (6). Since it is impractical to control the degree of saturation or to ensure fully saturation in the pavement, for all test sections, the same period of time (three minutes) is allowed for water to flow through the pavement before starting the test. ‘The first four readings were then taken to maintain the consistency for all test sections. It is noted in Cooley (3) that the results from this device are not a true measurement of, permeability, but they can be used as an index of the permeability. As clearly seen during testing on some test sections, there is water flow upward to the pavement surface from the sides of the permeameter. ‘This result can support the assumption that the water does not flow only vertically through the pavement, but it can flow in any direction, vertically and/or horizontally, including reverse back to the pavement surface. ‘The cores were cut immediately after the field permeability testing was completed, and then taken to the laboratory. Loose mix at all mix design variables were obtained from the plant of each project in order to prepare the laboratory compacted specimens. Laboratory Testing In the laboratory, all field cores were taken to measure the density using the vacuum sealing method by the Corelok Device. The maximum specific gravity (Gmm) used to calculate the density was measured from the loose mix obtained in the field. However, it was determined that the Gmm measured in the lab using the Corelok is essentially similar to the Gmm measured in the plant using the ASTM D 2041. It should be noted that all field cores were completely dry before measuring the density ‘The Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC) was used to produce the lab- compacted SGC specimens from loose mix collected in the field where the test sections were paved. In this manner, the field-compacted and lab-compacted specimens were from the same sampling of material, The SGC specimens were compacted to the same thickness and density of the field cores. ‘To measure laboratory permeability of all field cores and SGC specimens, a flexible-wall permeameter and a pressure panel board (Figure 4) followed by the methods described in ASTM D 5084-01, was used. ‘The equipment description and the test procedure was described in (6) and (7). A thin film of hydrated bentonite paste was used for the SGC specimens to prevent sidewall leakage since the sidewall of SGC specimen is not as smooth as those of the field cores. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ‘The summary of test results is presented in Table 2. The following section gives a summary of the analysis of results Comparison of Field and Laboratory Permeability and Density ‘As shown in Table 2, the laboratory permeability was measured for all field cores from three projects. Figure 5 shows the relationship between the field and lab permeability Paper revised from original submital.‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Kanitpong, Schmitt, Bahia, and Russell 3 measured on field cores. ‘The line of equality was expected in the relationship but it is clear from Figure 5 that the field permeability of most cores is higher than the lab permeability by a significant margin ranging between 10 percent and 100 percent. This result can be explained by the fact that water during field permeability testing can flow in any direction, while in the permeability measured in the lab water can only flow vertically due to the surrounding membrane, Itis however important to notice that, despite the wide scatter, and the differences in values, there exists a strong relationship (R? = 0.80) between the lab and the field measurements when a power function is used as shown in Figure 5. This strong relationship can possibly be used as a method for the estimation of the field permeability based on the lab permeability. A logarithmic scaling was applied to field permeability to account for the non-linear relationship between the lab and field for lower densities, generally less than 90% Gmm. It is recognized that the flow characteristics in the field could be different than the laboratory, but it appears that the basic characteristics of the mixture flow paths are reflected in the lab and the field similarly enough to create such a good relationship. It appears that the argument proposed by Cooley (3) of measuring an index of permeability with the NCAT field permeameter is confirmed by the data set, collected in this study. Figure 6 shows the comparison of the density measured in the field by using the nuclear gauge and the density measured in the lab by using the Corelok device. The results plotted indicate that there is a good relationship between the two measures and density measured by both methods are highly correlated. It appears that the laboratory density is slightly higher than the field density particularly at low densities. It is also observed that the scatter around the equality line is within +/- 2%, which is an acceptable range due to inherent variability in field studies. Comparison between Laboratory Permeability of Field Cores and SGC Specimens ‘The SGC specimens were produced to have exactly the same thickness and density as the field cores. The permeability of these specimens was measured in the lab, and the results are shown in Table 2. Figure 7 shows the comparison between the two lab-permeability measures. There appears to be wide scatter and only a fair linear correlation (R? = 0.60) could be found. Most of the field cores are observed to have higher permeability than the SGC specimens by a range of 10 percent to 100 percent, which is a large range. Considering that the specimens have similar densities and same thickness, one could only explain this by speculating that the gyratory is creating a different void structure than the field cores. There also could be the factor of surface pores of SGC are closed because of, the nature of the compaction. Regardless of the reason, there appears to be only a moderate correlation between the permeability of the SGC specimens and the permeability of the cores. Relationship between Density and Permeability ‘The relationships between field density and permeability measured in the lab and in the ficld are shown in Figure 8. Although both relationships show the logical trend of increased permeability with reduced density, the relationships are very different, Paper revised from original submittal.‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Kanitpong, Schmitt, Bahia, and Russell 6 particularly at lower density. The results show that at lower density (82-86%), the field permeability is higher than the lab permeability nearly one order of magnitude. As the density increases, the difference between field and lab permeability decreases and becomes very small at the range of approximately 10° to 10° cm/s, which is when the density is between 92% and 94%, commonly targeted during construction. ‘The lab permeability results support the results of an earlier study by the authors (©) as they indicate that the lab permeability in the density range of 92-94% ig between 10° to 10° cm/s. A break line criterion between low and high permeability (10* cm/s) as indicated in (8) is determined at the 92-94% density. Thus, pavements not compacted to a minimum of 91-92 %Gmm will experience a significantly higher rate of permeability This is a very important finding since inadequate compaction has been well documented to cause premature rutting, raveling, and other distresses, but now, it has also been determined to have a significant contribution to water permeability and it’s resulting detrimental effects. ‘The problem with the results shown in Figure 8 is that the power-law functions used in fitting the relationship between density and permeability values have relatively low correlation coefficients, which question their value, For example, at 92% field density, the range in field permeability is almost 2 orders of magnitude and for the lab permeability it is almost one order of magnitude. In fact, if the 3 mixtures that have a density lower than 88% Gmm are removed, moderate correlations are found between density and permeability. The laboratory permeability appears to be much less sensitive to density than the field permeability, within the range of 92 to 94 %Gmm, the data points are overlapping significantly. The functions that best fit the data are as follows: Field K Lab K= x 10!" (field densityy 3 ys x 10° (field density)” aM 2) where Kis. the permeability in cm/s and the density is in percent Gmm. ‘These functions should be used with extreme caution because of the scatter observed. The scatter also indicates that there could be more than density that affects permeability, which has been stated in many previous studies (3, 4, 9). ‘To evaluate relationship between density and permeability for the SGC compacted specimens, Figure 9 illustrates laboratory density measured with the Corelok device and the lab permeability of both field cores and SGC specimens. It is clearly seen that the field cores are less sensitive to density and that at a given density the permeability of the field cores is higher than those of the SGC specimens, at almost all density values. This result supports the study by Cooley (3) who indicated that the permeability of field cores shows higher permeability than the lab compacted specimens. In addition, the unconfined sidewalls inherent in the field permeability test may be less sensitive to density than the confined sidewalls of the lab permeability test. The power functions correspond to the trend lines in Figure 10 are as follows: Lab K (cores) = 1.19 x 10°? (lab densityy"® @) Lab K (SGC) = 4.46 x 10* (lab density) #! a Paper revised from original submittal.[ Kanitpong, Schmitt, Bahia, and Russell 1 where Kis the permeability in cm/s and the density is in percent Gmm. The coefficients [ of correlations for both relationships are not better than those for the field density and i thus these equations also prove that in the lab the density cannot possibly explain all the factors affecting permeability. t Relationship between Thickness and Permeability Since lift thickness was varied in all projects for the study, the effect of lift thickness on permeability could be evaluated, Figure 10 shows the relationship between the lift thickness and the field permeability and lab permeability of cores. Figure 11 shows the relationship between the lift thickness and the lab permeability of field cores and SGC specimens. In Figure 10, there is a trend between the thickness and field permeability indicating lower permeability at higher thickness, but the relationship is statistically R? = 0.02. No general trend exists between the thickness and lab lar to the relationship with the density, in the thicker pavement (7-8 ia em), the field permeability becomes closer to the lab permeability, and also, inthe thinner [ f pavement (3-5 cm) the field permeability is one order of magnitude higher than the lab L permeability. Again, the unconfined sidewalls of the field permeability test may have an effect, since the water can permeate longitudinally and vertically, whereas the lab [ permeability test is restricted to vertical flow. It was observed during the field permeability test on some projects that test water would flow upward to the pavement surface within a 10-cm diameter around the NCAT Permeameter. In Figure 11, there is a trend between the thickness and lab permeability of SGC specimens indicating lower permeability at higher thickness, but the relationship is statistically insignificant with R? = 0.06. There is a large scatter in this figure and the trend is barely recognized based on plotting the best fit. ‘The data shown in Figures 10 and 11 give only a hint that increasing lift thickness could result in lower permeability. This is difficult to explain since it is expected that thicker lifts will probably be harder to compact and thus result in lower density. Lower density is expected to lead to higher permeability, which contradicts what is observed in these figures. To test the hypothesis that higher thickness could lead to lower densities, r Figure 12 was prepared to show the relationship between the lift thickness and the density L of all cores. There is a moderate trend of higher density for thicker lifts, indicating that other factors have an effect on achieving density, such as base density, base type rf (Concrete or crushed aggregate), mat temperature, roller compaction methods, and t humerous other environmental factors. [ SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ‘The previous sections have included a detailed presentation of all data collected to date in both field and lab study for fine-graded mixes projects. Based on the graphical and conceptual analysis the following points summarize the findings of this study. 1) Field permeability correlates relatively well with laboratory permeability | measured on field cores taken from same pavements section. The coefficients of I correlation found is high (R’ = 0.80) indicating that the NCAT permeability devices, with all its limitations, could in fact be used in the field to measure an t ‘TRB 2004 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Paper revised from original submital,