See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299593212

Evaluation of AASHTO T 324 Hamburg-Wheel

Track Device test

Article in Construction and Building Materials · July 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.171

CITATIONS READS

2 644

4 authors, including:

Erdem Coleri
Oregon State University
33 PUBLICATIONS 131 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Binder Grade Bumping and High Binder Content to Improve Performance of RAP/RAS Mixtures View
project

HMAC Layer Adhesion Through Tack Coat - ODOT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Erdem Coleri on 03 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evaluation of AASHTO T 324 Hamburg-Wheel Track Device Test

Bor-Wen Tsai1; Erdem Coleri2 (Corresponding author); John T. Harvey3; Carl L. Monismith4

Abstract

The Hamburg Wheel-Track Device (HWTD) test has recently gained popularity among many state
highway departments of transportation (DOTs) for use in hot mix asphalt (HMA) moisture sensitivity
evaluation. In this paper, suggestions are presented to improve and provide more consistent and
representative results for this test as described in AASHTO T 324 – Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of
Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA). In the AASHTO T 324 specification, either a cylindrical or a
slab specimen can be tested. Use of a two-dimensional micromechanics finite element (2D-MMFE)
analysis has demonstrated significant gap/bonding and specimen shape effects on HWTD test results
for the cylindrical specimen setup. In addition, the analysis suggests the best method for defining the
“rut depth” to ensure consistent results between two specimen setups. Results of this study have
concluded that: (1) slab specimens can provide more reliable test results due to larger size and uniform
geometry; (2) two cylindrical specimens (cores) should be glued together to prevent localized failure
due to larger peak maximum principal strains when there is no bonding; (3) measurements of average
rut depth should be collected from stations near the centers of cylindrical specimens to keep the
specimen shape effects to the lowest possible level; and, (4) an agency should not allow both specimen
setups to be used interchangeably in the HWTD specifications. The investigation also suggests that the
average rut depth evolution curve fitted using a three-stage Weibull approach can define the number of
passes to failure and define the stripping initiation point (SIP) better than the visually determined SIP.

Keywords: AASHTO T 324, Hamburg wheel-track testing, moisture sensitivity, micromechanics finite
element, three-stage Weibull, asphalt, pavement.

1
Formerly with University of California Pavement Research Center, Berkeley, CA, USA.
2
Assistant Professor, School of Civil and Construction Engineering, Oregon State University, 101 Kearney Hall, Corvallis,
OR, USA, 97331, Tel: (541) 737-0944, Email: erdem.coleri@oregonstate.edu.
3
Professor, University of California Pavement Research Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, USA, 95616, Tel: (530) 754-6409, Email:
jtharvey@ucdavis.edu.
4
Professor, University of California Pavement Research Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley, 1353 South 46th Street, Building 452, Room 109, Institute of Transportation Studies,
University of California, Berkeley, Richmond, CA 94804.

1
1. Introduction

The Hamburg Wheel-Track Device (HWTD) test has been standardized in the AASHTO Designation:
T 324 – Hamburg Wheel-Track Testing of Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA). In the past few years,
the HWTD test has gained popularity among many state highway DOTs for use in HMA moisture
sensitivity evaluation. Based on a recent extensive testing experience [1], there is potential for
improvement in the specification. Disadvantages of the current specification include: (1) two different
specimen setups are allowed; (2) a clearer definition of “rut depth” is required; (3) visual selection of
the first and second portions of an HWTD rutting evolution curve to determine the corresponding
slopes and intercepts is vague and extrapolation of the number of passes to failure if the maximum
allowable rut depth is not reached, each of which may introduce variability between operators when
calculating the stripping inflection point (SIP); and (4) according to the statements of the specification,
“the test method is to determine the premature failure susceptibility of HMA due to weakness in the
aggregate structure, inadequate binder stiffness, or moisture damage.” Experience [1] indicates that the
reason that a mix fails in the HWTD test is often confounded by the combination of the rutting and
moisture damage mechanisms in the test. In this study, attention was focused on items one, two and
three. As for item four, Lu [2] had concluded that by running HWTD tests in both dry and wet
conditions, the confounding effects of aggregate structure and binder stiffness on asphalt mix
performance can be minimized. In this way, the effect of moisture on performance can be clearly
defined by a ratio or a difference of the test results under both wet and dry conditions. However,
further study is required for item four, and it is not addressed further in this paper.
The HWTD test was introduced into the U.S. from Germany in the early 1990s. HWTD
provides a reduced-scale simulation of field conditions to investigate rutting resistance and moisture
sensitivity of asphalt mixes. Aschenbrener et al. [3] showed that HWTD test is able to discriminate
between asphalt mixes with different moisture sensitivities. Texas DOT is supporting the use of this
test method to investigate the probability of premature failure in the field [4]. Lu and Harvey [5]
recommended testing soft asphalt samples at temperatures lower than 50oC to avoid the excessive
plastic flow under the steel wheel not related to moisture damage.
The AASHTO T 324 specification permits the specimen setup to consist of either one slab
specimen (rectangular specimen) or two abutting cylindrical specimens to measure HMA rutting
properties while submerged in water. The slab specimen setup includes pouring plaster around the
specimen to hold it in place. The cylindrical specimen setup uses plastic molds (specimen holders) and
shims (spacer discs) to mount the specimen in the specimen tray with minimal movement under
loading as illustrated in Fig. 1. Note that the two rolling wheel compacted (RWC) or field-cored
cylindrical specimens should be cut to fit the specimen holders such that the directions of rolling wheel
or traffic for both specimens are consistent with the direction of motion of Hamburg Wheel-Tracking
Device. The directional requirement is not required for Superpave Gyratory Compacted (SGC)
specimens because it should not produce different aggregate structures in different directions in the
horizontal plane. The same rule is also applied to RWC or field-sawn slab specimens. Fig. 2 illustrates
the locations of the 11 stations (at intervals of 20.3 mm) and their corresponding specimen widths
perpendicular to traffic direction at which the HWTD test data are collected. Notice that Station 6 is
located roughly at about the “gap” position and the specimen widths of stations 3 and 9 represent the
diameters of the specimens.

2
 .25
7 7
Specimen Holders Asphalt
Specimen

Specimen Tray
Spacer Disc

12.25 11.75 8 150mm 14.5

11

15

(a) (b)
Fig. 1. (a) Illustration of cylindrical specimen mounting configuration; (b) Dimensions of the
cylindrical specimen mounting configuration (Unit of length is in inches unless specified). (Courtesy
of Mark Troxler).

20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3

126 145 150 145 126 88

75

ST1 ST2 ST3 ST4 ST5 ST6 ST7 ST8 ST9 ST10 ST11

271

Fig. 2. HWTD data collection at 11 stations and their corresponding specimen widths. (Note: ST
stands for “station”; unit of length is in cm).

3
2. Analysis methodology to determine effects of gap/bonding and specimen shape on HWTD
results

To evaluate whether or not consistent HWTD results could be obtained from these two specimen
setups, the effects of gap/bonding and specimen shape for the cylindrical specimen setup were
investigated. In this study, a micromechanical finite element (MMFE) model for the HWTD test was
developed following the procedure introduced by Coleri and Harvey [6] and Coleri et al. [7]. The
model was first developed to simulate a laboratory shear test; the model parameters determined for the
laboratory shear tests were then used to develop finite element (FE) models for full-scale pavement test
sections. In Reference [6], a virtual strain gauge was also included in the models for calibration. These
calibrated model parameters were used to develop the MMFE model for HWTD testing as will be seen
subsequently.
The internal structures of the asphalt mixtures sawn from the Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS)
test sections were measured by X-ray computed tomography (CT) imaging. Simpleware software [8]
was used to create masks for each aggregate, mastic and air-void domains based on measured intensity
groups. The mask created for the air-void domain was excluded from the material structure because it
has no stiffness. High quality (triangles that are “as equilateral as possible") tetrahedral meshes were
created for the aggregate and mastic domains while preserving the empty air-void domain.
The MMFE models require extensive meshing effort and massive numbers of nodes to describe
the complex structure of the composite asphalt concrete material. As a result of the required complex
mesh structure, excessive computational effort may be necessary to create the mesh structure and run
the model. Thus, it is not possible to achieve reasonable computational times for three-dimension (3D)
HWTD MMFE models with a rolling wheel load. On the other hand, reasonable model run times can
be achieved for two-dimension (2D) MMFE models. Dai and You [9] used 2D microstructures of
asphalt concrete that were obtained by optically scanning smoothly sawn asphalt mixture specimens to
predict their mixture complex and relaxation modulus at -20oC. They preserved the actual 2D
aggregate shape and angularity for particles larger than 1.18 mm (i.e., U.S. sieve size No. 8) to identify
their effects on predicted material properties. You et al. [10] also developed a 3D discrete element
model by combining a number of 2D discrete element models to determine the improvement in
predictions caused by the realistic interaction in the third dimension. Although the 3D model resulted
in better predictions for mixture modulus at temperatures lower than 0oC, actual aggregate geometry
and texture and its effects on predicted modulus were not simulated. You et al. [11] compared
predicted asphalt mixture stiffness at temperatures -18oC, -6oC and 4oC with those predicted by 2D and
3D discrete element models generated from X-ray CT images. Results of the study indicated that 3D
prediction results are very close to the measured data for all loading frequencies and temperatures.
In this study, material properties for the HWTD test samples were determined from
micromechanical full-scale pavement FE models calibrated by using in-situ strain gauge measurements
in full-scale accelerated pavement tests using a Heavy Vehicle Simulator (HVS) [6] in order to
minimize the under-prediction issues of 2D-MMFE models. In addition, 2D image segments
representing the average microstructure distribution for the HVS test sections were selected by
considering the distributions of aggregates, air-voids and mastic sub-domains [6].
SGC cylindrical specimens are now used extensively in characterizing HMA material
properties. Accordingly, it is desirable to ensure that HWTD test results are correctly interpreted with
an improved definition of the average rut depth (which is somewhat ambiguous in the current
AASHTO T 324 specification). The following sections describe the use of the 2D-MMFE models to
evaluate the effects of gap/bonding between two cylindrical specimens and specimen shape on HWTD

4
test results. The three-stage Weibull equation [12] also has been introduced to better describe the
HWTD rutting evolution curve. Using the Weibull definition, the Stripping Inflection Point (SIP) is
replaced with the Stripping Initiation Point (SIP) to define the number of passes to SIP and also the
number of passes to failure.

3. Test program to identify influence of effects of and gap /bonding and specimen shape on
HWTD test results

3.1. The effect of gap/bonding between two cylindrical specimens on HWTD test results

A dense-graded mixture with PG 64-28 polymer modified (PM) binder was used for HWTD model
development [13]. Nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS) and design binder content of the mix by
mass of aggregate were 19 mm and 5.1%, respectively as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Aggregate gradations for asphalt mixtures and mastic

Sieve Size Gradations (percent passing)
PG 64-28 PM mix RHMA-G mix
US SI (mm)
w/19 mm NMAS w/12.5 mm NMAS
1” 25.4 100 100
3/4” 19 99 100
1/2” 12.5 87 98
3/8” 9.5 74 84
No. 4 4.75 50 34
No. 8 2.36 36 21
No. 16 1.18 27 14
No. 30 0.6 21 10
No. 50 0.3 16 7
No. 100 0.15 10 5
No. 200 0.075 6.2 3.5
Asphalt content1 (%) 5.1 7.6
Air-void content (%) 4.2 10.0
Note: 1. Design asphalt content is by weight of aggregate.

To simulate a moving wheel loading in the 2D-MMFE model, the variation of the trapezoidal
impulsive loading amplitude with time was determined by following the procedure described by Yoo
et al. [14]. The loading area under the HWTD wheel was determined by using the results of the
footprint measurements. The width and length of the loading area were determined to be 47 mm and
11.8 mm, respectively. Standard tire speed, width and load for HWTD testing were used for model
development [15]. The 2D-MMFE analyses assumed plane strain assumption (xz =yz =zz).
Movement of the rigid left, right and bottom plates were not allowed during the simulations. Fig. 3
shows the displacement distributions along the HWTD test samples at three time instances. As can be
seen, the heterogeneous microstructure of the virtual samples differentiates between the patterns of
displacements.

5
Fig.3. Displacement distributions at three time instances. (Note: Wheel is rolling from left to right at
constant speed.)

Three models developed to evaluate the gap/bonding effect between two cylindrical HWTD samples
include the following cases (as shown in Fig. 4): (1) full bonding; (2) no bonding (i.e., with gap); and,
(3) partial contact. For partial contact modeling, a classical isotropic Coulomb friction model was used
to specify the tangential behavior of the contacting surfaces [16]. The friction coefficient for partial
contact modeling was assumed to be 0.1 [17].

6
 (a) (b) (c)
Fig. 4. Cases evaluated to investigate the bonding effect (a) full bonding (b) no bonding (c) partial
contact between two samples. (Simulation output was extracted along the vertical dashed-red lines.)

Distributions of displacements and maximum principal strains for a vertical reference line close to the
sample separation surface (shown as the vertical dashed-red line in Fig. 4) are given in Fig. 5. It can be
observed that strain and displacement distributions for the case with full bonding are considerably
smaller than those of the cases with no bonding and partial contact. The change in maximum principal
strain over time for a mastic element close to the top part of the separation surface is given in Fig. 6. It
can be observed that the peak maximum principal strain for the model with no bonding is almost 6
times larger than that for the model with full bonding. This result suggests that running HWTD tests
with samples attached together without any bonding might result in localized failures around the
separation surfaces. It is suggested that the two cylindrical specimens should be glued at the interface
to create full bonding during the HWTD tests for cylindrical specimen setup in order to avoid this
localized failure problem.

7
 Displacement (mm) Max. principal strain (mm/mm)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
0 0

10 10

Sample thickness (mm)

Sample thickness (mm)

20 20

30 30

40 40

50 50
Full bonding Full bonding
No bonding No bonding
Partial contact Partial contact
60 60

(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Simulation output along the vertical reference lines of Fig. 4: (a) Distributions of displacements
and (b) maximum principal strains.

0.09
Max. principal strain (mm/mm)

Full bonding
0.08 No bonding
0.07 Partial contact

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (mm)

Fig. 6. Change in maximum principal strain over time for a mastic element. (Note: Mastic volume
element selected for output extraction is close to the top part of the separation surface.)

8
Peak displacement distributions along the surface of the model of the HWTD test for the cases with
and without bonding are given in Fig. 7. The separation line between two cylindrical specimens was
located at station 6. In order to quantify the gap/bonding effect on surface displacements, the percent
difference in displacements for the cases with and without bonding for all stations was calculated as
shown in Fig. 8. It was found that stations 5, 6 and 7 have a significantly higher percent difference in
displacements than all other stations. This result suggested that due to the gap/bonding effect, data
from these three stations may not be reliable for inclusion in the averaging of the HWTD test rut depth
results.

1.2 ST1 ST2 ST3 ST4 ST5 ST6 ST7 ST8 ST9
Full bonding
No bonding
Peak Displacement (mm)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (mm)
Fig. 7. The gap/bonding effect on surface displacement distribution along the traffic direction.

245
Displacement Difference (%)

212.7
195

145

95

45 36.0 35.7
5.2
-0.5 0.9 1.4 0.4 0.2
-5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Station Number
Fig. 8. Percent change in displacement at station.

9
3.2. The effect of specimen shape on HWTD test results

The 2D-MMFE models with different specimen widths, which are perpendicular to the direction of
HWTD loading, were developed to investigate the effects of specimen shape on test results for a two
cylinder specimen setup. Since cylindrical samples have variable widths in the loading direction, shape
related bias and variability have the potential to influence the test results. Those parts of the cylindrical
specimens with smaller widths are expected to have lower shear stresses and displacements because
there is less asphalt material under stress and more of the plaster confining material.
Models for two mixture types were used to evaluate the effect of specimen shape on
performance evaluation of different mix types. Model parameters were determined by following the
procedure described in the previous section illustrating the gap/bonding effect. In addition to the
dense-graded PG 64-28 PM mix, a gap-graded rubberized mixture with PG 64-16 binder (RHMA-G
mix) was used for HWTD model development [13]. Nominal maximum aggregate sizes (NMAS) for
the PG 64-28 PM and RHMA-G mixes were 19 mm and 12.5 mm, respectively. Table 1 lists the
aggregate gradations, the designed asphalt content, and air-void content for these two mixes. At high
temperatures, the RHMA-G mix was much softer than the PG 64-28 PM mix [7].
For the shape effect investigation, a pushed load in the middle of the specimens with different
widths was used. A pushed wheel loading waveform simulating a rolling wheel was used for the
simulations. Fig. 9a shows the applied load for loading waveform calculation (Load type 1) and
response prediction (Load type 2). Since asphalt concrete is an anisotropic material, model
microstructures for the rolling wheel model and the pushed wheel model were selected to be in
different directions. The plane strain assumption (xz =yz =zz) was used in the 2D-MMFE analyses.
Movement of the rigid left, right and bottom plates was not allowed during the simulations.

10
 Load type 1: Rolling wheel Load type 2: Pushed wheel

Boundary conditions: i) Fixed bottom, left and right plates ii) Plane strain assumption (εxz = εyz = εzz)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 9. Model structure and boundary conditions (a) Applied loads for loading waveform calculation
(Load type 1) and response prediction (Load type 2) (b) Displacement distribution under pushed wheel.

The widths of the specimen segments at corresponding stations range from 88 mm to 150 mm (Fig. 2).
Hence, the 2D-MMFE models were developed with specimen segment widths of 60, 75, 90, 120, 150
and 300 mm. The model with the 300 mm specimen width is used to simulate the stress, strain and
displacement distributions for a rectangular slab sample and used as the reference model to evaluate
the shape effect.
Displacement distributions within the depth of different width sample segments are given in the
Trellis graph of Fig. 10. The Trellis graph, which was introduced by Cleveland in 1993 [18], is a
graphical way of examining a high-dimensional data structure by means of conditional one-, two-, and
three-dimensional graphs. Total displacement magnitude under the middle of the tire was used to
evaluate the effect of specimen shape on test results. Distributions of horizontal displacements at the
edge of the tire were also given to identify the effect of specimen width on shear related particle
movement. It can be observed from Fig. 10 that segments with the width of 60 and 75 mm have
significantly less deformation than the segments with larger widths. Shear flow at the edge of the tire
also reduces with decreasing segment width for both mix types.

11
 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

RHMA-G_Horizontal RHMA-G_Vertical
0

-10

-20

-30
60 mm 60 mm
75 mm 75 mm -40
90 mm 90 mm
120 mm 120 mm
-50
Depth (mm)

150 mm 150 mm
300 mm 300 mm
-60
PG64-28PM_Horizontal PG64-28PM_Vertical
0

-10

-20

-30
60 mm 60 mm
-40 75 mm 75 mm
90 mm 90 mm
120 mm 120 mm
-50 150 mm 150 mm
300 mm 300 mm
-60

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Displacement (mm)

Fig. 10. Trellis graph of displacement distributions within the depth of the sample segments: total
(vertical) displacement under tire - PG 64-28 PM (bottom-right panel) and RHMA-G (top-right panel);
horizontal displacement at the edge of tire – PG 64-28 PM (bottom-left panel) and RHMA-G (top-left
panel).

The effect of segment width on displacement is also evaluated by averaging the displacement
distribution under the wheel. Fig. 11a shows the change in average displacement with increasing width.
It can be observed that width versus displacement curves for both mix types start to converge to a
constant value at a segment width of about 120 mm segment. This result suggests that segments with
widths smaller than 120 mm are likely to give lower deformation values. Fig. 11b shows the percent
reduction, (1-(Ave. displ.current/Ave. displ300mm))  100%, in displacement for all models when
compared to the model with 300 mm segment width. It can be observed that for station 6, the
displacement reductions under the wheel for the PG 64-28 PM and RHMA-G mixes are around 20 and
10 percent, respectively. Since the level of reduction is different for the two mix types, smaller widths
not only increase displacement variability within the specimen but also may introduce bias into the test
results of different mixes. For stations 1, 5, 7 and 11, the displacement reductions under the wheel are
around 5 percent for both mix types. Although a 5 percent reduction in displacement related to
segment width is expected to result in minor width related variability in test results, it is not expected
to introduce bias into the test results.

12
 2.0

1.8

Displacement (mm)
1.6
PG64-28PM
1.4
RHMA-G
1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
HWTD Sample Width (mm)

(a)

35
PG64-28PM
Displacement Reduction (%)

30 RHMA-G

25

20

15

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
HWTD Sample Width (mm)

(b)
Fig. 11. Effect of segment width on HWTD test results (a) Change in average displacement with
increasing segment width (b) Percentage reduction in displacement, (1-(Ave. displ.current/Ave.
displ300mm))  100%, for all models when compared to the model with 300 mm segment width.

Fig. 12 shows the results of an HWTD test conducted using both cylindrical and slab specimens
sampled from a field two-layered HMA pavement structure. This section consisted of a PG 64-16
open-graded friction course (OGFC) mix with 4.75 mm NMAS (top layer) and a conventional DGAC
mix (bottom layer). Grid lines were drawn on the contact surfaces of both specimens before the testing.
Retraced grid lines with bright color (Fig. 12a) were generated to show the displacements occurring in
the specimens. It will also be noted that the grid lines on the top layers of both specimens are barely
recognizable. Because of less constraint to shear flow, the slab specimen permits deeper penetration
and deformation of bottom layer by the moving load. The contrast between cylindrical and slab
specimen setups (with roughly 2 mm rutting difference) is clearly demonstrated in Fig. 12b.

13
 Cylindrical Specimen (AV=13.6%, PG64-16, 4.75 mm NMAS OGFC)

Before After

Before After

Slab Specimen (AV=13.4%, PG64-16, 4.75 mm NMAS OGFC)

(a)
0

-2 Cylindrical Specimen (STATION 3)

-4 Slab Specimen (STATION 9)

-6
Rut Depth (mm)

-8

-10

-12

-14

-16

-18

-20
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Number of Passes

(b)
Fig. 12. Effect of specimen shape (constraint to shear flow): (a) HWTD testing conducted with a
combination of cylindrical (grid shown in top of figure) and slab (grid shown in bottom of figure)
specimens sampled from a field two-layered HMA pavement structure consisting of a PG 64-16 PM
OGFC mix (top layer) and a conventional DGAC mix (bottom layer); (b) HWTD rutting comparison
between cylindrical specimen (station 3) and slab specimen (station 9).

14
4. Interpretation of HWTD test results

4.1. Rutting evolution contour-and-image plot and definitions of average rut depth

The findings from the 2D-MMFE analyses for the gap/bonding and specimen shape effects can be
summarized as follows:
 The peak maximum principal strain for the model with no bonding is approximately six times
larger than that for the model with full bonding. This result suggests that running HWTD tests
with cylindrical specimens attached together without any bonding may result in localized failures
around the gap (gap/bonding effect)
 Stations 5, 6, and 7 have considerably larger displacements than the other stations (gap/bonding
effect).
 The cylindrical specimen setup provides a constraint to shear flow (specimen shape effect).
 Segment widths smaller than 120 mm are likely to give lower deformation values (specimen
shape effect).

Based on the 2D-MMFE analysis, to ensure consistent HWTD results obtained from two specimen
setups allowed by AASHTO T 324 specification, it is concluded that:
1. Measurements of average rut depth should be obtained from stations near the centers of
cylindrical specimens to minimize specimen shape effect on the test results.
2. When two cylindrical specimens are used, they should be glued together to prevent localized
failure due to larger peak maximum principal strains if the junction of the two specimens is not
bonded.

Four procedures were used to obtain the average rut depth for each specimen from the 11 stations
along the wheel path for the test results. The results were then used to verify the conclusions from the
2D-MMFE analyses for gap/bonding and specimen shape effects. These procedures include Avg(6),
Avg(5, 6, 7), Avg(2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10) and Avg(3, 9). For example, Avg(5, 6, 7) represents that the
average rut depth is calculated using the rut data collected from stations 5, 6, and 7. Limited HWTD
tests were conducted using two sets of HMAs as follows:

Effect Specimen Preparation HMA properties HWTD Setup

Gap/bonding 8 Superpave Gyratory PG 64-10; 19 mm DGAC; Syar 2 sets of cylindrical specimens glued
effect Compacted (SGC) aggregate; design air-void content: with epoxy (Epoxy 1 and Epoxy 2)
cylindrical specimens 71%; asphalt content: NA. 2 set of cylindrical specimens with gap
(Field-Mixed Lab- (Gap 1 and Gap 2)
Compacted [FMLC])
Specimen 2 Rolling-Wheel PG 64-28 TR (terminal-blended 2 slabs (Slab 1 and Slab 2)
shape effect Compacted (RWC) slabs asphalt rubber); 9.5 mm OGFC; 2 sets of cylindrical specimens glued
and 4 RWC cylindrical Teichert aggregate; design air-void with PG 64-28 TR binder (Bond 1 and
specimens content: 201%; asphalt content: Bond 2)
(Lab-Mixed Lab- 6.6%
Compacted [LMLC])

The specimens were randomly selected and assigned to different machines and locations (left or right)
of an HWTD test setup.

15
The rutting of an HWTD test over time (number of passes) and space (stations) domains can be better
presented by the rutting evolution image-and-contour plots as shown in Fig. 13a and Fig. 14a. A
smoothed algorithm using the Splus® supsmu function was applied along the time domain, i.e., the x-
axis of “Number of Passes”, of these figures to eliminate high-pitched noise in the measuring
equipment. The main purpose of the supsmu function is to estimate local regression lines by applying a
complicated scheme based on nearest neighbors, cross validation and linear least squares [19]. The
smoothed image-and-contour plot was then used to calculate the average rut depths. Fig. 13b and Fig.
14b illustrate the Trellis graph of rutting evolution curves at various definitions of average rut depth.
From Fig. 13, it can be seen that the specimens with gaps accumulate more rut than the
specimens glued with epoxy around station 6, i.e., Avg(6) or Avg(5, 6, 7). From the perspective of
Avg(2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10) versus Avg(3, 9), the discrepancy between specimens with epoxy and specimens
with gap is much less. However, it is still observed that the rut accumulation of specimens with the
unglued gap is slightly larger than that of specimens with epoxy. Although only limited number of
tests was conducted, the results successfully verify some of the findings in the 2D-MMFE analyses that
there is significant gap/bonding effect on rut accumulation around the gap (station 6) where larger
maximum principal strains are likely to occur especially without bonding.
Comparison of test results between the two specimen setups are illustrated in Fig. 14. From
Fig. 14a, the image-and-contour plots immediately show that the slab specimens rut faster than the
cylindrical specimens. Inspection of the Trellis graph of Fig. 14b indicates that the constraint
associated with cylindrical specimens results in less rutting than the slab specimens. These results
indicate that an agency should specify the specimen setup in detail to obtain the requirements of HMA
rutting or moisture sensitivity which has been established.
The test data also verify that the average rut depths based on data collected near the centers of
the two cylindrical specimens, such as Avg(2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10) or at the extreme Avg(3, 9), are more
representative than average rut depths calculated along the entire length of the specimens. The
recommended data collection points have the following benefits: (1) minimize the risk or avoid
introducing bias of interpreting the HWTD results; (2) reduce the variation/discrepancy of rut
evolution curves.

16
 (1) S410-M1RT-H13&16 (Epoxy 1) (2) S410-M2RT-H15&18 (Epoxy 2)

10

10
-7

Profile Positions
8

8
-0.5 -4.5

Stations

6
-2.5 -6
-5
-4

4
-5
-4.5

2
-1
-1.5-2 -3.5 -4 -3
-2.5 -3 -1 -2

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Number of Passes Number of Passes

(3) S410-M2LT-H5&7 (Gap 1) (4) S410-M2RT-H14&1 (Gap 2)

-1
10

10
8

8
Stations

Stations
-8 -9
-7
6

6
-8
-7
-6
-6
4

4
-5
-4
-5 -3
2

2
-1 -2 -3 -4 -1 -2

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Number of Passes Number of Passes

(a)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Avg(5, 6, 7) Avg(6)

-2

-4
Average Rut Depth (mm)

Epoxy 1 Epoxy 1
Epoxy 2 Epoxy 2 -6
Gap 1 Gap 1
Gap 2 Gap 2
-8
Avg(2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10) Avg(3, 9)

-2

-4

Epoxy 1 Epoxy 1
-6 Epoxy 2 Epoxy 2
Gap 1 Gap 1
Gap 2 Gap 2
-8

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

Number of Passes

(b)
Fig. 13. Validation of gap/bonding effect on a PG 64-10 mix and inspection of various definitions of
average rut depth: (a) rutting evolution image-and-contour plots; and (b) Trellis graph of rutting
evolution curves categorized by various definitions of rut depth.

17
 (1) TRTC-RW-66-S3 (Slab 1) (2) TRTC-RW-66-S4 (Slab 2)

10

10
-20

8
-20
-18

Stations

Stations
6

6
-16
-18
-14

4
-12 -16
-14
2

2
-10
-2 -4 -2 -12
-6 -8 -4 -6 -8 -10

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Number of Passes Number of Passes

(3) TRTC-RW-66-Cores2&3 (Bond 1) (4) TRTC-RW-66-Cores6&5 (Bond 2)

10

10
8

8
-20 -18
Stations

Stations
-16
6

6
-18 -14
-12
-16
4

4
-10
-14
-12 -8
-6
-10 -4
2

2
-4 -8
-6
-4 -2
-2

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000

Number of Passes Number of Passes

(a)

0 1000 2000 3000

Avg(5, 6, 7) Avg(6)
0

-5

-10
Average Rut Depth (mm)

Slab 1 Slab 1
Slab 2 Slab 2 -15
Bond 1 Bond 1
Bond 2 Bond 2

Avg(2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10) Avg(3, 9)

0

-5

-10

Slab 1 Slab 1
-15 Slab 2 Slab 2
Bond 1 Bond 1
Bond 2 Bond 2

0 1000 2000 3000

Number of Passes

(b)
Fig. 14. Validation of specimen shape effect on a PG 64-28 TR OGFC mix and inspection of various
definitions of average rut depth: (a) rutting evolution image-and-contour plots; and (b) Trellis graph of
rutting evolution curves categorized by various definitions of average rut depth.

18
5. Analysis of HWTD test results using a three-stage Weibull equation

Once the definition of average rut depth has been determined, e.g. as described above, the next step in
the study was to provide an improved approach to interpret the rutting evolution curve. In
AASHTO T 324, the following parameters are reported: number of passes to failure (i.e., number of
passes to reach predefined maximum allowable rut depth), stripping inflection point (SIP), and number
of passes to SIP. The stripping inflection point, in terms of number of passes, is defined in the
Equation 1 and shown in Fig. 15.

Intercept (second portion)  Intercept (first portion)

Stipping Inflection Point (SIP)  (1)
Slope (first portion)  Slope (second portion)
Rut Depth (mm)

Stripping Inflection Point (SIP)

First Portion

Second Portion

Number of Passes
Maximum Allowable Rut Depth To Failure, Nf

Number of Passes to SIP

Number of Passes

Fig. 15. Hamburg curve with test parameters (extracted/modified from AASHTO T 324, Fig. 1).

Disadvantages of the AASHTO T 324 Section 9, “Calculations,” are as follows:

1. There is no clear definition of the rut depth as plotted in Fig. 15. As can be seen from the
rutting evolution image-and-contour plots shown in this study, the maximum rut depth does not
necessarily occur in the middle of the test. As stated in the previous discussion, HWTD data
collected from stations near the centers of cylindrical specimens can minimize the influence of
specimen shape on rut depth measurements.
2. Visual selection of the first and second portions to determine the corresponding slopes and
intercepts is vague and may introduce variation when calculating the stripping inflection point
(Equation 1) and extrapolation of the number of passes to failure if the maximum allowable rut
depth is not reached.

19
To improve the determinations of both the SIP and passes to failure, use of a three-stage Weibull
approach [20] is suggested to replace the current analysis procedure in AASHTO T 324. The following
development illustrates the methodology to express HWTD test results for the evolution of rut depth
with number of passes in terms of a three-stage Weibull equation:


RR1  exp  1 exp n *1  , 1  exp n*  exp n1 *


RR 2  exp   2 exp n *   1 
2
 , exp n1 *  exp n*  exp n2 * (2)

 3 3 
RR  exp   exp n *   3
2  , exp n2 *  exp n*  

where n*  n / 1000 and n is the number of passes.

The rut-depth ratio (RR) is defined as the ratio of specimen height (H) minus rut depth (RD) over the
specimen height, i.e., RR  ( H  RD) / H . For an HWTD Weibull curve, the capacity of rutting
resistance (rut failure) is defined as when a standard specimen with diameter of 150 mm (5.91 in.) and
a height of 2.5 in. (63.5 mm) reaches its half-inch (0.5 in. [12.7 mm]) rut, i.e., RR  2.5  0.5 / 2.5  0.8 .
The number of passes to failure ( n f ) is then defined as the number of load applications where the rut-
depth ratio reaches 0.8. Fig. 16 presents a three-stage HWTD Weibull curve in terms of Ln LnRR 
versus n * using the test results of the PG 64-28 PM mix with Watsonville aggregate as an example.

0
Three-Stage HWTD Weibull Curve
-1

3
Ln(-LnRR) @ n2* 1
-2
Intercept: Ln3
Ln(-LnRR)

2
1
-3
* Intercept: Ln2
Ln(-LnRR) @ n1
1
-4 1
Intercept: Ln1

-5
Stage I Stage II Stage III
n1* n2*
-6
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
n* (Number of Passes x 1000)
Fig. 16. Three-stage HWTD Weibull curve (PG 64-28 PM mix with Watsonville aggregate).

20
Using the definition N  exp n * , as in Equation 2, Equation 3 will have exactly the same formulation as
that of a three-stage Weibull fatigue equation [12].


 RR1  exp  1 N 1  , 0  N  N1


 RR 2  exp   2 N   1 
2
 , N1  N  N 2 (3)

 3 
 RR  exp   N   3
3 2  , N2  N  

The four derivative parameters (  1 , N 1 ,  2 , N 2 ) from a three-stage Weibull fatigue equation can then
be applied to the HWTD Weibull curve as follows:

  
 1  1  2  N1 (4)
 1 
1
  2 
2
 2 1  n 
N1   2     exp n1 *  exp  1  (5)
 1  1    1000 
1
     3  2 3  n 
N 2   1   3  3    exp n2 *  exp  2  (6)
  2   2    1000 
   
 2  1  3  N 2  3  1 (7)
 2  2

If the rut-depth ratio does not reach 0.8 after testing, the extrapolation of the number of passes to
failure can be expressed as follows:

  ln  ln 0.8  ln  3  
n f  ln  exp     2   1000

(8)
  3  

The three-stage Weibull equation provides the following improvements for the AASHTO T 324
Section 9, “Calculations:”
 Redefinition of SIP—the n 2* shown in Fig. 16 as the initiation number of passes of Stage III,
i.e., the stage separation point between Stage II and Stage III. Therefore, the SIP can be
redefined as the stripping initiation point rather than stripping inflection point.
 Redefinition of number of passes to failure—a better definition of the number of passes to
failure can be achieved by using the three-stage Weibull equation, especially when the
maximum allowable rut depth is not reached and extrapolation is required.

In addition, the use of three-stage Weibull equation provides a basis for constructing the integrated
HWTD Weibull approach as demonstrated by Tsai et al. [20, 21] in modeling the fatigue performance
of asphalt concrete mixes under different conditions. The integrated Weibull approach based on the
HWTD test results might provide an alternative for predicting in-situ rutting performance of asphalt
concrete mixes under wet conditions by applying appropriate correction factors.

21
6. Conclusions and recommendations

Gap/bonding and specimen shape effects, associated with the cylindrical specimen setup, on HWTD
test results were simulated using the 2D-MMFE models and validated with HWTD test data. Based on
the simulation results and the analyses of the resulting test data, the following conclusions are offered:
1. Localized Failure (Gap/Bonding Effect). Viewed from Fig. 6, it can be seen that the peak
maximum principal strain for the model without bonding between the two cylindrical specimens is
almost six times larger than that of the model with full bonding. This result indicates that
cylindrical specimen setup without bonding between the two cylinders might result in localized
failure around the separation surfaces. Also, from Fig. 7 and Fig. 8, the stations at and next to the
gap (stations 5, 6, and 7) have considerably greater differences in displacement than the other
stations which suggests that data collected from these three stations could be inappropriate and not
reliable for evaluating the HWTD test results.
2. Constraint to Shear Flow (Specimen Shape Effect). The specimen shape effect has been reasonably
demonstrated by both the 2D-MMFE analyses and the HWTD test results:
 Smaller widths not only increase displacement variability within the specimen but also introduce
bias into the test results of different mixes, primarily due to the constraint to shear flow.
 Segment widths smaller than 120 mm are more likely to produce lower deformation values as
illustrated in Fig. 11a. The normalized plot of percent reduction in displacement as shown in
Fig. 11b indicates that the specimen shape effect may also be mix-independent.
 Data shown in Fig. 12 verify that the cylindrical specimen setup results in constraint to shear
flow and thus less rut accumulation; which agrees with the conclusions obtained from the 2D-
MMFE analyses.
3. Slab Specimen versus Glued Cylindrical Specimens. Inspection of the Trellis graph of Fig. 14
indicates that rutting in slab specimens accumulates faster than rutting in glued cylindrical
specimens. These data suggest that the specimen shape effect is a potential factor to be considered;
however, verification with additional mix tests is desirable.
4. Definitions of Rut Depth. The selection of which stations along the wheel path for use in
calculation of average rut depth resulted in different rutting evolution curves. The 2D-MMFE
analyses demonstrated that larger rut depths might develop in cylindrical specimens that are not
bonded (with gap); however, smaller segment widths in these specimens result in smaller rut
development. This anomaly in the vicinity of the gap position (i.e., station 6) complicates the
interpretation of HWTD results. Hence, it is desirable that the average rut depth should be
determined to minimize the gap/bonding and specimen shape effects for a cylindrical specimen
setup. Either the use of Avg(2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10) or Avg(3, 9) would seem more appropriate.
5. Three-Stage Weibull Fitting. The use of the three-stage Weibull equation provides an improved
method for determining the HWTD rutting curve.

Based on the 2D-MMFE analyses and the HWTD testing results of this study, the following
preliminary recommendations are provided for consideration in future updates to the AASHTO T 324
specification:
1. HWTD Cylindrical Specimen Setup. As demonstrated in this study, the analyses and test results
clearly indicate that neither the measurement of the central station 6 alone nor the measurement of
the average from stations 5, 6, and 7 can represent the “average rut depth” of an HWTD test. To
assure consistent HWTD results obtained from both specimen setups, the following changes should
be made for cylindrical specimen setup to improve the current AASHTO T 324 specification: (1)

22
 glue specimens with epoxy to avoid local failure caused by larger principal maximum principal
strains without specimen bonding; (2) use rut depth data from stations 2, 3, and 4 of one specimen
and stations 8, 9, and 10 from the other specimen to minimize the constraint to shear flow in the
determination of average rut depths. Alternatively, use the rut depth data from stations 3 and 9 to
calculate the average rut depths.
2. HWTD Specification Considerations. For agencies using the HWTD Test in specifications, it is
desirable to minimize the risk of developing disagreement between results from different
laboratories or operators. In addition to the AASHTO T 324 specification, the following concerns
should be carefully addressed (although items 2 and 3 are not discussed in this paper): (1) specimen
type, either a slab specimen or cylindrical specimen(s)  An agency should not allow both
specimen setups to be specified simultaneously in the HWTD requirements; (2) specimen source
and compaction procedure, i.e., field-mixed field-compacted (FMFC), field-mixed lab-compacted
(FMLC), or lab-mixed lab-compacted (LMLC); (3) specimen type and compaction procedure, i.e.,
SGC or RWC for cylindrical specimens and either field cut or lab RWC slabs.
3. Three-Stage Weibull HWTD Fitting. Use of three-stage Weibull approach to fit an HWTD test is
recommended for use. It provides: (1) an improved methodology to interpret the HWTD rutting
evolution curve; (2) a more robust determination of SIP as Stripping Initiation Point rather than the
original definition of Stripping Inflation Point and number of passes to SIP; and (3) an improved
estimate of the number of passes to failure. In addition, use of the three-stage Weibull equation
based on the HWTD data may be useful to predict HMA rutting performance prediction during
periods of rain based on the three-stage Weibull approach described in Reference [22].
4. Suggestion for HMA Moisture Sensitivity Evaluation. Per the AASHTO T 324 specification, it is
apparent that HWTD test cannot clearly identify whether premature damage is caused by rutting,
moisture damage, or by interaction of both. Laboratory test results have shown that HMA might
perform well in laboratory rutting tests such as the repeated simple shear test (RSST, AASHTO T
320), a dry test, but show poor rutting results in the HWTD test, a wet test. Many agencies are
currently using the HWTD test to evaluate HMA moisture sensitivity. The extensive experience
with HWTD test in Europe suggests that the use of HWTD in determining rut depth susceptibility
is valuable whereas its use to evaluate HMA moisture sensitivity should be considered to be
minimal. Many CEN (The European Committee for Standardization) countries have conducted the
HWTD test using air-conditioned specimens rather than water-submerged specimens (EN 12697-
22 "Small size device", Procedure B in air [23]). A general criticism from agencies and industry
regarding dry testing is the increased test duration. As Lu [2] pointed out, a dry HWTD test should
be conducted in parallel with a wet HWTD test at the same temperature. Thus, the moisture
sensitivity can be determined by subtracting the rutting evolution curve of a dry HWTD test from
that of a wet HWTD test. Further study is required to verify the applicability of this approach.
5. What Next? HWTD Performance Specifications Related to Field Performance. Further study is
desirable to evaluate the HWTD test as a performance test for HMA mix design. At least two
questions should be investigated. First, will the HWTD testing rank the HMA mixes correctly and
consistently both in the laboratory and in the field, regardless of specimen compaction method,
aggregate type, nominal maximum aggregate size, asphalt binder type (conventional, polymer-
modified, and rubberized), air-void content, and test temperature? Second, how will the laboratory
HWTD test performance specification relate to field performance? The work to answer the first
question should involve determination of the agreed upon Superpave gyratory compaction method,
evaluation of the effects of specimen height, and wheel size/wheel material on HWTD performance.
Relative to the second question, an approach to calibrate the laboratory HWTD test performance

23
 specification values to field performance could be achieved using two data sets: field monitoring of
initial implementation projects that include field sampling, laboratory tests on the field specimens
and analysis; and available Heavy Vehicle Simulator and laboratory HWTD test results to develop
a correction factor to relate HWTD rutting to full-scale rutting.

Acknowledgements

This paper describes research activities that were requested and sponsored by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Research and Innovation. Caltrans sponsorship is
gratefully acknowledged. The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors and do not reflect
the official views or policies of the State of California or the Federal Highway Administration.

References

1. Tsai BW, Fan A, Harvey JT, Monismith CL. Improved methodology for mix design of open-graded friction
courses. Report No. UCPRC-RR-2013-06, Prepared for the California Department of Transportation;
Division of Research, Innovation, and System Information; Office of Materials and Infrastructure; by the
University of California Pavement Research Center, Berkeley and Davis, 2013.
2. Lu Q. Investigation of conditions for moisture damage in asphalt concrete and appropriate laboratory test
methods. University of California, Berkeley, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2005.
3. Aschenbrener T, Terrel RL, Zamora RA. Comparison of the Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device and the
environmental conditioning system to pavements of known stripping performance. Report No. CDOT-DTD-
R-94-1, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, 1994.
4. Rand DA. HMA moisture sensitivity: Past, present & future, TxDOT Experiences. Moisture Damage
Symposium, Western Research Institute, Laramie, Wyoming, 2002.
5. Lu Q and Harvey JT. Evaluation of Hamburg Wheel Tracking Device Test with laboratory and field
performance data. J Transport Res Rec 2006; 1970, p. 25-44.
6. Coleri E and Harvey JT. A fully heterogeneous viscoelastic finite element model for full-scale accelerated
pavement testing. Constr and Build Mater 2013; 43(0), p.14-30.
7. Coleri E, Harvey JT, Yang K and Boone JM. Development of a micromechanical finite element model from
computed tomography images for shear modulus simulation of asphalt mixtures. Constr and Build Mater
2012; 30(0), p.783-793.
8. Simpleware. ScanIP and +ScanFE Software Developed by Simpleware Ltd, Innovation Centre, Rennes
Drive. Exeter EX4 4RN, UK. http://www.simpleware.com; 2010.
9. Dai QL and You Z. Prediction of creep stiffness of asphalt mixture with micromechanical finite-element and
discrete element models. J Eng Mech 2007; 133(2), p.163-173.
10. You Z, Adhikari S, Dai Q. Three-dimensional discrete element models for asphalt mixtures. J Eng Mech
2008; 134(12).
11. You Z, Adhikari S, Kutay ME. Dynamic modulus simulation of the asphalt concrete using the x-ray
computed tomography images. Mater Struct 2009; 42(5), p.617–630.
12. Tsai BW, Harvey JT, Monismith CL. Using the three-stage Weibull equation and tree-based model to
characterize the mix fatigue damage process. J Transport Res Rec 2005; 1929, p. 227-237.
13. Coleri E, Harvey JT, Yang K, Boone JM. A Micromechanical approach to investigate asphalt concrete
rutting mechanisms. Constr and Build Mater 2012; 30 (0), p.36-49.
14. Yoo PJ, Al-Qadi IL, Elseifi MA, Janajreh I. Flexible pavement responses to different loading amplitudes
considering layer interface condition and lateral shear forces. J Pave Eng 2006; 7(1), p.73-86.
15. Lab procedure – Iip-ac1. Sample preparation and testing for long-lift hot mix asphalt pavements, 2011.
16. ABAQUS. User’s manual, version 6.5, Hibitt, Karlsson and Sorenson, Pawtucket, R.I., 2004.

24
 17. Berger EJ. Friction modeling for dynamic system simulation. Applied Mechanics Reviews 2002; 55(6),
p.535–577.
18. Cleveland WS. Visualizing data. Hobart Press, Summit, NJ, 1993.
19. Chambers JM and Hastie TJ. Statistical models in S. Chapman and Hall Computer Science series, 1993.
20. Tsai BW, Harvey JT, Monismith CL. Application of Weibull theory in prediction of asphalt concrete fatigue
performance. J Transport Res Rec 2003; 1832, p. 121-130.
21. Tsai BW, Bejarano MO, Harvey JT, Monismith CL. Prediction and calibration of pavement fatigue
performance using two-stage Weibull approach. J Assoc Asph Paving Tech 2005; 74, p. 697-732.
22. Coleri E, Tsai BW, Monismith CL. Pavement rutting performance prediction by integrated Weibull
approach. J Transport Res Rec 2008; 2087, p. 120-130.
23. European Committee for Standardization (ECS). EN 12697-22 Bituminous mixtures – Test methods for Hot
mix asphalt – Part 22, wheel tracking small device, method B in air, 2004.

25

View publication stats