AP-T283-14 EME2 Technology Transfer PDF

Technical Report
AP-T283-14
High Modulus High Fatigue Resistance

Asphalt (EME2) Technology Transfer
High Modulus High Fatigue Resistance Asphalt (EME2) Technology Transfer
Prepared by Publisher
Dr Laszlo Petho, Andrew Beecroft, Jonathon Griffin, Austroads Ltd.
Dr Erik Denneman Level 9, 287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Project Manager Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
austroads@austroads.com.au
Paul Morassut www.austroads.com.au
Abstract About Austroads

This report details the first year of a three-year Austroads project to Austroads’ purpose is to:
transfer French Enrobés à Module Élevé Class 2 (EME2) technology • promote improved Australian and New Zealand
to Australia. EME2 technology offers the prospect of reduced asphalt transport outcomes
thicknesses for heavy duty pavements, and lower construction and
• provide expert technical input to national policy
maintenance costs.
development on road and road transport issues
In this first year of the project, an Australian specification framework • promote improved practice and capability by road
for EME2 mixes was developed and the requirements for agencies
manufacturing, paving and compliance were provided. Tentative • promote consistency in road and road agency
specification limits for EME2 mixes were set using Australian test operations.
methods for workability, wheel tracking, flexural stiffness, fatigue,
and moisture sensitivity. Austroads membership comprises the six state and two
territory road transport and traffic authorities, the
As part of the validation process a successful demonstration trial Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional
was carried out on Cullen Avenue West, Eagle Farm, Queensland. Development, the Australian Local Government Association,
Data from the laboratory and field studies was analysed and the and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a
outcomes are summarised in the report. Based on the laboratory and Board consisting of the chief executive officer (or an
field data collected so far, the EME2 pavement shows performance alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven
as expected. member organisations:
• Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
Keywords
• Roads Corporation Victoria
Enrobés à Module Élevé, EME2, technology transfer, performance-
• Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
based testing, specification limit, performance monitoring,
• Main Roads Western Australia
demonstration trial, workability, moisture sensitivity, wheel-tracking
test, flexural stiffness, fatigue, asphalt production, asphalt pavement • Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
construction South Australia
• Department of State Growth Tasmania
• Department of Transport Northern Territory
ISBN 978-1-925037-93-7 • Territory and Municipal Services Directorate, Australian
Austroads Project No. TT1908 Capital Territory
Austroads Publication No. AP-T283-14 • Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and

Regional Development
Publication date November 2014
• Australian Local Government Association
Pages 123
• New Zealand Transport Agency.
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration

© Austroads 2014
of member organisations and others in the road industry. It
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality
Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process information, advice and fostering research in the road
without the prior written permission of Austroads. transport sector.
This report has been prepared for Austroads as part of its work to promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes
by providing expert technical input on road and road transport issues.
Individual road agencies will determine their response to this report following consideration of their legislative or administrative
arrangements, available funding, as well as local circumstances and priorities.
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept responsibility for any consequences arising
from the use of information herein. Readers should rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Acknowledgements
This report and the underlying research is the result of a close collaboration between various state road agencies, the Australian Asphalt
Pavements Association (AAPA), Boral Asphalt, SAMI Bitumen, Fulton Hogan, Brisbane City Council and ARRB. Input from AAPA was
received in the form of test results supplied by individual members, the supply of materials free of charge to the ARRB laboratory, and
the construction and instrumentation (partly or in whole) of demonstration trial sections. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support
for this Austroads project by the Australian asphalt industry. The kind support and help provided by SAMI Bitumen for sourcing and
shipping the EME2 material from France is greatly appreciated.
Thanks to Shannon Malone, Shannon Lourensz, Jake Leopold, Elizabeth Woodall, Robert Urquhart and Melissa Dias of ARRB for their
assistance with the experimental work, laboratory testing and helpful discussions during the project.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to assist industry in the successful transfer of French Enrobés à Module Élevé
Class 2 (EME2) technology to Australia. EME technology offers the prospect of reduced asphalt thicknesses
for heavy duty pavements, and lower construction and maintenance costs. TT1908 is a three-year Austroads
project, and this report summarises the outcomes of year one. The final deliverable of the project will be a
validated, performance-based mix design guideline for EME2 mixes. A performance-based mix design
provides an improved linkage between asphalt mix design and structural pavement design. This project thus
also supports the move towards a unified performance-based mix and pavement design for asphalt in
Australia. In the second year of the project, the data from the industry-funded laboratory and field study
would be used to draft a guideline on the design of EME2 mixes.
EME2 mixes are produced using a hard paving grade bitumen applied at a high binder content (approx. 6%).
Compared to conventional asphalt bases with unmodified binders, high modulus asphalt is characterised by
high stiffness, high durability, superior resistance to permanent deformation and good fatigue resistance.
International experience indicates that significant pavement thickness reductions can be achieved using
EME2.
In the first year, a specification framework for EME2 mixes in Australia was developed and the requirements
for manufacturing, paving and compliance were also provided. Tentative specification limits for EME2 mixes
were set using Australian test methods for workability, wheel tracking, flexural stiffness, fatigue, and moisture
sensitivity. As part of the validation process a demonstration trial was carried out on Cullen Avenue West,
Eagle Farm, Queensland. Structural and functional performance monitoring was conducted after completion
of the works and short- and long-term monitoring will be conducted on the test section. The demonstration
trial was thoroughly monitored and documented.
Data from the laboratory and field studies was analysed and the outcomes are summarised in the report.
Based on the laboratory and field data collected so far, the EME2 pavement shows performance as
expected. The EME2 test section, which is 30% thinner compared to the DG20HM control section, shows
similar performance in terms of structural capacity. Preliminary laboratory data suggests that EME2 mixes
have superior resistance to moisture damage, rutting and fatigue; however, long-term field data is required to
confirm and validate these findings
Austroads 2014 | page i

Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope and Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Report Structure .................................................................................................................................. 2
2 Technical Basis of EME2 Mix Specification in Australia and Experimental Plan ................................ 3
2.1 French EME2 Mix Design Requirements ............................................................................................ 3
2.1.1 Binder Requirements .............................................................................................................. 3
2.1.2 Aggregate Requirements ........................................................................................................ 4
2.1.3 Mix Design .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Technical Basis of the EME2 Mix Specification in Australia ............................................................... 6
2.2.1 Binder Testing and Specification Requirements ..................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Requirements for Coarse and Fine Aggregate and Fillers ..................................................... 7
2.2.3 Asphalt Mix Design, Testing and Specification Requirements ............................................... 8
2.2.4 Performance Requirements for the Mix .................................................................................. 9
2.2.5 Monitoring the Production ..................................................................................................... 10
2.2.6 Production Process Control .................................................................................................. 10
2.2.7 Compaction Process Control ................................................................................................ 10
2.2.8 Compliance of the Constituent Materials .............................................................................. 10
2.2.9 Compliance Testing of the Asphalt Mix ................................................................................ 10
2.2.10 Preparatory Works, Characteristics of the Subgrade/Working Platform ..............................11
2.2.11 Manufacturing and Paving Temperatures ............................................................................. 11
2.2.12 Compliance Testing of the Pavement and Finished Asphalt ................................................12
2.3 Developing Tentative Specification Limits for the Mix ....................................................................... 13
3 EME2 Transfer in Other Countries .......................................................................................................... 18

3.1 United Kingdom ................................................................................................................................. 18
3.1.1 Belgium ................................................................................................................................. 18
3.1.2 Poland ................................................................................................................................... 19
3.1.3 Switzerland............................................................................................................................ 19
3.1.4 Indian Ocean Region ............................................................................................................ 21
4 Replicating a Conforming French EME2 Design using Australian Test Methods .............................22
4.1 Filler and Aggregate Testing ............................................................................................................. 23
4.2 Hard Penetration Grade Binder (EME Binder) Testing ..................................................................... 27
4.2.1 Brookfield Test Results ......................................................................................................... 29
4.2.2 DSR Test – Temperature-frequency Sweep......................................................................... 29
4.3 Laboratory Mixing and Initial Testing ................................................................................................ 32
4.3.1 Workability............................................................................................................................. 32
4.3.2 Stiffness (Resilient Modulus) According to AS 2891.13.1 ....................................................37
4.3.3 Wheel Tracking According to AGPT-T231............................................................................ 39
4.3.4 Flexural Stiffness Testing...................................................................................................... 45
4.3.5 Fatigue Resistance According to AGPT-T233 ...................................................................... 49
Austroads 2014 | page ii

4.3.6 Moisture Sensitivity According to AGPT-T232...................................................................... 50

4.4 Tentative Specification Limits Based on Laboratory Testing ............................................................ 51
4.4.1 Workability............................................................................................................................. 51
4.4.2 Wheel-tracking ...................................................................................................................... 52
4.4.3 Flexural Stiffness .................................................................................................................. 53
4.4.4 Fatigue .................................................................................................................................. 54
4.4.5 Moisture Sensitivity ............................................................................................................... 55
4.4.6 Summary of the Tentative Specification Limits ..................................................................... 56
5 EME2 Queensland Trial............................................................................................................................ 57

5.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 57
5.2 Project Delivery ................................................................................................................................. 57
5.3 Trial Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 58
5.4 About the Pavement Instrumentation ................................................................................................ 59
5.5 Pre-construction Testing ................................................................................................................... 61
5.5.1 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Testing ....................................................................... 61
5.6 Construction ...................................................................................................................................... 62
5.6.1 Profiling and Preparatory Works ........................................................................................... 62
5.6.2 Paving Sequence .................................................................................................................. 63
5.6.3 Rolling Patterns ..................................................................................................................... 63
5.6.4 Surface Gritting ..................................................................................................................... 65
5.7 Construction Quality Assurance Testing ........................................................................................... 66
5.7.1 Material Production ............................................................................................................... 66
5.7.2 In situ Density Testing and Laying Temperatures ................................................................ 68
5.7.3 Temperature Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 70
5.7.4 Nuclear Density Testing, 20 m Frequency............................................................................ 72
5.7.5 Sand Patch Testing ............................................................................................................... 73
5.7.6 Surface Evenness ................................................................................................................. 74
5.8 Surface Appearance.......................................................................................................................... 74
5.9 Geometric Survey of the EME2 Trial Site ......................................................................................... 75
5.10 Post-construction Testing .................................................................................................................. 76
5.10.1 Density Testing on Cores Extracted from the Pavement ......................................................76
5.10.2 British Pendulum Test (BPT) and Sand Patch Data ............................................................. 78
5.10.3 SCRIM Test........................................................................................................................... 79
5.10.4 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Testing ....................................................................... 82
5.10.5 Network Survey Vehicle ........................................................................................................ 83
5.11 Temperature Monitoring during Construction using Thermography .................................................85
5.11.1 Thermal Segregation ............................................................................................................ 85
5.11.2 Thermography ....................................................................................................................... 86
5.11.3 Procedure.............................................................................................................................. 86
5.11.4 Apparatus .............................................................................................................................. 86
5.11.5 Observations ......................................................................................................................... 87
5.11.6 Laboratory Testing of Production Material ............................................................................ 90
5.12 Pavement Instrumentation ................................................................................................................ 91
5.12.1 Construction of the Pavement Box ....................................................................................... 91
5.12.2 Installation of the Strain Gauges ........................................................................................... 92
5.12.3 Installation of the Temperature Sensors ............................................................................... 95
Austroads 2014 | page iii

5.12.4 Installation of the Weather Station ........................................................................................ 97

5.13 Wearing Course Construction ......................................................................................................... 102
5.13.1 Wearing Course Placement ................................................................................................ 102
5.13.2 Temperature of the Mat ...................................................................................................... 103
5.13.3 Tack Coat Application Rate ................................................................................................ 105
5.13.4 Thermal Imaging during Paving .......................................................................................... 106
5.13.5 Construction Monitoring, Density Testing ........................................................................... 107
5.13.6 Line Marking........................................................................................................................ 109
5.14 Observations on the Test Section ................................................................................................... 110
6 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 111
References .................................................................................................................................................... 113

Appendix A Construction Drawings ......................................................................................................... 119
Appendix B Trial Site Layout ..................................................................................................................... 122
Appendix C Summary of EME2 Trial Site Feature Locations................................................................. 123
Tables
Table 2.1: The requirements for hard penetration grade binders ................................................................ 3
Table 2.2: Requirements for fillers ............................................................................................................... 4
Table 2.3: Requirements for aggregates ..................................................................................................... 4
Table 2.4: Testing levels and requirements for AC-EME ............................................................................. 5
Table 2.5: Level one requirements for AC-EME .......................................................................................... 5
Table 2.6: Level three and level four requirements for AC-EME ................................................................. 5
Table 2.7: Specification requirements for hard paving grade bitumens using Australian
Standards and Austroads test methods ...................................................................................... 6
Table 2.8: Coarse aggregate requirements ................................................................................................. 7
Table 2.9: Requirements for fillers ............................................................................................................... 8
Table 2.10: Mix design criteria (EN test methods) ......................................................................................... 9
Table 2.11: Maximum permitted variation of the combined aggregate grading and binder
content for 14 mm mixes only (production tolerance) ............................................................... 11
Table 2.12: Mixing temperatures for hard penetration bitumen ................................................................... 12
Table 2.13: Minimum temperature of the mix for field compaction .............................................................. 12
Table 2.14: Layer thickness limits (target) ................................................................................................... 13
Table 2.15: Benchmarking process for developing tentative Australian specification requirements ...........13
Table 2.16: Performance testing, Australian methodology .......................................................................... 14
Table 3.1: Asphalt types in the United Kingdom ........................................................................................ 18
Table 3.2: Design requirements for EME2 in Belgium ............................................................................... 19
Table 3.3: Required properties of the high modulus asphalt mix (WMS) for base layer ...........................19
Table 3.4: Structural number values for EME2 and conventional asphalt in the Swiss
pavement design ....................................................................................................................... 20
Table 3.5: Example, pavement composition with conventional asphalt base layer ...................................20
Table 3.6: Example, pavement composition with high modulus asphalt base layer ..................................20
Table 3.7: Design requirement of EME1 and EME2 in Switzerland ..........................................................21
Table 3.8: Projects in the Indian Ocean Region using EME2 technology .................................................21
Table 4.1: Constituent materials of a conforming EME2 mix received from France..................................22
Austroads 2014 | page iv

Table 4.2: Filler and aggregate particle size distribution according to the French test method
(mix design) ............................................................................................................................... 23
Table 4.3: Filler and aggregate particle size distribution according to the Australian test
method, tested by ARRB........................................................................................................... 23
Table 4.4: Conforming EME2 mix design composition .............................................................................. 24
Table 4.5: Filler and aggregate properties tested according to Australian test methods ...........................25
Table 4.6: Filler and aggregate densities according to the mix design certificate .....................................25
Table 4.7: Properties of the hard penetration grade binder supplied from France ....................................28
Table 4.8: Brookfield viscosity test results for the hard penetration grade binder supplied from
France ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 4.9: Maximum density of the French EME2 mix .............................................................................. 32
Table 4.10: Workability parameters, sample #2846-1 ................................................................................. 33
Table 4.13: Stiffness of the French EME2 at 25 °C at very low air voids contents according to
AS 2891.13.1 ............................................................................................................................ 37
Table 4.14: Stiffness of the French EME2 at 15 °C and 25 °C at low air voids content according
to AS 2891.13.1 ........................................................................................................................ 37
Table 4.15: Stiffness of the French EME2 at 25 °C and 32 °C and standard Australian test
conditions .................................................................................................................................. 38
Table 4.16: Stiffness of the French EME2 mix at in-service air voids content .............................................38
Table 4.17: Wheel-tracking test results according to AGPT-T231 combined with the
requirements of Table 2.16 ....................................................................................................... 44
Table 4.18: Air voids contents results of the beams prepared for flexural stiffness testing –
French EME2 mix...................................................................................................................... 47
Table 4.19: Test results of fatigue testing of the French EME2 mix (18 beams) .........................................49
Table 4.20: Stripping potential of the French EME2 mix according to AGPT-T232, dry subset ..................50
Table 4.21: Stripping potential of the French EME2 mix according to AGPT-T232, wet subset .................51
Table 4.22: Wheel-tracking results for the Australian EME2 Mix 1 .............................................................. 52
Table 4.23: Wheel-tracking results for the French EME2 mix ..................................................................... 52
Table 4.24: EME2 test results for flexural fatigue ........................................................................................ 54
Table 4.25: Tentative specification limits for EME2 according to Australian test methods ..........................56
Table 5.1: Stakeholders that contributed to the EME2 trial at Eagle Farm, Queensland ..........................57
Table 5.2: Pavement thickness reduction according to the Australian method .........................................60
Table 5.3: Pavement thickness reduction according to the French method ..............................................60
Table 5.4: Roller set-up and capturing the density curves ......................................................................... 64
Table 5.5: Grading limits for grit ................................................................................................................. 65
Table 5.6: EME2 production control results ............................................................................................... 67
Table 5.7: DG20HM production control results .......................................................................................... 67
Table 5.8: Maximum vertical deviation of the surface on the finished EME2 layers ..................................74
Table 5.9: In situ density results................................................................................................................. 77
Table 5.10: BPT test results four days after construction ............................................................................ 78
Table 5.11: BPT test results 10 weeks after construction ............................................................................ 79
Table 5.12: Compliance testing of the EME binder used for the production trial .........................................90
Table 5.13: Data output from weather station .............................................................................................. 98
Table 5.14: Tack coat application rate data ............................................................................................... 105
Table 5.15: Residual binder calculations ................................................................................................... 106
Austroads 2014 | page v

Figures
Figure 2.1: Typical fatigue curve from a full fatigue characterisation (Haversine loading) .........................17
Figure 4.1: Aggregate samples shipped from France ................................................................................. 22
Figure 4.2: Aggregate and binder samples shipped from France ............................................................... 22
Figure 4.3: Filler and aggregate PSD results .............................................................................................. 24
Figure 4.4: Combined aggregate grading of EME2 using French sieves and Australian sieves ................25
Figure 4.5: Limestone filler from France...................................................................................................... 26
Figure 4.6: Limestone filler, passing 75 micron sieve ................................................................................. 26
Figure 4.7: Limestone filler, retained on 75 micron sieve............................................................................ 26
Figure 4.8: Limestone filler, retained on 150 micron sieve.......................................................................... 26
Figure 4.9: Limestone filler, retained on 300 micron sieve.......................................................................... 26
Figure 4.10: 0/2 mm fine aggregate from France.......................................................................................... 27
Figure 4.11: 2/6 mm fine aggregate from France.......................................................................................... 27
Figure 4.12: 6/10 mm fine aggregate from France........................................................................................ 27
Figure 4.13: 10/14 mm fine aggregate from France...................................................................................... 27
Figure 4.14: Determination of the mixing and compaction temperature from the Brookfield
viscosity test results .................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 4.15: Frequency-temperature sweep of #2633 – set one .................................................................. 30
Figure 4.16: Frequency-temperature of #2633 – set two .............................................................................. 31
Figure 4.17: Master curve of different binders at 45 °C ................................................................................ 31
Figure 4.18: Workability graph, sample #2846-1 .......................................................................................... 33
Figure 4.21: Compacted French EME2 sample ............................................................................................ 36
Figure 4.22: Cut surface of the compacted French EME2 sample ............................................................... 36
Figure 4.23: Comparison between the flexural modulus at 10 Hz and the ITS value ...................................39
Figure 4.24: Rut depth of sample #2846 – initial testing ............................................................................... 40
Figure 4.25: Proportional rut depth of sample #2846 – initial testing ............................................................ 40
Figure 4.26: Sample prepared for the initial wheel-tracking test – overview.................................................41
Figure 4.27: Sample prepared for the initial wheel-tracking test – cross view ..............................................41
Figure 4.28: Rut depth of sample #2851 – initial testing ............................................................................... 41
Figure 4.29: Proportional rut depth of sample #2851 – initial testing ............................................................ 42
Figure 4.30: Rut depth of sample #2855 tested according to AGPT-T231 combined with the
Figure 4.31: Proportional rut depth of sample #2855 tested according to AGPT-T231 combined
with the requirements of Table 2.16.......................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.32: Rut depth of sample #2888 tested according to AGPT-T231 combined with the
Figure 4.33: Proportional rut depth of sample #2888 tested according to AGPT-T231 combined
with the requirements of Table 2.16.......................................................................................... 44
Figure 4.34: Sample #2855 after wheel tracking-test – profile ...................................................................... 45
Figure 4.35: Sample #2855 after wheel-tracking test – overview ................................................................. 45
Figure 4.36: Beams from sample series #2884 and #2885 (French EME2 mix) ready for flexural
stiffness testing ......................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 4.37: Master curves of the French EME2 mix at different air voids content ......................................47
Figure 4.38: Flexural stiffness of the French EME2 mix – four-point bending, 15 °C, 10 Hz........................48
Figure 4.39: Flexural stiffness of the French EME2 mix – four-point bending, 25 °C, 10 Hz........................48
Austroads 2014 | page vi

Figure 4.40: Fatigue curve of the French EME2 tested at 20 °C, 10 Hz, using the four-point
bending equipment.................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 4.41: Derivation of the wheel-tracking specification limit for EME2 using Australian test methods .......... 52
Figure 4.42: Benchmarking of EME2 test results for flexural stiffness ................................................................... 53
Figure 4.43: Derivation of the flexural stiffness specification limit for EME2 using Australian test methods ....... 54
Figure 4.44: Benchmarking of EME2 test results for flexural fatigue ............................................................ 55
Figure 5.1: Falling weight deflectometer testing on the profiled surface .....................................................62
Figure 5.2: Paver and asphalt truck during run 2 (EME2) ........................................................................... 63
Figure 5.3: EME2 behind the paver screed ................................................................................................. 63
Figure 5.4: Rollers in action ......................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 5.5: Gritting of the EME2 surface ..................................................................................................... 65
Figure 5.6: Grit used on the EME2 surface ................................................................................................. 65
Figure 5.7: Grading curves of the EME2 production mix, indicating the design and tolerances ................66
Figure 5.8: Grading curves of the DG20HM production mix, indicating the design and tolerances ...........67
Figure 5.9: Density curve of 100 mm thick EME2, run 2, chainage 100 m .................................................68
Figure 5.10: Density curve of 100 mm thick EME2, run 3, chainage 80 m ...................................................69
Figure 5.11: Density curve of 100 mm thick DG20HM, run 6, chainage 175 m ............................................69
Figure 5.12: Spreading and rolling temperatures of the EME2 mat, run 2 and run 3 (westbound
and eastbound lanes)................................................................................................................ 70
Figure 5.13: Spreading and rolling temperatures of the DG20HM mat, run 4 and run 6
(eastbound lane) ....................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 5.14: Spreading and rolling temperatures of the DG20HM mat, run 1 and run 5 (parking lanes) .....71
Figure 5.15: Nuclear density of the compacted EME2 layers ....................................................................... 72
Figure 5.16: Nuclear density of the compacted DG20HM layers .................................................................. 73
Figure 5.17: Texture depth of the finished surfaces ...................................................................................... 73
Figure 5.18: Adjoining EME2 and DG20HM ................................................................................................. 75
Figure 5.19: Surface appearance at chainage 60 m (the gritted EME2 surface is in the middle of
the picture) ................................................................................................................................ 75
Figure 5.20: EME2 (left) and DG20HM (right) surfaces ................................................................................ 75
Figure 5.21: EME2 cores extracted on the westbound lane (run 2) at chainage 101 m ...............................78
Figure 5.22: Cut surface of an EME2 core .................................................................................................... 78
Figure 5.23: BPN values shortly after construction and after 10 weeks of trafficking ...................................79
Figure 5.24: Eastbound lane ......................................................................................................................... 80
Figure 5.25: Westbound lane ........................................................................................................................81
Figure 5.26: Calculated surface modulus of the eastbound traffic lane ........................................................82
Figure 5.27: Calculated surface modulus of the westbound traffic lane .......................................................83
Figure 5.28: NAASRA lane roughness shortly after placement of the wearing course ................................84
Figure 5.29: Rut depth shortly after placement of the wearing course .........................................................84
Figure 5.30: EME2 dispensed into paver hopper from haul truck ................................................................. 88
Figure 5.31: Laydown of 100 mm EME2 mat ................................................................................................ 88
Figure 5.32: Laydown of 100 mm DG20HM mat........................................................................................... 88
Figure 5.33: EME2 mat prior to compaction .................................................................................................. 88
Figure 5.34: EME2 in hopper between haul loads ........................................................................................ 88
Figure 5.35: Between haul load temperature variation in EME2 paving .......................................................88
Figure 5.36: DG20HM in hopper between haul loads ................................................................................... 89
Figure 5.37: Between haul load temperature variation in DG20HM paving ..................................................89
Figure 5.38: Joint between DG20HM (near) and EME2 (far) ........................................................................ 89
Austroads 2014 | page vii

Figure 5.39: Joint between EME2 (left) and DG20HM (right) ....................................................................... 89
Figure 5.40: Breakdown compaction of DG20HM mat.................................................................................. 89
Figure 5.41: Intermediate compaction of EME2 mat ..................................................................................... 89
Figure 5.42: DSR test results for virgin and recovered binders .................................................................... 91
Figure 5.43: Pavement box with wooden mould ........................................................................................... 92
Figure 5.44: Pavement box with completed cable channel ........................................................................... 92
Figure 5.45: Strain gauge placed on asphalt ................................................................................................ 93
Figure 5.46: Strain gauge placed on granular base ...................................................................................... 93
Figure 5.47: Securing the strain gauges with a 5 mm maximum size fine asphalt mix ................................93
Figure 5.48: Securing the cables with a 5 mm maximum size fine asphalt mix ............................................93
Figure 5.49: Installation of strain gauges ...................................................................................................... 94
Figure 5.50: Marking strain gauge locations ................................................................................................. 94
Figure 5.51: Strain readings from E83 strain gauge (reading values are indicative and not validated) .......95
Figure 5.52: Coring of the pavement to full depth ......................................................................................... 96
Figure 5.53: Eight cores form the shape of the trench (cored full depth) ......................................................96
Figure 5.54: Clearing and shaping the final trench for the temperature sensors ..........................................96
Figure 5.55: Temperature sensor installation (drilling the horizontal holes) with the help of a guide rod .....96
Figure 5.56: Layout of temperature sensors in box....................................................................................... 96
Figure 5.57: Sensors placed in the trench (view from above) ....................................................................... 97
Figure 5.58: Sensors placed in the trench .................................................................................................... 97
Figure 5.59: Trench running through garden inside fence-line ..................................................................... 99
Figure 5.60: Concreting conduit into trench .................................................................................................. 99
Figure 5.61: Weather station pole before adding components ..................................................................... 99
Figure 5.62: Weather station fully installed ................................................................................................... 99
Figure 5.63: Pavement temperatures at six depths, 20 to 24 February 2014 .............................................100
Figure 5.64: Trees potentially obstructing exposure at various times of the year .......................................100
Figure 5.65: Position of the sun at mid-summer for the site at Cullen Avenue West, Eagle Farm, QLD ...101
Figure 5.66: Position of the sun at mid-winter for the site at Cullen Avenue West, Eagle Farm, QLD .......101
Figure 5.67: Solar radiation between 4 and 6.30 pm between 26 February and 4 March ..........................101
Figure 5.68: Cullen Avenue West before placement of the wearing course ...............................................102
Figure 5.69: Cullen Avenue West after placement of the wearing course ..................................................102
Figure 5.70: Temperature sensors running into pavement ......................................................................... 103
Figure 5.71: Cooling of the asphalt mat ...................................................................................................... 104
Figure 5.72: Maximum temperature reached at various depths ................................................................. 104
Figure 5.73: Cardboard squares to measure tack coat application rate .....................................................105
Figure 5.74: Tack coating in progress ......................................................................................................... 105
Figure 5.75: Surfacing laydown during first paving run ............................................................................... 106
Figure 5.76: Surfacing laydown during final paving run .............................................................................. 106
Figure 5.77: Large temperature differentials at the end of the first paving run ...........................................107
Figure 5.78: Large temperature differentials in the section linking the service lane ...................................107
Figure 5.79: Relative compaction density at specific chainage .................................................................. 108
Figure 5.80: Distribution of relative compaction densities ........................................................................... 108
Figure 5.81: Grading results of the wearing course material (production control) ......................................109
Figure 5.82: Marking the depth and composition of basecourse layers......................................................109
Figure 5.83: Finished line marking .............................................................................................................. 109
Austroads 2014 | page viii

1. Introduction
Class 2 (EME2) technology to Australia. EME2 technology offers the prospect of reduced asphalt
thicknesses for heavy duty pavements, and lower construction and maintenance costs. The final deliverable
is a performance-based design guideline for EME2 mixes. Performance-based mix design provides an
improved linkage between asphalt mix design and structural pavement design. This project thus also
supports the move towards a unified performance-based mix and pavement design for asphalt pavements in
Australia.
1.1 Background
The EME2 technology was developed in France in the early 1990’s which is now used extensively on main
routes, airports and urban roads both in mainland France and overseas territories. The distinctive component
of EME mixes is a very hard paving grade bitumen applied at a high binder content (approximately 6
mass%). The material is typically used in the construction of asphalt base layers. Compared to conventional
asphalt bases with unmodified binders, high modulus asphalt is characterised by a high stiffness, high
durability, superior resistance to permanent deformation and good fatigue resistance. International
experience indicates that significant pavement thickness reductions can be achieved using EME2. It also
suitable for the strengthening of pavements in areas where there are restrictions to pavement thickness (e.g.
kerb and channel levels in urban areas, bridge crossings on motorways, etc.).
1.2 Scope and Objectives
A considerable portion of the laboratory testing and field monitoring of trial sections containing EME2
technology were funded and undertaken by the asphalt industry through AAPA. The cost of materials and
laying was borne by the receiving location as was the case in the WMA Field Validation project. At the start
of this project it was assumed that all relevant laboratory and field testing data would be made available free
of charge to this project in a timely manner. Apart from the industry-funded experimental work, reference
testing of limited scope was to be performed at ARRB. Arrangements had been made for an existing French
EME2 mix design, compliant with the relevant French specifications, to be shipped to Australia and tested at
ARRB to set a benchmark for mix designs using Australian test methods.
The scope of the project during the first two years includes:
• developing, in conjunction with the EME Working Group of the Austroads Asphalt Research Working
Group (ARWG), an experimental plan for laboratory testing to be performed in Australia and France
• developing criteria within the EME Working Group for the selection of suitable field trial sites
• developing an experimental plan for the testing to be performed as part of the EME2 field trials
• defining the criteria for success or failure of the field trials, prior to commencement of the trials
• developing suitable performance criteria for EME2 using Australian test methods applied to a proven
French reference EME2 material
• attending working group meetings
• analysing the data from the laboratory and field studies as provided by industry
• summarising and reporting the data from the laboratory and field studies as provided by industry.
Austroads 2014 | page 1

In the third year of the project, the data from the industry-funded laboratory and field study would be used to
draft a guideline on the design of EME2 mixes. If appropriate this may be suitable for incorporation in the
Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4B: Asphalt (Austroads 2014). The mix design methodology for EME2
will be strictly performance-based. Note that the following tasks fall outside the scope of this project:
• developing structural design procedures to update Part 2 of the Guide to allow for the design of
pavements containing EME2 materials
• developing binder selection procedures for EME binders for inclusion in Part 4F of the Guide.
1.3 Report Structure
This introductory section is followed by an overview of the testing requirements and the technical basis for
the development of Australian EME2 mix design guidelines in Section 2; this section also describes
production monitoring and product compliance testing. Section 3 provides an outlook on EME2 technology
transfer in other countries. Section 4 summarises the laboratory testing conducted by ARRB on a conforming
EME2 mix imported from France and laboratory testing conducted by the industry partners; this work
provides the basis for developing tentative specification limits for EME2 using Australian test methods.
Section 5 provides a comprehensive overview about the demonstration trial placed on the Cullen Avenue
West, Eagle Farm in Queensland. In this section the trial set-up, production, construction, in situ and
laboratory testing are discussed.

2. Technical Basis of EME2 Mix Specification in

Australia and Experimental Plan
The aim of this section is to present the technical basis of the EME2 mix specification in Australia and
provide the experimental plan for laboratory testing, which formed the basis of the tentative specification
limits using Australian test methods.
Early versions of the technical basis of the EME2 mix specification in Australia, presented as a final version
in this section, were also used for the EME2 demonstration trial. The document was extensively reviewed by
the ARWG EME Working Group during the course of 2013 and 2014 and the document went through a
thorough development process. The framework provided here reflects the status as of June 2014. Due to the
dynamics of the process is it not possible to provide the early versions of the document. Although the
framework presented in this report is considered as a final version, minor modifications may be necessary for
improvement and refinement; this will be reflected in future specifications for EME2.
2.1 French EME2 Mix Design Requirements
According to the agreed research plan, industry partners would complete the mix design, including binder
and aggregate characterisation of their EME2 mixes in accordance with the European test methods outlined
in Section 2.1.1, Section 2.1.2 and Section 2.1.3 and these test results would provide input into developing
trial sites and tentative Australian specification limits. The French test and specification requirements are
listed in these sections.
2.1.1 Binder Requirements
The French standard NF EN 13108-1, Bituminous mixtures: material specifications: part 1: asphalt concrete
sets the performance requirements for asphalt mixes in France, including EME2. Although NF EN 13108-1
does not provide guidance about the binder type selection for EME2 mixes, useful information can be found
in Delorme, Roche and Wendling (2007) with regard to this issue. In France it is suggested that the binder
should be 15/25 or 10/20 hard penetration grade binder according to EN 13924:2006, Bitumen and
bituminous binders, specifications for hard paving grade bitumens. The requirements for the binder product
are summarised in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: The requirements for hard penetration grade binders
Penetration grade
Requirement Property Standard Unit
15/25 10/20
Consistency at Penetration at 25 °C EN 1426 0.1 mm 15 to 25 10 to 20
mid-temperatures
Consistency at high Softening point EN 1427 °C 55 to 71 58 to 78
temperatures
Dynamic viscosity at 60 °C EN 12596 Pa.s ≥ 550 ≥ 700
Long-term Mass change EN 12607-1 or -3 % ≤ 0.5
performance
Retained penetration EN 1426 % ≥ 55
(resistance to
hardening) Softening point after EN 1427 °C ≥ original
hardening minimum +
2
Increase in softening point EN 1427 °C ≤8 ≤ 10
≥ 600 ≥ 700
2
Other properties Kinematic viscosity at EN 12595 mm /s
135 °C
Source: EN 13924.

2.1.2 Aggregate Requirements
Fillers and aggregates of the EME2 mix should conform to the requirements in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3
respectively according to the French specifications.
Table 2.2: Requirements for fillers
Requirements NF EN asphalt specification

EN test method
for fillers and EME2 requirement
Particle size EN 13043:2002, Aggregates for bituminous mixtures 2 mm passing > 100%
distribution and surface treatments for roads, airfields and other 0.125 mm passing 85 to 100%
(PSD) trafficked areas 0.063 mm passing 70 to 100%
Apparent particle EN 1097-7:2008, Tests for mechanical and physical TBC
density properties of aggregates, part 7: determination of the
measurement particle density of filler – pyknometer method
Rigden voids EN 1097-4:1999, Tests for mechanical and physical 28 to 38 (V28/38)
properties of aggregates: part 4: determination of the
voids of dry compacted filler
Harmful fines, EN 933-9:2009, Tests for geometrical properties of ≤ 10 (MBF10)
methylene blue aggregates, part 9: assessment of fines – methylene
test (MBF) blue test
Delta ring and EN 13179-1:2000, Tests for filler aggregate used in 8 to 16 (∆R&B8/16)
ball test bituminous mixtures: part 1: delta ring and ball test
EN 1427:2007, Bitumen and bituminous binders: Hydrated lime content of the filler should
determination of the softening point: ring and ball not exceed 1%
method
Source: Delorme, Roche and Wendling (2007) and the cited EN standards.
Table 2.3: Requirements for aggregates
Requirements NF EN asphalt specification

EN test method
for aggregates and EME2 requirement
Particle size EN 13043:2002, Aggregates for bituminous mixtures N/A
distribution and surface treatments for roads, airfields and other
(PSD) trafficked areas
Crushed particles EN 933-5:1998, Tests for geometrical properties of 100% (C100/0)
aggregates, part 5: determination of percentage of
crushed and broken surfaces in coarse aggregate
particles
Note: performed on 10/14 mm fraction
Flakiness index EN 933-3:2012, Tests for geometrical properties of Maximum 25 (FI25)
aggregates, part 3: determination of particle shape.
Flakiness index
Impact value EN 1097-2:2010, Tests for mechanical and physical SZ18
properties of aggregates: part 2: methods for the
determination of resistance to fragmentation
Note: performed on 8/12.5 mm fraction
Los Angeles EN 1097-2:2010, Tests for mechanical and physical Not specified, usually LA20 for heavy duty
coefficient properties of aggregates: part 2: methods for the asphalt applications
determination of resistance to fragmentation
2.1.3 Mix Design
The mix design should be performed according to Table 2.4. It was agreed that industry partners would
complete the mix design of their EME2 mixes according to the European test methods as outlined in
Table 2.4.

Table 2.4: Testing levels and requirements for AC-EME
Reference
Step Test method Test type Requirement
standard
0 Grading and binder General + EN 12697-2 Grading control points and minimum binder content
content (only for empirical EN 12697-1
non-trafficked or
areas) EN 12697-39
1 Gyratory General + EN 12697-31 Gyratory compactor, % void at different gyrations
compaction empirical
Void content General + EN 12697-6 Specifications on the percentage of voids based on
empirical the gyratory compactor test (direct height-based
measurement)
For cores EN 12697-6, °C method (bulk density –
sealed specimen)
Water resistance General + EN 12697-12 Tensile strength ratio
empirical
2 Wheel tracking General + EN 12697-22 Wheel tracking, large device (for asphalt mixes
empirical designed for axle loads greater than 13 tonnes), 30
000 cycles, 60 °C
3 Stiffness modulus General + EN 12697-26 Two-point bending test, complex modulus, 15 °C,
fundamental 10 Hz
4 Fatigue General + EN 12697-24 Two-point bending test, 10 °C, 25 Hz
fundamental
Mixes tested according to Table 2.4 are required to meet the following specification requirements:
• Level one testing:
– the maximum void content after a specified number of gyrations is required to ensure workability of
the material as specified in Table 2.5
– for all AC-EME, the water sensitivity is required to be at least ITSR70.
• Level two testing: percentage permanent strain in rutting should be less than 7.5%, where the result is
calculated as the rut depth divided by the slab thickness.
• Level three testing: minimum stiffness modulus requirement at 15 °C and 10 Hz should be according to
EN 12697-26, method A, as summarised in Table 2.6.
• Level four testing: minimum fatigue resistance requirement at 10 °C and 25 Hz should be according to
EN 12697-24, method A, as summarised in Table 2.6.
Table 2.5: Level one requirements for AC-EME
Gyratory compactor specifications after n gyrations

Asphalt mix
Number of gyrations (n) Void percentage (%), EN 12697-31
AC10-EME class 2 80 <6 Vmax6
Source: Delorme, Roche and Wendling (2007) and NF EN 13108-1.
Table 2.6: Level three and level four requirements for AC-EME
Minimum stiffness modulus at 15 °C and 10 Hz Fatigue resistance at 10 °C, 25 Hz

Asphalt mix
(MPa) (microstrain)
AC-EME class 1 14 000 100
AC-EME class 2 14 000 130
Source: Delorme, Roche and Wendling (2007) and NF EN 13108-1.

2.2 Technical Basis of the EME2 Mix Specification in Australia
2.2.1 Binder Testing and Specification Requirements
As at July 2013 it was understood that two Australian bitumen suppliers were able to produce and supply
hard penetration grade binder from locally produced batches. These products met the EN specification for
hard penetration grade (EME) binder class 15/25 pen as reported in Austroads (2013a). However, the EME
binder is a new product in Australia and there were no specification requirements for this material. It was
suggested that the EN specification requirements should be applied, while using AS test methods. The EME
Working Group of ARWG met and discussed the requirements several times and a series of drafts were
developed by ARRB based on these meetings and the feedback received. In Table 2.7 the final and agreed
requirements are summarised.
Table 2.7: Specification requirements for hard paving grade bitumens using Australian Standards and
Austroads test methods
Binder 15/25 pen Binder 10/20 pen

Property Test method Unit Limit
Value Value
(1)
Penetration at 25 °C AS 2341.12 pu Minimum 15 10
Maximum 25 20
Softening point AS 2341.18 °C Minimum 56.5 59.5
Maximum 72.5 79.5
(3)
Viscosity at 60 °C AS 2341.2 Pa.s Minimum 900 1050
Loss on heating AGPT-T103 % Maximum 0.5 N/A
(2)
Retained penetration AS/NZS % Minimum 55 N/A
2341.10,
AS 2341.12
Increase in softening point AS/NZS °C Maximum 8 10
after RTFO treatment 2341.10,
AS 2341.18
Viscosity at 135 °C AS 2341.2, Pa.s Minimum 0.6 0.7
AS 2341.3,
AS 2341.4
or AGPT-T111
Matter insoluble in toluene AS 2341.8 % Maximum 1.0 N/A
mass
Penetration index N/A N/A N/A Report Report
Viscosity at 60 °C after AS/NZS Pa.s N/A Report Report
(3)
RTFO 2341.10
AS 2341.2
Per cent increase in AS/NZ 2341.10 % N/A Report Report
viscosity at 60 °C after
RTFO test
1 One pu equals 0.1 mm.
2 Per cent change in penetration shall be calculated using the equation: (Penetration at 25 °C after RTFO x 100) / (Penetration at
25 °C before RTFO).
3 Test shall be performed using an Asphalt Institute viscosity tube.

The penetration index (PI) is calculated in accordance with Equation 1 (Annex A of EN 13924:2006).
(20 × SP) + (500 × logPen) − 1952 1

PI =
SP − (50 × logPen) + 120
where
SP = softening point according to AS 2341.18
Pen = penetration according to AS 2341.12
2.2.2 Requirements for Coarse and Fine Aggregate and Fillers
The properties of the aggregate for mix design purposes and for compliance testing are summarised in
Table 2.8 for coarse aggregates and in Table 2.9 for fillers. Comparisons between the European and
Australian test methods are discussed in Austroads (2013a).
Table 2.8: Coarse aggregate requirements
Requirements for Tentative specification

AS test method
aggregates limits
(1)
Particle size AS 1141.11.1-2009 N/A
distribution (PSD) Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: particle size
distribution: sieving method
Crushed particles AS 1141.18-1996 100% crushed aggregate
Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: crushed particles
in coarse aggregate derived from gravel
Flakiness index AS 1141.15-1999 Maximum 25
Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: flakiness index
Los Angeles AS 1141.23-2009 LA maximum 25
coefficient Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: Los Angeles
value
1 Guideline with typical grading envelope is provided in Austroads (2013a).
Determination of the impact value according to AS 1141.21-1997 was originally part of the requirement;
based on discussion with the reference group this requirement was removed.
There are no extra requirements for the fine aggregate. It should be noted that it is unlikely that EME2 mixes
using natural sand would meet the performance requirements for flexural stiffness and/or rutting, and other
performance properties may also be negatively affected.

Table 2.9: Requirements for fillers
Requirements for Tentative specification

AS test method
fillers limits
Particle size AS 1141.11.1-2009 0.600 mm passing >
distribution (PSD) Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: particle size 100%
distribution: sieving method 0.300 mm passing 95 to
100%
0.075 mm passing 75 to
100%
Apparent particle AS 1141.7-1995 TBC
density measurement Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: apparent particle
density of filler
Rigden voids AS 1141.17-1995 Combined filler
Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: voids in dry Minimum 28%
compacted filler Maximum 45%
Harmful fines, AS 1141.66-2012 Maximum 10
methylene blue test Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: Methylene blue
(MBF) adsorption value of fine aggregate and mineral fillers
∆R&B 8/16
(1)
Delta ring and ball AS 2341.18-1992
test Methods of testing bitumen and related road making products:
determination of softening point (ring and ball method)
1 More details on performing this test method are provided in Austroads (2013b).
2.2.3 Asphalt Mix Design, Testing and Specification Requirements
Volumetric and empirical requirements should be recorded as follows:

• combined aggregate grading (AS 1141.11)
• minimum binder content by mass of total mix – should be determined to meet minimum richness modulus
of 3.4 according to Equation 2
• maximum density (AS 2891.7.1)
• bulk density (calculated from direct measurement of sample height during Servopac compaction)
• air voids (AS 2891.8)
• void in mineral aggregate (VMA) (AS 2891.8)
• laboratory mixing temperatures should be in line with Table 2.12.
Grading and constituent material proportions, including the richness modulus (K) of the mix, shall be
calculated according to Equation 2 to Equation 5.
100B 2
� �
100 − B
K=
α√Σ
5
where
B = binder content (% by mass of the total asphalt mix) (Equation 3)
correction coefficient relative to the density of the aggregates, according to

α =
Equation 4
Σ = specific surface area, according to Equation 5 (m /kg)

2

bitumen mass 3
B = 100
dry aggregate mass + bitumen mass
2.65 4
α=
ρG
where
ρG particle density of the combined mineral aggregate determined in accordance with

= 3
AS/NZS 2891.8 (t/m )
100Σ = 0.25G + 2.3S + 12s + 150f 5
where
G = percentage of aggregate particles greater than 6.30 mm
S = percentage of aggregate particles between 6.30 mm and 0.250 mm
s = percentage of aggregate particles between 0.250 mm and 0.075 mm
f = percentage of aggregate particles less than 0.075 mm
G, S and s shall be interpolated from the grading curve using Australian Standard sieves.
Performance requirements are outlined in Table 2.10 using EN test methods and in Table 2.16 using
Australian test methods (tentative). The latter requirements were developed by the ARWG EME Working
Group and were used as the basis for development of tentative specification limits. The performance of
mixes should be tested and met on laboratory-produced mixes (as opposed to plant-produced mix), in line
with the French methodology.
The use of RAP is generally allowed in EME2 mixes, subject to the performance of the mix meeting the
specification limits; however, it was agreed not to use any RAP in the demonstration trials and during these
early stages of EME2 implementation in Australia.
2.2.4 Performance Requirements for the Mix
The French design criteria for EME2 mixes are shown in Table 2.10. Tentative specification limits were derived
for EME2 mixes using the Australian test methods (Section 4.4); the requirements are summarised in Table 4.25.
Table 2.10: Mix design criteria (EN test methods)
Property Test method Unit Limit Value

(1)
Air voids in specimens compacted by gyratory compactor EN 12697-31 % Maximum 6
Water sensitivity EN 12697-12 % Minimum 70
(4) (2)
Wheel tracking at 60 °C and 30 000 cycles EN 12697-22 % Maximum 7.5
Minimum stiffness modulus EN 12697-26 MPa Minimum 14 000
(4)
at 15 °C and 10 Hz Method A
Fatigue resistance EN 12697-24 µε Minimum 130
6 (4)
at 10 °C, 25 Hz and 10 cycles Method A
(3)
Richness modulus N/A – Minimum 3.4
1 Bulk density of gyratory compacted specimens shall be determined by direct measurement in the gyratory mould.
2 Rut depth measured as a percentage of the specimen height.
3 Refer to Equation 2 for details.
4 Specimens shall be compacted to an air void content of 3–6%.

2.2.5 Monitoring the Production
Monitoring the manufacturing process consists of checking that the characteristics of the manufactured mix
comply with those defined in the mix design. The characteristics to be monitored are:
• the proportions of the various components, such as combined aggregate grading, binder content,
additives (if required)
• the homogeneity (visually assessed) of the manufactured mix
• the temperature of the mix during production and laying.
This monitoring includes the following tasks, which must be conducted continuously:
• checking of the aggregate gradings in the stockpile
• adjusting and checking the settings of the plant according to the daily fluctuation, in order to target the
design combined aggregate grading
• checking that the instructions for the manufacturing process are adhered to and the production process is
under control
• checking that the manufactured product is compliant.
The temperature of the mixes is measured in the bulk of the mix at the following locations:
• prior to leaving the plant site from the top of a loaded truck
• in the truck before emptying into the finisher hopper
• behind the paver.
2.2.6 Production Process Control
Guides to statistical process control systems are provided in Asphalt Plant Process Control Guide (Australian
Asphalt Pavement Association 1997) and Austroads/AAPA Pavement Work Tip No. 15 Asphalt Statistical
Process Control (2013).
2.2.7 Compaction Process Control
The in situ density during compaction should be tested using a nuclear gauge (AS/NZS 2891.14.1.1,
AS/NZS 2891.14.1.2 and AS/NZS 2891.14.2) as specified by the relevant road agency. The nuclear gauge
should be calibrated according to the relevant specifications, using cores taken from the finished pavement.
2.2.8 Compliance of the Constituent Materials
Compliance testing requirements are outlined in Section 2.2.1 for the binder and in Section 2.2.2 for the
aggregate and filler.
2.2.9 Compliance Testing of the Asphalt Mix
For compliance testing, the asphalt mix should be sampled in accordance with AS 2891.1.1. Compliance of
the job mix is assessed in terms of grading of the combined aggregate (AS 1141.11.1), and binder content
determined by using solvent extraction (AS/NZS 2891.3.1, AS/NZS 2891.3.2 or AS/NZS 2891.3.3) or the
ignition oven (Austroads 2005). Maximum permitted variation of the production mix is summarised in
Table 2.11. The results of the statistical process control may be used for acceptance testing.

Table 2.11: Maximum permitted variation of the combined aggregate grading and binder content for 14 mm
mixes only (production tolerance)
AS sieve size Maximum permitted variation to target

(mm) (% by mass)
19.0 –2
13.2 ±7
9.50 ±7
6.70 ±7
4.75 ±7
2.36 ±5
1.18 ±5
0.600 ±4
0.300 ±4
0.150 ±2.5
0.075 ±1.5
(1)
Binder content (%) ±0.3
1 Refer to statistical process control in Section 2.2.6.
The test results should be used for correction of production and for data collection.
It is not required to validate the performance of the mix on plant-produced mixes; however, for demonstration
and production trials it is required to perform limited performance testing on 150 mm diameter cores
extracted from the finished layers in order to gain a better understanding of the overall performance of EME2
mixes. Wheel-tracking and stiffness tests (indirect tensile test) should be performed for every 10 000 tonnes
of production, or whenever there is a noticeable change in constituent materials. These results are not
required for compliance.
2.2.10 Preparatory Works, Characteristics of the Subgrade/Working Platform
The base must provide sufficient support and should be sufficiently even to enable:
• worksite traffic to circulate
• compaction of the asphalt layers
• thicknesses to be adhered to
– bearing capacity: surface modulus should meet the minimum value stated in the pavement design
requirement using a lightweight deflectometer or FWD (40 kN loading); the surface modulus of the
subgrade/working platform should exceed 50 MPa as an absolute minimum
– maximum deformation under the 3 m straightedge should be less than 10 mm.
2.2.11 Manufacturing and Paving Temperatures
The temperature of mixes upon leaving the mixing plant is set according to the temperature limits and laying
requirements. Except when indicated otherwise by the supplier, for EME2 mixes the manufacturing
temperatures are given in Table 2.12 and the minimum temperatures for field compaction are in Table 2.13.
For referencing purposes, the requirements for 20/30 penetration grade binders are also provided in the
tables.

Table 2.12: Mixing temperatures for hard penetration bitumen
Usual manufacturing Maximum temperature

Bitumen type
temperature (°C) (°C)
10/20–15/25–20/30 160–180 190
Source: NF P 98-150-1.
Table 2.13: Minimum temperature of the mix for field compaction
Bitumen type Minimum compaction temperature (°C)

10/20–15/25 145
20/30 140
Source: NF P 98-150-1.
2.2.12 Compliance Testing of the Pavement and Finished Asphalt
Relative compaction and in situ air void of the finished layer
Relative compaction of the finished layer should be determined using maximum density of the manufactured
asphalt (AS 2891.7.1); the in situ compacted density should be determined on cores extracted from the
pavement, using the saturated surface dry (SSD) method (AS 2891.9.2). Sampling frequency should be
determined according to the requirements of the relevant road agency.
The in situ air void content, calculated from the in situ density, should be a maximum of 6.0% for any test
results; there is no minimum requirement. Bleeding or flushing of the surface can be expected when
compacting EME2 to low air voids content and it is considered normal construction practice. The relative
compaction is determined using Equation 6, and converted into in situ air voids according to Equation 7. In
order to ensure that the in situ air voids content is below 6.0% at any point of the finished layer within the
traffic lane, and allow variation within the test results, the requirement for the characteristic value of the
relative compaction should be lowered by 0.5% to 94.5%. The characteristic value of the relative compaction
for the joints should be determined according to the requirements of the relevant road agency; this value
should be preferably not less than 91.5% characteristic value of relative compaction.
in situ density 6
relative compaction = × 100
maximum density
in situ air voids = 100 − relative compaction 7
Layer thickness and evenness
The layer thickness is determined by probing and measuring of the uncompacted layer. This activity is
considered as a paving process control and cannot be used for compliance.
The thickness of the compacted layer can be determined using on-site surveillance, non-destructive testing
or cores extracted from the pavement. The total compacted thickness of the combined EME2 layers should
be not less than the specified thickness (Table 2.14) minus (–) 10 mm.

Table 2.14: Layer thickness limits (target)
Compacted layer thickness (mm)

Asphalt mix Minimum Maximum Minimum thickness at any point of
the work site, including tolerances
EME2 10 mm 60 80 50
EME2 14 mm 70 130 60
EME2 20 mm 90 150 80
Surface shape should be assessed as the deviation measured between any two points under a 3 m
straightedge.
Requirements for the wearing course
EME2 base layers should always be covered by at least one layer of wearing course or by two layers, i.e.
wearing course and intermediate course. The requirements in this document relate to the control and
compliance of EME2 (upper and lower) base layers; requirements for the wearing and/or intermediate
courses, which cover the EME2 layer, are outlined in the relevant specifications and are not discussed here.
2.3 Developing Tentative Specification Limits for the Mix
Based on the requirements of Table 2.10 (French methodology) it was apparent that the French specification
requirements cannot be applied in Australia, due to the differences in the test methods and equipment
availability. Therefore a number of mixes were tested using both methodologies, which provided the basis for
benchmarking of the mixes, and developing tentative specification limits using Australian test methods. The
performance requirements of the mix would not be altered to the French methodology, but the specification
requirements would be amended to correspond to the Australian test methods. The overall plan for the
benchmarking process is summarised in Table 2.15. The laboratory test program, using tentative Australian
test methods, is summarised in Table 2.16.
Table 2.15: Benchmarking process for developing tentative Australian specification requirements
Test by industry Test by ARRB,

Tested in France Input into
partners, according according to
Mix description according to the Australian tentative
to Australian Australian
EN requirements specification limits
requirements requirements
Australian EME2 Mix 1 √ √ No Yes
Australian EME2 Mix 2 √ √ No Yes
(1)
French EME2 mix √ No √ Yes
1 Aggregate and binder of a conforming EME2 mix supplied from France.

Table 2.16: Performance testing, Australian methodology
Comments on Required air

Performance Test Test Settings or required deviations to AS or Number of
AS or Austroads void content of Report
property description method Austroads test method specimens
test method sample
N/A Sample AS 2891.2.1 Deviation is not N/A N/A N/A N/A
preparation required
(2)
Workability Servopac Mix Servopac 150 mm diameter Maximum 3 Air voids (%) after
(2)
compaction conditioning: equipment is to be • 80 cycles for 10 mm mix 6.0% 80 cycles for 10 mm mix
AS 2891.2.2 set up according (1)
• 100 cycles for 14 mm mix
(1)
100 cycles for 14 mm mix
Equipment to EN test method
• 120 cycles for 20 mm mix. 120 cycles for 20 mm mix
parameters: Determine compaction
Compaction pressure 600 kPa
EN 12697- curve parameter K
31 Angle of gyration 0.82
according to Equation 8
30 gyrations/minute
Sample height should be within 100 mm
and 150 mm
Sinusoidal 50 ± 3 με, 10 Hz, 15 °C
(4)
Stiffness Four-point EN 12697- 4PB equipment 3.0–6.0% 3 Complex modulus, E*
bending (4PB) 26, Appendix used for testing th (MPa)
Determine stiffness between the 45 and
B according to th (3)
the 100 load repetition
AGPT-T233 (4)
Stiffness (Austroads 2006c) In order to collect experiences with EME2 3.0–6.0% 3 Complex modulus, E*
temperature- is capable to mixes with 4PB testing a frequency- (MPa) and master-curve
frequency perform test temperature sweep for the trial mixes parameters
sweep according to EN should be applied
test method Temperatures: 0–10–20–30 °C
Frequencies at each temperature: 1–3–5–
8–10–15–20–25–30 Hz
Maximum loading cycles: 50 for 1–3–5–8–
(3)
10 Hz and 150 for 15–20–25–30 Hz
(4)
Stiffness Indirect tensile AS/NZS Deviation is In order to develop a cost-effective mix 3.0–6.0% 3 Stiffness (MPa)
2891.13.1 required design procedure, record indirect tensile
test results and correlate to 4PB stiffness
results; test should be performed on
samples prepared for workability
Test temperature 15 °C and 25 °C, other
parameters as per AS test method; use
100 mm diameter sample

Comments on Required air

Performance Test Test Settings or required deviations to AS or Number of
AS or Austroads void content of Report
property description method Austroads test method specimens
test method sample
(4)
Permanent Wheel-tracking AGPT-T231 Deviation is 60 °C to 30 000 load cycle 3.0–6.0% 2 Maximum tracking depth
deformation (Austroads required Definition of load cycle: two passes Sample (mm) for each replicate
2006b) (outward and return) of the loaded wheel thickness 50 ± after 30 000 load cycles
Minimum number of days between sample 5 mm (for mixes and relative deformation
preparation and test: 2 with a nominal (%) after 30 000 load
size cycles
of 14 mm) Report full wheel-tracking
curve
(4)
Fatigue Four-point AGPT-T233 Deviation is Defined to be when the flexural stiffness 3.0–6.0% Six samples Strain level to 1 000 000
cycles to failure ε6
(5)
bending (4PB) (Austroads required has decreased to 50% of its initial value. per strain
2006c) Utilise a minimum of three strain levels so level Slope of the fatigue curve,
that one-third of the element test (one (18 total) b
single test) will provide results less than Estimation of the residual
1 000 000 cycles and at least one-third of standard deviation SN,
the element tests provide results greater calculated according to
than 1 000 000 cycles Equation 9
The number of cycles should be at least
10 000 at the highest strain level and at
maximum 2 000 000 at the lowest strain
level
At least 18 element tests shall be used to
determine the result
Sinusoidal loading
10 Hz, 20 °C
Specimens and the slabs from which they
are to be prepared shall be stored in an
environment where the temperature will not
exceed 30 °C
Wherever practicable, tests should be
performed within 30 days of the date of
compaction
(4)
Stripping Moisture AGPT-T232 Include freeze Use 100 mm diameter sample 7.0–9.0% 6 Tensile strength ratio (%)
potential sensitivity (Austroads thaw; deviation is
2007a) not required
1 Only 14 mm mixes are expected to be used for the road trials.
2 Calculated from direct measurement of sample height during Servopac compaction (equals to mensuration method).
3 The samples will not be damaged by this test and can be used for subsequent fatigue testing.
4 Determine air void content according to AS 2891.8, AS 2891.7.1 and AS 2891.9.2 (presaturation method).
5 Calculate at which strain level it takes 106 load cycles to cause failure (50% stiffness reduction) by fitting Equation 10 to the fatigue results and determining the strain level (ε6) at which N = 106. An
example is shown in Figure 2.1.

It was agreed that Australian mixes, designed in France and complying with the French specifications,
should be tested according to Table 2.16. It was agreed that industry partners run testing according to
Table 2.16 and the test results be provided for benchmarking purposes. The requirements in Table 2.16
were summarised in an unpublished working document titled Technical basis of EME2 mix specification in
Australia and four versions were developed and discussed by the EME Working Group; the final version was
agreed in November 2013 and subsequent testing was performed accordingly.
v(ng) = v(1) - (K × ln ng ) 8
where
v(ng) = void content for a number of gyrations (%)
v(1) = calculated void content for one gyration (%)
K = compactibility
ng = number of gyrations
9
(1 − r22 ) × (n − 1)
SN = Slg(N) × �
(n − 2)
where
SN = standard deviation of the loading cycles N
r2 = correlation coefficient
n = number of specimens
1 10
lg(Nf 50 ) = a + � � × lg(ε)
b
where
Nf 50 = number of load cycles to 50% stiffness reduction
a = constant
b = slope of fatigue line
ε = strain (microstrain)

Figure 2.1: Typical fatigue curve from a full fatigue characterisation (Haversine loading)
1000
Strain level (microstrain)
y = 3036.4x-0.163 ε6=319 µstrain

R² = 0.948
100
1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Loading cycles
Source: Austroads (2013a).

3. EME2 Transfer in Other Countries
Many other countries utilise the advantages of the EME2 technology. This section summarises the approach
in other countries in the transfer of EME2 technology.
3.1 United Kingdom
The need for high modulus asphalt with superior fatigue and rutting resistance is usually driven by the need
for cost-effective, highly durable base and binder course asphalts for use on heavily trafficked roads (Moglia,
Taylor & Robertus 2007).
According to the Design manual for roads and bridges (Highway Agency 2006) the EME2 base and binder
course must target a penetration of 15/20, which can be achieved using 10/20 or 15/25 penetration grade
binder. EME2 must only be laid over Class 3 or 4 foundations or a Class 2 foundation that has a surface
stiffness modulus of at least 120 MPa at the time of construction.
For Highway Agency applications, values of the long-term elastic stiffness modulus of standard UK asphalt
materials for use in analytical design must be as shown in Table 3.1, unless reliable data clearly reveals a
divergence from the typical figures in the table.
Table 3.1: Asphalt types in the United Kingdom
Asphalt type Stiffness (MPa)

Dense bitumen macadam (DBM125) 2500
Hot rolled asphalt (HRA50) 3100
DBM50/ heavy duty macadam (HDM50) 4700
EME2 8000
Source: Highway Agency (2006).
Design stiffness moduli used for pavement design are values for the reference condition of 20 °C and 5 Hz.
They are not interchangeable with indirect tensile stiffness modulus (ITSM) values, which are measured for
compliance testing at the lower frequency of 2.5 Hz.
By the 1980s, a rational, mechanistic approach to pavement design was introduced, providing the possibility
of contractors offering alternative solutions. The alternative design had to be based on actual material
properties (stiffness, fatigue etc.). Tests to characterise the material properties (especially in relation to
bases) were added to the overall asphalt mixture design formulation methodology (Moglia, Taylor & Robertus
2007).
The benefits of EME2 are usually visualised and calculated with examples of the reduced pavement
thickness attainable compared to traditional asphalt pavement construction (Moglia, Taylor & Robertus
2007). The reduced thickness does not have a negative impact on the pavement’s structural performance
due to the higher modulus achieved, and in line with this, the increased fatigue resistance of the mix.
Although there is no requirement in terms of mix fatigue performance in Highway Agency (2006), the manual
accounts for the decrease in pavement thickness.
3.1.1 Belgium
De Backer et al. (2007) reported the technical work and efforts made by the Belgian Road Research Centre
(CRR) for the introduction of EME2 technology in Belgium; the specification limits set for EME2 mixes are
summarised in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Design requirements for EME2 in Belgium
Property Requirement Standard

Water sensitivity ≥ 60 % EN 12697-12
Voids (after 100 gyrations) ≥2% EN 12697-31
≤6%
≤5%
(1)
Resistance to rutting EN 12697-22
≥ 4000 MPa
(2)
Stiffness modulus (30 °C, 10 Hz) EN 12697:26, Annexe A
≥ 100 μstrain
(3)
Fatigue (ε6) EN 12697:24, Annexe A
1 The test is performed with the large device at a temperature of 50 °C and 30 000 cycles.
2 The test is performed at 30 °C as the test at 15 °C is not discriminating enough for EME2.
3 The test is performed at a temperature of 15 °C and at a frequency of 30 Hz.
Source: De Backer et al. (2007).
3.1.2 Poland
In order to help Poland to respond to the increase in the volume and severity of road traffic as a
consequence of the extension of the European Union, a technical and institutional cooperation was
organised between the French Road Directorate, the Polish Public Road Directorate and the Polish Highway
Building and Management Agency. The project dealt with the optimisation of construction and maintenance
costs of road pavements using EME2 technology (Brosseaud, Bogdanski & Carré 2004). As a consequence
of the cooperation and extensive road trials (Bańkowski, Tušar & Wiman 2009) the high modulus asphalt
technology, based on the EME2 concept, is a standardised product in Poland (General Directorate for
National Roads and Highways 2013).
In order to take into account the Polish climate, a 20/30 binder was chosen instead of the 10/20 typically
used in France, which was considered too hard for the more severe winter conditions in Poland. The Polish
high modulus asphalt is abbreviated as AC WMS and can be used as a base or intermediate layer using 16
mm or 22 mm maximum aggregate size. The required properties of the high modulus asphalt mixture are
summarised in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Required properties of the high modulus asphalt mix (WMS) for base layer
Property Standard AC WMS 16 AC WMS 22

Minimum binder content (richness modulus) N/A 3.4 3.4
Air void content (Marshall specimen) EN 12697-8 Vmin 2.0 Vmin 2.0
Vmax 4.0 Vmax 4.0
(2) (2)
Resistance to water EN 12697-12 ITSR80 ITSR80
Rutting resistance EN 12697-22, large device < 7.5 % < 7.5 %
60 °C, 30 000 cycles; slab
thickness 100 mm
(1)
Stiffness EN 12697-26, 4PB-PR Smin 11 000 Smin 11 000
10 °C, 10 Hz Smax 17 000 Smax 17 000
(1)
Fatigue resistance EN 12697-24, 4PB-PR ε6–130 ε6–130
10 °C, 10 Hz
1 Four-point bending test on prismatic shaped specimens.
2 Indirect tensile strength ratio.
Source: General Directorate for National Roads and Highways (2013).
3.1.3 Switzerland
High modulus asphalt is used in Switzerland, and is known as Hochmodul – Asphaltbeton AC EME. There
are two classes defined, AC EME C1 with very high stability and rut resistance and AC EME C2, with high
resistance to fatigue and very high stability and rut resistance. For new construction, only AC EME C2 is
used, while for reconstruction AC EME C1 can be used. In Switzerland, the rut resistance is considered the
most problematic issue for reconstruction works (VSS 2008a).

For in situ compaction, the requirement is to achieve ≥ 99% (individual values) and ≥ 100% (on average)
compaction, where compaction is defined as the relative achieved compaction of the design bulk density (not
relative compaction). This means that the design bulk density should be achieved in the field.
It is interesting to note that the Swiss specification provides an opportunity for assessment of the quality of
the compacted layer by using the indirect tensile test. The test temperature is 45 °C and the indirect tensile
value should be greater than 0.35 MPa for AC EME C1 and greater than 0.30 MPa for AC EME C2. The
results are used for quality control and it is not an acceptance requirement.
The Swiss pavement design system uses the structural number (SN) value (VSS 2011). Selected SN
numbers are summarised in Table 3.4; the AC EME is considered to be a very high-performance asphalt.
Table 3.4: Structural number values for EME2 and conventional asphalt in the Swiss pavement design
Asphalt type SN number

Conventional asphalt concrete for base layer 3.2
Asphalt concrete for intermediate or wearing course 4.0
SMA 4.0
(1)
AC EME 22 C1 4.4
(1)
AC EME 22 C2 5.6
1 Design check using the general mechanistic approach is recommended.
Source: VSS (2011).
As an example, with a subgrade bearing capacity of E > 60 MPa (surface modulus) and a traffic loading of
100 million standard axle loads, the required structural number is 115. Two examples of pavement
compositions are provided in Table 3.5 for a conventional asphalt base layer and in Table 3.6 for a high
modulus asphalt base layer. This comparison considers only the structural requirement and the difference
between the two pavements systems may be less, as the freeze-thaw cycles require a certain minimum of
pavement thickness; this process and calculation is not discussed here.
Table 3.5: Example, pavement composition with conventional asphalt base layer
Asphalt type Thickness (cm), D SN number D x SN (cm)

SMA 4 4.0 16.0
AC (intermediate layer) 6 4.0 24.0
AC conventional base 24 3.2 76.8
Total thickness (cm) 34 Total SN number 116.8
Source: VSS (2011).
Table 3.6: Example, pavement composition with high modulus asphalt base layer
Asphalt type Thickness (cm), D SN number D x SN (cm)

SMA 4 4.0 16.0
AC (intermediate layer) 6 4.0 24.0
AC EME 22 C2 14 5.6 78.4
Total thickness (cm) 24 Total SN number 118.4
Source: VSS (2011).
High modulus asphalt can be built only as a base layer with thickness between 80 mm and 120 mm. The
bituminous binder should be a hard penetration grade binder 15/25 according to EN 13924. The design
requirements for AC EME 22 C1 and AC EME 22 C2 are summarised in Table 3.7.

Table 3.7: Design requirement of EME1 and EME2 in Switzerland
Property Standard AC EME 22 C1 AC EME 22 C2

Minimum binder content (expressed in N/A ≥ 4.6 ≥ 5.2
percentage of the mix)
Estimate of the minimum binder content N/A ≥ 2.7 ≥ 3.3
(richness modulus)
Air void content (Marshall specimen) EN 12697-8 Vmin 3.0 Vmin 1.0
Vmax 6.0 Vmax 4.0
(2) (2)
Resistance to water EN 12697-12 ITSR70 ITSR70
Rutting resistance EN 12697-22 ≤ 5.0 % ≤ 7.5 %
60 °C, 30 000 cycles;
slab thickness 100 mm
≥ 11 000 ≥ 14 000
(1)
Stiffness EN 12697-26, 2PB-TR
(3)
15 °C, 10 Hz
≥ 100 ≥ 130
(1)
Fatigue resistance EN 12697-24, 2PB-TR
(3)
10 °C, 25 Hz
1 Two-point bending test on trapezoidal specimens.
2 Indirect tensile strength ratio.
3 The sample has to be compacted to a density close to the field density.
Source: VSS (2008b).
3.1.4 Indian Ocean Region
Guyot (2013) reported the outcomes and cost savings of several road, airport and port terminal construction
projects in the Indian Ocean Region. The general conclusion was that the key to a successful EME2 mix
design is the selection of an available hard penetration grade binder and development of an optimal
combined aggregate grading of the mix. On all projects, significant thickness reductions could be achieved
by using the EME2 technology compared to conventional asphalt mixes (Table 3.8).
Table 3.8: Projects in the Indian Ocean Region using EME2 technology
Thickness
Thickness Thickness of Thickness of
of
Design of original alternative alternative EME2
Project convention
code pavement pavement EME2 asphalt (tonnes)
al asphalt
(mm) (mm) base (mm)
base (mm)
Tamarind Highway – EN 425 375 240 190 350 000
Reunion Island
(1)
Tamatave Port – BPA/EN 490 180–220 N/A 120–160 N/A
Madagascar, heavy
structures
(1)
Tamatave Port – BPA/EN 1200 630 N/A 260 N/A
Madagascar, boat lift
(2)
SSR Airport – Taxiway link FAA/EN 695 510 N/A 210 N/A
– Mauritius Island
SSR Airport – New FAA/EN 525 420 N/A 120 120 000
taxiway – Mauritius Island
New Caledonia – EN N/A N/A, 30% N/A N/A N/A
Savexpress Highway thickness
reduction
reported
1 Includes cement bound aggregate (CBA).
2 Includes concrete base.
Notes: BPA: British Port Authority. FAA: Federal Aviation Administration.
Source: Guyot (2013).

4. Replicating a Conforming French EME2 Design

using Australian Test Methods
As discussed in Section 2.3, it was assumed that a number of mixes would be tested using both the French
and Australian methodologies. It was obvious that the French specification requirements cannot be applied
in Australia, due to the differences in the test methods. The test series provided in this section forms part of
the benchmarking process, which is the basis for developing tentative specification limits using Australian
test methods. Constituent materials of a conforming EME2 mix design were shipped from France to the
ARRB laboratory in Melbourne, Victoria. The performance of the material against French test methods was
known for the mix design. The material would now be subjected to Australian tests to compare the results.
The materials listed in Table 4.1 and depicted in Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 were received on 22 October
2013 at the ARRB laboratory.
Table 4.1: Constituent materials of a conforming EME2 mix received from France
Laboratory identification number Material description

2628 10/14 – 9 bags
2629 6/10 – 5 bags
2630 2/6 – 13 bags
2631 0/2 – 13 bags
2632 Filler – 2 bags
2633 Three big cans of binder (sampled on 24/07/13)
Sample identification 15/25 binder, (bon: 17 04 99 37 4, TSM 21)
Figure 4.1: Aggregate samples shipped from France Figure 4.2: Aggregate and binder samples shipped
from France

4.1 Filler and Aggregate Testing
The filler and aggregates particle size distribution (PSD) were provided in the French mix design certificate,
which is reproduced in Table 4.2. The supplied filler and aggregates were split and tested according to AS
1141.11.1 and the test results are summarised in Table 4.3. The PSD results from Table 4.2 and Table 4.3
are summarised in Figure 4.3 where, for a better overview, only the Australian sieve sizes are shown.
Table 4.2: Filler and aggregate particle size distribution according to the French test method (mix design)
French sieve Aggregate

size (mm) 10/14 6/10 2/6 0/2 Filler
20 100 100 100 100 100
16 100 100 100 100 100
14 83 99 100 100 100
12.5 55 88 100 100 100
10 17 80 100 100 100
8 5 25 100 100 100
6.3 3 8 91 100 100
5 3 3 68 100 100
4 3 2 46 100 100
3.15 3 2 27 100 100
2 2 2 7 95 100
1 2 2 2 66 100
0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 45 100
0.25 1 1 1 30 100
0.08 0.7 0.6 0.8 15.8 90
0.063 0.5 0.4 0.6 13.9 85
Table 4.3: Filler and aggregate particle size distribution according to the Australian test method, tested by ARRB
AS sieve size
10/14 6/10 2/6 0/2 Filler
(mm)
19 100 100 100 100 100
13.2 69 100 100 100 100
9.5 9 77 100 100 100
6.7 1 23 91 100 100
4.75 1 7 60 100 100
2.36 1 2 9 99 100
1.18 1 2 1 72 100
0.600 0.4 1 0.5 49.4 100
0.300 0.4 0.8 0.4 34.3 95
0.150 0.3 0.7 0.3 23.6 87
0.075 0.2 0.5 0.2 15.5 77.1

Figure 4.3: Filler and aggregate PSD results

100
90
80
Colas 10/14 AS 10/14

70
Colas 6/10 AS 6/10
% of total passing
Colas 2/6 AS 2/6

60
Colas 0/2 AS 0/2
50 Colas Filler AS Filler
40
30
20
10
0
0.063 0.150 0.300 0.600 1.18 2.36 4.75 6.70 9.5 13.2 19.0
Sieve size (mm)
According to the mix design certificate, the constituent material percentages outlined in Table 4.4 should be
used to achieve the design combined aggregate grading; the design binder content is also highlighted in the
table.
Table 4.4: Conforming EME2 mix design composition
External percentage Internal percentage

Material description
(related to 100% aggregate) (related to 100% total mix)
Coarse aggregate 1 10/14 22.0 20.8
Coarse aggregate 2 6/10 10.0 9.4
Fine aggregate 1 2/6 31.5 29.7
Fine aggregate 2 0/2 33.0 31.1
Filler Limestone 3.5 3.3
Bitumen 15/25 6.0 5.7
Total 106.0 100.0
Using the constituent material percentages outlined in Table 4.4 and the PSD of each constituent material as
summarised in Table 4.3, the combined aggregate grading is shown in Figure 4.4. It can be seen that the
combined aggregate grading does not differ from the original mix design. The deviation in between sieves
13.2 mm and 19.0 mm is a direct result of the Australian sieve set not including a sieve in between these two
sizes, while the maximum aggregate size for the EME2 material in France is 16 mm.

Figure 4.4: Combined aggregate grading of EME2 using French sieves and Australian sieves
100
90 Colas original design from France
80
Colas replicated at ARRB
AC14-EME lower control point

70
% of total passing
AC14-EME upper control point

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.063 0.150 0.300 0.600 1.18 2.36 4.75 6.70 9.5 13.2 19.0
Sieve size (mm)
The filler and aggregate particle density properties were determined using different Australian test methods.
The water absorption and voids in the compacted filler were also determined (Table 4.5). The filler and
aggregate densities obtained from the mix design certificate are summarised in Table 4.6. It can be seen that
in France the apparent particle density is used for mix design purposes. It is suggested that for EME2 mixes,
the apparent particle density should be used (determined according to AS 1141.5 and AS 1141.6.2).
Table 4.5: Filler and aggregate properties tested according to Australian test methods
Tested by ARRB Filler and aggregate types

Property Unit 10/14 6/10 2/6 0/2 Filler
AS 1141.5, AS 1141.6.2, AS 1141.7, AS 1141.17
3
Apparent particle density (t/m ) 2.719 2.717 2.728 2.734 2.682
3
Particle density dry basis (t/m ) 2.677 2.648 2.620 2.499 N/A
3
Particle density saturated surface dry basis (t/m ) 2.692 2.673 2.659 2.585 N/A
Water adsorption (%) 0.6 1.0 1.5 3.4 N/A
Voids (%) N/A N/A N/A N/A 32.8
Table 4.6: Filler and aggregate densities according to the mix design certificate
Tested by Colas Filler and aggregate types

Property Unit 10/14 6/10 2/6 0/2 Filler
EN 1097-6
3
Apparent particle density (kg/m ) 2710 2700 2700 2690 2700

Constituent materials imported from France are visualised in Figure 4.5 to Figure 4.13.
Figure 4.5: Limestone filler from France
Figure 4.7: Limestone filler, retained on 75 micron

Figure 4.6: Limestone filler, passing 75 micron sieve
sieve
Figure 4.8: Limestone filler, retained on 150 micron Figure 4.9: Limestone filler, retained on 300 micron
sieve sieve

Figure 4.10: 0/2 mm fine aggregate from France Figure 4.11: 2/6 mm fine aggregate from France
Figure 4.12: 6/10 mm fine aggregate from France Figure 4.13: 10/14 mm fine aggregate from France
4.2 Hard Penetration Grade Binder (EME Binder) Testing
The supplied hard penetration grade binder, identified as pen 15/25 binder on the mix design certificate was
tested at the ARRB laboratory. The test results of the binder are summarised in Table 4.7. The binder meets
the requirements listed in Table 2.7 for 15/25 bitumen.

Table 4.7: Properties of the hard penetration grade binder supplied from France
(3)
Surrogate Binder classes Test results (EME binder #2633)
Specifications Australian test method
characteristic 2 3 Test 1 Test 2 Average
Consistency at Penetration at 25 °C 15 to 25 10 to 20 Penetration at 25 °C (pu) AS 2341.12 17.5 17.4 17
intermediate
service
temperature
(2)
Consistency at Softening point 56.5 to 72.5 59.5 to Softening point (°C) AS 2341.18 64.6 65 64.8
elevated service 79.5
temperature
Dynamic viscosity at ≥ 550 ≥ 700 Viscosity at 60 °C (Pa.s) AS 2341.2 3415 3409 3412
60 °C
Viscosity at 60 °C (shear rate) 0.503 0.561 0.532
Durability, Change of mass ≤ 0.5 N/A Loss on heating (%) AGPT-T103 0.19
resistance to
≥ 55
(5)
Retained penetration N/A Per cent change in penetration AS/NZS 2341.10, 13.5 14.1 Retained penetration
hardening at
at 25 °C after RTFO treatment AS 2341.12 14 pu
163 °C (4)
(pu) Per cent change 80%
Softening point after N/A N/A N/A AS/NZS 2341.10, 71.6 71.8 71.7
hardening AS 2341.18
Increase in softening ≤8 ≤ 10 Increase in softening point after 7.0 6.8 6.9
point RTFO treatment
Other properties Viscosity at 135 °C ≥ 0.6 ≥ 0.7 Viscosity at 135 °C (Pa.s) AGPT-T111 Test 1: 1.338 1.338
Test 2: 1.339
Test 3: 1.338
Solubility ≥ 99.0 N/A Matter insoluble in toluene (% AS 2341.8 0.01 0.02 0.02
mass)
(2)
Penetration index (PI) Report Report Penetration index PI of the original bitumen –0.3
(1)
before test PI after RTFO treatment 0.4
Not required in N/A Viscosity at 60 °C after RTFO AS/NZS 2341.10 10 10 10 697
EN standard, (Pa.s) AS 2341.2 740 654
results to be
N/A Per cent increase in viscosity at AS/NZS 2341.10 314.4 312.5 314
reported
60 °C after RTFO test (%)
1 PI calculation according to Equation 1 (Annex A of EN 13924-2006).
2 Considering shift factor; the ASTM and AS results are generally 1.5 °C higher than for the EN method (Read & Whiteoak 2003).
3 Classes are defined according to EN 13924-2006.
4 Pu equals to 0.1 mm.
5 Per cent change in penetration calculated using the equation: (Penetration at 25 °C after RTFO x 100) / (Penetration at 25 °C before RTFO).

4.2.1 Brookfield Test Results
Brookfield tests were performed according to AGPT-T111 Handling viscosity of polymer modified binders,
Brookfield thermosel (Austroads 2006a). In this study a Brookfield DV–II+PRO viscometer was used. The
results of the Brookfield tests are summarised in Table 4.8 and Figure 4.14.
Table 4.8: Brookfield viscosity test results for the hard penetration grade binder supplied from France
Binder (B2633) Brookfield viscosity (Pa.s)

Temperature (°C) Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 Average
135 1.338 1.339 1.338 1.338
150 0.619 0.619 0.619 0.619
165 0.308 0.308 0.308 0.308
180 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167
The Asphalt Institute mix design manual (Asphalt Institute 1984) introduced viscosity requirements for the
determination of mixing and compaction temperatures. According to the manual, the asphalt should be
heated to 0.17 ± 0.02 Pa.s for mixing and to 0.28 ± 0.03 Pa.s for compaction. The calculated mixing
temperature is 180 °C and the calculated compaction temperature is 170 °C. These temperature values were
used for manufacturing asphalt mixes for subsequent performance testing. These temperature values are in
line with the French requirements outlined in NF P 98-150.
Figure 4.14: Determination of the mixing and compaction temperature from the Brookfield viscosity test results
10.0
Binder B2633
Expon. (Binder B2633)

Viscosity (Pa.s)
1.0
y = 661.54e-0.046x
R² = 0.9973
0.1
130 135 140 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 185
Temperature (°C)
4.2.2 DSR Test – Temperature-frequency Sweep
DSR tests were performed according to the AASHTO standard, Standard method of test for determining the
rheological properties of asphalt binder using a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR), T 315–10 (AASHTO 2012).
Temperature-frequency sweep was performed between 20 and 70 °C as follows:
• Temperature-frequency sweep for temperature between 50–70 °C

– 5% (0.05) strain
– frequency sweep at 50–55–60–65–70 °C
– 15 different frequency values between 0.1–0.1585–0.2512–0.3981–0.631–1.0–1.585–2.512–3.981–
6.31–10.0–15.85–25.12–39.81–62.83 rad/s
– larger diameter sample of 25 mm
– gap (i.e. sample thickness) 1.0 mm; trimming gap at 1.05 mm to achieve 1.0 mm gap.
• Temperature-frequency sweep for temperature between 20–50 °C
– 5% (0.05) strain
– frequency sweep at 20–25–30–35–40–45–50 °C
– 15 different frequency values between 0.1–0.1585–0.2512–0.3981–0.631–1.0–1.585–2.512–3.981–
6.31–10.0–15.85–25.12–39.81–62.83 rad/s
– small diameter sample of 8 mm
– gap (i.e. sample thickness) 2.0 mm; trimming gap at 2.1 mm to achieve 2.0 mm gap.
Two sets of the frequency-temperature sweep were completed to be able to assess variability in the test
data; it has already been shown that the DSR test provides a very good repeatability (Austroads 2013a,
2013b). The results are summarised in Figure 4.15 and Figure 4.16.
Figure 4.15: Frequency-temperature sweep of #2633 – set one
1.0E+09
1.0E+08
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
70
G* [Pa]
1.0E+05 65
60
1.0E+04
55
50
45
1.0E+03
40
35
1.0E+02
30
25
1.0E+01
20
MC-EME 2633-set1
1.0E+00
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
Reduced frequency [rad/s]

Figure 4.16: Frequency-temperature of #2633 – set two
1.0E+09
1.0E+08
1.0E+07
1.0E+06
70
G* [Pa]
1.0E+05 65
60
1.0E+04
55
50
45
1.0E+03
40
35
1.0E+02
30
25
1.0E+01
20
MC-EME 2633-set2
1.0E+00
1.0E-04 1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 1.0E+05
Reduced frequency [rad/s]
The master curve (at 45 °C) of the French hard penetration grade binder (#2633), along with the EME
binders manufactured in Australia (#1973 and #2316) as reported in Austroads (2013a) are presented in
Figure 4.17; a conforming C320 binder and an A15E are also presented for comparison.
Figure 4.17: Master curve of different binders at 45 °C

1.0E+07
1.0E+06
1.0E+05
G* (Pa)
1.0E+04 MC-C320-1909-set2
MC-A15E-1910-set2
MC-EME 2316-set2
1.0E+03
MC-EME 1973-set2
MC-EME 2633-set2
1.0E+02
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Reduced frequency (rad/s)

4.3 Laboratory Mixing and Initial Testing
It is a costly and time consuming process to transport constituent materials to Australia from France,
therefore the testing regime at the ARRB laboratory was carefully planned for the conforming EME2 material.
A batch mix was prepared according to Table 4.4 in order to perform the following tests:
• Compact two Servopac samples with a diameter of 150 mm
– determine the compaction value K, air void content at 100 and 200 cycles directly from the
Servopac sample height
– determine bulk density using the saturated surface dry (SSD) method
– determine maximum density.
• After completion of the volumetric check, the bottom and top parts of the two Servopac samples were cut
to a total sample height of 75 mm and the resilient modulus test according to AS 2891.13.1-2013 was
performed at 15 and 25 °C.
• Following the resilient modulus test, the wheel-tracking test was conducted using the two Servopac
samples. The wheel-tracking sample was prepared from two 150 mm diameter Servopac samples cut on
their sides and put into plaster of Paris (Figure 4.26).
This series of pre-tests allowed a rough understanding of the mix performance in the wheel-tracking test and
allowed for the opportunity to take corrective actions if necessary, before starting to use the material.
4.3.1 Workability
As part of the workability assessment, the maximum density was determined according to AS 2891.7.1 and
this value was used throughout the mix assessment process. The results are summarised in Table 4.9.
Table 4.9: Maximum density of the French EME2 mix
Property Sample 1 Sample 2 Average

3
Maximum density (t/m ) 2.451 2.472 2.462
Three samples were compacted to 200 gyratory cycles according to the parameters in Table 2.16. The air
voids contents were determined directly from the Servopac data (V%) and from the regression equation
(v(ng)%); the parameters and the K value (compaction resistance) are summarised in Table 4.10 to
Table 4.12 and are visualised in Figure 4.18 to Figure 4.20. The air voids contents and the K values are very
consistent for the mix.

Table 4.10: Workability parameters, sample #2846-1
Number of
ng 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 200
gyrations
Air voids content V% 13.2 10.9 9.5 8.4 7.6 6.9 5.8 5.0 4.4 3.6 3.0 2.5 2.1 1.7
Air voids content v(ng) % 12.5 10.4 9.1 8.2 7.5 7.0 6.1 5.4 4.8 3.9 3.2 2.7 2.0 1.1
Compactibility K 3.107
v(1) % 17.5
Figure 4.18: Workability graph, sample #2846-1

20.0
Voids content (%)
10.0
0.0
1 10 100 1000
Number of gyrations

Number of
ng 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 200
gyrations
v(1) % 17.6

20.0
Voids content (%)
10.0
0.0
1 10 100 1000
Number of gyrations

Number of
ng 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 200
gyrations
v(1) % 18.0

20.0
Voids content (%)
10.0
0.0
1 10 100 1000
Number of gyrations

One of the compacted samples and its cut surface are depicted in Figure 4.21 and Figure 4.22; the EME2
mix has a very fine and bitumen-rich surface appearance and the cut surface shows a very dense asphalt
mix with high bitumen content.
Figure 4.21: Compacted French EME2 sample Figure 4.22: Cut surface of the compacted French
EME2 sample
The workability assessment was also used to collect some initial assessment about the offset value between
the air voids content calculated from the Servopac data (mensuration) and the air voids content derived from
the saturated surface dry (SSD) test. This information was useful for the rest of the program, where the
specimens had to be compacted to a pre-determined bulk density (i.e. air voids content). It is necessary that
samples for performance testing are compacted to an air voids content between 3 to 6% (Table 2.16). By
using the calculation in Equation 11 it was possible to minimise the number of specimens which would fall
out of the required air voids content. The procedure to compact a specimen to a set density is as follows
(Austroads 2014):
• determine the desired bulk density or the maximum density of the mix, MD (t/m3), and the desired air
voids content, AV (%)
• determine the desired height of the compacted specimen, H (mm)
• determine the average diameter of the compaction mould, d (mm)
• estimate the surface voids of the compacted specimen, SV (%)
• calculate the mass (g) using Equation 11.
The maximum density of the mix is measured using test method AS 2891.7.1.
MD × π × d2 × H AV + SV 11
Required mass = × �1 − �
4000 100
The most uncertainty was around the value for surface voids (SV) of the compacted sample; in the first
attempt to use the above calculation the surface voids were significantly under-estimated by using a 0.7%
offset. Consequently, air voids contents between 2 and 3% were achieved for samples compacted for the
indirect tensile test. This information was also used for subsequent sample production.

4.3.2 Stiffness (Resilient Modulus) According to AS 2891.13.1
In order to collect initial information and use the material transported from France as much as possible, an
initial stiffness test was performed on the samples prepared during the workability assessment. Although in
France the resilient modulus (referred to as indirect tensile stiffness on cylindrical specimens – ITCY) is not a
performance requirement (NF EN 13108-1) this test was performed in this study to provide benchmarking for
practitioners to other Australian heavy duty mixes. It should be noted that these test results are only for
information and not for mix design or compliance testing.
In the workability test samples were compacted to 200 cycles and consequently the final air voids content of
these samples became very low, i.e. outside the requirements in Table 2.16. The air voids content and
stiffness test results at 25 °C are summarised in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13: Stiffness of the French EME2 at 25 °C at very low air voids contents according to AS 2891.13.1
Property #2846-1 #2846-2 #2846-3 Average

3
Bulk density (t/m ) 2.450 2.453 2.445 2.449
Air voids (%) – SSD 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.5
Stiffness at 25 °C (MPa) Average of five pulses 12 122 13 201 10 385 11 903
Standard deviation 256 226 247 N/A
In a second attempt, samples were compacted using the Servopac to higher air voids content. Due to the low
offset value, which was determined as a starting point, the air voids content was still outside the target range;
however, in order to collect as much data as possible the samples were tested at 15 °C and 25 °C for
stiffness (resilient modulus) and the results are summarised in Table 4.14.
Table 4.14: Stiffness of the French EME2 at 15 °C and 25 °C at low air voids content according to AS 2891.13.1

3
Bulk density (t/m ) 2.427 2.429 2.437 2.431
Air voids content (%) – SSD 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.3
For mix design and compliance testing in Australia, the stiffness of an asphalt mix is determined at 25 °C and
at a specified air voids content of 5.0% (AS 2891.13.1 and Austroads 2014). In order to provide a comparison
for practitioners, the French EME2 mix was tested for stiffness at 25 and 32 °C and at a target air voids
content of 5.0% (SSD). It should be noted that this test is not required for mix design or compliance testing of
EME2 as the air voids content is not representative for EME2 and does not provide information about the
real performance of the mix (Table 4.15). Even with an extremely high air voids content, i.e. 10% mensuration,
the measured stiffness of the mix is very high, averaging 8324 MPa at 25 °C and 4810 MPa at 32 °C.

Table 4.15: Stiffness of the French EME2 at 25 °C and 32 °C and standard Australian test conditions

3
Bulk density (t/m ) – SSD 2.327 2.34 2.326 2.331
Air voids (%) – SSD 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.3
3
Bulk density (t/m ) – mensuration 2.229 2.233 2.210 2.224
Air voids (%) – mensuration 9.8 9.7 10.6 10.0
Stiffness at 25 °C (MPa) Average of five pulses 8883 8450 7639 8324
Standard deviation 287.7 147.7 175.6 204
Stiffness at 32 °C (MPa) Average of five pulses 5072 4615 4744 4810
Standard deviation 210.8 148.5 179.9 180
For comparison purposes, the French EME2 mix was compacted later to a design air voids content of 4.0%
(mensuration) and the results are summarised in (Table 4.16).
Table 4.16: Stiffness of the French EME2 mix at in-service air voids content
Property 3147-1 3147-4 3147-6 Average

3
Bulk density (t/m ) – SSD 2.433 2.444 2.437 2.438
Air voids (%) – SSD 1.2 0.7 1.0 1.0
3
Bulk density (t/m ) – mensuration 2.370 2.380 2.351 2.367
Air voids (%) – mensuration 3.7 3.3 4.5 3.9
Standard deviation 442 551 680 558
Figure 4.23 provides a comparison between the flexural modulus at 10 Hz (Section 4.3.4) and the ITS value.
The comparison is provided for two different air voids content; the impact of the air voids content is
discussed in details in Section 4.3.4. It should be noted that the ITS test results provide only a benchmarking
tool for practitioners and there is no specification requirements for this property.

Figure 4.23: Comparison between the flexural modulus at 10 Hz and the ITS value
25000
French EME2, #2857 (0.9% SSD - 1.2%
mensuration) - flexural
Flexural stiffness (10 Hz) and resilient modulus (MPa)
French EME2, #2887 (5.4% SSD - 6.9%

20000 mensuration) - flexural
French EME2, #3147 (1.0% SSD - 3.9 %

mensuration) - ITS
15000
French EME2, #2912 (5.3% SSD - 10.0%
mensuration) - ITS
10000
5000
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Temperature (°C)
4.3.3 Wheel Tracking According to AGPT-T231
Initial testing
The rut resistance of the mix was assessed using the wheel-tracking test in accordance with Austroads
method AGPT-T231 (Austroads 2006b), instead of the large wheel-tracking device as required for EME2 in
France.
As discussed earlier, the samples prepared during the workability test were cut and used for the initial wheel-
tracking test (samples #2846-1 and #2846-2). SSD air voids content was an average of 0.5% (0.4 and 0.5%).
The test parameters are outlined in Table 2.16 and the test results are summarised in Figure 4.24 and
Figure 4.25. The sample after completion of the test is shown in Figure 4.26 and Figure 4.27.

Figure 4.24: Rut depth of sample #2846 – initial testing
0.0
0.5
1.0
Rut depth (mm)
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0 2846 Rut depth (mm) - 7 points average

4.5
2846 Rut depth (mm) - middle point
5.0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Number of load passes
Figure 4.25: Proportional rut depth of sample #2846 – initial testing
0.0
0.5
Proportional rut depth (%)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
2846 Proportional rut depth (%) - 7 points average
4.0
4.5 2846 Proportional rut depth (%) - middle point

5.0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000

Figure 4.26: Sample prepared for the initial wheel- Figure 4.27: Sample prepared for the initial wheel-
tracking test – overview tracking test – cross view
It was found that it is necessary to define the number of passes and the number of cycles for this test, as the
French test method defines cycles, and the Australian test method defines passes. In this study the following
definitions were used:
• load pass: a single pass of the loaded wheel over the test sample
• load cycle: two passes (outward and return) of the loaded wheel.
The initial test on combined sample #2846-1 and #2846-2 was conducted up to 30 000 load passes, which
equals 15 000 load cycles. In the rest of this study, in line with the French requirements, 30 000 load cycles
(i.e. 60 000 load passes) were used in the wheel-tracking test.
In a subsequent test, samples #2851-1 and #2851-2 were also cut and subjected to a wheel-tracking test
(Figure 4.28 and Figure 4.29); the air voids content was an average of 1.4% (1.4 and 1.3%), determined
using the SSD method.
Figure 4.28: Rut depth of sample #2851 – initial testing

0.0
0.5
1.0
Rut depth (mm)
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5

4.5
5.0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

Figure 4.29: Proportional rut depth of sample #2851 – initial testing
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
2851 Proportional rut depth (%) - 7 points average
4.0

5.0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
Wheel-tracking test for benchmarking
Following the initial testing on combined samples #2846 and #2851, slabs #2855 (5.8% air voids content)
and #2888 (5.8% air voids content) were compacted for benchmarking. The target air void content was 4.2%
as per the original French mix design certificate. It should be noted that the test results on cores embedded
in plaster of Paris are only indicative and were used for initial data collection only. For benchmarking
purposes only the test results collected from slabs were used (Table 4.23).
The test results are summarised in Figure 4.30 to Figure 4.33. According to the original mix design, the
EME2 mix had a rutting resistance of 3.5% (proportional rut depth) at 30 000 load cycles tested according to
the French requirement (large wheel-tracking equipment).
Figure 4.30: Rut depth of sample #2855 tested according to AGPT-T231 combined with the requirements of
Table 2.16
0.0
0.5
1.0
Rut depth (mm)
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5

4.5
5.0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

Figure 4.31: Proportional rut depth of sample #2855 tested according to AGPT-T231 combined with the
requirements of Table 2.16
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0 2855 Proportional rut depth (%) - 7 points average

4.5
2855 Proportional rut depth (%) - middle point
5.0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
Figure 4.32: Rut depth of sample #2888 tested according to AGPT-T231 combined with the requirements of
Table 2.16
0.0
0.5
1.0
Rut depth (mm)
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5

4.5
5.0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

Figure 4.33: Proportional rut depth of sample #2888 tested according to AGPT-T231 combined with the
requirements of Table 2.16
0.0
0.5 2888 Proportional rut depth (%) - 7 points average


1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
The test results are summarised in Table 4.17 and sample #2855 is shown in Figure 4.34 and Figure 4.35
after the wheel-tracking test.
Table 4.17: Wheel-tracking test results according to AGPT-T231 combined with the requirements of Table 2.16
Proportional rut Proportional rut

Rut depth (mm) – Rut depth (mm) –
Sample number depth (%) – 7 points depth (%) – middle
7 points average middle point
average point
2846 1.43 1.51 1.91 2.01
(30 000 passes)
2851 1.65 1.72 2.20 2.29
2855 2.96 2.83 3.94 3.77
2888 3.64 3.56 4.86 4.75

Figure 4.34: Sample #2855 after wheel tracking-test – Figure 4.35: Sample #2855 after wheel-tracking test –
profile overview
4.3.4 Flexural Stiffness Testing
Flexural stiffness tests were performed according to the requirements summarised in Table 2.16;
specification requirements for EME2 mixes are based on flexural stiffness testing. Beams were
manufactured at a series of different air voids content to be able to assess the impact of the compaction on
the performance of the mix. The results are summarised in Table 4.18. Beams prepared for flexural stiffness
testing are shown in Figure 4.36. In order to achieve consistency, the following sequence was used for
manufacturing beams:
• The slab was cut into four beams 65 mm wide, 75 mm high and 400 mm long.
• Each beam was cut to 65 mm height by cutting of 10 mm from the top surface (surface that is in contact
with the compaction foot); each beam is now 65 mm wide, 65 mm high and 400 mm long.
• Each beam was cut to 50 mm height by cutting of 15 mm from the bottom surface (surface that is in
contact with the bottom of the slab mould); each beam is now 65 mm wide, 50 mm high and 400 mm
long.
• The ends of the beams were cut to comply with the requirement of lengths of 390 ± 10 mm according to
AGPT-T233 (Austroads 2006c).

Figure 4.36: Beams from sample series #2884 and #2885 (French EME2 mix) ready for flexural stiffness testing
A temperature-frequency sweep was conducted on the beams (Table 4.18) at 0.1–0.5–1–3–5–10–15–20 Hz

and 5–15–25–30 °C temperatures. The test set-up and requirements are outlined in Table 2.16. The master
curves were constructed from the test results and they are visualised at 15 °C reference temperature in
Figure 4.37. The air voids content of the compacted mix has a large impact on the flexural stiffness and
consequently on the overall performance of the compacted mix.

Table 4.18: Air voids contents results of the beams prepared for flexural stiffness testing – French EME2 mix
Property Beam code

Sample number 2857-1 2857-2 2857-3 2857-4 Average
3
Bulk density (t/m ) (SSD) 2.434 2.442 2.44 2.439 2.439
Air voids – AS 2891.8 (SSD) 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9
3
Bulk density (t/m ) (mensuration) 2.449 2.415 2.442 2.425 2.433
Air voids – AS 2891.8 (mensuration) 0.5 1.9 0.8 1.5 1.2
3
Air voids – AS 2891.8 (SSD) 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.6
3
3
Air voids – AS 2891.8 (SSD) 3.2 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9
3
3
Air voids – AS 2891.8 (SSD) 4.1 3.6 4.4 3.9 4.0
3
3
Air voids – AS 2891.8 (SSD) 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.8 5.4
3
Figure 4.37: Master curves of the French EME2 mix at different air voids content
1.0E+05
Stiffness (MPa)
1.0E+04
MC-EME2 2857 (0.9% SSD)
MC-EME2 2884 (2.9% SSD)
MC-EME2 2863 (3.6% SSD)
MC-EME2 2885 (4.0% SSD)
MC-EME2 2887 (5.4% SSD)
1.0E+03
1.0E-03 1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04

Flexural stiffness test for benchmarking
From the temperature-frequency sweep test series the values at 15 °C 10 Hz (Figure 4.38) and 25 °C 10 Hz
(Figure 4.39) were extracted for benchmarking purposes.
Figure 4.38: Flexural stiffness of the French EME2 mix – four-point bending, 15 °C, 10 Hz
18,000
Average
16,000
Standard deviation
14,000
Stiffness (MPa) - 15°C, 10 Hz
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
-
#2857 (0.9% SSD - #2884 (2.9% SSD - #2863 (3.6% SSD - #2885 (4.0% SSD - #2887 (5.4% SSD -
1.2% mensuration) 4.0% mensuration) 5.0% mensuration) 5.7% mensuration) 6.9% mensuration)
Figure 4.39: Flexural stiffness of the French EME2 mix – four-point bending, 25 °C, 10 Hz
18,000
Average
16,000
Standard deviation
14,000
Stiffness (MPa) - 25°C, 10 Hz
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
-
#2857 (0.9% SSD - #2884 (2.9% SSD - #2863 (3.6% SSD - #2885 (4.0% SSD - #2887 (5.4% SSD -
1.2% mensuration) 4.0% mensuration) 5.0% mensuration) 5.7% mensuration) 6.9% mensuration)
For benchmarking purposes the design air voids content of 3.3% (mensuration) was targeted; sample series
#2884 had the closest air voids content to the original French design with 4.0% (mensuration) air voids
content. It should be noted that it is extremely difficult to replicate and achieve exactly the 3.3% design air
voids content.

The flexural stiffness of the French EME2 mix in the original mix design was determined to be 15 479 MPa at
15 °C and 10 Hz (two-point bending), which resulted in 15 621 MPa at 15 °C and 10 Hz using the four-point
bending apparatus (Figure 4.42).
4.3.5 Fatigue Resistance According to AGPT-T233
The French specifications require performing the fatigue testing according to EN 12697-24, by using the two-
point bending testing on trapezoidal specimens (method A). Due to the lack of two-point bending equipment
in Australia, fatigue testing was performed using the four-point bending test according to AGPT-T233
(Austroads 2006c), except using sinusoidal loading instead of the Haversine loading. Tests were performed
at 20 °C and 10 Hz at three different strain levels to complete the full fatigue factorial on 18 specimens
required in the European specification (EN 12697-24). Requirements for fatigue testing are outlined in
Table 2.16.
The results of the complete fatigue test are summarised in Table 4.19. Completion of the full testing required
a total of 491 hours to complete, given that at 10 Hz frequency, 36 000 cycles can be applied in one hour.
Although a full characterisation requires extensive and time consuming testing, it is considered the only
feasible way to gain reliable results. Also, by selecting a strain level of 125 or 130 for the lowest strain
applied, the time of testing would have been considerably shorter without compromising the standard
requirements as outlined in Table 2.16. However, at the commencement of testing there was no experience
available with testing EME2 in Australia and 120 microstrain was considered a suitable lowest strain level.
Table 4.19: Test results of fatigue testing of the French EME2 mix (18 beams)
Strain level (microstrain) –

Test results
sinusoidal loading
200 Sample number 2884-3 2908-1 2908-4 2942-1 2949-1 2949-2
Number of cycles (N) 40 880 117 370 116 820 111 030 206 210 71 420
140 Sample number 2884-2 2884-4 2887-1 2887-2 2887-3 2887-4
Number of cycles (N) 664 720 449 610 714 580 673 340 810 610 1 246 850
120 Sample number 2921-1 2921-3 2942-3 2942-4 2949–3 2949-4
Number of cycles (N) 1 401 740 1 791 240 452 390 1 603 720 3 489 620 3 741 510
The fatigue curve is shown in Figure 4.40; the parameters as outlined in Table 2.16 are also calculated:
• average air voids content 4.5% mensuration (3.1% SSD)
• ε6 = 135 microstrain
• SN = 0.33.

Figure 4.40: Fatigue curve of the French EME2 tested at 20 °C, 10 Hz, using the four-point bending equipment
1000
Strain level (microstrain)
100
EME 0/14 Class 2
Raw material supplied from France
4PB test completed at ARRB Vermont South, VIC
y = 1073.1x-0.15
R² = 0.8371
20°C, 10Hz, sinusoidal loading
Average air voids content 3.1% (SSD)
ε6=135 microstrain
SN=0.33
10
1.E+04 1.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+07
Loading cycles
The requirement for EME2 according to the French specification is 130 microstrain at 10 °C and 25 Hz, in
accordance with EN 12697-24 method A (Delorme, Roche & Wendling 2007 and NF EN 13108-1).
The test results of this study are now being directly related to the French specification limits and provide
input into benchmarking using the Australian test method. According to the original French mix design, the
fatigue resistance of the mix is 142 microstrain (3.3% mensuration air voids content) in the French two-point
bending test.
4.3.6 Moisture Sensitivity According to AGPT-T232
The saturation requirements and conditioning framework for moisture sensitivity tests are different in AGPT-
T232 and EN 12697-12; this is discussed in detail in Austroads (2013a).
In this study the requirements of AGPT-T232, including the freeze-thaw option, were used without any
alteration to the test method.
The minimum requirement of indirect tensile strain ratio (ITSR) is 70% according to the French
specifications. The EME2 mix returned a 93.5% ITSR value according to the original French mix design,
while a TSR value of 87.8 % was achieved according to AGPT/T232 (Table 4.20 and Table 4.21).
Table 4.20: Stripping potential of the French EME2 mix according to AGPT-T232, dry subset
Core number 2986-1 2986-2 2986-3 Average

Air voids (%) 8.0 7.7 8.3 8.0
Tensile strength (kPa) 1648.2 1722.7 1668.4 1679.8
Stripping observation Nil Nil Nil

Table 4.21: Stripping potential of the French EME2 mix according to AGPT-T232, wet subset
Core number 2912-2 2912-4 2986-5 Average

Air voids (%) 7.8 7.2 8.3 7.8
Degree of saturation (%) 78.2 63.9 57.3 66.5
Swell 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2
Tensile strength (kPa) 1381.0 1628.9 1416.4 1475.4
Stripping observation Nil Nil Nil N/A
4.4 Tentative Specification Limits Based on Laboratory Testing
Asphalt producers provided test results for their Australian EME2 mixes, which are denoted in this report as
Mix 1 and Mix 2 (Table 2.15). The results are not comprehensive and not all tests were completed according
to Table 2.16; however, the available information provides input into developing tentative specification limits
for EME2 in Australia, using Australian test methods. The results and their analysis are provided in this
section along with the suggested tentative specification limits.
4.4.1 Workability
Test results for workability properties were available from testing of the French EME2 mix and the Australian
EME2 Mix 1:
• French EME2 mix test results
– according to EN (tested in France): 2.4% air voids at 100 gyrations
– according to modified AS method: 3.3% air voids at 100 gyrations.
• Australian EME2 Mix 1 test results
– according to EN (tested in France): 4.6% air voids at 100 gyrations
– according to modified AS method: 3.2 and 3.5 % air voids at 100 gyrations.
Based on the above results, a specification limit of maximum 6.0 % air voids at 100 gyrations is suggested
for EME2 mixes in Australia, performed according to the set-up and requirements in Table 2.16.

4.4.2 Wheel-tracking
Test results for wheel-tracking properties were available from testing of the Australian EME2 Mix 1
(Table 4.22) and the French EME2 mix (Table 4.23).
Table 4.22: Wheel-tracking results for the Australian EME2 Mix 1
AGPT test at 30 000 cycles

EN test method
(60 000 passes)
Australian EME2 Mix 1 Rut depth (mm) Proportional rut French mix design French mix design
middle point depth (%) Rut depth (mm) – Proportional rut
middle point using 100 mm thick depth (%)
slab
Average 1.63 3.3 1.5 1.5
Table 4.23: Wheel-tracking results for the French EME2 mix
AGPT test at 30 000 cycles

EN test method
(60 000 passes)
French Rut depth Rut depth Proportional Proportional French mix French mix
EME2 mix, (mm) (mm) rut depth (%) rut depth (%) design design
sample Seven points middle point Seven middle point Rut depth Proportional
number average points (mm) – using rut depth
average 100 mm thick (%)
slab
2855 2.96 2.83 3.94 3.77 N/A N/A
2888 3.64 3.56 4.86 4.75 N/A N/A
Average 3.3 3.2 4.4 4.3 3.5 3.5
Members of the ARWG preferred to retain the current Australian approach, i.e. setting the specification limit
by using absolute rut depth in millimetres instead of the proportional rut depth in percentage, as specified by
the French standards. The test results were converted into absolute values and are summarised in
Figure 4.41. Based on regression analysis, the French specification requirement of 7.5% proportional rut
depth, which equals to a 7.5 mm rut depth on a 100 mm slab, can be converted to 6.3 mm rut depth when
using the Australian test method at 30 000 cycles. Therefore a specification limit of 6.0 mm, with the test
performed at 60 °C for 30 000 cycles (60 000 passes) is suggested for EME2 mixes. The test set-up and
requirements are summarised in Table 2.16.
Figure 4.41: Derivation of the wheel-tracking specification limit for EME2 using Australian test methods
8
6
AGPT at 30 000 cycles, rut depth (mm)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EN test, rut depth (mm)

4.4.3 Flexural Stiffness
As at September 2014, the EN test results (two-point bending, 15 °C, 10Hz) for the French EME2 mix
imported from France, and the Australian EME2 Mix 1 and Mix 2 were available; however, test results from
Australian test methods were only available for the French EME2 mix (Section 4.3.4) and the Australian
EME2 Mix 1, as shown in Figure 4.42.
Figure 4.42: Benchmarking of EME2 test results for flexural stiffness
18 000 18 000
17 000 17 000
Complex modulus - two-point bending (MPa)

16 000 16 000
Complex modulus - four-point bending (MPa)
15 000 15 000
14 000 14 000
13 000 13 000
12 000 12 000
French EME2 mix - tested in Australia - 4 point bending
11 000 French EME2 mix - tested in France - 2 point bending 11 000

Australian EME2 Mix 1 - tested in Australia - 4 point bending
10 000 10 000
Australian EME2 Mix 1 - tested in France - 2 point bending
9 000 Australian EME2 Mix 2 - tested in France - 2 point bending 9 000
EME2 mix design limit in France - 2 point bending

8 000 8 000
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Air voids (%) - mensuration
Source: Based on laboratory data from Boral Asphalt, Fulton Hogan and ARRB.
As discussed earlier, the flexural stiffness of the French mix in the original mix design was 15 479 MPa at
15 °C and 10 Hz (two-point bending), which resulted in 15 621 MPa at 15 °C and 10 Hz using the four-point
bending apparatus (Figure 4.42). Another option for specification limits was considered at 25 °C and 10 Hz;
the EN test results (two-point bending) resulted in 9819 MPa, while the Australian test method (four-point
bending) gave a value of 9142 MPa. Members of the ARWG preferred to retain the temperature value set in
the French specifications, therefore a value of 14 000 MPa at 15 °C and 10 Hz using the four-point bending
equipment is suggested as a minimum flexural modulus for EME2 mixes in Australia (Figure 4.43). The test
set-up and requirements are summarised in Table 2.16.

Figure 4.43: Derivation of the flexural stiffness specification limit for EME2 using Australian test methods
16 000
14 000
four-point bending test, 15 °C, 10Hz (MPa)
14062 (MPa) ~ 14000 (MPa) @ 15°C, 10 Hz, 4PB

12 000
Australian method
French EME2 mix
10 000
8 000
9142 ~ 9500 (MPa)
@ 25°C, 10 Hz, 4PB
6 000
4 000
2 000
0 000
0 000 2 000 4 000 6 000 8 000 10 000 12 000 14 000 16 000
French EME2 mix, two-point bending test, 15 °C, 10 Hz (MPa) - EN method
4.4.4 Fatigue
As at September 2014, the EN test results (two-point bending, 10 °C, 25 Hz) for the French EME2 mix
imported from France, and the Australian EME2 Mix 1 and Mix 2 were available. From the counterpart
fatigue testing series (four-point bending, 20 °C, 10 Hz) the French EME2 mix, the Australian EME2 Mix 1
and the Australian EME2 Mix 2 were completed. The test results are summarised in Table 4.24 and are
visualised in Figure 4.44.
The fatigue test of the Australian EME2 Mix 2 was conducted using the Haversine loading. Fatigue test
results at a given strain level using the Haversine loading result in a similar fatigue life as tests at half that
strain using the sinusoidal test configuration (Pronk et al. 2010, Denneman 2013). Based on this
consideration, the fatigue strain value provided for the Australian EME2 Mix 2 was divided by two.
Table 4.24: EME2 test results for flexural fatigue
Average air Fatigue

voids properties
Asphalt mix
(mensuration) ε6
(1)
(%) (microstrain)
French Tested in France – two-point bending 3.3 142
EME2 mix
Tested in Australia – four-point bending 4.5 135
Australian Tested in France – two-point bending 4.8 143
EME2 Mix 1
Tested in Australia – four-point bending 4.7 170
Australian Tested in France – two-point bending 4.6 132
EME2 Mix 2 (2)
Tested in Australia – four-point bending (1/2 value from 5.0 173
Haversine loading)
1 The definition of ε6 is provided in Table 2.16.
2 Test result was 346 microstrain at 106 cycles, using the Haversine loading.
Source: Based on laboratory data from Colas France, Boral Asphalt, Fulton Hogan and ARRB.

Figure 4.44: Benchmarking of EME2 test results for flexural fatigue

200 200
French EME2 mix - tested in Australia - 4 point
Fatigue properties ε6 - two-point bending test

bending
190 190
Fatigue properties ε6 - four-point bending test
Australian EME2 Mix 1 - tested in Australia - 4

point bending
180 180
Australian EME2 Mix 2 - tested in Australia - 4
point bending (1/2 value from haversine loading)
170 170
French EME2 mix - tested in France - 2 point
(microstrain)
bending
(microstrain)
160 160
Australian EME2 Mix 1 - tested in France - 2 point
bending
150 150
Australian EME2 Mix 2 - tested in France - 2 point
bending
140 140
French specification limit (2 point bending)
130 130
120 120
110 110
100 100
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Air voids (%) - mensuration
Source: Based on laboratory data from Colas France, Boral Asphalt, Fulton Hogan and ARRB.
Based on the above figure, the tentative specification limit for minimum fatigue resistance for EME2 mixes in
Australia, at 20 °C and 10 Hz (four-point bending equipment), is determined at 150 microstrain. The
followings were considered when selecting tentative specification limit for fatigue properties:
• the EN and Australian test methods use different temperatures and load frequencies
• the test specimens of the French EME2 mix were compacted to a higher air voids content for
the Australian test methods.
The test set-up and requirements are summarised in Table 2.16.
4.4.5 Moisture Sensitivity
Test results for moisture sensitivity properties were available from testing of the French EME2 mix at ARRB.
The French EME2 mix was tested for moisture sensitivity according to Austroads test method AGPT-T232
(Austroads 2007a), including the freeze-thaw option. As discussed in Austroads (2013a) the saturation
requirements and conditioning framework are different in AGPT-T232 and EN 12697-12. The minimum
requirement for the indirect tensile strain ratio (ITSR) is 70% according to the French specifications. The
French EME2 mix, tested according to the two different test methods had the following moisture sensitivity
properties (referred to as water sensitivity in the EN test method):
• according to the EN test method (tested in France): 93.5%
• according to AGPT-T232, including freeze-thaw (tested at ARRB): 87.8%.
The minimum ITSR, indicating the resistance to moisture sensitivity, for EME2 mixes in Australia is 80%. The
test set-up and requirements are summarised in Table 2.16.

4.4.6 Summary of the Tentative Specification Limits
Test results for benchmarking were provided for Australian asphalt suppliers and ARRB. Based on the
discussion in Sections 4.4.1 to 4.4.5, tentative specification limits were derived for EME2 mixes using the
Australian test methods; the requirements are summarised in Table 4.25. It is proposed that these limits are
used for the design of EME2 mixes in Australia until such time that the criteria can be refined based on
further test results and field validation.
Table 4.25: Tentative specification limits for EME2 according to Australian test methods
Property Test method Unit Limit Value

Air voids in specimens compacted AS (including modifications based on % Maximum 6.0
(1)
by gyratory compactor EN 12697-31)
Water sensitivity AGPT T232, including freeze-thaw % Minimum 80
° (2)
Wheel tracking at 60 C and 30 000 AGPT-T231 (with modifications) mm Maximum 6.0
cycles
(2)
Minimum stiffness modulus at AGPT-T233 (updated) MPa Minimum 14 000
15 °C and 10 Hz Based on EN 12697-26 (4PB)
(2)
Fatigue resistance at AGPT-T233 (updated) µε Minimum 150
6
20 °C, 10 Hz and 10 cycles Based on EN 12697-24 (4PB)
Richness modulus N/A – Minimum 3.4
1 Bulk density of gyratory compacted specimens shall be determined by mensuration in accordance with AS 2891.9.3.
2 Test specimen should be compacted to air voids content between 3–6% (mensuration) or 1.5–4.5% (SSD).

5. EME2 Queensland Trial
5.1 Background
Boral Asphalt and bitumen manufacturer SAMI have developed an EME2 mix; raw materials from Australia,
including aggregates and binder, were supplied and shipped to France to develop an EME2 mix design.
The purpose of the demonstration trial was to demonstrate the transfer of established technology and to
prove the ability to successfully manufacture and lay EME2 in Australia (production and construction).
Following extensive planning and preparation, an EME2 demonstration trial was constructed on 15 February
2014 at Cullen Avenue West, Eagle Farm, Queensland. The EME2 mix was designed and tested in France
according to European standards, utilising Australian materials including the EME binder. It should be noted
that at the time of construction, the test results using the Australian test methods were not available.
5.2 Project Delivery
The project had a number of stakeholders (Table 5.1) contributing to maximise the knowledge gained from
the trial. The combined contribution of all stakeholders led to a seamless production and construction of the
trial section.
Table 5.1: Stakeholders that contributed to the EME2 trial at Eagle Farm, Queensland
Company/agency Task or contribution

Boral Asphalt • Manufacture and place asphalt
• Provide advice during mix design process
• Financial contribution to the construction of the trial
SAMI/Colas • Manufacture and provide binder for the trial (financial contribution)
• Design EME2 mix using Australian materials
• Coordinate mix design process
Speedie Contractors Pty Ltd • Cold planing
South East Profiling Pty Ltd • Material transport
Department of Transport • Financial contribution towards long-term monitoring through the Department of
and Main Roads Transport and Main Roads Queensland (TMR)-ARRB research agreement
Queensland’ • Provide assistance for development of specifications
Brisbane City Council • Provide the road section for trial purposes
• Supply preliminary design drawings
• Perform FWD test at multiple stages
• Complete road construction, such as wearing course, line marking, shoulders, drainage
(financial contribution)
Australian Asphalt • Fund weather station for pavement instrumentation
Pavement Association • Disseminate findings to authorities and industry
(AAPA)
• Organise workshop to present the process and preliminary outcomes of the trial
Environdata • Manufacture and supply the modified weather station to be used with pavement
instrumentation; extensive consultation to achieve fit-for-purpose solution
ARRB Group • Perform pavement design
• Coordinate site and laboratory testing during design phase
• Production and construction monitoring
• Installation and long-term operation of pavement instrumentation
• Long-term pavement performance monitoring
• Develop technical background for specifications and design methods on the national level
• Provide assistance in developing project-specific technical standard (PSTS)
• Comprehensive project documentation

Prior to the production and construction trial on 15 February 2014, stakeholders met on several occasions
between September 2013 and January 2014. The regular meetings were necessary to agree on the
objectives of the trial and execution of the works, and there were many tasks which had to be allocated
(Table 5.1).
5.3 Trial Objectives
The trial had many objectives as follows:

• General requirements for the trial
– identify location and selection of a suitable test site for the laying of the first demonstration trial
– define requirements and scope of work for the demonstration trial
– develop an interim guideline for designing pavement containing EME2, using the Austroads
pavement design methodology (Austroads 2012)
– develop a plan to enable the evaluation of the performance of EME2 against a standard heavy duty
DG20HM (Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland (TMR) 2011a) asphalt material
– design and construct pavement sections with different base layer thicknesses covered with a
standard 30 mm DG10 wearing course (Type 2 asphalt with multigrade binder)
– manufacture EME2 mix in line with the Colas mix design, which meets the French specifications
and tested according to CEN standards
– provide assistance for developing an inspection test plan (ITP) and conduct laboratory testing using
a full range of mix and component materials, against both Australian and French test methods
– report on the findings of the trial, specifically the manufacture and paving conditions and testing of
the binder and asphalt properties.
• Assess the feasibility of construction and production of EME2 using asphalt plants and road construction
equipment available in Australia including
– asphalt production control and variability
– in situ air voids contents and achievement of a high level of compaction
– material response and compaction curve under Australian compaction equipment
– compactibility of EME2 at different layer thicknesses
– experience with surface characteristics, the possibility of temporary trafficking and the need for gritting
– the amount of tack coating to be used on top of EME2.
• Provide input into benchmarking and the mix design specification comprising
– in situ material performance and validation with mix design
– mix design/benchmarking
– technical background for specifications and design methods at the national level and provision of a
project-specific technical standard (PSTS).
• Pavement design requirements
– development of pavement design case studies with EME2 and check of underlying issues in the
design procedure
– long-term monitoring of in situ pavement performance and development of shift factors for
pavement structural design
– validation of realistic pavement design input values (stiffness and fatigue)
– pavement instrumentation (validation of strain responses and application of temperature correction);
data collected from pavement instruments can provide input into other Austroads and TMR projects.

Pavement-design-related issues are not discussed and reported in this study. The structural design of the
trial section and structural design of pavements containing EME2 mixes in general are discussed in a
contract report prepared for TMR Queensland.
5.4 About the Pavement Instrumentation
The location of the trial section and the nature of the road construction presented an opportunity to set up
and invest in pavement instrumentation to gather as much data as possible from the EME2 and the control
pavement, as well as inform future pavement design in general.
Accurate prediction models for in-service asphalt pavement temperatures are essential for reliable flexible
pavement design. Temperature changes over the course of a day, month or year have a significant effect on
asphalt stiffness and ultimately on the fatigue life of asphalt pavements. The design stiffness is calculated by
estimating the actual pavement temperature, which determines the design thickness of the asphalt layer.
Accurate pavement temperature prediction models also provide valuable input for perpetual pavement
design methods. Pavement temperature data is scarce in Australia, with models ultimately relying on air
temperature readings and dated calibration models. There is a need to be able to define the temperature of
asphalt pavements at various depths in the longer term and gain knowledge about the temperature
distribution throughout the pavement.
ARRB approached the AAPA in September 2013 to seek financial support to purchase a weather station,
which would collect the necessary information in the longer term. It was envisaged that information collected
from the weather station would provide key input parameters into many other projects, including:
• Asphalt Pavement Solution – For Life Project, Perpetual Pavements/Long Life Asphalt Pavements
• Austroads project TT1826 – Improved Design Methods For Asphalt Pavements
• TMR project P9 – Cost-effective Design of Thick Asphalt Pavements: High Modulus Asphalt
Implementation
• TMR project P10 – Characterisation of Asphalt Fatigue at Queensland Pavement Temperatures.
ARRB contacted Environdata Weather Stations Pty Ltd, an Australian company with a proven background in
supplying quality instrumentation for weather monitoring purposes. Manufacturing and implementing of
temperature sensors in the road pavement is not a routine process and specialised sensors had to be
developed for this purpose. Environdata showed a good understanding of the problems around the
implementation, and provided fit-for-purpose equipment for this project.
AAPA kindly provided financial support to purchase the weather station with the pavement temperature
sensors; the system is a solar-powered Weather Maestro station with remote access via Next G. It captures
the following parameters at a frequency of 10 minutes:
• air temperature
• solar radiation
• rain
• wind
• evaporation (relative humidity)
• six pavement temperatures (50–70–110–190–290–390 mm depth).
ARRB met the additional costs for implementation, maintenance, data collection and analysis.

For long-term monitoring processes it is important to understand the pavement response to loading with a
variety of load configurations and pavement temperatures. This can be achieved by installing strain gauges
at the bottom of the asphalt layer to measure the strain response and characterise the pavement response to
loading. Following modification of the weather station data logger, it was possible to capture data from
external equipment. Therefore ARRB purchased a set of four asphalt strain gauges for the project and
Environdata provided the technical background to integrate the strain gauges into the system, including
calibration and interfacing of the strain gauges.
The strain gauge model chosen was the ASG-152 from CTL Group in the United States. The CTL Group has
a proven background and has provided asphalt strain gauges for a variety of projects, including for the
National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) in Alabama, USA (Timm, Priest & McEwen 2004). More
details about the installation process and data collection can be found in Section 5.12.
It was part of the scope for this project to provide assistance in setting up the trial and provide long-term
monitoring. The pavement structural design provides the basis for establishing layer thicknesses for
construction and modelling pavement performance and failure mode.
The option to design a pavement to fail within a pre-defined period was discussed by the stakeholders at the
progress meetings; this option could provide valuable information about failure modes and validation into
shift factors. Due to the complex nature of re-allocating road rehabilitation budgets for an industrial road
within a short period of time, it was decided to build the pavement to last for the 40 years design life. This
option also provides valuable information about long-term performance through non-destructive testing and
pavement instrumentation, except that symptoms of deterioration and distress may not be observed during
the monitoring.
Based on the above, the pavement design formed the basis for selecting layer thicknesses and overall
pavement thickness. Also, the validation of the pavement design through long-term monitoring is one of the
major objectives of this study; more details will be provided in a contract report later this year.
The pavement design was based on extensive non-destructive and destructive testing, including:
• falling weight deflectometer (FWD) and subsequent back-calculation
• coring of the asphalt pavement
• dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing.
Both the Austroads pavement design method (Austroads 2012) and the French pavement design method
(Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausees 1997) were used for determining the layer thicknesses. The
results are summarised in Table 5.2 and Table 5.3; both methods provided similar layer thicknesses.
Table 5.2: Pavement thickness reduction according to the Australian method
EME2 thickness DG 20 HM thickness

Subgrade property
(mm) (mm)
CBR 5% 110 160
CBR 10% 80 130
CBR 15% 70 110
Note: Wearing course: 30 mm Type 2 asphalt.
Table 5.3: Pavement thickness reduction according to the French method
Surface modulus, EV2 EME2 thickness GB3 thickness

Support category
(MPa) (mm) (mm)
PF2 50 100 150
PF2qs 100 80 120
PF3 150 70 100
Note: Wearing course: 30 mm Type 2 asphalt.

Based on the design outcomes, combined with considerations of constructability and construction
sequences, it was decided to adopt CBR5% for the entire road section and the following pavement structures
were constructed:
• 100 mm thick EME2 base layer, constructed in one paving run
• 150 mm thick EME2 base layer, constructed in one paving run
• 150 mm thick dense graded asphalt for heavy duty application (DG20HM), constructed in two paving
runs, as the control section.
Cold planing at various depths was performed before construction of the base layers, and the top of the base
layers was paved in level. After a short period of monitoring of the base, the wearing course, a 10 mm
nominal size dense graded asphalt with multigrade bitumen, was placed at a uniform thickness of 30 mm.
5.5 Pre-construction Testing
5.5.1 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Testing
FWD testing took place on 15 February 2014 (Figure 5.1), after the completion of surface profiling; it should
be noted that any subsequent testing on the pavement layers was carried out at the same offset from the
kerb for each FWD testing line as follows:
• Traffic lanes
– Line 1: 3.3 m from the kerb (denoted as 2R)
– Line 2: 4.3 m from the kerb (denoted as 2L)
– Line 4: 7.8 m from the kerb (denoted as 1L).
• Testing frequency of 10 m per line
– Line 1 and Line 2 are 5 m staggered
• Line 3 and Line 4 are 5 m staggered.
• Parking lanes (testing frequency of 10 m per line)
– Line 6: 10.5 m from the kerb (denoted as 3L).

Figure 5.1: Falling weight deflectometer testing on the profiled surface
FWD data and analysis, related to the pavement structural performance, will be reported in the ARRB
contract report to TMR later this year.
5.6 Construction
The construction took place between 14 February 2014 (Friday evening) and 15 February 2014 (late
Saturday afternoon). Coring of the finished layers took place on 16 February 2014.
5.6.1 Profiling and Preparatory Works
Profiling works took place on 14 February, and were completed in the early hours of Saturday morning. It
was necessary to backfill some small areas which were too low, and some adjustments had to be made to
achieve a consistent crossfall of 2% across the whole site. The completed profile works can be seen in
Appendix A. The final site layout can be found in Appendix B.
As part of the pavement instrumentation, a deeper pavement box for installing pavement instrumentation had
to be profiled out in an area of 5 x 5 m, to a total depth of 400 mm (Section 5.12.1).
During the course of the profiling, a manhole was uncovered at chainage 93.6 m on the northern shoulder.
This manhole was not on any maps or drawings of the road. During paving, the manhole was manually
covered with a steel plate, and asphalt was hand shovelled on top. The manhole was re-installed by
Brisbane City Council after placement of the wearing course.

5.6.2 Paving Sequence
Boral utilised two pavers for this project (Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3). The proximity to the Boral Asphalt plant
meant that the asphalt delivery trucks were able to reach the site very quickly, which in turn resulted in high
laying temperatures, i.e. no heat was lost during transportation. Section 5.7.3 contains a detailed monitoring
and analysis of temperature data.
In line with the pavement design profiles, there were six designated pavement runs (Appendix A):
1. 100 mm thick DG20HM in the southern parking lane (99 tonnes)
2. 100 mm thick EME2 in the southern traffic lane (209 tonnes)
3. 100 mm and 150 mm thick EME2 in the northern traffic lane (80 tonnes)
4. 50 mm thick DG20HM in the northern traffic lane (first layer) (54 tonnes)
5. 100 mm thick DG20HM in the northern parking lane (75 tonnes)
6. 100 mm DG20HM in the northern traffic lane (second layer) (109 tonnes).
Figure 5.2: Paver and asphalt truck during run 2 (EME2) Figure 5.3: EME2 behind the paver screed
During the planing phase a quantity of 320 tonnes of EME2 was calculated. The listed tonnages of EME2
only added to 289 tonnes, out of an expected 320 tonnes. At the end of run 3, there was some quantity of
EME2 mix still available, without knowing exactly how much binder was left in the designated tank at the
asphalt plant. Without stopping the production, all EME binder was used and transported on site and paved
in one 150 mm layer until the EME2 ran out. This resulted in an approximately 18 m long section of EME2 at
the increased 150 mm depth; this subsequently cut back the quantity of DG20HM required for runs 4 and 6.
Run 4 paved DG20HM to a depth of 50 mm, which brought up the level to equal that of the profiled parking
lane. It was then possible to effectively complete runs 5 and 6 in one single run, starting at the western end
and extending the paver screed when reaching the end of run 3.
A section of the EME2 on the westbound lane was spread with grit in order to assess the skid resistance of
the EME2 surface with and without grit (see Section 5.6.4).
5.6.3 Rolling Patterns
As part of the scope of the project, an effective rolling pattern had to be worked out for the compaction of
EME2. In general, in France, heavy multi-tyred rollers (20 + tonnes) are used to achieve effective
compaction of EME2. Such rolling equipment is not available in Australia and it was necessary to check what
compaction level can be achieved with the equipment currently in service.

The initial rolling pattern was as follows:

• tandem steel roller: two static passes, two vibratory passes
• multi-tyred wheel roller: 6–10 passes
• back rolling: 2–4 static passes.
The rollers (Figure 5.4) to be used on the EME2 trial were a Dynapac CC224 steel (approximately 8 tonnes)
and a Sakai GW750 pneumatic-tyred roller (approximately 9 tonnes). During the course of the day, some
modifications were made to the rolling pattern to achieve a higher level of compaction and the final rolling
patterns and locations where the density curve was captured using a nuclear gauge are summarised in Table 5.4.
Figure 5.4: Rollers in action
Table 5.4: Roller set-up and capturing the density curves
Breakdown Multi-tyred roller Back rolling
Location Set-up Number Set-up Number Set-up Number Frequency

of of of passes
passes passes
EME2 – Run 2 Static/vibration 2 Vibration/vibration 3 Static/static 2 High
chainage 100 m
EME2 – Run 3 Static/vibration 1 Vibration/vibration 7 Static/static 3 Low
chainage 80 m
DG20HM – Run 6 Static/vibration 3 Vibration/vibration 8 Static/static 4 High
chainage 175 m

5.6.4 Surface Gritting
A purpose-built spreader box was used to spread the grit, and the spreader box was attached to the steel-
wheeled roller (Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6). Gritting was completed before the surface temperature of the
2
compacted asphalt fell below 70 °C with a spread rate of 0.4 kg/m . The material used for gritting consisted
of natural sand, where the grading complied with the requirements shown in Table 5.5 (Department of
Transport and Main Roads 2011b).
Table 5.5: Grading limits for grit
AS sieve size (mm) % passing by mass

4.75 100
2.36 90–100
0.600 0–20
0.075 0–1.0
The high binder content of the EME2 mix and high proportion of fines combined with extensive compaction
results in a fatty, binder-rich surface finish. Due to the complex nature of construction sequences and traffic
control requirements it is envisaged that for future EME2 projects the finished layer would be trafficked
before a wearing course is added. In such a situation the skid resistance of the base layer, which would be
under temporary trafficking, is critical. Since there was no local experience available whether such a surface
can be trafficked, it was one of the objectives of the trial to investigate this issue. It was decided to add grit
on a relatively long section (approximately 95 m) on the westbound lane between chainages 10 and 110 m
(Appendix A).
The surface treatments were as follows:

• eastbound lane, EME2, chainages 10 to 110 m – gritted
• eastbound lane, EME2, chainages 110 to 220 m – un-gritted
• westbound lane, EME2, chainages 10 to 130 m – un-gritted
• westbound lane, DG20HM, chainages 130 to 220 m – un-gritted.
Figure 5.5: Gritting of the EME2 surface Figure 5.6: Grit used on the EME2 surface

5.7 Construction Quality Assurance Testing
The inspection test plan (ITP) for asphalt manufacture and paving was developed in line with the TMR
specifications and French specification requirements NF P 98-150-1. Asphalt continuous production testing,
material sampling, in situ temperature and density measurement, data collection for the compaction curve
and coring of the final layers were all performed by Boral Asphalt. The results of this testing regime were
supplied to ARRB for further analysis which is discussed in this section.
For process control purposes, qualified TMR personnel attended the trial. Findings and observations of this
activity are not provided in the report.
In line with the scope of the study, ARRB also actively contributed to the overall monitoring of the production
and construction. A thermo-imaging camera was used by ARRB during the day to monitor the temperature of
asphalt at various stages of the process (Section 5.11).
5.7.1 Material Production
As part of the continuous production control, samples of the EME2 mix were collected during the day;
samples were taken at 70, 140 and 262 progressive tonnes and the grading results are shown in Figure 5.7.
In this figure the original French design is indicated along with the actual target grading using the Australian
sieves, as well as the production tolerances (Section 2.2.11). Samples from the DG20HM mix were taken at
53, 139 and 243 progressive tonnes and the results are summarised in Figure 5.8.
Figure 5.7: Grading curves of the EME2 production mix, indicating the design and tolerances
100
EME 0/14 Whinstanes Boral (French design)

90
Boral - EME 93129713

80

70

% of total passing
60
EME 0/14 Whinstanes Boral (actual trial grading)

50
Australian tolerance minimum (%) - TMR

40
Australian tolerance maximum (%) - TMR
30
20
10
0
0.063 0.150 0.300 0.600 1.18 2.36 4.75 6.70 9.5 13.2 19.0
Sieve size (mm)
Source: Based on laboratory data from Boral Asphalt.

Figure 5.8: Grading curves of the DG20HM production mix, indicating the design and tolerances
100
DG20HM C600 Boral - design

90
Boral - DG20HM 93129706
80 Boral - DG20HM 93129729
Boral - DG20HM 93129735
70
Australian tolerance minimum (%) - TMR
% of total passing
60 Australian tolerance maximum (%) - TMR
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.063 0.150 0.300 0.600 1.18 2.36 4.75 6.70 9.5 13.2 19.0
Sieve size (mm)
The binder content and maximum density results are summarised in Table 5.6 and Table 5.7.
Table 5.6: EME2 production control results
Sample #93129713 #93129717 #93129724 Average

Temperature (°C) 185 176 178 N/A
Progressive quantity (tonnes) 70 140 262 N/A
Binder content (%) 5.55 5.5 5.4 5.5
3
Maximum density (t/m ) 2.559 2.552 2.571 2.561
Table 5.7: DG20HM production control results
Sample #93129706 #93129729 #93129735 Average

Temperature (°C) 166 161 163 N/A
Progressive quantity (tonnes) 53 139 243 N/A
Binder content (%) 4.75 4.65 4.65 4.7
3
Maximum density (t/m ) 2.531 2.522 2.528 2.527
Both the EME2 mix and the control DG20HM mix were produced with low variability and the production was
stable.

5.7.2 In situ Density Testing and Laying Temperatures
The densification of the mat was measured by using a nuclear gauge on site after each roller pass. At the
same time the surface temperature was determined using an infrared thermometer. The density curves,
sometimes referred to as compaction curves, were captured for the 100 mm thick EME2 mat on the
westbound lane (run 2) at chainage 100 m and on the eastbound lane (run 3) at chainage 80 and for the 100
mm thick DG20HM mat on the eastbound lane (run 6) at chainage 175 m. The results are summarised in
Figure 5.9, Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11.
Figure 5.9: Density curve of 100 mm thick EME2, run 2, chainage 100 m
2.500 180
170
2.400
160
2.300
Surface temperature (°C)

150
Density - nuclear gauge (t/m3)
2.200
140
2.100 130
Density curve - EME - run 2 - chainage 100 m
120
2.000 Static/vibration - high
Vibration/vibration - high 110
1.900 Static/static - high
100
Surface temperature - run 2
1.800
90
1.700 80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Roller passes
Source: Based on data from Boral Asphalt.

Figure 5.10: Density curve of 100 mm thick EME2, run 3, chainage 80 m
2.500 180
170
2.400
160
2.300
Surface temperature (°C)

150
2.200
140
2.100 130
Density curve - EME - run 3 - chainage 80 m
Static/vibration - low 120
2.000
Vibration/vibration - low
110
1.900 Vibration/vibration - low
Surface temperature - run 3 100
1.800
90
1.700 80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Roller passes
Figure 5.11: Density curve of 100 mm thick DG20HM, run 6, chainage 175 m
2.500 180
Density curve - DG20HM - run 6 - chainage 175 m
Static/vibration - high 170
2.400
Vibration/vibration - high
Static/static - high 160
2.300
Surface temperature - run 6
150 Surface temperature (°C)
2.200
140
2.100 130
120
2.000
110
1.900
100
1.800
90
1.700 80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Roller passes

The figures show that the second compaction regime, where a multi-tyred roller was applied (Table 5.4), did
not have significant impact on the densification and most of the compaction was achieved by the steel-wheeled
rollers (breakdown and back-rolling).
5.7.3 Temperature Monitoring
The temperature of the mat was measured at approximately 20 m frequency by using a penetration
thermometer driven into the mat from the uncompacted side. Also, the surface temperatures at these
locations were recorded using an infrared thermometer (Figure 5.12 to Figure 5.14).
Figure 5.12: Spreading and rolling temperatures of the EME2 mat, run 2 and run 3 (westbound and eastbound lanes)
190
185
180
175
Temperature (°C)
170
165
160
EME run 2 spreading temperature (°C)
EME run 2 rolling temperature (°C)
155 EME run 3 spreading temperature (°C)
EME run 3 rolling temperature (°C)
150
0 50 100 150 200 250
Chainage (m)

Figure 5.13: Spreading and rolling temperatures of the DG20HM mat, run 4 and run 6 (eastbound lane)
180
175
170
165
160
Temperature (°C)
155
150
145
DG20HM run 4 spreading temperature (°C)
140 DG20HM run 4 rolling temperature (°C)
135
DG20HM run 6 rolling temperature (°C)
130
0 50 100 150 200 250
Chainage (m)
Figure 5.14: Spreading and rolling temperatures of the DG20HM mat, run 1 and run 5 (parking lanes)
180
175 DG20HM run 1 rolling temperature (°C)
170
DG20HM run 5 rolling temperature (°C)
165
160
Temperature (°C)
155
150
145
140
135
130
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Chainage (m)

At the commencement of the compaction of the first EME2 layer (westbound lane, chainage 10 m) there was
a concern that the rollers were leaving too much gap between the paver. The paver was running at
approximately chainage 80 m, when breakdown rolling commenced. There was a concern that despite the
hot weather during the day of construction, the mat cooled to an unfavourably low temperature (below
140 °C) and therefore compaction could not be achieved. After consultation on site it was decided that the
rollers had to keep as close as possible to the paver in order to achieve high compaction of the EME2 layer.
Based on the data shown in Figure 5.12 to Figure 5.14 it can be concluded that spreading and compaction
temperatures were kept at an appropriate level for the whole trial. This observation is in line with the final
density results as summarised in Section 5.10.1.
5.7.4 Nuclear Density Testing, 20 m Frequency
The density of the compacted mat was tested at every 20 m according to TMR test method Q306E
(Department of Transport and Main Roads 2010a). The calculated relative compaction for the compacted
EME2 layers are summarised in Figure 5.15 and for the DG20HM layers in Figure 5.16; the relative
compaction was determined according to TMR test method Q314 (Department of Transport and Main Roads
3 3
2012). An asphalt density bias (offset) value of 0.087 t/m was used for the EME2 and 0.133 t/m for the
DG20HM layers. A very high and uniform compaction level was achieved for the EME2 mix; the density of
the DG20HM layers is within the range usually expected from this material. The characteristic compaction
values are not provided here.
Figure 5.15: Nuclear density of the compacted EME2 layers

100
99
98
Relative compaction - EME2 (%)
97
96
95
94
93
Relative compaction - run 2

92

91
90
0 50 100 150 200 250
Chainage (m)

Figure 5.16: Nuclear density of the compacted DG20HM layers

100.0

99.0
98.0
Relative compaction - DG20HM (%)
97.0
96.0
95.0
94.0
93.0
92.0
91.0
90.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Chainage (m)
5.7.5 Sand Patch Testing
Sand patch testing was performed at 20 m intervals according to TMR test method Q705 (Department of
Transport and Main Roads 2010b). The results are summarised in Figure 5.17. Following completion of the
construction, the surface characteristics were also determined by using the British pendulum test (BPT) and
the SCRIM equipment (Sections 5.10.2 and 5.10.3).
Figure 5.17: Texture depth of the finished surfaces

1.2
0.8
Texture depth (mm)
0.6
0.4 Texture depth - EME2 - westbound lane
Texture depth -EME2- eastbound lane

0.2
Texture depth - DG20HM - eastbound lane

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Chainage (m)

5.7.6 Surface Evenness
The surface evenness was determined at every 20 m by using a 3 m straightedge. In each cross-section the
maximum vertical deviation was measured and recorded, which is summarised in Table 5.8. A uniform and
even surface was constructed.
Table 5.8: Maximum vertical deviation of the surface on the finished EME2 layers
Westbound lane Eastbound lane
Chainage Maximum Chainage Maximum
(m) deviation (mm) (m) deviation (mm)
0 0 20 3
20 3 30 2
30 1 40 3
50 3 50 1
60 1 60 1
70 0 70 2
80 2 80 2
90 0 90 4
100 0 100 1
110 2 110 2
120 3 120 3
130 2
140 1
150 2
160 2
170 2
180 0
190 0
200 1
210 0
220 1
5.8 Surface Appearance
Both the DG20HM and EME2 surfaces had good visual appearance and showed a well compacted surface.
The DG20HM surfaces, as expected, showed an open appearance. However, despite the DG20HM layer
being open to the traffic without any surface protection or sealing, it did not show any deterioration, stripping
or aggregate loss after three months service life, before the wearing course was paved. The EME2 surface
showed a very well compacted, very tight surface. It was expected that the EME2 would show heavy
bleeding after compaction. Some short sections, especially the eastbound lane at chainage 10 to 20 m (start
of the paving run), showed some extreme bleeding on the surface. However, the rest of the test section had
only a bitumen-rich surface and had similar appearance to a fine graded, high bitumen content wearing
course. Figure 5.18, Figure 5.19 and Figure 5.20 show the surface of the demonstration trial shortly after
construction.

Figure 5.18: Adjoining EME2 and DG20HM Figure 5.19: Surface appearance at chainage 60 m (the
gritted EME2 surface is in the middle of the picture)
Figure 5.20: EME2 (left) and DG20HM (right)

surfaces
5.9 Geometric Survey of the EME2 Trial Site
A geometric survey of the EME2 trial site was conducted to locate and document site features and
construction elements. A preliminary survey of the subbase was undertaken following profiling to identify
defects, such as patches, cracks and voids, in addition to establishing a baseline coordinate system. An
initial survey following paving of the EME2 and DG20HM base layers was conducted to identify site features,
such as utilities, intersections and instrumentation locations, in addition to construction elements, such as
longitudinal and transverse construction joints, core extraction locations and extents of gritted and un-gritted
sections. Follow paving of the Type 2 wearing course, a final survey was undertaken to re-establish the
location of select site features and construction elements to facilitate long-term performance monitoring of
the trial site. A summary of the features and construction elements surveyed is provided in Appendix B and
Appendix C.

Two coordinate systems were utilised for the surveying activities including a project-level chainage system
and global navigation satellite system (GNSS) coordinates (latitude and longitude). The chainage system
was established with an anchor point at the centre of the intersection with Theodore Street (chainage 0.0)
and extending parallel to the centreline of the project alignment. Points were defined according to chainage
and offset from the southern kerb. The GNSS provides geo-spatial positioning including latitude, longitude
and altitude. Raw GNSS data is accurate within 3.0 to 5.0 m uncorrected. Accuracy can be increased
through the utilisation of either ground-based or satellite correction services that provide time synchronisation
to allow extremely accurate, sub-metre location detection.
Tools utilised to facilitate the survey included a standard 0.30 m diameter engineering survey wheel, a
Trimble Pathfinder ProXRT GNSS receiver and a Trimble GeoExplorer GeoXR network rover. The Trimble
Pathfinder ProXRT is a portable GNSS system allowing for accurate mapping of infrastructure assets. The
receiver was paired with a Trimble Nomad 9000 controller and Trimble Tornado antenna. System capabilities
include sub-metre accuracy up to ±0.50 m when correction services are utilised. The Trimble GeoExplorer
GeoXR is a handheld GNSS surveying device providing high-accuracy surveying and point mapping. The
rover was also paired with a Trimble Tornado antenna. System capabilities include raw ±0.25 m accuracy up
to ±0.01 m when correction services are utilised.
Survey data collected on site was utilised along with AutoCAD drafting software to develop visualisations of
the project site. The survey points were overlayed upon aerial site photos obtained from Photomaps. The
aerial photos were imported as raster images and rescaled to match the established coordinate system.
Details collected during the survey including construction joints, core locations, intersections, drainage
features, driveways, project chainage markers, in addition to instrumentation and testing locations, were
rendered as shown in Appendix B.
5.10 Post-construction Testing
In situ and laboratory testing on material collected during the trial and extracted from the finished pavement
was conducted after completion of the works, which is summarised in this section.
5.10.1 Density Testing on Cores Extracted from the Pavement
Following construction, 60 cores were taken over the total road length at six locations. ARRB personnel
attended the coring, which took place on 16 February 2014. At each location 10 cores were extracted from
the pavement using the wet coring procedure. The cores were transported to the laboratory, the densities
were determined using AS 2891.9.2 and the air voids were calculated according to AS 2891.8. The density
results are summarised in Table 5.9, where each average and standard deviation value is calculated from
the individual results of the 10 cores.

Table 5.9: In situ density results
Air Core Relative

Chainage Thickness
Lane Layer Property voids density compaction
(m) (mm)
(%) (t/m³) (%)
Westbound lane EME2 – Run 2 101 Average 1.0 2.536 100.9 99.0
Std. 0.2 0.005 1.9 0.2
Westbound lane EME2 – Run 2 220 Average 1.3 2.529 104.3 98.7
Std. 0.4 0.011 5.3 0.4
Westbound/eastbound EME2 – Run 39 Average 6.6 2.393 99.3 93.4
lane 2/3 (joint)
Std. 1.3 0.033 6.4 1.3
Eastbound lane EME2 – Run 4 120.3 Average 0.9 2.539 135.9 99.1
Std. 0.3 0.007 1.7 0.3
Eastbound lane DG20HM – 161 Average 4.2 2.420 58.0 95.8
Run 4 – lower
Std. 0.8 0.020 3.7 0.8
layer
Run 4 – upper
Std. 0.3 0.009 6.0 0.3
layer
Run 4 – lower
Std. 0.6 0.015 4.5 0.6
layer
Run 4 – upper
Std. 1.1 0.028 2.0 1.1
layer
Based on the results summarised in Table 5.9 it can be concluded that:

• The target thickness of 100 mm was achieved for the EME2; the short section of the 150 mm thick EME2
resulted in an average of 135 mm achieved thickness.
• The total target thickness of 150 mm on the DG20HM control section was achieved.
• Very high density and low in situ air voids content were achieved on both the 100 mm and 150 mm EME2
layers.
• The joint between the two 100 mm EME2 runs (run 2 and 3) was well compacted and provided a much
higher compaction rate than usually experienced with normal DGA in Queensland.
Figure 5.21 and Figure 5.22 show the surface appearance of the cut surface of the EME2 cores; the visual
observation is in line with the density results, i.e. high density and low air voids content were achieved during
construction.

Figure 5.21: EME2 cores extracted on the westbound Figure 5.22: Cut surface of an EME2 core
lane (run 2) at chainage 101 m
All 60 cores were then transported to the ARRB laboratory, where indirect tensile testing will be conducted at
15–25–32 and 40 °C on each core. This will provide an insight into material variability and also
understanding of the stiffness distribution over a wide temperature range. As at June 2014 this testing
regime was in progress.
5.10.2 British Pendulum Test (BPT) and Sand Patch Data
The skid resistance properties of the finished layers were tested shortly after construction on
19 February 2014, and on 16 April 2014, three weeks before placement of the wearing course. The BPT test
results are summarised in Table 5.10 and Table 5.11 and the results are visualised in Figure 5.23.
Table 5.10: BPT test results four days after construction
Test Wheel Chainage Mean BPN Average Standard

Surface description Lane
number path (m) value BPN deviation
1 EME2 – gritted Westbound IWP 39 64 63 0.9
2 EME2 – gritted Westbound OWP 60 62
3 EME2 – gritted Westbound IWP 82 64
7 EME2 – un-gritted Westbound OWP 122 51 57 4.3
8 EME2 – un-gritted Westbound IWP 140 59
9 EME2 – un-gritted Westbound OWP 160 61
4 EME2 – un-gritted Eastbound OWP 38 53 54 2.6
5 EME2 – un-gritted Eastbound IWP 80 58
6 EME2 – un-gritted Eastbound IWP 100 52
10 DG20HM – un-gritted Eastbound IWP 141 60 59 2.5
11 DG20HM – un-gritted Eastbound OWP 180 56
12 DG20HM – un-gritted Eastbound IWP 221 62
Source: Based on data from Brisbane City Council.

Table 5.11: BPT test results 10 weeks after construction
Test Wheel Chainage Mean BPN Average Standard

Surface description Lane
number path (m) value BPN deviation
1 EME2 – gritted Westbound IWP 39 68 67 0.9
2 EME2 – gritted Westbound OWP 60 66
3 EME2 – gritted Westbound IWP 82 68
7 EME2 – un-gritted Westbound OWP N/A 61 63 1.7
8 EME2 – un-gritted Westbound IWP N/A 65
9 EME2 – un-gritted Westbound OWP N/A 62
4 EME2 – un-gritted Eastbound OWP N/A 70 70 0.5
5 EME2 – un-gritted Eastbound IWP N/A 70
6 EME2 – un-gritted Eastbound IWP N/A 69
10 DG20HM – un-gritted Eastbound IWP N/A 69 65 3.3
11 DG20HM – un-gritted Eastbound OWP N/A 61
12 DG20HM – un-gritted Eastbound IWP N/A 65
Figure 5.23: BPN values shortly after construction and after 10 weeks of trafficking
80
Average BPN
70 Standard deviation
60
50
BPN
40
30
20
10
0
Westbound Westbound Eastbound Eastbound Westbound Westbound Eastbound Eastbound
EME - gritted EME - un- EME - un- DG20HM - un- EME - gritted EME - un- EME - un- DG20HM - un-
gritted gritted gritted gritted gritted gritted
19/02/2014 19/02/2014 19/02/2014 19/02/2014 16/04/2014 16/04/2014 16/04/2014 16/04/2014
5.10.3 SCRIM Test
VicRoads’ SCRIM equipment was conducting a survey in the Brisbane region at the time of completion of the
works and VicRoads agreed to provide unscheduled testing of the short trial section on 21 February 2014.
The test results are summarised in Figure 5.24 and Figure 5.25. The SCRIM test results are in line with the
sand patch and BPT test results, i.e. that the gritted EME2 surface provides superior skid resistance and that
the un-gritted EME2 and the DG20HM have similar properties in terms of surface friction.

Figure 5.24: Eastbound lane
Source: Courtesy of VicRoads.

Figure 5.25: Westbound lane
Source: Courtesy of VicRoads.

5.10.4 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) Testing
Following construction, a series of FWD testing was carried out on the top of the base layers (i.e. DG20HM
and EME2) on 21 February 2014 and also following construction of the wearing course on 13 May 2014. An
ARRB report will provide detailed discussion on the data collection and analysis of the FWD data. The
surface modulus was calculated from the central deflection according to Equation 12 (Ullidtz 1998).
2 × p × r × (1 − ν2 )
Esurface = 12
d0
where
Esurface = surface modulus (MPa)
p = contact stress (kPa)
r = radius of the loading plate (m)
ν = Poisson ratio; a constant value of 0.35 was used in these calculations
d0 = central deflection (mm)
Figure 5.26 and Figure 5.27 indicate that the EME2 sections have good bearing capacity and the thinner
EME2 layer provides similar structural performance to the DG20HM control section. It should be noted that
some of the EME2 sections are paved on top of weaker subbase layers and this should be considered when
comparing structural performance both short and long-term. More detailed discussion will be provided on this
issue in an ARRB contract report later this year.
Figure 5.26: Calculated surface modulus of the eastbound traffic lane

600
EME DG20 HM
average thickness 99 mm average thickness 149 mm
Temperature corrected surface modulus (MPa)
500 EME
average thickness 136 mm
400
On granular subbase, average

On granular subbase, std
300
On asphalt base, average
On asphalt base, std
On wearing course, average
200 On wearing course, std
100
0
Eastbound Eastbound Eastbound
chainage 10-110 m chainage 110-127 m chainage 127-225 m

Figure 5.27: Calculated surface modulus of the westbound traffic lane

600
EME EME
average thickness 101 mm average thickness 104 mm
Temperature corrected surface modulus (MPa)
500
400
On granular subbase, average

On granular subbase, std
300
On asphalt base, average
On asphalt base, std
On wearing course, average
200 On wearing course, std
100
0
Westbound Westbound
chainage 10-150 m chainage 150-225 m
5.10.5 Network Survey Vehicle
In order to assess the functional deterioration (i.e. roughness and rutting) of the trial section, ARRB collected
data using a Network Survey Vehicle (NSV). The NSV consists of a multi-laser profiler, digital imaging
system and a GipsiTrac unit whose outputs are all linked via a highly accurate distance measuring
instrument. The initial data collection was conducted on 22 May 2014.
The profile is passed through the quarter car model to calculate the NAASRA lane roughness as per the
methodologies specified in the Guide to Asset Management, Part 5B: Roughness (Austroads 2007b). For the
rut depth, the digital laser profiler (DLP) measures a 3 m transverse profile across the lane using a minimum
of 13 lasers. A full transverse profile is measured every 50 mm of longitudinal travel and the processing
software allows both lane and wheel path rutting to be measured using the stringline and straightedge
models.
Analysis of the measured data is provided in Figure 5.28 and Figure 5.29. It is noted that IRI and rut depth
readings are considered relatively high for a new industrial access road. The higher readings may be a result
of the location of the construction joints (Figure 5.82 and Figure 5.83); slight vertical differences on both
sides of the construction joint may influence the readings. However, in terms of long-term monitoring this
should not have any negative influence as the analysis will target the overall shift (change) in the readings, if
any, indicating deterioration of the functional performance.

Figure 5.28: NAASRA lane roughness shortly after placement of the wearing course
300
250 NAASRA eastbound lane (22 May 2014) average
NAASRA westbound lane (22 May 2014) average

200
NAASRA count
150
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Chainage (m)
Figure 5.29: Rut depth shortly after placement of the wearing course
7.0
Rut eastbound lane, right wheel path (22 May 2014) average
6.0 Rut eastbound lane, left wheel path (22 May 2014) average
Rut westbound lane, right wheel path (22 May 2014) average
5.0 Rut westbound lane, left wheel path (22 May 2014) average
4.0
Rut depth (mm)
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Chainage (m)
Short and long-term structural and functional performance monitoring will be conducted on the test section
every six months within the first two years after construction.

5.11 Temperature Monitoring during Construction using Thermography
Temperature monitoring using a thermal imager was employed throughout the EME2 trial to investigate
potential segregation during the principal construction activities including material delivery, laydown,
advancement, jointing and compaction. Due to the viscoelastic nature of bituminous materials, temperature
has a significant influence on asphalt constructability and long-term performance. Monitoring of stockpile and
mat temperature is typically accomplished through point measurements obtained from infrared
thermometers. Distinguishing the potential for segregation requires review of a continuous plot of surface
temperature differentials. Thermography is an effective method for visualising temperature variation across a
defined area. Thermal imaging is useful for inspecting paving operations for uniformity and segregation
(Sebesta et al. 2006).
5.11.1 Thermal Segregation
Thermal segregation is a significant construction problem that can adversely affect asphalt pavement quality
(Song et al. 2009). Due to reduced workability, thermal segregation can produce variable air void distribution
and relative density. The effects of thermal segregation are similar to the effects of aggregate segregation,
including increased permeability and stripping potential in addition to reduced durability and resilience.
However, unlike aggregate segregation, thermal segregation is not identifiable from visual inspection.
Thermal imaging can be employed to identify areas of thermal segregation and also potential areas of
aggregate segregation for freshly placed asphalt. In-mat temperature differentials representative of standard
construction practice range from 5 to 10 °C. Regular temperature variations in excess of 10 °C are indicative
of inconsistent construction practice and may result in early development of pavement distress.
Sources
Thermal segregation results from the concentrated placement of cooler asphalt material into the final mat
(Song et al. 2009). Volumes of cooler material generally result from the accelerated cooling of the surface
material during transport to site. If proper mixing and reheating does not take place, discrete areas of cooler
pavement can be deposited in the final mat (Song et al. 2009). Factors influencing random temperature
segregation include variable plant temperature control, truck-end segregation, lack of a material transfer
vehicle (MTV) and variable paver heater control (Sebesta et al. 2006). Material spillage onto the prepared
base can also facilitate the formation of isolated areas of lower temperature or cold spots as the spilled
material has received greater exposure to ambient conditions (Mahoney et al. 2003). Cool spots in the
asphalt mat create isolated areas with lower density (Mahoney et al. 2003). Decreased density results in
increased air voids, increased permeability and decreased shear strength (Song et al. 2009).
In operations that do not employ an MTV, almost all truck changes produce a distinct area of cooler material
(Mahoney et al. 2003). Cold spots are typically observed 7 to 9 m after the paver screed is stopped for a
truck change (Mahoney et al. 2003). The cooler mass is typically deposited at the extreme right or left side of
the paver hopper wings and is the last material to exit the hopper (Song et al. 2009). Cold spots are not
typically observed during the middle of a load (Mahoney
et al. 2003). Careful management of the paver hopper can help reduce the occurrence of cold spots when an
MTV is not used. The height of material in the hopper should be maintained at a reasonable level to prevent
spillage and accelerated material cooling. Additionally, the hopper wings should be folded after every load or
not at all (Mahoney et al. 2003).
Performance
Unmitigated differential cooling can lead to future performance issues. Variance in mix temperature results in
corresponding variance in density and long-term performance (Mahoney et al. 2003). Cooler areas of the
asphalt mat do not develop the same final density as hotter areas. Reduced density and increased air voids
may lead to premature distress development and shortened service life (Song et al. 2009). Reducing the
magnitude of thermal gradients effectively increases the service life of the pavement (Mahoney et al. 2003).

5.11.2 Thermography
Thermography provides a tool for effectively monitoring the thermal segregation of asphalt material during
construction operations. Thermal imaging allows for consideration of the temperature variation across the
entire mat as compared to discrete temperature measurements collected using thermometers and heat
sensing guns (Song et al. 2009). The principal advantage of thermography is the ability to rapidly locate cold
spots in addition to extensive sections of lower temperature (cold runs) relative to the placed mat. Thermal
imaging is an additional quality control tool that can be employed during construction to minimise premature
pavement distresses, such as potholes, ravelling and cracking, resulting from irregular temperature
distribution. Pairing of a GPS receiver with the thermal imager allows for geo-referencing and long-term
performance monitoring of cold spots (Song et al. 2009).
Observing temperature differentials during placement of the mat is a practical approach to identifying thermal
segregation. Thermal segregation severity is defined according to magnitude of temperature differential
including low (10–16 °C), medium (17–21 °C) and high (> 21 °C) (Song et al. 2009). Surveys of paving
projects using thermography can be classified as uniform when 90% or more of the mat surface deviates
from the mean temperature by less than 14 °C (Sebesta et al. 2006). A pavement may also be uniform within
truckloads when individual truckloads meet uniformity requirements but with varying mean temperatures
(Sebesta et al. 2006). Pavements also commonly exhibit truck-end cold spots when the pavement is uniform
within truckloads but with cold spots regularly occurring between trucks loads (Sebesta et al. 2006). The
most undesirable situation is random distribution of surface temperature differentials, as it indicates poor
control over material production and/or construction practice (Sebesta et al. 2006).
5.11.3 Procedure
To evaluate the occurrence of aggregate and temperature segregation, the principal construction activities
were monitored using a thermal imager. Construction activities of primary interest included material delivery,
laydown, advancement, jointing and compaction. Aggregate segregation is most likely to occur in
applications were high potential energy is applied to aggregate particles with opportunity for coarse particles
and fine aggregate/mastic to separate. This typically occurs during loading of either the haul truck or the
paver. Thermal segregation typically results due to discontinuous paver operation combined with irregular
hopper management. Observing temperature differentials within the mat can indicate areas of aggregate and
thermal segregation. Further quality control measures included observing material temperature along
construction joints and monitoring temperature variation during compaction.
5.11.4 Apparatus
The Testo model 875-1i thermal imager was used in this investigation to monitor temperature variation
throughout construction of the EME2 trial section. The Testo 875-1i is a reliable, high-resolution thermal
imager providing precise measurement for regular quality control and production inspection. Specifications
for the Testo 875-1i include:
• 160 x 120 pixel detector (19 200 temperature measurement points)
• 320 x 240 pixel thermal image capture
• thermal sensitivity < 50 mK
• integrated digital camera.
Thermal sensitivity or noise equivalent temperature difference (NETD) indicates the magnitude of thermal
radiation required for registration by the camera. Pairing of the thermal imager with a GPS receiver allows for
further investigation (density, air voids) of areas identified through thermography (Mahoney et al. 2003).

5.11.5 Observations
Delivery
The principal mechanisms for both aggregate and temperature segregation of asphalt material occur during
transport to the worksite. Vertical and horizontal acceleration of aggregate particles in the haul vehicle can
generate a distribution of particle size with the coarser material at the bottom and outer surface of the
stockpile. Additionally, exposure to ambient conditions generates a temperature distribution with highest
values at the core and decreasing toward the outer surface of the stockpile. Significant temperature
differentials were observed for EME2 material delivered via haul truck. Variations in temperature in excess of
70 °C were observed between the outer surface (crust) and inner material as shown in Figure 5.30. The
magnitude of the temperature differential is quite remarkable considering the relatively short haul distance (<
2 km). Greater temperature differentials would be expected from typical construction projects where haul
distances in excess of 20 km are common.
Laydown
Asphalt placement using a paver minimises the occurrence of both aggregate and temperature segregation.
Material deposited in the hopper is advanced through the paver by conveyer, reheated, and uniformly spread
along the screed via an auger. When operated in accordance with best practice, a uniform asphalt mat is
produced. Observed temperature differentials were low (≈ 15 °C) for the EME2 and variable (15–35 °C) for
the DG20HM material as shown in Figure 5.31 and Figure 5.32 respectively. Direct loading of the paver from
haul trucks combined with discontinuous production is the most likely cause of the temperature differentials.
The variance in DG20HM surface temperature differentials may be due to the increased use of handwork
and placement of material in multiple lifts.
Advancement
General characterisation of the surface temperature uniformity according to Sebesta et al. (2006) is uniform
with truck-end cold spots (Figure 5.33). An MTV was not employed during construction. Additionally, irregular
material availability resulted in numerous production stops for both the EME2 and DG20HM paving
operations. The practice of direct haul truck paver loading increases the propensity for cold spots. When
combined with numerous production stops, end of truck temperature differentials are certain. Figure 5.34 and
Figure 5.36 exhibit the significant temperature variation (> 50 °C) of the residual material within the paver
hopper for both EME2 and DG20HM respectively. Cold spots commonly occur as a result of the last material
from a previous load, which has been exposed to ambient conditions for an extended period, combining with
the first material from the subsequent load, which is typically the crust material that has been exposed to
ambient conditions during transport (Mahoney et al. 2003). The cooler material typically accumulates along
the surface of the hopper wings. When the wings are folded inward at the end of the load, the cooler material
is introduced to the paver and deposited in-mass within the asphalt mat. The resulting in-mat surface
temperature variation can be observed in Figure 5.35 and Figure 5.37 for EME2 and DG20HM respectively.
Jointing
The temperature of material forming the adjacent faces of a joint has a significant impact on adhesion and
density, which significantly influence long-term performance. Insufficient bonding and air void expulsion can
result in accelerated pavement failure through moisture infiltration and surface condition deterioration. A
temperature differential of approximately 70 °C was generally observed throughout the project. However,
due to material production and construction staging constraints, the southern joint between the DG20HM and
EME2 (Figure 5.38) paving lanes exhibited a lower temperature differential than observed between the
northern EME2 and DG20HM (Figure 5.39) paving joint.

Compaction
For standard HMA, compaction should be completed before the mat cools below 105 °C to maximise
workability and ensure target adhesion and density are achieved (Song et al. 2009). However, due to the
stiffness of the EME2 binder, optimal compaction efficiency is achieved before the mat cools below 145 °C.
Temperatures measured at the surface and core of an asphalt mat vary according to layer thickness,
material type and climate in addition to production and ambient temperatures. However, surface temperature
uniformity is indicative of core temperature uniformity and provides insight on the consistency of compaction
and air void reduction achieved. Significant surface temperature variations, as presented in Figure 5.40, may
indicate potential variations in achieved density. However, uniformity in surface temperature variation, as
indicated in Figure 5.41, is indicative of consistent compaction.
Figure 5.30: EME2 dispensed into paver hopper from Figure 5.31: Laydown of 100 mm EME2 mat
haul truck
Figure 5.32: Laydown of 100 mm DG20HM mat Figure 5.33: EME2 mat prior to compaction
Figure 5.34: EME2 in hopper between haul loads Figure 5.35: Between haul load temperature variation
in EME2 paving

Figure 5.36: DG20HM in hopper between haul loads Figure 5.37: Between haul load temperature variation
in DG20HM paving
Figure 5.38: Joint between DG20HM (near) and EME2 Figure 5.39: Joint between EME2 (left) and DG20HM
(far) (right)
Figure 5.40: Breakdown compaction of DG20HM mat Figure 5.41: Intermediate compaction of EME2 mat

5.11.6 Laboratory Testing of Production Material
The EME binder used for the production trial was sampled (sample #2975) and a full set of conformance
testing was conducted at the ARRB laboratory. The test results are summarised in Table 5.12; for
comparison, the test results of the EME binder (sample #2633) imported from France – summarised in
Table 4.7 – are also provided in Table 5.12.
Table 5.12: Compliance testing of the EME binder used for the production trial
EME binder
EME binder
(sampled at the
(imported from
Australian test method Unit Limit Value demonstration
France)
trial)
#2975 #2633
(1)
Penetration at 25 °C AS 2341.12 pu Minimum 15 19.6 17.5
Maximum 25
Softening point AS 2341.18 °C Minimum 56.5 69.3 64.8
Maximum 72.5
Viscosity at 60 °C AS 2341.2 Pa.s Minimum 550 7020 3412
Loss on heating AGPT-T103 % Maximum 0.5 0.15 0.19
(2)
Per cent change in AS/NZS % Minimum 55 69% 80%
penetration at 25 °C after 2341.10, (retained (retained penetration
RTFO treatment AS 2341.12 penetration 14 pu)
13.6 pu)
Softening point after °C 79.6 71.7
RTFO treatment
Increase in softening point AS/NZS °C Maximum 8 10.3 6.9
after RTFO treatment 2341.10,
AS 2341.18
Viscosity at 135 °C AGPT-T111 Pa.s Minimum 0.6 1.738 1.338
Matter insoluble in toluene AS 2341.8 % Minimum 99 0.08 0.02
(% mass) mass
(4)
Penetration index N/A N/A N/A Report PI of the original PI of the original
bitumen bitumen
+0.6 –0.3
Viscosity at 60 °C after AS/NZS Pa.s N/A Report 43 143 10 697
(3)
RTFO 2341.10
AS 2341.2
Per cent increase in AS/NZ % N/A Report 616 314
viscosity at 60 °C after 2341.10
RTFO test
1 One pu equals to 0.1 mm.
2 Per cent change in penetration calculated using the equation: (Penetration at 25 °C after RTFO x 100) / (Penetration at 25 °C
before RTFO).
3 Test shall be done with an Asphalt Institute viscosity tube.
4 Refer to Equation 1.
Small quantities of bitumen were extracted from the loose production mixes according to ARRB’s internal
procedure (ARRB Group 2005) and were subjected to DSR testing. The following samples were tested:
• the virgin EME binder sampled at the production trial – #2975
• the EME binder extracted from the EME2 production mix – #2989
• the C600 bitumen extracted from the DG20HM production mix – #2988.
The DSR test results are summarised in Figure 5.42; for completeness the DSR results of the French EME2
mix (#2633, Section 4.2.2) are also shown in Figure 5.42.

Figure 5.42: DSR test results for virgin and recovered binders
1.0E+07 100
90
1.0E+06 80
70
1.0E+05 60
Phase angle (°)

G* (Pa)
50
1.0E+04 40
30
MC-EME 2633-set2 MC-EME 2975-set2
1.0E+03 MC-EME (recov.) 2989-set2 MC-C600 (recov.) 2988-set2 20
MC-EME 2633-set2 - delta MC-EME 2975-set2 - delta

10
MC-EME (recov.) 2989-set2-delta MC-C600 (recov.) 2988-set2-delta
1.0E+02 0
1.0E-02 1.0E-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03
Large quantities of loose DG20HM and EME2 mixes were also sampled on the day of production for
performance testing at the laboratory. The following tests will be performed on both production mixes:
• workability
• temperature-frequency sweep on flexural modulus
• flexural fatigue test.
Test set-up and requirements are summarised in Table 2.16. The intention of the above testing is to collect
valuable information on the production mix. It should be noted that these test results will not be used for
performance validation of the design mix. Due to time and capacity constraints these test results will be
presented in subsequent reports.
5.12 Pavement Instrumentation
In conjunction with the EME2 trial, it was considered a good opportunity to install pavement monitoring
technology. This would serve the dual purpose of evaluating the EME2 material performance as well as
providing data on pavement response under varying conditions.
Temperature sensors and strain gauges were to be placed in a 5 by 5 m area of the pavement near the Boral
Asphalt plant driveway, with cables running to a weather station and data logger near the edge of the road.
More information regarding the installation of these components is provided in Section 5.12.2, Section 5.12.3
and Section 5.12.4.
5.12.1 Construction of the Pavement Box
Full depth asphalt pavements can be over 400 mm deep in Queensland; however, the pavement at Cullen
Avenue West was designed at 130–180 mm thick. In order to gather data on the full range of depths it was
necessary to lay a small section of the road at increased depth. It was decided that this section would be
constructed with DG20 HM asphalt to a depth of 270 mm below the granular base level, covered by 100 mm
of EME2 and a 30 mm wearing course giving a total depth of 400 mm. The location for this box was chosen
for its proximity to a secure site for the weather station, for its position clear of high trees and parked cars
that could compromise weather-related data and the fact that it is near the turning path for heavy vehicles
entering the asphalt plant.

Installation of the sensors needed to take place on 15 February 2014, before the first EME2 run which would
cover the pavement box. It was decided that the construction team would profile out the area to 270 mm
depth and lay asphalt in the early hours of Saturday morning. This would allow enough time for cooling to
provide a safe working environment while installing the strain gauges.
The cables for the strain gauges required protection from the paver and rollers; therefore a shallow trench
was required in the asphalt surface. To achieve this, a mould was constructed with lengths of timber and
metal connector plates. This was placed by the construction team over the hot asphalt in line with the slot in
the kerb and rolled into the asphalt (Figure 5.43 and Figure 5.44).
Figure 5.44: Pavement box with completed cable

Figure 5.43: Pavement box with wooden mould
channel
5.12.2 Installation of the Strain Gauges
Four strain gauges were purchased to assess the performance of the EME2 as well as to evaluate the
pavement response to loading at a range of temperatures. Strain gauges in this configuration have not been
used in Australia previously. The model chosen was the ASG-152 from CTL Group in the United States. The
ASG-152 measures horizontal strain in asphalt layers, and is designed to withstand high temperatures and
compaction loading during construction. The devices were interfaced by Environdata to be compatible with
the data logger in the Environdata weather station.
Once the pavement box had been constructed, the installation process for the strain gauges was as follows:
• Remove the wooden mould and complete shallow trench for cables.
• Place strain gauges in correct configuration, run cables to footpath.
• Cover the strain gauges and cables with a small amount of 5 mm maximum aggregate size asphalt mix
for protection during paving.
• Ascertain exact position of gauges using two known reference points.
• Monitor paver and trucks to avoid any direct contact with gauges.
• After construction is finished, mark out the final location of strain gauges.
The process is described in more depth below.

After removing the wooden mould, there were some small areas of asphalt to remove with a hammer drill.
The unbound granular base was removed to the same depth as the trench for a short distance to install two
of the gauges. The layout of the strain gauges can be seen in Figure 5.49. Two of the gauges were placed
on the asphalt pavement box in a longitudinal configuration, while two of the gauges were placed on the
unbound granular base in a transverse configuration (Figure 5.45 and Figure 5.46). This was a trial of the
strain gauges installation process; although strain gauges are normally not placed on top of a thick asphalt
structure, it was decided to test the gauges on both material types (i.e. asphalt and unbound granular) to get
a better understanding of how they perform under these conditions.
Figure 5.45: Strain gauge placed on asphalt Figure 5.46: Strain gauge placed on granular base
The four gauges were placed in position with the cables running through the trench to the kerb. A small
batch of 5 mm asphalt was manufactured to secure and protect the gauges. This asphalt was carefully
shovelled around the edges of the gauges and covering the cables along the trench. It was manually
compacted with a tamping stick to hold the devices in place (Figure 5.47 and Figure 5.48).
Figure 5.47: Securing the strain gauges with a 5 mm Figure 5.48: Securing the cables with a 5 mm
maximum size fine asphalt mix maximum size fine asphalt mix
In order to undertake FWD testing at a later date, it was important to know the exact position of the strain
gauges. This was done by using two known reference points on the kerb and measuring the distance to the
centre of each strain gauge.
The strain gauges had several hours to set in place before the paver reached them. They were initially
spaced out such that the tyres of the paver would only drive over the trench and not the gauges themselves.
The drivers of the asphalt trucks and the paver were also instructed to be mindful of the gauges when paving
that area. The trucks and paver completed the run with no obvious damage to the gauges (Figure 5.49).

Figure 5.49: Installation of strain gauges Figure 5.50: Marking strain gauge locations
Upon returning to the site the next morning, the location of the devices was measured from the known
reference points and marked with a stencil (Figure 5.50).
The strain gauges were tested on-site by Environdata on 20 February 2014. This was done by driving a
front-end loader directly over the marked gauge locations and checking for readings. Of the four gauges, one
appeared to be returning clear, realistic readings for strain, with one other gauge returning some data. Both
of these gauges were installed on the granular base. The two gauges on the asphalt pavement box did not
return any readings. Later investigation and extension of the reading range revealed that the strain gauges
were working, but they were in a deformed position. Extending the reading ranges proved that it was
necessary that the gauges have enough material supporting the underside so that during construction and
early loading, there is no damage caused due to bending of the gauge. For the two gauges on the softer
granular base, there may also be a period of settling, as the gauges are forced into the unbound granular
base. It seems paramount that a bitumen/sand (mastics) mix is placed on the surface and the strain gauges
are secured on top of this fine material. This would provide enough support without altering the real
pavement structure and providing realistic readings.
Some of the early readings of strain showed an expected strain response to loading, with periods under
compression and tension (Figure 5.51). The data logging system custom-designed by Environdata captures
maximum strains over a certain time period. There is the potential to improve the resolution of this data to
allow recording of complete strain responses such as those in Figure 5.51.

Figure 5.51: Strain readings from E83 strain gauge (reading values are indicative and not validated)
5.12.3 Installation of the Temperature Sensors
In order to gain a better understanding of the relationship between pavement temperature and performance,
it was decided to install a series of temperature sensors in the pavement at various depths. With the added
depth of the pavement box, it was possible to install sensors to a depth of 390 mm.
The sensors comprise a 100 mm long probe that is inserted snugly and glued into the asphalt layer and
subsequently attached to a small unit at the end. Extra padding was added to the unit for additional
protection under traffic loading. The installation process was as follows:
• Drill a series of overlapping cores into the pavement to the required sensor depth (trenching).
• Tidy up the edges of the box with a hammer drill or concrete cutter.
• Cut a 100 mm deep trench from the box through to the kerb to protect the cables.
• Drill into the sidewall of the box to fit the sensors and electronic units.
• Seal the sensor tips in place with a thermo-conductive gel.
• Identify the cables with coloured tape and run cables through to kerb.
• Backfill the box and trench with a fine concrete mix.
• Run cables up to the weather station.
The process is described in more depth below.
Installation was made possible by drilling a series of overlapping cores through the full depth of the asphalt
box (Figure 5.52 and Figure 5.53). The cores were removed and the edges were tidied up with a hammer
drill (Figure 5.54). A concrete cutting machine was used to cut a 100 mm deep trench for the cables, running
from near the back of the cored section to the kerb. The trench was continued along the concrete driveway,
parallel to the earlier trench cut for the strain gauges. The box provided sufficient space to drill 100 mm holes
into the side wall (Figure 5.55).

Figure 5.52: Coring of the pavement to full depth Figure 5.53: Eight cores form the shape of the trench
(cored full depth)
Figure 5.54: Clearing and shaping the final trench for Figure 5.55: Temperature sensor installation (drilling
the temperature sensors the horizontal holes) with the help of a guide rod
The sensors were placed in two columns to allow enough space for the electronic units (Figure 5.56). The
eventual depths would be 30 mm greater than each of the indicated values, allowing for the wearing course
that would cover the base layer.
Figure 5.56: Layout of temperature sensors in box
40 mm 20 mm
80 mm
160 mm
260 mm
360 mm

The holes were measured to be just large enough for the sensors to fit, to ensure that the tip of the sensor
was measuring the asphalt temperature rather than the air in the void. A thermo-conductive gel was added to
the tip of the sensor to seal it into place.
After the sensors were sealed in the asphalt, coloured tape was used to identify the cables at each end
(Figure 5.57 and Figure 5.58). The cables were fed into lengths of 32 mm diameter conduit which was placed
at the bottom of the trench. Duct tape was used around the edge of the box to leave a clean finish after
concreting and good bond between the base layer and wearing course.
A small load of concrete was delivered and shovelled into the hole, being careful to fill all the gaps around
the sensors. The trench was also filled and levelled with concrete. The finish was deliberately left just below
the road surface level to allow for some swelling of the concrete as it set. Traffic management cones and
tape were added to prevent traffic damage while the concrete set. The connection of the cables to the
weather station is covered in Section 5.12.4.
Figure 5.57: Sensors placed in the trench Figure 5.58: Sensors placed in the trench
(view from above)
5.12.4 Installation of the Weather Station
The sensor cables plug into a weather data station placed just inside the fence near the Boral Asphalt
Testing Services building.
The weather station is a customised version of the Environdata WeatherMaestro. The unit has sensors for air
temperature, wind speed, solar radiation, humidity and rainfall. The rainfall sensor empties automatically, so
no manual intervention is required other than occasional check-ups. The unit was customised to allow a
connection for the four strain gauge cables, and it is able to receive strain readings from these gauges. The
data processor has been programmed to capture the maximum strain readings over a 12-second interval.

The device is solar powered, and contains on-board memory to store around 10 months of data under the
chosen configuration. Periodically, the user can retrieve data from the station using a 4G data card. Data
was collected daily for the early stages of the project to match and validate with the Bureau of Meteorology
(BOM) data whether realistic values were captured. After the first few days, monitoring data was downloaded
on an approximately weekly basis. As at June 2014, four months of data had been collected, providing 17
000 data records for each of the aforementioned sensors.
It is also possible to manually collect data from the site by using a laptop and connection cable.
The data is accessed using a proprietary software package from Environdata, known as EasiAccess, but
files can also be exported in .csv format to be analysed in Microsoft Excel. The output is provided over three
time periods – 10-minute, hourly and daily. Table 5.13 shows a sample output from the 10-minute data file.
Strain data was not available at this point in time.
Table 5.13: Data output from weather station
Maximum Average Maximum Average Total

Air Solar
wind wind peak wind relative rain
Date Time temperature radiation
speed speed gust humidity 2 gauge
(°C) (W/m )
(km/h) (km/h) (km/h) (%) (mm)
20/02/2014 12:10 18.2 9.3 20 59.5 32.0 526.0 0
PM
(1)
Pavement temperature sensors (°C)
20 (50) mm 40 (70) mm 80 (110) mm 160 (190) mm 260 (290) mm 360 (390) mm
50.0 46.3 44.0 40.4 40.2 40.8
1 Values in brackets indicate the depth after placement of the 30 mm thick wearing course.
The installation process for the weather station was as follows (Figure 5.59 to Figure 5.62):
• As outlined in Section 5.12.2, the sensor cables run from the pavement, through the driveway trench and
behind the Boral Asphalt fence line.
• A trench was dug into the garden bed along the fence-line, approximately 300 mm deep.
• A deeper hole was dug in the location of the weather station; the exact location for the weather station
was chosen for a number of reasons
– there should ideally be at least 1.5 m clearance from the fence to minimise the effect of the fence on
wind readings
– the solar radiation sensors should have sufficient clearance from objects likely to cast a shadow on
the sensors
– there should be easy access to the station for manual data collection and routine maintenance
– the station would ideally be clear from pedestrian traffic and vehicles that could accidently or
deliberately damage the station
– the station should remain close to the pavement sensors to minimise the length of cable required
and provide the most accurate estimate of weather at the site.
• (The eventual location was able to satisfactorily fulfil these criteria.)
• Once the cables had been fed into the conduit, the conduit was placed in the trenches. Some flexible
joints were required for corners.
• The temperature sensors were checked for a signal before being inaccessible in the concrete.
• After the pavement temperature sensors were fixed in place with concrete, the concrete truck poured the
rest of the concrete along the trench, fixing the conduit in place. It was decided to cover the entire length
in concrete to reduce the risk of cables being severed by lawnmowers or digging in the garden.
• The weather station post was also secured with concrete.

• The next morning, after allowing the concrete to set, a thin layer of soil was added back on top of the
trench to minimise the visual impact, and the weather station was attached to the post.
Figure 5.59: Trench running through garden inside Figure 5.60: Concreting conduit into trench
fence-line
Figure 5.61: Weather station pole before adding Figure 5.62: Weather station fully installed
components
Once installed and plugged in, the temperature sensors were checked manually with a laptop. The data
collection also began at this time. Figure 5.63 shows the distribution of temperatures at each of the six
pavement depths over the first four days. As expected, the sensors close to the surface show large
fluctuations throughout the day with changing air temperature, solar radiation, wind and rain, while the
deeper sensors have a much more stable temperature profile.

Figure 5.63: Pavement temperatures at six depths, 20 to 24 February 2014
During a site visit in the late afternoon in March, it was observed that a tree on the nature strip was
obstructing direct sunlight to the solar radiation sensor (Figure 5.64). Figure 5.65 and Figure 5.66 show the
angle and position of the sun during December and June for the location, when the sun is at its highest and
lowest points in the sky, respectively. The likely path during the week in question is shown in orange in
Figure 5.64.
Figure 5.64: Trees potentially obstructing exposure at various times of the year
Solar radiation
sensor
Late Feb.
December March and June
September

Figure 5.65: Position of the sun at mid-summer for Figure 5.66: Position of the sun at mid-winter for the
the site at Cullen Avenue West, Eagle Farm, QLD site at Cullen Avenue West, Eagle Farm, QLD
An analysis of the solar radiation data during the week of 26 February to 4 March showed a clear drop in
solar radiation just before 5 pm, followed by a small increase just before sunset (Figure 5.67).
Figure 5.67: Solar radiation between 4 and 6.30 pm between 26 February and 4 March
This would have an effect on the modelling as the road surface itself is not in shade during these times. The
impact of the trees on solar radiation levels was likely to get worse later in the year when the trees may block
the sun from reaching the sensor for an hour or more approaching sunset. It was decided to remove the two
trees completely, and re-plant several trees further west along Cullen Avenue West. An added benefit is that
the trees are less likely to interfere with wind readings in their new position.

Analysis of the pavement temperature data and modelling will be provided in an Austroads report and ARRB
contract report later this year.
5.13 Wearing Course Construction
Installation of the wearing course was originally scheduled to take place within two months of the EME2
installation. Due to operational and weather constraints, the wearing course was not laid until 8 May 2014,
which is 81 days since the EME2 was placed. The works were undertaken at night to avoid disruption to the
businesses along Cullen Avenue West.
5.13.1 Wearing Course Placement
The wearing course had been planned to be a 30 mm nominal depth, and the EME2 and DG20HM layers
were laid accordingly. There was a small amount of profiling to do along the length of the road near the
kerbs. In addition, milling and profiling was required along the final 30 m of the road pavement at the far
eastern end (not part of the EME2 trial) and at the access points between Cullen Avenue West and the
service road.
According to BCC specifications, the surface was also tack coated to improve the bond between the wearing
course and the asphalt base below (Section 5.13.3).
The wearing course consisted of an M770 BCC Type 2 10 mm nominal aggregate size asphalt with
M1000/320 multigrade bitumen, with no recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) added. This is a commonly used
mix by BCC and would be standard for this type of road. The BCC asphalt plant was located just 2 km away
therefore material transport distances were very short.
The paving was completed in four runs, starting from the southern parking lane, then across to the southern
and northern traffic lanes and finishing with the northern parking lane. The access points between Cullen
Avenue West and the service lane were also paved.
Monitoring of the compacted densities was undertaken by BCC by using a nuclear gauge (Section 5.13.5).
The surface appearance before and after placement of the wearing course can be seen in Figure 5.68 and
Figure 5.69.
Figure 5.68: Cullen Avenue West before placement Figure 5.69: Cullen Avenue West after placement of
of the wearing course the wearing course

5.13.2 Temperature of the Mat
As with the placement of the EME2, disposable temperature probes were inserted into the asphalt during
paving and monitored the cooling of the mat. Several sensors were damaged during the EME2 monitoring in
February; therefore, a new solution for protecting the sensors and cables was developed. This included
removing a small section of the kerb (just near the pavement instrumentation box) to protect the cables
(Figure 5.70). One sensor (T1) would remain on the base asphalt layer with the wearing course laid over the
top. A length of string was tied to the second sensor (T2), allowing it to be pulled up into position after the
first set of rolling. The aim was to have this sensor just beneath the surface, although it was difficult to gauge
the exact depth of this sensor after the completion of all rolling.
Figure 5.70: Temperature sensors running into pavement
From an ambient air temperature of around 20 °C, the temperature of both sensors jumped when the asphalt
was first laid at around 9:33 pm (Figure 5.71). The first set of rolling at around 9:40 pm disturbed the T2
sensor, after which it was manually lifted up higher in the mat where the temperature reached 117.2 °C. This
was nine minutes after the asphalt was first laid, which would correspond to 20 °C or more of cooling. Sensor
T2 cooled considerably faster than T1 during the early stages. T1 was in contact with the asphalt base layer,
so this accounts for the relatively lower temperature throughout.
Back-rolling at 9:53 and 10:00 pm caused the T2 reading to fall and then rise in temperature, after which it
held a similar temperature to the T1 sensor. Monitoring was stopped at 10:19 pm with the temperatures at
63 °C and 56 °C for T1 and T2 respectively.

Figure 5.71: Cooling of the asphalt mat
This new method for protecting and moving the sensors into place did seem to work, although it was still
difficult to determine an accurate depth for the sensor placed within the asphalt mat. The purpose of
temperature monitoring was to ensure that temperatures ranges were adequate to achieve an appropriate
level of compaction of the wearing course. Good performance of the wearing course is a key for long-term
performance monitoring of the base layers.
Combined temperature data
Observations taken from the existing permanent in-pavement temperature sensors immediately after the
placement of the wearing course indicate that at 20 mm depth (from the top of the base layer), the temperature
jumped from 21 °C to 60 °C in around 20 minutes. Similarly, each of the other five probes eventually reached a
maximum temperature as the heat from the fresh asphalt transferred through the pavement. This data is
combined with the disposable temperature probe data to show the maximum temperature reached across various
depths, giving a good picture of the heat transfer properties of the asphalt base (Figure 5.72).
Figure 5.72: Maximum temperature reached at various depths
Note: Red markers indicate disposable temperature sensors, blue markers for in-pavement temperature probes.

5.13.3 Tack Coat Application Rate
A layer of tack coat was applied to the EME2 and DG20 surfaces to aid with the application and bond with
the new wearing course. Anionic slow setting (ASS), 60% residual binder emulsion was used. In order to
check the rate of application of the tack coating, four cardboard squares were laid over the path of the tack
coater at 80 m chainage (east and westbound lanes) and at 150 m chainage (east and westbound lanes) as
can be seen in Figure 5.73 and Figure 5.74. The squares were measured and weighed beforehand. The
residual binder applied to roads in France on EME2 projects tends to be much higher than standard tack
coating in Australia, so the potential impact of this change was of interest during the trial.
Figure 5.73: Cardboard squares to measure tack coat Figure 5.74: Tack coating in progress
application rate
Two different rates of tack coating were planned to be used on the surface. The initial goal was to target 300
2 2
g/m residual binder on the eastbound lanes and 200 g/m residual binder on the westbound lanes. The
2
vehicle operator noted that 300 g/m residual binder would be difficult to achieve with the equipment
2 2
available, so it was decided to set the rate to 300 g/m of emulsion for the eastbound lanes and 200 g/m
emulsion on the westbound lanes. With the emulsion at 60% binder content, the effective target residual
2 2
binder contents were 180 g/m on the eastbound lanes and 120 g/m on the westbound lanes. Also, the
lower application rates were applied to avoid any bleeding or excess binder on the surface of the thin
wearing course.
After the tack coating had been completed, the cardboard squares were removed and allowed to dry. The
squares were further dried at the BCC laboratories in Eagle Farm, where a final weight was found for each
square, which is summarised in Table 5.14.
Table 5.14: Tack coat application rate data
Weight Weight – with tack coat (g)

Square Location – Dimensions Area
2 – initial Initial 0.5 hour 1.0 hour 1.5 hours
no. chainage (m) (mm) (m )
(g) (g) (g) (g) (g)
1 80 (eastbound) 395 x 405 0.15998 57.2 93.0 89.4 89.4 89.4
4 150 (eastbound) 395 x 405 0.159975 56.8 95.7 92.1 92.1 92.0
2 80 (westbound) 394 x 406 0.159964 56.9 85.2 81.5 81.5 81.4
3 150 (westbound) 395 x 405 0.159975 57.0 83.5 79.5 79.3 79.3
Source: Based on laboratory data from Brisbane City Council.
The actual residual binder contents can be calculated from this data, resulting in values that are consistently
somewhat higher than the target binder content (Table 5.15). The eastbound lanes were 12 and 22% higher
than target while the westbound lanes were 28 and 16% higher.

Visually, it appeared as though the tack coat was applied consistently along each pass; however, it was
noted that during tack coating, most of the coated area showed gaps where there was no overlap between
adjacent spray nozzles (Figure 5.74). This is most likely because the spray nozzles were positioned too
close to the road surface. The ideal configuration is to have the coating overlapping slightly, producing as
close to an even distribution of binder as possible.
Due to the mild weather and lack of sun, the emulsion took some time to break, although by the time the
wearing course was placed, the vast majority of the emulsion was no longer evident, leaving only binder.
Table 5.15: Residual binder calculations
Target
Actual residual
Location – Target
Square Dimensions Area Binder Binder residual binder
chainage 2 2 application
no. (mm) (m ) (g) (g/m ) binder 2 (60%
(m) 2 rate (g/m )
(g/m ) emulsion)
2
(g/m )
1 80 (eastbound) 395 x 405 0.15998 32.2 201
211 300 180
4 150 (eastbound) 395 x 405 0.159975 35.2 220
2 80 (westbound) 394 x 406 0.159964 24.5 153
146 200 120
3 150 (westbound) 395 x 405 0.159975 22.3 139
5.13.4 Thermal Imaging during Paving
As with the EME2 paving, temperature monitoring using a thermal imaging camera was used to investigate
potential thermal segregation during the various stages of construction. The relatively shallow depth of
wearing course (30 mm) compared to the earlier EME2 and DG20 work (50 to 150 mm) meant that paving
runs did not have delays caused by the delivery trucks and the paving runs had relatively consistent
temperature profiles. Along the four paving runs, asphalt was consistently leaving the paver between 130–
160 °C (Figure 5.75 and Figure 5.76). It should be noted that the temperatures shown in the thermal imaging
are indicative of surface temperatures only and may slightly underestimate the average temperature of the
mat by 15–20 °C.
Figure 5.75: Surfacing laydown during first paving Figure 5.76: Surfacing laydown during final paving
run run
It was noted that in harder to access areas, there were much larger temperature differentials. At the end of
the first paving run, the joint with the existing road surface was levelled and spread evenly with shovels and a
bobcat. Also, some of the asphalt laid in this area was from the edge and sides of the paver wings, which is
not nearly as hot as the fresh asphalt being delivered directly from the truck into the centre of the paver. As a
result, there were patches of asphalt close to 50 °C on the surface soon after paving, right next to areas of
140 °C asphalt (Figure 5.77).

There were also large temperature differentials in the small sections of pavement joining Cullen Avenue
West to the service lane. In this area, surplus asphalt was picked up by a bobcat and added back to the
paver for another short run along these sections. Furthermore, some areas were finished by shovelling warm
asphalt into place. As a result, the distribution of temperatures in this area was highly variable (Figure 5.78).
Although the confined space and curved alignment made paving more difficult in these areas, the practice of
re-using warm asphalt and spreading by hand is likely to cause large temperature differentials and increases
the potential for thermal segregation in the mat.
It can be summarised that a very good paving and rolling practice was followed and applied for the road trial.
Therefore poor performance is not expected of the wearing course due to under compaction, any type of
segregation, overheating or similar adverse effects which may occur during asphalt production and paving.
Figure 5.77: Large temperature differentials at the Figure 5.78: Large temperature differentials in the
end of the first paving run section linking the service lane
5.13.5 Construction Monitoring, Density Testing
BCC technicians carried out production control and construction monitoring during the paving of the wearing
course, including density testing with a nuclear gauge. The device used was a Troxler 4640-B nuclear
density gauge and testing was performed according to TMR test method Q306E (Department of Transport
and Main Roads 2010a).
The densities were recorded at seven or eight points along each of the four runs, giving a total of 30 tests.
The densities were consistently recorded at between 94 and 98% relative compaction with an average of
95.9% (Figure 5.79), which is in line or exceeding expected compaction levels. The standard deviation of
compaction was 1.3% and the characteristic compaction value was calculated at 94.6%. There was also no
significant difference between the compaction across different runs, with the northern parking lane having the
lowest compaction at 95.6% and the northern traffic lane the highest at 96.2%. The distribution of the relative
compaction densities is provided in Figure 5.80.
Unlike the basecourse asphalt testing, there was no nuclear gauge testing at or near the lane joints.
Densities were taken at various points across the lanes, with no clear trend showing variable densities
depending on position within the lane.
Visual inspection of the finished wearing course on the next day confirmed that a good compaction and tight
surface was achieved during the paving operation with no visible signs of failure or deterioration. The
compaction joints also looked well compacted, which is a direct result of the short paving runs and
continuous material supply from the plant.

Figure 5.79: Relative compaction density at specific chainage
Figure 5.80: Distribution of relative compaction densities
Test results from the production control revealed that the M770 material had 5.0% bitumen content and
3
2.479 t/m maximum density, with the grading curve of the material tested shown in Figure 5.81. It can be
concluded that the mix was produced and paved according to S310 Supply of Dense Graded Asphalt
(Brisbane City Council 2001a), and S320 Laying of Asphalt (Brisbane City Council 2001b).

Figure 5.81: Grading results of the wearing course material (production control)
100
90 Sample E140570A - M770
80
Tolerance limits (lower)
70
Tolerance limits (upper)

% of total passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.075 0.150 0.300 0.600 1.18 2.36 4.75 6.70 9.5 13.2 19.0
Sieve size (mm)
5.13.6 Line Marking
The final stage of the process was marking the pavement lines, which took place during the week of 19–23
May 2014. On 21 May, important locations along the trial section were marked. These included chainages,
FWD testing wheel paths, other testing locations and the position of the pavement instrumentation. The
composition of the basecourse was also marked at the section joints (Figure 5.82) to allow for easy
identification in the future. The location of the strain gauges was accurately marked using measurements
taken during placement, which will enable easy referencing for further FWD testing.
It proved to be necessary to paint line markings on similar test sections after it was observed that trucks
trafficked a wide range of the pavement when the line markings were not present. Following installation of
the line markings, trucks were observed to be following the eastbound and westbound lanes, providing a
uniform loading on the road pavement.
Figure 5.82: Marking the depth and Figure 5.83: Finished line marking
composition of basecourse layers

5.14 Observations on the Test Section
As at June 2014 the following general observations can be made on the performance of the Cullen Avenue
West demonstration trial:
• EME2 can be manufactured and paved in Australia using standard production and construction
equipment.
• ARRB personnel regularly visited the site and checked the surface of the EME2 and DG20HM layers;
there were no signs of any form of deterioration.
• The EME2 layer showed a very strong and hard surface; at the Boral Asphalt plant entrance trucks are
entering and exiting the site in a very tight turning path, applying high shear stresses on the surface.
There were no signs of stripping or loose surface material, and the surface looked sound after almost
three months of trafficking.
• Following heavy rain, the EME2 surface showed no signs of water penetration. While the DG20HM layer
showed patches of evaporating water (darker marks), the EME2 surface did not show any marks of water.
• There is no adverse effect of the gritting and/or higher/lower residual bitumen application rates on the
bond between the base layer and the wearing course.
• The pavement did experience a wide range of temperatures during the three months that it was exposed
to the elements. The air temperature ranged from 10.6 to 35.0 °C and the temperature at the 20 mm
depth sensor ranged from 13.9 up to 57.8 °C. Despite this, there did not appear to be any adverse effects
on either the pavement or the instrumentation during this period.

6. Summary and Conclusions
Class 2 (EME2) technology to Australia. EME2 technology offers the prospect of reduced asphalt
thicknesses for heavy duty pavements, and lower construction and maintenance costs. TT1908 is a three-
year Austroads project, and this report summarises the outcomes of year one. The final deliverable of the
project will be a validated, performance-based design guideline for EME2 mixes. Performance-based mix
design provides an improved linkage between asphalt mix design and structural pavement design. This
project thus also supports the move towards a unified performance-based mix and pavement design for
asphalt in Australia.
EME2 mixes are produced using hard paving grade bitumen applied at a high binder content (approx. 6%).
The material is typically used in the construction of asphalt base layers. Compared to conventional asphalt
bases with unmodified binders, high modulus asphalt is characterised by high stiffness, high durability,
superior resistance to permanent deformation and good fatigue resistance. International experience
indicates that significant pavement thickness reductions can be achieved using EME2. Alternatively, it allows
the strengthening of pavements in areas where there are restrictions to pavement thickness (e.g. kerb and
channel levels in urban areas, bridge crossings on motorways).
The objective of this first year of the study was to set tentative performance specifications for EME2 mixes.
The aim was to provide further support for demonstration field trials with the technology.
In the third year of the project, the data from the industry-funded laboratory and field study would be used to
draft a guideline on the design of EME2 mixes. If appropriate, this may be suitable for incorporation in the
Guide to Pavement Technology: Part 4B: Asphalt (Austroads 2014). The mix design methodology for EME2
will be strictly performance-based. The following tasks fall outside the scope of this project:
• developing structural design procedures to update Part 2 of the Guide to allow for the design of
pavements containing EME2 materials
• developing binder selection procedures for EME binders for inclusion in Part 4F of the Guide.
Most of the laboratory testing and field monitoring of trial sections containing EME2 technology was
co-funded and undertaken by the asphalt industry through AAPA.
The outcomes of the first year of the project can be summarised as follows:
• In conjunction with the EME Working Group of the Austroads Asphalt Research Working Group (ARWG),
an experimental plan was developed for laboratory testing to be performed in Australia and France.
• A specification framework was developed for EME2 mixes in Australia, including requirements for binder,
filler and aggregate testing, mix design procedure and performance testing. Also, the requirements for
manufacturing, paving and compliance were provided.
• For benchmarking purposes, a full set of performance testing was carried out on a conforming EME2 mix
imported from France, and industry partners also provided test results for their EME2 mixes. Based on
the data collected so far, tentative specification limits for EME2 mixes were developed in Australia, using
Australian test methods for the following properties:
– workability
– wheel tracking
– flexural stiffness
– fatigue
– moisture sensitivity.
• Specification limits for hard penetration binders and suitable aggregates and fillers are also provided.

• The EME Working Group developed selection criteria for suitable field trial sites. A successful
demonstration trial was carried out on Cullen Avenue West, Eagle Farm, Queensland.
• The demonstration project had a number of stakeholders contributing to maximise the knowledge gained
from the trial. The combined contribution of all stakeholders led to a seamless production and
construction of the trial section. Stakeholders developed an experimental plan for the testing to be
performed as part of the EME2 field trials and it was applied for the demonstration trial on Cullen Avenue
West.
• ARRB performed the pavement design for the demonstration trial and the following pavement structures
were constructed:
– 100 mm thick EME2 base layer, constructed in one paving run
– 150 mm thick EME2 base layer, constructed in one paving run
– 150 mm thick dense graded asphalt for heavy duty application (DG20HM), constructed in two
paving runs, as the control section
– the wearing course, a 10 mm nominal size dense graded asphalt with multigrade bitumen, placed at
a uniform thickness of 30 mm.
• The demonstration trial was thoroughly monitored and documented as follows:
– production of the mix, including testing of constituent materials, routine and performance-based
laboratory testing of the production mix
– construction of the pavement, including paving and compaction temperature, thickness,
compactibility and densification, and final in situ density
– post-construction testing, including performance-based testing on cores extracted from the
pavement
– assessment of the surface characteristics, including skid resistance and surface appearance.
Data from the laboratory and field studies, as provided by industry and collected by ARRB, were analysed
and outcomes are summarised in the report. Based on the laboratory and field data collected so far, the
EME2 pavement shows performance as expected. The EME2 test section, which is 30% thinner compared
to the DG20HM control section, shows similar performance in terms of structural capacity. Short and long-
term structural and functional performance monitoring will be conducted on the test section regularly after
construction:
• functional performance monitoring, including the measurement of roughness and rutting and regular
visual site inspection
• structural performance monitoring, including FWD testing and stiffness testing of material extracted from
the pavement structure; the analysis will be supported by data collected from pavement instruments, such
as strain gauges and temperature sensors.
Preliminary laboratory data suggest that EME2 mixes have superior resistance to moisture damage, rutting
and fatigue; however, long-term field data is required to confirm and validate these findings.

References
Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 1997, Asphalt plant process control guide, IG-3, AAPA, Melbourne,
Vic.
Australian Asphalt Pavement Association 2013, Pavement work tips, no. 15, Asphalt statistical process
control, AAPA, Melbourne, Vic.
AASHTO 2012, Standard method of test for determining the rheological properties of asphalt binder using a
dynamic shear rheometer (DSR), T 315–10, AASHTO, Washington, DC, USA.
ARRB Group 2005, ‘Extraction of bituminous binder from sprayed seal and bituminous concrete samples:
adapted from ARR 66’, ARRB method no. M07, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic.
Asphalt Institute 1984, Mix design methods for asphalt concrete and other hot mix types, manual series no.
MS–2, Asphalt Institute, College Park, MD, USA.
Austroads 2005, Asphalt binder content (ignition oven method), test method, AGPT-T234, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006a, Handling viscosity of polymer modified binders, Brookfield thermosel, test method,
AGPT-T111, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006b, Deformation resistance of asphalt mixtures by the wheel tracking test, test method,
AGPT-T231, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006c, Fatigue life of compacted bituminous mixes subject to repeated flexural bending, test
method, AGPT-T233, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006d, Pre-treatment and loss on heating of bitumen, multigrade and polymer modified binders
(rolling thin film oven (RTFO) test), test method, AGPT-T103, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2007a, Stripping potential of asphalt: tensile strength ratio, test method, AGPT-T232, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2007b, Guide to asset management: part 5b: roughness, by MA Moffatt, AGAM05B-07,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2012, Guide to pavement technology: part 2: pavement structural design, 3rd edn, AGPT02-12,
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013a, EME technology transfer to Australia: an explorative study, AP-T249-13, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013b, Mastic performance assessment in stone mastic asphalt, AP-T219-13, Austroads, Sydney,
NSW.
Austroads 2014, Guide to pavement technology: part 4b: asphalt, AGPT04B-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Bańkowski, W, Tušar, M & Wiman, LG 2009, Laboratory and field implementation of high modulus asphalt
concrete. Requirements for HMAC mix design and pavement design, Sixth Framework Programme,
Sustainable Surface Transport, European Commission, EU.
Brosseaud, Y, Bogdanski, B & Carré, D 2004, “Achieve better roads in Poland while saving resources with
rd
French function dissociation concept”, Eurasphalt and Eurobitume congress, 3 , Vienna, Foundation
Eurasphalt, vol.1, pp. 3-11.
Brisbane City Council 2001a, ‘Reference specifications for civil engineering work: S310 supply of dense
graded asphalt’, BCC, Brisbane, Qld.

Brisbane City Council 2001b, ‘Reference specifications for civil engineering work: S320 laying of asphalt’,
BCC, Brisbane, Qld.
De Backer, C, Denolf, K, De Visscher, J, Glorie, L, Maeck, J, Vanelstraete, A, Vansteenkiste, S & Vervaecke,

F 2007, Enrobés à module élevé (EME): de la conception à la mise en oeuvre (High modulus asphalt
(EME): from design to implementation), CR 43/07, Centre de Recherches Routières, Brussels.
Delorme, J, Roche, C & Wendling, L 2007, LPC bituminous mixtures design guide, Laboratoire Central des
Ponts et Chaussees, Paris, France.
Denneman, E 2013, ‘Review of AG/PT-233 fatigue test protocol and its link to structural pavement design’,
AAPA International flexible pavements conference, 15th, 2013, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia,
Australian Asphalt Pavement Association (AAPA), Toowong, Qld, 11 pp.
Department of Transport and Main Roads 2010a, ‘Compacted density of asphalt (nuclear gauge): test
method Q306E’ in Materials testing manual: volume 3: section c: asphalt tests, Queensland
Department of Transport and Main Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
Department of Transport and Main Roads 2010b, ‘Texture depth (sand patch): test method Q705’ in
Materials testing manual: volume 3: section c: asphalt tests, Queensland Department of Transport and
Main Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
Department of Transport and Main Roads 2011a, Heavy duty asphalt, technical standard MRTS31, TMR,
Brisbane, Qld.
Department of Transport and Main Roads 2011b, Stone mastic asphalt surfacing, supplementary
specification MRSS548, TMR, Brisbane, Qld.
Department of Transport and Main Roads 2012, ‘Relative compaction of asphalt: test method Q314’ in
Materials testing manual: volume 3: section c: asphalt tests, Queensland Department of Transport and
Main Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
General Directorate for National Roads and Highways 2013, Nawierzchnie asfaltowe na drogach krajowych,
Mieszanki mineralno-asfaltowe Wymagania techniczne (Asphalt pavements for roads, Bituminous
mixtures specifications), WT-2 2013, Warsaw, Poland.
Guyot, X 2013, ‘Use of high modulus asphalt :“EME” case studies in the Indian Ocean area’, International
flexible pavements conference, 15th, Brisbane, AAPA, Kew, Vic, 22 pp.
Highway Agency 2006, ‘Pavement design, part 3, HD 26/06’, in Design manual for roads and bridges:
volume 7 pavement design and maintenance: section 2 pavement design and construction:, Highways
Agency, Department for Transport, United Kingdom.
Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausees 1997, French design manual for pavement structures, LCPC,
Paris, France.
Mahoney, J, Zinke, SA, Stephens, JE, Myers, LA & DaDalt, AJ 2003. Application of infrared thermographic
imaging to bituminous concrete pavements, final report, report no. 2229-F-03-7, Connecticut
Department of Transportation, Rocky Hill, CT, USA.
Moglia, O, Taylor, R, & Robertus, C 2007, ‘French asphalt mixture formulation and pavement design:
application to EME2’, Asphalt Professional, no. 25, pp.14-22.
Pronk, A.C., Poot, M.R., Jacobs, M.M.J., Gelpke, R.F., 2010, ‘Haversine fatigue testing in controlled
deflection mode: is it really possible?’, Proceedings of the Transportation Research Board 89th Annual
Meeting, Washington.
Read, J & Whiteoak, D 2003, The shell bitumen handbook, 5th edn, Shell Bitumen, United Kingdom.

Sebesta, S, Wang, F, Scullion, T & Liu, W 2006, New infrared and radar systems for detecting segregation in
hot-mix asphalt construction, report no. 0-4577-2, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas,
USA.
Song, J, Abdelrahman, M & Asa, E 2009, Use of a thermal camera during asphalt pavement construction,
contract no. 91-400-0708, North Dakota Department of Transportation, Bismarck, ND, USA.
Timm, D, Priest, AL & McEwen, TV 2004, Design and instrumentation of the structural pavement experiment
at the NCAT test track, NCAT report 04-01, National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn, AL, USA.
Ullidtz, P 1998, Modelling flexible pavement response and performance, Technical University of Denmark,
Polyteknisk Forlag, Denmark.
VSS 2008a, Walzasphalt, Konzeption, Ausführung und Anforderungen an die eingebauten Schichten (Hot
rolled asphalt, conception, design and requirements for the pavement layers), SN 640 430b, Swiss
Association of Road and Transport Experts (VSS), Zurich, Switzerland.
VSS 2008b, Mischgutanforderungen: Teil 1: Asphaltbeton (Material specifications: Part 1: asphalt concrete),
SN 640 431-1b-NA, Swiss Association of Road and Transport Experts (VSS), Zurich, Switzerland.
VSS 2011, Dimensionierung des Strassenaufbaus, Unterbau und Oberbau (Pavement design, foundation
and pavement structures), SN 640 324, Swiss Association of Road and Transport Experts (VSS),
Zurich, Switzerland.
Standards Australia
AS 1141.5-2000, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: particle density and water absorption of fine
aggregate.
AS 1141.6.2-1996, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: particle density and water absorption of
coarse aggregate: pycnometer method.
AS 1141.7-1995, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: apparent particle density of filler.
AS 1141.11.1-2009, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: particle size distribution: sieving method.
AS 1141.15-1999, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: flakiness index.
AS 1141.17-1995, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: voids in dry compacted filler.
AS 1141.18-1996, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: crushed particles in coarse aggregate
derived from gravel.
AS 1141.21-1997, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: aggregate crushing value.
AS 1141.23-2009, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: Los Angeles value.
AS 1141.66-2012, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates: Methylene blue adsorption value of fine
aggregate and mineral fillers
AS 2341.2-1993, Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking products: determination of dynamic
(coefficient of shear) viscosity by flow through a capillary tube.
AS 2341.3-1993, Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking products: determination of kinematic
viscosity by flow through a capillary tube.

AS 2341.4-1994, Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking products: determination of dynamic
viscosity by rotational viscometer.
AS 2341.8-1992, Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking products: determination of matter
insoluble in toluene.
AS/NZS 2341.10-1994, Methods of testing bitumen and related roadmaking products: determination of the
effect of heat and air on a moving film of bitumen (rolling thin film oven (RTFO) test).
AS 2341.12-1993, Methods for testing bitumen and related road making products: determination of
penetration (Obsolescent).
AS 2341.18, Methods of testing bitumen and related road making products: determination of softening point
(ring and ball method).
AS 2891.1.1-2008, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: sampling: loose asphalt.
AS 2891.2.1-1995, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: sample preparation: mixing, quartering and
conditioning of asphalt in the laboratory.
AS 2891.2.2-1995, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: sample preparation: compaction of asphalt test
specimens using a gyratory compactor.
AS/NZS 2891.3.1-1997, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: bitumen content and aggregate grading:
reflux method.
AS/NZS 2891.3.2-2012, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: binder content and aggregate grading:
centrifugal extraction method.
AS/NZS 2891.3.3-1997, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: bitumen content and aggregate grading:
pressure filter method.
AS 2891.7.1-2004, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: determination of maximum density of asphalt:
water displacement method.
AS 2891.8-2005, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: voids and density relationships for compacted
asphalt mixes.
AS 2891.9.2-2005, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: determination of bulk density of compacted
asphalt: presaturation method.
AS 2891.9.3-2005, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: determination of bulk density of compacted
asphalt: mensuration method.
AS 2891.13.1-2013, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: determination of the resilient modulus of
asphalt: indirect tensile method.
AS/NZS 2891.14.1.1-2013, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: field density tests - determination of
field density of compacted asphalt using a nuclear surface moisture-density gauge - direct
transmission mode.
AS/NZS 2891.14.1.2-2013, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: field density tests - determination of
field density of compacted asphalt using a nuclear surface moisture-density gauge - backscatter
mode.
AS/NZS 2891.14.2-2013, Methods of sampling and testing asphalt: field density tests - determination of field
density of compacted asphalt using a nuclear thin-layer density gauge.

European Committee for Standardization (CEN)
EN 933-3:2012, Tests for geometrical properties of aggregates, part 3: determination of particle shape.
Flakiness index.
EN 933-5:1998, Tests for geometrical properties of aggregates, part 5: determination of percentage of

crushed and broken surfaces in coarse aggregate particles.
EN 933-9:2009, Tests for geometrical properties of aggregates, part 9: assessment of fines - methylene blue
test.
EN 1097-2:2010, Tests for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates: part 2: methods for the
determination of resistance to fragmentation.
EN 1097-4:1999, Tests for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates: part 4: determination of the
voids of dry compacted filler.
EN 1097-6:2013, Tests for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates: part 6: determination of
particle density and water absorption.
EN 1097-7:2008, Tests for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates, part 7: determination of the
particle density of filler - pyknometer method.
EN 12595:2007, Bitumen and bituminous binders - determination of kinematic viscosity.
EN 12596:2007, Bitumen and bituminous binders - determination of dynamic viscosity by vacuum capillary.
EN 12607-1:2007, Bitumen and bituminous binders: determination of the resistance to hardening under the
influence of heat and air - Part 1: rtfot method.
EN 12607-3:2007, Bitumen and bituminous binders - determination of the resistance to hardening under the
influence of heat and air - part 3: rft method.
EN 12697-1:2012, Bituminous mixtures: test methods for hot mix asphalt: part 1: soluble binder content.
EN 12697-2:2002, Bituminous mixtures: test method for hot mix asphalt: part 2: determination of particle size
distribution.
EN 12697-6:2012, Bituminous mixtures: test methods for hot mix asphalt: part 6: determination of bulk
density of bituminous specimens.
EN 12697-8:2012, Bituminous mixtures: test methods for hot mix asphalt: part 8: determination of void
characteristic of bituminous specimens.
EN 12697-12:2008, Bituminous mixtures: test methods for hot mix asphalt: part 12: determination of the
water sensitivity of bituminous specimens.
EN 12697-22: 2003, Bituminous mixtures: test methods for hot mix asphalt: part 22: wheel tracking.
EN 12697-24: 2012, Bituminous mixtures: test methods for hot mix asphalt: part 24: resistance to fatigue.
EN 12697-26: 2012, Bituminous mixtures: test methods for hot mix asphalt: part 26: stiffness.
EN 12697-31:2007, Bituminous mixtures: test methods for hot mix asphalt: specimen preparation by gyratory
compactor.
EN 12697-39:2012, Bituminous mixtures: test methods for hot mix asphalt: part 39: binder content by
ignition.

EN 13043:2002, Aggregates for bituminous mixtures and surface treatments for roads, airfields and other
trafficked areas.
EN 13179-1:2000, Tests for filler aggregate used in bituminous mixtures: part 1: delta ring and ball test.
EN 13924:2006, Bitumen and bituminous binders, specifications for hard paving grade bitumens.
EN 1426: 2007, Bitumen and bituminous binders: determination of needle penetration.
EN 1427: 2007, Bitumen and bituminous binders: determination of the softening point: ring and ball method.
Association Francaise de Normalisation (AFNOR)
NF EN 13108-1:2007, Bituminous mixtures: material specifications: part 1: asphalt concrete.
NF P 98-150-1:2010, Bituminous asphalts: laying of pavement bases, binder and wearing courses: part 1:
hot-mix asphalts: constituents, formulation, fabrication, transport, laying and site inspection (French
language).

Appendix A Construction Drawings
Figure A 1: Construction drawing, pavement design details

Figure A 2: Construction drawing, paving plan (paving runs)

Figure A 3: Construction drawing, grit spreading plan

Appendix B Trial Site Layout
Figure B 1: As constructed drawing

Appendix C Summary of EME2 Trial Site Feature Locations
Feature Latitude Longitude Feature Latitude Longitude Feature Latitude Longitude Feature Latitude Longitude
Chainage 0 –27.437319 153.079291 Construction joint –27.437251 153.079415 FWD site 1 –27.436849 153.080712 Start intersection –27.437018 153.079903
Chainage 10 –27.437286 153.079381 Construction joint –27.437251 153.079414 FWD site 2 –27.437133 153.079752 Start intersection –27.436698 153.080975
Chainage 20 –27.437255 153.079476 Construction joint –27.437219 153.079403 FWD site 3 –27.437104 153.079741 Stormwater inlet –27.437048 153.080179
Chainage 25 –27.437241 153.079524 Construction joint –27.436953 153.080304 FWD site 4 –27.436920 153.080363 Strain gauge e116 –27.436665 153.081320
Chainage 30 –27.437226 153.079573 Construction joint –27.436931 153.080486 FWD site 5 –27.436817 153.080700 Strain gauge e83 –27.436671 153.081359
Chainage 40 –27.437197 153.079671 Construction joint –27.436926 153.080294 Joint core extraction –27.437148 153.079640 Strain gauge e84 –27.436657 153.081353
Chainage 50 –27.437174 153.079769 Construction joint –27.436902 153.080475 Joint core extraction –27.437112 153.079762 Strain gauge e86 –27.436681 153.081325
Chainage 60 –27.437146 153.079864 Construction joint –27.436875 153.080465 Joint core extraction –27.437053 153.079959 Temperature sensors –27.436682 153.081314
Chainage 70 –27.437112 153.079957 Construction joint –27.436779 153.080991 Joint core extraction –27.437035 153.080020 Weather station –27.436793 153.081298
Chainage 80 –27.437084 153.080053 Construction joint –27.436715 153.080982 Joint core extraction –27.437012 153.080097 1L testing control line –27.437187 153.079455
Chainage 90 –27.437056 153.080149 Construction joint –27.436640 153.081540 Joint core extraction –27.436989 153.080173 1L testing control line –27.436789 153.080793
Chainage 100 –27.437028 153.080242 Construction joint –27.436599 153.081524 Joint core extraction –27.436969 153.080242 1R testing control line –27.437198 153.079458
Chainage 110 –27.436998 153.080340 Construction joint –27.436557 153.081509 Joint core extraction –27.436951 153.080303 1R testing control line –27.436798 153.080797
Chainage 120 –27.436971 153.080436 Density core –27.436991 153.080232 Joint core extraction –27.436931 153.080369 2L testing control line –27.437218 153.079464
Chainage 130 –27.436944 153.080535 Density core –27.436904 153.080415 Joint core extraction –27.436915 153.080421 2L testing control line –27.436818 153.080806
Chainage 140 –27.436912 153.080628 Density core –27.436785 153.080795 Manhole cover –27.436968 153.080155 2R testing control line –27.437227 153.079467
Chainage 150 –27.436883 153.080724 Density core –27.436675 153.081179 Project end –27.436602 153.081525 2R testing control line –27.436826 153.080810
Chainage 160 –27.436854 153.080820 Density core –27.436663 153.081389 Project start –27.437227 153.079409 3L testing control line –27.436993 153.080024
Chainage 170 –27.436825 153.080916 End driveway –27.437120 153.079947 Reference point A –27.436717 153.081293 4R testing control line –27.437078 153.080056
Chainage 180 –27.436797 153.081011 End driveway –27.436835 153.080894 Reference point B –27.436684 153.081393
Chainage 190 –27.436768 153.081107 End driveway –27.436720 153.081291 Start driveway –27.437083 153.080058
Chainage 220 –27.436683 153.081395 End intersection –27.437040 153.079797 Start driveway –27.436643 153.081542
Chainage 230 –27.436654 153.081491 End intersection –27.436734 153.080842 Start driveway –27.436603 153.081659
Chainage 240 –27.436626 153.081586


AP-T283-14 EME2 Technology Transfer PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AP-T283-14 EME2 Technology Transfer PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Report

High Modulus High Fatigue Resistance

Abstract About Austroads

Austroads Publication No. AP-T283-14 • Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and

The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration

Austroads 2014 | page i

3 EME2 Transfer in Other Countries .......................................................................................................... 18

Austroads 2014 | page ii

4.3.6 Moisture Sensitivity According to AGPT-T232...................................................................... 50

5 EME2 Queensland Trial............................................................................................................................ 57

Austroads 2014 | page iii

5.12.4 Installation of the Weather Station ........................................................................................ 97

6 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 111

References .................................................................................................................................................... 113

Austroads 2014 | page iv

Austroads 2014 | page v

Austroads 2014 | page vi

Austroads 2014 | page vii

Austroads 2014 | page viii

1.2 Scope and Objectives

Austroads 2014 | page 1

1.3 Report Structure

Austroads 2014 | page 2

2. Technical Basis of EME2 Mix Specification in

2.1 French EME2 Mix Design Requirements

2.1.1 Binder Requirements

Table 2.1: The requirements for hard penetration grade binders

Austroads 2014 | page 3

2.1.2 Aggregate Requirements

Table 2.2: Requirements for fillers

Requirements NF EN asphalt specification

Table 2.3: Requirements for aggregates

Requirements NF EN asphalt specification

2.1.3 Mix Design

Austroads 2014 | page 4

Table 2.4: Testing levels and requirements for AC-EME

Table 2.5: Level one requirements for AC-EME

Gyratory compactor specifications after n gyrations

Minimum stiffness modulus at 15 °C and 10 Hz Fatigue resistance at 10 °C, 25 Hz

Austroads 2014 | page 5

2.2 Technical Basis of the EME2 Mix Specification in Australia

2.2.1 Binder Testing and Specification Requirements

Binder 15/25 pen Binder 10/20 pen

Austroads 2014 | page 6

(20 × SP) + (500 × logPen) − 1952 1

SP = softening point according to AS 2341.18

Pen = penetration according to AS 2341.12

2.2.2 Requirements for Coarse and Fine Aggregate and Fillers

Table 2.8: Coarse aggregate requirements

Requirements for Tentative specification

Austroads 2014 | page 7

Table 2.9: Requirements for fillers

Requirements for Tentative specification

2.2.3 Asphalt Mix Design, Testing and Specification Requirements

Volumetric and empirical requirements should be recorded as follows:

B = binder content (% by mass of the total asphalt mix) (Equation 3)

correction coefficient relative to the density of the aggregates, according to

Σ = specific surface area, according to Equation 5 (m /kg)

Austroads 2014 | page 8

ρG particle density of the combined mineral aggregate determined in accordance with

100Σ = 0.25G + 2.3S + 12s + 150f 5

G = percentage of aggregate particles greater than 6.30 mm

S = percentage of aggregate particles between 6.30 mm and 0.250 mm