Asphalt surfacing to bridge decks

Prepared for SSR Directorate (Highways Infrastructure)

Pavement Engineering Team, Highways Agency

J C Nicholls, R W Jordan and K E Hassan

TRL Report TRL655

First Published 2006
ISSN 0968-4107
ISBN 1-84608-654-X
Copyright TRL Limited 2006.

This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part

of a contract placed by the Highways Agency. Any views
expressed in it are not necessarily those of the Agency.

TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing

waste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of these
environmental goals, this report has been printed on recycled
paper, comprising 100% post-consumer waste, manufactured
using a TCF (totally chlorine free) process.

ii
CONTENTS
Page

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Questionnaire 3
2.1 Format 3
2.2 Responses 3

3 Laboratory test programme 3

3.1 Asphalt mixture properties 3
3.1.1 Objectives and test programme 3
3.1.2 Air voids content 4
3.1.3 Permeability 5
3.1.4 Indirect Tensile Stiffness Modulus 6
3.1.5 Wheel-tracking 8
3.1.6 Review of asphalt results 8
3.2 Asphalt flexibility 10
3.2.1 Objectives and test programme 10
3.2.2 Indirect tensile fatigue test 10
3.2.3 4-point bending fatigue test 10
3.2.4 Semi-circular bending test 10
3.2.5 Asphalt bending test 12
3.2.6 Discussion 12
3.3 Waterproofing system properties 15
3.3.1 Objectives and test programme 15
3.3.2 Torque bond tests 15
3.3.3 Interface permeability 16

4 Considerations for specification of surfacing for

bridge decks 17
4.1 General approach 17
4.2 Drainage 17
4.2.1 Drainage requirements 17
4.2.2 Removal of water 17
4.2.3 Sub-surface drainage 18
4.3 Waterproofing system 18
4.3.1 Bond to asphalt 18
4.3.2 Membrane stiffness 18
4.3.3 Effect of laying and compaction temperatures on
the waterproofing system 19

iii
 Page

4.4 Asphalt properties 20

4.4.1 Deformation resistance 20
4.4.2 Texture depth 21
4.4.3 Skid resistance 21
4.4.4 Flexibility and fatigue 21
4.4.5 Permeability and air voids content 21
4.4.6 Protection for waterproofing systems 22
4.5 Joints and interface between layers 22
4.5.1 General 22
4.5.2 Joints 22
4.5.3 Bond between layers 22
4.5.4 Bond to waterproofing system 23
4.5.5 Permeability of interface between asphalt and
waterproofing system 23
5 Conclusions 24

6 Acknowledgements 24

7 References 25

Appendix A: HA draft notes for bridge-deck overlays 27

Appendix B: Questionnaire 28

Appendix C: Permeability tests 32

Appendix D: Semi-circular bending test 33

Abstract 40

Related publications 40

iv
Executive Summary
The current requirements in the Specification for Highway
Works require waterproofing systems on concrete bridge
decks to be overlaid with a 20 mm thick sand asphalt
protection layer and binder and surface courses so that the
total thickness of the three layers is 120 mm. These
requirements include that the material that directly
overlays the waterproofing system should be sand asphalt
as well as considerations about the bond of the surfacing to
the waterproofing system and the sub-surface drainage. In
service, it has been found that the performance of
surfacing on concrete bridges is generally satisfactory if
the total thickness of the asphalt layers is at least 120 mm.
However, the total thickness on some bridges has to be
reduced for practical and/or economic reasons and, in such
cases, a number of premature failures have occurred when
the asphalt has broken up and potholes have developed.
Therefore, HA commissioned TRL to develop a
specification for the asphalt surfacing on bridge decks that
is suitable even when the surfacing has a total thickness of
less than 120 mm. The objective of this work was to
investigate parameters that would allow the development
of a specification for surfacings on concrete bridges that
enhances the probability of achieving reasonable durability
when they are less than the standard thickness.
The research has included a literature search, a
questionnaire and laboratory test programmes. The
literature search provided little useful information. The
results from the questionnaire, sent to individuals and
companies involved in the manufacture and laying of the
current materials used on bridge decks, were
disappointing, with only eight responses received.
The laboratory test programme of asphalt mixtures that
have been, or could be, used for surfacing bridge decks has
identified some differences in their properties that have been
used as the basis for the specification. A supplementary test
programme was also undertaken to look at tests for
measuring the flexibility of asphalt materials, an important
property for both bridge deck surfacings (particular those
with a thin deck) and other situations with relative thin
pavements over soft substrates. Also, tests were undertaken
on composite samples of concrete, waterproofing and
asphalt to assess the bond achieved.
From the tests on a series of twelve asphalt mixtures,
mastic asphalt was found to have the most suitable air
voids content, permeability and stiffness modulus
properties and was fifth at wheel-tracking, making it the
best material overall for these tests. However, mastic
asphalt is a relatively expensive mixture, a factor that
cannot be excluded. A dense 0/10 SMA was the next best
despite having the 8th highest air voids content whilst an
open 0/10 SMA was the worst, showing that the precise
mixture design can be critical. The remaining mixtures
showed relatively similar overall ratings, but with the sand
carpet only ranked 8th overall. Nevertheless, when
considering the appropriate materials, the choice is often a
trade off between properties and they will not usually have
equal ranking. Material optimisation is usually avoiding
any excessively adverse property rather than getting the
best performance in all.
The flexibility test programme involved applying four
different tests to three control mixtures and six stone
mastic asphalt mixtures. The tests undertaken were the
indirect tensile fatigue test, the 4-point bending fatigue test
at low temperature and low frequency, the semi-circular
bending test from the Netherlands and an asphalt bending
test from China. The results obtained from the test
programme are reviewed together with theoretical
considerations and the semi-circular bending test is
identified as the most promising. This test was found to be
practical, equivalent to a controlled stress fatigue test and
ranks materials similarly to binder content, a known
component of flexibility if other things are constant. It is
suggested that initially values of 3.0 N/mm2 and 19 N/mm3/2
could be set as the minimum values required for tensile
strength and fracture toughness, respectively. These limits
are considered practical because they were exceeded by
the majority of the mixtures tested.
The results from the torque bond test on specimens
including waterproofing systems without secondary
compaction varied by an order of magnitude, with the two
waterproofing systems used ranking the surfacing
materials differently. In all cases, the failures were at the
interface between the waterproofing membrane and the
tack/bond coat, so the failure stresses were more dependent
on the properties of the waterproofing systems than the
asphalt mixtures. For one waterproofing system, the
highest failure stresses were measured with a tack coat and
sand carpet whilst, for the other waterproofing system, the
failure stresses differed for two different tack coats. The
high values for mastic asphalt were probably due to the
high temperature at which the material was laid and
compacted and at which the tack/bond coat was activated.
Based on these findings and other considerations,
various additions and changes to the Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges, Specification for Highway Works and
Notes for Guidance on the Specification for Highway
Works have been proposed. The main changes include:
! Sub-surface drainage is emphasised.
! Bond requirements are strengthened.
! Deformation requirements are specified for all mixtures
within 100 mm of the surface.
! Maximum air voids content limits on all asphalt
mixtures.
Aspects that were not fully covered are permeability
testing of the asphalt and at the interfaces. Potential tests
have been identified that could be developed for
standardisation if these aspects are considered critical. The
asphalt permeability can be covered by the surrogate of air
voids content, but this approach is more difficult at
interfaces where more than one material is involved.
1
2
1 Introduction
The current clause in the Specification for Highway Works
(MCHW 1) requires waterproofing systems on concrete
bridge decks to be overlaid with a 20 mm thick sand asphalt
protection layer and binder and surface courses so that the
total thickness of the three layers is 120 mm. A previous
research project by TRL for the Highways Agency (HA)
found that the performance of surfacing on concrete bridges
is generally satisfactory if the total thickness of the asphalt
layers is at least 120 mm. However, the total thickness on
some bridges has to be reduced for practical and/or
economic reasons and, in such cases, a number of premature
failures have occurred when the asphalt has broken up and
potholes have developed. The failures have been attributed
to a number of factors, including:
! The accumulation of sub-surface water in the asphalt.
! Poor bond of the asphalt layers to the waterproofing
system.
! Low compressive modulus of the waterproofing system.
! Low stiffness modulus of the asphalt layers.
Therefore, HA commissioned TRL to develop a
specification for the asphalt surfacing on bridge decks that
is suitable even when the surfacing has a total thickness of
less than 120 mm. The specification is intended to develop
further the existing HA advice for bridge deck surfacing,
which is reproduced as Appendix A.
The research has included a literature search,
questionnaire and two laboratory test programmes. The
results from the literature search and the questionnaire to
those that manufactured and laid the current materials used
on bridge decks were disappointing, with only eight
responses received from the questionnaire. However, the
initial laboratory test programme of asphalt mixtures that
have been, or could be, used for surfacing bridge decks has
identified some differences in their properties that have
been used as the basis for the specification. The second
laboratory test programme identified a test method for
assessing the flexibility of asphalt materials.
2 Questionnaire
2.1 Format
A questionnaire was issued to individuals and companies
involved in the manufacture and laying of the current
materials used on bridge decks in order to ascertain if they
were aware of any deficiencies in the present systems and,
probably more importantly, whether they considered that
some new materials, or combination of materials, could
produce better results. It was anticipated that the replies
would focus on practical aspects. There was a deliberate
policy to keep the questionnaire relatively short but to
allow recipients to extend their thoughts if they wished.
The questionnaire, which is reproduced as Section B.1 of
Appendix B, was sent to a total of 32 people from 23
different organisations.
2.2 Responses
The reaction to the questionnaire was very limited with
only eight responses received, of which only four
contained useful comments. The contents of the
constructive replies are given in Section B.2 of Appendix B.
However, any conclusions from the survey can only be
regarded as indicative.
The replies were not consistent other than that the aim
should be to produce surfacings with a service life of about
15 years. This aim is consistent with the top end of the
durability found for thin surfacing systems in conventional
situations (Nicholls and Carswell, 2004) given that the
surfacing will need to be maintained at, if anything, a
higher standard than typically on a highway. Nevertheless,
it is an indication of what engineers, let alone the driving
public, expect.
One reply indicated reservations about currently used
materials but the respondent did not think anything else
currently available would produce a practical alternative
that was economic. A second respondent offered epoxy
asphalt, but that tends to be an expensive product that
presents considerable risks if there is any distance between
the batching plant and the site. It is, therefore, only
appropriate for important and/or conveniently located
bridges, although it was for such site that the responder put
it forward.
Another respondent did identify red sand carpet as a
particular material that should be replaced. This
replacement was already being considered because the
limited deformation resistance it provides will become
more of a liability as the thickness of material over it
reduces. Nevertheless, some material with relatively small
aggregate particles will be needed to protect some types of
the waterproofing systems from being punctured.
3 Laboratory test programme
3.1 Asphalt mixture properties
3.1.1 Objectives and test programme
The object of the initial laboratory test programme on
asphalt mixtures was to identify the values achieved by
various materials in tests used to measure the properties
assumed to be relevant to bridge deck surfacings. These
properties are air voids content, permeability, stiffness and
deformation resistance. Air voids content and permeability
were investigated because drainage of water is particularly
important on bridges whereas the stiffness and deformation
resistance are required as standard properties needed for all
surfacings. Flexibility was not included within this
programme because there are no accepted tests to define
the property, but is covered separately (Section 3.2).
The results were required in order to be able to specify
achievable levels of performance for future surfacing. The
known limitations on the site performance of some of the
materials for specific parameters can be used to ensure that
the requirements do not allow it to be used where it would
not perform satisfactorily.
3
 The materials tested had to represent those that have Table 3.1 Composition of mixtures
been, or could be, used on bridge decks. The mixtures that
were considered covered the range of potential mixture 30% 35% 55% 55%
Mastic Sand 0/10 0/14 0/14 0/10
types that might be used on bridge decks whilst not being Type asphalt carpet HRA HRA HRA HRA
too extensive. The mixtures included a variety of hot rolled
asphalts (HRA), dense bitumen macadams (DBM), stone 28 mm – – – – – –
mastic asphalts (SMA) and mastic asphalts. From these, 20 mm – – – 100 100 –
14 mm – – 100 93 95 100
the following twelve mixtures were selected for studying 10 mm 100 – 92 71 82 95
in the initial test programme: 6.3 mm 95 100 75 – – –
! Mastic asphalt BS 1447 (BSI, 1988). 3.35 mm 80 – – – – –
2.36 mm 60 97 66 61 45 45
! 0 % 0/2 HRA (Sand carpet) Column 6/1 in BS 594 0.600 mm – 90 58 53 35 35
(BSI, 2002). 0.300 mm – – – – – –
0.212 mm – 47 32 28 17 17
! 30 % 0/10 HRA – surface Column 6/3 in BS 594 0.075 mm 30 15 10 9 5.5 5.5
course (BSI, 2002).
! 35 % 0/14 HRA – surface Column 3/3 in BS 594 Binder content 8.0 10.3 7.8 6.4 6.5 6.5
Binder grade 15 pen 50 pen 50 pen 50 pen 100 pen 100 pen
course (BSI, 2002).
! 55 % 0/14 HRA – base Column 2/2 in BS 594 0/10 0/10 0/14 0/14
(roadbase), binder course (BSI, 2002). 0/20 0/6 SMA SMA SMA SMA
Type DBM SMA (open)* (dense) (open) (dense)
and regulating course
! 55 % 0/10 HRA – base Column 2/1 in BS 594 28 mm 100 – – – – –
(roadbase), binder course (BSI, 2002). 20 mm 97 – – – 100 100
14 mm 75 – 100 100 90 100
and regulating course
10 mm 62 100 90 100 60 75
! 0/20 DBM – binder course Tables 15 and 16 in 6.3 mm 47 95 35 50 40 50
BS 4987 (BSI, 2001). 3.35 mm 39 – 24 34 24 34
2.36 mm – 37 21 26 19 29
! 0/6 SMA Table 2, column 3 of 0.600 mm – – – – – –
prEN 13108-5 (CEN, 2000a). 0.300 mm 14 – – – – –
0.212 mm – – – – – –
! 0/10 SMA (open) Table 2, column 5 of
0.075 mm 5.5 10.5 9 11 9 11
prEN 13108-5 (CEN, 2000a).
! 0/10 SMA (dense) Table 2, column 5 of Binder content 4.7 7.7 6.7 6.9 7.4 7.6
Binder grade 100 pen 50 pen 50 pen 50 pen 50 pen 50 pen
prEN 13108-5 (CEN, 2000a).
! 0/14 SMA (open) Table 2, column 6 of * Also 0/10 PMB SMA (open) mixture except for binder grade for the
prEN 13108-5 (CEN, 2000a). flexibility programme (Section 3.2).

! 0/14 SMA(dense) Table 2, column 6 of

prEN 13108-5 (CEN, 2000a).
For convenience, the sieve sizes current at the start of the
work were used to define the gradings for the first seven
mixtures rather than those implemented in 2004. Similarly,
the SMA mixtures were derived from gradings given in the
draft for development of the harmonised European Standard
(CEN, 2000a) after conversion to the ‘old’ sieve sizes. The
target gradings, based on the mid point of the envelopes for
most of the mixtures but on the envelope boundaries for the
target gradings of 0/10 and 0/20 SMA mixtures to give the
permitted extremes, are given in Table 3.1.
Four 300 mm by 300 mm by 50 mm thick slabs were
mixed to BS EN 12697-35 (CEN, 2004a) and compacted
by roller-compactor to BS EN 12697-33 (CEN, 2003a) for
each of the mixtures. Five 100 mm diameter cores were
then cut from two of the slabs of each material in
accordance with BS EN 12697-27 (CEN, 2000b).
One core from each cored slab was tested, consecutively,
for bulk density to BS EN 12697-7 (CEN, 2002a), indirect
tensile stiffness modulus at 20 °C and then at 40 °C to
BS DD 213 (BSI, 1993) and maximum density to BS EN
12697-5 (CEN, 2002b). The air voids contents were then
calculated in accordance with BS EN 12697-8 (CEN, 2003b)
using the bulk density and maximum densities.
A separate core from the cored slab was tested for bulk
density and the air voids content calculated in accordance
with BS EN 12697-8 (CEN, 2003b) using the maximum
density for the previous core from the same slab. The
permeability of the cores was then measured using the TRL
permeability cell, as described in Section C.1 of Appendix C.
The remaining two slabs of each mixture were tested for
wheel-tracking in accordance with BS EN 12697-22
(CEN, 2003c) using Procedure A with the small size
device, one slab at 45 ºC and the other at 60 ºC.
3.1.2 Air voids content
The results of the density and air voids content
measurements are given in Table 3.2, where ‘ITSM’ and
‘Permeability’ refer to the other test carried out on the
samples on which the measurements were made.
The bulk densities measured varied within a range of
2.18 to 2.46 Mg/m³ and the maximum densities within a
range of 2.27 to 2.51 Mg/m³. These values are of limited
value in themselves because they will be more dependent
on the density of the aggregate than the properties of the
asphalt. Such variation is hidden for this investigation
because aggregate from the same source was used for all
mixtures. However, the combination of bulk and
maximum density to produce air voids content is

4
Table 3.2 Air voids content results

Sample Bulk density Max density Air voids content

Material ID ITSM Permeability ITSM ITSM Permeability

Mastic asphalt A 2.38 2.37 2.38 0.2 % 0.4 %

B 2.38 2.38 2.37 -0.4 % -0.4 %
Mean 2.38 2.38 0.0 %

0/2 HRA A 2.19 2.22 2.27 3.3 % 2.1 %

(Sand carpet) B 2.20 2.18 2.27 3.2 % 3.9 %
Mean 2.20 2.27 3.1 %

30 % 0/10 HRA A 2.34 2.36 2.39 2.2 % 1.4 %

B 2.29 2.32 2.38 3.9 % 2.5 %
Mean 2.33 2.39 2.5 %

35 % 0/14 HRA A 2.28 2.31 2.42 5.9 % 4.7 %

B 2.26 2.31 2.37 4.9 % 2.7 %
Mean 2.29 2.40 4.6 %

55 % 0/14 HRA A 2.37 2.38 2.45 3.0 % 2.7 %

B 2.41 2.36 2.45 2.0 % 3.7 %
Mean 2.38 2.45 2.8 %

55 % 0/10 HRA A 2.39 2.38 2.44 2.0 % 2.4 %

B 2.38 2.40 2.45 2.6 % 1.9 %
Mean 2.39 2.45 2.2 %

0/20 DBM A 2.46 2.44 2.51 2.0 % 3.0 %

B 2.44 2.43 2.50 2.6 % 2.8 %
Mean 2.44 2.51 2.6 %

0/6 SMA A 2.38 – 2.42 3.8 % –

B 2.33 – 2.42 2.6 % –
Mean 2.35 2.42 3.2 %

0/10 SMA A 2.22 2.21 2.41 8.2 % 8.3 %

(open) B 2.21 2.21 2.42 8.6 % 8.7 %
Mean 2.21 2.42 8.5 %

0/10 SMA A 2.35 2.37 2.44 3.5 % 2.8 %

(dense) B 2.35 2.35 2.43 3.5 % 3.6 %
Mean 2.35 2.43 3.3 %

0/14 SMA A 2.27 2.24 2.42 6.0 % 7.2 %

(open) B 2.25 2.25 2.42 7.1 % 7.1 %
Mean 2.25 2.42 6.8 %

0/14 SMA A 2.36 2.37 2.45 3.5 % 3.0 %

(dense) B 2.30 2.37 2.43 5.3 % 2.6 %
Mean 2.35 2.44 3.6 %

significant. For the mixtures tested, the air voids content where: ρbulk = bulk density (Mg/m³)
ranged from zero for the mastic asphalt to 8.5 % for the ρmax = maximum density (Mg/m³)
0/10 SMA (open) mixtures. The width of the range and the νair = air voids content (%)
ranking of mixtures within it are consistent with what was bc = binder content (%)
expected, with the denser, more binder rich mixtures
having less air voids content than the more open mixtures. There is little correlation between binder content and air
The relationships between the binder content of the various voids content because the binder contents are selected
mixtures and their densities are shown in Figure 3.1 and based on the mixture type and aggregate skeleton.
that between the binder content and air voids content in However, the correlation between binder content and
Figure 3.2. Included on the figures are also linear trend lines, maximum density is surprisingly robust.
the equations for which are given as Equations (3.1) to (3.3).
ρbulk = 2.56 – 0.033 bc (R2= 0.34) ....(3.1) 3.1.3 Permeability
The permeability testing was carried out on asphalt cores
ρmax = 2.69 – 0.039 bc (R2= 0.84) ....(3.2)
(100 mm diameter and height between 70 mm and 100 mm).
νair = 5.03 – 0.198 bc (R2= 0.014) ....(3.3) Air was applied at the desired pressure (P) and the flow

5
 2.55
2.50
Max density
2.45

Density (Mg/m³)
Bulk density
2.40
2.35
2.30
2.25
2.20
2.15
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0

Binder content (%)

Figure 3.1 Relationship between binder content and density

10.0

8.0
Air voids content (%)

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0
Binder content (%)

Figure 3.2 Relationship between binder content and air voids content

rate was calculated using a bubble flowmeter with diameter,
Df, length, Lf, and the average flow time, taverage. The flow
rates were used for the calculation of the air permeabilities,
as described in Section C.1 of Appendix C, and the results
are given in Table 3.3.
The permeability ranking of the different asphalt mixtures
is shown in Table 3.4. The lowest permeability values were
obtained from the mastic asphalt mixture, which exhibited
the lowest air voids content of around 0 %. The permeability
of the HRA mixtures varied over a range of two orders of
magnitude for air voids content between 2.3 % and 5.4 %.
The permeability and air voids content of the sand carpet
and the 50 % stone HRA mixtures were lower than those of
the 30 % and 35 % stone HRA mixtures. In fact, for the
same aggregate size (0/14), increasing the aggregate content
from 35 % to 55 % reduced the air voids content from 5.4 %
to 2.4 % and the permeability by approximately two orders
of magnitude. The DBM and dense SMA mixtures gave
permeability values within the lower band of HRA. In
contrast, the high air voids content of the 0/6 and open SMA
mixtures with >5 % air voids contents resulted in high
permeability values. These values were out of the limit of
the flowmeter used with the TRL permeability cell.
The results in Table 3.4 shows that the permeability
ranking, from low to high, of the different asphalt mixtures
is generally as follows: mastic asphalt, HRA, DBM, dense
SMA and open SMA. The most obvious outlier is 35 % 0/14
HRA, which has a higher air voids content and, to a greater
extent, permeability than the other HRA mixtures.
Nevertheless, this ranking is quite similar to that reported
earlier (Daines, 1995). It is important to highlight that the
permeability results are obtained from laboratory specimens
with high quality control, which may not represent the
actual values of the same mixtures constructed on site.
However, the ranking is expected to be the same.
Figure 3.3, with the data points plotted on a previously
found relationship (Zoorob, 1999), shows the influence of
air voids content on the permeability of asphalt. Whilst there
are not adequate data to establish a reliable relationship,
particularly in terms of mixtures with high air voids
contents, a similar trend can be fitted to that found for
concrete. Regardless of the mixture type, low permeability
values are obtained when the air voids content is 4 % or
below and the permeability increases rapidly for air voids
contents above 5 %. In the absence of a specification limit
for permeability, it appears reasonable to use the air voids
content as an indicator for permeability.
3.1.4 Indirect Tensile Stiffness Modulus
The results of the Indirect Tensile Stiffness Modulus
(ITSM) test are given in Table 3.5.

6
Table 3.3 Permeability results

Sample Flow meter Permeability (10-17 m2)

Df Lf P taverage
Material ID (mm) (mm) (bar) (s) Sample Mean

Mastic asphalt A 1.7 50 0.8 25.0 0.55 0.73

B 1.7 50 0.8 15.0 0.91
0 % 0/2 HRA A 1.7 100 0.8 13.3 1.96 2.27
B 1.7 100 0.8 10.1 2.58
30 % 0/10 HRA A 1.7 100 0.6 3.3 12.52 8.09
B 1.7 100 0.6 10.1 3.66
35 % 0/14 HRA A 10 100 0.4 7.6 276 219
B 10 100 0.4 14.0 162
55 % 0/14 HRA A 1.7 50 0.4 20.0 1.56 1.85
B 1.7 50 0.4 14.9 2.14
55 % 0/10 HRA A 1.7 100 0.6 21.2 1.84 2.50
B 1.7 100 0.6 12.4 3.16
0/20 DBM A 10 – 0.8 – Permeable 3.41
B 1.7 100 0.8 8.0 3.41
0/6 SMA A 10 – 0.8 – Permeable Permeable
B 10 – 0.8 – Permeable
0/10 SMA (open) A 10 – 0.8 – Permeable Permeable
B 10 – 0.8 – Permeable
0/10 SMA (dense) A 1.7 100 0.8 20.5 1.34 2.93
B 1.7 100 0.8 6.0 4.52
0/14 SMA (open) A 10 – 0.8 – Permeable Permeable
B 10 – 0.8 – Permeable
0/14 SMA (dense) A 1.7 100 0.8 4.8 5.64 4.47
B 1.7 100 0.8 9.0 3.30

Table 3.4 Permeability ranking of the asphalt mixtures Table 3.5 ITSM results

Air voids Air permeability ITSM @ 20 °C (GPa) ITSM @ 40 °C (GPa)

Mixture content (%) (10-17 m2)
Material A B Mean A B Mean
Mastic asphalt <1 0.73
HRA 2.3 – 5.4 1.85 – 219 Mastic asphalt 5.13 6.38 5.75 0.55 0.54 0.55
DBM 2.3 3.4 0/2 HRA 1.43 1.54 1.48 0.11 0.15 0.13
Dense SMA 3.5 – 4.4 2.9 – 4.5 30 % 0/10 HRA 2.12 2.29 2.20 0.17 0.24 0.21
Open SMA 5.2 – 8.4 Permeable 35 % 0/14 HRA 3.00 2.22 2.61 0.32 0.22 0.27
55 % 0/14 HRA 0.99 1.07 1.03 0.15 0.15 0.15
55 % 0/10 HRA 1.08 1.25 1.16 0.15 0.18 0.16
0/20 DBM 1.84 1.47 1.65 0.15 0.19 0.17
300
0/6 SMA 1.89 2.08 1.99 0.16 0.16 0.16
250 0/10 SMA (open) 1.38 1.43 1.40 0.10 0.09 0.09
0/10 SMA (dense) 2.10 2.05 2.08 0.17 0.16 0.16
Air permeability (10-17 m2)

200
0/14 SMA (open) 1.57 1.41 1.49 0.12 0.10 0.11
0/14 SMA (dense) 1.51 1.64 1.58 0.10 0.19 0.15

150
The ITSM of the mixtures ranged from 1.0 GPa to 5.8 GPa
100
at 20 °C and 0.09 GPa to 0.55 GPa at 40 °C. However, the
results for mastic asphalt are effectively outliers, with the
50
range reducing to 1.0 GPa to 2.2 GPa at 20 °C and 0.09 GPa
0 to 0.27 GPa at 40 °C without them. The high value for
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 mastic asphalt is probably due to the high binder content
Air voids (%)
giving relative high tensile strength. Ignoring mastic asphalt,
the lack of any correlation between ITSM and air voids
Figure 3.3 Influence of air voids content on the content is shown in Figure 3.4. The plotted trend line at
permeability of asphalt 20 °C, including mastic asphalt, has a correlation coefficient
of R² = 0.23, but the value reduces to 0.0006 when the
mastic asphalt is omitted.

7
 6.0
o
5.0 ITSM @ 20 C

Indirect tensile stiffness

o
ITSM @ 40 C

Modulus (kPa)
4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Air voids content (%)

Figure 3.4 Stiffness modulus variation with air voids content and temperature

The effect of temperature on ITSM is also shown in Table 3.7 Wheel tracking test results
Figure 3.4. The ratio of ITSM at 20 °C to ITSM at 40 °C
ranged from 6.9 to 15.4 for the mixtures tested with the Testing @ 45 ºC Testing @ 60 ºC

ranking order being marginally different for the two Wheel Wheel
temperatures, as shown in Table 3.6. tracking Rut tracking Rut
rate depth rate depth Overall
Table 3.6 Ranking of ITSM results Material (µm/cycle) (mm) (µm/cycle) (mm) ranking

ITSM (GPa) ITSM Ranking Ratio 0/10 SMA (dense) 0.7 3.2 2.7 5.6 1
0/14 SMA (open) 1.0 3.1 3.6 6.6 2
@ @ @ @ 20 °C 0/6 SMA 1.2 3.4 3.3 8.0 3
Mixture 20 °C 40 °C 20 °C 40 °C Mean / 40 °C 0/10 SMA (open) 1.2 3.0 4.1 7.1 4
Mastic asphalt 0.8 2.3 6.7 11 5
Mastic asphalt 5.8 0.55 1 1 1 10.5 0/20 DBM 0.9 2.7 6.7 7.7 6
35 % 0/14 HRA 2.6 0.27 2 2 2 9.6 0/14 SMA (dense) 2.1 11 4.6 9.4 7
30 % 0/10 HRA 2.2 0.21 3 3 3 10.7 35 % 0/14 HRA 7.6 9.6 14 17 8
0/10 SMA (dense) 2.1 0.16 4 5= 4 12.7
55 % 0/10 HRA 6.0 10 55 84 9
0/20 DBM 1.7 0.17 6 4 5 9.8 55 % 0/14 HRA 4.1 7.1 44 71 10
0/6 SMA 2.0 0.16 5 5= 6 12.3 30 % 0/10 HRA 7.9 12 70 98 11
0/14 SMA (dense) 1.6 0.15 7 8= 7 10.8 0 % 0/2 HRA 18 25 76 103 12
55 % 0/10 HRA 1.2 0.16 11 5= 8 7.2
0/2 HRA 1.5 0.13 8= 10 9 11.5
0/14 SMA (open) 1.5 0.11 8= 11 10 13.8
worst at deformation resistance with the other HRA
55 % 0/14 HRA 1.0 0.15 12 8= 11 6.9 mixtures in a band between the sand carpet and the other,
0/10 SMA (open) 1.4 0.09 10 12 12 15.4 almost non-deforming mixtures. Therefore, sand carpets
are not suitable for use in the top 100 mm of surfacing
The ranking orders are similar for the two temperatures, whilst other HRA mixtures should be designed against
but not identical. The top three materials are the same in deformation to SHW clause 943 (which was not the case
for the trialled mixtures) for use in that region.
both with the material that has the greatest change in
An inconsistency among the mixtures is the 0/14 SMA
ranking being 55 % 0/10 HRA, which is 11th at 20 °C but
(dense) at 45 ºC, in which the rate of deformation started
5th= at 40 °C. The differences demonstrate that the choice
high before reducing considerably so that the rut depth is
of test temperature will be important if the asphalt stiffness
in the range for the HRA mixtures tested but the wheel
needs to be a parameter when specifying the stiffness of tracking rate is only marginally higher than the other SMA
the waterproofing system. mixtures. Therefore, this result is assumed to be an outlier
caused by excessive bedding in at the beginning of the test.
3.1.5 Wheel-tracking
The results of the wheel tracking test are given in Table 3.7 3.1.6 Review of asphalt results
with the plots of the tests undertaken at 45 ºC and 60 ºC The rankings from the various tests can be combined to
been shown in Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6, respectively. produce a rough overall ranking as in Table 3.8. However,
The plots for the tests at 60 ºC show dramatically that when considering the appropriate materials, the choice is
the HRA mixtures, with the possible exception of the 35 % often a trade off between these properties and they will not
0/14 HRA, were less deformation resistant than the DBM usually have equal ranking. Material optimisation is usually
and SMA mixtures. At the lower temperature of 45 ºC, the avoiding any excessively adverse property rather than
plots show that 0/2 HRA (sand carpet) is significantly the getting the best performance in all. Nevertheless, mastic

8
 20

18

16

14
Rut depth @ 45 C (mm)

12
o

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Number of load cycles

0% 0/2 HRA 30% 0/10 HRA 35% 0/14 HRA 55% 0/14 HRA 55% 0/10 HRA 0/20 DBM
0/6 SMA 0/10 SMA open 0/10 SMA dense 0/14 SMA open 0/14 SMA dense Mastic Asphalt

o
Figure 3.5 Plot of wheel-tracking results @ 45 C

20

18

16

14
Rut depth @ 60 C (mm)

12
o

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Number of load cycles

0% 0/2 HRA 30% 0/10 HRA 35% 0/14 HRA 55% 0/14 HRA 55% 0/10 HRA 0/20 DBM
0/6 SMA 0/10 SMA open 0/10 SMA dense 0/14 SMA open 0/14 SMA dense Mastic Asphalt

o
Figure 3.6 Plot of wheel-tracking results @ 60 C

9
Table 3.8 Overall rankings for asphalt properties The test methods undertaken on the nine mixtures were:
a Indirect tensile fatigue test.
Air voids Perme Stiffness Wheel Sum of
Test content -ability modulus -tracking rankings b 4-point bending fatigue test.
c Semi-circular bending test.
Mastic asphalt 1 1 1 5 8
0/10 SMA (dense) 8 5 4 1 18 d Asphalt bending test.
0/20 DBM 4 6 6 6 22
55 % 0/10 HRA 2 4 8 10 24 The indirect tensile fatigue tests were carried out in
30 % 0/10 HRA 3 8 3 11 25
accordance with Annex E of BS EN 12697-24 (CEN,
0/6 SMA 7 11= 5 3 26 2004b) at 20 °C except that the deformations were measured
55 % 0/14 HRA 5 2 11 9 27 vertically rather than horizontally because Cooper Research
35 % 0/14 HRA 10 9 2 8 29 Technology Limited, manufacturer of the fatigue equipment
0/2 HRA 6 3 9 12 30 used, do not offer a horizontal deflection measurement
0/14 SMA (open) 11 11= 7 2 31 system. The specimens had to go through the test two or
0/14 SMA (dense) 9 7 10 7 33
0/10 SMA (open) 12 11= 12 4 39
three times before they fractured because the test stops at a
deflection of 8 mm. The results are the cumulative number
of cycles and deflections combined.
asphalt is demonstrated to be the best material for all the The 4-point bending fatigue tests were carried out in
properties other than deformation resistance, when it was accordance with Annex D of BS EN 12697-24 (CEN,
still in the top half. However, mastic asphalt is a relative 2004b) with a loading device capable of imparting a fixed
expensive mixture, a factor that cannot be excluded.
adjustable amplitude up to ± 5 mm with a frequency of
The maximum density (and, to a lesser extent, bulk
6 cycles/h at a temperature of 5 ºC and a sample size of
density) correlated well with the binder content, but not
300 mm × 40 mm × 40 mm.
with the air voids content because the binder content was
The semi-circular bending tests were carried out in
selected based on the mixture type and aggregate skeleton.
accordance with Appendix D, repeated on separate
Therefore, assuming air voids content is considered to be
samples with and without a notch, at a temperature of
indicative of permeability, the binder content cannot be
15 °C and a deformation rate of 5.1 mm/min. The draft
used as a surrogate for permeability without reference to
method is based on a method developed in the Netherlands
the mixture type.
and has recently been put forward for standardisation as a
European test method to assess the crack propagation
3.2 Asphalt flexibility property of asphalt.
3.2.1 Objectives and test programme The asphalt bending tests were carried out in accordance
Flexible asphalt has obvious advantages for use in with Appendix E at temperatures of 0 °C and 15 °C and a
situations where there is potential movement. Such deformation rate of 50 mm/min. The draft method is based on
situations include roads on ‘soft’ foundations as well as PRC Requirement T0715-93 (Peoples Republic of China,
bridge decks. However, there are currently no test 1993) except that, for practicality, the deformation was
requirements for flexibility in either the British Standards measured at the top of the specimen rather than the bottom.
for asphalt or in the British Board of Agrément (BBA) During the tests, it appeared that compression of the
Highway Authorities Product Approval Scheme (HAPAS) specimens was minimal (also evidenced by the low test loads
for thin surfacing systems. The inclusion of such a test as achieved before failure) which would imply very similar
an option in the BBA/HAPAS scheme has been requested deformations at the bottom and the top of the specimens.
by representatives from the County Surveyors Society.
Because of the synergy with the bridge deck issue, the 3.2.2 Indirect tensile fatigue test
Highways Agency extended the scope of this work to The mean fatigue lives of the various asphalt mixtures
include a programme of tests to identify a suitable test and tested for different applied tensile stresses are summarised
typical values for the property. in Table 3.9. An approximate ranking of the mixtures has
The test programme devised consisted of undertaking been included.
four different tests that were proposed by members of These values are plotted on Figure 3.7, from where the
BBA-HAPAS Specialist Group 3 on a series of asphalt rough ranking order can be seen.
mixtures. The known ranking for the properties required of
some of the mixtures tested was hoped to provide an
3.2.3 4-point bending fatigue test
insight into which of the tests had potential to assess the
flexibility of asphalt mixtures. The mean fatigue lives in terms of time of the various
From the mixtures used in the asphalt material trials asphalt mixtures tested are summarised in Table 3.10. An
(Section 3.1.1), the mastic asphalt, 30 % 0/10 HRA and 55 % approximate ranking of the mixtures has been included.
0/14 HRA mixtures were selected as the control
mixtures for the flexibility programme with the SMA 3.2.4 Semi-circular bending test
mixtures, including a variant of the 0/10 PMB SMA The values calculated for the tensile strength (from the un-
(open) mixture that used styrene-butadiene-styrene notched samples) and the fracture toughness (from the
block co-polymer (SBS) modified binder instead of notched samples) of the asphalt mixtures tested are given
fibres, as the trial materials. in Table 3.11. An approximate ranking of the mixtures has

10
Table 3.9 Summary of mean fatigue lives in ITFT

Applied tensile stress (kPa)

Material 100 150 250 350 500 570 750 Ranking

Mastic asphalt – – – – 155,000 106,000 5,280 1

0/14 SMA(dense) – 176,000 11,900 6,810 – – – 2=
0/10 SMA (dense) – 162,000 15,600 7,250 – – – 2=
30 % 0/10 HRA – 117,000 16,900 6,470 – – – 2=
0/6 SMA – 94,300 12,500 5,130 – – – 2=
0/14 SMA (open) – 64,200 9,440 2,360 – – – 6
0/10 SMA (open) 43,200 20,200 4,670 – – – – 7=
55 % 0/14 HRA 95,000 19,400 3,100 – – – – 7=
0/10 PMB SMA (open) 27,000 5,620 1,670 – – – – 9

5.5

5.0
Log (Fracture life)

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Applied tensile stress (kPa)

30 % 0/10 HRA 55 % 0/14 HRA Mastic asphalt

0/6 SMA 0/10 SMA (open) 0/10 PMB SMA (open)
0/10 SMA (dense) 0/14 SMA (open) 0/14 SMA (dense)

Figure 3.7 Plot of mean fatigue lives

Table 3.10 Summary of fatigue lives in 4-point bending Table 3.11 Summary of semi-circular bending test results

Fatigue life (h) for sample: Tensile strength Fracture toughness

Material 1 2 3 Mean Ranking Combined

Material (N/mm²) Ranking (N/mm3/2) Ranking ranking
0/10 PMB SMA (open) 4.87 8.39 6.65 6.63 1
55 % 0/14 HRA 4.85 6.41 3.25 4.83 2= Mastic asphalt 8.29 1 50.24 1 1
0/6 SMA 10.0 1.81 2.00 4.61 2= 30 % 0/10 HRA 3.86 2 24.68 2= 2
0/10 SMA (open) 5.87 2.82 1.94 3.55 4 0/14 SMA (dense) 3.24 3= 23.03 2= 3
30 % 0/10 HRA 3.53 2.92 1.68 2.71 5 0/14 SMA (open) 3.35 3= 19.95 4= 4
0/6 SMA 3.03 5= 19.63 4= 5=
0/10 SMA (dense) 2.92 1.48 1.81 2.07 6
0/14 SMA (dense) 1.99 1.03 1.55 1.52 7= 0/10 SMA (dense) 3.07 5= 19.88 4= 5=
0/14 SMA (open) 1.05 1.86 0.76 1.22 7= 0/10 SMA (open) 2.43 7 17.35 7 7
Mastic asphalt 0.77 1.38 1.05 1.07 9 55 % 0/14 HRA 1.88 8= 14.45 8 8=
0/10 PMB SMA (open) 1.89 8= 11.87 9 8=

11
been included for both properties, which were similar, Table 3.13 Summary of asphalt bending test results
together with an overall ranking by rounding the average @ 15 ºC
of the two rankings.
Bending Maxm Bending
strength bending strain stiff. modulus
3.2.5 Asphalt bending test
The values calculated for the bending strength, maximum Value Ran- Ran- Value Ran-
Material (MPa) king Value king (GPa) king
bending strain and bending stiffness modulus of the
asphalt mixtures tested are given in Table 3.12 for a test 0/14 SMA (dense) 14.86 1 0.0101 9 1503 1
temperature of 0 ºC and in Table 3.13 for a test 0/10 SMA (dense) 6.19 3= 0.0190 7= 348 2=
temperature of 15 ºC. An approximate ranking of the 0/14 SMA (open) 6.71 2 0.0205 4= 331 2=
0/10 PMB SMA (open) 6.26 3= 0.0203 4= 314 4
mixtures has been included for each property plus an
Mastic asphalt 4.81 6= 0.0174 7= 276 5
overall ranking combining them for each temperature.
30 % 0/10 HRA 6.27 3= 0.0289 3 218 6=
0/10 SMA (open) 4.80 6= 0.0217 4= 228 6=
Table 3.12 Summary of asphalt bending test results 55 % 0/14 HRA 3.83 8 0.0324 1= 121 8
@ 0 ºC 0/6 SMA 2.41 9 0.0354 1= 72 9

Bending Maxm Bending

strength bending strain stiff. modulus The bending strength and bending stiffness modulus
rankings are in approximately the reverse order of the
Value Ran- Ran- Value Ran- rankings for maximum bending strain. An overall ranking
Material (MPa) king Value king (GPa) king can be derived by averaging the rankings for the bending
strength and bending stiffness modulus and the inverse
0/14 SMA (dense) 11.0 1= 0.00238 6= 4.69 1
0/10 PMB SMA (open) 8.3 5= 0.00229 6= 3.75 2= (i.e. 10 minus the actual ranking) of the ranking for the
30 % 0/10 HRA 10.9 1= 0.00295 4 3.70 2= maximum bending strain, as shown in Table 3.14.
0/10 SMA (dense) 8.4 5= 0.00223 6= 3.85 2=
0/10 SMA (open) 6.6 9 0.00231 6= 2.85 5= 3.2.6 Discussion
55 % 0/14 HRA 10.7 1= 0.00380 2 2.91 5=
0/14 SMA (open) 7.8 7= 0.00255 5 3.05 5= 3.2.6.1 Practicality
Mastic asphalt 8.0 7= 0.00329 3 2.43 8
The complexity of the potential flexibility tests differ. The
ITFT took considerably longer than the other tests because the
0/6 SMA 9.3 4 0.00501 1 1.88 9
fatigue life has to be between 103 and 106 cycles with each
cycle lasting 0.5 s (0.1 s loading time and 0.4 s rest period),
A plot of the ranking of the six different measures (three giving a total duration of between 8 min and 6 days
properties at two temperatures) is shown in Figure 3.8. continuous working for a single determination with three
The order of the materials has been revised in accordance determinations required per test. Of the other three tests, the
with their average ranking from the bending strength and four-point bending fatigue test was the most complex to set
bending stiffness modulus at both temperatures to assist up whilst the semi-circular bending and asphalt bending tests
the comparison. were both the simplest to set up and quickest to perform.

9.0

8.0
7.0
6.0
Ranking

5.0
4.0
o
3.0 Max bending strain @ 15 C
o
2.0 Max bending strain @ 0 C
o
Bending strength @ 15 C
1.0 o
Bending strength @ 0 C
0.0 o
Bending stiffness modulus @ 15 C
0/6 SMA

0/10 SMA (open)

o
Bending stiffness modulus @ 0 C
Mastic asphalt

55 % 0/14 HRA

0/14 SMA (open)

0/10 PMB SMA (o)

30 % 0/10 HRA

Test
0/10 SMA (dense)

0/14 SMA (dense)

Material

Figure 3.8 Relative rankings of the properties measured in the asphalt bending test

12
Table 3.14 Development of an overall ranking for the The mastic asphalt and 0/10 PMB SMA tend to be the
asphalt bending test extremes on the rankings, certainly for the first three tests
although, compared to the ITFT and semi-circular bending
Ranking tests, the order is reversed for the 4-point bending and, to a
Max Bending
lesser extent, the asphalt bending test. The reason is that
bending Bending stiff. the tests undertaken measure different properties at
strain strength mod. different temperatures.
The properties and temperatures are:
@ @ @ @ @ @
Material 0ºC 15ºC 0ºC 15ºC 0ºC 15ºC Overall ! ITFT: Fatigue life under controlled stress (force)
conditions at 20 ºC.
0/14 SMA (dense) 6= 9 1= 1 1 1 1
! 4-point bending: Fatigue life under controlled strain
0/10 SMA (dense) 6= 7= 5= 3= 2= 2= 2
0/10 PMB SMA (open) 6= 4= 5= 3= 2= 4 3 (displacement) conditions at 5 ºC.
0/14 SMA (open) 5 4= 7= 2 5= 2= 4= ! Semi-circular bending: Tensile strength and/or fracture
30 % 0/10 HRA 4 3 1= 3= 2= 6= 4=
toughness at 15 ºC.
Mastic asphalt 3 7= 7= 6= 8 5 6=
! Asphalt bending: The bending strength, maximum
0/10 SMA (open) 6= 4= 9 6= 5= 6= 6=
55 % 0/14 HRA 2 1= 1= 8 5= 8 8 bending strain and/or bending stiffness modulus at both
0/6 SMA 1 1= 4 9 9 9 9 0 ºC and 15 ºC.
Controlled stress and controlled strain tests are known to
result in reversed rankings. Therefore, it can be assumed
3.2.6.2 Comparison of rankings that the tensile strength and the fracture toughness in the
The overall rankings derived from each of the four tests semi-circular bending test are aligned to constant stress
are compared in Table 3.15 with the ranking plotted in rather than constant strain conditions.
Figure 3.9. Figure 3.10 shows the ranking orders when the materials
are listed in order of their semi-circular bending test results
Table 3.15 Ranking order by different tests whilst Figure 3.11 shows them when ordered for the 4-point
bending test. Both these figures show that there a consistency
4-point Semi- Asphalt in the order for three of the tests (even if the 4-point bending
Material ITFT bending circular bending
test order has to be reversed), but that the overall ranking
0/14 SMA(dense) 2= 7= 3 1 derived from the asphalt bending test shows no consistency
0/10 SMA (dense) 2= 6 5= 2 with the others.
0/10 PMB SMA (open) 9 1 8= 3 Plotting the individual rankings from the asphalt
30 % 0/10 HRA 2= 5 2 4= bending test on graphs with the same axes as Figure 3.10
0/14 SMA (open) 6 7= 4 4= and Figure 3.11 did not produce any obvious equivalence.
Mastic asphalt 1 9 1 6= Therefore, the properties derived from the asphalt bending
0/10 SMA (open) 7= 4 7 6= test are not considered to be well correlated with those
55 % 0/14 HRA 7= 2= 8= 8 from the other three tests.
0/6 SMA 2= 2= 5= 9
Mastic asphalt could be expected to be the most flexible
because of its high binder content, although that binder is

9
8
7
6
Ranking

5
4
3
2
Asphalt bending
1
Semi-circular
0 4-point bending
30% 10 HRA

55% 14 HRA

Mastic asphalt

ITFT
0/6 SMA

0/10 SMA (o)

Test
0/10 PMB SMA

0/10 SMA (d)

0/14 SMA (o)

0/14 SMA (d)

Material

Figure 3.9 Plot of observed rankings for each test

13
 10
9
8
7
6

Ranking
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mastic 30 % 0/14 SMA 0/14 SMA 0/6 SMA 0/10 SMA 0/10 SMA 55 % 0/10 PMB
asphalt 0/10 HRA (dense) (open) (dense) (open) 0/14 HRA SMA
(open)

ITFT 4-point Semi-circular Asphalt bending

Figure 3.10 Relative rankings in order of semi-circular bending ranking

10
9
8
7
6
Ranking

5
4
3
2
1
0
0/10 PMB 55 % 0/6 SMA 0/10 SMA 30 % 0/10 SMA 0/14 SMA 0/14 SMA Mastic
SMA 0/14 HRA (open) 0/10 HRA (dense) (open) (dense) asphalt

ITFT 4-point Semi-circular Asphalt bending

Figure 3.11 Relative rankings in order of 4-point bending ranking

harder than that for other mixtures which could lead to less mixture compared to the fibres, as measured by the semi-
flexibility, particularly at colder temperatures. If the binder circular bending test. A possible for this lack of enhancement
content is the overwhelming criteria for flexibility, then the is that the SBS binder was used as a replacement rather than
ranking would be as follows: designing a new mixture with SBS binder.
1 Mastic asphalt (8.0 % binder) The binder content ranking was not consistent with that
obtained from the 4-point bending test.
2 30 % 0/10 HRA (7.8 % binder)
3 0/6 SMA (7.7 % binder)
3.2.6.3 Theoretical considerations
4 0/14 SMA (dense) (7.6 % binder)
There is a need for flexibility in bridge-deck surfacing and
5 0/14 SMA (open) (7.4 % binder) surfacings over weak substrates if they are to overcome
6 0/10 SMA (dense) (6.9 % binder) slow but repeated movements, particularly at low
7= 0/10 SMA (open) (6.7 % binder) temperatures. Therefore, the concept of the 4-point bending
7= 0/10 PMB SMA (open) (6.7 % binder) test at 5 ºC appears be appropriate. However, the need for
controlled stress or control strain conditions in that test
9 55 % 0/14 HRA (6.5 % binder)
depend on the overall structure – constant strain conditions
This ranking is very close to that obtained with the semi- are indicative of thick, stiff pavements (where other layers
circular bending test. The differences are that 0/6 SMA will take more of the load when the surfacing weakens with
was moved up two places and 55 % 0/14 HRA swapped fatigue) while constant strain conditions are indicative of
places with 0/10 PMB SMA (open). These differences thinner pavements (where the deflections will increase as
could be due to an improvement in flexibility with smaller the material weakens and flexes to resist the applied force
aggregate size. without much help from other layers). Therefore, any test
What is unexpected is that the styrene-butadiene-styrene for flexibility should be based on controlled stress rather
(SBS) modified-binder did not enhance the flexibility of the than controlled strain, implying the ITFT rather than the

14
4-point bending fatigue test or, by default, the semi-circular
test. However, the ITFT takes considerable time and,
therefore, is not particularly practical.
Therefore, the recommendation from theoretical
considerations aligned to the results of the test programme is
to use the semi-circular bending test. The median value of
results obtained were a tensile strength of 3.07 N/mm2 and a
fracture toughness of 19.88 N/mm3/2, so suggested initial
limits that are known to be attainable are a tensile strength
of 3.0 N/mm2 and a fracture toughness of 19 N/mm3/2.
3.3 Waterproofing system properties
3.3.1 Objectives and test programme
The objective of the laboratory study of waterproofing
systems was to assess the variation of, and typical values
for, the bond strength between them and possible
overlaying asphalt materials. It was hoped that the
knowledge would be useful in setting realistic specification
limitations which become more important as the thickness
of the layers is reduced. In addition, the opportunity was
taken to investigate the interlayer permeability because
water will always find the weakest link, and that is usually
the joints. A pavement structure will not be impermeable,
even when constructed of impermeable materials, if the
horizontal and/or vertical joints between those materials
are permeable.
Eight 300 mm by 300 mm by 55 mm thick blocks were
manufactured using C40 concrete and waterproofing
systems applied. Two different membranes were used,
each with two different tack coats. The waterproofing
systems were then overlaid with 40 mm depth of asphalt,
compacted using a roller compactor to give an overall
depth of around 100 mm (block plus waterproofing plus
surfacing). The mixtures used were mastic asphalt, 0/2 HRA
(sand carpet), 30 % 0/10 HRA and 0/10 SMA (dense) from
Section 3.1.1 such that there was one slab with each of the
combinations of waterproofing manufacturer and asphalt
type. Both waterproofing manufacturers offer at least two
different tack/bond coats for different types of asphalt, so
they selected tack/bond coats that were deemed most
suitable for these mixtures. Two cores were taken from
each composite specimen and tested for torque bond in
accordance with the HAPAS thin surfacing guidelines
(BBA, 2000). The holes were then refilled and the
composite specimens re-compacted for 250 passes with the
roller compacter set at 1 bar in order to try to simulate
trafficking before two further cores were taken and tested
for torque bond.
Each composite specimen was sliced vertically down the
centre to provide 300 mm by 100 mm cut faces with the
waterproofing system along the centre. These faces were
then tested for permeability at the interface between asphalt
and the waterproofing system using apparatus developed for
measuring the initial surface absorption of concrete (BSI,
1996), as shown in Section C.2 of Appendix C.
3.3.2 Torque bond tests
The results of the initial torque-bond test are given in
Table 3.16 together with the results after simulated
trafficking in Table 3.17.
In order to estimate the ultimate shear stress of a failure
surface from a torque bond test, assumptions must be made
concerning the stress-strain curve of the material at the
failure surface. If the material yields so the shear stress at
failure is uniform across the failure surface, the maximum
shear stress can be calculated from the theoretical
relationship given in Equation (3.4).
12 000 × T
τ= …. (3.4)
π × d3
where: = shear stress in N/mm²
T = maximum torque in N.m
d = diameter in mm

Table 3.16 Torque-bond results before simulated trafficking

Waterproofing system
Diameter Height Max. torque Shear stress Failure
Membrane Tack coat Surfacing type ID (mm) (mm) (N.m) (N/mm²) location

B S Mastic asphalt 1 98.49 46.13 72 0.29 – 0.38 1

2 98.20 46.15 50 0.20 – 0.27 1
B R 0 % 0/2 HRA 1 98.27 35.15 118 0.47 – 0.63 1
2 98.33 35.83 145 0.58 – 0.77 1
B S 30 % 0/10 HRA 1 97.87 40.21 70 0.29 – 0.38 1
2 98.47 40.13 45 0.18 – 0.24 1
B S 0/10 SMA (dense) 1 98.54 41.31 42 0.17 – 0.22 1
2 98.26 40.53 20 0.08 – 0.11 1

A P Mastic asphalt 1 97.91 43.17 310 1.26 – 1.68 1

2 97.87 44.76 320 1.30 – 1.74 1
A P 0 % 0/2 HRA 1 98.60 45.93 180 0.72 – 0.96 1
2 98.62 46.62 205 0.82 – 1.09 1
A Q 30 % 0/10 HRA 1 97.95 45.86 20 0.08 – 0.11 1
2 98.28 46.51 48 0.19 – 0.26 1
A Q 0/10 SMA (dense) 1 98.02 43.83 130 0.53 – 0.70 1
2 98.02 44.00 125 0.51 – 0.68 1
Location of failure 1: Debonded at interface between tack/bond coat and waterproofing membrane.
15
Table 3.17 Torque-bond results after simulated trafficking

Waterproofing system
Diameter Max. torque Shear stress Failure
Membrane Tack coat Surfacing type ID (mm) (N.m) (N/mm²) location

B S Mastic asphalt 1 – – – 2
2 – – – 2
B R 0 % 0/2 HRA 1 97.83 40 0.16 – 0.22 1
2 – – – 2
B S 30 % 0/10 HRA 1 – – – 2
2 – – – 2
B S 0/10 SMA (dense) 1 – – – 2
2 – – – 2

A P Mastic asphalt 1 97.65 340 1.39 – 1.86 1

2 97.73 340 1.39 – 1.86 1
A P 0 % 0/2 HRA 1 97.92 260 1.06 – 1.41 1
2 97.73 200 0.82 – 1.09 1
A Q 30 % 0/10 HRA 1 – – – 2
2 – – – 2
A Q 0/10 SMA (dense) 1 97.99 137 0.56 – 0.74 1
2 97.73 117 0.48 – 0.64 1

Location of failure 1: Debonded at interface between tack/bond coat and waterproofing membrane.
Location of failure 2: Material debonded during trafficking.

If the stress is proportional to the strain at the failure 7= Membrane B and tack coat S with (c.30 N.m)
surface, the shear stress at failure will increase from zero at 0/10 SMA, and
the centre to a maximum at the outer diameter. The Membrane A and tack coat Q with
maximum stress will be given by Equation (3.5). 30 % 0/10 HRA.
According to BD 47/99 (DMRB 2.3.4), the minimum
16 000 × T shear bond strength of an asphalt layer to a bridge deck
τ= …. (3.5)
π × d3 waterproofing system should be 0.2 MPa at 23 ºC. Table 3.16
shows that, for each membrane, the failure stresses before
In practice, the stress-strain curve of the material at the simulated trafficking exceeded the minimum for three
failure surface will fall somewhere between the fully mixtures but were below it for the fourth mixture. In all
elastic and fully plastic behaviour – strain hardening is cases, the failures were at the interface between the
unlikely. Therefore, the true shear stress will be within the waterproofing membrane and the tack/bond coat, so the
failure stresses were more dependent on the properties of
range calculated by Equations (3.4) and (3.5) that are
the waterproofing systems than the asphalt mixtures. For
shown in Table 3.16 and Table 3.17. the Membrane B systems, the highest failure stresses were
Of the initial results, the torque bond varied considerably measured with the tack coat R tack coat and sand carpet.
by an order of magnitude with the two waterproofing For the Membrane A systems, the failure stresses were
systems giving different rankings for the different materials. higher for tack coat P than for tack coat Q. The high values
For all materials other than 30 % 0/10 HRA, the results were for mastic asphalt were probably due to the high
higher for Membrane A systems than for Membrane B temperature at which the material was laid and compacted
systems. Overall, the results can be ranked as follows: and at which the tack/bond coat was activated.
The additional passes of the roller compactor at
1 Membrane A and tack coat P with (c.300 N.m)
elevated temperature to simulate trafficking did not prove
mastic asphalt.
successful, with debonding occurring, particularly for the
2 Membrane A and tack coat P with (c.200 N.m) Membrane B systems, rather than the gain in adhesion.
sand carpet. Therefore, the results after simulated trafficking have
3= Membrane B and tack coat R with (c.130 N.m) been ignored from any analysis. However, it should be
noted that most of the samples that debonded had a low
sand carpet, and
shear stress before trafficking.
Membrane A and tack coat Q with
0/10 SMA.
3.3.3 Interface permeability
5= Membrane B and tack coat S with (c.60 N.m)
The permeability at the interface between the asphalt
30 % 0/10 HRA, and
surfacing and the waterproofing was carried out on the
Membrane B and tack coat S with following three composite systems with the results being
mastic asphalt. given in Table 3.18:

16
! Mastic Asphalt – Membrane A and tack coat P
! 0 % 0/2 HRA – Membrane A and tack coat P
! 0/10 SMA (dense) – Membrane A and tack coat Q
Table 3.18 Flow rate at interface between asphalt and
waterproofing
Average flow rate (ml/m2/s)
Time Mastic 0% 0/10 SMA
(min) asphalt 0/2 HRA (dense)
1 0.043 7.05
2 0.044 7.78
3 0.043 7.34
5 0.042 6.99
10 0.046 7.14
15 0.052 6.90
30 0.047 6.83
60 0.045 7.88
Mean 0.045 7.18
The test specimens were taken from the surfaced
concrete blocks used for the torque bond tests. The
diameter of the test areas was 85 mm and they were
approximately 25 mm deep. The measured flow rate was
dependent on the permeability of the concrete, the
permeability of the interface between the asphalt and the
waterproofing system, and the permeability of the asphalt
within the test section. Because the permeability of the
concrete was low, most of the flow was through the
interface and the asphalt itself.
A very low flow rate was measured on the mastic asphalt
specimen because both the interface and the asphalt were of
low permeability. The flow rate was, on average, about 160
times higher on the sand asphalt specimen than on the
mastic asphalt specimen. Because of the nature of sand
asphalt, it is unlikely that the permeability of the interface
was significantly different to that of the asphalt itself.
However, it is possible that the permeability of the base of
the layer of sand asphalt was less than that at mid-layer or at
the top of the layer, the latter having an influence on the
results shown in Table 3.3.
The flow rate was, on average, about 2700 times higher
on the 0/10 (dense) SMA specimen than on the mastic
asphalt specimen. Because the waterproofing membrane
was overlaid with a thick layer of tack coat Q, the interface
permeability should not have been significantly higher
than that of the SMA. Therefore, most of the flow should
have been through the SMA itself.
4 Considerations for specification of
surfacing for bridge decks
4.1 General approach
The Specification for the surfacing on bridge decks must
include the requirements normally applied to asphalt
surfacings, e.g. skidding resistance, resistance to
deformation and surface regularity, as well as further
criteria specific to asphalt on bridges. The specific criteria
likely to have the greatest effect on the durability of the
surfacing on bridges concern the following properties:
! The permeability of the asphalt and the control and
removal of water.
! The bond of the asphalt to the waterproofing system.
! The resistance of the asphalt to fatigue cracking.
! The compatibility with the waterproofing system.
4.2 Drainage
136
4.2.1 Drainage requirements
125 Whereas sub-surface water can permeate downwards
135 through several bound and unbound layers as it flows
131 towards the sub-surface drainage systems on pavements,
118
114 sub-surface water on bridges can only flow downwards as
110 far as the waterproofing system. It must then flow
111 horizontally towards any sub-surface drainage systems that
are located at the low points and may be well over ten
123
metres away from where the water entered the surfacing.
Therefore, drainage and the movement of water through
asphalt have a greater impact on the durability of asphalt
on bridge decks than on pavements.
Clause 4.1 of BD 47/99 (DMRB 2.3.4) requires surface
water to be removed from bridge decks by the provision of
falls and suitable surface drainage systems. Clause 4.2 also
requires sub-surface drainage where natural drainage is not
possible. Some expansion joints provide sub-surface
drainage by incorporating 20 mm square slotted drainage
channels that run across the carriageway. However, these
drains can become clogged over a period of time so they
no longer drain away the water quickly enough. Through-
deck drains at the low points are considered to be a more
effective means of sub-surface drainage. Whilst these may
be installed on new bridges, they are not always installed
on old bridges during maintenance works unless specific
problems have been encountered.
Therefore, Specifications for the asphalt surfacing on
bridge decks should be ensure:
! Minimum accumulation of water by identifying suitable
requirements for the asphalt used in each layer.
! Efficient surface and sub-surface drainage systems to
facilitate drainage, aided by longitudinal gradients and
crossfalls of the bridge deck and the overlaying asphalt,
as are currently specified.
4.2.2 Removal of water
The accumulation of water within an asphalt layer,
whether on a bridge or a pavement, has a detrimental
effect in areas trafficked by heavy good vehicles. This is
because wheel loading induces high hydrostatic pressures
in saturated asphalt that are sufficient to weaken the layer
and break it up so that potholes are formed. Also, the
pressures have an adverse effect on the bond between
layers and, in particular, the bond of asphalt to bridge deck
waterproofing systems and, hence, on the structural
integrity of the asphalt layers on bridge decks. There have
been a number of failures of the surfacing on bridge decks
where water has accumulated in the asphalt, particularly on
17
the high side of certain types of expansion joint that form a
barrier to the flow of water. Many of these failures have
occurred after periods of heavy rain.
The main criterion influencing the penetration and
movement of water is the permeability both of the asphalt
itself (see also Section 4.4.5) and of the interface between
layers (see also Section 4.5.5). Permeability is a measure
of the connectivity of pores/voids within the binder matrix,
aggregate and the interface between them. The void
content at the interface between the asphalt layers and the
waterproofing system is dependent on the characteristics of
the asphalt layer and the waterproofing system, so they
have been considered together.
4.2.3 Sub-surface drainage
If the surface course material is permeable (see Section 4.4.5),
significant amounts of water could reach the lower asphalt
layer(s) so that the potential for water to enter these layer(s)
through air voids, defects and improperly sealed joints and
reach the waterproofing system will be greater. Therefore, to
minimise the risk of premature failure, an edge of
carriageway drainage system should be provided to drain the
full depth of a permeable surface course. Furthermore, the
risk should be reduced further by specifying a surface course
system which incorporates a thick bond coat that when
applied to the lower asphalt layer helps to seal it.
4.3 Waterproofing system
4.3.1 Bond to asphalt
According to Clause B4.2 (l) of BD 47/99 (DMRB 2.3.4),
the minimum tensile bond of an asphalt layer to a bridge
deck waterproofing system should be 0.1 MPa at 23 ºC.
According to Clause B4.2 (k), the minimum shear bond
should be 0.2 MPa at -10 ºC and 23 ºC, and 0.1 MPa at
40 ºC. However, because BD 47/99 requires the total
thickness of the asphalt layers to be 120 mm, it is implied
that these bond strength requirements are applicable for
surfacing of this standard thickness.
The bond of asphalt to a waterproofing system is
dependent on the characteristics of both the waterproofing
system and the asphalt, e.g. the adhesive and cohesive
properties of the membrane, tack coat and asphalt, not just
the ‘thickness’ of the tack coat. It is also dependent on the
temperature at which the asphalt is laid and compacted and
whether any tack coat is activated.
The bond strength requirements in BD 47/99
(DMRB 2.3.4) refer to the initial bond, but Clause 2005.5 of
the Specification for Highway Works (MCHW 1) states that:
‘The additional protection layer 1 or surfacing laid on
the waterproofing system shall be fully bonded to the
system for the life of the system.’
The bond is prone to failure in service when the surfacing
became saturated and high hydrostatic pressures are
generated by wheels of heavy goods vehicles. Surfacing of
1
The additional protection layer is specified in the DMRB and SHW
as a 20 mm layer of sand asphalt.
18
standard thickness with a sand asphalt layer performs well
even if, apparently, it may be poorly bonded to the
waterproofing system. However, surfacing of less than
standard thickness has not been durable when it has not
remained firmly bonded. In these circumstances, water has
accumulated on the waterproofing system and weakened/
failed the bond of the surfacing to the waterproofing system
and/or the surfacing itself. The durability of the surfacing
appears to be more reliant on the bond when the thickness,
and hence dead weight, of the surfacing is low.
Where the surfacing is less than 120 mm thick, the bond
strength requirements are much higher in other countries
compared to those in the UK. For example, the current
Japan Highway Public Corporation specification requires
waterproofing systems to be overlaid with asphalt of total
thickness 75 mm. The 35 mm thick layer directly overlaying
the waterproofing system is SMA with a 0/5 mm aggregate
size. The 40 mm thick surface course is a drainage (porous
asphalt) layer with a 0/13 mm aggregate size. Performance
tests on waterproofing systems include tests to measure the
shear and tensile bond strength of the weakest interface of
specimens comprising a concrete block, the waterproofing
system and an asphalt layer. The shear bond strength must
not be less than 0.8 MPa at -10 °C and 0.15 MPa at 20 °C.
The tensile bond strength must not be less than 1.2 MPa at
-10 °C and 0.6 MPa at 20 °C.
The current German specification requires waterproofing
systems on major roads to be overlaid with surfacing of total
thickness from 70 mm to 80 mm. A 35 mm thick protective
layer of Gussasphalt with a 0/8 mm aggregate size directly
overlays the waterproofing system. The surface course is
35 mm to 45 mm thick. The tensile bond strength of the
weakest interface of specimens comprising a concrete block
and the waterproofing system must not be less than 0.7 MPa
at 8 °C and 0.4 MPa at 23 °C. The shear bond strength of
the weakest interface of specimens comprising a concrete
block, the waterproofing system and an asphalt layer must
not be less than 0.15 MPa at 23 °C when the shear force is
applied at an angle of 15º to the plane of the specimen.
Therefore, it is proposed that the minimum tensile and
shear bond requirements are increased from the values
given in BD 47/99 (DMRB 2.3.4) when the surfacing is
less than 120 mm thick. Furthermore, if the surfacing is
120 mm or more thick, higher bond strength requirements
should be specified if the waterproofing system is not
overlaid with an additional protective layer of sand asphalt,
because of the increased risk of water accumulating on the
membrane and weakening the bond. The higher bond
strength should not be achievable unless the contact area
between the asphalt and waterproofing system is high, i.e.
there are few voids at the interface. To ensure that the
bond is not susceptible to the presence of water or varies
with time, the bond strength should be measured both
before and after exposure to water.
4.3.2 Membrane stiffness
Although well-designed pavements should not suffer
fatigue cracking, there has been concern that the surfacing
overlaying waterproofing systems on bridge decks can be
susceptible to fatigue when the asphalt layers are thin.
 The susceptibility of asphalt layers to fatigue is
dependent on the strains induced in the asphalt and its
fatigue properties. For a given wheel load, the strains
induced are dependent on the thickness and stiffness
properties of the waterproofing system, the stiffness
properties of each asphalt layer, the combined thickness of
the layers, and the bond of the asphalt layers to each other
and to the waterproofing system. In addition, cracking of
the upper asphalt layers can be induced because of the
break-up of the lower layers by high hydrostatic pressures
when they become saturated.
The strains induced by wheel loading are enhanced by
the local and global deformation of the substrate to which
the waterproofing system and asphalt are applied. The
deformation of the substrate of steel bridge decks (the deck
plate) is significant. However, concrete bridge decks have
a local stiffness that is considerably higher than that of
steel decks, so strains induced by the local deformation of
the substrate are relatively low. Similarly, strains induced
by the global deformation of decks are considered to be
lower that those due to the other factors listed above.
The stiffness moduli and Poisson’s ratio of the
membranes of waterproofing systems have been measured
at different temperatures. The membranes were found to
behave elastically or visco-elastically, with one type stiffer
at lower temperatures and the other type stiffer at higher
temperatures at the strains and strain rates encountered on
bridge decks. A series of finite element analyses is being
undertaken to determine the significance of the properties
of the membrane on the strains induced in the asphalt
layers overlaying waterproofing systems on bridge decks.
The findings, yet to be published, indicate the
susceptibility to fatigue of surfacing overlaying different
types of waterproofing system and the significance of the
stiffness properties of the waterproofing membrane.
4.3.3 Effect of laying and compaction temperatures on
the waterproofing system
The DMRB and SHW specify requirements that are
intended to:
! prevent waterproofing systems from being damaged
when they are overlaid with hot asphalt; and
! ensure that asphalt remains bonded to the waterproofing
systems over their service life.
Clauses B4.2 (i) and (j) of BD 47/99 (DMRB 2.3.4)
require waterproofing systems to pass tests that simulate
the conditions when they are overlaid with hot asphalt
materials. The test specified in Clause B4.2 (j) assesses the
effects of high temperatures encountered during surfacing
on the crack bridging ability of the waterproofing
membrane by overlaying it with hot material to achieve a
temperature of 145 °C on its surface. Clause B4.2 (i)
assesses the resistance to aggregate indentation during the
compaction of the asphalt. Currently, all membranes must
be permanently indented by no more than half their
thickness after a force of 500 N has been applied by an
aggregate indentor heated to a temperature of 80 °C. This
test is designed to simulate the compaction of sand asphalt.
If systems are to be overlaid with mixtures containing
larger sized aggregates, the membrane must pass the tests
with the aggregate indentator heated to 125 °C. Not all of
the waterproofing systems currently registered for use on
Highways Agency bridges have passed this test at 125 °C
and can be overlaid with coarse mixtures.
Allied to the aggregate indentation requirements are those
in Clause 901.9 of the SHW (MCHW 1), which states that:
‘With the exception of sand asphalt carpet, bituminous
materials with a temperature greater than 125 °C
shall not be deposited on a bridge deck waterproofing
system unless adequate precautions are taken to avoid
heat damage in accordance with a good industry
practice. A maximum temperature of 145 °C is
permitted for sand asphalt carpet.’
The BBA Roads and Bridges Agrément Certificates for
the different waterproofing systems currently registered
include the following statements:
‘Temperature of the APL or HRA surfacing when
applied should exceed the minimum reactivation
temperature of 100 °C required for the tack coat R
tack coat.’
‘The rolling temperature of the surfacing must not
fall below the minimum reactivation temperature of
85 °C required for Tack coat P, and 90 °C for Tack
coat SA 1030.’
‘Temperature of the surfacing when applied should
exceed the minimum reactivation temperature of 80 °C
required for Britdex MDP Tack Coat.’
‘Temperature of the APL when applied should be as
specified in BS 594-1: 1992 and BS 594-2: 1992.’
Clause 2005.5 of the SHW (MCHW 1) states that:
‘The additional protective layer of surfacing laid on
the waterproofing system shall be full bonded to the
system for the life of the system. The bond shall be
achieved by either: (i) the binder within the directly
applied additional protective layer of surfacing; or
(ii) a separate tack coat … details of which are given
on the BBA Roads and Bridges Agrément Certificate.
Where the tack coat is of the type activated by the heat
of the succeeding bituminous layer the temperature of
this layer shall be sufficient to ensure adhesion.’
When a layer of asphalt is laid onto a substrate such as a
waterproofing system, the base of the layer cools rapidly
as heat is transferred from the layer into the waterproofing
system and concrete substrate. After a short period of time,
the temperature of the waterproofing system will have
risen so that it is similar to that of the base of the layer.
However, the waterproofing system will then cool as heat
is lost by conduction to the concrete substrate and also by
convection and radiation through the top of the layer.
The asphalt layer must be laid at a sufficiently high
temperature so that the rolling/compaction temperature is
19
high enough to activate the tack coat and form a dense when the mid-layer temperature is, say, 135 °C or less.
layer. Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 show, respectively, the Clearly, the contractor should provide details of the
times after laying for 20 mm and 40 mm thick layers to temperature at the tack/bond coat above which compaction
reach a given temperature at mid-layer that were estimated should be completed or, preferably, the wording in the
using the method by Nicholls and Daines (1993). The BBA Roads and Bridges Agrément Certificates should be
temperature at the base of a layer (i.e. at the tack coat) changed accordingly.
could be about 10 °C below the mid-layer temperature. The above may appear to be unnecessarily complicated,
Therefore, the current Specification gives little time to but it is important because the bond of asphalt to
complete compaction at a sufficiently high temperature waterproofing systems tends to increase with the rolling
when the activation temperature of the tack/bond coat is temperature.
100 °C, especially when the asphalt layer is only 20 mm An aggregate indentation test could be carried out at a
thick and is laid at 145 °C. There is more time to complete temperature up to a maximum of 145 °C, the temperature
the compaction of a 40 mm layer, even if it is laid at only at which the crack bridging ability of the waterproofing
125 °C. Much more time would be available if mixtures membrane is assessed, if it is necessary to compact
containing coarse aggregates were laid at temperatures asphalt when the waterproofing membrane is at such
higher than 125 °C, which probably already happens on a temperatures. If the surfacing is likely to produce higher
number of bridges. The implication from the aggregate temperatures at the waterproofing system, it would be
indentation test is that rolling should not occur when the
necessary to carry out a crack bridging test during which
temperature at the waterproofing system is greater than
such temperatures were induced during the thermal shock
125 °C. Therefore, the Specification could be changed to
preconditioning phase.
prevent ‘rolling’ when the mid-layer temperature is 125 °C
(rather than specify a laying temperature of 125 °C).
However, because the temperature at the waterproofing 4.4 Asphalt properties
system is lower than that at mid-layer, rolling could be 4.4.1 Deformation resistance
permitted when the temperature at the waterproofing Deformation resistance of the component materials of a
system is 125 °C or lower, or rolling could be permitted
pavement is more important for those materials nearest the
surface where the loads caused by traffic are highest. The
Table 4.1 Effect of environmental conditions on time loads are distributed by the pavement layers so that they
available to compact a 20 mm thick layer reduce with the thickness of overlying pavement. The
Time after laying to
approach used to be to consider only the surfacing layers,
Wind reach given temperature with a more stringent requirement on the surface course
Air speed at Laying at mid-layer (min) than on the binder course. However, with the introduction
temperature 2 m height temperature of proprietary thin surfacings and hence thinner surface
(°C) (km/h) (°C) 120 °C 110 °C 100 °C
courses, it becomes more logical to apply the stringent
5 0 145 2.5 3.3 4.3 requirement for deformation resistance to composite
5 10 145 2.0 2.7 3.5 samples for the top 50 mm and the less stringent
5 40 145 1.7 2.2 2.9 requirement to the next 50 mm. It is proposed to take this
20 0 145 2.9 3.9 5.1 approach for bridge deck surfacings.
20 10 145 2.3 3.1 4.1
Requirements for deformation resistance should become
20 40 145 1.9 2.6 3.3
more important as the overall thickness of the surfacing
layers is reduced. Using the conventional construction
Table 4.2 Effect of environmental conditions on time approach, if in thin layers, the red sand carpet would come
available to compact a 40 mm thick layer more within the critical depth. Sand carpet is not
particularly deformation resistant, being the worst of the
Wind materials tested (Section 3.1.5). Therefore, it is proposed
Air speed Laying Time after laying to reach given to apply the current surface course requirements (as
temper- at 2 m temper- temperature at mid-layer (min)
ature height ature defined in tables NG 9/28 and NG 9/29 of the Notes for
(°C) (km/h) (°C) 120 °C 110 °C 100 °C Guidance on the Specification for Highway Works
(MCHW 2)) for deformation resistance to (50 ± 10) mm
5 0 125 3.9 6.9 10.2
thick samples of each material type that occurs in the top
5 10 125 3.2 5.7 8.3
5 40 125 2.6 4.7 6.9 50 mm. In addition, it is proposed to apply the
20 0 125 4.6 8.1 12.0 requirements at the next level down to (50 ± 10) mm thick
20 10 125 3.7 6.5 9.6 samples of materials that occur in the next 50 mm of the
20 40 125 3.0 5.3 7.9
pavement. Where materials are nominally laid at a
5 0 145 8.6 11.6 15.1
5 10 145 7.0 9.5 12.4 thickness less than 40 mm, it is proposed to permit the
5 40 145 5.8 7.8 10.2 testing of composite samples made up of more than one
20 0 145 10.1 13.6 17.8 different layers to be used in the pavement provided no
20 10 145 8.0 10.9 14.2
part layer has a thickness less than twice its maximum
20 40 145 6.6 8.9 11.6
aggregate size.

20
4.4.2 Texture depth
Texture depth is a standard requirement for the surface
course of high-speed trunk roads, and the requirements of
clause 921 of the Specification for Highway Works
(MCHW 1) should be applied when appropriate for the
specification of surfacings to bridge decks.
4.4.3 Skid resistance
Although it is only referenced explicitly in clause 918
(slurry surfacing), 919 (surface dressing), 922 (surface
dressing), 938 (porous asphalt) and 942 (thin surface
course systems) of the Specification for Highway Works
(MCHW 1), the skid resistance of the surface course is
defined by the polished stone value of the coarse aggregate
as laid out in Appendix 7/1 of the job specification. Advice
on values to specify in Appendix 7/1 is given in Advice
Note HD 36/99 (DMRB 7.5.1). This approach should be
used for the specification of surfacings for bridge decks.
4.4.4 Flexibility and fatigue
Flexibility has been identified as an important factor over
bridge decks (Section 4.3.2). However, there are doubts
about the current fatigue tests for asphalt because they do
not provide a consistent ranking. In particular, the choice
between constant stress and constant strain can reverse the
order. For bridge decks, it is assumed that constant strain
will apply because the support is so much stiffer than the
asphalt. The obvious fatigue tests are the indirect tensile,
four-point bending and two-point bending, the first having
had some use in the UK whilst the latter two are the
methods that will be available for CE marking the property
when the European standards are implemented. However,
none of these tests are currently used for routine testing of
asphalt in the UK.
An alternative to fatigue is flexibility. The research into
a possible test for flexibility identified the semi-circular
bending test from several put forward. This test was found
to be practical, equivalent to a controlled stress fatigue test
and ranks materials similarly to binder content, a known
component of flexibility if other things are constant. The
test is currently being considered for European
standardisation as a measure of crack propagation. For the
BBA HAPAS scheme for thin surfacings, it was suggested
that initially the values of 3.0 N/mm² and 19 N/mm3/2
could be set as the minimum values required for tensile
strength and fracture toughness, respectively. These limits
were considered practical because the majority of the
results obtained from trial mixtures exceeded them.
Whilst it would be preferable to have fatigue and/or
flexibility requirements that get more severe as the asphalt
thickness gets less, there is currently no agreement on the
test to be used or the limits to be achieved. Therefore, it is
proposed not to set any fatigue requirements at this time,
but to consider latter inclusion if subsequent research
identifies more precisely what is appropriate.
4.4.5 Permeability and air voids content
Previous research at TRL has shown that the layer of
asphalt directly overlaying the waterproofing system must
be impermeable if surfacing on bridge decks is to remain
durable. If the lower asphalt layers on bridge decks are
permeable, any water that passes through the surface
course through the air voids in the layer and any defects
(cracks and/or improper sealing around joints) will
percolate down towards the waterproofing system while
flowing across the deck towards the low points. If the
water encounters a barrier on its way, such as an expansion
joint or a less permeable area, it will accumulate in the
asphalt until it is drained by a sub-surface drainage system.
Though-deck drains will be required at all low points on
the deck, including large hollows and depressions that are
not free draining. Furthermore, the lower asphalt layer will
need to remain sufficiently permeable throughout its
service life to drain the sub-surface water quickly in the
heaviest periods of rain. However, premature failures have
occurred on a number of bridges when the lower asphalt
layer has been permeable, even when there has been some
sub-surface drainage (Section 4.2.3), because high
hydrostatic pressures have been generated by the wheels of
heavy goods vehicles in the surfacing when saturated.
Therefore, the lower asphalt layer should be impermeable
and sub-surface drainage should be provided to drain the
small amounts of water that will inevitably enter the layer
and permeate down to the waterproofing system.
In spite of the great importance of permeability in
relation to the durability performance bridges, there is
currently no permeability specification to control the
quality of asphalt surfacing. This deficiency may be
attributed to the controversy regarding the repeatability
and reproducibility of permeability tests using different
techniques and the relatively long time required to produce
results. A new European Standard, EN 12697-19 (CEN,
2004c), describes a method for measuring the permeability
of porous asphalt to water, but this method would be time-
consuming for partially permeable and unsuitable for
impermeable asphalt mixtures.
Permeability testing has received more attention from the
concrete industry and has been widely used within the
durability specifications of major concrete constructions,
such as the Jubilee Line Extension Project in the UK.
Hassan and Cabrera (1997) demonstrated that the
permeability of concrete is dependent on many factors that
are all related to the volume of open pores, as the
permeability increases with higher volume of open porosity.
A concrete with a volumetric proportion of open pores of
less than 4 % exhibited low permeability values, whereas
above 5 % there is a very rapid increase in permeability.
This change indicates that an interconnected system of pores
is established when the volume of open pores is greater than
about 3 % or 4 %. A similar trend of permeability results is
obtained from the asphalt mixtures, as shown in Figure 3.3.
Regardless of the mixture type, low permeability values are
obtained when the air voids content is 4 % or below and the
permeability increases rapidly for air voids contents above
5 %. This hypothesis is supported from results of other
investigations (Zoorob et al., 1999).
The permeability test, under a pressure gradient, is an
easy test and takes a short time to be conducted. The test
results are found reliable in ranking the permeability of
21
various asphalt mixtures and, therefore, could be adopted
in the durability specifications of asphalt surfacing to
bridge decks. However, there is still no agreement about
the test method, the associated limits of permeability to be
specified or the precision of the results. In the absence of a
generally accepted standard permeability test, it appears
reasonable to use the air voids content as an indicator for
permeability.
Any specified maximum values for air voids contents, as
a surrogate for permeability, should depend on the
presence and effectiveness of sub-surface drainage. If there
is adequate drainage that can be properly maintained, a
design air voids contents of up to 6 % could be acceptable
for asphalt layers other than that directly over the
waterproofing system whereas, for the bottom layer and
where there is no adequate sub-surface drainage, an air
voids contents of not more than 4 % should be required.
Both requirements can be met by all of the materials tested
(Section 3.1.2) other than the open SMAs and the 35 %
0/10 HRA (despite 35 % 0/14 HRA having been used
successfully on bridges in the past), the latter being the
only one to fall between the two proposed limits. If those
limits are used for the mean, a tolerance of 2 % should be
included to give maxima on individual readings of 8 % and
6 %, respectively. It would be ideal to use the individual
maxima on site, but it is appreciated that it is best not to
take cores when impermeability is sought.
4.4.6 Protection for waterproofing systems
The current Specification requires waterproofing systems
to be overlaid with a 20 mm thick additional protection
layer of sand asphalt (0/2 HRA). Because the layer has low
resistance to deformation, it performs satisfactorily only if
it is overlaid with sufficient thickness of deformation
resistant surfacing. Therefore, it should be omitted when
the overlaying surfacing is less than 100 mm thick.
However, the benefits of laying sand asphalt, even when
it is overlaid with 100 mm or more of surfacing, have been
questioned by many in the industry. The original intention
was to lay the sand asphalt immediately after
waterproofing in order to protect the waterproofing system
before and during surfacing operations. However, a
number of waterproofing systems have passed the
aggregate indentation test at 125 ºC (see Section 4.3.3) and
do not require the protection of sand asphalt provided due
care is taken before and during surfacing operations.
Appendix B to BD 47/99 (DMRB 7.2.3) requires that all
permitted waterproofing systems are tested for aggregate
indentation at 40 °C and 80 °C with a compliance
requirement that the indentation after a recovery period
shall not exceed 50 % of the initial system. Waterproofing
systems may be overlaid with asphalt containing coarse
aggregates of maximum aggregate size greater than that
found in sand asphalt if they have passed an aggregate
indentation test at 125 °C. Not all of the registered systems
have passed the test at 125 °C, which could disadvantage
them in the marketplace, particularly when a specification
requires that the asphalt directly overlaying the
waterproofing system should contain large sized coarse
aggregate, reducing the number of waterproofing systems
22
that can comply. The material itself and the interface
between the material and waterproofing system would
need to be impermeable. Also, the resistance of the
waterproofing system to aggregate indentation when
overlaid with the material would need to be demonstrated.
The use of red oxide in the sand carpet could be
reproduced in the alternative mixtures if required.
However, there have been hearsay reports that often the
colour has been lost by the time the material is exposed
and, with a thinner overall surfacing, the protective layer
will be reached sooner so that greater care will be needed.
It has been found that the red sand carpet cannot be used
reliably as an indicator layer to enable a bridge to be
resurfaced without it being re-waterproofed, which was its
main purpose. Therefore, the requirement to use red oxide
should become optional.
4.5 Joints and interface between layers
4.5.1 General
The use of impermeable asphalt layers will be inadequate
without ensuring proper sealing at any details, interfaces or
joints between the rips, and any variations in permeability
associated with defects such as cracks. The relevant details
are kerbs, parapets and expansion joints. The relevant
interfaces are between the asphalt layers and between the
lowest asphalt layer and the waterproofing system.
4.5.2 Joints
The joints between adjacent rips of asphalt should be
sealed effectively in order to prevent an easy path for
water to flow vertically through an asphalt layer, as set out
in both BS 598-2 and BS 4987-2. However, joints that are
fully sealed will prevent the flow of water horizontally
across a bridge so provision must be made so there is no
danger that water can accumulate in a layer, which could
lead to high hydrostatic pressures being generated by the
wheels of heavy goods vehicles. However, given the
intention to ensure that the materials used are relatively
impermeable (Section 4.4.5), it is proposed to require all
cold vertical joints to be painted with bitumen before being
laid against.
4.5.3 Bond between layers
The bond between layers has become more important with
the use of thin surface course layers because the absence of
the weight supplied by a thick layer needs to be replaced by
positive adhesion with the layer below in order to minimise
the potential for de-bonding. However, there is no generally
accepted method for measuring the property in-situ on a
routine basis. There are two aspects to bond, the adhesion
achieved by the binder present and the aggregate interlock
created by texture of the underlying material being filled by
particles from the overlay. Different test methods that have
been proposed to measure bond are affected differently by
the two aspects, with pull-off tests (as used for bridge water-
proofing and high-friction surfacing system) ignoring
aggregate interlock whilst shear tests (as used for thin
surfacing systems) incorporate that aspect. Provided they are
not saturated, the adhesion generally improves with
trafficking because the two layers are pressed together with
each wheel-pass, so the timing of any measurements of the
property is also important.
Bond, based on a torque shear test, is a required
property for thin surfacing systems in order to obtain a
Highway Authorities Product Approval Scheme (HAPAS)
certificate from the British Board of Agrément (BBA).
However, there is no pass/fail rating under the current
guidelines (BBA, 2000), only the need to report the result.
The test, which is carried out after between 28 and 56 days
of trafficking, is intended as a type test because of the
disruption caused by closing the road to obtain the samples
so soon after being re-opened. However, the results
recorded to date typically vary between 400 and 1500 kPa,
so that a specification requirement for 400 kPa would
allow all currently certified thin surfacing systems to be
used whereas a limit of, say, 700 kPa would exclude some
of those that have performed least well in the test. If a limit
is set, any non-proprietary surfacing would also need to be
tested before it was permitted for use on bridge deck
overlays. The limits proposed will be dependent on the
depth of the interface with 700 kPa if within 20 mm of the
surface, reducing to 400 kPa at 50 mm and no requirement
below that. The tests should be performed with the
relevant tack or bond coat to be used on site with the
appropriate materials as substrate and overlay.
Given the variable approach, it is proposed here to raise
the general requirement, of either a tack or bond coat
between each layer, to a requirement for bond coats at all
interfaces. This approach does not affect the current bond
requirements for waterproofing systems or thin surfacing
systems in order to obtain their BBA-HAPAS certificates.
4.5.4 Bond to waterproofing system
According to clause 2003.2 of the Specification for
Highway Works (MCHW 1), a waterproofing system
needs to have a BBA Roads and Bridges certificate in
order to be permitted for use on trunk road bridges. Part of
the laboratory test procedure to gain certification is to
check the bond between the waterproofing system and the
underlying concrete substrate by means of a tensile
adhesion (pull-off) test and to check the bond between
waterproofing system and the overlying asphalt by means
of shear-adhesion and tensile bond tests. These tests are
described in Appendix B to BD 47/99 (DMRB 7.2.3).
There are limits for the tests, with minima of:
! 0.3 N/mm² at -10 °C, 0.3 N/mm² at 23 °C and 0.2 N/mm²
at 40 °C for the tensile adhesion test on the
waterproofing system to concrete substrate interface;
! 0.2 N/mm² at -10 °C, 0.2 N/mm² at 23 °C and 0.1 N/mm²
at 40 °C for the shear adhesion test on the surfacing to
waterproofing system interface; and
! 0.1 N/mm² at 23 °C for the tensile bond test on the
surfacing to waterproofing system interface.
These limits apply to overlaying asphalt of minimum
thickness 120 mm where the asphalt directly overlaying
the waterproofing system is 0 % 0/2 mm HRA (sand
asphalt) or 50 % 0/10 HRA. However, higher limits are
considered necessary when mixtures containing coarse
aggregates directly overlays the waterproofing system.
Also, higher limits are appropriate for thicknesses less than
120 mm, and the proposal is to increase them in steps of
30 mm down to 60 mm. Any total depth of surfacing less
than 60 mm is regarded as a special case that will require
expert advice. The resultant limits are given in Table 4.3.
Table 4.3 Bonding limits for waterproofing systems
when overlaid by coarse mixtures
Surfacing thickness ≥120 mm <120 mm; ≥90 mm < 90 mm; ≥60 mm
Tensile adhesion test
@ -10 °C 0.30 N/mm² 0.50 N/mm² 0.70 N/mm²
@ 23 °C 0.30 N/mm² 0.50 N/mm² 0.70 N/mm²
@ 40 °C 0.20 N/mm² 0.30 N/mm² 0.30 N/mm²
Shear adhesion test
@ -10 °C 0.30 N/mm² 0.30 N/mm² 0.40 N/mm²
@ 23 °C 0.30 N/mm² 0.30 N/mm² 0.40 N/mm²
@ 40 °C 0.10 N/mm² 0.15 N/mm² 0.15 N/mm²
Tensile bond test
@ 23 °C 0.40 N/mm² 0.45 N/mm² 0.50 N/mm²
4.5.5 Permeability of interface between asphalt and
waterproofing system
Most waterproofing systems comprise a primer to optimise
the bond of the system to the concrete substrate, a
membrane to prevent water and chlorides from reaching
the concrete, and a tack/bond coat to optimise the bond of
the overlaying asphalt to the system.
When asphalt with coarse aggregates is compacted onto a
‘hard’ surface, the bulk of the material may have a low void
content but there may be large voids at the base of the layer.
The voids tend to be larger with larger aggregate sizes and
with higher proportions of coarse aggregate. Above a certain
proportion of coarse aggregate, the voids may be
interconnecting. When there are voids at the interface
between the lowest asphalt layer and the waterproofing
system, water can accumulate and there is a risk of premature
failure. Therefore, the void content at the interface should be
low and voids should not be interconnecting.
The permeability of the interface between the
waterproofing system and the asphalt is dependent on the
properties of both the asphalt and the tack/bond coat.
Whereas a tack/bond coat for a waterproofing system may
comprise more than one layer, the upper layer that is in
contact with the asphalt and which aggregates can
penetrate can be described as ‘thin’ (generally <0.2 mm) or
‘thick’ (generally >1.0 mm). When the tack/bond coat is
‘thin’, an asphalt layer with a small aggregate size and low
proportion of coarse aggregate will yield no large
interconnecting voids. However, any mixture that contains
large aggregates will result in some voids where water may
accumulate and a reduction in contact area between the
mixture and the waterproofing system. As discussed
below, a reduction in the contact area may adversely affect
the tensile bond of the asphalt to the waterproofing system.
A ‘thick’ tack/bond coat can (partially) fill the voids at
the base of an asphalt layer with coarse aggregates and,
23
thereby, limit the accumulation of water and
interconnecting voids and, potentially, improve the tensile
adhesion. Therefore, a waterproofing system incorporating
a thick tack/bond coat should be specified for mixtures
with coarse aggregates. The tack/bond coat must not be too
thick otherwise ‘bleeding’ of the excess binder through the
overlying asphalt layer may occur during its laying and
compaction. Also, the asphalt layer will be more
susceptible to fatigue if it ‘floats’ on a thick layer of ‘soft’
tack/bond coat. Ideally, the coarse aggregates should
almost fully penetrate the tack/bond coat as the tack/bond
coat material fills the voids at the base of the layer.
Therefore, the specification needs to ensure that the
lower asphalt layer overlaying the waterproofing system is
impermeable. The mixture design and type of tack/bond
coat should ensure that the air voids contents at the
interface between the waterproofing system and the base
of the layer is low without interconnecting voids (see
Section 3.3.3). To minimise the amount of water that can
enter the lower asphalt layers, the full depth of permeable
surface courses should be drained at the edges. If this is
not possible, an impermeable surface course should be laid
that directs water to a suitable surface drainage system.
These requirements are covered in Section 4.4.5. However,
frequent changes in surface texture and road noise
associated with a change in surface course materials from
bridge to pavement should be avoided.
The total thickness of surfacings on bridges may range
from 40 mm to over 120 mm. Such surfacings may require
one, two or three asphalt layers, each with a different
material. On most bridges, there are small variations in the
level of the deck that can be accommodated without
varying the number of asphalt layers. However, it has been
necessary on a few bridges to vary the number of layers,
requiring some degree of compromise in the regions where
the number changes. Under these circumstances, the lower
layer directly overlaying the waterproofing system should
be of reasonably uniform thickness and of the same
impermeable material. Changes in thickness should be
accommodated in the upper layers, with tapered layers
trimmed so material too thin to have been compacted
sufficiently is removed.
5 Conclusions
From the tests on a series of twelve asphalt mixtures,
mastic asphalt was found to have the most suitable air
voids content, permeability and stiffness modulus
properties and was fifth at wheel-tracking, making it the
best material overall for these tests. However, mastic
asphalt is a relatively expensive mixture, a factor that
cannot be excluded. The dense 0/10 SMA was the next
best despite having the 8th highest air voids content whilst
the open 0/10 SMA was the worst, showing that the
precise mixture design can be critical. The remaining
mixtures showed relatively similar overall ratings, but with
the sand carpet only being ranked 8th out of 12 overall.
Nevertheless, when considering the appropriate materials,
the choice is often a trade off between properties and they
24
will not usually have equal ranking. Material optimisation
is usually avoiding any excessively adverse property rather
than getting the best performance in all.
The initial results from the torque bond test varied by an
order of magnitude, with the two waterproofing systems
ranking the surfacing materials differently. In all cases, the
failures were at the interface between the waterproofing
membrane and the tack/bond coat, so the failure stresses
were more dependent on the properties of the
waterproofing systems than the asphalt mixtures. For
Membrane B systems, the highest failure stresses were
measured with tack coat R and sand carpet. For Membrane
A systems, the failure stresses were higher for tack coat P
than for tack coat Q. The high values for mastic asphalt
were probably due to the high temperature at which the
material was laid and compacted and at which the tack/
bond coat was activated.
Based on these findings and other considerations,
various additions and changes to the Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges, Specification for Highway Works and
Notes for Guidance on the Specification for Highway
Works have been proposed. The main changes include:
! sub-surface drainage is emphasised;
! bond requirements are strengthened;
! deformation requirements are specified for all mixtures
within 100 mm of the surface; and
! maximum air voids content limits on all asphalt mixtures.
Aspects that were not fully covered are permeability
testing of the asphalt and at the interfaces. Potential tests
have been identified that could be developed for
standardisation if these aspects are considered critical. The
asphalt permeability can be covered by the surrogate of air
voids content, but this is more difficult at interfaces where
more than one material is involved.
For flexibility, the test selected from those put forward
is the semi-circular bending test. This test was found to be
practical, equivalent to a controlled stress fatigue test and
ranks materials similarly to binder content, a known
component of flexibility if other things are constant.
It is suggested that initially the values of 3.0 N/mm² and
19 N/mm3/2 should be set as the minimum values required
for tensile strength and fracture toughness, respectively.
These limits are considered practical because the majority
of the results obtained exceeded them.
6 Acknowledgements
The work described in this report was carried out in the
Infrastructure and Environment Division of TRL Limited.
The authors are grateful to Kevin Green, Mario Patchett
and Jon Harper, who carried out all the laboratory testing
that underpin this work, and to Val Atkinson, who carried
out the quality review and auditing of this report.
Particular thanks are given to the two manufacturers who
applied their waterproofing systems to concrete samples
and to the four positive responders to the questionnaire.
7 References
British Board of Agrément (2000). Guidelines document
for the assessment and certification of thin surfacing
systems for highways. BBA-HAPAS SG3/98/169, Working
Draft 3. Watfird: British Board of Agrément.
British Standards Institution (1988). Specification for
mastic asphalt (limestone fine aggregate) for roads,
footways and paving in building. BS 1447: 1988. London:
British Standards Institution.
British Standards Institution (1993). Methods for
determination of the indirect tensile stiffness modulus of
bituminous mixtures. British Standard Draft for
Development DD 213: 1993. London: British Standards
Institution.
British Standards Institution (1996). Testing concrete –
Recommendations for the determination of the initial
surface absorption of concrete. BS 1881-208: 1996.
London: British Standards Institution.
British Standards Institution (2001). Coated macadam
(asphalt concrete) for roads and other paved areas –
Part 1: Specification for constituent materials and asphalt
mixtures. BS 4987-1: 2001. London: British Standards
Institution.
British Standards Institution (2002). Hot rolled asphalt
for roads and other paved areas – Part 1: Specification for
constituent materials and asphalt mixtures. BS 594-1:
2002. London: British Standards Institution.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (2000a). Bituminous
mixtures – Material specification. Part 5, Stone mastic
asphalt. Draft BS EN 13108-5, DPC No. 00/100954DC.
London: British Standards Institution.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (2000b). Bituminous
mixtures – Test methods for hot mix asphalt – Part 27:
Sampling. BS EN 12697-27: 2000. London: British
Standards Institution.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (2002a). Bituminous
mixtures – Test methods for hot mix asphalt – Part 7:
Determination of bulk density of bituminous specimens by
gamma rays. BS EN 12697-7: 2002. London: British
Standards Institution.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (2002b). Bituminous
mixtures – Test methods for hot mix asphalt – Part 5:
Determination of the maximum density. BS EN 12697-5:
2002. London: British Standards Institution.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (2003a). Bituminous
mixtures – Test methods for hot mix asphalt – Part 33:
Specimen prepared by roller compactor. BS EN 12697-33:
2003. London: British Standards Institution.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (2003b). Bituminous
mixtures – Test methods for hot mix asphalt – Part 8:
Determination of void characteristics of bituminous
specimens. BS EN 12697-8: 2003. London: British
Standards Institution.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (2003c). Bituminous
mixtures – Test methods for hot mix asphalt – Part 22:
Wheel tracking. BS EN 12697-22: 2003. London: British
Standards Institution.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (2004a). Bituminous
mixtures – Test methods for hot mix asphalt – Part 35:
Laboratory mixing. BS EN 12697-35: 2004. London:
British Standards Institution.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (2004b). Bituminous
mixtures – Test methods for hot mix asphalt – Part 24:
Resistance to fatigue. BS EN 12697-24: 2004 British
Standards Institution, London.
Comité Européen de Normalisation (2004c). Bituminous
mixtures – Test methods. Part 19, Permeability of porous
asphalt specimen. BS EN 12697-19: 2004. London: British
Standards Institution.
Daines M E (1994). Tests for voids and compaction in
rolled asphalt surfacings. Project Report PR78.
Wokingham: TRL.
Grube H and C D Lawrence (1984). Permeability of
concrete to oxygen. Proceedings of the RILEM Seminar on
‘Durability of concrete structures under normal outdoor
exposure’. Hanover, pp. 68-79.
Hassan K E and J G Cabrera (1997). Controlling the
quality of concrete by measuring its permeability.
Proceedings 13th International Conference on ‘Building
Materials’, Volume 3. Weimar-Germany, pp. 3/005-3/0017.
The Highways Agency, Scottish Development
Department, The National Assembly for Wales and The
Department for Regional Development Northern
Ireland. Manual of Contract Documents for Highway
Works. London: The Stationery Office:
Volume 1: Specification for Highway Works (MCHW 1).
Volume 2: Notes for Guidance on the Specification for
Highway Works (MCHW 2).
Highways Agency, Scottish Executive Development
Department, National Assembly for Wales and
Department for Regional Development, Northern
Ireland. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. London:
The Stationery Office:
BD 47/99: Waterproofing and surfacing of concrete
bridge decks (DMRB 2.3.4)
HD 36/99: Surfacing materials for new and maintenance
construction (DMRB 7.5.1)
25
Nicholls J C and Carswell I (2004). Durability of thin
asphalt surfacing systems: Part 2: Findings after 3 years.
TRL Report TRL606. Wokingham: TRL.

Nicholls J C and Daines M E (1993). Acceptable weather

conditions for laying bituminous materials. Project Report
PR13. Wokingham: TRL.

Peoples Republic of China (1993). Complete ultimate

strain at a low temperature –10 ºC: > 6 x 10-3; Asphalt
Bending Test. PRC Requirement T0715-93.

Zoorob S E, Cabrera J G and Suparma L B (1999). A

gas permeability method for controlling quality of dense
bituminous composites. Proceedings of the 3rd European
Symposium on Performance and durability of bituminous
materials and hydraulic stabilised composites. pp. 549-572.
Leeds.

26
Appendix A: HA draft notes for bridge-deck overlays
A.1 Sub-surface drainage
All blacktop leaks to some extent, through joints etc – and
the use of macadam bases with void contents that may be
(at worst) up to 7 or 8 % and more porous quiet surfacings
may well exacerbate this. Advice is given in DMRB Vol 2
Section 3 Part 4 BD 47/99 Chapter 4 ‘Drainage’. In
paragraph 4.2 on sub-surface drainage, to quote:
‘Bituminous surfacing is porous and can retain surface
water. Where the geometry of the deck or deck movement
joints prevents this water from draining naturally through
surface drainage, sub-surface drains shall be provided.
Advice on sub-surface water drainage is given in BA 47
(DMRB 2.3.5)’
The term surfacing in this instance is referring to the
bituminous overlay above the waterproofing not just the
surfacing course.
Further information is given in TRL Application Guide 33
‘Water Management for Durable Bridges’ in the drainage
section. Other useful references are BD 33/94 and BA 26/94
both concerning expansion joints and covering their drainage.
Bridge-deck overlays (the surface course and base layers)
should always be regarded as porous and drainage should be
provided below the overlay at low points over the bridge
deck waterproofing. Edge drainage should be provided at
joints – where compaction is likely to be least efficient – and
sub-surface drainage installed where interstitial ponding
may occur. There have been one or two instances of fretting
in thin surfacings at such locations, caused by poor
compaction. It is important to note that this may not be on
the bridge deck side of the joint, depending on the gradient.
A.2 Bond to the waterproof membrane
Another issue is the bond of the overlay to the
waterproofing membrane. This tends to be relatively low
with the modern waterproofing systems now in use and
may be disrupted by pressures generated under traffic if
the overlay becomes saturated. There have been instances
where this appears to have occurred; in particular where
the blacktop overlay, usually in the past surfaced with
HRA, is less than the standard 120 mm in thickness.
A.3 The thin surface course
It is government policy to use quiet surfacings on all trunk
roads in England, including motorways. The capacity of
these proprietary systems to waterproof the base layers
below often appears to depend more on the bond or tack
coat applied than the apparent ‘porosity’ of the surface
course. Anecdotal evidence suggests that thin surfacing
systems with an open texture laid on a heavy polymer
modified bond coat can be more effective at sealing and
waterproofing the base layers than thicker, less open
systems (SMAs) laid on a thin tack coat.
A.4 Sub-standard overlay thickness
A bridge-deck overlay is more vulnerable the thinner it is.
Modern waterproofing systems are very effective at
waterproofing. However they are resilient and although
they are designed to be applied in very thin layers,
concrete bridge decks to which they are applied are often
quite rough. This can result in thicker areas of membrane,
increasing the resilience. Premature failures have occurred
with both hot rolled asphalt and stone mastic asphalt due at
least in part to fatigue of a sub-standard thickness overlay.
Such failures are always associated with debonding of the
overlay and it has not been possible to determine the
primary cause of these failures – poor bond, water
saturation and traffic generated pressure, or fatigue. It is
likely that each plays some part.
A.5 Actions to be considered before applying for a
departure from standards to use a sub-standard
bituminous overlay less than 120 mm in thickness
i Re-assessment of the structure to maximise the
thickness of the bituminous overlay.
ii Specification of the highest modulus approved
proprietary waterproofing system obtainable. (note: the
need for this will diminish with increasing thickness of
overlay and where the thickness of the membrane can
be kept to a minimum.)
iii Omission of the sand asphalt layer above the
waterproofing system.
iv Specification of a waterproofing system which includes
the provision of a bond coat for the asphalt overlay.
Where the waterproofing system offers alternative
bond promoting treatments, the specification of the
treatment claimed to provide the maximum bond shall
be specified. Any proprietary bond coat between the
waterproofing system and the overlay shall be a ‘tack-
free’ material, such that it does not adhere to tyres of
vehicles delivering asphalt to the paver.
v Provision of sub-surface, edge and joint drainage as
appropriate, to reduce or eliminate water pressure
under traffic.
vi Specification of a paver-laid hot rolled asphalt layer or
layers, containing an elastomeric polymer and an
appropriate aggregate size, to form the overlay binder
course, all in accordance with SHW Clause 943, (but
omitting any coring over the bridge-deck!).
vii Specification of a thin surface course system which
incorporates a heavy elastomeric-polymer modified
bond coat.
The risk of premature failure of sub-standard thickness
bituminous overlays on bridge decks is considerable. For
further advice or clarification, please contact James
Gallagher or John Williams of SSR RDS Highways
Infrastructure Group.
James Gallagher: Tel: 0161 930 5527 (GTN 4315 5733)
John Williams: Tel: 01234 796116 (GTN 3013 6116)
or 01438 718487 (GTN 6492 0008)
27
Appendix B: Questionnaire

28
29
30
31
Appendix C: Permeability tests
C.1 TRL permeability test
The TRL permeability cell (Figure C.1) is similar to that
developed by the Cement and Concrete Association
(C&CA, since renamed the British Cement Association,
BCA) (Grube and Lawrence, 1984) and Leeds University
(Hassan and Cabrera, 1997) for concrete under differential
pressure techniques. Measurement of air permeability was
conducted by sealing the curved surface of 100 mm
diameter cores and applying a desired pressure on one side
of the specimen. The pressure gradient across the specimen
results in a flow, which is measured at the other side using
a flowmeter. The test duration is quite short, less than
30 min, depending on the air voids content and the
continuity of voids of the tested asphalt.
Figure C.1 The TRL permeability cell
Figure C.2 The initial surface absorption test for measuring permeability at the interface
32
The intrinsic oxygen permeability can be determined
from the measurements of flow rate according to the
modified D’Arcy’s equation, as given in Equation (C.1).
2ν η L P2
K=
(
A P12 − P22 ) ….. (C.1)
where: K = intrinsic air permeability (m²)
ν = flow rate (m³/sec)
η = viscosity of air (1.82 × 10-5 N.s/m² at 20 °C)
L = length of the specimen (m)
A = cross-sectional area of the specimen (m²)
P1 = inlet absolute applied (gauge) pressure (bar)
P2 = outlet pressure at which the flow rate is
measured (bar), usually 1 bar
C.2 Interface permeability test
The water permeability at the interface between the asphalt
surfacing and the waterproofing system was measured
using the apparatus described in BS 1881-208: 1996 for
measuring the initial surface absorption of concrete. The
principle of the test is to determine the time taken for a
quantity of water to flow through a calibrated glass tube
onto a given area of the test specimens.
The composite slabs (concrete, waterproofing and
asphalt) were sliced vertically down the centre to provide
cut faces specimens with the waterproofing system along
the centre. The test cap was sealed into the sliced
specimens using silicon rubber and a clamp mechanism, as
shown in Figure C.2. Water was then introduced through
the reservoir, funnel, to fill the test cap. The amount of
water leaking through the sliced specimens was recorded
periodically to determine the flow rate per unit area of the
test specimen.
Appendix D: Semi-circular bending test

D.1 Scope D.3.7

This annex describes the semi-circular bending (SCB) test Symbols
method to determine the tensile strength or fracture D Diameter in millimetres (mm).
toughness of an asphalt mixture. The results of the test can
W Height in millimetres (mm).
be used to calculate:
! The maximum load that the material containing a notch t Thickness in millimetres (mm).
(crack) can resist before failure. a Notch depth in millimetres (mm).
! When the presence of a notch is critical. F Force in newtons (N).
Fmax Maximum force in newtons (N).
D.2 Normative references ∆W Vertical displacement in millimetres (mm).
The following referenced documents are indispensable for Ki c Fracture toughness in newtons per metre to the
the application of this annex. For dated references, only
power of 1.5 (N/m1.5).
the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest
edition of the referenced document (including any ε Strain.
amendments) applies. σ Stress in newtons per metre squared (N/mm²).
BS EN 12697-27, Bituminous mixtures – Test methods – σhor Horizontal stress in newtons per metre squared
Part 27: Sampling. (N/mm²).
BS EN 12697-33, Bituminous mixtures – Test methods – σmax Maximum stress at failure in newtons per metre
Part 33: Specimen preparation by slab compactor. squared (N/mm²).
BS EN 12697-35, Bituminous mixtures – Test methods – f(a/W) Geometric factor.
Part 35: Laboratory mixing.

D.4 Principle
D.3 Terms and definitions
A half-cylinder test piece is loaded in three-point bending in
For the purposes of this annex, the following terms and
such a way that the middle of the base of the test piece is
definitions apply.
subjected to a tensile stress. During the test, the deformation
increases at a constant rate of 0.085 mm/s. The corresponding
D.3.1
load increases to a maximum value, Fmax, that is directly
SCB test piece
related to the fracture toughness of the test sample.
sample obtained by sawing an asphalt cylinder through a
diameter
D.5 Apparatus
D.3.2 D.5.1 Universal test machine
strain The machine should have a range of at least 50 kN and
relative deformation of the SCB test piece have a drive with which a constant deformation rate of
(5 ± 0.5) mm/min is maintained during the test.
D.3.3
NOTE: Contact with moving parts should be avoided
stress
when the machine is in operation. In case of emergency,
the force per unit area
the machine should be capable of being stopped by
pressing an emergency button.
D.3.4
horizontal stress
D.5.2 Load cell or other force-measuring gauge
the tensile stress prevailing at the base of the SCB test piece
Capable of measuring loads up to 50 kN with an accuracy
of ±0.2 kN.
D.3.5
tensile strength
the maximum stress occurring during the test on the base D.5.3 Roller bearings
of the SCB test piece With a support length (centre to centre) of 120 mm and a
diameter of 35 mm, as shown in Figure D.1.
D.3.6
fracture toughness D.5.4 Metal loading strip
resistance to failure by breaking With a width of (10 ± 0.2) mm, as shown in Figure D.1.

33
 Loading strip D.6.1.2
Prepare asphalt slabs by either:
! Manufacturing sufficient asphalt in the laboratory in
accordance with BS EN 12697-35 and compacting the
asphalt into slabs 50 mm thick by roller compactor in
accordance with BS EN 12697-33.
! Manufacturing sufficient asphalt from the asphalt plant
and compacting the asphalt into slabs 50 mm thick by
roller compactor in accordance with BS EN 12697-33.
Cut 150 mm diameter cores from the slabs in accordance
Roller
bearings with BS EN 12697-27.

120mm D.6.1.3
Cut 150 mm diameter cores from site-compacted asphalt in
Figure D.1 Schematic of semi-circular bend test accordance with BS EN 12697-27. Ensure that the top and
bottom surfaces of the SCB specimen are flat and parallel
by slicing if required.
D.5.5 Monitoring equipment
Capable of continuously logging the loading and the D.6.1.4
vertical deformation of the SCB test piece. Cut each core into two equal semi-circular SCB specimens
through the middle (Figure D.2).
D.5.6 Sliding callipers
With a reading accuracy of ±0.1 mm D.6.1.5
If required for determining the fracture toughness, cut a
notch nominally to a width of (5 ± 0.3) mm and a depth of
D.5.7 Climatic chamber
10 mm (Figure D.2).
With a temperature range of 0 °C to 50 °C and an accuracy
of ±2 °C. NOTE: Depending on the parameters to be
determined, either a notched cylinder (for fracture
toughness) or an un-notched cylinder (for pulling
D.6 Sample preparation
force) may be used.
D.6.1 Manufacture
D.6.1.1
D.6.2 Dimensional check
Prepare asphalt cylinders in accordance with either D.6.1.2
or D.6.1.3. D.6.2.1
Ensure that the SCB specimen is dry.
NOTE: If the cylinders are cored, it is important that
they are drilled as near perpendicular to the surface
D.6.2.2
of the asphalt as practicable.
Measure the diameter of the SCB specimen with the
callipers at two places along the longest side of the piece.
Record the average diameter, D, to an accuracy of 0.1 mm.
h2

h1
W

Notch
a

½D t

D
D = 150mm t = 50mm
W = 75mm a = 10mm

Figure D.2 SCB specimen dimensions (with the nominal dimensions for a standard test)

34
D.6.2.3 D.8 Calculations
Measure the height of the SCB specimen with the callipers D.8.1
on each side, h1 and h2. Discard any SCB specimen for
Determine the maximum load, Fmax, and the vertical
which (h1 – h2) > 0.5 mm. Record the average height, W,
deformation, ∆W, from the plot.
to an accuracy of 0.1 mm.
D.8.2
D.6.2.4 Calculate the strain, ε in accordance with Equation D.1.
Measure the thickness of the SCB specimen with the
callipers at the two ends of the base and once at the top. ∆W
ε= × 100 % …. (D.1)
Record the average thickness, t, to an accuracy of 0.1 mm. W
where: W = Height in millimetres (mm)
D.6.2.5
∆W = Vertical displacement in millimetres (mm)
If cut, measure the depth of the notch, a, to an accuracy of
0.1 mm.
D.8.3
Calculate the horizontal stress, σhor, in accordance with
D.6.3 Storage Equation D.2.
SCB specimens that are not to be tested directly shall be
stored on a flat surface in a cool area at (7 ± 3) °C. 4.263 × F
σ hor = N/mm 2 …. (D.2)
D×t
D.7 Procedure where: D = Diameter in millimetres (mm)
t = Thickness in millimetres (mm)
D.7.1 F = Force in newtons (N)
Place the SCB specimen in the climatic chamber at the test
temperature of 15 ºC for at least 4 h.
D.8.4
Calculate the maximum stress at failure, σmax, in accordance
D.7.2 with Equation D.3.
Position the load cell and loading strip on the upper beam
and the roller bearings on the lower beam of the universal 4.263 × Fmax
σ max = N/mm 2 …. (D.3)
test machine. D×t
where: D = Diameter in millimetres (mm)
D.7.3
t = Thickness in millimetres (mm)
Remove the SCB specimen from the climatic chamber and
install in the universal test machine between the loading Fmax = Maximum force in newtons (N)
strip and the roller bearings (Figure D.1) in as short a time
as practicable. The overhangs of the SCB specimen from D.8.5
the roller bearings shall be equal to ±2 mm. For un-notched SCB specimens, the tensile strength is
equal to the maximum stress.
D.7.4
D.8.6
As soon as the specimen is in place, raise the lower beam
For notched SCB specimens, calculate the fracture toughness,
of the universal test machine until the SCB specimen just
Kic, of the material in accordance with Equation D.4.
touches the top load strip. Set the vertical deformation at
zero and then apply a load to the specimen sufficient to ⎛a⎞
produce a deformation rate of 0.085 mm/s = 5.1 mm/min. Kic = σ max π × a × f ⎜ ⎟ N/mm3/2 …. (D.4)
Record the force and the vertical displacement at intervals ⎝W ⎠
of not more than 5 s until the specimen fails. where: W = Height in millimetres (mm)
NOTE: The time between the removal of the SCB a = Notch depth in millimetres (mm)
sample from the climatic chamber and the sample σmax = Stress at failure in newtons per
failing should be as short as possible (preferably less millimetre squared (N/mm²)
than 60 s). f(a/W) = Geometric factor in accordance with
Equation D.5

2
D.7.5 ⎛a⎞ ⎛a⎞ ⎛a⎞
f ⎜ ⎟ = −0.623 + 29.29 × ⎜ ⎟ − 171.2 × ⎜ ⎟
Plot both the force, F, and the vertical displacement ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠ ⎝W ⎠
against time from the start of the test. …. (D.5)
3 4 5
⎛a⎞ ⎛a⎞ ⎛a⎞
+457.1× ⎜ ⎟ − 561.2 × ⎜ ⎟ + 265.54 × ⎜ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
W ⎝ ⎠
W ⎝W ⎠

35
D.9 Test report
The test report shall include the following information:
a Identification number, type of mixture and
composition.
b Date and time of testing and name of operator.
c Reference to this document.
d Sample code.
e Date sample was taken.
f Test temperature.
g Average sample diameter, D, to an accuracy of 0.1 mm.
h Average sample height, W, to an accuracy of 0.1 mm.
i Average sample thickness, t, to an accuracy of 0.1 mm.
j Notch depth, a, to an accuracy of 0.1 mm.
k Maximum force, Fmax, to an accuracy of 1 N.
l Maximum stress at failure, σmax, to an accuracy of
0.1 N/mm².
m Fracture toughness, Kic, to an accuracy of 0.1 N/mm².
n Any observation which may have an influence on the
evaluation.

D.10 Precision data

No precision data is currently available for this method.

36
Appendix E: Asphalt bending test
E.1 Scope
E.1.1
This annex describes a method to determine the
mechanical properties of hot mixed asphalt when
bending failure occurs at a specified temperature and
loading rate. Unless stated otherwise, the recommended
test temperature is (15.0 ± 0.5) ºC and loading rate is
(50 ± 1) mm/min. For the evaluation of the low
temperature tensile properties of the asphalt, the
recommended test temperature is (–10.0 ± 0.5) ºC and
loading rate is (1.0 ± 0.1) mm/min.
E.1.2
This annex applies to prismatic beams cut from slabs
compacted by roller-compactor. The dimensions of the
specimen are (250 ± 2.0) mm in length, (30 ± 2.0) mm in
width and (35 ± 2.0) mm in height. The span shall be
(200 ± 2.0) mm.
E.2 Normative references
The following referenced documents are indispensable for
the application of this annex. For dated references, only
the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest
edition of the referenced document (including any
amendments) applies.
BS EN 12697-5, Bituminous mixtures – Test methods –
Part 5: Maximum density.
BS EN 12697-6, Bituminous mixtures – Test methods –
Part 6: Bulk density, measurement.
BS EN 12697-8, Bituminous mixtures – Test methods –
Part 8: Air voids content.
BS EN 12697-27, Bituminous mixtures – Test methods –
Part 27: Sampling.
BS EN 12697-33, Bituminous mixtures – Test methods –
Part 33: Specimen preparation by slab compactor.
BS EN 12697-35, Bituminous mixtures – Test methods –
Part 35: Laboratory mixing.
E.3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this annex, the following terms and
definitions apply.
E.3.1
bending stiffness modulus in the elastic range
ratio of the bending strength to the bending strain in the
elastic range in megapascals (MPa)
E.3.2
bending stiffness modulus at failure
ratio of the bending strength to the bending strain at failure
in megapascals (MPa)
E.4 Principle
The test is conducted on a standard beam by exerting
concentrated load on the midspan point of the specimen
until failure occurs. The bending strength of the test piece
in megapascals (MPa) and the bending strain of the asphalt
at failure can be worked out are calculated from the
maximum load at failure and the midspan deflection,
respectively. The ratio of the bending strength to the
bending strain is the bending stiffness modulus at failure in
megapascals (MPa).
E.5 Equipment
E.5.1 Universal test machine
The load shall be measured by a transducer and the
measuring range shall be at not less than 125 % and not
greater than five times the maximum load. The machine
shall have a beam pedestal and the centre-to-centre spacing
of the lower pedestal shall be 200 mm. The upper pressure
head shall be located in the middle and the upper pressure
head and pedestal shall be fixed steel cylindrical rods with
a radius of (10 ± 1) mm. The upper pressure head shall be
movable and capable of coming into close contact with the
test specimen. The strain rate shall be adjustable.
Note 1: A loading range of 1 kN or 5 kN is
desirable with divisions at 10 N.
Note 2: It is desirable for the testing machine to be
servo system.
E.5.2 Ambient temperature cabinet
Capable of controlling the temperature to an accuracy of
± 0.5 ºC (optional).
E.5.3 Midspan displacement measuring device
Note: An LVDT, electronic dial gauge or similar
displacement meter can be used
E.5.4 Data acquisition system or X-Y recording
instrument
Capable of automatically acquiring the electric signals
from the transducer and displacement meter and either
storing them in the data acquisition system or plotting the
curves of the load against the midspan torsion on the
recording instrument.
E.5.5 Water thermostat or refrigerator and dry oven
Having a temperature range meeting the test requirements
with an accuracy of ± 0.5 ºC. When the test temperature is
below 0 ºC, a 1:1 methyl alcohol water solution or
antifreeze solution may be adopted as the refrigerant media
for the water thermostat. The liquid in the water thermostat
shall be able to circulate.
37
E.5.6 Circular saw
Capable of cutting asphalt.
E.5.7 Callipers
E.5.8 Stopwatch
E.5.9 Thermometer
With the division value being 0.5 ºC.
E.5.10 Balance
With the sensitivity being no greater than 0.1 g.
E.5.11 Miscellaneous plate glass
E.6 Sample preparation
E.6.1
Prepare asphalt slabs by either:
! Manufacturing sufficient asphalt in the laboratory in
accordance with BS EN 12697-35 and compacting the
asphalt into slabs by roller compactor in accordance
with BS EN 12697-33.
! Manufacturing sufficient asphalt from the asphalt plant
and compacting the asphalt into slabs by roller
compactor in accordance with BS EN 12697-33.
! Cutting slabs from site-compacted asphalt in accordance
with BS EN 12697-27.
Cut the slabs into prismatic beams of length (250 ± 2) mm,
width (30 ± 2) mm and height (35 ± 2) mm.
Note: Up to 8 testing piece may be cut down from a
300 mm × 300 mm × 50 mm plate.
E.6.2
Measure the dimensions of the test beams at sections of the
midspan and the two bearing points by means of callipers.
A test beam shall be rejected when the two height or width
measurements differ by more than 2 mm. The width, b,
and height, h, of the midspan section shall be the mean of
the relevant measured values with an accuracy of 0.1 mm.
E.6.3
Measure the maximum density, bulk density and air voids
content of the test beams in accordance with
BS EN 12697-5 Procedure A, BS EN 12697-6
Procedure C and BS EN 12697-8, respectively.
E.6.4
Place the test beams either in the water-bath at the
specified temperature for at least 45 minutes or in the
constant temperature air bath for at least 3 hours until the
test beam reaches the required testing temperature
± 0.5 ºC. During the heating, the test beams shall be on the
supported plate glass and the spacing between the test
beams shall be not less than 10 mm.
38
E.7 Test procedure
E.7.1
When the loading rate is less than 50 mm/min, raise the
temperature in the ambient temperature cabinet of the
universal test machine, if available, to the value required
by the test.
E.7.2
Position the beam pedestal of the universal test machine
with (200 ± 0.5) mm between the bearing points. Make both
the balance between the upper and lower pressure heads and
the distance on each side equal; then fix the position.
E.7.3
Take the test beams out of the water-bath or air bath and
immediately put them symmetrically on the pedestal.
E.7.4
Place the displacement-measuring device at the centre of the
bottom edge of the beam span and fix the pedestal on the
body of the universal test machine. Put the measuring head
of the displacement meter at the centre of the top edge of the
midspan of the test beam or (in the case of two displacement
meters) put the measuring heads on both sides. Select the
measuring range such that the effective range is
approximately 1.2 times the expected maximum deflection.
E.7.5
Connect the transducer and displacement meter to the data
acquisition system or the X-Y recording instrument with
the displacement on the X-axis and the load on the Y-axis.
Set the measuring range and zero the readings.
Note 1: The midspan torsion can be measured by
means of LVDT, electric dial gauge or similar
displacement meter.
Note 2: When the displacement of the pressure head of
the precision electro-hydraulic servo testing machine
is taken as the torsion of the beam, the torsion can be
calculated from the loading rate arid the time recorded
by the X-Y recording instrument.
Note 3: In order to record the midspan torsion curve
correctly, the paper moving speed (or scanning speed)
of the Axis X of the recording instrument should be
chosen to be between 500 mm/min and 5000 mm/min,
depending on the temperature, when the loading rate of
50 mm/min is chosen.
E.7.6
Start the universal testing machine, exerting a concentrated
load on the centre of the span at the specified rate until the
testing piece fails. During the loading, the strain rate shall
remain constant. At the same time, the recording
instrument shall record the load-midspan torsion curve.
Note: Examples of the load-midspan torsion curve are
shown in Figure E.1.

Load F or stress S
Brittle example
Medium example
Ductile example
Torsion d or strain E
Figure E.1 Bending test load – midspan torsion curve
E.7.7
When the testing machine is not equipped with an ambient
temperature cabinet, the time period between taking the the
test beams out of the water-bath or air bath and the
completion of the test shall not be greater than 4 s.
E.8 Calculations
E.8.1
As shown in Figure E.1, extend the linear region of the
load-deflection curve to cross the abscissa, taking the
intersection as the origin of the curve. Measure the
maximum load, Fm, and the midspan deflection, d0, at the
peak point from the graph.
E.8.2
Calculate the bending strength, RB, the beam bottom
maximum bending strain, EB, and the bending stiffness
modulus, SB, at the time of the failure in accordance with
equations (E.1), (E.2) and (E.3), respectively.
3 L FB
RB =
2 b h2
6h d
EB = 2
L each beam.
R
SB = B
EB
where: RB = bending strength of the asphalt in
megapascals (MPa).
EB = maximum bending strain of the asphalt.
SB = bending stiffness modulus at failure of
the asphalt in megapascals (MPa).
b = width of the midspan section testing
piece in millimetres (mm).
h = height of the midspan section testing
piece in millimetres (mm).
L = span length of the testing piece in
millimetres (mm).
FB = the maximum load when the testing
piece fails in newtons (N).
d = the midspan torsion when the testing
piece fails in millimetres (mm).
Note: In the calculation, the self weight of the beam is
ignored and, therefore, this method does not apply
when the test temperature is greater than 30 ºC.
E.8.3
Calculate the stress, strain and stiffness modulus at any
time during the loading process using the method in E.8.2.
Note: It is only necessary to take readings of load and
deformation at the moment of failure and substitute
them for the maximum load and failure deformation in
the equations.
E.8.4
When the linear region of the load-deformation curve is in
the range of 0.1 to 0.4 times the maximum test load,
calculate the bending stiffness modulus in the elastic range
using E.8.1 to E.8.3.
E.8.5
If the difference between a single measurement and the mean
value is greater than ‘k’ times of the standard deviation, this
measured value should be rejected and the mean value of the
remaining measured values is to be taken as the test result.
The value k shall be 1.15, 1.46, 1.67 and 1.82 when the
number of tests, n, is 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively.
E.9 Test report
The test report shall include the following information:
a Identification number, type of mixture and composition.
b Date and time of testing and name of operator.
c Reference to this document.
…. (E.1)
d The method of manufacture of each test beam.
e The dimensions of each test beam.
f Maximum density, bulk density and air voids content of
…. (E.2)
g The test temperature and loading rate.
…. (E.3) h The bending strength, maximum bending strain and
bending stiffness modulus at failure of each test beam.
i The bending stiffness modulus in the elastic range, if
calculated, of each test beam.
j Any observation which may have an influence on the
evaluation.
E.10 Precision
No precision data is currently available for this method.
39
 Abstract
The current clause in the Specification for Highway Works requires waterproofing systems on concrete bridge
decks to be overlaid with a 20 mm thick sand asphalt protection layer and binder and surface courses so that the
total thickness of the three layers is 120 mm. However, the total thickness on some bridges has to be reduced and, in
such cases, a number of premature failures have occurred. The objective was to develop a specification for
surfacings on concrete bridges that will enhance the probability of achieving reasonable durability when they are
less than the standard thickness. The research has included a literature search, a questionnaire and a laboratory test
programme. The laboratory test programme identified some differences in their properties that have been used to
identify the basis for the specification. A secondary test programme was undertaken specifically to look at tests for
measuring the flexibility of asphalt materials. Based on the findings and other considerations, various additions and
changes to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Specification for Highway Works and Notes for Guidance on
the Specification for Highway Works have been proposed.

Related publications
TRL606 Durability of thin asphalt surfacing systems: Part 2: Findings after 3 years by J C Nicholls and
I Carswell. 2004 (price £40, code EX)
TRL522 A history of the recent thin surfacing revolution in the United Kingdom by J C Nicholls.
2001 (price £35, code E)
TRL494 The behaviour of asphalt in adverse hot weather conditions by J C Nicholls and I G Carswell.
2001 (price £35, code E)
TRL250 Design of long-life flexible pavements for heavy traffic by M E Nunn, A Brown, D Weston and
J C Nicholls. 1997 (price £65, code L)
PR78 Tests for voids and compactin in rolled asphalt surfacings by M E Daines. 1994 (price £35, code E)
PR13 Acceptable weather conditions for laying bituminous materials by J C Nicholls and M E Daines.
1993 (price £35, code E)
LR1023 Trials of buried loints and surfacings on a composite motorway viaduct by A R Price. 1982 (price £30)
Prices current at August 2006

For further details of these and all other TRL publications, telephone Publication Sales on 01344 770783, email:
publications@trl.co.uk, or visit TRL on the Internet at www.trl.co.uk.

40