1 - Superpave-4

Superpave Asphalt Mix Design
Dr. Hozayen Ahmed Hozayen

Professor of Highway Engineering
Hozayena@yahoo.com
0020106044758
NCAT 1
A
Introduction to Superpave
Mix Design Concepts
Materials Selection – Aggregate
Materials Selection - Binder
NCAT 2
1
Mix (aggregate) Properties
Aggregate Gradation
Mix (aggregate) Gradations

* Uniformly graded
- Few points of contact
- Poor interlock (shape dependent)
- High permeability
* Well graded
- Good interlock
- Low permeability
* Gap graded
- Only limited sizes
- Good interlock
- Low permeability
2
Aggregate Gradation
• Use 0.45 Power Gradation
Chart
• Blend Size Definitions
– maximum size
– nominal maximum size
• Gradation Limits
– control points
– restricted zone
0.45 Power Grading Chart

Percent Passing
100
80
60 Example:
40 4.75 mm sieve plots at (4.75)0.45 = 2.02

20
0
0 1 2 3 4
Sieve Size (mm) Raised to 0.45 Power
3
0.45 Power Grading Chart
Percent Passing
100
80
max
60
size
40
20
maximum density line
0
0 .075 .3 .6 1.18 2.36 4.75 9.5 12.5 19.0
19.0
Aggregate Size
100 10a
100 Definitions 99
90 89
• Nominal Maximum
72 72
65 Aggregate Size 65
48 – one size larger than the first 48
36 sieve to retain more than 10% 36
22 22
15
• Maximum Aggregate Size 15
9 – one size larger than nominal 9
4 maximum size 4
4
Percent Passing
100
max density line
restricted zone
control point nom max

max size
size
0
.075 .3 2.36 4.75 9.5 12.5 19.0
Superpave Aggregate
Gradation
Percent Passing
100
Design Aggregate Structure
0
.075 .3 2.36 12.5 19.0
5
Superpave Mix Size
Designations
Superpave Nom Max Size Max Size
Designation (mm) (mm)
37.5 mm 37.5 50
25 mm 25 37.5
19 mm 19 25
12.5 mm 12.5 19
9.5 mm 9.5 12.5
Gradations
* Considerations:
- Max. size < 1/2 AC lift thickness
- Larger max size
+ Increases strength
+ Improves skid resistance
+ Increases volume and surface area of agg
which decreases required AC content
+ Improves rut resistance
+ Increases problem with segregation of particles
- Smaller max size
+ Reduces segregation
+ Reduces road noise
+ Decreases tire wear
6
Target Gradation
• Acceptable gradation band specified
• Mix design selects a job mix formula (JMF)
which falls within band and meets design
criteria
• Superpave
– 5 nominal sizes (37.5, 25, 19, 12.5, and 9.5 mm)
– Four sieve sizes used to set upper and lower limits
– Staying out of the restricted zone in suggested to
minimize problems with natural sands
Blending Stockpiles
• Basic formula for combining

stockpiles to achieve a target
gradation is:
p = Aa + Bb + Cc + ….
where:
p = percent of material passing given sieve size
A, B, C, .. = percent passing given sieve for each agg.
a, b, c, … = decimal fraction of A, B, C, … to be used
7
Blending Stockpiles
• Plot individual gradations

• Plot specification limits
• Can be used for initial
assessment
– Can blend be made from available
materials?
– Identification of critical sieves
– Est. trial proportions
All possible combinations fall between A and B
Percent Passing, %
100
100
90
90 Gradation B
80
80 Control points for
70
70 12. 5 nominal max. size
60
60
50
50
40 Gradation A
40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.075 0.3 1 .18 4.75 9.5 12.5 19
Sieve Size, mm
8
No poss. combination of A and B will meet spec.
Percent Passing, %
100
Gradation B Gradation A
90
80
70
60
12. 5 nominal max. size
40
30
20
10
0
0.075 0.3 1 .18 4.75 9.5 12.5 19
Sieve Size, mm
All poss. combinations pass through cross-over point

Blends containing more A than B will be closer to A
Percent Passing, %
100 Gradation A
90
80
70
60
Gradation B
50
40
30
12. 5 nominal max. size
10
0
0.075 0.3 1 .18 4.75 9.5 12.5 19
Sieve Size, mm
9
Trial and Error Steps
• Select critical sieves in blend

• Determine initial proportions which
will meet critical sieves
• Check calc. blend against
specification
• Adjust if necessary and repeat above
steps
Blended Aggregate Specific

Gravities
• Once the percentages of the

stockpiles have been established,
the combined aggregate specific
gravities can also be calculated
10
Combined Specific Gravities
1
G=
P1 + P2 + ……. Pn
100 G1 100 G2 100 Gn
Blending of Aggregates
• Reasons for Blending
– Obtain desirable gradation
– Single natural or quarried material not
enough
– Economical to combine natural and
process materials
11
• Numerical Method
– Trial and Error
– Basic Formula
· P = Aa + Bb + Cc + ….
– Where:
• P = % of material passing a given sieve for
the blended aggregates A, B, C, …
• A, B, C, … = % material passing a given
sieve for each aggregate A, B, C, …..
• a, b, c, …. = Proportions (decimal fractions)
of aggregates A, B, C, … to be
used in Blend
12
Material Agg. #1 Agg. #2
% Used Blend Target
% % % %
U.S. Sieve
Passing Batch Passing Batch
3/8 “ 100 100
No. 4 90 100
No. 8 30 100
No. 16 7 88
No. 30 3 47
No. 50 1 32
No. 100 0 24
No. 200 0 10
Material Agg. #1 Agg. #2 First Try
(remember trial & error)
% Used 50 % 50 % Blend Target
% % % %
U.S. Sieve
3/8 “ 100 50 100 100 * 0.5 = 50 100
No. 4 90 45 100 90 * 0.5 = 45 80 - 100
No. 8 30 15 100 30 * 0.5 = 15 65 - 100
No. 16 7 3.5 88 7 * 0.5 = 3.5 40 - 80
No. 30 3 1.5 47 3 * 0.5 = 1.5 20 - 65
No. 50 1 0.5 32 1 * 0.5 = 0.5 7 - 40
No. 100 0 0 24 0 * 0.5 = 50 3 - 20
No. 200 0 0 10 0 * 0.5 = 0 2 - 10
13
% % % %
U.S. Sieve
3/8 “ 100 50 100 50 100 100
No. 4 90 45 100 50 95 80 - 100
No. 8 30 15 100 50 65 65 - 100
No. 16 7 3.5 88 44 47.5 40 - 80
No. 30 3 1.5 47 23.5 25 20 - 65
No. 50 1 0.5 32 16 16.5 7 - 40
No. 100 0 0 24 12 12 3 - 20
No. 200 0 0 10 5 5 2 - 10
% % % %
U.S. Sieve
3/8 “ 100 50 100Let’s Try 50 100 100
No. 4 90 45 100 and get 50 95 80 - 100
No. 8 30 15 100a little closer
50 65 65 - 100
No. 16 7 3.5 to
88the middle44 of 47.5 40 - 80
the target values.
No. 30 3 1.5 47 23.5 25 20 - 65
No. 50 1 0.5 32 16 16.5 7 - 40
No. 100 0 0 24 12 12 3 - 20
No. 200 0 0 10 5 5 2 - 10
14
% % % %
U.S. Sieve
3/8 “ 100 30 100 70 100 100
No. 4 90 27 100 70 97 80 - 100
No. 8 30 9 100 70 79 65 - 100
No. 16 7 2.1 88 61.6 63.7 40 - 80
No. 30 3 0.9 47 32.9 33.8 20 - 65
No. 50 1 0.3 32 22.4 22.7 7 - 40
No. 100 0 0 24 16.8 16.8 3 - 20
No. 200 0 0 10 7 7 2 - 10
Aggregates
Usually refers to a soil that has in

some way been processed or sorted.
15
Aggregate Processing
• Excavation
• Transportatio
n
• Crushing
• Sizing
• Washing
Excavation
* Natural sands and gravels
- Underwater sources
+ Rivers & lakes
+ Barge-mounted dredges, draglines,
scoop, conveyors, or pumps
+ Relatively clean
- Land sources
+ Gravel or sand pits
+ Bucket loader
16
Excavation
Excavation
* Crushed stone and rock
- Rock depths < 50 ft., overburden washed
out during processing
- Rock depths > 50 ft., remove overburden

+ Soil stripped with bulldozers
and scrapers
- Blasting required
17
Excavation
Crushing
18
Crushing
River Gravel Partially Crushed
River Gravel
Transportation
19
Transportation
Transportation
20
Sizing
Stockpiling
* Prevent segregation and contamination
* Good stockpiling = uniform gradations
- Short drop distances
- Minimize moving
- Don't use "single cone" method
- Separate stockpiles
21
Stockpiling
Sampling
• Why Sampling Is Important
– To evaluate the potential quality of a
proposed aggregate source.
• Does new source meet aggregate
specifications?
– To determine compliance with project
specification requirements.
• Do current aggregates meet specifications?
22
Sampling from Stockpile
Sampling from Fine

Aggregate Stockpile
Sampling from Conveyor
23
Source Aggregate
Properties
Toughness
Soundness
Deleterious
Materials
Gradation
Definitions
* Coarse Aggregate
- Retained on 4.75 mm (No. 4) ASTM D692
- Retained on 2.38 mm (No. 8) Asphalt Institute
- Retained on 2.00 mm (No. 10) HMA Book
* Fine Aggregate.
- Passing 4.75 mm (No. 4) ASTM D1073
- Passing 2.38 mm (No. 8) Asphalt Institute
* Mineral Filler
- At least 70% Pass. 0.075 mm ASTM D242
24
Toughness
* Los Angeles Abrasion (AASHTO T96, ASTM C131):
Resistance of coarse agg to abrasion and
mechanical degradation during handling,
construction and use
* Aggregate at standard gradation subjected to

damage by rolling with prescribed number of steel
balls in large drum for a given number of rotations
* Result expressed as % changes in original weight
LA Abrasion Test
- Approx. 10% loss for extremely hard igneous rocks

- Approx. 60% loss for soft limestones and sandstones
25
Soundness
* Estimates resistance to weathering .
* Simulates freeze/thaw action by successively wetting

and drying aggregate in sodium sulfate or magnesium
sulfate solution
+ One immersion and drying is considered one
cycle
* Result is total percent loss over various sieve intervals

for a prescribed number of cycles
+ Max. loss values typically range from
10 to 20%per 5 cycles
Soundness
26
Soundness
Before After
Gradations
• Aggregate Gradation
– The distribution of particle sizes
expressed as a percent of total weight.
– Determined by sieve analysis
27
Steps in Gradation Analysis
Mechanical sieve analysis
– Place dry aggregate in standard
stack of sieves
– Place sieve stack in mechanical
shaker
– Determine mass of aggregate
retained on each sieve
Mechanical Sieve
Individual Sieve Stack of Sieves
28
Mechanical Sieve
Stack in
Mechanical
Shaker
Gradations - Computation
Sieve Mass Cumulative
Retained Mass Retained % Retained % Passing
9.5 0.0
4.75 6.5
2.36 127.4
1.18 103.4
0.60 72.8
0.30 64.2
0.15 60.0
0.075 83.0
Pan 22.4
29
Gradations - Computing
Cum. Wt Retained
% Retained = * 100
Original Dry Wt.
% Passing = [ 1- Cum. Wt Retained

Original Dry Wt.
] * 100
Gradations - Computation
Sieve Mass Cumulative
Retained Mass Retained % Retained % Passing
9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

4.75 6.5 6.5 1.2 98.9
2.36 127.4 133.9 24.8 75.2
1.18 103.4 237.3 44.0 56.0
0.60 72.8 310.1 57.5 42.6
0.30 64.2 374.3 69.4 30.6
0.15 60.0 434.3 80.5 19.5
0.075 83.0 517.3 95.8 4.2
Pan 22.4 539.7 100.0 0.0
30
Asphalt Cements
Background
History of Specifications
Background
• Asphalt • Tar
– Soluble in – Resistant to
petroleum petroleum
products products
– Generally a by- – Generally by-
product of product of coke
petroleum (from coal)
distillation process production
– Can be naturally
occurring
31
Background
• First US hot mix
asphalt (HMA)
constructed in
1870’s
– Pennsylvania Ave.
– Used naturally
occurring asphalt
from surface of lake
on Island of Trinidad
• Two sources
– Island of Trinadad
Background
• Each lake asphalt source very
consistent
– Used solubility test to determine source
• Insolubles differed substantially between
sources
• Demand for paved roads exceeded

the supply of lake asphalts in late
1800’s
– Led to use of petroleum asphalts
32
Petroleum-Based Asphalts
• Asphalt is waste product from
refinery processing of crude oil
– Sometimes called the “bottom of the
barrel”
• Properties depend on:
– Refinery operations
Gasoline
– Composition crude source-dependent
Kerosene
Barrel of Crude Oil
Lt. Gas Oil
Diesel
Motor Oils
Asphalt
Asphalt Cement Components

• Asphaltenes
– Large, discrete solid inclusions (black)
– High viscosity component
• Resins
– Semi-solid or solid at room
temperature
• Fluid when heated
• Brittle when cold
• Oils
– Colorless liquid
– Soluble in most solvents
– Allows asphalt to flow
33
Refinery Operation
LIGHT DISTILLATE
PUMPING MEDIUM DISTILLATE

FIELD STORAGE STATION
HEAVY DISTILLATE
TOWER
DISTILLATION
REFINERY
RESIDUUM
PROCESS
UNIT
OR
STORAGE TUBE CONDENSERS
HEATER AND ASPHALT
GAS COOLERS CEMENTS
AIR
PETROLEUM BLOWN FOR PROCESSING INTO
ASPHALT EMULSIFIED AND
CUTBACK ASPHALTS
SAND AND WATER AIR
STILL
Types
• Asphalt cements
– Generally refinery produced material
– Air blown asphalt cements
• Cutbacks
– Asphalt cements “cut” with petroleum
solvents
• Emulsions
– Mixture of asphalt cement, water, and
emulsifying agent
34
Air Blown Asphalt Cement
Cutbacks
• Rapid cure (RC) (Naphtha or
Gasoline)
– High volatility of solvent
– Tack coats, surface treatments
• Medium cure (MC) (Kerosene)
– Moderate volatility
– Stockpile patching mix
• Slow cure (SC) (Low viscosity
oil)
– Low volatility
– Prime coat, dust control
35
Emulsions
• Emulsifier gives surface charge to
asphalt droplets suspended in water
medium
– Anionic
• Negative charge
• Alkaline
• Good with limestones (positive charge)
– Cationic
• Positive charge
• Acid
• Good with silica gravels (negative charge)
Purchasing of Asphalt
Cements
• Need to be able to specify
desirable characteristics
• “Desirable characteristics” have
evolved over time and with
increasing technological
advances
• Purchasing requires
specifications
36
Early Specifications
• Lake Asphalts
– Appearance
– Solubility in carbon disulfide
• Petroleum asphalts (early
1900’s)
– Consistency
• Chewing
• Penetration machine
– Measure consistency
Penetration Testing
• Sewing machine needle
• Specified load, time, temperature
100 g Penetration in 0.1 mm
Initial After 5 seconds
37
Penetration Specification
• Five
Grades
• 40 - 50
• 60 - 70
• 85 - 100
• 120 - 150
• 200 - 300
Penetration Gradation
Specification
• Uses penetration results to
specify
• Adds
– Flash point test
– Ductility
– Solubility
– Thin film oven aging
• Penetration
• Ductility
38
Flash Point (Safety)
Thermometer
Cup filled with

asphalt
Wand attached
to gas line
Ductility
39
Solubility (Purity)
Thin Film Oven
Pan Thermometer
Rotating Shelf
Outside of Oven
40
Typical Penetration
Specifications
Penetration 40 - 50 200 - 300
Flash Point, C 450+ 350+
Ductility, cm 100+ 100+
Solubility, % 99.0+ 99.0+
Retained Pen., % 55+ 37+
Ductility, cm NA 100+
Penetration, 0.1 mm
Medium
Low
High
25C (77F)
Temperature
41
Advantages
• Grades asphalt near average in-

service temp.
• Fast
• Can be used in field labs
• Low capital costs
• Precision well established
• Temp. susceptibility can be
determined
Disadvantages
• Empirical test
• Shear rate
– High
– Variable
• Mixing and compaction temp.
information not available
• Similar penetrations at 25C (77F)
do not reflect wide differences in
asphalts
42
Viscosity Graded
Specifications
Definition
Viscosity: the ratio between the applied shear
stress and the rate of shear.
η=τ/γ
43
Types of Viscosity Tubes
Zietfuchs Cross-Arm
Asphalt Institute Tube
Tube
Testing
• Absolute viscosity
– U-shaped tube with
timing marks & filled
with asphalt
– Placed in 60C bath
– Vacuum used to pull
asphalt through tube
– Time to pass marks
– Visc. in Pa s (Poise)
44
Testing
• Kinematic viscosity
– Cross arm tube with
timing marks & filled with
asphalt
– Placed in 135C bath
– Once started gravity
moves asphalt through
tube
– Time to pass marks
– Visc. in mm2 / s
(centistoke)
Viscosity Grade
Specifications
• ASTM D3381
• Three specifications
– Table 1
• Original properties
– Table 2
• Original properties
– Table 3
• Rolling thin film oven aging
45
Table 1 & 2 Tests
• Viscosities at 60 and
135oC
• Penetrations at 25oC
• Flash point
• Solubility
• TFO aged residue
– Viscosity at 60oC
– Ductility at 25oC
Table 1 & 2 Grades

• Table 1
– AC 2.5, AC 5, AC 10, AC 20, AC 40
• Table 2
– AC 2.5, AC 5, AC 10, AC 20, AC 30, AC
40
46
Table 1 Example
AC 2.5 AC 40
Visc, 60C 250 + 50 4,000 + 800
Visc, 135C 80+ 300+
Penetration 200+ 20+
Visc, 60C <1,250 <20,000
Ductility 100+ 10+
Table 2 Example
AC 2.5 AC 40
Visc, 60C 250 + 50 4,000 + 800
Visc, 135C 125+ 400+
Penetration 220+ 40+
Visc, 60C <1,250 <20,000
Ductility 100+ 25+
47
Ave. Mixing
Hot
Service &
Summer
Temp. Compaction
Viscosity (Stiffness)
40 Pen
60 Pen
2400
Low
1600 Table 2
300
210
Table 1
25C (77F) 60C (140F) 135C (275F)
Temperature
Mixing/Compaction
Temps
Viscosity, Pa s
10
5
1
.5
.3 Compaction Range
.2 Mixing Range
.1
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Temperature, C
48
Advantages
(Original AC Visc. Grade)
• Fundamental property
• Wide range of temperatures
• Based on max. pavement surface
temp.
• Wide range of instruments
• Test method precision
established
• Temperature susceptibility is
controlled
Disadvantages
(Original AC Visc. Grade)
• More expensive
• Longer testing time
• More technician skill needed
• Not applicable for Non-Newtonian
materials
• Wide range of properties for same
grade
49
Table 3
• AR Grades
– AR 1000, AR 2000, AR
4000, AR 8000, AR 16000
• Tests on RTFO aged residue

– Viscosities at 60 and 135oC
– Penetrations at 25oC
– % of Original Penetration
– Ductility
– Properties of unaged asphalt
• Flash point and solubility
Rolling Thin Film Oven
50
Table 3 Specification
AR 1000 AR 16,000
Visc, 60C 1,000 + 250 16,000 + 4,000
Visc, 135C 140+ 550+
Pen. 65+ 20+
% Orig. Pen NS 52+
Advantages
(AR Visc. Grade)
• Represents asphalt properties

after mixing
• Fundamental properties
• Covers wide range of
temperatures
• Limits aging
51
Disadvantages
(AR Visc. Grade)
• Highly regional
• Requires different testing
equipment
• Longer testing time
• No consistency test on original AC
• Not applicable for Non-Newtonian
materials
• Wide range of properties for same
grade
Penetration Grades
AC 40 AR 16000
40
Viscosity, 60C (140F)
100 50 AC 20
AR 8000
60
50 AC 10
70 AR 4000
85
100 AC 5
AR 2000
120
150 AC 2.5
10 200 AR 1000
300
5
52
B
Asphalt Binder Superpave Requirements
1. Performance Grade Superpave Grading
Grading Criteria
High Temperature Requirements
Low Temperature Requirements
2. Performance based specifications

Consistency Properties
Shear Reheometer Specification
Bending Beam Reohometer
PG Specifications
• Fundamental properties related to

pavement performance
• Environmental factors
• In-service & construction
temperatures
• Short and long term aging
53
PG Specifications
• Based on rheological testing

– Rheology: study of flow and deformation
• Asphalt cement is a viscoelastic
material
• Behavior depends on:
– Temperature
– Time of loading
– Aging (properties change with time)
High Temperature Behavior

• High in-service temperature
– Desert climates
– Summer temperatures Viscous Liquid
• Sustained loads
– Slow moving trucks
– Intersections
54
Pavement Behavior
(Warm Temperatures)
• Permanent deformation (rutting)
• Mixture is plastic
• Depends on asphalt source,
additives, and aggregate properties
Permanent Deformation
Courtesy of FHWA
Function of warm weather and traffic
55
Low Temperature Behavior
• Low Temperature
– Cold climates
– Winter Elastic Solid
• Rapid Loads
– Fast moving trucks
Hooke’s Law
σ=τE
Pavement Behavior
(Low Temperatures)
• Thermal cracks
– Stress generated by contraction due to
drop in temperature
– Crack forms when thermal stresses
exceed ability of material to relieve
stress through deformation
• Material is brittle
• Depends on source of asphalt and
aggregate properties
56
Thermal Cracking
Courtesy of FHWA
Aging
• Asphalt reacts with oxygen
– “oxidative” or “age hardening”
• Short term
– Volatilization of specific components
– During construction process
• Long term
– Over life of pavement (in-service)
57
Superpave Asphalt Binder
Specification
The grading system is based on Climate
PG 64 - 22
Min pavement
Performance temperature
Grade
Average 7-day max
pavement temperature
Pavement Temperatures are

Calculated
• Calculated by Superpave software

• High temperature
– 20 mm below the surface of mixture
• Low temperature
– at surface of mixture
Pave temp = f (air temp, depth, latitude)
58
Tests Used in PG
Specifications
Construction
RV DSR BBR
Concentric Cylinder Rheometers
Concentric Cylinder
Mi
τ Rθ =
2 π Ri2 L
ΩR
γ=
Ro - Ri
59
Rotational Viscometer
(Brookfield)
Torque Motor
Inner Cylinder
Thermosel
Environmental
Chamber
Digital Temperature
Controller
Original Properties, Rutting, and Fatigue
DSR
RV BBR
60
Dynamic Shear Rheometer
(DSR)
Shear flow varies with
• Parallel Plate gap height and radius
Non-homogeneous flow
2M
τR =
π R3
RΘ
γR =
h
Oscillating Plate
B C
A Fixed Plate
Test operates at 10 rad/sec

or 1.59 Hz
A Time
A
360o = 2 π radians per circle
1 rad = 57.3o
C
1 cycle
61
Elastic Viscous
B
Strain
A
Time
A
Strain in-phase Strain out-of-phase

δ = 0o δ = 90o
DSR Equipment
Computer Control DSR
and Data Equipment
Acquisition
62
Motor
Parallel Plates
with Sample
Area for
Liquid Bath
25 mm Plate with Sample
63
Rutting
RV BBR
DSR
Permanent
Deformation
Addressed by:
G*/sin δ on unaged binder > 1.00 kPa
G*/sin δ on RTFO aged binder >
2.20 kPa
For the early part

of the service life
64
Short Term Binder Aging
• Rolling Thin Film Oven
– Simulates aging from hot mixing and construction
Inside of RTFO
Fan
Rotating
Bottle
Carriage
Air Line
65
Bottles Before and After
Testing
Opening in
Bottle
Testing
• Calculate mass loss after RTFO
Original mass - Aged mass
Mass loss, % = x 100
Original mass
• Determine G*/sin δ for RTFO aged

material at same test temp. used for
original asphalt cement
66
Permanent
Deformation
Question: Why a minimum G*/sin δ to
address rutting
Answer: We want a stiff, elastic binder
to contribute to mix rutting
resistance
How: By increasing G* or decreasing δ
Fatigue
RV BBR
DSR
67
Fatigue Cracking
Function of repeated traffic loads over time
(in wheel paths)
Testing
• Aged binder
– Since long term performance problem,
include:
• Short term aging
• Long term aging
• Determine DSR parameters using 8
mm plate and intermediate test
temperature
68
Pressure Aging Vessel
(Long Term Aging)
• Simulates aging of an asphalt
binder for 7 to 10 years
• 50 gram sample is aged for 20
hours
• Pressure of 2,070 kPa (300 psi)
• At 90, 100 or 110 C

Rack of individual pans
(50g of asphalt / pan)
Bottom of
pressure aging
vessel
Vessel Lid Components
69
Courtesy of FHWA
Fatigue Cracking
• G* (sin δ) on RTFO and PAV aged
binder
• The parameter addresses the later
part of the fatigue life
• Value must be < 5000 kPa
70
Fatigue Cracking
• Question: Why a maximum G* sin δ
to address fatigue?
Answer: We want a soft elastic binder (to

sustain many loads without cracking)
How: By decreasing G* or decreasing δ
Thermal
Cracking
RV BBR
DSR
71
Bending Beam Rheometer
Deflection Transducer
Computer
Air Bearing
Load Cell Fluid Bath

Sample
72
Equipment
Fluid Bath
Loading
Ram
Cooling
System

• S(t) = P L3
4 b h3 δ (t)
Where:
S(t) = creep stiffness (M Pa) at time, t
P = applied constant load, N
L = distance between beam supports (102 mm)
b = beam width, 12.5 mm
h = beam thickness, 6.25 mm
d(t) = deflection (mm) at time, t
73
• Evaluates low temperature stiffness
properties
– Creep stiffness
– Slope of response (called m-value)
Log Creep
Stiffness, S(t)
8 15 30 60 120 240
Log Loading Time, t (sec)
Is Stiffness Enough?
• No. Need to assess strain needed to

break specimen.
– Thermal cracking occurs when strain is
too great
• Direct tension test
– Currently (1998) in specification
• New equipment is now available
74
Direct Tension Test
Load
Stress = σ = P / A
ΔL σf
Δ Le
εf
Strain
Direct Tension Test
FHWA
Courtesy of FHWA
75
Direct Tension Test
Courtesy of FHWA
Summary
Fatigue Low Temp
Cracking Cracking
Construction Rutting
[DTT]
[RV] [DSR] [BBR]
RTFO
No aging Short Term Aging
PAV
Long Term Aging
76
C
Performance-Based Specifications
Rutting Requirements
Aging Specifications
Fatigue Tests (for binders)
Low Temperature Tests
Selecting a PG Grade
Superpave Binder
Purchase Specification
NCAT 154
77
Superpave Asphalt Binder
Specification
The grading system is based on Climate
PG 64 - 22
Min pavement
Performance temperature
Grade
Average 7-day max
pavement temperature
Performance Grades
CEC
Avg 7-day Max, oC PG 46 PG 52 PG 58 PG 64 PG 70 PG 76 PG 82
1-day Min, oC -34 -40 -46 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -46 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -10 -16 -22
-28 -34
ORIGINAL
> 230 oC (Flash Point) FP
< 3 Pa.s @ 135 oC (Rotational Viscosity) RV
(Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ
> 1.00 kPa
46 52 58 64 70 76 82
(ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN) RTFO Mass Loss < 1.00 %

> 2.20 kPa
46 52 58 64 70 76 82
(PRESSURE AGING VESSEL) PAV

20 Hours, 2.07 MPa 90 90 100 100 100 (110) 100 (110) 110 (110)
(Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G* sin δ

< 5000 kPa
10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 28 31
37 34
S < 300 MPa m > 0.300 ( Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR “S” Stiffness & “m”- value
-24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12 -
18 -24
Report Value (Bending Beam Rheometer) BBR Physical Hardening
> 1.00 % (Direct Tension) DT

-24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12
-18 -24
78
How the PG Spec Works
CEC
Spec Requirement
1-day Min, oC -34 -40 -46 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -46 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -10 -16 -22
Remains Constant-28 -34
ORIGINAL
> 1.00 kPa
46 52 5858 64
64 70 76 82

> 2.20 kPa
46 52 58 64 70 76 82

20 Hours, 2.07 MPa 90 90 100 100 100 (110) 100 (110) 110 (110)
Test Temperature (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G* sin δ

< 5000 kPa
Changes10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 28 31
37 34
-24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12 -
18 -24

-24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12
-18 -24
Permanent Deformation
CEC
1-day Min, oC -34 -40 -46 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -46 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -10 -16 -22
-28 -34
ORIGINAL
> 1.00 kPa
46 52 58 64 70 76 82
•Unaged (Dynamic Shear Rheometer) DSR G*/sin δ

> 2.20 kPa
•RTFO Aged 46 52 58 64 70 76 82

20 Hours, 2.07 MPa 90 90 100 100 100 (110) 100 (110) 110 (110)

< 5000 kPa
10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 28 31
37 34
-24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12
-18 -24

-24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12
-18 -24
79
Permanent
Deformation
• Addressed by high temp
stiffness
– G*/sin δ on unaged binder > 1.00 kPa
– G*/sin δ on RTFO aged binder > 2.20 kPa
Heavy Trucks
> Early part of
pavement
service life
Fatigue Cracking
CEC
1-day Min, oC -34 -40 -46 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -46 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -10 -16 -22
-28 -34
ORIGINAL
> 1.00 kPa
46 52 58 64 70 76 82

> 2.20 kPa
46 52 58 64 70 76 82

20 Hours, 2.07 MPa 90 90 100 100 100 (110) 100 (110) 110 (110)

< 5000 kPa
10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 28 31
37 34
PAV Aged
-24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12
-18 -24

-24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12
-18 -24
80
Fatigue Cracking
• Addressed by
intermediate temperature
stiffness
– G*sin δ on RTFO & PAV
aged binder < 5000 kPa
> Later part of
pavement service life
Low Temperature Cracking

CEC
1-day Min, oC -34 -40 -46 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -46 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -10 -16 -22
-28 -34
ORIGINAL
> 1.00 kPa
46 52 58 64 70 76 82

> 2.20 kPa
46 52 58 64 70 76 82

20 Hours, 2.07 MPa 90 90 100 100 100 (110) 100 (110) 110 (110)

< 5000 kPa
10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 28 31
37 34
PAV Aged -24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12
-18 -24

-24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12
-18 -24
81
Low Temperature Cracking
CEC
1-day Min, oC -34 -40 -46 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -46 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -10 -16 -22
-28 -34
ORIGINAL
> 230 oC
(Flash Point) FP
> 1.00 kPa
46 52 58 64 70 76 82

> 2.20 kPa
46 52 58 64 70 76 82

20 Hours, 2.07 MPa 90 90 100 100 100 (110) 100 (110) 110 (110)

< 5000 kPa
10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 28 31
37 34
PAV Aged -24 -30 -36

-18 -24
0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12

-24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12
-18 -24
Miscellaneous Spec Requirements

CEC
1-day Min, oC -34 -40 -46 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -46 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -10 -16 -22
-28 -34
ORIGINAL
Flash
Point
> 1.00 kPa
46 52 58 64 70 76 82
(ROLLING THIN FILM OVEN) RTFO MassMass Loss < 1.00 %

Loss
> 2.20 kPa
46 52 58 64 70 76 82

20 Hours, 2.07 MPa 90 90 100 100 100 (110) 100 (110) 110 (110)

< 5000 kPa
10 7 4 25 22 19 16 13 10 7 25 22 19 16 13 31 28 25 22 19 16 34 31 28 25 22 19 37 34 31 28 25 40 28 31
37 34
-24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12
-18 -24

-24 -30 -36 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 -36 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 -30 0 -6 -12 -18 -24 0 -6 -12
-18 -24
82
PG Binder Selection
> Many agencies have
PG 52-28 established zones
PG 58-22 PG 58-16
PG 64-10
Developed from Air

Temperatures > 20 years
• Superpave Weather Database SH

- 6 RP
A
– 6500 stations in U.S. and Canada 48A
• Annual air temperatures
– hottest seven-day temp (avg and std dev)
– coldest temp (avg and std dev)
• Calculated pavement temps used in PG
selection
83
Reliability
• Percent Probability of Not Exceeding
Design Temp > using Normal Distribution
frequency of Reliability is area under curve

observed temps to the left of Tdes
(Total area under
curve = 100 %)
Tavg Tdes
Observed Air Temperatures

Topeka, KS
50 % reliability average summer
very hot summer
98 % reliability
> this data - standard

36 40 deviation of 2°C
7-Day Maximum Air Temperatures
84
Observed Air
Temperatures
Topeka, KS 36
very cold winter 40
average winter
-31 -23
> standard
deviation of 4°C
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Convert to Pavement
Temperature
• Calculated by Superpave
software
• High Temperature
– 20 mm below surface of
mixture
• Low Temperature
– at surface of mixture
Pavt Temp = f ( Air Temp, Depth, Latitude )
85
Calculated Pavement
Temperatures
Topeka, KS
56
pvt > air
60
-31 -23
pvt = air
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PG Binder Grades
Topeka, KS
PG 64-34 (98% minimum reliability)
PG 58-28 (50 % minimum reliability)
PG grades- six degree

increments
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
86
Effect of Rounding to Standard
Grades
PG 58-28 (50 % minimum reliability)
PG 58 provides 85% reliability
PG -28 provides 90% reliability
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Effect of Rounding to
Standard Grades
-16 -22 -28 needed grade
for 50% reliability
selected grade
for 50% reliability Rounding depends
on actual temps!
-28 -23
Minimum Pavement Temperatures
87
Effect of Loading Rate
on Binder Selection
90 kph
• Dilemma
– specified DSR loading rate is 10 rad/sec
– what about longer loading times ?
• Use binder with more stiffness at higher
temps
– slow- - increase one high temp grade
– stationary - - increase two high temp grades
– no effect on low temp grade
Effect of Loading Rate

on Binder Selection
90 kph
• Example
– for toll road PG 64
- 22
– for toll booth PG 70
- 22 Slow
– for weigh stations PG 76
- 22
Stopping
88
Effect of Traffic
Amount
on Binder Selection
80 kN ESALs
• 10 - 30 x 106 ESAL
– Consider increasing - - one high temp
grade
• 30 x 106 + ESAL
– Recommend increasing - - one high
temp grade
> Equivalent Single Axle Loads
ESAL Comparison
80 kN 100 kN 44 kN
18,000 lb. 22,000 lb. 10,000 lb.
1 2.2 .09
ESAL ESAL ESAL
89
Little Truck
67 kN 27 kN
15,000 lb + 6,000 lb = 0.49 ESALs
0.48 ESAL 0.01 ESAL
BIG TRUCK
151 kN 151 kN 54 kN
34,000 lb + 34,000 lb + 12,000 lb = 2.39 ESALs
1.10 1.10 0.19
Summary of How to Use

PG Specification
• Determine
– 7-day max pavement temperatures
– 1-day minimum pavement
temperature
• Use specification tables to select
test temperatures
• Determine asphalt cement
properties and compare to
specification limits
90
D
Superpave Mix Design Methods
Superpave vs. Marshall Criteria
Asphalt Mix Volumetric Properties
Gyratory Compactor and Refusal Density
Superpave Mix Design
NCAT 181
Asphalt Concrete Mix

Design
History
91
Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete
(HMA)
Mix Designs
• Objective:
– Develop an economical blend of
aggregates and asphalt that meet
design requirements
• Historical mix design methods
– Marshall
– Hveem
• New
– Superpave gyratory
Requirements in Common
• Sufficient asphalt to ensure a durable
pavement
• Sufficient stability under traffic loads
• Sufficient air voids
– Upper limit to prevent excessive
environmental damage
– Lower limit to allow room for initial
densification due to traffic
• Sufficient workability
92
MARSHALL
MIX
DESIGN
Marshall Mix Design

• Developed by Bruce Marshall for the
Mississippi Highway Department in
the late 30’s
• WES began to study it in 1943 for
WWII
– Evaluated compaction effort
• No. of blows, foot design, etc.
• Decided on 10 lb.. Hammer, 50 blows/side
• 4% voids after traffic
• Initial criteria were established and
upgraded for increased tire
pressures and loads
93
Automatic Marshall Hammer
Marshall Mix Design

• Select and test aggregate
• Select and test asphalt cement
– Establish mixing and compaction
temperatures
• Develop trial blends
– Heat and mix asphalt cement and
aggregates
– Compact specimen (100 mm
diameter)
94
Mixing/Compaction
Temps
Viscosity, Pa s
10
5
1
.5
.3 Compaction Range
.2 Mixing Range
.1
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Temperature, C
Marshall Design Criteria

Light Traffic Medium Traffic Heavy Traffic
ESAL < 104 10 4 < ESAL< 10 ESAL > 106
Compaction 35 50 75
Stability N (lb.) 3336 (750) 5338 (1200) 8006 (1800)
Flow, 0.25 mm (0.1 in) 8 to 18 8 to 16 8 to 14
Air Voids, % 3 to 5 3 to 5 3 to 5
Voids in Mineral Agg.

(VMA) Varies with aggregate size
95
Minimum VMA
Requirements
Marshall Mix Design Tests

• Heights
– Used to correct stability measurements
• Bulk specific gravity of compacted sample
• Maximum specific gravity of loose mix
• Stability and flow
– 60oC water bath (30 to 40 minutes)
– 50 mm/min loading rate
– Max. load = uncorrected stability
– Corresponding vertical deformation = flow
96
Marshall Stability and Flow
Marshall Design Use of Data

Asphalt Institute Procedure
Air Voids,
% Stability Unit Wt.
4%
Asphalt Content, % Asphalt Content, % Asphalt Content, %
Target optimum asphalt content = average
97
Asphalt Institute Procedure
Flow VMA, %
Upper limit OK
OK
Minimum
Lower Limit
Asphalt Content, % Asphalt Content, %
Use target optimum asphalt content

to check if these criteria are met

NAPA Procedure
Air Voids,
%
4%
Asphalt Content, %
Target optimum asphalt content =

the asphalt content at 4% air voids
98
NAPA Procedure
Stability
OK
Asphalt Content, %
The target stability is checked

NAPA Procedure
Flow VMA, %
Upper limit OK
OK
Minimum
Lower Limit
Use target optimum asphalt content

to check if these criteria are met
99
Marshall Design Method
• Advantages
– Attention on voids, strength, durability
– Inexpensive equipment
– Easy to use in process
control/acceptance
• Disadvantages
– Impact method of compaction
– Does not consider shear strength
– Load perpendicular to compaction axis
HVEEM MIX
DESIGN
100
Hveem Mix Design
Method
• Francis Hveem developed for
California DOT in mid 1920’s
• Limited use
– Primarily in West coast states
• Addresses similar design
considerations as Marshall
• Considers asphalt absorption by
aggregate
Hveem Mix Design

Method
• Selection and testing of

aggregates
• Selection and testing of binders
• Centrifuge kerosene equivalent
(CKE)
– Surface capacity of aggregate
– Estimate optimum asphalt content
101
Hveem Mix Design Method
• Use kneading compactor to prepare
specimens
• Determine stability with Hveem
stabilometer
– Evaluates horizontal deformation under axial
load
– Specimen loaded along axis of compaction
• Visual observation, volumetrics, and
stability used to select optimum asphalt
content
Hveem Kneading
Compactor
102
Hveem Stabilometer
Stability
Air
Minimum Voids,
%
VMA
Minimum
Heavy traffic = 37 stability min. Asphalt Content, %

Medium = 35 min.
Light = 30 min.
103
Step 4
Max. AC with 4% Voids
Step 3
Min. Stability
Step 2
Flushing
Step 1
Design Series
Hveem Mix Design

• Advantages
– Attention to voids, strength, durability
– Kneading compaction similar to field
– Strength parameter direct indication of
internal friction component of shear
strength
• Disadvantages
– Equipment expensive and not easily
portable
– Not wide range in stability measurements
104
Asphalt Concrete Mix
Design
Superpave
Superpave Volumetric Mix

Design
• Goals
– Compaction method which simulates field
– Accommodates large size aggregates
– Measure of compactibility
– Able to use in field labs
– Address durability issues
• Film thickness
• Environmental
105
Specimen
Preparation
• Mechanical mixer
– 0.170 Pa-s binder viscosity
• Short term oven aging
– 4 hours at 135°C
– 2 hours at 135°C (optional)
Mixing/Compaction
Temps
Viscosity, Pa s
10
5
1
.5
.3 Compaction Range
.2 Mixing Range
.1
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Temperature, C
106
Specimen
Preparation
• Specimen Height
– Mix Design - 115 mm (4700 g)
– Moisture Sens. - 95 mm (3500 g)
• Loose Specimen for Max. Theor.

(Rice) 150 mm
– varies with nominal max size
• 19 mm (2000 g)
• 12.5 mm (1500 g)
Mixing
Place pre-heated aggregate in
bowl and add hot asphalt
107
Mixing
Place bowl on mixer and mix until
aggregate is well-coated
Short Term Aging

Empty mix into pan and place in oven to
simulate short term aging
2 hours for low absorption aggregates

4 hours for high absorption aggregates
108
Short Term Aging
Important
• Allows time for aggregate to absorb
asphalt
• Helps minimize variability in volumetric
calculations
– Most terms dependent upon volumes which
change with changes in the amount
(volume) of absorbed asphalt
Compaction
Place funnel on top of mold and place mix in mold.
Take care not to allow the mix to segregate.
109
Compaction
Place another paper on top of mix
and place mold in compactor.
Compaction
Example of typical full-size compactors.
110
Compaction
Key Components of Gyratory Compactor
height control and data

measurement acquisition panel
reaction
frame loading
ram
tilt bar mold
rotating
base
Compaction
• Gyratory compactor
– Axial and shearing action
– 150 mm diameter molds
• Aggregate size up to 37.5 mm
• Height measurement during compaction
– Allows densification during compaction to be
evaluated
Ram pressure
600 kPa
1.25o
111
Compaction
After aging, take mix and preheated mold
from oven. Place paper in bottom of mold.
Compaction
Once compaction is finished, extrude
sample from mold.
112
Compaction
Remove the paper and label samples.
SGC Results
% Gmm
10 100 1000
Log Gyrations
113
Three Points on SGC Curve
% Gmm
Nmax
Ndes
Nini
10 100 1000
Log Gyrations
Design Compaction
% Gmm Nmax
• Ndes based on Ndes
– average design high
air temp Nini
– traffic level
• Log Nmax = 1.10 Log
Ndes 10 100 1000
• Log Nini = 0.45 Log Log Gyrations
Ndes
114
% Gmm Data Presentation
100
98
Nmax = 174
96
Ndes = 109
94
Nini = 8
92
90 Specimen 1
Specimen 2
88 Average
86
84
1 10 100 1000
Number of Gyrations

Analysis
115
Superpave Testing
• Specimen heights
• Mixture volumetrics
– Air voids
– Voids in mineral aggregate (VMA)
– Voids filled with asphalt (VFA)
– Mixture density characteristics
• Dust proportion
• Moisture sensitivity
• Gmb (estimated) = Wm
gw Vmx
Where:
Wm = mass of specimen, g
Vmx = volume of compaction mold (cm3)
gw = density of water, g/cm3
Assumption: specimen is smooth

- sided cylinder
116
• However, surface irregularities cause the
volume of the specimen to be slightly less
than volume of cylinder
• Actual bulk specific gravity measurement
of compacted sample used to determine
correction factor, C:
Gmb (measured)
C=
Gmb (estimated)
% Gmm = Gmb (estimated) C / Gmm (measured)
• Determine mix properties at NDesign and

compare to criteria
– Air voids 4% (or 96% Gmm)

– VMA See table
– VFA See table
– %Gmm at Nini < 89%
– %Gmmat Nmax < 98%
– Dust proportion 0.6 to 1.2
117
SGC Results
% Gmm
Increasing asphalt
96% cement content
(4% Voids)
Nini Ndes Nmax

10 100 1000
Log Gyrations
Each line = avg. of two samples
• VMA requirements:
– Nominal max agg size Min. VMA
» 9.5 mm 15
» 12.5 mm 14
» 19 mm 13
» 35 mm 12
» 37.5 mm 11
118
• VFA requirements:
– Traffic (millions of ESALs) Range of VFA
< 0.3 70 to 80
1 to 3 65 to 78
> 3.0 65 to 75
% weight of- 0.075 material

0.6 < < 1.2
% weight of effective asphalt
Effective asphalt content is asphalt on surface of aggregate

(asphalt not absorbed by aggregate)
119
• Moisture Sensitivity
– Prepare set of 6 specimens
• 6 to 8% voids
– Represents anticipated in-service voids
– Determine tensile strength of 3 of specimens
– Condition remaining 3 in water bath (60oC, 24 hr.)
• Option for freeze cycle
– Bring to test temperature (25oC) and determine
wet (conditioned) tensile strength
Moisture Sensitivity
AASHTO T 283
• Measured on proposed aggregate blend
and asphalt content
• Reduced compactive effort to increase
voids 3 Dry Specimens
3 Conditioned Specimens
Vacuum saturate specimens

Soak at 60oC for 24 hours
Soak at 25oC for 2 hours
120
AASHTO T 283
Determine the tensile strengths

of both sets of 3 specimens
Calculate the Tensile

Strength Ratio (TSR)
Avg. wet tensile strength

TSR =
Avg. dry tensile strength
Minimum of 80% needed
AASHTO T 283
Indirect tensile
strength apparatus
for 100 mm
specimens
121
Example of Superpave Mix
Design
Trial Gradations
19.0 mm Nominal Mixture
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
% PASSING
Trial Blend 3 Trial Blend 1

60.0
50.0
40.0
Trial Blend 2
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.075 2.36 19.0
Sieve Size (mm) raised to 0.45 power
122
Aggregate Consensus Properties
• Blended Aggregate properties are
determined
Property Criteria Blend 1 Blend 2
Blend 3
Coarse Ang. 95%/90% min. 96%/92% 95%/92%
97%/93%
Fine Ang. 45% min. 46% 46%
48%
FLat/Elong. 10% max. 0% 0% 0%
Sand Equiv. 45 min. 59 58 54
Combined Gsb n/a 2.699
2.697 2.701
Combined Gsa n/a 2.768
2.769 2.767
Compaction Characteristics
%Gmm
Blend %AC Nini Ndes Nmax

1 4.3% 86.9% 96.0% 97.4%
2 4.5% 85.9% 96.0% 97.7%
3 4.7% 87.1% 96.0% 97.3%
123
Volumetric
Properties
Blend %AC %Air %VMA %VFA DP

1 4.3% 4.0% 12.7% 68.5% 0.86
2 4.5% 4.0% 13.0% 69.2% 0.78
3 4.0% 4.0% 13.5% 70.1% 0.88
Selection of Design Asphalt

Binder Content
Va VMA
% binder Blend 3 % binder
VFA
DP
% binder
% binder
%Gmm at Nini %Gmm at Nmax
% binder % binder
124

1 - Superpave-4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 - Superpave-4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Superpave Asphalt Mix Design

Dr. Hozayen Ahmed Hozayen

Mix (aggregate) Gradations

0.45 Power Grading Chart

40 4.75 mm sieve plots at (4.75)0.45 = 2.02

control point nom max

Sieve Size (mm) Raised to 0.45 Power

Design Aggregate Structure

• Basic formula for combining

• Plot individual gradations

All possible combinations fall between A and B

All poss. combinations pass through cross-over point

• Select critical sieves in blend

Blended Aggregate Specific

• Once the percentages of the

Usually refers to a soil that has in

- Rock depths > 50 ft., remove overburden

Sampling from Fine

Sampling from Conveyor

* Aggregate at standard gradation subjected to

* Result expressed as % changes in original weight

- Approx. 10% loss for extremely hard igneous rocks

* Simulates freeze/thaw action by successively wetting

* Result is total percent loss over various sieve intervals

Individual Sieve Stack of Sieves

% Passing = [ 1- Cum. Wt Retained

9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

• Demand for paved roads exceeded

Asphalt Cement Components

PUMPING MEDIUM DISTILLATE

100 g Penetration in 0.1 mm

Initial After 5 seconds

Cup filled with

Thin Film Oven

• Grades asphalt near average in-

Table 1 & 2 Grades

• Tests on RTFO aged residue

Rolling Thin Film Oven

• Represents asphalt properties

2. Performance based specifications

• Fundamental properties related to

• Based on rheological testing

High Temperature Behavior

Function of warm weather and traffic

Pavement Temperatures are

• Calculated by Superpave software

Pave temp = f (air temp, depth, latitude)

Concentric Cylinder Rheometers

Original Properties, Rutting, and Fatigue

Test operates at 10 rad/sec

Strain in-phase Strain out-of-phase

25 mm Plate with Sample

For the early part

• Determine G*/sin δ for RTFO aged

Pressure Aging Vessel

Vessel Lid Components

Answer: We want a soft elastic binder (to

How: By decreasing G* or decreasing δ

Load Cell Fluid Bath

Bending Beam Rheometer

Bending Beam Rheometer

Log Loading Time, t (sec)