Professional Documents
Culture Documents
7th Edition
ISBN 978-1-934154-70-0
Asphalt Mix
Design Methods
The Asphalt Institute can accept no responsibility for the inappropriate use of this manual. Engineering
judgment and experience must be used to properly utilize the principles and guidelines contained in
this manual, taking into account available equipment, local materials and conditions.
All reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this manual; however, the Asphalt Institute
can accept no responsibility for the consequence of any inaccuracies which it may contain.
Printed in USA
Seventh Edition 2014
978-1-934154-70-0
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014943435
Copyright © 2014
All Rights Reserved
Asphalt Institute
Welcome to the 7th edition of MS-2 Asphalt Mix Design Methods. 2014 marks the
55th year of continuous publication of our mix design manual that has become the
industry standard for the design of asphalt mixtures.
This manual remains a practical guide based on proven technologies,
incorporating the most current information available at the time of this writing.
Yet this edition offers significantly expanded explanation and guidance relative to
our previous mix design manuals. AASHTO, ASTM and other published standards
are referenced wherever applicable in addition to important research findings. It is
intended for mix designers, pavement engineers, lab personnel and others involved
in asphalt mixtures. It is formatted for easy use as an engineering textbook or as a
laboratory workbook.
This edition represents a major shift from our previous mix design manuals by
covering all methods in one comprehensive manual. It replaces the 6th edition
of MS-2 (focused on the Marshall and Hveem methods) and our SP-2 manual
(dedicated to Superpave mix design procedures and analysis). While Superpave has
become the predominant method in the United States, Marshall and Hveem are still
utilized in parts of the U.S. and certainly around the world. These three methods
plus Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA), Open Graded Friction Course (OGFC), with or
without Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP), Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS),
Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) and others all share commonalty in their governing
principles, fundamental properties, testing procedures and analysis. For this reason
it made sense to merge MS-2 and SP-2 into one manual.
Topics are presented in the logical progression of mix design steps. Chapters 1
through 5 apply across all mix design methods; covering mix behavior, material
selection, batching, specimen preparation, binder absorption, specific gravity
testing, volumetric calculations, data interpretation and more. Chapter 6 covers the
unique aspects of the Superpave system, while chapter 7 does the same for Marshall
and chapter 8 does the same for Hveem. Chapters 9 through 11 are again generic
for all dense graded mixes and design methods; covering moisture sensitivity,
performance testing and the use of recycled materials. Chapter 12 discusses the
many specialty type mixes utilized for unique applications, and chapter 13 wraps up
the manual with guidance on verifying the JMF once field production starts.
MS-26, The Asphalt Binder Handbook, is the primary reference on asphalt binders,
while our MS-4, The Asphalt Handbook, is a comprehensive manual on the use of
asphalt. We believe this MS-2, 7th edition will serve the industry well for many
years as the most thorough and current go-to-reference on asphalt mix design.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
While it’s impossible to mention everyone that contributed to the rewrite, review
and redesign of this manual, we want to mention some of the key players.
Authoring individual chapters was a team effort between our lab and field
engineering staff: Bob Humer, Mark Blow, Dave Johnson, Danny Gierhart, Phil
Blankenship, Bob Horan, Wayne Jones, Greg Harder and Carlos Rosenberger. We
augmented this in-house writing team with the expertise of Tim Murphy from
Murphy Pavement Technology, Inc.
After many editing iterations led by Bob Humer and Mark Blow, the entire
manuscript underwent a comprehensive review that included our Technical Advisory
Committee and other outside experts. Extensive comments were submitted from
Jim Scherocman – consulting engineer, Kevin Carlson of Jebro Inc, MeadWestvaco
Corporation Asphalt Innovations, Road Science, Division of ArrMaz, PRI Asphalt
Technologies Inc, Phillips 66 Company, as well as from Tim Murphy, Danny Gierhart
and Bob Humer. All review comments were compiled by Kendal Butler, AI’s Media
and Publications Manager, and then thoroughly vetted for consideration by our
in-house review team.
No surprise that there was lively debate among our engineers over a number of
topics covered in this manual, but it’s fair to say that the content presented herein
represents the Asphalt Institute’s collective position on best practice at the time of
this writing.
Kendal Butler managed the overall design and proofing effort while graphics were
created and illustrations managed by Mike Sonnenberg.
Successful teams are composed of individuals whose different backgrounds and
expertise come together to create a synergy that is far more powerful than the
individual talents. We are grateful to this winning team that produced a champion
in our MS-2, 7th edition.
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 5
Introduction 1 Volumetric Properties of
1.0 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Compacted Paving Mixtures 45
v
CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 10
Marshall Method Mixture Performance
of Mix Design 77 Testing 119
vii
Assistant Professor Dr.Abdulhaq Hadi Abedali
Head of Highway and Transportation Dept.
Faculty of Engineering ;Mustansiriyh University
viii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1
1.0 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Asphalt and hot mix defined . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Asphalt and hot mix defined
1.2 Classifications of mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 In different parts of the world, the term “asphalt”
1.3 Objective of a mix design . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 has different meanings. For instance, in Europe,
1.4 Evolution of mix design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 asphalt is synonymous with what is called Hot Mix
Asphalt (HMA) or Asphalt Concrete (AC) in the U.S.
1.5 The structure of this manual . . . . . . . . . . . 4
And the term “bitumen” in Europe is synonymous
with asphalt, asphalt cement or asphalt binder in
the U.S.
1.0 In this manual we will use “asphalt binder,”
“asphalt cement” and “bitumen” interchangeably to
General identify the liquid binder. Likewise, we will often
Asphalt pavements are the predominant pavement use the terms “asphalt,” “asphalt mixture,” “hot mix
type in the world. Asphalt is used for all types asphalt” and “warm mix asphalt” to identify the
of applications—from residential streets to mixture of aggregate and binder.
expressways, from parking lots to harbor facilities,
from mastic roofing decks to water reservoir 1.2
barriers, and from bike paths to airport runways.
Depending on traffic, climate, available materials Classifications of mixes
and the location within the pavement structure, Asphalt mixtures may be produced from a wide
the type of mix selected and mix design criteria will range of aggregate combinations, each having its
be different. Moisture sensitivity tests and, more own particular characteristics suited to specific
recently, performance tests are being added to design and construction uses. Mixtures consist of
better determine the final design mixture. a combination of aggregate uniformly mixed and
Successful mix design requires understanding coated with asphalt binder. To dry the aggregates
the basic theory behind the steps and following and to obtain sufficient fluidity of asphalt binder
the intent of the written instructions. It also for proper mixing and workability, both the
includes having the proper training in laboratory aggregate and the asphalt binder must be heated
techniques and effectively interpreting the results before mixing—hence the term “hot mix.”
of laboratory tests. This manual was prepared
with these goals in mind. It contains the latest Dense-graded asphalt mixes
information for the design of asphalt paving A dense-graded asphalt mix has a well-distributed
mixtures to meet the demands of modern traffic aggregate gradation throughout the entire range of
conditions and to ensure optimal performance of sieves used. It is the most commonly specified type
asphalt pavements. of mix and can be used in the base, intermediate
layers and surface of a pavement structure.
Superpave, Marshall and Hveem are methods of
designing dense-graded mixes.
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
Open-graded asphalt mixes perform as required. Together with proper
An open-graded layer is an asphalt mixture construction practice, mix design is an important
designed to have a large volume of air voids step in achieving well-performing asphalt
(typically 18 to 22 percent) so that water will pavements. In many cases, the cause of poorly
readily drain through the pavement layer. It is performing pavements has been attributed to
used as an Open-Graded Friction Course (OGFC) a poor or inappropriate mix design, or is due
to provide a skid-resistant pavement surface and to the production of a mixture different from
as a porous base layer (also called Asphalt Treated what was designed in the laboratory. Correct
Permeable Base, or ATPB) to provide for positive mix design involves adhering to an established
drainage under either an asphalt or Portland set of laboratory techniques and design criteria.
cement concrete pavement surface. These techniques and criteria serve as the design
philosophy of the governing agency. They are based
Gap-graded or Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) on scientific research as well as many years of
Gap-graded or SMA is an asphalt mixture with experience in observing the performance of asphalt
a high-coarse aggregate content (typically 70 to pavements. It is critical that these laboratory
80 percent), a high asphalt content (typically methods be followed exactly as written.
more than 6 percent) and a high-filler content Asphalt pavements perform well when they are
(approximately 10 percent by weight). The result is designed, produced and constructed to provide
a durable mixture that has excellent stone-on-stone certain desired properties. Those properties will
contact and that is very resistant to rutting. vary based on project expectations and the position
Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) is not a mix type, but of that mix in the pavement structure. High-
refers to any mix produced at lower temperatures volume interstate highways with a high percentage
using a variety of technologies while maintaining of heavy trucks will require different properties
the workability required to be successfully placed. than a parking lot or driveway.
Many other specialty mixtures exist, and are The design of asphalt paving mixes, as with other
described in chapter 12. engineering materials designs, is largely a matter
It is essential that the mixing facility produce the of selecting and proportioning materials to obtain
mix as similar as possible to the mix design, which the desired properties in the finished construction
is the purpose of chapter 13. product. The overall objective for the design of
asphalt paving mixes is gradation of aggregates and
1.3 binder content that yields a mix having:
• sufficient asphalt to ensure a durable
Objective of a mix design pavement;
The objective of a mix design is to determine the • sufficient mix stability to satisfy the demands
combination of asphalt cement and aggregate that of traffic without distortion or displacement;
will give long-lasting performance as part of the • sufficient air voids in the total compacted
pavement structure. Mix design involves laboratory mix to allow for a slight amount of additional
procedures developed to establish the necessary compaction under traffic loading and a slight
proportions of materials for use in the asphalt amount of thermal binder expansion without
mixture. These procedures include determining flushing, bleeding and loss of stability;
an appropriate blend of aggregate sources to • a maximum void content to limit the
produce proper gradation of mineral aggregate and permeability of harmful air and moisture into
selecting the type and amount of asphalt cement the mix;
to be used as the binder for that gradation. Well- • sufficient workability to permit efficient
designed asphalt mixtures can be expected to serve placement of the mix without segregation and
successfully for many years under a variety of without sacrificing stability and performance;
loading and environmental conditions. and
The mix design is just the starting point • aggregate texture and hardness to provide
to assure that an asphalt pavement layer will sufficient skid resistance in unfavorable
weather conditions.
2 Chapter 1 Introduction
The final goal of mix design is to select a unique containing aggregates smaller than one-half inch
design binder content that will achieve a balance could be produced without violating the Warren
among all of the desired properties. Ultimate patents. This ruling was significant for the future
pavement performance is related to durability, developments in asphalt technology using smaller-
impermeability, strength, stability, stiffness, size mixes.
flexibility, fatigue resistance and workability. Prevost Hubbard and Frederick Field of the
Within this context, there is no single asphalt Asphalt Institute developed a mix design procedure
content that will maximize all of these properties. mainly for fine mixes. They determined a minimum
Instead, an asphalt content is selected on the basis Hubbard-Field stability value based on experience
of optimizing the properties necessary for the with pavements capable of resisting shoving. This
specific conditions. method was developed in the 1920s and remained
in wide use until the 1950s. Other mix design
1.4 methods used in the 1950s were the Smith Triaxial
method and the Texas Gyratory method.
Evolution of mix design In the 1930s, Francis Hveem, materials and
The first recorded use of asphalt in pavements was research engineer for the California Division of
in the city of Babylon, when between the years 625 Highways, developed a mix design procedure
B.C. and 604 B.C., “Procession Street” near King that introduced the use of a kneading compactor.
Nabopolassar’s palace was paved. Hveem felt the use of the kneading compactor
The first asphalt pavements in the United States was more representative of the field-produced
were built in Newark, New Jersey (1870), and in mixes that were being compacted with steel
Washington, D.C. (1876), on Pennsylvania Avenue. and pneumatic-tire rollers. Additionally, Hveem
In 1908 Clifford Richardson stated that recognized the need to have a mechanical test to
“gradations were arranged by chance, and mixes evaluate the performance of the mix. That need led
proportioned by rule of thumb and without to the development of the Hveem Stabilometer,
reason.” Richardson produced the first asphalt which is used to evaluate the ability of the mix
pavement engineering textbook, The Modern (mainly the aggregate structure) to resist the shear
Asphalt Pavement, in 1905 while working for the forces applied by the traffic.
Barber Asphalt Paving Company. He was considered The Marshall Mix Design procedure was
the most well-known asphalt technologist of his developed in the 1930s by Bruce Marshall of the
time. He recognized the importance of air voids Mississippi Highway Department. His belief was
(Va) and voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA). that laboratory compaction must produce a density
The Barber Company paved a product called that represents the in-place density after traffic.
sheet asphalt, a mixture of asphalt binder (from His recommendation was to select the asphalt
Trinidad) and clean angular sand and filler. content that produced the highest density, while
In contrast to Barber, Frederick Warren of the checking stability and flow to assure minimum
Warren Brothers Company produced mixes (more acceptable levels were met. World War II resulted
like HMA) with aggregates up to 3 inches in size. in the need for runway construction in remote
Warren called this mix “bitulithic” and received its areas. This required a mix design procedure that
patents in 1901 and 1903. Bitulithic was improved used simple portable laboratory equipment. The
and later marketed as Warrenite. It used large U.S. Army Corps of Engineers adapted the Marshall
stone aggregate, tightly graded to produce a mix method to design pavements that would support
with minimum voids and high stability. Because the increase in aircraft wheel loads and tire
of the large-size aggregates and dense gradations, pressures of the new aircraft.
bitulithic mixes required less asphalt and were In the early 1950s, the initiation of the National
thus more economical. It also allowed the use of Highway System saw state highway departments
softer binders. In 1912 the Warren brothers filed expanding the construction of high-volume
a patent infringement suit in federal court in roadways. It modified the Corps of Engineers
Topeka, Kansas. The court ruled that only mixes procedures to design mixtures for highway
Chapter 1 Introduction 3
pavements. Prior to the introduction of Superpave are sometimes included after/during moisture-
in the early 1990s, approximately 75 percent of sensitivity testing (see chapter 10).
state highway agencies were using the Marshall Mix Depending on the specific purpose of the
Design procedure. mix, other gradings have been used with great
From 1987 to 1993, the Federal Highway success, such as gap-graded and open-graded
Administration (FHWA) sponsored, and aggregate compositions. The design philosophy
the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and construction procedures of these mixes are
administered, the $150 million Strategic Highway different because of the additional void space
Research Program (SHRP). The purpose of SHRP incorporated between the larger particles. For such
was to develop performance-based technology specialty mixes, refer to chapter 12.
and specifications that would result in significant
improvements in the way highways were designed Aggregate Selecon Binder Selecon
and built to address the effect of increasing traffic Chapter 3 Chapter 3
on the nation’s highway infrastructure.
Approximately $50 million of the SHRP funding Materials Selecon &
was used to support an asphalt research program. Batching - Chapter 3
Mixture Behavior
shear plane
asphalt layer
subgrade
weak subgrade or underlying layer
deformation
FIGURE 2.3 Rutting from Weak Subgrade
Two primary causes of rutting are subgrade and loading conditions. Stiffer paving materials
failure and inadequate mix stability. may reduce this type of rutting, but it is better to
First, deformation can occur in the subgrade correct the subgrade or underlying layer instability.
or underlying layers such as base or sub-base In the case of an unstable mix, the deformation
rather than the asphalt layers (see Figure 2.3). It is is limited to the asphalt layer and will result in an
typically caused by poor in situ subgrade quality upheaval at the edge of the rut (see Figure 2.4).
or condition required for the pavement structure While this might suggest that rutting is an asphalt
binder problem, it is more correct to address type of cracking occurs when the pavement has
rutting by considering the combined mineral been stressed to the limit of its life by repeated
aggregate and binder properties and through load applications. Although fatigue cracking is
gradation and volumetric proportioning. primarily related to an insufficient pavement
Asphalt mixture shear strength is mainly increased thickness, air voids and asphalt binder properties
by selecting an aggregate that has a high degree of have a significant effect on fatigue resistance.
internal friction—one that is angular, has a rough As the percentage of air voids in the pavement
surface texture and is graded to develop particle- increases, either by design or by lack of compaction,
to-particle contact. When a load is applied to the pavement fatigue resistance is drastically reduced.
mixture, the aggregate particles lock tightly together Research and practice have shown that the use of a
and function more as a large, single, elastic mass. If polymer-modified asphalt binder can significantly
improving the aggregates does not give sufficient improve the fatigue resistance of an HMA mixture.
improvement in mixture shear strength, a stiffer The thickness and strength characteristics of
binder and/or a modified binder may be selected. the pavement and the support of the subgrade
also have a major impact upon pavement life and
2.2.2 Fatigue resistance preventing fatigue or load-associated cracking.
Fatigue resistance is the pavement’s resistance Thick, well-supported pavements deflect less
to repeated bending under wheel loads (traffic). under-traffic loading than thin or poorly supported
The result of a fatigue failure is fatigue cracking, pavements. Therefore, they have longer fatigue
often called alligator cracking (see Figure 2.5). This lives. For a perpetual pavement design, the
Chapter 2 Mixture Behavior 9
endurance limit (the strain level below which the • use HMA that is resilient enough to withstand
material will not fail in fatigue) may never be normal deflections; and
reached. Fatigue cracking typically initiates at the • use a modified binder.
bottom of an asphalt layer and migrates toward the Only selection of resilient materials can be
surface. This is the result of the high-tensile strain strictly addressed during materials selection and
at the bottom of the HMA layer. mix design. The HMA must have enough tensile
In recent years, fatigue cracking has been strength to withstand the applied tensile stress
observed to begin at the top of the pavement and at the base of the asphalt layer, and be resilient
to migrate down. This cracking is due to high- enough to withstand repeated load applications
tensile strains in the surface of the HMA. It is without cracking. Thus, HMA must be designed
generally thought that thin HMA pavements to behave like an elastic material to overcome
experience fatigue cracking that starts at fatigue cracking. This is accomplished by placing
the bottom of the HMA and that thick HMA an upper limit on the asphalt cement’s stiffness
pavements experience fatigue cracking that starts properties, since the tensile behavior of HMA is
at the HMA surface where it is more easily dealt strongly influenced by the asphalt cement. Simply
with. Methods to overcome fatigue cracking are: put, soft asphalts have better fatigue properties
• adequately account for the number of heavy than hard asphalts.
loads during design;
• use thicker pavements; 2.2.3 Low-temperature cracking
• provide adequate subgrade drainage; Low-temperature cracking (see Figure 2.6)
• use pavement materials that are not easily normally occurs when the temperature at the
weakened by moisture; surface of the pavement drops sufficiently to
100
ontrol Poin
90
80
70
Fine Graded Mix
60
Percent Passing
50
40
Coarse Graded Mix
30
20
10
0
0 200µm0.5 1 1.5
2.36mm 2 2.5 12.5mm 319mm 3.5
Sieve Raised to the 0.45 Power
90
80
70
60
Percent Passing
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 200µm0.5 1 2.36mm
1.5 4.75mm
2 2.5 9.5mm 312.5mm 3.5 19mm 4
Sieve Size
using a ⅜- to ½-inch (9.5 to 12.5 mm) NMAS, roadways and intersections, as well as other areas
with few aggregate fines to produce the open- where heavy loads may be expected. SMA is a
graded mixture. Typically lift thicknesses are durable, rut-resistant mixture that relies on stone-
two to three times the NMAS. The mixes are on-stone contact from a gap-graded aggregate
placed only to facilitate rapid removal of surface skeleton—typically ⅜- to ½-inch (9.5 to 12.5 mm)
water and with a minor improvement to the NMAS (see Figure 3.3)—for strength, and a
pavement’s structure. OGFC surfaces should be relatively high percentage of asphalt binder—
removed prior to any subsequent overlays being often polymer-modified—for durability. To
placed. Figure 3.2 shows the gradation of a typical minimize drain down at elevated temperatures, a
½-inch (12.5 mm) open-graded friction course. mastic is typically created using mineral filler and
Additional guidance on the design of OGFCs can fibers in combination with the asphalt binder. The
be found in Section 12.3. design air voids for an SMA are similar to dense-
graded asphalt. In addition to their inherent
3.0.2.2 Stone Matrix Asphalt considerations strength, SMA surfaces are quieter and they
Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) is a unique surface have less spray than dense-graded pavements.
mixture that has been gaining favor with Additional information on SMA is found in
pavement engineers for use on high-volume section 12.4.
Chapter 3 Materials Selection and Aggregate Batching 17
100
90
80
70
60
Percent Passing
50
40
30
20
10
0
#200 #50 #30 #8 #4 3/8" 1/2"
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Sieve Raised to the 0.45 Power
3.0.2.3 Ultrathin bonded wearing at a rate of about 0.20 ± 0.07 gallons per square
course considerations yard (0.85 ± 0.3 liters per square meter). This heavy
Ultrathin bonded wearing (UTBW) courses are membrane seals small cracks and helps to adhere the
yet another surface mixture that deserves special overlay to the existing pavement. The grade of the
attention. (Please see chapter 12 for additional asphalt binder, as with other pavement designs, is
guidance on the design of ultrathin bonded wearing chosen based on the climate and traffic parameters
courses.) An ultrathin bonded wearing course is for the project location. Nominal maximum
typically ⅜ to 1 inch of a gap-graded asphalt concrete aggregate size ranges from No. 4 to ½ inch (6.2
intended to correct minor defects and improve to 12.5 mm), with ⅜ inch being the most popular
ride while reducing noise. These are usually a part choice. Specialty equipment is required to place both
of a pavement preservation program for use on the emulsion and the HMA in a single operation. The
structurally sound materials. Ultrathin overlays concept of the ultrathin bonded wearing course is
are a single layer of HMA placed on a heavy asphalt that the heavy shot of asphalt membrane is wicked
emulsion layer or membrane. This emulsion is up, during construction, partially into the voids of
typically polymer modified, although unmodified the gap-graded mix.
materials have been used successfully. It is applied
18 Chapter 3 Materials Selection and Aggregate Batching
3.0.3 Binder course mixtures sewing needle was introduced as an option for
Binder mixes are often used as an intermediate characterizing asphalt cements. ASTM adopted its
layer between the surface mixture and first standard for this test in 1903 (ASTM D-5).
the underlying asphalt mix or granular base. The penetration grading system, refined over time,
Binder mixes typically have a larger NMAS of ½ continues to be used in many locations worldwide.
to 1.5 inches (19 to 38 mm), with a corresponding Additional grading systems were also developed.
lower asphalt content. Binder and base mixes are The next noteworthy system was the viscosity
often used interchangeably in pavement design grading method (AC) developed by the Asphalt
and construction. Where heavy wheel loads Institute and the Federal Highway Administration
are involved, a typical binder mix for highway in the late 1950s. The AC system was further
construction can be used as a surface mix if a coarser modified into the AR system by western U.S. states.
surface texture will not be a concern. This approach These were the dominant grading systems in
has often been used in port facilities using heavy the United States until the development of the
cargo-handling vehicles, in logging yards that use Performance Graded (PG) System as part of the
large log-handling vehicles, and for truck-unloading Superpave research of the late 1980s into the ‘90s.
and industrial areas with high percentages of heavy The PG System continues to undergo refinement
trucks. Larger aggregate mixes (with less asphalt as producers and agencies seek to properly classify
and sand contents) are often more resistant to the today’s highly engineered asphalt cements. This
scuffing action of tight-radius, power steering turns. has most recently led to the introduction of the
Asphalt base mixes can be placed directly on the Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (MSCR) test. For
compacted subgrade or over a granular base. Base most mix designers, determining the specific
mixes are characterized by larger aggregate sizes that binder to be utilized on the project will have already
range up to 3 inches (75 mm). The relative asphalt been determined before the mix design phase. For
content will be lower due to the larger maximum more binder specification, selection and testing
aggregate size and its smaller surface area. It is information, see Asphalt Institute’s MS-26.
common, however, for a base mix to be designed
to slightly lower air voids than the upper layers to 3.2
1. Design ESALs are the anticipated traffic level expected on the design lane over a 20-year period. Regardless of the ac-
tual design life of the roadway, determine the design ESALs for 20 years to choose the appropriate aggregate criteria.
2. 85/80 denotes that 85 percent of the coarse aggregate has one or more fractured faces and 80 percent has two or
more fractured faces.
3. Criterion based upon a 5:1 maximum-to-minimum ratio.
4. Flat and elongated criteria do not apply to 4.75-mm NMAS mixes.
5. For 4.75-mm NMAS mixtures designed for traffic levels < 0.3 M ESALs, the minimum Uncompacted Void Content
(FAA) is 40.
6. For 4.75-mm NMAS mixtures designed for traffic levels ≥ 0.3 M ESALs, the minimum Uncompacted Void Content
(FAA) is 45.
If less than 25 percent of a layer is within 100 mm of the surface, the layer may be considered to be below 100 mm for
mixture design purposes.
the cylinder height of suspended clay and settled C535) which measures the percent loss of material
sand is measured. The sand equivalent value is from the coarse aggregate fraction of a standardized
computed as the ratio of the sand to clay height test sample. It is performed by subjecting the coarse
readings, expressed as percentage. In essence, this aggregate, usually larger than the #8 sieve (2.36
determines how sandy the fine aggregate fraction is. mm), to tumbling and the impact and grinding by
steel spheres. The test result is the mass percentage
3.2.2 Source aggregate properties
of coarse material lost during the test due to the
In addition to the consensus aggregate properties, mechanical degradation. The maximum allowable loss
certain other aggregate characteristics are critical. value is typically a range from 30 to 45 percent. The
However, critical values of these properties could not higher the value, the more friable the coarse aggregate,
be reached by consensus because needed values are and the greater the breakdown (degradation) of the
source specific. Consequently, a set of source properties aggregate from quarrying through stockpiling, HMA
is recommended. Specified values are established by manufacturing and under the rollers. The lower the
local agencies. While these properties are relevant value, the better the skid resistance and tire chain wear
during the mix design process, they may also be used resistance of the pavement.
for source acceptance control. Those properties are Another test for toughness is Micro-Deval
toughness, soundness and deleterious materials. (AASHTO T 327 or ASTM D6928). Micro-Deval
is similar to LA Abrasion except that the drum is
3.2.2.1 Toughness much smaller and the sample size is 30 percent of
Toughness tests estimate the resistance of coarse that for the L.A. Abrasion test. Also, the aggregate
aggregate to abrasion and mechanical degradation is soaked in water before the test and water is used
during handling, construction and in-service. The in the drum during the test. The test has been
most common toughness test is the Los Angeles adopted by some agencies as a replacement for the
Abrasion test (AASHTO T 96) or ASTM (C131 or Los Angeles Abrasion test.
FIGURE 3.7 0.45 Power Chart Showing Several Maximum Density Lines (MDLs) for Various Top Sizes
90
80
70
60
Percent Passing
25mm (1")
50 19.0mm (¾")
12.5mm (½")
40 9.5mm (⅜")
4.75mm (#4)
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
4.75mm 2.5 9.5mm312.5mm3.5 19mm4 25mm4.5
Sieve Size
occurs when the gradation is coarser than recommended that the gradation not pass. The
the plotted maximum density line and varies restricted zone was enforced to varying degrees.
depending on the shape and texture of the National Cooperative Highway Research
aggregate material. As part of the mix design Project 09-14 showed that if the other Superpave
process, the aggregate gradation should be plotted aggregate properties were met, then violation
on the 0.45 power gradation chart. of the restricted zone did not produce poor
Two Superpave-specific features utilize the performing pavements. It was concluded that
0.45 power chart—control points and a aggregate angularity and not size was key to
restricted zone. pavement performance. Moreover, numerous field
examples of pavements that were in violation
3.2.3.2 Control points of the restricted zone, but that were performing
The control points define the type of mix and act well, have been documented. However, a designer
as master ranges between which gradations must should understand the need to be cautious with
pass. Control points are placed at the nominal gradations that pass through the restricted zone
maximum size, an intermediate size (2.36 mm), and utilize a significant amount of natural sand.
and the smallest size (0.075 mm). Superpave Such gradations have a greater tendency to be
control point limits vary depending on the nominal tender and are to be approached with due care.
maximum aggregate size of the design mixture as Aggregate gradation analysis and the combining
shown in Table 6.3 of chapter 6. of aggregates to obtain the desired gradation are
important steps in hot mix asphalt mix design.
3.2.3.3 Restricted zone The aggregate gradation must meet the gradation
From past experience it was known that if the requirements of the project specifications and yield
gradation would pass through the restricted a mix design that meets the criteria of the mix
zone between the #8 and #50 sieves, it was an design method. The gradation should also be made
indication that there was possibly too much up of the most economical aggregates available that
natural sand in the mix, resulting in possible mix are of suitable quality.
tenderness. The restricted zone was introduced
by the Superpave system and it has since been 3.2.4 Specific gravity
removed from AASHTO M 323. It resided The specific gravity of an aggregate is the ratio
along the maximum density line between the of the weight of a unit volume of material to the
intermediate size (either 4.75 mm or 2.36 mm) weight of the same volume of water at 73.4°F
and the 0.300-mm size. Figure 3.8 shows the (23.0°C). This property is used in mix volumetric
control points and restricted zone for a 12.5-mm calculations for voids determination. Also, bulk
Superpave mixture (12.5-mm nominal maximum specific gravities are used in the computations
and 19.0-mm maximum size). The restricted zone for adjusting quantities of the aggregate
formed a zone through which it was generally components that are to be used in an HMA mix
90
80
Control Points
70
60
Percent Passing
50
40
30
20
Former Restricted Zone
10
0
0 200µm0.5
300µm 1 2.36mm
1.5 2 2.5 12.5mm
3 3.5 19mm 4
Sieve Raised to the 0.45 Power
FIGURE 3.8 Gradation Control Points for 12.5 mm NMAS (19 mm MAS) with Former Restricted Zone
because of the differing specific gravities of the volume of pores that absorb asphalt. Whereas bulk
various aggregates. and apparent specific gravities can relate to individual
The three generally accepted types of specific aggregates or combined aggregates, effective specific
gravities for aggregate use in hot mix asphalt are gravity relates exclusively to the total combined
the following: aggregate structure in a mix of HMA. Additional
• apparent specific gravity (Gsa); information regarding the determination and use of
• bulk (dry) specific gravity (Gsb); and aggregate specific gravities is discussed in chapter 5.
• effective specific gravity (Gse).
Apparent specific gravity considers the volume note: The accuracy of specific gravity measurements
as being the volume of the aggregate itself. It does for mix designs is important. Unless specific gravities
not include the volume of any pores or capillaries are determined to four significant figures (three
that become filled with water after a 15- to 19-hour decimal places), an error in air voids value of as
soaking. Bulk (dry) specific gravity considers the much as 0.8 percent can occur. The Asphalt Institute
overall volume of the aggregate particle, including the recommends the use of weigh scales whose sensitivity
pores that become filled with water after a 15- to will allow a mix batch weighing 1,000 to 5,000 grams
19-hour soaking. The effective specific gravity to be measured to an accuracy of 0.1 gram.
considers the overall volume of the aggregate excluding
After shaking, remove the material from each this large of a batch may require the aggregate to be
tray and place in a labeled pan designated for that fractionated in multiple batches to avoid blinding
particular size fraction. Make sure that each pan is the sieves:
as homogeneously mixed as possible. Scoop ⅝" Chips: 33,000 × 0.35 =
This method can be adjusted to use whichever 11,550 grams
sieves are desired. For example, if the chosen Scoop Washed Screenings: 33,000 × 0.20 =
sieves were 12.5 mm, 9.5 mm, 4.75 mm, 2.36 mm, 6,600 grams
1.18 mm and the pan, it would produce six Scoop Screenings: 33,000 × 0.30 =
pans that contain fractionated, combined 9,900 grams
aggregates. If the chosen sieves were 12.5 mm, Scoop Natural Sand: 33,000 × 0.15 =
4.75 mm, 0.600 mm and the pan, it would produce 4,950 grams
four pans that contain fractionated, combined Add to Check: 33,000 grams
aggregates.
For this example, the following trays were
Example: used: 12.5 mm, 9.5 mm, 4.75 mm, 2.36 mm, 1.18
For six 5,000-gram batches, a total of 33,000 grams mm and the pan. When fractionating with fewer
will need to be combined in proportion to the cold than the five tray slots typically present, fill the
feed bin percentages and then sieved. Note that extra slots at the top with sieve trays larger than
the largest particle size of the blend or relief 3.3.3 Method 3—Total fractionation
sieves if necessary. Fractionate each pan, of all aggregate materials
placing each resulting size fraction into a Fractionate each aggregate source with a sieve
separate pan. shaker on every specified sieve, with each aggregate
Calculate the number of grams required of each fraction individually batched for each specimen.
size fraction to make each 5,000-gram batch as After shaking, remove the material from each tray
previously described in Method 1 and summarized and place in a separate, labeled pan. Using the
in Table 3.6. gradation data shown in Table 3.4 for four aggregate
In this example, there will be sufficient material sources and the standard nest of 11 sieves will
to batch six 5,000-gram batches. result in 44 pans from which to batch.
Methods 1 and 2 both involve batching a
combination of fines (also referred to as “pan Example:
material”). Even though the particles are small, Fractionate each aggregate individually and keep
there may be some level of segregation. If each fraction in a separate, labeled pan or bucket.
the designer is concerned about obtaining a Batching will be done using the entire range of
representative sample from the pan material, sieves in a standard nest, plus the material passing
the fines can be thoroughly mixed with 3 percent the last sieve in the stack (#200) referred to as “pan
water to make the fines’ combination more material.”
homogeneous. Then batch 3 percent more of the Calculate the number of grams required of each
moist fines than would be required of dry fines to size fraction to make a 5,000-gram batch.
account for the extra moisture. The moisture will be First, calculate the number of grams needed for
driven away when the aggregates are placed in the each aggregate source according to the percentage
oven to bring them up to mixing temperature. used. Next, calculate the percentage retained
In the above example, suppose there were on each sieve and multiply it by the number of
10,740 total grams of unfractionated fines (−1.18- total number of grams of the aggregate source.
mm material) from the 33,000 grams that were Finally, add the number of grams of each fraction
fractionated. Add 322.2 grams of water (10,740 cumulatively for batching.
× 3 percent) to the total fines and stir until the It is recommended to calculate the cumulative
resulting moist fines appear homogeneously weights as shown in Table 3.7 so that each fraction
mixed. Then, instead of adding 1,640 grams of can be added without re-taring the scale each
dry fines into the 5,000-gram batch, add 1,640 time an aggregate fraction is added to a batch
× 1.03 = 1,689.2 grams of moist fines for a total specimen. Taring the scales after adding each new
of 5,049.2 grams in the batch. In the oven, 49.2 fraction can result in significant error, especially
grams of water will evaporate, leaving a 5,000-gram when using methods requiring batching from
unsegregated dry batch. dozens of pans.
Chapter 3 Materials Selection and Aggregate Batching 31
5
⁄8" Chips Washed Screenings Screenings Natural Sand
% Used 35 20 30 15
% Passing
# of Grams 1750 1000 1500 750
% Pass Ind. Cum. % Pass Ind. Cum. % Pass Ind. Cum. % Pass Ind. Cum.
19.0 mm 100 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 1750.0 100 0 2750.0 100 0.0 4250.0
12.5 mm 89 192.5 192.5 100 0.0 1750.0 100 0 2750.0 100 0.0 4250.0
9.5 mm 52 647.5 840.0 100 0.0 1750.0 100 0 2750.0 100 0.0 4250.0
4.75 mm 3 857.5 1697.5 94 60.0 1810.0 79 315 3065.0 99 7.5 4257.5
2.36 mm 1 35.0 1732.5 71 230.0 2040.0 46 495 3560.0 98 7.5 4265.0
1.18 mm 1 0.0 1732.5 48 230.0 2270.0 28 270 3830.0 96 15.0 4280.0
0.600 mm 1 0.0 1732.5 28 200.0 2470.0 19 135 3965.0 89 52.5 4332.5
0.300 mm 1 0.0 1732.5 13 150.0 2620.0 15 60 4025.0 54 262.5 4595.0
0.150 mm 1 0.0 1732.5 5 80.0 2700.0 13 30 4055.0 10 330.0 4925.0
0.075 mm 0.8 3.5 1736.0 3.1 19.0 2719.0 10.7 34.5 4089.5 2.3 57.8 4982.8
Pan 0 14.0 1750.0 0 31.0 2750.0 0 160.5 4250.0 0 17.2 5000.0
It should be noted that Method 3 is susceptible Standard hot mix asphalt aggregates are typically
to significant error when batching materials heated to levels well over 150°C (300°F).
with high levels of dust. It is not uncommon RAP and RAS are typically batched separately
for elevated amounts of static dust (−#200) to from the virgin aggregates. Prolonged exposure to
“cling” onto and remain in the larger fractionated elevated temperature can cause the materials to
sizes of material. In order to compensate for this conglomerate and may alter the binder properties
potential error, a prepared trial batch should in the recycled materials. RAP and RAS materials
be analyzed using a washed sieve analysis. The are typically prepared and preheated to 110°C
amount of dust (−#200) in excess of that desired (230°F) for no more than two hours and then
will need to be removed from the −#200 pan added at the time of mixing. Caution must be
material added during batching. This reduction in exercised, as any excess moisture remaining in
pan material will require an adjustment (increase) the recycled products will be released as steam
on the sieve fractions that are determined to in an uncontrolled manner that can cause
retain this fugitive dust (typically the +#50 injury. Preheating of recycled products should
through +#200) in order to obtain an exact batch eliminate the majority of the moisture and raise
weight. A thorough understanding of the material the temperature to a high enough level to assure
being utilized by the designer is necessary when thorough mixing with the virgin aggregate.
using Method 3. Mix designers are encouraged to Hydrated lime is often used as a treatment
use Methods 1 or 2 for ordinary production mix for the prevention of moisture damage and is
design. discussed in chapter 9. Hydrated lime is typically
added to the prepared samples prior to heating and
3.3.4 Batching other ingredients mixing. Hydrated lime may be added as either a
Many different types of additives may be added dry component or as slurry. Each method has been
to a batched specimen. The additives may include effective in improving AASHTO T 283 testing. The
reclaimed asphalt, recycled shingles, lime, ground method of adding hydrated lime to the mixture
tire rubber or a number of other specialty products. design sample should duplicate the method utilized
The manner in which additives are incorporated at the hot plant. See chapter 9 for more details
into the final mixture must consider the on methods to incorporate hydrated lime in field-
temperature to which the aggregate will be heated. produced mix.
There is a multitude of other less-common scoops are used to obtain the entire cross-section
additives and modifiers that are added to the of material, including the fines that typically settle
aggregate or binder during the laboratory mix to the bottom of the pan. If scooping from buckets,
design process, many of which are proprietary round-bottomed scoops can be used.
in nature. The supplier guidelines for use and Placing each aggregate fraction in the batching
incorporation must be followed very carefully pan in distinct piles will aid in batching (as shown
unless otherwise specified by the owner or agency. in Figure 3.10). If the batch weight is accidentally
exceeded for any particular aggregate, it is easier
3.3.5 Batching hints to remove some from a distinct pile rather than
Dried aggregate is often scooped from either pans accidentally removing a portion of another
or buckets. If scooping from a pan, flat-bottomed aggregate fraction when they are all piled together.
2.500
2.490
2.480
Gmm
1.0% Abs.
2.470
3.4% Abs.
2.460
2.450
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Mixture Aging Time, Hours
4.2.3.1 Equipment
The equipment required for conditioning the
mixture includes:
(a) oven—a forced-draft oven capable of
maintaining the desired temperature setting
within ± 5.4°F (3°C);
(b) thermometers—having a range of 122°F
(50°C) to 500°F (260°C), readable to 1.8°F
(1°C); and
(c) miscellaneous—a shallow metal pan for heating
uncompacted asphalt mix, a metal spoon or
spatula, timer and gloves for handling hot
materials.
38 Chapter 4 Laboratory Mixture Testing
(b) Stir the loose mixture every 60 ± 5 minutes to • determine the appropriate mixing and
maintain uniform conditioning. compaction temperatures, either through the
(c) Remove the mixture and pan from the oven use of a viscosity versus temperature chart or
after 2 hours ± 5 minutes. The mixture is now by local agency specification; and
conditioned for further testing. • determine the bulk specific gravity of all
aggregates used in the blend and the specific
The procedure for short-term conditioning gravity of the asphalt binder for performing
for mixture mechanical property testing is density and voids analyses.
similar to that for volumetric mix design, but the
conditioning time is 4 hours ± 5 minutes, and the These requirements are matters of routine
oven temperature, 275°F (135°C) ± 5.4°F (3°C). testing, specifications and laboratory technique
that must be considered for any mix design
method. Refer to chapter 3 for the preparation
4.3 and analysis of aggregates. The following sections
outline the three most common compaction
Laboratory compaction methods for volumetric mix design and quality
As part of all detailed mix design procedures, control testing:
the asphalt mixture is compacted by some • Gyratory—Superpave;
method into specimens for further testing. • Impact—Marshall; and
The laboratory compaction effort is intended • Kneading—Hveem.
to replicate the ultimate or final compacted Detailed discussion of these compactors and
condition of the pavement after being exposed their use can be found in their respective chapters
to several years of traffic loading. Experience (chapters 6, 7, 8) for each mix design method. In
has shown that pavements that maintain an air addition, vibratory and rolling wheel compactors
void level of around 4 percent provide the best that are typically used for mixture performance
long-term performance in the field. As a result, testing are covered in chapter 10.
choosing the appropriate level of compaction
in the laboratory is crucial in designing a well-
performing mixture. 4.3.1 Gyratory—Superpave
Several different compaction methods, specimen While gyratory compactors have been in use in
shapes and sizes have been utilized over the last the construction of laboratory asphalt specimens
several decades. The designer should understand since the 1930s, the Superpave gyratory compactor
that different compaction methods affect the (SGC) was developed under the SHRP program
aggregate orientation and density profiles within in the late 1980s and early 1990s as part of the
the specimen. Therefore, different types (not Superpave mix design system. Predecessors to
meaning different models within the same type) of the SGC included the Texas Gyratory Testing
compaction methods should not be used for mix Machine, the French Laboratoire Central des Ponts
comparison. The goal of laboratory compaction is to et Chaussées (LCPC) Gyratory Compactor and the
both simulate the compaction expected in the field Gyratory Testing Machine as developed by the Corp
and ensure sufficient repeatability for acceptable of Engineers.
consistency between different labs and technicians. The SGC is a computer-controlled device,
The steps preliminary to specimen preparation are: offering direct feedback to a designer as it produces
• ensure all materials used in the design process its specimens via compaction curves. Engineers
have been sampled according to an accepted and designers can utilize this information to design
procedure and are representative of the better asphalt mixtures that reduce the potential
materials to be used on the project; for problematic mixtures in the field, such as tender
• ensure all materials proposed for use meet mixtures. The SGC was designed with 150-mm
the physical requirements of the project (6 inch) molds to be capable of accommodating
specifications; large aggregates. Extensive research during the
SHRP studies determined that the SGC was more
pycnometer and placed on a vibratory shaker table. to remember that Gmb is measured on a compacted
A vacuum pump is started and the manometer or mixture sample. As Pb increases, more lubricity is
absolute pressure gauge reading is used to determine added to the mixture which allows the specimen
the proper vacuum adjustment. Once the proper to compact and slightly reduce the volume, while
(almost absolute, 27.5 mm Hg) vacuum is obtained, at the same time the mass of the specimen is
the shaker table is started. This provides gentle also increasing as the binder fills the voids within
agitation to help in the removal of any air between the compacted aggregate structure. The slight
particles. The agitation ensures that the air in the reduction in volume in combination with the
mixture is as close as possible to zero. The theoretical increasing mass causes the specific gravity (density)
maximum specific gravity is calculated using the of the compacted sample to increase. As the voids
equation for the specific procedure utilized. Gmm become filled with binder, the volume of the sample
is the mass of the coated aggregate divided by the begins to increase. This increasing volume is due
volume of coated aggregate. Air voids are calculated entirely to the additional binder being added which
from the bulk and maximum specific gravities (Gmb begins to reduce the overall specific gravity of the
and Gmm). The ratio of these two specific gravities is compacted specimen.
actually the percent by volume of solids (in decimal The effects of increasing Pb on Gmm are quite
form). different. As the Pb increases the percent stone
A common source of error with this test is that (Ps) decreases. Since there is no compaction or air
technicians do not calibrate (verify) the mass of the voids involved with the measurement of Gmm, the
vacuum container filled with water often enough. volume of a Gmm sample always increases because
This is not usually a problem in labs where only the volume of binder being added is roughly 2.5
distilled water is used for the test, but field labs times the volume of stone that is being removed
often have water tanks that serve the entire lab and from the mixture. This makes the Gmm property
are refilled periodically, sometimes from different very sensitive to binder content. This also shows
sources. Because it only takes a few minutes to the importance of obtaining representative samples
calibrate, more consistent results will be generated of mix when conducting Gmm testing. If a sample
if the vacuum containers are calibrated daily or is segregated and is too coarse, the Pb will be
even before each test. artificially low, resulting in a Gmm value that is too
high. If the segregated sample is too fine compared
4.5 to the mixture being produced, the binder content
of the material tested will be high and the resulting
Effect of binder content Gmm test result too low.
on Gmb and Gmm
The effects of asphalt binder content (Pb) on Gmb
and Gmm are illustrated in Figure 4.12. It is important
Volumetric Properties of
Compacted Paving Mixtures
of an asphalt mixture is evaluated. The volumetric
5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
properties are determined using the mass and/
5.2 Nomenclature and definitions . . . . . . . . . 46 or volume measurements of a mixture and its
5.3 Bulk (dry) specific gravity of constituent components (binder, aggregate, air).
aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Volumetrics have historically provided a good
5.4 Calculating Gmm at trial binder indication of the mixture’s probable performance
contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 during its service life.
5.5 Percent air voids in compacted The term “volumetric,” as applied in the
mixture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 asphalt industry, actually uses measurements
5.6 Percent VMA in compacted mixture . . . . 54 of an asphalt mixture by both mass (M) and
5.7 Percent VFA in compacted mixture . . . . . 56 volume (V) to determine various percentages
5.8 Binder absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
(P). Volumetric properties are often specified
design elements of the total mix, the aggregate
5.9 Effective binder content of a paving
only or the binder only. The relationship
mixture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
between mass and volume is determined by the
5.10 Dust to binder ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
material’s specific gravity (G). Specific gravity is
5.11 Discussion on volumetric properties . . . . 58 a dimensionless number defined as the ratio of
5.12 Selecting a design aggregate the density of a material to the density of water
structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 (assumed to be 1.000 g/cm3 at temperatures used
in asphalt testing).
m
m
G= v
or (Eq. 5.1)
5.1 ρ v×ρ
General where:
Since the fundamental performance properties G = specific gravity
are not directly measured in a normal mix m = mass of the material
design, asphalt content is selected on the basis v = volume of the material
of a measured parameter that best controls the ρ = density of water
pavement performance. Considerable research has Since ρ is assumed to be a constant 1 g/cm3,
determined that air void content is this parameter. any specific gravity can be calculated from the
An acceptable air voids range of 3 to 5 percent is appropriate mass and volume. If any two of the three
most often used. Within this range, 4 percent air are quantities, G, m, or v, are known through testing,
voids is typically considered the best initial estimate the third can be easily calculated. The principal
for a design that balances the desired performance of using specific gravity is essential in that actual
properties. Slight refinements are then considered laboratory measurements are by mass, yet mixture
in the analysis of the mix test results. criteria are a function of volume. Usage of specific
The volumetric properties of a compacted paving gravity principles enables us to readily calculate mass
mixture are important criteria by which the quality or volumetric data based on the available data.
Ma = 0 AIR Va
VMA
Mb M be EFF. BINDER Vbe
Vb
Mb a ABS.
ABS. BINDER
BINDER Vb a
Mm b Vm b
Ms Vsb
AGG. Vs e
Vmm
5.2.1 Binder specific gravity note: Gsb, Gsa and Gse each use the same mass
Binder Specific Gravity Gb As determined for (oven-dry aggregate), but they use different
asphalt binder by ASTM D70 or AASHTO T 228, volumes. Because volume is in the denominator of
the ratio of the mass of a unit volume of binder the specific gravity equation, the smallest volume
to the mass of the same volume of water. Binder necessarily results in the largest specific gravity.
specific gravity typically ranges from 1.00 to 1.05. Since the volumes can only be the same if there is zero
aggregate absorption, the following inequality always
5.2.2 Aggregate specific gravities exists:
Bulk (dry) Specific Gravity Gsb As determined for Gsa ≥ Gse ≥ Gsb
aggregate by ASTM C127 and C128 or AASHTO
T 84 and T 85, the ratio of the oven-dry mass of 5.2.3 Mixture specific gravities
a unit volume of aggregate (including both the Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity Gmm
impermeable and water-permeable void volumes) As determined for loose asphalt mixtures by
to the mass of the same volume of water. ASTM D2041 or AASHTO T 209, the ratio of the
Apparent Specific Gravity Gsa As determined oven-dry mass of a unit volume of asphalt mixture
for aggregate by ASTM C127 and C128 or AASHTO (including the volumes of the aggregate and
T 84 and T 85, the ratio of the oven-dry mass of binder only) to the mass of the same volume
a unit volume of aggregate (including only the of water.
impermeable void volumes) to the mass of the Bulk Specific Gravity Gmb As determined for
same volume of water. compacted asphalt mixtures by ASTM D2726 or
Effective Specific Gravity Gse As calculated AASHTO T 166, the ratio of the oven-dry mass of
for aggregate from the results of ASTM D2041 or a unit volume of asphalt mixture (including the
AASHTO T 209, the ratio of the oven-dry mass volumes of aggregate, binder and air) to the mass
of a unit volume of aggregate (including both of the same volume of water. Gmb is applicable
the impermeable void volumes and the water- to any laboratory- or field-compacted specimen
permeable voids not filled with absorbed asphalt) including cores, beams, slabs, etc.
to the mass of the same volume of water.
Once the bulk (dry) specific gravity for each The equation format for calculating the
stockpile has been determined, the combined bulk combined bulk (dry) specific gravity uses the
(dry) specific gravity for the total aggregate blend is weighted harmonic mean. This method is necessary
calculated as follows: because the criteria being averaged involve a ratio.
P1 + P2 + + Pn In this case, the percentages are all by weight, but
Gsb = P1 P2 Pn (Eq. 5.6) the specific gravity is a ratio of the density of the
G1 + G2 + + Gn
material to the density of water.
900cm 3
500cm3
300cm3
=
100cm3
(15)(2.0)+(10)(4.0)+(75)(6.0)
Weighted Arithmetic Mean = = 5.20
100
100
Weighted Harmonic Mean = = 4.44
15 10 75
+ +
2.0 4.0 6.0
mixture
Gb = specific gravity of binder 100
Gmm = = 2.516 (Eq. 5.15b)
2.761 + 1.030
94.2 5.8
Using the data in Table 5.1:
94.7 Note that as the binder content increases, Gmm
Gse = 100 = 2.761 (Eq. 5.12)
2.535 − 1.030
5.3 always decreases. This is because the percentage
of aggregate, which has a higher specific gravity,
necessarily decreases for a unit volume with an
increase in the percentage of binder, which has a
lower specific gravity.
Chapter 5 Volumetric Properties of Compacted Paving Mixtures 53
5.5 The VMA is calculated on the basis of the bulk
specific gravity of the aggregate and is expressed as
Percent air voids in a percentage of the bulk volume of the compacted
compacted mixture paving mixture. Therefore, the VMA can be
Keep in mind that this manual defines Pa as the calculated by subtracting the volume of the aggregate
percentage of air voids by volume and Va as the determined by its bulk specific gravity from the bulk
measured volume of air voids. They consist of the volume of the compacted paving mixture.
small air spaces between coated aggregate particles. VMA can be visually determined from the
The property Pa can be visually determined from phase diagram in Figure 5.3 and is defined by the
the phase diagram in Figure 5.3 and is defined by following relationship
the following relationship: Va + Vbe
Va VMA = 100 × (Eq. 5.19)
Pa = 100 × (Eq. 5.16) Vmb
Vmb
VMA is most readily calculated utilizing the
Although the Pa can be calculated several following equation:
different ways, the following equation is most Gmb Ps
commonly used: VMA = 100 − (Eq. 5.20)
Gsb
100 × Gmb (Eq. 5.17)
Pa = 100 − where:
Gmm VMA = voids in the mineral aggregate
where: Gmb = bulk specific gravity of paving mixture
Pa = air voids in compacted mixture, Ps = percentage of aggregate by total
percentage of total volume mix weight
Gmm = maximum specific gravity of paving Gsb = bulk (dry) specific gravity of the
mixture aggregate
Gmb = bulk specific gravity of paving mixture Va = volume of voids in compacted mixture,
typically in cm3
Pa in a laboratory-compacted mixture is an Vbe = volume of the effective (nonabsorbed)
important part of selecting the proper binder binder, typically in cm3
content of the asphalt mixture. While AASHTO Vmb = total volume of compacted mixture,
M 323, “Superpave Volumetric Mix Design,” sets typically in cm3
the design air voids at 4.0 percent, some agencies
Using the data in Table 5.1 and the combined
have lowered the target to 3.5 percent or even
bulk (dry) aggregate specific gravity from section
3.0 percent in an effort to force more binder into
5.3.4:
the mix. A reasonable rule of thumb says that for
each 1.0 percent decrease in the air void content 2.442 × 94.7
VMA = 100 − = 14.3%(Eq. 5.21)
for a given aggregate structure, the design binder 2.700
content increases 0.3 to 0.4 percent. The equations shown above are for analyzing
Using the data in Table 5.1: mixture compositions that are determined as
100 × 2.442 percent by weight of the total mixture.
Pa = 100 − = 3.7 (Eq. 5.18)
If the mixture composition is determined as
2.535
percent by weight of aggregate, the following
5.6
equation must be utilized to calculate VMA:
Gmb 100
Percent VMA in compacted mixture VMA = 100 − × × 100 (Eq. 5.22)
Gsb 100 + Pb
The voids in the mineral aggregate, VMA, are
Because the VMA does not include the water-
defined as the intergranular void space between the
permeable voids in the aggregate, the bulk dry
aggregate particles in a compacted paving mixture
Gsb must be utilized in calculating VMA. Table 5.2
that includes the air voids and the effective asphalt
illustrates the effects of using other aggregate
content, expressed as a percent of the total volume.
54 Chapter 5 Volumetric Properties of Compacted Paving Mixtures
Example Asphalt Mixture Data:
Bulk Specific Gravity of Compacted Mixture (Gmb) 2.406
Max. Theoretical Specific Gravity of Compacted Mixture (Gmm) 2.494
Asphalt Content, percentage by weight of total mix (Pb) 5.1
Specific Gravity of Asphalt Cement (Gb) 1.011
Effective - Gse
Ps Air + Effective Binder + Absorbed
100 – Pb 2.708 15.7 No
(Calculated from Gmm) Binder
Gmm Gb
TABLE 5.2 Proper Aggregate Specific Gravity for Use in VMA Calculation
specific gravities in calculating VMA. VMA criteria The resistance to compaction can be minimal
recommended in chapters 6 and 7 are based on at temperatures greater than 300°F, but will
bulk dry Gsb. increase as the binder temperature decreases
As the nominal maximum aggregate size of due to the resulting increase in viscosity.
the mix decreases, the surface area of the total • Binder quantity—Asphalt binder will add
aggregate structure increases as shown in lubrication to the mix and increase the ability
Figure 5.7. Therefore, the percentage of binder of the aggregate structure to consolidate.
necessary to adequately coat the particles increases. Small changes in binder content, at or near
Since the target air voids (Pa) typically remains the the design binder content, typically will
same, the VMA must increase to allow sufficient have minimal effect on the compacted VMA
room for the additional asphalt binder.
FIGURE 5.7 NMAS affects binder content
5.6.1 Factors affecting VMA
Many factors affect the VMA in a compacted paving
mixture. In fact, anything that impacts the ability
of the compactor to consolidate the mixture in the
mold will affect the resulting VMA. Some of the
more notable factors are discussed below.
Minor Factors
• Binder type—Stiffer binders, whether neat or
modified, can increase the resistance to the
compaction in the laboratory or in the field.
16
15
VMA (percent)
Example a
14
Example b
Example c
13 Spec. Limit
12
4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Minimum VMA
35-blow
VMA, %
50-blow
OK
75-blow
Asphalt Content %
(b)
Air Voids, %
35-blow
More “open” design
50-blow
75-blow
Asphalt Content %
FIGURE 5.9 Effect of Marshall Compactive Effort on VMA and Air Voids
80
70
Percent Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
#200 #30 #16 #8 #4 3/8 1/2 3/4 1.0 1.5
Sieve Size
FIGURE 5.10 Multiple Gradations Used in D.A.S.
for each proposed blend. Typically the blended determine the volumetric properties of each trial
properties are then compared to the specification blend. The asphalt binder content for each trial
criteria required for the mixture to be designed. The blend must be determined. The goal is to estimate
number of material combinations can be limitless, the percent binder required for the compacted
depending on the characteristics of aggregate specimen to achieve the design air void content,
materials and the purpose for which a design which is 4 percent if you are conducting a standard
aggregate structure is being performed. Often when Superpave mixture design. Selection of a binder
conducting a DAS for a typical project mixture content that results in a compacted specimen that
design, a designer may evaluate multiple gradations is within +/–2 percent of the design binder content
that range from the high to the low side of gradation is usually sufficient for the DAS. Some designers
range allowed in the contract, while maintaining the utilize existing methods such as those discussed in
aggregate properties to meet the specified criteria. sections 8.3 through 8.8. Others will rely on past
An example plot of multiple trial gradations is experience, intuition or simply use a fixed value
shown in Figure 5.10. such as 5 percent binder. A highly accurate initial
Specified aggregate properties can be estimate is not critical for this procedure, as an
estimated by mathematical calculation. However, estimated design binder content will be calculated
consideration should be given to actually batching based on the results obtained from the laboratory
and testing for those parameters that may be specimen compacted at this initial binder content
borderline or are at risk of failure during actual selected.
production, such as FAA. The binder content of mixtures generally varies
After the aggregate properties have been based on the maximum aggregate size, gradation
evaluated, the next step is to compact specimens to and aggregate properties. The absorption rate
In 1987 a five-year FHWA study to improve the Additional mixture performance testing
performance of HMA pavements was started. The described in chapter 10 is recommended to assure
result was the Superpave (SUperior PERforming confidence in the final design but is not currently
Asphalt PAVEments) system. specified in the Superpave system.
This system was developed to give pavement The procedures and calculations for conducting a
engineers and contractors the tools they needed mix design containing Recycled Asphalt Pavement
to improve the performance of HMA pavements. (RAP) and Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) are
The Superpave system as implemented consisted outlined in chapter 11.
of two interrelated elements: an asphalt binder
specification thoroughly discussed in Asphalt 6.1
Institute publication MS-26 and a mix design
Superpave materials selection
system that specifies aggregate criteria and
and mix design criteria
volumetric properties.
A mixture performance and analysis system was Superpave is a system. A pavement mixture will
developed utilizing the Superpave Shear Tester not perform successfully on the roadway unless
(SST), but due to complexities of the equipment the appropriate binder and aggregate materials are
and procedure was not implemented as part of incorporated into the work.
the final Superpave mix design procedure. The
following summarizes the current Superpave mix 6.1.1 Asphalt binder
design procedure: The asphalt binder to be used in the mix is
chosen based on environmental conditions and
TABLE 6.2 Recommended Superpave Source Property Tests and Typical Requirements
set limits on aggregate properties like toughness, If the designer is unfamiliar with the materials
soundness and deleterious materials. Table 6.2 being considered for design, they are strongly
lists some recommended source property tests and encouraged to investigate the detailed laboratory
typical requirements. procedure outlining the design of an aggregate
structure (DAS) as discussed in chapter 5.
6.1.2.3 Gradation Significant laboratory time can be saved by
Superpave gradation requirements are shown in utilizing this procedure to evaluate which material
Table 6.3. Control points have been established to combinations have the best chance of meeting
define the type of mix. It is important to note that Superpave mixture requirements, especially the
the recommended gradation control points are VMA requirement.
limited in number when compared to traditional
HMA gradation specifications. The following 6.1.3 Superpave mixture requirements
gradation control points should be regarded as 6.1.3.1 Nini, Ndes, Nmax
a requirement for mixture design only. Actual Prior to the development of the Superpave mix
field production testing may and should consist design procedure, laboratory compaction data
of a larger nest of sieves with tighter tolerances were only available on samples compacted to the
than the limits shown in the following table. The final design density. The modern instrumentation
Superpave gradation requirements shown are of SGCs, and the ability to measure sample height
only useful if the aggregates meet the consensus after every gyration, enables the designer to
and source properties and the completed asphalt estimate a Gmb value at any specimen height or
mixture meets the volumetric and/or performance number of gyrations. AASHTO R 35 designates
requirements. Implementing a specification for specified levels of laboratory compaction (density)
compliance or quality control based solely on the at three different levels of gyration based on
following gradation parameters without mixture expected traffic loading as shown in Table 6.4 and
and aggregate property requirements may result in referenced as Ninitial, Ndesign and Nmaximum. These
catastrophic failure. terms, more commonly designated as Nini, Ndes and
Mixtures containing Reclaimed Asphalt Nmax, refer to the number of gyrations estimated to
Pavement (RAP), Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) result in different levels of field densification.
or any other recycled product can be designed Nini is a measure of the compactability of the
to meet the aggregate and mixture property mix and is based on the estimated field density
requirements specified in the Superpave system. obtained behind the screed before compaction.
However, significant alterations of typical virgin Mixtures that compact too quickly may be
aggregate materials may be required. The final inherently tender to compact and would therefore
aggregate materials must be chosen based on be undesirable. The Nini density specifications range
the blended materials meeting the gradation and from 89 to 91.5 percent of Gmm, depending on the
consensus and source requirements, as specified. design traffic level. Mixtures with a high percentage
of natural sand or low FAA and CAA properties a higher risk of permeability. Table 6.4 shows
may fail this requirement. Although there is no the Superpave compaction parameters based on
minimum density at Nini gyrations specified, the expected traffic levels from AASHTO R 35.
opposite is also true. Very coarse, harsh mixes may Ndes is the number of gyrations specified to reach
have densities at Nini around 82 to 83 percent of the target density of the mix and is based on the
Gmm, be inherently difficult to compact and have estimated field density in the middle of its service
If the aggregate gradation passes beneath the specified PCS Control Point, the dust-to-binder ratio range may be
increased from 0.6–1.2 to 0.8–1.6 at the agency’s discretion.
Mixtures with VMA exceeding the minimum value by more than 2 percent may be prone to flushing and rutting. Unless
satisfactory experience with high VMA mixtures is available, mixtures with VMA greater than 2 percent above the
minimum should be avoided.
3830
the Specimen at Nini (hNini).
3820
Estimating the Gmb,estimated at Nini using the
3810
7.5, 3800 smooth mold dimensions would not account for
3800 surface imperfections in the sample. These surface
3790 imperfections are accounted for when the sample
5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
compacted to Ndes is actually weighed in the lab. By
Air Voids using the following correction factor, the estimated
Gmb at Nini can be more accurately calculated.
FIGURE 6.4 G raphical Determination of Mixture Mass at
Specified Height
Step 3—Calculate the correction
factor C, as follows:
can then interpolate the masses to achieve the proper
air voids. For example: C = hNdes / hNini
Target height Extra Specimen Extra Specimen Step 4—Calculate Gmb, estimated @ Nini
= 95.0 mm No. 1 Mass No. 2 Mass
Gmb, est @ Nini = C × Gmb @ Ndes
Target air 3840 g 3800 g
voids = 7.0% Step 5—Determine the average Gmb @ Nini
value for each trial binder content.
After molding and weighing, Specimen 1 has an
air void content of 5.5 percent and Specimen 2 has Step 6—Calculate %Gmm values as follows:
an air void content of 7.5 percent. The solution can
be determined using a graph similar to Figure 6.4. Gmb @ Nini
%Gmm = × 100
To calculate the amount of mix needed to result Gmm (at the trial Pb )
in 7.0 percent air voids after compaction: The or
target air void content is 0.5 percent lower than
the air void content at 3,800 g. The air void content Gmb @ Ndes
%Gmm = × 100
at 3,840 g is 2.0 percent lower than at 3,800 g. Gmm ( at the trial Pb )
Therefore, the number of grams, n, more than or
3,800 to reach “x” at 7.0 percent air voids is: Gmb @ Nmax
%Gmm = × 100
n = (3840 − 3800) * [(7.5 − 7.0)/(7.5 − 5.5)] = 10 g Gmm ( at the trial Pb )
x = 3800 + 10 = 3810 g
6.4.2 Superpave volumetric analysis
6.4
The remaining volumetric properties for Pa, VMA,
Superpave data analysis VFA, Pbe and DP are calculated as shown in chapter 5,
sections 5.4 through 5.10. The results are plotted
6.4.1 Determine %Gmm at Nini
to provide curves of asphalt content versus %Gmm @
for each binder percentage
Nini, % Gmm @ Ndes, air voids (Pa), voids in the mineral
An additional step unique to Superpave is the aggregate (VMA), voids filled with asphalt (VFA) and
calculation of %Gmm at Nini, Ndes and Nmax. Using the dust proportion (DP). Typical curves contained in
data provided by the SGC, an estimated mixture the Asphalt Institute Mix Design Program SW-2 are
bulk specific gravity, Gmb,estimated, can be calculated shown in Figure 6.5. This example is for a 12.5-mm
based on the diameter of the mold and the height mix and its appropriate criteria from Table 6.5. Note
of the specimen. This Gmb,estimated value can be the minimum VMA requirement of 14 percent is not
calculated for every gyration. The final product of met.
the compaction process is an actual specimen with
known height at Ndes.
74 Chapter 6 Superpave HMA Mix Design System
FIGURE 6.5 Typical Superpave Mix Design Curves Form (Example for a 12.5-mm mix)
Pa VMA
8.0 15.0
7.0
14.0
6.0
13.0
5.0
4.0 12.0
3.0 11.0
2.0
10.0
1.0
0.0 9.0
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
% Asphalt Binder % Asphalt Binder
VFA DP
100 1.4
1.2
90
1.0
80
0.8
70
0.6
60
0.4
50 0.2
40 0.0
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
% Asphalt Binder % Asphalt Binder
82 88
80 86
4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
% Asphalt Binder % Asphalt Binder
Marshall Method
of Mix Design
• ASTM D6927, “Standard Test Method for
7.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Marshall Stability and Flow of Bituminous
7.2 Preparation of test specimens . . . . . . . . 78 Mixtures”; and
7.3 Test procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 • AASHTO T 245, “Resistance to Plastic Flow
7.4 Interpretation of test data . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 of Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall
7.5 Modified Marshall method for large Apparatus.”
aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 AASHTO T 245 agrees with ASTM D6926
except for provisions for a mechanically operated
hammer. AASHTO T 245, paragraph 2.3, note 2,
7.1 says “Instead of a hand-operated hammer, and
associated equipment described in sections 2.3, 2.4,
General and 2.5, a mechanically operated hammer may be
The Marshall method of mix design is for dense- used provided it has been calibrated to give results
graded HMA mixes. It is used almost everywhere in comparable with the hand-operated hammer.”
the world. It is the predominant mix design method The original Marshall method is applicable only
for airport pavements. to hot mix asphalt paving mixtures containing
For a single selected aggregate gradation, five aggregates with maximum sizes of 25 mm (1 in.)
different asphalt contents are tested for various or less. A modified Marshall method has been
volumetric and strength criteria to select the developed for aggregates with maximum sizes
optimum binder content. The test results should up to 38 mm (1.5 in.). Procedures for 6-inch-
always be reported as the average for three diameter specimen are given by ASTM D5581.
compacted, “identical” specimens. The selection of The differences between the modified method for
the optimum binder content requires engineering 6-inch-diameter specimen and the original are
judgment, depending on traffic, climate and discussed in section 7.5. The Marshall method is
experience with the local materials used. In most intended for laboratory design and field control
cases, the optimum binder content should be (chapter 13) of asphalt hot mix dense-graded
selected for which the compacted specimens have paving mixtures. Because the Marshall stability test
4 percent air voids. is empirical in nature, the meaning of the results
in terms of estimating relative field behavior is lost
7.1.1 Applicable standards when any modification is made to the standard
procedures. An example of such modification is
The Marshall test procedures have been
preparing specimens from reheated or remolded
standardized by the American Society for Testing
materials. If reheating cannot be avoided, a
and Materials (ASTM) and by the American
correlation should be made to adjust the compactive
Association of State Highway and Transportation
effort on the reheated mix to match the volumetric
Officials (AASHTO). Procedures are given by:
properties (such as VMA and % air voids) of the
• ASTM D6926, “Preparation of Bituminous compacted mix which was not reheated.
Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus”;
2.365
for determining the applied testing load,
2.360
a Marshall stability testing head for use in
2.355
testing the specimen, and a Marshall flow
2.350
meter (or automatic recording device) for
2.345
Use 77 Blows determining the amount of deformation at
2.340
65 70 75 80 85 the maximum load in the test. A universal
testing machine equipped with suitable load
and deformation indicating devices may be
used instead of the Marshall testing frame.
FIGURE 7.6 Test Property Curves for Hot Mix Design Data by the Marshall Method
10.0 16.0
Air Voids, percent
VMA, percent
8.0
15.0
6.0
14.0
4.0
2.0 13.0
0.0 12.0
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Asphalt Content, percent Asphalt Content, percent
80.0 152.0
VFA, percent
2432
60.0 151.0
Kg/m 3
2412
40.0 150.0
149.0 2392
20.0
0.0 148.0 2372
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Asphalt Content, percent Asphalt Content, percent
2800 12
Stability, pounds
12 11 11
Flow, 0.01 in.
Flow, 0.25 mm
2600
Stability.kN
11 10 10
2400 9 9
10 8 8
2200
7 7
2000 9
6 6
1800 8
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Asphalt Content, percent Asphalt Content, percent
Chapter 7 Marshall Method of Mix Design 89
FIGURE 7.7 Test Report Showing Typical Lab Data for Design by the Marshall Method
Hveem Method
of Mix Design
8.1.1 Development and application
8.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
The concepts of the Hveem method of designing
8.2 Outline of method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
paving mixtures were developed and advanced in
8.3 Approximate asphalt content the 1930s under the direction of Francis N. Hveem,
by the centrifuge kerosene
a former Materials and Research Engineer for the
equivalent method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
California Department of Transportation. The
8.4 Preparation of test specimens . . . . . . . . 99 Hveem method has been refined over a period of
8.5 Test procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 years as certain features have been improved and
8.6 Interpretation of test data . . . . . . . . . . . 106 other features added. The test procedures and their
8.7 Design criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 application have been developed through extensive
8.8 Determination of Optimum Binder research and correlation studies on asphalt highway
Content (OBC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 pavements.
8.9 Daily calibration of the Hveem The Hveem method is applicable to paving
stabilometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 mixtures using either asphalt cement or cutback
asphalt and containing aggregates up to 25 mm
(1 in.) maximum size. The method presented here
is applicable to the design of dense-graded HMA
8.1 paving mixtures.
The Hveem method test procedures have
General
been standardized by the American Association
The Hveem mix design method has been of State Highway and Transportation Officials
extensively used in the southern and western states (AASHTO) and the American Society for Testing
of the U.S., where hot climates and desert areas and Materials (ASTM). Test procedures are found
are prevalent. The Hveem method of mix design in ASTM D1560, “Resistance to Deformation and
is specifically useful for the design of rut-resistant Cohesion of Bituminous Mixtures by Means of
mixes. Hveem Apparatus,” and ASTM D1561, “Preparation
More so than the Marshall method, the Hveem of Bituminous Mixture Test Specimens by Means
method tests the stability of the aggregate of California Kneading Compactor.” The testing
structure in a compacted mix specimen. Typically, procedures presented in this manual are basically
the optimum binder content determined with the the same as those of the ASTM test methods. The
Hveem method is approximately 0.3 percent lower stabilometer can be used to establish R-values for
than that determined with the Marshall method. treated and untreated soils, California Department
For a given aggregate gradation, one specimen of Transportation (CT) Test 301,” and stability
is made for each of four binder contents and tested values for bituminous mixtures (CT 304).
for various criteria. Using a decision pyramid, the
optimum binder content is determined in three
steps, selecting each time the highest binder
content that meets the criteria.
• Surface-area factors shown are applicable only when all the above-listed sieves are used in the sieve analysis.
This example tabulation demonstrates the calculation of surface area by this method.
Sieve Size Percent Passing S.A. Factor m2/kg S.A. Factor (ft2/lb) S.A. m2/kg S.A. (ft2/lb)
19.0 mm (¾ in.)
9.5 mm (3⁄8 in.)
100
90
}
*
.41 (2) .41 (2.0)
3.0
2.5
2.0
Surface Constant K f
1.5
10
1.0
0
40
50
.8
30
20
.6
.5
20
14
C.K.E. Corrected for Sp. Gr.
30 00
10
0
2
15
0
8
10
0
Su
rfa
6 ce
50 0
Ar
4 0
ea
3
*
4 =
20
10
3
2
1
sp. gr. fine
C.K.E. Corrected = C.K.E. = X 2.65
NOTE: Do not confuse this correcon to
C.K.E. with that used in Fig. 8.5
2
m2
*Surface area, kg = 0.204816
lb
Courtesy of California Department of Transportation
FIGURE 8.2 Chart for Determining Surface Constant for Fine Material, K f from C.K.E., Hveem Method of Design
Correcon to K f
1.8 0.4
.0
1.6 = 2 1.8.6 0.3
-K 1
ft 2
4
lb
2
1. .0
1.
K
1.4
c
1
8
0.4 0.3
1.0
2
0.
0.1
.8
2
kg
0
1.
1.5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Material Used: Aggregate - Passing 9.5 mm (3/8”), Ret. 4.75 (#4) Sieve
% Co
200
Oil - SAE 10
arse A
% Oil Ret. Corrected = % Oil Ret. X sp. gr. of Course Aggregate
ggreg
2.65
100
ate =
100
90
80
90
70
60
FIGURE 8.3 Chart for Determining Surface Constant for
5
80
0
40
30
70
Coarse Material Kc, from Coarse Aggregate Absorption,
20
Courtesy of California Department of Transportaon 60
Hveem Method of Design 50
40
3
.-
Graded Bituminous Mixtures
2 .0
50
gg
2 .8
A
4
of
2. .6
.
gr
2
40
p.
2. .2
.s
Av
15
Case 2. Given surface area, sp. gr. and Km
10
9
C
10 Find surface area on scale D. Proceed 100
8 .0 9 horizontally to curve corresponding to 90
=3 8 80
D km
7 2.5 7
sp. gr. of aggregate. Then down to curve 70
1.0
.9 aggregate and applies directly to oil of 30
.8
3 .7 3 SC - 250, MC - 250 and RC - 250 grades.
FIGURE 8.5 Chart for Computing Oil Ratio for Dense-Graded Bituminous Mixtures, Hveem Method of Design
1 m2 2
E (correcon to C.K.E.) *Surface area, = 0.204816 10
A 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 kg lb C
250
2000
4000
8000
800
3000
16000
1000
A made as follows:
AC 2.5 for AR 1000 13
3
Oils and Asphalts* AC 5 for AR 2000
AC 10 for AR 4000 12
10
6
Procedure
9
7 By means of a straightedge, connect C
the point on Scale A, which represents
Bitumen Rao
(Based on SC-250)
the point on Scale B, represenng the 06
(Correcon for Viscosity)
0
Surface Area of the Aggregate.
50
7
Su
40
ce
30
6
r
20
FIGURE 8.6 Chart for Correcting Bitumen Requirement Due to Increasing Viscosity of Asphalt, Hveem Method of Design
2 2
m
5 m R.
6.3 in.)
4
(1/
101.6 mm
(4 in.) I.D. Mold
AC-10, AR-4000 or 121°C (250°F) 149°C (300°F) (a) Preheat the compaction molds, feeder trough
85-100 Pen. and round-nosed steel rod to approximately the
mix compaction temperature.
AC-20, AR-8000 or 132°C (270°F) 163°C (325°F) (b) Heat the compactor foot to a temperature
60-70 Pen.
that will prevent the mix from adhering to it.
AC-40, AR-1600 or 132°C (270°F) 163°C (325°F) The temperature of the compactor foot may
40-50 Pen. be controlled by a variable transformer.
(c) Place the compaction mold in the mold holder vary between 10 and 50, depending upon the
and insert a 100-mm (4-in.) diameter paper type of material, and it may not be possible to
disk to cover the base plate. The steel shim accomplish the compaction in the mechanical
is temporarily placed under the edge of the compactor because of undue movement of the
mold, so the base plate will act as a free- mixture under the compactor foot. In these
fitting plunger during the initial compaction instances, use a 178 kN (40,000 lb.) static load
operation. applied over the total specimen surface by the
(d) Spread the prepared mixture uniformly on double-plunger method, in which a free-fitting
the preheated feeder trough. Using a paddle plunger is placed below and on top of the
that fits the shape of the trough, transfer sample. Apply the load at the rate of 1.3 mm
approximately one-half of the mixture to the (0.05 in.) per minute and hold for 30 ± 5
compaction mold (see Figure 8.9). seconds.
(e) Rod the portion of the mix in the mold (g) After the semi-compaction, remove the shim
20 times in the center of the mass and 20 times and release mold tightening screw sufficiently to
around the edge with the round-nosed, steel allow free up-and-down movement of mold and
rod (see Figure 8.10). Transfer the remainder of about 3 mm (⅛ in.) side movement of mold.
the sample to the mold and repeat the rodding (h) To complete compaction in the mechanical
procedure. compactor, increase compactor foot pressure
(f) Place mold assembly into position on the to 3.45 Mpa (500 psi) and apply 150 tamping
mechanical compactor and apply approximately blows.
20 tamping blows at 1.7 Mpa (250 psi) pressure (i) Place the mold and specimen in an oven at
to achieve a semi-compacted condition of the 60°C (140°F) for 1 hour, after which a “leveling
mix so that it will not be unduly disturbed off” load of 56 kN (12,600 lb.) is applied by the
when the full load is applied. The exact number “double-plunger” method (head speed = 6 mm/
of tamping blows to accomplish the semi- min. [0.25 in./min.]) and released immediately.
compaction shall be determined by observation. (Note: The specimen shall not be pushed to the
The actual number of tamping blows may opposite end of the mold.)
Water
8.5
Perforated Plate
Test procedures Pan
40
Stabilometer Value Corrected
30
20
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Stabilometer Value Before Height Correcon
FIGURE 8.14 Chart for Correcting Stabilometer Values to Effective Specimen Height of 64 mm (2.50 in.)
Sp. Gr. Asp. Cem. 1.012 Asp. Cem. AC-10 Lab. No. for ASP Cem. Used: 53-0741
Avg. Bulk Sp. Gr. Agg. = 2.760 Lab. Nos. for Agg. Used: 53-1252; 53-1253
100 100 90 70 50 29 16 10
Specifica
on Limits
80 70 50 35 18 8 4
CKE: FA = 2.8; CA = 2.8; Kf = 1.0 ; Kc = 1.3 ; Km = 1.0 ; Total Surface Area = 6.62 m 2/kg (32.3
2/lb.)
Es
mated Percent Asphalt Cement by Weight of Aggregate using CKE Tests only = 5.5
Recommended Percent Asphalt Cement by Weight of Aggregate using Mix Design Criteria = 5.0
Specimen Iden fica on A B C D
Jones
Inspector
* Surface Area: 1 m2/kg = 4.8824
2/lb.
152 2,459 4 2,435 45 3 when tested at 60°C (140°F) are satisfactory if they
meet the criteria when tested at 38°C (100°F) and
Stabilometer Values
5 40
Step 3
Step 3 Specimens meeng minimum stability
5.0 5.5
requirement
Moisture Sensitivity
of the Mix
For more information on moisture sensitivity,
9.1 Possible mechanisms of moisture
refer to the Asphalt Institute’s MS-24 Moisture
damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Sensitivity publication.
9.2 Influence of physical properties . . . . . . 113
9.3 Test methods for evaluating the 9.1
moisture sensitivity of mixes . . . . . . . . . 114
9.4 Treatments to improve moisture
Possible mechanisms
sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 of moisture damage
9.5 Practices to minimize moisture The most predominant condition causing stripping
damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 is when repeated traffic loadings occur on a poorly
compacted dense-graded pavement (with >8%
air voids) with surface water (rain) present. The
Moisture damage of asphalt pavement is a serious hydraulic pressure fluctuations in the inter-
issue. Measurement of the sensitivity of a specific connected voids will cause a scouring effect,
mix to moisture is a challenge, as are interpreting in essence ripping the asphalt binder from the
the results. aggregate surface. While adhesion failure between
Treatment options vary with location, and the asphalt and aggregate (referred to as stripping)
success varies. Recent efforts have concentrated is the most commonly recognized mechanism
on developing better laboratory test methods to of moisture damage, there are others. Other
predict moisture damage problems in the field. To mechanisms include moisture-induced cohesion
fully address the moisture damage problems, it is failures within the asphalt binder, cohesion failures
important to address both the chemical factors and within the aggregate, emulsification of the asphalt
the mechanical factors responsible for moisture and freezing of entrapped water.
damage. The chemical factors affect the interaction
of asphalt molecules with the aggregate surface 9.1.1 Adhesion failure between
and how the interaction changes in the presence asphalt and aggregate (stripping)
of water. The physical issues are mainly concerned Stripping is the process where the bond between
with ways to reduce the access of water to the the asphalt and aggregate is broken by the action
asphalt aggregate interface. of water. This process is based on a chemical
In addition to careful selection and quality phenomenon where water molecules alter the
control of materials, precautions should be taken interactions between the asphalt and the aggregate
in design and construction to keep moisture out surface.
of the pavement by providing proper drainage Aggregates have a higher affinity for water than
for water and good compaction of the asphalt for asphalt and are more readily wetted by water
mixture to minimize air voids and pavement than asphalt. Adhesion in asphalt and aggregate
permeability. interaction is generally defined as the formation
This chapter provides an overview of the of a chemical bond between asphalt and the
mechanisms and offers some insight into the issue aggregate. Water will penetrate through asphalt by
of moisture sensitivity as it applies to mix design. osmosis, and the rate will depend on the thickness
112 Chapter 9 Moisture Sensitivity of the Mix
of the asphalt film and the pressure difference 9.2.1 Mix design
across the asphalt film. In general, softer grades are Mixture design is the process of determining the
more permeable to water because of lower viscosity. optimum proportions of aggregate and asphalt
binder to meet the desired performance criteria.
9.1.2 Cohesion failure within asphalt
The stability and durability of the asphalt mixture
The bond between asphalt molecules is described are the two primary characteristics that are
as cohesion and it is possible that this bond can determined in the mixture design process. The
be broken. If water is trapped in air voids in the components in the asphalt mixture and the design
asphalt pavement and the temperature of the of the asphalt mixture contribute to the resistance
pavement increases, the evaporation of the water of the mixture to moisture damage. Once the
builds enough pressure to rupture the asphalt film, design is completed, the mixture is typically tested
leading to the disruption of the bond between the for moisture susceptibility.
asphalt molecules. If the mixture is determined to be susceptible
9.1.3 Cohesive failure
to moisture, one or more of the following may be
within the aggregate
used:
• A new aggregate/asphalt binder combination
Some researchers propose that cohesive failure may be selected.
within the aggregate (breaking of the aggregate • The component proportions can be changed.
particle by the action of water) could cause • An antistripping treatment may be applied.
moisture damage. Research suggests that the
amount of moisture damage by this phenomenon If any of these options are performed, then the
is directly related to solubility of the aggregates. mix design should be reverified. Changing any of
the mixture components/proportions or adding
9.1.4 Spontaneous emulsification ingredients/treatments may alter volumetric
Spontaneous emulsification could possibly be a properties. The liquid additives are considered an
reason for stripping, especially when mineral clays ingredient in the asphalt binder, and hydrated lime
or certain types of asphalt additives are present. or polymeric treatment is considered an ingredient
This mechanism will weaken the asphalt-to-asphalt in the aggregate. The moisture sensitivity testing
bond due to the presence of water in the asphalt. should be repeated with the final components,
Because emulsification of asphalt requires high proportions, ingredients and treatments to confirm
temperatures and high shear as found in a colloidal that all requirements are met.
mill, it would be very unusual for this kind of
9.2.2 Effects of dust and clay
emulsification to happen in a hot mix pavement.
The presence of a dust coating on an aggregate can
9.1.5 Freezing greatly interfere with the adhesion of the asphalt
Another form of moisture damage is entrapped binder to the aggregate. The asphalt binder will coat
water that freezes in asphalt pavement and can and adhere to the dust and not adequately bond
expand nine percent. This expansion of water with the aggregate particles. The dust coating can
entrapped in the voids can significantly damage act as a bond breaker, causing detachment of the
the asphalt pavement. asphalt binder film from the aggregate surface. The
reduction or elimination of excessive dust or dirt
9.2 on the aggregate will create an environment for
proper asphalt binder adhesion.
Influence of physical properties In addition to the concerns that dust weakens
In addition to chemical incompatibilities, there is a asphalt-to-aggregate bonds (adhesion), there is
need to address the physical mixture properties of also concern that clay promotes the inclusion of
the ingredients and the final mixture. water within the mixture, leading to weakened
asphalt-to-asphalt bonds (cohesion). The amount
of plastic fines or clay is inferred from the Plasticity
Index (PI). The PI is determined from the Atterberg
potential. The typical criterion applied by user FIGURE 9.3 Typical Results from Hamburg Wheel
Tracking Test
agencies is a maximum deformation at a specified
number of loading passes. Other technologists Hamburg Wheel Tracking Results
believe that the stripping slope and stripping Wet test, 50°C
inflection point provide some indication of the
Post Compaction
0
susceptibility of the mixture to moisture damage. Rutting slope
Permanent Deformation, mm
–5
9.3.4 Immersion-compression test Inflection point
Stripping slope
One of the less common tests is the immersion- –10
<3 –
3 to <10 5 8
nal
10 to <30 4 ng pote
of the asphalt mixture specimen. The standard test inflection point is related to the resistance of the
temperature is 50°C. Other test temperatures could asphalt mixture to the effects of the moisture.
be selected depending on project conditions. The This point is determined at the number of passes
test is run for 10,000 cycles (20,000 passes) or until at which the rutting slope and the stripping slope
a deformation of 20 millimeters is reached. The intersect.
HWT equipment is shown in Figure 10.4.
Figure 10.5 is a sample of the typical data obtained
from a submerged HWT test. Three parameters FIGURE 10.5 Typical Submerged HWT Results
are identified on the curve: the rutting slope,
the stripping slope and the stripping inflection Stripping Slope
point. The rutting slope occurs before the onset
of stripping and is the inverse of the rate of
Rut Depth
4.5 0.0045
3.5 0.0035
Permanent Strain, %
3.0 0.0030
FIGURE 10.7 Graphic of a Core Loaded and What
Strain is Measured 2.5 0.0025
2.0 0.0020
Tertiary Flow Begins
1.5 0.0015
interpretation by users, a common guideline for 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Load Cycle
a surface course is to choose the average 7-day
maximum pavement temperature at a depth of FIGURE 10.9 Development of Permanent Strain
in a Repeated Load Test
20 millimeters. This is the “50 percent reliability”
high pavement temperature that can be determined
Traffic (106 ESALs) Minimum Flow Number
using the LTPPBind software Version 3.1.
(Cycles)
As shown in Figure 10.7, the test is conducted
<3 –
by applying an axial load of 600 kPa to an asphalt
mixture specimen that is 100-mm diameter by 3 to <10 53
150-mm height for 0.1 seconds, followed by a 10 to <30 190
0.9-second rest period—which constitutes one load ≥30 740
cycle. The loading cycle is repeated for a maximum
TABLE 10.2 Suggested AMPT Flow Number Criteria
of 10,000 cycles while measuring the permanent
axial strain ε. In most cases, the test is performed
without subjecting the asphalt mixture specimen The onset of tertiary flow is considered the
to confining pressure. However, in some cases, failure point and generally coincides with the flow
confining pressure may be used. Further details number, which is determined as the number of
can be found in AASHTO TP 79, “Determining cycles when the rate of change of permanent axial
the Dynamic Modulus and Flow Number for HMA strain reaches a minimum (see Figure 10.10).
Using the Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester 10.2.1.2 AMPT criteria
(AMPT).” A typical test response is shown in Although the criteria may vary depending on actual
Figure 10.8. test conditions, recommended criteria for flow
In Figure 10.8, each loading cycle results in number are provided in Table 10.2. These criteria
a corresponding permanent axial strain, εn. can be found in NCHRP Report 673, “A Manual for
By graphing the accumulated deformation as a Design of Hot Mix Asphalt with Commentary” and
function of loading cycles, it is possible to see the have been established using standard test conditions
development of the permanent strain from the (600 kPa axial stress, 0.1-second pulse loading,
linear region until tertiary flow (failure) begins. 0.9-second rest period, 10,000 cycles maximum)
This development is shown in Figure 10.9. with specimens having 7 percent air voids.
124 Chapter 10 Mixture Performance Testing
10.2.2 Repeated shear test at constant height Permanent Shear Strain and Stiffness of Asphalt
The Repeated Shear Constant Height (RSCH) test Mixtures Using the Superpave Shear Tester” and
was a test that was developed at the University of ASTM D7312. The test response is very similar to
California-Berkeley as part of the SHRP project the AMPT flow number test shown in Figures 10.8
evaluating tests for asphalt mixture performance. and 10.9, except that the applied load is in shear, as
The test is very similar in concept to the AMPT is the resulting strain. In most cases, the asphalt
flow number test, in that it is a repeated-load mixture specimen does not reach the tertiary flow
test, but uses the Superpave Shear Tester (SST), stage by 5,000 load cycles. As a consequence, the
shown in Figure 10.11 and Figure 10.12. Testing most common way of interpreting the data is to
is performed at temperatures representative of consider the maximum permanent shear strain
the high pavement temperature expected at the (MPSS) at 5,000 cycles.
project location where the asphalt mixture will
be used. Although selection of the appropriate FIGURE 10.10 Determining Flow Number
test temperature is subject to interpretation by
users, a commonly used guideline for a surface Flow Number: Number of cycles where shear
course is to choose the 7-day maximum pavement deformaon occurs under constant volume
10.4
Performance tests to
address cracking
Cracking of asphalt mixtures can generally be
separated into two categories: damage caused by
repeated traffic loading (“load-associated”) and
damage principally caused by temperature changes
(“non-load-associated”).
Load-associated cracking is a distress that occurs
at all pavement temperatures when the repeated FIGURE 10.13 Load-Associated Cracking (Alligator Cracking)
loading of the asphalt mixture due to traffic
causes tensile strains to develop that ultimately
exceed the tensile strength of the mixture, leading cracking as pavements age and are unable to
eventually to crack formation and growth. Load- resist the repeated deflections caused by loading.
associated cracking is often referred to as “fatigue Although damage can happen at any temperature,
cracking.” In classical fatigue cracking, tensile classical fatigue cracking is usually modeled at
strains develop at the bottom of the pavement intermediate temperature to represent damage that
layer as it is loaded. It is there that the tensile occurs throughout the year.
strain is the greatest and there that the crack first In recent years, asphalt technologists have come
forms. As repeated loading continues, the crack to recognize that the traditional model of fatigue
propagates to the surface. cracking starting at the bottom of the layer and
Cracking may appear as longitudinal cracking propagating to the surface is not always the mode of
(i.e., parallel to the centerline of the pavement), load-associated cracking. Top-down, load-associated
but may eventually interconnect with other cracks cracking has also been noticed in thicker asphalt
to form a distress known as “alligator cracking” (so pavements where the cracks begin at the surface,
called because of the appearance similar to the back in the wheel path, and propagate down. Bottom-
of an alligator) as shown in Figure 10.13. up fatigue cracking is most often seen in thinner
Unlike permanent deformation (rutting), asphalt asphalt pavements constructed over a granular base
mixtures are more susceptible to load-associated (or other base layer). Top-down cracking, on the
Nf
cycles to failure is compared to a selected criterion.
If a range of strain levels is desired, specimens are
prepared and tested at multiple strain levels (usually 10,000
3–5), likely varying from 250 to 750 μm. The output
for this evaluation will look similar to Figure 10.16.
1,000
The flexural beam fatigue test has also been used 0 200 400 600 800 1000
to determine the fatigue endurance limit of an Strain, x 10-6
asphalt mixture. The endurance limit is a strain level
below which the fatigue life of the asphalt mixture FIGURE 10.16 Effect of Strain on Fatigue Life Example
is infinite and the pavement will not experience
bottom-up fatigue cracking. This is an important
concept in the design of long life asphalt pavements. FIGURE 10.17 Resilient Modulus Testing Configuration
• Unconfined
• 600 kPa axial stress
• 0.1-second pulse loading with 0.9-second rest period constituting one cycle
• Maximum of 10,000 load cycles
• Test temperature equal to the average 7-day maximum pavement temperature at a depth of 20 millimeters for the
project location (the “50 percent reliability” temperature in LTPPBind software Version 3.1)
recommended volumetric mix design criteria natural (e.g., gravel), quarried (e.g., limestone,
are met for VMA and air voids, the expectation granite) and common synthetic (e.g., blast
for conventional asphalt mixtures will be that furnace or steel slag) aggregates;
they will have adequate laboratory fatigue • has a gradation that would be considered
cracking performance. dense-graded and is bounded by the gradation
6. Research also has shown that thermal limits shown in AASHTO M 323 or meets the
cracking performance of asphalt mixtures is gradation limits for an SMA mixture;
most strongly affected by the asphalt binder • uses an asphalt binder that can have its
properties. As long as the asphalt binder that performance grade determined following
is used in the mixture has the appropriate AASHTO M 320 or M 332; and
low temperature properties for the expected • if using RAP, uses RAP that provides an
use, the expectation for conventional asphalt asphalt binder replacement of 25 percent
mixtures will be that they will have adequate or less.
laboratory thermal cracking performance.
Although the AMPT flow number test is
10.6.1 Suggested performance testing recommended, the user agency may elect to
for conventional mixes (Table 10.5) perform alternate rutting tests such as the asphalt
pavement analyzer or Hamburg wheel tracking
The findings provided in NCHRP Report 673, as
tests. Similarly, other cracking tests may be selected
summarized in items 1–6 above, are for conventional
for use in place of the flexural beam fatigue and
asphalt mixtures. The term “conventional asphalt
indirect tensile creep/strength tests. Using the
mixture” refers to a mixture that:
guidelines provided in NCHRP Report 673, the
• uses coarse and fine aggregates that have been Asphalt Institute recommends the following:
commonly used in asphalt mixtures to include
Permanent Deformation
Traffic (106 ESALs) Fatigue Cracking Test Thermal Cracking Test
Test
<3 Not Required1 Not Required1 Not Required1
AMPT Flow Number ITC/ITS
Flexural Beam Fatigue
3 to <10 (AASHTO TP 79) (AASHTO T 322)
(AASHTO T 321)3
FN ≥ 53 cycles2 Tcr ≤ Tmin,50%4
AMPT Flow Number ITC/ITS
Flexural Beam Fatigue
10 to <30 (AASHTO TP 79) (AASHTO T 322)
(AASHTO T 321)3
FN ≥ 190 cycles2 Tcr ≤ Tmin,98%5
AMPT Flow Number ITC/ITS
Flexural Beam Fatigue
≥30 (AASHTO TP 79) (AASHTO T 322)
(AASHTO T 321)3
FN ≥ 740 cycles2 Tcr ≤ Tmin,98%5
notes:
1.
Testing not required unless otherwise specified by the user agency.
2.
Test conducted on 100-mm diameter by 150-mm height cylindrical specimen having approximately 7 percent air
voids using standard test conditions defined as follows:
• Unconfined
• 600 kPa axial stress
• 0.1-second pulse loading with 0.9-second rest period constituting one cycle
• Maximum of 10,000 load cycles
• Test temperature equal to the average 7-day maximum pavement temperature at a depth of 20 millimeters for the
project location (the “50 percent reliability” temperature in LTPPBind software Version 3.1)
3.
Testing conducted on beam specimens 375-mm length by 62.5-mm width by 50-mm height having approximately
7 percent air voids. Compare using standard test conditions to conventional asphalt mixture. Criteria for
acceptability not determined, so testing could be waived at the discretion of the user agency.
4.
Testing conducted on cylindrical specimens 150-mm diameter by 50-mm height having approximately 7 percent air
voids using standard test conditions (three test temperatures). Critical cracking temperature (Tcr) to be determined.
Tcr must be equal to or less than the average minimum pavement temperature determined at the surface for the
project location (the “50 percent reliability” temperature in LTPPBind software Version 3.1).
5.
Testing conducted on cylindrical specimens 150-mm diameter by 50-mm height having approximately 7 percent air
voids using standard test conditions (three test temperatures). Critical cracking temperature (Tcr) to be determined.
Tcr must be equal to or less than the minimum pavement temperature minus two standard deviations, determined at
the surface for the project location (the “98 reliability” temperature in LTPPBind software Version 3.1).
asphalt absorption may be used to get a more crushing, milling or saw cutting if remixing of the
accurate measure of the Gsb of the recovered RAP sample is unable to provide sufficient coating of the
aggregate. mix. Uncoated faces may allow water to absorb into
the samples and require the technician to institute
11.3.2.1 Determining RAP Gmm the dry-back procedure contained in AASHTO
Before performing the Gmm test on RAP, it is T 209/ASTM D2041. The dry-back procedure is
important that the RAP is properly prepared, as time consuming and introduces unnecessary error
described below: into the process. To prevent intrusion of water into
1. Dry the test sample to constant mass in a the sample, add a measured quantity of new binder
forced draft oven at 110 + 5°C (230 + 9°F). in the range of 1–3 percent of the total sample
2. Break up the sample similar to a standard weight, as needed to fully coat all particles. Preheat
Gmm sample. the mix to 60–120°C as you would during a normal
3. Mix the RAP sample thoroughly with a mix design, place it in the mixing bowl and add the
spatula to allow the old RAP binder to coat the additional binder to thoroughly coat the mixture
uncoated aggregate particles. The difference and let it cool. When Gmm testing is completed,
between the remixed and unmixed RAP simply back out the added asphalt mass and volume
samples can be seen in Figure 11.1. from the original procedure using the following
equation when the “Mass Determination in Air”
Determining the maximum theoretical specific from AASHTO T 209 is utilized:
gravity on recycled asphalt or core samples can be Theoretical Maximum A−J
confounded by the uncoated faces that result from = (Eq. 11.1)
Specific Gravity (A+D)−(E+K)
FIGURE 11.1 Preparing RAP Samples for G mm Testing Where:
(photo courtesy of Tim Murphy)
A = mass of the oven-dry sample in air, g;
D = mass of the container filled with water at
25°C (77°F), g;
E = mass of the container filled with the sample
and water at 25°C (77°F), g;
J = mass of the added asphalt binder in air, g;
K = volume of the added asphalt binder, cc or
J
ml =
Gb
where Gb = the specific gravity of the binder
added.
Due to the variability of aggregate materials
and their respective absorption rates, technicians
138 Chapter 11 Recycled Asphalt Materials in the Mix Design Process
may wish to experiment with the range of added As an example, consider that the measured
asphalt. The desired goal is to thoroughly coat the Gmm(RAP) is 2.545 as determined using AASHTO T
sample, but not excessively to where drain-down 209. The measured asphalt binder content of the
can occur. The newly coated sample will resist water RAP, Pb(RAP), is 4.5 percent. Using an assumed Gb(RAP)
intrusion, minimize the presence of fugitive dust of 1.04, the Gse(RAP) is calculated as follows:
(cloudy water) and provide reliable, accurate results. 100 − 4.5
Gse(RAP) = = 2.731 (Eq. 11.3)
11.3.2.2 Calculating RAP Gse and Gsb 100 4.5
−
After determining the Gmm, the user can calculate 2.545 1.04
the Gse (assuming the asphalt binder content is At this point, the user needs to decide if they are
known) using the equation below: comfortable using the Gse of the RAP aggregate in
100 − Pb(RAP) VMA calculations or if they need to calculate the Gsb
Gse(RAP) = (Eq. 11.2) using an assumed value for asphalt absorption. The
100 P
− b(RAP) equation for determining Gsb of the RAP aggregate
Gmm(RAP) G b(RAP) is shown below:
Where Gse(RAP)
Gsb(RAP) = (Eq. 11.4)
Gse(RAP) = effective specific gravity of the RAP Pba(RAP) × Gse(RAP)
Gmm(RAP) = measured maximum theoretical +1
100 × G b(RAP)
specific gravity of the RAP
Pb(RAP) = asphalt binder content of the RAP Where
Gb(RAP) = specific gravity of the RAP asphalt Gsb(RAP) = bulk specific gravity of the RAP
binder Gse(RAP) = effective specific gravity of the RAP
Pba(RAP) = asphalt binder absorption of the RAP
The Gmm(RAP) and Pb(RAP) are determined from Gb(RAP) = specific gravity of the RAP asphalt
testing. While the Gb(RAP) can be determined binder
by testing, it would require that the asphalt
binder be extracted and recovered. As such, it is In the preceding equation, the Gmm and asphalt
recommended that an assumed Gb(RAP) be used. binder content of the RAP are used to calculate
In the absence of other guidance from the user Gse(RAP), as shown earlier. As before, a Gb(RAP) value
agency, a Gb(RAP) value of 1.04 is recommended. of 1.04 is recommended as an estimated value. Mix
Why use a Gb(RAP) value of 1.04? Virgin paving design technologists can always measure the Gb(RAP)
grade asphalt binders usually have a specific gravity if desired.
between 1.01 and 1.03, depending on several As an example, consider the previous
factors including the grade of the asphalt. As example where the calculated Gse(RAP) is 2.731
asphalt ages, the lighter fractions dissipate, leading as determined using AASHTO T 209. Using an
to an increase in asphaltenes. This process increases assumed Gb(RAP) of 1.04 and an asphalt absorption
the specific gravity of the asphalt binder. As such, of 1.2 percent (determined based on user
it seems likely that the specific gravity of the RAP experience with the RAP mixture), the Gsb(RAP) is
asphalt binder will be greater than 1.01 to 1.03. The calculated as follows:
selected Gb(RAP) value of 1.04 accounts for the fact 2.731
Gsb(RAP) = = 2.648 (Eq. 11.5)
that the RAP asphalt binder is aged. 1.2 × 2.731
+1
Lastly, the error caused by assuming a Gb(RAP) 100 × 1.04
value instead of actually measuring the value There is uncertainty in the final Gsb of the RAP
should be minimal. For an asphalt content of aggregate if using an assumed absorption, which
5.5 percent and a Gmm of 2.500, an error of 0.02 in would lead many users to simply stay with the Gse
the Gb(RAP) value will affect the calculated Gse(RAP) by value as calculated and accept the slightly higher
approximately 0.008. To put it in perspective, if VMA values that result. However, if the asphalt
25 percent RAP is assumed to be used in the mix, absorption of the RAP and/or the RAP percentage
then the Gse(RAP) error of 0.008 will only change the increases, then the difference between the Gsb
combined specific gravity by 0.002—a difference and Gse of the RAP aggregate can begin to have a
that will cause less than a 0.1 percent error in VMA. significant effect on the calculated VMA.
Chapter 11 Recycled Asphalt Materials in the Mix Design Process 139
Before determining specific gravity of the RAP Gse(RAP), the VMA will calculate to be higher by
aggregate, mix designers should check with the approximately 1 percent than actual. Unless
user agency to determine their preferences. In properly considered, this error can lead to a mix
the absence of other guidance, the following is with insufficient asphalt binder content.
recommended:
If the “typical” aggregate absorption (water) 11.3.3 Consensus aggregate properties
is 2 percent or less (or the “typical” asphalt RAP aggregate, like virgin aggregate, must meet
absorption is 1 percent or less) AND the RAP the consensus property requirements established
percentage is 20 percent or less, then use in AASHTO M 323. It is important to remember
RAP Specific Gravity Method 2. Otherwise, use that the consensus property requirements apply
historical knowledge from past mix design to the blend of aggregates, virgin and RAP, and
experience to determine an appropriate not specifically to the individual aggregates. Some
absorption to assume and use RAP Specific agencies allow mix design technologists to test
Gravity Method 2a. individual aggregate components and mathematically
In this guidance, “typical” aggregate absorption combine them in the appropriate percentages to get a
means the absorption of the aggregates that would value for the combined aggregate.
most likely have been used in the asphalt mixture To test RAP aggregate individually, it must
that ultimately became RAP. Water absorption of first be separated into coarse and fine fractions
2 percent or less should result in asphalt absorption by splitting the sample. Material retained on the
of 1 percent or less. Using a maximum of 1 percent 4.75-mm (#4) sieve is used for determining coarse
asphalt absorption and 20 percent RAP, the error aggregate angularity and flat/elongated particles.
caused by using Gse instead of Gsb (Gse with an Material finer than the 2.36-mm (#8) sieve is used
assumed absorption) should be approximately for the fine aggregate angularity test. The sand
0.014 for the specific gravity. This error could equivalent test is not conducted on RAP aggregate
change VMA by as much as 0.45 percent. since it has already been coated with asphalt binder
In the previous examples, note that the assumed and the clay content, if any, will have been removed
asphalt absorption is 1.2 percent. The difference during the extraction or ignition oven procedure.
between using Gse(RAP) and Gsb(RAP) in the VMA
calculations is 0.083. At this difference, when 11.3.4 RAP asphalt binder properties
combined with other aggregates, the effect on VMA At higher levels of RAP, it may be necessary to
increases as the RAP percentage increases as shown know the properties of the RAP asphalt binder so
in Figure 11.2. that an appropriate virgin asphalt binder grade can
By using the data in the examples, we see in be selected. If RAP binder properties are needed,
Figure 11.2 that at 40 percent RAP, the effect of
then a solvent extraction/recovery procedure
using Gse(RAP) instead of Gsb(RAP) is a +1 percent should be performed on a sample of the RAP.
change in VMA. In other words, by using Solvent extraction and recovery of asphalt
FIGURE 11.2 Effect of RAP Aggregate Specific Gravity on
binder may be performed in several ways, but the
Calculated VMA (using example data) most commonly used procedure is to perform
a solvent extraction following the procedures
3.0
in AASHTO T 164, “Quantitative Extraction of
Change in VMA Caused by Using
G se (RAP) instead of G sb (RAP)
142 Chapter 11 Recycled Asphalt Materials in the Mix Design Process
To calculate the critical low temperature where critical high temperature, use the equation
the BBR m-value exactly meets 0.300, use the presented earlier in Eq. 11.6 (also shown below).
following equation:
log(2.20) − log(G* / sin δ )
0.300 − m 1 Tc = T1 + 1 1
× (T1 − T2 )
Tc = T1 + × (T1 − T2 ) − 10 log(G*1 / sin δ1 ) − log(G*2 / sin δ2 )
m1 − m2
(Eq. 11.10)
(Eq. 11.9) To bracket the specification value, use the test
Where data at 82 and 88°C as shown below.
Tc = critical temperature (in this case, the
critical BBR m-value temperature) log(2.20) − log(3.50)
Tc = 82 + × (82 − 88) = 85.9
T1 = higher of the two test temperatures, log(3.50) − log(1.71)
°C, where the BBR m-value ≥ 0.300
(Eq. 11.11)
T2 = lower of the two test temperatures,
Using the data in Table 11.2, the critical
°C, where the BBR m-value < 0.300
temperature where G*/sin δ equals 2.20 kPa is
m1 = BBR m-value at temperature T1, kPa
85.9°C. Because of potential errors in testing,
m2 = BBR m-value at temperature T2, kPa
calculation and ultimately blending, it is sufficient
As an example, assume a recovered RAP binder to round the critical temperature to the nearest
that is tested as described above. The RAP comes degree where the criteria would be met. In this
from a climate where a PG 64-22 asphalt binder instance, the value would meet at 85°C, but not at
would typically be used as a virgin asphalt binder. 86°C, so the critical temperature is rounded down
Based on this information: to 85°C.
• begin high temperature testing at 70°C and Following this same approach, and using the
continue to failure; appropriate equations, for the intermediate
• begin intermediate temperature testing at temperature DSR, BBR Stiffness and BBR m-value,
28°C and continue to failure; and the critical temperatures are as follows:
• begin low temperature testing at −12°C and • Tc,high = 85°C (calculated value = 85.9°C)
continue to failure. • Tc,intermediate = 28°C (calculated value = 27.1°C)
Test data at multiple temperatures are shown in • Tc,S = −22°C (calculated value = −22.6°C)
Table 11.2.
• Tc,m = −22°C (calculated value = −22.4°C)
Using the example data in Table 11.2, the The continuous or true grade of the recovered
critical temperature can be calculated. For the RAP binder is a PG 85-22. The above Tc values are
rounded to the more conservative whole degree
144 Chapter 11 Recycled Asphalt Materials in the Mix Design Process
other than rutting concerns. For instance, with high contents of RAP (defined as greater
if the agency is specifying a modified binder than 25 percent and up to, and exceeding,
for improved crack resistance, durability or 50 percent). Regardless of the information
overall service life, then they will want to provided by blending charts or equations,
ensure the virgin (newly added) binder grade mix designers may wish to determine the
using RAP is also a modified grade. This will expected performance of asphalt mixtures
generally be the case as long as any binder containing higher levels of RAP using
grade adjustments due to RAP are applied appropriate laboratory performance-
to both the high temperature side and low related tests to assess the expected rutting
temperature side of the PG grade, and not and cracking performance of the mixture
just high temperature. As an example, if the (see chapter 10).
project grade calls for a modified PG 76-22, • The lower temperatures utilized in WMA
and the mix designer wants to use technologies may directly impact binder grade
20 percent RAP in the mixture, they may selection due to the lower level of aging that
do so by selecting a virgin binder that is a occurs in the plant. The amount of binder
modified PG 70-28. While the total polymer blending that occurs when utilizing very
content of the mixture is reduced by the stiff recycled binders at low plant mixing
recovered RAP binder, the requirement for the temperatures is difficult to quantify. Mix
virgin binder to remain a modified grade helps designers may wish to determine the expected
ensure that the properties of the RAP mixture performance of asphalt mixtures using
will be similar to those of a virgin mixture. appropriate laboratory performance-related
• At RAP binder percentages over 25 percent, tests to assess the expected rutting and
blending charts or equations should be cracking performance of the mixture
used. NCHRP 9-12 results showed that (see chapter 10).
the predictability of linear blending theory
become unstable as replaced binder contents
approach and exceed 40 percent. The addition 11.4
of unusually soft binders to compensate for
elevated amounts of recycled binder can Using blending charts
deviate from the predicted performance
expected using blending analysis. Therefore, 11.4.1 How much blending really occurs
the Asphalt Institute recommends in no case (the black rock question)?
should the selected virgin binder grade be more Most asphalt mixture technologists agree that
than two grades softer than the binder grade when RAP is mixed with virgin aggregate and
that would be used in a 100 percent virgin (0 virgin asphalt binder in a mixing plant (or
percent RAP) mixture for that location and even in the lab), there is a certain amount of
application. As before, if the project binder blending that occurs. In other words, RAP does
grade is intended to be a modified binder, not behave like a black rock—an aggregate
then the selected virgin binder should also that was previously coated with asphalt binder
be a modified binder. If the only reason an but does not contribute to the final asphalt
agency is specifying the modified grade is for binder physical properties. On the other hand,
rutting concerns, a modified binder may not it seems very unlikely that the RAP binder will
be necessary depending on the properties and physically separate itself from the rock and blend
quantity of the RAP being utilized. completely with the virgin binder. The truth likely
• Historically, asphalt mixtures containing lies somewhere between these two extremes.
up to 20–25 percent RAP have performed Blending equations and charts presume that
successfully in service, when properly complete blending occurs between the RAP and
designed and constructed. More recently, virgin binders. While this very likely does not
research has been conducted to evaluate the occur, research has shown that the RAP mixture
design and performance of asphalt mixtures behaves as a composite as if the RAP and virgin
Chapter 11 Recycled Asphalt Materials in the Mix Design Process 145
binders were completely blended. What this means and virgin binder grade as variables. Section
is that the RAP mixture will behave as if it were 11.4.2.1 provides an example of the first case using
a virgin mixture blended with the final (blended) the PG system, while section 11.4.2.2 provides
asphalt binder grade rather than just the virgin an example of the second case also using the PG
asphalt binder grade. system. Section 11.4.3 provides another example of
What is the risk if total blending does not occur the first case, but with using the viscosity grading
and the properties of the virgin asphalt binder system.
control the performance of the RAP mixture?
Because the virgin asphalt binder grade is softer, 11.4.2.1 PG blending using a known
the risk is that the RAP asphalt mixture will behave RAP percentage
as if it were softer—leading to concerns about If the final blended binder grade, percentage of RAP
rutting. This is the reason for the recommendation and recovered RAP properties are known, then the
that in no case should the selected virgin binder properties of an appropriate virgin asphalt binder
grade be more than two grades softer than the grade can be determined. Consider the following
binder grade that would be used in a 100 percent example:
virgin (0 percent RAP) mixture. If a mix designer • The specifying agency requires a blended
is concerned about rutting susceptibility, then binder grade of PG 64-22 or better.
one or more performance-related tests (described • The RAP percentage in the mixture is
in chapter 10) may be used to validate the 30 percent (RPBR = 0.30).
performance of the mixture. • The recovered RAP properties are as indicated
The following discussion on the use of blending in Table 11.4.
equations and charts assumes complete blending,
which again is unlikely. The extent of actual Using a linear blending equation, the critical
blending likely depends on many factors such as temperatures of the virgin asphalt binder can be
RAP binder stiffness, mixing temperature and determined:
storage temperature and time. T − (RPBR × TRAP )
TVirgin = Blend (Eq. 11.12)
(1 − RPBR)
11.4.2 Blending analysis methods using where:
PG grading system TVirgin = critical temperature of the virgin
When using blending charts or equations, there asphalt binder
TBlend = critical temperature of the blended
are three cases that will be encountered by a mix
asphalt binder (final desired)
designer:
RPBR = RAP Pavement Binder Ratio
1. determining an appropriate virgin binder TRAP = critical temperature of recovered
grade when the RAP binder percentage to RAP binder
be used in the mixture is known as well as Using the values in Table 11.4 and the
the final blended binder grade (project assumptions shown earlier, the critical high
binder grade);
2. determining the RAP binder percentage that
may be used when a specific virgin binder grade
TABLE 11.4 E xample—Properties of Recovered RAP Binder
is to be used and the final blended binder grade
is known; and
Aging Property Critical Temperature, °C
3. determining the final blended binder grade
DSR G*/sin δ High 86
when the RAP binder percentage is fixed and
DSR G*sin δ Intermediate 31
virgin asphalt binder grade is fixed. RTFO
BBR S Low −14
Of these cases, the third case is least likely to BBR m-value Low −11
be used and will not be discussed further. In most Actual PG 86-11
instances, the project (final blended) binder grade PG
M320 PG 82-10
will be specified leaving only RAP binder percentage
146 Chapter 11 Recycled Asphalt Materials in the Mix Design Process
temperature of the virgin asphalt binder is 88
calculated as follows: 82
64 − (0.30 × 86) 76
TVirgin = = 54.6 (Eq. 11.13)
T critical, C
(1 − 0.30) 70
shown below. 28
T critical, C
For the critical intermediate temperature:
25
25 − (0.30 × 31)
TVirgin = = 22.4 (Eq. 11.14) 22.4
(1 − 0.30) 22
–22
• The recovered RAP is a PG 82-10 (critical
–26.7 temperatures in Table 11.6).
–28
By rearranging the equations described earlier,
–34 the percentage of RAP can be determined:
0.0 (0%) 0.2 (20%) 0.4 (40%) 0.6 (60%) 0.8 (80%) 1.0 (100%)
T −T
RPBR (Percentage of RAP) RPBR = Blend Virgin (Eq. 11.17)
TRAP − TVirgin
FIGURE 11.6 Low Temperature (m-value) Blending Chart where:
(RAP Percentage Known)
TVirgin = critical temperature of the virgin
asphalt binder
PG xx-28 grade would be needed to ensure that the
TBlend = critical temperature of the blended
minimum required value of −27°C would be achieved. asphalt binder (final desired)
Thus, a PG 58-28 asphalt binder would be RPBR = RAP Pavement Binder Ratio
selected as the virgin asphalt binder for use in a TRAP = critical temperature of recovered RAP
mixture using 30 percent of the RAP (RPBR = 0.30) binder
described in Table 11.4.
Using these equations for the high, intermediate
To meet the intermediate temperature grade
and low critical temperatures, the RPBR (or
(G*sin δ) in Figure 11.4, the virgin asphalt binder
percentage of RAP) needed to satisfy the
would need to have a critical intermediate
assumptions can be determined. The calculation
temperature no higher than 22°C. Since the
is shown below for the critical high temperature,
maximum critical intermediate temperature in
using an assumed minimum value of 64°C for the
AASHTO M 320 for a PG 58-28 binder is 19°C,
final (blended) binder grade.
the selected binder should easily meet all blended
binder requirements. 64 − 61 3
RPBR = = = 0.12 (Eq. 11.18)
86 − 61 25
11.4.2.2 PG blending using a known virgin Note that the RPBR of 0.12 (or RAP percentage
binder grade of 12 percent) represents the minimum ratio of
If the final blended binder grade, virgin asphalt RAP binder that would need to be used with the
binder grade and recovered RAP binder properties RAP and virgin binder properties shown in
are known, then the amount of RAP that may be Table 11.6 to get a final blended binder that would
used can be determined. Consider the following be at least a PG 64-xx. Note also that the original
example: DSR is not used since the RAP binder is considered
Critical Temperature, °C
Aging Property Temp. Range Virgin Binder RAP Binder
Original DSR G*/sin δ High 61 n/a
RTFO DSR G*/sin δ High 61 86
DSR G*sin δ Intermediate 15 31
PAV BBR S Low −32 −14
BBR m-value Low −29 −11
Actual PG 61-29 PG 86-11
PG
M320 PG 58-28 PG 82-10
148 Chapter 11 Recycled Asphalt Materials in the Mix Design Process
RPBR to Achieve:
Aging Property Temp. PG 64-xx PG 70-xx PG xx-22 PG xx-28
RTFO DSR G*/sin δ High ≥0.12 ≤0.32 — —
PAV DSR G*sin δ Intermediate — — ≤0.62 —
BBR S Low — — ≤0.55 ≥0.28
BBR m-value Low — — ≤0.38 ≥0.11
to have already been aged to at least the level of an In this case, to reach a PG 64-xx grade, but not a
RTFO-aged material. PG 70-xx grade, the maximum RPBR should
Although the ratio of 0.12 is the minimum to be 0.32.
achieve a PG 64-xx grade, the mix designer may The same approach was used for intermediate
also want to ensure that the blended binder is not and low critical temperatures as shown below.
stiffer than a PG 64-xx grade. In this case, the same Final values are indicated in Table 11.7 and
calculation is conducted, but with TBlend set to one Figures 11.7–11.10.
degree lower than the next highest grade (PG 70- For intermediate temperature (where TBlend
xx, in this instance) as shown below: = 25°C for a PG 64-22 binder):
69 − 61 8 25 − 15 10
RPBR = = = 0.32 (Eq. 11.19) RPBR = = = 0.625 = 0.62 (Eq. 11.20)
86 − 61 25 31 − 15 16
FIGURE 11.7 High Temperature Blending Chart FIGURE 11.9 Low Temperature (S) Blending Chart
(RAP Percentage Unknown) (RAP Percentage Unknown)
88 0
82
–6
76
T critical, C
T critical, C
70 –12
64
–18
58 0.12 (12%) 0.32 (32%)
0.28 (28%) 0.55 (55%)
52 –24
0.0 (0%) 0.2 (20%) 0.4 (40%) 0.6 (60%) 0.8 (80%) 1.0 (100%) 0.0 (0%) 0.2 (20%) 0.4 (40%) 0.6 (60%) 0.8 (80%) 1.0 (100%)
RPBR (Percentage of RAP) RPBR (Percentage of RAP)
FIGURE 11.8 Intermediate Temperature Blending Chart FIGURE 11.10 Low Temperature (m-value) Blending Chart
(RAP Percentage Unknown) (RAP Percentage Unknown)
34 0
31
28 –6
T critical, C
T critical, C
25
–12
22
13 –24
0.0 (0%) 0.2 (20%) 0.4 (40%) 0.6 (60%) 0.8 (80%) 1.0 (100%) 0.0 (0%) 0.2 (20%) 0.4 (40%) 0.6 (60%) 0.8 (80%) 1.0 (100%)
150 Chapter 11 Recycled Asphalt Materials in the Mix Design Process
Viscosity Blending Chart 1,000,000
1,000,000
100,000
10,000
10,000
New Binder Viscosity
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
New Binder in Blend (% by weight)
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 FIGURE 11.12 B lending Chart Example
New Binder in Blend R (% by weight)
indicated a change in the critical high temperature variability will increase as the binder is subjected
by as much as 2.1°C. The d2s limit defining the to the recovery procedure.
acceptable range of two test results (95 percent Until testing variability can be sufficiently
confidence limit) was 2.5°C for the Kentucky RAP established for recovered asphalt binders, the
and 0.7°C for the Florida RAP. mix designer may wish to add a factor of safety
Applying a tolerance of 2.5°C to the critical high to ensure that the final blended asphalt binder
temperature of the RAP binder in Tables 11.4 and grade is achieved. Based on the 2.5°C change in
11.6 changes the value from 86°C to 88.5°C. The the critical high temperature of the recovered RAP
effect on the blending would change the virgin binder (Kentucky), an increase/decrease of no
binder critical high temperature from 54.6°C more than 2.0°C in the critical temperatures of the
(55°C) to 53.5°C (54°C) in Case 1—a change of desired binder grade should be sufficient. Therefore,
approximately 1°C, but no change in the virgin a mix designer trying to achieve a PG 64-22
binder grade. The effect on the blending would blended asphalt binder would fix the critical high
also change the minimum RPBR from 0.12 to 0.11 temperature at 66°C instead of 64°C. The critical
percent in Case 2. In either instance, because the low temperature of the blended binder would be
RAP is being blended with virgin asphalt binder −24°C rather than −22°C. These adjustments may
at percentages of (typically) 40 percent or less, or may not result in a change in the virgin asphalt
variability in test results due to the recovery binder grade required or the percentage of RAP
procedure and subsequent testing is decreased. used in the mixture.
It should be noted that Table 11.8 provides an
indication of single laboratory testing variability
11.5
associated with the modified AASHTO T 319
procedure. Multi-laboratory variability has yet to Developing the mix design
be determined. It should also be noted that no low
temperature variability (single laboratory) was Once the appropriate virgin asphalt binder grade
determined from the two RAP sources. and percentage of RAP (or percentage of RAP
Other sources describe multi-laboratory testing binder) has been selected, the asphalt mixture can
variability associated with the PG binder tests. proceed through a normal mixture design process,
This information is readily available from the with a couple of clarifications and
AASHTO Material Reference Laboratory Program. minor changes.
However, this testing variability is based on
samples that are typically taken from the asphalt 11.5.1 Determining combined aggregate gradation
binder tanks, not recovered from an asphalt RAP should be treated like any other aggregate
mixture sample. It is expected that the testing when determining the combined aggregate
152 Chapter 11 Recycled Asphalt Materials in the Mix Design Process
gradation—except that the mix designer must where
remember that the RAP contains aggregate and VirginAggstockpile = the stockpile percentage of
asphalt binder. Unlike virgin aggregates, the a virgin aggregate used in
percentage of aggregate in the RAP will always be blending calculations
less than the total percentage of RAP added to the VirginAggBlend,n = the amount of a virgin
mixture. aggregate (n) used in the
To determine the combined gradation, the mixture, in percent (where
RAPBlend percentage (i.e., how much RAP total n = 1 is Stockpile #1, n = 2 is
will be used) is multiplied by the RAP aggregate Stockpile #2, etc.)
percentage to get a stockpile percentage for RAPBlend = the total amount of RAP used
in the mixture, in percent
determining combined mixture gradation. The
RAPstockpile = the stockpile percentage of
equation is shown below:
the RAP used in aggregate
Pb, RAP blending calculations
RAPstockpile = RAPBlend × 1 − (Eq. 11.25)
100
For example, consider that a mix designer wants
where
to use 25 percent RAP with 20 percent #57 coarse
RAPstockpile = the stockpile percentage of the
RAP used in aggregate blending aggregate, 30 percent #8 coarse aggregate and
calculations 25 percent fine aggregate. The stockpile
RAPBlend = the total amount of RAP used in the percentages to use are shown as follows:
mixture, in percent
For #57 coarse aggregate:
Pb,RAP = asphalt binder content of the RAP,
expressed as a percent 20
VirginAgg stockpile = 20 + × (25 − 23.5)
(20 + 30 + 25)
11.5.1.1 Example 20
For example, consider that a mix designer wants to = 20 + × 1.5
75
use 25 percent RAP with an asphalt content of
6.0 percent in a mixture. After finding the 30
gradation of the RAP aggregate, the mix designer VirginAgg stockpile = 20 + = 20 + 0.4 = 20.4%
75
uses a blending program to determine the
combined gradation. The stockpile percentage to For #8 coarse aggregate:
use is shown as follows:
30
6.0 VirginAgg stockpile = 30 + × (25 − 23.5)
RAPstockpile = 25 × 1 − = 23.5% (20 + 30 + 25)
100
30
The next step is to adjust the stockpile = 30 + × 1.5
75
percentages of the virgin aggregates. This is done by
first dividing the amount of each virgin aggregate 45
VirginAgg stockpile = 30 + = 30 + 0.6 = 30.6%
used by the total amount of virgin aggregate in the 75
mix and then proportioning that percentage as a For fine aggregate:
function of the difference between the RAPstockpile
and RAPBlend. The equation is as follows: 25
VirginAgg stockpile = 25 + × (25 − 23.5)
VirginAgg stockpile = VirginAgg Blend,n (20 + 30 + 25)
25
VirginAgg Blend = 25 + × 1.5
+ × (RAPBlend − RAPstockpile ) 75
(∑1 VirginAgg Blend,n )
n
VirginAgg stockpile = 25 +
37.5
= 25 + 0.5 = 25.5%
(Eq. 11.26) 75
154 Chapter 11 Recycled Asphalt Materials in the Mix Design Process
(0.9°F) for every percent of RAP used in the mix Total Agg Weight = the total weight
(RAPBlend). Thus for a mixture with RAPBlend = of virgin and RAP
25 percent, the mixing temperature of the virgin aggregates
aggregates should be raised by 12.5°C (22.5°F). Pb = desired asphalt binder
The mixing temperature of the virgin asphalt content, percent
binder should not be adjusted. Ps = aggregate content,
To mix each sample, the pre-batched virgin percent (100 – Pb)
aggregate is added to a mixing bowl (or bucket RAP Batch Weight = total weight of RAP
mixer) and the heated RAP is added and quickly that was batched
mixed with the virgin aggregates. A crater is formed RAP Aggregate Weight = weight of RAP aggregate
just as in the normal mixing process, and the virgin in the blend
asphalt binder is added in the appropriate amount
Using the data in the previous example, and
and the mixing process is started.
assuming that a total asphalt binder content of
5.0 percent is desired, the virgin binder weight can
11.5.4 Determining new virgin binder quantity
be calculated as shown:
Because the pre-batched RAP sample contains
5.0
asphalt binder in addition to aggregate, the weight Virgin Binder Weight = 5000 × − (1250 − 1175)
of the RAP binder must be accounted for so that 95.0
the total asphalt binder content is correct. This Virgin Binder Weight = (263) − (75) = 188
is done by calculating the total weight of asphalt
As shown above, to get a total asphalt binder
binder to be used for a specified asphalt binder
content of 5.0 percent in the mixture, we need
content and then subtracting the RAP binder to get
263 grams of asphalt binder added to an aggregate
the weight of the virgin asphalt binder to be added.
weight of 5,000 grams. However, since the pre-
This is shown in the equation below:
batched RAP (1,250 grams) contains some asphalt
Pb binder, we need to account for it to calculate the
Virgin Binder Weight = Total Agg Weight ×
Ps amount of virgin asphalt binder to use. In this
− (RAP Batch Weight − RAP Agg Weight) example, 75 grams of RAP asphalt binder exists in
the mix, leaving 188 grams of virgin asphalt binder
(Eq. 11.28) to be added to get a total asphalt binder content of
where 5.0 percent.
Virgin Binder Weight = the weight of the virgin Once the batching and mixing processes are
binder to be added complete, the mix design process is unchanged by
the addition of RAP.
Specialty Mixes
12.2
12.1 Introduction����������������������������������������� 156
12.2 Airfield mixes ������������������������������������� 156 Airfield mixes
12.3 Open-graded mixes ��������������������������� 157 Hot mix asphalt (HMA) is used extensively for
12.4 Stone matrix asphalt��������������������������� 162 airfield pavements. HMA can be used for virtually
12.5 Rich bottom layer mixes��������������������� 165 all types of pavements and loading conditions that
exist on the smallest to the largest airfields in the
12.6 Hot In-Place Recycling (HIPR)����������� 165
world. As in all HMA applications, a mix design
12.7 Cold mix��������������������������������������������� 167
must be performed to produce a blend of aggregates
12.8 Crumb rubber modified asphalt mix and binder that efficiently provides long-lasting
design�������������������������������������������������� 167 performance when placed and compacted.
12.9 Hydraulic mixes ��������������������������������� 169 HMA materials that will perform well in airfield
12.10 Railway track bed mixes��������������������� 169 applications are different than those used for
12.11 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course������� 170 highways, roadways and streets. Even though
12.12 Bridge deck mixes ����������������������������� 171 portions of runways and taxiways have sufficient
12.13 Sand-asphalt mixes ��������������������������� 172
strength to accommodate extremely heavy loading,
much of the pavement carries virtually no or
12.14 Warm asphalt mix������������������������������� 172
infrequent loads. Airfield mixes must be designed
to stay flexible and durable over a long period of
12.1 time and avoid premature aging on areas that do
not receive traffic.
Introduction The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has
In this chapter, a number of specialty mixes will be a set of specifications called Advisory Circulars
described. Mix design procedures and parameters (ACs). Asphalt pavement specifications are in AC
will be discussed in an effort to assist those asked 150/5370-10, Part 5—Flexible Surface Courses.
to design the mixes covered. In previous chapters To locate the most recent FAA specifications for
in this manual, the discussion has centered on asphalt pavements, go to:
general mix design procedures that are used for www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/
mostly dense-graded mix types, including those construction_standards/.
designed using Superpave, Marshall and Hveem The FAA’s dense-graded mix type is specified
mix design systems. The mixes described here as P-401 or P-403. P-403 is similar to P-401 but
are designed for a very specific purpose and/or without percent within limit calculations. Both
application and therefore sometimes require mix specifications provide for a tailoring option for
design test procedures and criteria that are not the design engineer to select either the Superpave
typical for dense-graded materials. However, the Gyratory Compactor or Marshall Hammer.
standard test procedures already discussed are Both P-401 and P-403 specifications directly
applicable and widely utilized in evaluating and refer to this manual.
designing many of these mixtures.
Coarse
Dry- Aggregate
Rodded
Coarse
Aggregate
FIGURE 12.1 Conceptual difference between VCA DRC and VCA mix
range. The NCHRP procedure suggests decreasing specimen after the completion of a specified
minimum binder contents for combined aggregate number of revolutions. The percent of weight loss is
bulk specific gravities above 2.75 and increasing said to be an indication of durability and is related
them for combined aggregate bulk specific to the quantity and quality of binder utilized. At
gravities below 2.55. The mixing and compaction the time of this writing, there were no AASHTO or
temperatures should be the same as those used for ASTM procedures for the Cantabro test, but other
regular dense-graded mixes. test methods like the Texas DOT TEX-245-F can be
It is important to note that when determining Gmb found online.
on compacted open-graded specimens, a CoreLok® The asphalt content that meets the following
or comparable method must be used. The specimen criteria (see Table 12.5) is selected.
saturated surface dry (SSD) weight cannot be If moisture susceptibility testing is desired,
properly measured using AASHTO T 166 because the consideration should be given to the boil test or
water in the void spaces will drain away, resulting in conducting a submerged Hamburg or submerged
a volume calculation that will be much smaller than APA test.
the actual volume, and therefore a Gmb that is much
greater than the actual bulk specific gravity.
Drain-down tests should be conducted on loose TABLE 12.5 Open-graded surface mixture specifications
mix according to AASHTO T 305 (ASTM D6390)
at a temperature 15°C higher than the anticipated NCHRP 640 Open-Graded Surface
production temperature. Mixture Specifications
Some agencies also run the Cantabro abrasion Test Method Requirement
test, which uses compacted mix specimens in an Air Voids AASHTO T 331 18%–22%
L.A. Abrasion machine. The Cantabro abrasion Cantabro Abrasion TEX-245-F 15% max.
test measures the breakdown of the compacted Drain-down AASHTO T 305 0.3% max.
modified. The use of stiffer binders will reduce the should be sufficiently dry to flow freely and be
drain-down during construction and improve the essentially free from agglomerations. Filler shall be
rut resistance. free from organic impurities and have a plasticity
A stabilizer is typically used in the SMA mixture index not greater than four.
to prevent drain-down of the asphalt binder during
construction. Two types of fibers—cellulose fibers 12.4.3 Selection of desired gradation
and mineral fibers—have been used. Both types Once satisfactory materials have been
of fibers have been used successfully. The mineral identified, the optimum aggregate gradation
fiber is usually heavier than cellulose fiber and is and binder content must be determined. This is
therefore added at a higher percentage (by weight) accomplished by first selecting an appropriate
so that a sufficient volume of fibers is added. aggregate blend. This blended gradation should
Mineral filler shall consist of finely divided fall within the specified gradation tolerances,
mineral matter such as crusher fines, fly ash or provide an aggregate skeleton with stone-on-
other approved products. At the time of use, it stone contact and furnish a mixture that meets
HFMS-2h
HFMS-2s
HFMS-1
HFMS-2
CMS-2h
CSS-1h
CMS-2
MS-2h
CSS-1
SS-1h
MS-1
MS-2
3000
3000
SS-1
250
800
250
800
70
Cold-Plant Mix
Pavement Base &
Surface
Open-Graded
X X X X X X X X X
Aggregate
Dense-Graded
X X X X X X X X X
Aggregate
Patching,
X X X X X X X
Immediate Use
Patching, Stockpile X X X X X X
Mixed-in-Place (Road Mix)
Pavement Base &
Surfaces
Open-Graded
X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Aggregate
Dense-Graded
X X X X X X X X X
Aggregate
Sand X X X X X X X X
Sandy Soil X X X X X X X
Patching,
X X X X X X X X
Immediate Use
Patching, Stockpile X X X X
using a portable blending system. Particle size The discrete rubber particles may affect the
is typically smaller than 10 mesh. aggregate’s ability to fit together. If the rubber
• Terminal Blend—A method that blends particles force the aggregate apart to any degree,
crumb rubber modifier with the asphalt VMA will be increased. If the air void content is
binder at the asphalt terminal. There are kept constant, that means the required binder
two general types of terminally blended content will necessarily increase. CRM mixes
binder products. One type fully digests the incorporating larger rubber particle sizes typically
rubber into the binder, while the other type require more adjustments than those with smaller
intentionally retains small rubber particles in particles. Because of the extra volume occupied by
the blended binder. Particle size is typically rubber particles, their use with open-graded and
smaller than 30 mesh. gap-graded mixes typically works best. However,
Asphalt mixtures using terminally blended dense-graded mixes can be successfully designed if
CRM with particles fully digested into the the particle size is small enough, normally No. 30
binder require no deviation from normal design (0.6 mm) or smaller. Adjustments to the aggregate
procedure for any mix type. Designing asphalt gradation are often required to make space for
mixtures using other types of CRM requires a few the CRM, typically by reducing the amount of
changes from the typical design process, which is screenings of like-size material.
the topic of discussion for the remainder of CRM mixtures may swell, or rebound, after
this section. laboratory compaction, affecting the mixture
Field Verification of
Asphalt Mixtures
• binder content;
13.1 Laboratory design versus field
• gradation of each specified sieve size;
production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
• cold feed and/or hot bin proportions;
13.2 Quality control tests and calculations . . 175 • aggregate properties including bulk specific
13.3 Job mix formula verification and gravities;
daily mix verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 • volumetric properties including Pa, VMA, VFA,
13.4 Volumetric adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 and DP;
13.5 Density specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 • bulk and maximum specific gravities of the
mixture; and
• stability, flow or other performance
parameters specified.
A thorough understanding of the concepts
discussed in chapter 5 regarding volumetric Field verification of the asphalt mix involves
properties is essential in understanding variability testing and analyzing the field-produced mixture
that can occur when field-produced mixtures are to ensure that the JMF criteria specified above
compared to laboratory mix design results. Issues are met. Significant differences exist between the
such as absorption, mixture conditioning and small-scale operation of the laboratory mixing bowl
gradation have significant impact on the volumetric and a 500-ton-per-hour HMA plant.
results of field-produced mixtures. HMA produced in the field will often display
different volumetric properties when compared
13.1 to results in the lab. Laboratory mix and field-
produced mix have different physical handling
Laboratory design versus of the aggregate before and after blending of
field production materials, varied use of particulate control and a
Good performance of asphalt pavements is differing environment in which absorption can
achieved by using high-quality materials, precise occur. All of these, along with other variables, can
process control during mix production and best produce changes in the VMA and air voids of the
placement practices during construction. The life field-produced mixtures when compared to the
of a pavement and the cost of maintenance can laboratory mix design.
be very sensitive to seemingly minor variations in A mix design technician or engineer should
materials properties, such as aggregate gradation, account for anticipated differences between the
asphalt content, mixture volumetrics and lab and field when they have experience with the
compaction. proposed materials, especially the aggregate, and
The goal of mix design is to establish mix the plant that will produce the mix.
formulation and process control targets known as Field verification of an asphalt mix is necessary
the job mix formula (JMF). A JMF should contain to measure what differences exist and what
the following criteria along with appropriate corrective measures, if any, need to be made.
production tolerances: Out-of-date mixture designs are often a source
of production problems. If the mix design was
5.8 UCL
5.70
Asphalt Content, Percent
5.5
5.47
5.2 LCL
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
5.8 UCL
Asphalt Content Moving Average,
5.63
5.58
5.54 5.54
5.52 5.50
5.5
Percent
5.50
5.42 5.43
5.41 5.42
5.39
5.2 LCL
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
182
Asphalt ASTM C127, 47, 48, 99 ASTM D6926 “Standard Practice for
adhesion failure between aggregate and, ASTM C128, 47, 48 Preparation of Bituminous Specimens
112 ASTM C142 “Clay Lumps and Friable Particles Using Marshall Apparatus,” 37, 40, 77
cohesion failure within, 113 in Aggregate,” 23 ASTM D6927 “Standard Test Method for
defined, 1 ASTM C188, 99 Marshall Stability and Flow of Bituminous
Asphalt binder ASTM C837, 114 Mixtures,” 40, 77
absorption, 139 ASTM D70, 47 ASTM D7369 “Standard Test Method for
aging characteristics, 5 ASTM D204, 72 Determining the Resilient Modulus of
behavior, 5–6 ASTM D1075, 116 Bituminous Mixtures by Indirect
content, 76, 137 ASTM D1188 “Bulk Specific Gravity and Tension Test,” 129
defined, 1 Density of Compacted Bituminous ASTM D7460, 128
performance-graded system for, 4, 19 Mixtures Using Coated Samples,” ASTM D7906 “Recovery of Asphalt from
polymer-modified, 9 41, 82 Solution Using Toluene and the Rotary
properties of RAP, 140–145 ASTM D1559 “Resistance of Plastic Flow of Evaporator,” 140
selection for Superpave, 65 Bituminous Mixtures Using Marshall Atterberg limit tests, 113
temperature susceptibility, 5 Apparatus,” 40 Automatic vacuum sealing method of
testing procedures for, 35–36 ASTM D1560 “Standard Test Methods for determining bulk specific gravity, 42
viscoelasticity, 5 Resistance to Deformation and Cohesion
Asphalt cement, 1 of Bituminous Mixtures by Means of
Asphalt concrete (AC), 1 Hveem Apparatus,” 40, 91 B
Asphalt mix design, see Mix design ASTM D1561 “Standard Practice for
Asphalt mixture performance tester (AMPT), Preparation of Bituminous Mixture
Bailey method, 179
123–124, 126 Test Specimens by Means of California
Binder
flow number test, 123 Kneading Compactor,” 40, 91
absorption, 57
illus., 123 ASTM D2041 “Theoretical Maximum Specific
preparation in Superpave, 72
repeated load axial test, illus., 124 Gravity and Density of Bituminous Paving
Binder content
suggested flow number criteria, 124 Mixtures,” 43, 47, 73, 84, 138, 164
effects of bulk specific gravity and
Asphalt mixtures ASTM D2172, 175
theoretical maximum specific gravity,
base, 15 ASTM D2419, 114
44
behavior, 7 ASTM D2726 “Bulk Specific Gravity of
of paving mixture, 57
binder or intermediate, 15 Compacted Bituminous Mixtures Using
optimum, 107–110
classifications of, 1 Saturated Surface-Dry Specimens,”
selection of, 34, 87–88
dense-graded, 1 47, 82
Binder points
density of, 12 ASTM D2776 “Bulk Specific Gravity and
guidelines for selecting beginning and
gap-graded, 2 Density of Non-Absorptive Compacted
ending, 34–35
harsh, 12 Bituminous Mixtures,” 41
Binder specific gravity, 47
hot mix, 1 ASTM D3625, 117
Bitumen, 1
open-graded, 2 ASTM D4125, 175
Bridge deck mix composition and design, 171
stone matrix asphalt, 2 ASTM D4318, 114
Bulk (dry) specific gravity
surface course, 15, 16 ASTM D4791 “Plastic Fines in Graded
calculation for aggregate blend, 50–52
tender, 12 Aggregates and Soils by Use of the Sand
composite for one stockpile, 50
using blending charts with RAP and virgin Equivalent Test,” 21
determination in Marshall method, 82
aggregate and asphalt binder, 145–152 ASTM D4867, 114
determining, 41–43
volumetric characteristics of, 12–14 ASTM D5404 “Recovery of Asphalt from
during field verification, 175
Warrenite, 3 Solution Using the Rotary Evaporator,”
effect of binder content on, 44
warm mix, 2 140, 141
for aggregate use in hot mix asphalt, 27
Asphalt Mixtures Expert Task Group (ETG), ASTM D5581 “Standard Test Method for
of aggregates, 47, 48–52
144 Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous
of mineral filler, 49
Asphalt pavement analyzer (APA) Mixtures Using Marshall Apparatus
of mixtures, 34, 47
illus., 120 (6 inch-Diameter Specimen),” 40, 77,
of RAP, 139
suggested criteria for, 121 88
relationship to binder content, illus., 44
to test for rutting, 120 ASTM D5821 “Determining the Percentage of
using automatic vacuum sealing method
typical results from, illus., 121 Fractured Particles in Coarse Aggregate,”
(CoreLok©), 42
Asphalt pavement distress types 20
using paraffin coating method, 42–43
fatigue cracking, 7, 9–10 ASTM D6390, 160, 161
using SSD method, 41–42
low temperature cracking, 7, 10–11 ASTM D6752 “Bulk Specific Gravity and
permanent deformation, 7–9 Density of Compacted Bituminous
Asphalt Treated Permeable Base (ATPB), 2,
19, 157
Mixtures Using Automatic Vacuum
Sealing Method,” 41
C
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists ASTM D6925 “Standard Test Method for
(AAPT), 88 Preparation and Determinations of the CAA, see Coarse aggregate angularity
ASTM C29, 164 Relative Density of HMA Specimens California kneading compactor, see Hveem
ASTM C88 “Soundness of Aggregate by Use of by means of the Superpave Gyratory compactor
Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate,” 23 Compactor,” 40 Cantabro abrasion test, 160
Centrifuge kerosene equivalent test method
(CKE), 92
183
apparatus for Hveem CKE tests, illus., 93 Dense-graded asphalt mixes density specifications for in-place HMA
approximate asphalt content determined methods of designing, 1 pavements, 179
by, 92–99 Hveem, 1, 91 determining aggregate gradation, 175
equipment for, 92 Marshall, 1 ensuring job mix formula criteria are met,
procedure for fine aggregate, 93–94 Superpave, 1 174
surface area of total aggregate, 93 Density specifications extraction test for, 175
surface capacity test for coarse aggregate, bulk specified density, 180 ignition oven test for, 175
94 control strip specified density, 179 job mix formula verification, 176
Check-cracking, 58 method specifications, 179 measuring air voids, 176
CKE, see Centrifuge kerosene equivalent test reference chart, illus., 181 quality control tests and calculations,
method theoretical maximum specified density, 175–176
Clay content (sand equivalent) in aggregates, 180 volumetric adjustments, 178–179
21–22 Design aggregate structure (DAS) Fine aggregate
Coarse aggregate calculations for, 63–64 centrifuge kerosene equivalent procedure
determining bulk specific gravity of, 48 default binder contents for, 63 for, 93–94
surface capacity test for, 94 multiple gradations used in, illus., 62 determining bulk specific gravity of, 48
Coarse aggregate angularity (CAA), 20 selecting for Marshall or Superpave mix Fine aggregate angularity, 20, 21
Cold mix design, 61–64 Fine aggregate angularity apparatus, illus.,
description, 167 Design asphalt content 21
design methods, 167 for heavy-traffic category of pavement, Flat and elongated particles (F & E)
Combined specific gravity of RAP, 137 110 as a consensus aggregate property, 20
Compacted mixture procedures for selecting using Hveem measuring, illus., 22
effect of Marshall compactive effort, illus., method, 110 Flexural beam fatigue test, 128–129
60 Drain-down effects of strain on fatigue life, illus., 129
percent of air voids in, 54 basket, illus., 161 equipment, illus., 128
percent of voids filled with asphalt in, 56 evaluation of, 161 typical response of asphalt mixture, illus.,
percent of voids in mineral aggregate in, DSR phase angle procedure, 35 128
54 DSR steady flow procedure, 35 Fractionated reclaimed asphalt pavement
Compaction and mixing temperatures, 35, 72 Dust to binder ratio, 57 (FRAP), 136
equiviscous method, 35 FRAP, see Fractionated reclaimed asphalt
temperature chart, illus., 35 pavement
Compaction level, 59, 179 E
Consensus aggregate properties
clay content, 20, 21
Effective aggregate volume, illus., 53
G
coarse aggregate angularity, 20
Effective asphalt content, 14
fine aggregate angularity, 20, 21
Effective binder content of paving mixture, 57 Gap-graded asphalt mix, 2
flat and elongated particles, 20, 21
Effective specific gravity Georgia loaded wheel tester, 120
requirements, illus., 20
determining, 52 Gradation chart in evaluating aggregates,
specified in Superpave, 66
for aggregate use in hot mix asphalt, 27 illus., 25
Control charts
of aggregates, 47 Gradation of aggregates
for daily field verification, 177
of RAP, 139 control points, 26; illus., 27
illus., 177
Equiviscous method, 35, 36 determining, 175
CoreLok©, 42
ETG, see Asphalt Mixtures Expert Task Group plotting, 25
for open-graded specimens, 160
Expected traffic loading, 67 restricted zone, 26
vacuum sealing device, illus., 43
Gradation requirements for Superpave, 68
Critical temperatures
Ground tire rubber (GTR), 35
of recovered RAP binder, illus., 146
of virgin and recovered RAP binders, illus.,
F GTR, see Ground tire rubber
Gyratory compaction effort in Superpave, 68
148
of virgin asphalt binder, illus., 147 F & E, see Flat and elongated particles
Crumb rubber modified asphalt mix design,
167–169
FAA, see Fine aggregate angularity
Fatigue cracking
H
dry process, 167 causes of, 9
terminal blend, 168 illus., 9 Hamburg asphalt pavement analyzer, 76
wet process, 167 methods to overcome, 10 Hamburg loaded wheel tester, 115
see also Load-associated cracking illus., 116
Fatigue resistance, 9–10 typical results from, 116
D Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
advisory circulars related to asphalt
Hamburg wheel-tracking (HWT) test
described, 121
pavements, 156 equipment, illus., 122
Daily mix
Field, Frederick, 3 typical submerged results, illus., 122
control charts for, 177
Field verification of asphalt mixtures, HIPR, see Hot in-place recycling
mixture production quality control charts,
174–181 HMA, see Hot mix asphalt
illus., 177
comparing flow, 176 Hot in-place recycling (HIPR)
verification, 176
comparing stability, 176 design recommendations and procedures,
DAS, see Design aggregate structure
daily mix verification, 176 166
184
heater-scarification, 166 procedures for selecting design asphalt impact—Marshall, 39, 40
remixing, 166 content, 110 kneading—Hveem, 39, 40
repaving, 166 rodding mix in mold, illus., 102 Laboratory mixing operations, 36–38
surface recycling, 166 stabilometer test procedures, 104–106 five-gallon bucket mixer, illus., 37
Hot mix, 1 swell test, 106 planetary benchtop mixer, illus., 36
Hot mix asphalt (HMA) swell test apparatus, illus., 103 tools, 3
airfield pavements using, 156–157 swell test specimens, 103 Laboratory mixture testing, 34–44
defined, 1 test procedures, 103–106 purposes of, 34
Hveem mix design method, 91–111 test property curves for hot mix design selection of trial binder contents,
Marshall mix design method, 77–90 data, illus., 109 compaction temperatures and mixing
Superpave mix design system, 65–76 transfer of mix to mold, illus., 102 times, 34–39
voids in compacted, illus., 13 Hveem Stabilometer LAS, see Liquid anti-strip additives
Hubbard, Prevost, 3 ability of mix to resist shear forces, 3 Liquid anti-strip additives (LAS), 117
Hubbard-Field stability value, 3 calibration, 111 Load-associated cracking
Hveem daily calibration of, 110–111 disk-shaped compact tension test, 130
laboratory compaction of, 40 diagrammatic sketch of principal features dissipated creep strain energy test, 130
method of designing dense-graded mixes, 1 of, illus., 103 flexural beam fatigue test, 128–129
Hveem compactor, 40 diaphragm installation, 111 illus., 127
Hveem, Francis, 3, 40 illus., 104 modulus (stiffness) tests, 129–130
Hveem method of mix design refilling liquid, 111 performance tests to address, 127–130
approximate asphalt content by the specimens, 101 semi-circular bend test, 130
centrifuge kerosene equivalent method, test procedures, 104–106 Texas overlay tester, 130
92–99 HWT, see Hamburg wheel-tracking test Load creep tests for moisture sensitivity of
batch weights, 100 Hydrated lime added to aggregate to reduce viscoelastic materials, 123–126
bulk density determination, 106 moisture damage, 117 Los Angeles abrasion machine, 160
chart for combining surface constant for Hydraulic mixes Los Angeles abrasion test, 22
fine and coarse material to determine general design procedures for, 169 Low temperature cracking
surface constant for combined illus., 10
aggregate, 96 major factors affecting, 11
chart for computing oil ratio for dense- I see also Non-load-associated cracking
graded bituminous mixtures, 97
chart for correcting bitumen requirement
due to increasing viscosity of asphalt, 98
Indirect tensile tests, 114
configuration for, illus., 131
M
chart for correcting stabilometer values to
determination of critical cracking
effective specimen height to 64 mm,
temperature of asphalt mixture, illus., Marshall
105
132 laboratory compaction of, 40
chart for determining surface constant for
for non-load-associated cracking, 131 method of designing dense-graded mixes,
coarse material from coarse aggregate
uniaxial servo-hydraulic load frame for, 1
absorption, 96
illus., 131 Marshall, Bruce, 3, 40
chart for determining surface constant for
IS-137 Hot Mix Asphalt for Quality Transit Marshall flow meter, 82
fine material from centrifuge kerosene
and Track Beds, 170 Marshall method of mix design, 77–90
equivalent method, 95
bulk specific gravity determination, 82
compaction, 101
compaction with, 59
design criteria, 107
determination of design asphalt content for
J compactor correlation curve, illus., 82
correlation of manually and mechanically
heavy-traffic category pavement, 110
operated hammers, 81–82
determination of optimum binder content, JMF, see Job mix formula
criteria for a satisfactory paving mix, 85
107–110 Job mix formula (JMF)
density and voids analysis, 84
development and application, 91 criteria for, 174
determination of mixing and compaction
diagram of tamping foot for mechanical defined, 174
temperatures, illus., 80
kneading compactor, illus., 100 verification, 176
determination of preliminary design
equipment for preparation of test
asphalt content, 85
specimen, 99–100
equipment for swell and stability testing, K effect on VMA and air voids on
compaction, illus., 60
103
equipment for preparation of test
estimated design asphalt content, 96 Kneading compactor specimen, 78
example of, 110 compaction with, 101 equipment for stability and flow tests, 82
for hot in-place recycling, 166 for preparation of Hveem test specimens, for hot in-place recycling, 166
interpretation of test data, 106–107 illus., 100 interpretation of test data, 85–88
mechanical kneading compactor for the
manual and mechanical hammer
preparation of test specimens, illus.,
configurations, illus., 79
100
mix design criteria, 109
L minimum percent voids in mineral
aggregate, 88
outline of method, 92
Laboratory compaction, 39–44 mix design criteria, illus., 87
preparation of batch mixes, 101
preparation of test specimens, 99–103 gyratory—Superpave, 39–40
185
modified methods for large aggregate, Mixing and compaction temperatures, 35 testing procedures for, 35–36
88–90 equiviscous method, 35 Modulus (stiffness) tests, 129–130
preparation of test specimens, 78–82 temperature chart, illus., 35 resilient testing configuration, illus., 129
selection of design binder content, 87–88 Mixture behavior, 5–14 Moisture sensitivity
stability and flow considerations, 84 Mixture conditioning, 37–39 asphalt mixture performance tester,
stability and flow test procedures, 83 equipment, 38 123–124
stability corrections for large stone for molding Marshall specimens, 37 boil tests, 115
Marshall mixes, 88 for volumetric mix design, illus., 38 effects of dust and clay on, 113
stability correlation ratios, 86 maximum theoretical specific gravity test Hamburg test, 115
stability curve, illus., 84 procedure, 37 immersion-compression test, 116
test procedure, 82–85 procedure, 38 indirect tensile tests, 114
test property curves for hot mix design with Superpave, 37 influence of physical properties on,
data, illus., 89 Mixture performance testing, 119–134 113–114
test report showing typical lab data, illus., loaded wheel tests, 120–123 of the mix, 112–118
90 modulus (stiffness) tests, 129–130 possible mechanisms of moisture damage,
trends and relations of test data, 85 recommended requirements for 112–113
Marshall proving ring and flow meter, illus., conventional mixtures, 133 practices to minimize moisture damage,
83 repeated load creep tests on viscoelastic 118
Marshall stability value, 83 materials, 123–126 testing in Superpave, 76
Marshall testing machine, 82 repeated shear test at constant height, test methods for evaluating, 114
MAS, see Maximum aggregate size 125–126 treatments to improve, 117–118
Materials selection, 15–33 requirements for conventional mixtures, Molding procedures for specimens in
asphalt binder, 19 133 Superpave, 73
mineral aggregate, 19–27 requirements for unconventional MS-12, Asphalt in Hydraulics, 169
mixture types, 15–19 mixtures, 134 MS-19, Basic Asphalt Emulsion Manual, 167
Maximum aggregate size (MAS), 16 static creep tests, 126–127 MS-26, The Asphalt Binder Handbook, 6, 66
Maximum theoretical specific gravity, see to address load-associated cracking, MSCR, see Multiple stress creep recovery test
Theoretical maximum specific gravity 127–130 Multiple stress creep recovery test (MSCR), 19
Micro-Deval test, 22 to address non-load-associated cracking,
Mineral aggregate, 19–27 130–132
consensus properties, 66 to address permanent deformation, N
source properties, 66–67 119–123
specifications for Superpave, 66–67 Mixture specific gravities
NCHRP Project 09-33 “Performance Testing
Mix design bulk specific gravity, 47
Recommendations,” 132–134
analyzing pavement distresses, 7 theoretical maximum specific gravity, 47
NCHRP Report 9-43 “Mix Design Practices for
criteria for Superpave, 65 Mixture testing, in laboratory, 34–44
Warm Mix Asphalt,” 173
curves in Superpave, illus., 75 Mixture volumetric parameters
NCHRP Report 640 “Construction and
desired properties for, 7–12 percent aggregate, 48
Maintenance Practices for Permeable
determining combined aggregate percent binder, 48
Friction Courses,” 158
gradation, 152–154 percent binder absorbed, 48
NCHRP Report 648 “Mixing and Compaction
durability, 11 percent binder effective, 48
Temperatures of Asphalt Binders in Hot-
evolution of, 3–4 percent of air voids, 48
Mix Asphalt,” 35
field verification of, 175–181 voids filled with asphalt, 48
NCHRP Report 673 “A Manual for Design of
flow chart, 4 voids in the mineral aggregate, 48
Hot Mix Asphalt with Commentary,” 123,
moisture resistance, 11 Mixtures
132
moisture sensitivity and, 113 airfield, 156–157
NCHRP Report 691 “Mix Design Practices for
objective of, 2–3 bridge deck, 171
Warm Mix Asphalt,” 173
objectives of paving, 5–7 cold mix, 167
NCHRP Report 714 “Special Mixture Design
of virgin and RAP mixtures, 152–155 crumb rubber modified asphalt, 167–169
Considerations and Methods for Warm
recycled asphalt materials in, 135–155 field verification of, 174–181
Mix Asphalt,” 173
skid resistance, 11 hot in-place recycling (HIPR), 165–166
NMAS, see Nominal maximum aggregate size
Mix design method hydraulic, 169
Nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS),
Marshall Mix Design, 3, 77–90 open-graded, 157–161
15, 16, 25, 29
Smith Triaxial, 3 preparation in Superpave, 72
affect on binder content, illus., 55
Superpave, 4, 65–76 railway track bed, 169–170
Non-load-associated cracking, 130–132
Texas Gyratory, 3 rich bottom layer, 165
indirect tensile creep/strength test, 131
Mix design properties sand-asphalt, 172
thermal cracking, illus., 130
durability, 11 specialty, 156–173
fatigue resistance, 9–10 stone matrix asphalt, 162–164
moisture resistance—impermeability, 11
resistance to low-temperature cracking,
ultra-thin bonded wearing course,
170–171
O
10–11 warm mix asphalt, 172–173
resistance to permanent deformation— The Modern Asphalt Pavement, 3 OBC, see Optimum binder content
stability, 7–9 Modified asphalt binders Open-graded asphalt mixes, 2, 157–161
skid resistance, 11–12 DSR phase angle procedure, 35, 36 base, 19, 157–158
workability, 12 DSR steady flow procedure, 35, 36 base specifications, illus., 157
186
coarse aggregate properties of, 158 calculation, 148 RPBR, see RAP pavement binder ratio
drain-down test, 161 estimated to achieve final blended grade, RSCH, see Repeated shear constant height test
fine aggregate properties of, 158 illus., 149 Rut-resistant mixes
gradation specifications for, 159 viscosity blending using a known, 150–152 usefulness of Hveem method, 91
hauling, placement and compaction of, 161 RAS, see Recycled asphalt shingles Rutting
illus., 17 Reclaimed asphalt pavement, see Recycled causes of, 7–8
surface mixes, 158–161 asphalt pavement from weak mixture, illus., 8
surface mix materials selection, 158–159 Recovered RAP binder, critical temperatures from weak subgrade, illus., 8
surface mix specifications, 160 of, illus., 146 loaded wheel tests for, 120
trial gradation selection and evaluation, Recycled asphalt materials in the mix design performance tests to address, 119–123
159–160 process, 135–155 shown at intersection, illus., 119
Open-graded friction course (OGFC), 2, 16, Recycled asphalt pavement (RAP), 65 testing at high temperatures for, 119
158 advantages of, 135
Optimum binder content (OBC), 107–110 aggregate specific gravity effect on
calculated VMA, illus., 140 S
aggregate specific gravity of, 137
P asphalt binder absorption of, 139
Sand-asphalt mixes, 172
asphalt binder properties of, 140–145
Sand equivalent (SE) in aggregate, 21
batching and handling in the lab, 154
Paraffin coating, determining bulk specific test, illus., 23
blending with virgin aggregate and binder,
gravity using, 42–43 Saturated surface-dry (SSD) mass method
145–152
Parafilm, 43 determining, illus., 42
consensus aggregate properties of, 140
Percent binder absorption, 57 determining bulk specific gravity using, 42
critical temperature calculations of,
Performance-graded blending of fine aggregate, 48
142–143
blending chart, illus., 151 SE, see Sand equivalent
determination of critical temperature of,
high temperature chart (RAP percentage SGC, see Superpave gyratory compactor
141
known), illus., 147 SHRP, see Strategic Highway Research
economic benefits of, 135
high temperature chart (RAP percentage Program
fractionation of, 135–136
unknown), illus., 149 SMA, see Stone matrix asphalt
heating in mix design process, 154–155
intermediate temperature chart (RAP Source aggregate properties, 19, 22–23
ignition oven procedure for determining
percentage known), illus., 147 deleterious materials, 23
asphalt binder content of, 137
intermediate temperature chart (RAP gradation, 24
importance of knowing source of, 135
percentage unknown), illus., 149 soundness, 23
methods for determining aggregate
low temperature blending chart (RAP specific gravity, 26
specific gravity of, 137–140
percentage known), illus., 147, 148 specified in Superpave, 66
preparing samples for specific gravity
low temperature blending chart (RAP toughness, 22
testing, illus., 138
percentage unknown), illus., 149 Specific gravity
properties, 136–145
using a known RAP percentage, 146 apparent, 27, 47, 52
RFTO aging procedure on, 141
using a known virgin binder grade, bulk (dry), 27, 34, 47
solvent extraction procedure for
148–150 effective, 27, 47
determining asphalt binder content
Performance-graded system (PG) maximum theoretical, 34, 37
of, 137
blending analysis methods using, 146–150 of aggregates, 26
tests to characterize physical properties of
for binders, 4 of RAP, 137
recovered, 141
Performance testing Spontaneous emulsification, 113
Recycled asphalt shingles (RAS), 65
in Superpave, 76 SSD, see Saturated surface-dry mass
advantages compared to RAP, 136
Permanent deformation SST, see Superpave shear tester
concerns about using, 136
causes of, 7 Stabilometer, see Hveem stabilometer
limits in predicting binder performance
Permeable friction course (PFC), 158 Static creep tests, 126–127
of, 136
Perpetual pavement design, 165 using AMPT and SST equipment for, 126
use of mixture performance testing with,
PFC, see Porous friction course Stone matrix asphalt (SMA), 2, 17
136
Phase diagram, illus., 47 coarse aggregate quality requirements for,
Repeated shear constant height (RSCH) test,
PI, see Plasticity index 163
125–126
Plasticity index (PI), 113 evaluation of drain-down for, 164
criteria, 126
Polymeric aggregate treatments, 118 evaluation of mixture volumetrics for, 164
determining flow number, illus., 125
Popcorn mix, see Porous friction course evaluation of moisture susceptibility for,
specimen for, illus., 126
Porous friction course (PFC), 16 164
Superpave shear tester, illus., 125
“Proceedings of the Association of Asphalt fine aggregate quality requirements for,
Resilient modulus test, see Modulus (stiffness)
Paving Technologists (AAPT),” 88 163
tests
materials selection for, 162
Rice test method, 180
mix design characteristics and procedures,
R Rich bottom layer mixture
as a fatigue resistance layer in perpetual
162
selection of desired gradation, 163
pavement design, 165
specifications for Superpave gyratory
Railway track bed mix composition and design procedures for, 165
compactor, 165
design, 170 material characteristics of, 165
typical gradation, illus., 18
RAP, see Recycled asphalt pavement Richardson, Cliff, 3
RAP pavement binder ratio (RPBR), 136
187
Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP),
4 T percent in compacted mixture, 56
volumetric characteristic of asphalt, 13
Stresses Voids in coarse aggregate (VCA), 159
horizontal tensile, 7 Tensile strength ratio (TSR), 115 Voids in mineral aggregate (VMA)
vertical compressive, 7 Theoretical maximum specific gravity calculation of proper aggregate specific
Stripping calculating at trial binder contents, 52 gravity for use in, 55
cohesion failure within aggregate, 113 determining, 43–44 curve, 58
cohesion failure within asphalt, 113 determining at other binder contents, 53 effect of Marshall compactive effort on,
defined, 11, 112 during field verification, 175 illus., 60
freezing as cause of, 113 effect of binder content on, 44 factors affecting, 55–56
spontaneous emulsification as cause of, effects of absorption, illus., 38 for RAP, 139
113 equipment for determining, illus., 44 mixture volumetric parameter, 48
Superpave of mixtures, 47 percent in compacted mixture, 54
control point limits, 26 of RAP, 138 relationship between specification limit
laboratory compaction of, 39–40 relationship to binder content, illus., 44 and, illus., 58
method of designing dense-graded mixes, test procedure, 37 volumetric characteristic of asphalt, 13
1 Thermal cracking with stone matrix asphalt, 162
Superpave gradations defined, 131 Volumetric adjustments during field
fine and coarse, illus., 16 illus., 130 verification, 178–179
Superpave gyratory compactor (SGC), 39, 69 see also Non-load-associated cracking using Bailey method, 179
airfield mixtures using, 156 Total asphalt content, 14 Volumetric characteristics of asphalt mixtures
calibration and angle verification, 69 TSR, see Tensile strength ratio air voids, 13
height instrumentation, 71 asphalt content, 13
mold configuration, illus., 71 density, 12
mold verification, 70 U voids filled with asphalt, 13
schematic of, illus., 70 voids in compacted HMA mixture, illus.,
Superpave HMA mix design system, 65–76 13
Ultrathin bonded wearing (UTBW) course, 18
aggregate consensus requirements, 66 voids in mineral aggregate, 13
gradation, illus., 171
compaction characteristics, illus., 71 Volumetric properties of compacted paving
materials selection for, 170–171
compaction of volumetric specimens, 73 mixtures, 45–64
mixture requirements, 171
data analysis, 74 Volumetric specimens
polymer-modified asphalt emulsion with,
for hot in-place recycling, 166 compaction in Superpave, 73
171
gradations requirements, 67, 68
Unmodified asphalt binders
gyratory compaction effort, 68
materials selection and mix design criteria,
equiviscous method for determining
laboratory mixing and compaction
W
65–69
temperatures of, 36
mineral aggregate specifications, 66
UTBW, see Ultrathin bonded wearing Warm mix asphalt (WMA)
mix design curves, illus., 75
chemical additives, 172
mixture requirements, 67; illus., 70
concerns of using RAS in, 136
moisture sensitivity testing, 76
performance testing, 76
V defined, 1
hybrids, 172
recommended source property tests and
mix design considerations, 173
requirements, 67 VCA, see Voids in coarse aggregate
mix design procedures, 173
specimen preparation and compaction, VFA, see Voids filled with asphalt
moisture sensitivity of, 173
72–74 Virgin aggregate and asphalt
ongoing research about, 173
test equipment, 69–71 blending with RAP, 145–152
organic additives, 172
volumetric analysis, 74 heating in mix design process, 154–155
plant foaming, 172
Superpave shear tester (SST), 65 Virgin asphalt binder
rutting resistance of, 173
illus., 125 determining new quantity of, 155
technologies, 172
Surface course mixtures estimated critical temperatures of, illus.,
Warren, Frederick, 3
binder, 19 147
Warrenite, 3
open-graded base mixtures, 19 using RAP asphalt binder properties to
Weighted arithmetic mean of aggregate blend,
open-graded friction course, 16 select grade of, 144–145
illus., 51
porous friction course, 16 Viscoelastic materials
Weighted harmonic mean of aggregate blend,
Stone Matrix Asphalt, 17 repeated load creep tests for moisture
illus., 51
ultrathin bonded wearing, 18 sensitivity, 123–126
WMA, see Warm mix asphalt
uses of, 16 VMA, see Voids in mineral aggregate
Voids filled with asphalt (VFA)
effect on compaction, 61
mixture volumetric parameter, 48
188