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

net/publication/330776727

Acceptance criteria on compaction degree of asphalt concrete pavement

Conference Paper · February 2019

CITATIONS READS
0 1,944

1 author:

Trinh Dinh Toan

Thuy Loi University
20 PUBLICATIONS   70 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Procedding/ International Symposium on Lowland Technology 26-28/9/2018 in Hanoi. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Trinh Dinh Toan on 01 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Acceptance criteria on compaction degree of asphalt concrete
pavement

Toan Trinh Dinh

Department for Transportation Engineering, #422 Block A1
ThuyLoi University, 175 TaySon, DongDa, Hanoi
Trinhdinhtoan@tlu.edu.vn

Abstract: Supervision and acceptance play a vital role in controlling the quality of asphalt works.
In quality control, density is among the primary parameters to be checked. The “TCVN 8819-2011:
Specification for Construction of Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Pavement and Acceptance” is usually
listed in projects as an applicable standard in acceptance works of asphalt concrete pavement. In this
Specification, the compaction coefficient (K) that measures the ratio between the average volumetric
density of the cored samples and that of laboratory compacted specimens, is stipulated “no less than
0.98” for surfacing layers. In NoiBai – LaoCai Expressway Project in particular AASHTO T230
(Method B) is also applied for acceptance works, and it is stated that the compaction coefficient “shall
not be less than 0.96”. The problem is that there is no statement on what should do if the compaction
coefficient is a little below the stated limits. An analysis of density tests from cored samples in the
Project shows that if K(0.98) is strictly applied as the “knock out” criterion, a large number of sections
would have to be removed, leading to an incredible catastrophe for the Project. On the contrary, if
K(0.96) is applied, a high portion of the completed work would be warned for high void and low
density. Thus, there should be a proper solution for this conflict.
This paper presents an analysis of compaction degree of cored samples from the Project, and
propose a statistical methodology for acceptance works that reduces the payment depending on the
level of departure from the stipulated compaction level. The method could be appropriate for such
pay items as pavement, of which finishing quality is variable and technical function is affected. The
method aims to execute the acceptance works in a proper and economical manner, and to minimize
disputes between the Contractor and Employer.
Keywords: Asphalt, acceptance work, compaction degree, statistical methodology.

1. Problem Statement
In the Technical Specification of NoiBai – LaoCai Expressway Construction Project, 22TCN 249-
98 (later was substituted by TCVN 8819-2011: Specification for construction technology and
acceptance of bituminous pavement – technical specifications) is listed as the applicable standard in
construction and acceptance works of asphalt concrete pavement. In this Standard, compaction degree
is an important parameter to be checked at the site as a criterion for the acceptance work, apart from
bituminous content, stability against water, etc. Regarding compaction degree, it is stipulated in the
Standards [1] that “the compaction coefficient (K) of hot asphalt layer shall not be less than 0.98”.
K = tn / o (1)
where tn denotes the average density of asphalt at site after the construction, and o denotes the
average density of respective asphalt at the mixing plant.
Another specification listed in the reference standard for the Project is AASHTO T230: Method
B. Standard Method of Test for Determining Degree of Pavement Compaction of Bituminous
Aggregate Mixtures. In Section 05200 of the Project’s Specification [1], it is stated that “The specific
gravity of the consolidated mixture, as determined by AASHTO T230 shall be not less than 96 percent
(0.96) of the specific gravity of laboratory daily compacted specimens composed of the same
materials in like proportion”.
 In the mentioned Specifications, the average density of asphalt (o) can be determined via the
Specification on Testing of Asphalt Concrete 22TCN 62-84 (TCVN 8819-2011). Based on the value
of o, the compaction degree can be determined accordingly. It should be noted that the limit of 0.98
is stipulated in TCVN 8819, while the value of 0.96 is stated in a paragraph of the Project’s
Specification. For clarification, “TCVN 8819” refers to a National Standard, and “Specification”
refers to the Technical Specification of NoiBai – LaoCai Expressway Construction Project.
TCVN 8819 is stipulated as one of the key standards in the Project’s Framework for Applicable
Standards. The use of K98 as the limit for the acceptance work is repeatedly requested by the Stated
Acceptance Committee and the Ministry of Transport (MOT). However, given the statement in
Specification, K96 has been used in the Project for acceptance work: if 𝐾 ≥ 0.96, the contractor
receives 100% of payment. By contrast, if 𝐾 ≤ 0.96 – reject without payment, and the contractor
have to remove and redo the work totally by its own cost. Questions related to this issue include: are
the Standard TCVN 8819 and the Project’s Specification compatible or conflict? In case of conflict,
what should be the value of compaction degree? How much is the quality control affected by the value
of this limit? and what should be the proper solution to be applied for the whole Project?
In the following sections, the stated questions may be clarified with insight from investigation into
data from some sections of the Project.

2. Review of Acceptance Decision in the Project’s Specification

The acceptance decision following statistical approach in the Project’s Specification [1] focuses
on primary statistical parameters, including:
𝑋 : Required value for X by the Specifications for the parameter being evaluated;
∑
𝑋 : Arithmetic mean of the test values or the evaluated LOT; 𝑋 = 𝑥 𝑛 where x denotes the
test value of individual members, and n denotes the total number of test values;
𝑄 : Upper quality limit of the tolerance range;
𝑄 : Lower quality limit of the tolerance range;
∑( )
𝜎 : Standard deviation, 𝜎 = .
According to the Project’s Specification, acceptance work relies on two statistical properties:
average value of a samples (𝑋 ) shall be within a specified tolerance, and quality shall be even with
appropriate dispersion (𝜎). Table 2 shows the range in the acceptance method according to the price
adjustment approach. It should be noted that the Table describes the payment adjustment principle to
items based on the results of tested quality, including Asphalt Binder Course and Surface Course, but
there exists no upper limit for these items.

2
 Table 1 Acceptance criteria in the Project’s Specification

The Project’s Acceptance criteria is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Categories (Cat.) of Acceptance works in the Project.

Under these provisions, payment to the contractors will be adjusted using the parameter [1] known
as Payment Factor (PF). For example, for thickness control the specified tolerance is 5mm, and PF is
adjusted in the range 𝑃𝐹 ∈ 90% ÷ 50% as the thickness deficiency (𝑇 ) is in the range
𝑇 ∈ 5𝑚𝑚 ÷ 10𝑚𝑚. The contractor is requested to remove and replace the pavement if 𝑇 >
10𝑚𝑚. Nevertheless, this price adjustment method is applied for acceptance work of asphalt layer
thickness and bitumen content, but not for compaction degree.
3
3. Review of Compaction Degrees in the Project
Package A1 has the total quantity of asphalt concrete of 219,500 tons. In Package A1, the
acceptance work was done by LOT, a segment associated with a specific time period with the same
production feature. Typically, LOT length varies in 200-700 m of one direction (one or two lanes),
and the LOT size varies in the range 3-10 samples. An investigation of the data from asphalt concrete
(AC) work of Package A1 for 140 samples from 30 LOTS has been carried out to obtain knowledge
for the stated questions.
The data (see Fig. 2) show that the majority of compaction degrees fall in between 96-97%, and
the minority fall in the range >98%. The distribution is characterized by the mean of 0.9685 (96.85%)
and the mean standard deviation of 0.00614 (0.614%). Strictly, if K98 is set as the “knock out”
criterion, the rate of success is as low as 7%, namely 93% of the samples have compaction degree
lower than values K98 specified by the Standard.

K (%)
99.00

98.50

98.00

97.50

97.00

96.50

96.00

95.50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

No. of samples

Fig. 2 Compaction degree of samples in Package A1

Correlation between compaction degree and residual void.
Further study is made on the relation between compaction degree and the void of asphalt concrete.
Using the available tested data on Bulk density and maximum Specific gravity, residual field voids
of samples can be derived, as shown Fig. 3. The Figure shows that the majority of samples have voids
in between 6-7%, while a minor portion of samples have voids less than 5%.

4
 Void (%)
8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Samples

Fig. 3 Residual field voids in randomly selected samples (Package A1)

A pair data on void in association with the compaction degree in each sample are shown in Table
1. The Table shows that there is a close link between compaction degree and residual void in asphalt
concrete after compaction. The correlation analysis shows that the correlation coefficient between the
two scalars in -0.994, namely the higher the compaction degree, the lower the air void, and the
relationships are almost perfectly inverse. The void of samples associated with standard compaction
(K100) in this data array ranges in between 3.2-3.5%, while void of samples with K98 is 5%, and
void with K96 is about 7%. It should be noted that the desirable range of voids stipulated in TCVN
8819 -2011 is from 3-6%, so the compaction degree of K96 or less associates with voids out of the
desirable range.
Table 2 Compaction degree and associated void in selected samples
K Void (%) K Void (%) K Void (%)
97.2 5.96 97.3 5.85 98.2 5.10
98.3 4.90 96.2 7.07 96.8 6.46
96.2 6.93 98.6 4.75 96.5 6.75
96.7 6.45 96.5 6.78 98.2 5.10
96.7 6.63 96.9 6.40 96.2 7.04
96.3 7.01 97.2 6.11 96.5 6.75
98.7 4.70 96.6 6.47 96.3 6.94
96.8 6.53 96.1 6.95 98.4 4.91
96.1 7.21 96.3 6.76 96.6 6.65
97.1 6.24 97.6 5.50 98.1 5.07
97.8 5.36 97.6 5.50 96.2 6.85
The volume of air in asphalt concrete pavement is important because it has obvious effect on
pavement performance in the long run. It is estimated that every 1% increase in air voids, about 10%
of the pavement life may be lost. According to [1], there is considerable evidence that dense-graded
mixes should not exceed 8% nor fall below 3% air voids during their service life. This is because high
air void content (above 8%) or low air void content (below 3%) can cause subsequent pavement
distresses. In particular, higher air void causes a decrease in stiffness and strength, reduction in fatigue
life, and increase in raveling and rutting problems.

5
 The relationship between compaction degree and residual void is ascertained in Fig. 4. The Figure
shows that the two quantities are highly correlated.

8
7
Residual Void (%) 6
5
y = -0.9657x + 99.901
4
3
2
1
0
95.5 96 96.5 97 97.5 98 98.5 99
Compaction Degree (%)

Fig. 4 Correlation between compaction degree and residual void.

Fig. 5 shows another distribution of compaction degrees from 176 samples of 35 LOTs in Package
A7 of the Project.

k (%)
100.00
99.50
99.00
98.50
98.00
97.50
97.00
96.50
96.00
95.50
0 50 100 150 200
No of samples

Fig. 5 Compaction degree of samples in Package A7.

The summary of characteristic of the sample distribution is as follow:
 Max: 99.72%
 Mean: 0.9767 (97.67%);
 Standard deviation: 0.0085 (0.85%).
 Rate of compaction degree greater than K98: 34.65%.
It could be said that the quality of asphalt works in this sample of Package A7 is significantly
higher than the previous sample in Package A1, for a significant proportion (34.65%) of compaction
degree greater than K98. Nevertheless, strictly, if K98 is set as the “knock out” criterion, nearly 65%
of the samples do not comply with the Project Specification.

6
4. Conclusion and Recommendations
Regarding the requirements on the compaction degree stated in the first section, it could be said
that the National Standard TCVN 8819 and the Project’s Specification are not compatible documents.
According to the Decision Number 25/2005 QĐ/BGTVT from the MOT, a Project Technical
Specification must be prepared in compliance to the list of applicable standards approved for the
Projects, therefore Project Specification must comply with TCVN 8819. The point is that why the
Standard specifies “the compaction coefficient of hot asphalt layer shall not be less than 0.98”, it
provides no advice on what should be done if compaction coefficient is a little lower than 0.98,
neither the Project Specification provide any concept of price adjustment for any technically accepted
range.
Analysis of data of samples from Packages A1 and A7 shows that if K98 was set as a “knockout”
criteria such as absolute minimum permissible value, namely any value less than 0.98 shall be
rejected, the majority (93% and 65% respectively) of the constructed pavement areas in these
packages would have to be removed, which would be incredibly catastrophic to the Project since this
would severely affect the economic implication of the contractors and the Project’s progress. On the
contrary, if K96 is set as the acceptance benchmark as stated in the Project’s Specification (Section
5200), almost 100% of the done works would be accepted, however a majority of the work would
enter the warning domain of quality, which is characterized by high void and poor quality, as
discussed previously.
As stated in Section 01850 – “Acceptance of Work” in the Specification, the acceptance of works
was divided to 3 categories, and the pavement surface belongs to Category 3: “Items of which
finishing quality may be variable even the Quality Controls were executed well”. In such situation,
statistical methodology is applied using a payment adjustment factor that reduces the payment
depending on the level of acceptable departure from the regulated level. Unfortunately, in acceptance
works of asphalt concrete pavement, payment adjustment is only applied to asphalt layer thickness
and bitumen content, but not for compaction degree. The point is that the quality control is strongly
related to compaction degree, so the payment adjustment method should be extended to compaction
degree.
To meet the National Standard TCVN 8819 and requirements from the MOT for the Project
quality, at the same time to mitigate difficulties for the contractors, the following compromise
solution was recommended:
 Set K98 as the desirable minimum of compaction degree as compliance to TCVN 8819.
 Set K96 as the absolute minimum for Acceptance/ Reject.
- Sections with compaction degree less than 0.96 is rejected. The contractor must remove the
work with its own cost.
- Sections with compaction degree between 0.96 and 0.98 are conditionally accepted with
adjusted payment by a payment factor.
Specifically, the profile of payment shall be as follow:
- Category 1: K>98: payment 100%.
- Category 2: K96-K98: payment factor (PF) applied.
- Category 3: K<96: reject.
The total estimated value of asphalt works of the Project is approximately 2,334 billion VND (price
escalation inclusive). Assuming that the quality of all packages is similar to Package A1, and the limit
of category 1 is extended to K97.5 to take account of the mathematically-rounded effect), then 85%
of the areas will be paid under the 2nd category. Since the standard deviation of samples are
statistically significantly small, the evenness is ensure, so the price factor can be adjusted in the range
K96-K97.5. Assuming that 2% of the total pavement capital is discounted under this category, it
would be 40 billion VND. The financial implication of this is quite substantial, but more importantly,
under this scheme, the quality control will be promoted, since the contractors would apply drastic
measure to enhance compaction degrees by means such as to increase compaction effort.
7
View publication stats

With application of the payment adjustment method the two important Project documents (TCVN
8819 and the Project’s Specification) are no longer mutually exclusive, but mutually cooperative. The
method releases the rigidity of decisions in acceptance works and avoid a Project catastrophe. It also
play a role as an economic incentive to motivate the contractors to enhance construction quality
control substantially.

References
[1]. 22TCN 249-98. Specification for construction technology and acceptance of bituminous
pavement – Technical specifications. Ministry of Transport, Hanoi (1998).
[2]. TCVN 8819-2011: Specification for Construction of Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Pavement and
Acceptance. 1st Edition. Hanoi (2011).
[3]. Technical Specification, Volume 3, Division 5, Section 5200. NoiBai – LaoCai Expressway
Project (2014).
[4]. Roberts, F.L., Kandhal, P.S., Brown, E.R., Lee, D.Y., and Kennedy, T.W. Hot Mix Asphalt
Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction. National Asphalt Paving Association Education
Foundation. Lanham, MD. (1996).