Tanzania's Interim Guidelines for Hot-Mix Asphalt Design

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA
MINISTRY OF WORKS, TRANSPORT AND

COMMUNICATION
Interim Guidelines for

the Design of
Hot-Mix Asphalt
Prepared as part of the development of a substantive asphalt design manual and
performance-based specifications
2018
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018
NOVEMBER 2018
ISBN 9987 - 8891 - 6 - 6
Disclaimer
This document constitutes guidelines for the design and use of hot-mix asphalt in roads and
highways in Tanzania. Although typical values are given in some cases, these are not
specifications for tender purposes. Considerable effort has been made to ensure the
accuracy and reliability of the information contained in this publication. However, neither the
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), nor Tanzania National Roads Agency
(TANROADS) or any of their members can accept any liability whatsoever for any loss,
damage or injury resulting from the use of this information. The contents of this publication
do not necessarily reflect the views of all members of the CSIR and TANROADS.
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018
Preface
High incidences of perennial premature rutting failures on roads and highways in the country
have led to the need to identify more robust asphalt mix design procedures to allow for the
selection of asphalt materials that are appropriate for heavy traffic loading conditions over
the service life of the asphalt concrete pavement. ln some cases, however, these mix
designs should also apply to roads that carry medium to low volumes of traffic. These interim
guidelines are therefore a complementary document to the Pavement and Materials Design
lV'lanual (1999), as well as to other existing standard documents such as the Laboratory
Testing lVlanual (2000), the Standard Specifications for Road Works (2000), the Field
Testing Manual (2003) and, to someextent, the Low-Volume Roads lVlanual (2016).
The overall aim of these guidelines is to outline the methodology and procedures to be
followed and to assist designers in the selection, design and evaluation of hot-mix asphalt for
heavy duty roads, and to present quality management considerations to be taken into
account during the mix design and construction of asphalt mixes. The guidelines are in line
with international best practice of design and construction of hot-mix asphalt, and they will
further enable the development of a substantive hot-mix asphalt design manual that may
lead to the formulation of national specifications.
This Guidelines document is based largely on a project commissioned by the Tanzania

National Roads Agency (TANROADS) and carried out by the Council for Scientific and
lndustrial Research (CSIR) in collaboration with the ltlaterials and Research Department of
TANROADS. Technical review was carried out by various experts including representatives
of higher learning institutions and the construction industry. This is a comprehensive set of
guidelines, to be regarded as a best practice document that provides a sequence of steps for
practitioners and not a policy document for the design of asphalt mixes in the country.
Specifically, it provides guidelines and procedures for the design and use of rutting-resistant
mixes, including coarse dense-graded and stone mastic asphalt (Sl\4A) mixes in pavements.
On behalf of the lVinistry of Works, Transport and Communication, I would like to thank the
Transport lnfrastructure Engineering Competency Area of the CSIR Built Environment for
leading the development of this Guideline document. I would also like to extend my gratitude
and appreciation to all of the road sector stakeholders who contributed their time, knowledge
and effort during the development of this document.
It is my hope that these lnterim Guidelines will initiate a move towards performance-based
specifications for the design of asphalt mixes and increase the reliability of the hot-mix
asphalt designs in the country. ln so doing, it will make a considerable contribution to
improving road infrastructure in the country, hence reducing pavement life cycle costs
substantially.
-Q-*^^"o-
Eng. Joseph [V. Nyamhanga
Permanent Secretary (Works)
lVlinistry of Works, Transport and Communication
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication lnterim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. i
Acknowledgements
The project leading to the development of this guideline was funded by TANROADS and
managed on their behalf by Eng. Mussa O. Mataka (Head of Materials and Research). The
project team would like to acknowledge Eng. Patrick Mfugale (the Chief Executive of
TANROADS) for support and valuable suggestions during the development of these
guidelines.
The project team comprises personnel from the CSIR and TANROADS. Dr Joseph Anochie-
Boateng from the CSIR was the project team leader.
CSIR
Dr Joseph Anochie-Boateng – Project Team Leader and Principal Author
Johan O’Connell – Author
Julius Komba – Author
Ashiel Rampersad
Johan Maritz
Refiloe Mokoena
Georges Mturi
Theresa George
Luckyboy Mohale
Dave Ventura
Dr Martin Mgangira (Technical reviewer and contributing author)
Benoit Verhaeghe (Technical reviewer)
Technicians from the CSIR’s Advanced Pavement Materials Lab
TANROADS
Eng. Mussa O. Mataka – Head of Materials and Research
Eng. John T. Malisa – Author
Technicians from CML
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. iii
Table of Contents
Disclaimer............................................................................................................................ ii
Preface .................................................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... x
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ xii
Description of Terminology............................................................................................. xiv
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background .............................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Current mix design in Tanzania ...........................................................................1-1
1.3 Views on mix design in Tanzania ........................................................................1-2
1.4 Recent trends in asphalt mix design ...................................................................1-4
1.5 Purpose of the design guidelines ........................................................................1-5
1.6 Scope and structure............................................................................................... 1-5
1.7 General applications .............................................................................................. 1-6
1.8 Validation and implementation .............................................................................1-7
2. Asphalt Mix Types and Selection ........................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Mix types and characteristics ............................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Selection of asphalt mix ........................................................................................ 2-4
2.3.1 Mix type and components ....................................................................................... 2-4
2.3.2 Design considerations ............................................................................................ 2-4
2.4 Asphalt pavement structure .................................................................................. 2-5
2.5 Mixes for airports and industrial areas................................................................ 2-6
2.6 Factors that have an impact on mix selection ................................................... 2-7
2.6.1 Traffic considerations ............................................................................................. 2-7
2.6.2 Braking and traction ................................................................................................ 2-9
2.6.3 Fuel spillage............................................................................................................ 2-9
2.6.4 Wander ................................................................................................................... 2-9
2.6.5 Layer thickness and particle size............................................................................ 2-9
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. iv
2.6.6 Climatic considerations ......................................................................................... 2-10
2.6.7 Functional requirements ....................................................................................... 2-11
2.6.8 Geometric conditions ............................................................................................ 2-11
2.6.9 Material availability and project specifications ...................................................... 2-11
3. Selection of Bituminous Binders ........................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Historical developments ........................................................................................ 3-2
3.2.1 Empirical testing vs performance prediction ........................................................... 3-2
3.2.2 Development of Superpave .................................................................................... 3-3
3.3 Superpave for Tanzania ........................................................................................ 3-7
3.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3-7
3.3.2 Temperature mapping ............................................................................................ 3-8
3.3.3 Proposed binder selection for Tanzania ............................................................... 3-13
3.3.4 Evaluation of three PG binders based on the proposed specifications ................ 3-14
4. Selection of Aggregate Materials ........................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................4-1

4.2 Aggregate sources .................................................................................................4-1
4.2.1 Natural aggregate ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2.2 Processed aggregate ............................................................................................. 4-2
4.2.3 Manufactured aggregate ........................................................................................ 4-2
4.2.4 Mineral filler ............................................................................................................ 4-2
4.3 Aggregate production ............................................................................................ 4-2
4.4 Mineralogy and aggregate properties .................................................................4-4
4.5 General requirement of aggregates ....................................................................4-6
4.6 Physical properties of aggregates .......................................................................4-7
4.6.1 Toughness .............................................................................................................. 4-7
4.6.2 Soundness (durability and strength) ....................................................................... 4-7
4.6.3 Cleanliness ............................................................................................................. 4-7
4.6.4 Particle shape ......................................................................................................... 4-8
4.6.5 Specific gravity........................................................................................................ 4-8
4.6.6 Water absorption .................................................................................................. 4-11
4.6.7 Surface area ......................................................................................................... 4-14
4.7 Test methods ........................................................................................................4-14
4.8 Aggregate grading ............................................................................................... 4-15
4.8.1 Grading control points .......................................................................................... 4-16
4.8.2 Aggregate test results ........................................................................................... 4-17
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. v
4.9 Chemical properties ............................................................................................. 4-17
5. Asphalt Mix Design .............................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Asphalt mix properties ........................................................................................... 5-1
5.2.1 Workability .............................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2.3 Stiffness .................................................................................................................. 5-3
5.2.4 Resistance to permanent deformation (Rutting) ..................................................... 5-3
5.2.5 Resistance to fatigue cracking ................................................................................ 5-4
5.2.6 Permeability ............................................................................................................ 5-4
5.2.7 Skid resistance ....................................................................................................... 5-5
5.3 Aims of hot-mix asphalt design ............................................................................5-5
5.4 Methods of asphalt mix design ............................................................................5-6
5.4.1 Marshall mix design ................................................................................................ 5-6
5.4.2 The Superpave system ........................................................................................... 5-6
5.5 Mix design process ................................................................................................ 5-7
5.5.1 Mix composition and volumetric properties ............................................................ 5-8
5.5.2 Effect of voids in the mineral aggregate ............................................................... 5-10
5.5.3 Effect of compaction level ..................................................................................... 5-11
5.5.4 Effect of air voids .................................................................................................. 5-11
5.5.5 Effects of voids filled with binder .......................................................................... 5-12
5.6 Performance tests to evaluate asphalt mix ...................................................... 5-12
5.6.1 Workability ............................................................................................................ 5-13
5.6.2 Durability (moisture resistance) ............................................................................ 5-13
5.6.3 Stiffness ................................................................................................................ 5-14
5.6.4 Permanent deformation ........................................................................................ 5-16
5.6.5 Fatigue cracking ................................................................................................... 5-18
5.6.6 Permeability .......................................................................................................... 5-19
5.7 Performance testing recommendations............................................................ 5-21
5.8 Job mix................................................................................................................... 5-22
6. Design of Dense-Graded Mix ............................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Mix design steps.....................................................................................................6-1
6.2.1 Step 1: Select mix type ........................................................................................... 6-1
6.2.2 Step 2: Select appropriate binder ........................................................................... 6-3
6.2.3 Step 3: Select aggregates ...................................................................................... 6-3
6.2.4 Step 4: Develop three trial aggregate blends ......................................................... 6-3
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. vi
6.2.5 Step 5: Select the optimum mix based on performance ...................................... 6-10
6.3 Compiling the mix design report ........................................................................6-12
6.4 Typical performance-based values ...................................................................6-12
7. Design of Stone Mastic Asphalt Mix ................................................................... 7-1
7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................7-1

7.2 Three key volumetric parameters ........................................................................7-1
7.3 Mix design steps.....................................................................................................7-3
7.3.1 Step 1: Select the SMA mix type ............................................................................ 7-3
7.3.5 Step 5: Select the optimum mix based on performance ...................................... 7-12
7.4 Typical performance-based values ...................................................................7-13
8. Design of Porous Asphalt Mix ............................................................................. 8-1
8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................8-1

8.2 Mix design steps.....................................................................................................8-1
8.2.1 Step 1: Select the porous mix type ......................................................................... 8-1
8.2.5 Step 5: Evaluate performance of the design mix.................................................... 8-5
9. Asphalt Production and Construction ................................................................ 9-1
9.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................9-1

9.2 Hot-mix asphalt manufacture ............................................................................... 9-1
9.2.1 Mixing plant............................................................................................................. 9-1
9.2.2 Aggregate ............................................................................................................... 9-4
9.2.3 Filler ........................................................................................................................ 9-6
9.2.4 Binder ..................................................................................................................... 9-6
9.2.5 Troubleshooting problems in the plant ................................................................... 9-6
9.3 Hot-mix asphalt transport ...................................................................................... 9-8
9.3.1 Types of transport trucks ........................................................................................ 9-8
9.3.2 Maintenance of transport trucks ............................................................................. 9-9
9.3.3 Temperature control ............................................................................................... 9-9
9.4 Hot-mix asphalt paving .......................................................................................... 9-9
9.4.1 Safety ...................................................................................................................... 9-9
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. vii
9.4.2 Paving ................................................................................................................... 9-10
9.4.3 Compaction........................................................................................................... 9-10
10. Quality Control /Quality Assurance................................................................... 10-1
10.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................10-1

10.2 Terms and definitions .......................................................................................... 10-1
10.2.1 Quality control ..................................................................................................... 10-1
10.2.2 Quality assurance ............................................................................................... 10-1
10.3 Levels of quality control....................................................................................... 10-2
10.4 Basic principles of quality control ......................................................................10-3
10.5 Acceptance limits .................................................................................................10-4
10.6 Test methods ........................................................................................................10-6
11. Appendices ......................................................................................................... 11-1
Appendix A: Sample preparation and gyratory compaction ........................................11-2

Appendix B: Types and functions of bitumen additives / modifiers ............................ 11-8
Appendix C: Recommended future development of binder specification ................. 11-9
Appendix D: Overview – Bailey method for determining aggregate proportions ...11-13
Appendix E: Responses to aggregate questionnaire ................................................. 11-19
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. viii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Outline of the interim design guidelines ............................................................ 1-6
Figure 2-1: Asphalt pavement types ................................................................................... 2-6
Figure 2-2: Dual and super-single truck tyres on pavement ............................................... 2-9
Figure 3-1: Heukelom Plot of properties of a binder before and after RTFOT ..................... 3-2
Figure 3-2 Examples of penetration-based bitumen specifications ..................................... 3-3
Figure 3-3: Illustration of the PG binder specification used in the USA ............................... 3-5
Figure 3-4: Illustration of the principles of PG binder specification...................................... 3-7
Figure 3-5: Maximum 7-day average pavement temperatures ........................................... 3-9
Figure 3-6: Minimum pavement temperatures at the surface............................................ 3-10
Figure 3-7: Typical pavement temperatures with depth as a function of time of day ......... 3-11
Figure 4-1: Schematic illustration of compression and impact crushers ............................. 4-3
Figure 4-2: Dust emissions during crushing operation at Kolo quarry ................................. 4-4
Figure 4-3: Section of Kolo quarry showing different rock layers ........................................ 4-4
Figure 4-4: Schematic illustration of coated aggregate with absorbed binder ................... 4-12
Figure 5-1: Volumetric parameters of compacted asphalt specimen .................................. 5-8
Figure 5-2: Performance-related mix design flow chart ...................................................... 5-9
Figure 5-3: Relationship between binder content, voids and VMA .................................... 5-10
Figure 5-4: Influence of compaction density on VMA curve .............................................. 5-11
Figure 5-5: Configuration of a gyratory specimen during compaction ............................... 5-13
Figure 5-6: Schematic illustration of the indirect tensile test ............................................. 5-14
Figure 5-7: Representation of stress and strain in the dynamic modulus testing .............. 5-15
Figure 5-8: Master curve for asphalt mix .......................................................................... 5-16
Figure 5-9: Typical data from flow number test................................................................. 5-17
Figure 5-10: Typical fatigue live curves for three asphalt mixes ....................................... 5-18
Figure 6-1: Grading requirements for 25 mm Nominal Size ................................................ 6-6
Figure 7-1: Differences between VCA (DRC), VCA (MIX) and VMA ................................... 7-2
Figure 8-1: Illustration of the determination of optimum binder content .............................. 8-4
Figure 9-1: Typical batch plant ........................................................................................... 9-2
Figure 9-2: Typical drum mix plant .................................................................................... 9-4
Figure 9-3: Cold bin wall dividers ....................................................................................... 9-5
Figure 9-4: An aggregate dryer in a drum plant .................................................................. 9-5
Figure 9-5: Possible causes of problems in plant mixes ..................................................... 9-7
Figure 9-6 a-c: Types of transport trucks ............................................................................ 9-9
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. ix
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Typical guideline for usage................................................................................ 1-7
Table 2-1: Characteristics of commonly used HMA types .................................................. 2-2
Table 2-2: Traffic classification ........................................................................................... 2-7
Table 2-3: Recommended minimum layer thickness ........................................................ 2-10
Table 2-4: Recommended asphalt mix types ................................................................... 2-10
Table 3-1: Adjustments to the binder grading based on loading and speed........................ 3-6
Table 3-2: Proposed Binder grades for Tanzania ............................................................. 3-13
Table 4-1: Engineering properties of rocks ......................................................................... 4-5
Table 4-2: Desirable properties of rocks for asphalt mix ..................................................... 4-6
Table 4-3: Typical specific gravity values¹ ........................................................................ 4-11
Table 4-4: Recommended tests and requirements¹ .......................................................... 4-15
Table 4-5: Superpave maximum aggregate size designation ........................................... 4-16
Table 4-6: Aggregate grading control points ..................................................................... 4-16
Table 4-7: Results of aggregates from Tanzania .............................................................. 4-17
Table 5-1: Causes and effects of poor workability .............................................................. 5-2
Table 5-2: Causes and effects of poor durability ................................................................ 5-3
Table 5-3: Causes and effects of mix susceptible to rutting ................................................ 5-4
Table 5-4: Causes and effects of poor fatigue resistance ................................................... 5-4
Table 5-5: Causes and effects of mix too permeable.......................................................... 5-4
Table 5-6: Causes and effects of poor skid resistance ....................................................... 5-5
Table 5-7: Recommended performance-related tests....................................................... 5-21
Table 6-1: Compaction levels for dense-graded mixes ....................................................... 6-7
Table 6-2: VMA requirements ............................................................................................ 6-7
Table 6-3: VFB requirements (%) ....................................................................................... 6-8
Table 6-4: Flow number requirements¹ ............................................................................ 6-11
Table 6-5: Moisture resistance requirements ................................................................... 6-11
Table 6-6: Dynamic modulus values for SP 12.5 dense-graded mix................................. 6-13
Table 6-7: Dynamic modulus values for SP19 dense-graded mix .................................... 6-13
Table 6-8: Flow number values for SP 12.5 dense-graded mix ........................................ 6-13
Table 6-9: Flow number values for SP 19 dense-graded mix ........................................... 6-13
Table 7-1: Coarse aggregate quality requirements ............................................................. 7-3
Table 7-2: Fine aggregate quality requirements ................................................................. 7-3
Table 7-3: Minimum binder content requirements .............................................................. 7-4
Table 7-4: SMA grading requirements, percentage passing by volume .............................. 7-5
Table 7-5: Definition of coarse aggregate fraction .............................................................. 7-8
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. x
Table 7-6: Volumetric requirements ................................................................................. 7-10
Table 7-7: Minimum flow number requirements for SMA .................................................. 7-12
Table 7-8: Problems and potential solutions for SMA mixes ............................................. 7-12
Table 7-9: Dynamic modulus values for 12.5 mm SMA mix ............................................. 7-13
Table 7-10: Flow number values for 12.5 mm SMA mix ................................................... 7-13
Table 8-1: Coarse aggregate quality requirements ............................................................. 8-2
Table 8-2: Fine aggregate quality requirements ................................................................. 8-2
Table 8-3: Grading requirements of porous surface mixes ................................................. 8-3
Table 8-4: Porous asphalt mix requirements ...................................................................... 8-5
Table 10-1: Process for quality control of mixes ............................................................... 10-2
Table 10-2: Permissible deviations from specification values at the paving stage as well as
testing frequency ....................................................................................................... 10-5
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. xi
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Definition
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
AC Asphalt Concrete
AMPT Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BBR Bending Beam Rheometer
BTDC Bitumen Test Data Chart
CML Central Materials Laboratory
CRR Crushed Rock
CRS Crushed stone
CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research
DSR Dynamic Shear Rheometer
DTT Direct Tension Test
E80 Equivalent 80 kN axle load
EME Enrobé à Module Élevé
EN European Standard / Europäische Norm
EVA Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
FN Flow Number
FWHA Federal Highway Administration
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicles
HMA Hot-Mix Asphalt
IGDHMA Interim Guidelines for the Design of Hot-Mix Asphalt
ITS Indirect Tensile Strength
LTM Laboratory Testing Manual
LTPP Long-Term Pavement Performance
MEPDG Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide
MERRA Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications
MGV Medium Goods Vehicles
MoWTC Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication, Tanzania
MPD Mean Profile Depth
NAPA National Asphalt Pavement Association
NCAT National Center for Asphalt Technology
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NMAS Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size
PCS Primary Control Sieve
PG Performance Grade
PI Penetration Index
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. xii
Abbreviation Definition
QC / QA Quality Control / Quality Assurance
RAP Recycled Asphalt Pavement
RTFOT Rolling Thin Film Oven Test
SANS South African National Standards
SAPDM South African Pavement Design Method
SBR Styrene-Butadiene Rubber
SBS Styrene-Butadiene-Styrene
SHRP strategic highway research program
SMA Stone Mastic Asphalt
TMH Technical Methods for Highways
TRH Technical Recommendations for Highways
TSR Tensile Strength Ratio
USA United States of America
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. xiii
Description of Terminology
Term Definition
Hot mixed asphalt concrete material of bitumen and aggregate having a nominal
AC14
maximum particle size of 14 mm.
Hot mixed asphalt concrete material of bitumen and aggregate having a nominal
AC20
maximum particle size of 20 mm.
A-E Predominantly elastomer-modified binder for asphalt
Aggregate Crushed stone /rock of specified size and quality to be used in the works.
A-H Predominantly hydrocarbon-modified binder for asphalt
A-P Predominantly plastomer-modified binder for asphalt
A-R Rubber-modified binder for asphalt
The layer/layers of a bituminous mix constructed on top of the base course and
made of a mixture to predetermined proportions of aggregate, filler and
Asphalt concrete
bituminous binder material prepared in a mixing plant to meet the requirements
surfacing
for surfacing material class AC20, AC14 or AC10 and placed by means of a
paving machine.
These are dust particles that are captured from the exhaust gases of asphalt
Baghouse fines
mixing plants.
The layer(s) occurring immediately below the surfacing and above the subbase
Base course
or, if there is no subbase, above the improved subgrade layers.
The surfacing layer immediately below the bituminous wearing course and
Binder course,
above the subbase course or, if there is no subbase, above the improved
bituminous
subgrade layers.
A binder in which bitumen is modified with more than 15% ground rubber. (See
Bitumen-rubber
also modified binder.)
Petroleum-derived adhesives used for sealing of surfaces and binding of
aggregates in pavement layers. Classified according to their composition and
Bituminous binders
physical properties. (See also penetration grade bitumen, bitumen rubber and
modified binders.)
A bituminous surfacing made by the application of one or more layers of
Bituminous mix
bituminous binder with layers of aggregate in successive layers.
Buses Vehicles with seating capacity of 40, or more.
This describes the ease or degree of difficulty with which the asphalt layer can
Constructability
be constructed. It includes aspects such as ease of paving and compaction.
Crushed material made from fresh quarried rock or clean un-weathered
boulders of minimum 0.3 m diameter. All particles must be crushed. The
Crushed rock
material is compacted to a specified percentage of the aggregate’s apparent
density.
Minimum 50% by mass of particles larger than 5 mm must have at least one
crushed face. Made from crushing of stones, boulders or oversize from natural
Crushed stone
gravel. Maximum 30% of fraction passing the 4.75mm sieve can be soil fines.
The material is compacted to a specified specific gravity of BS-Heavy.
This asphalt type has an aggregate grading that approaches the maximum
Dense-graded asphalt
density or Fuller curve.
An equivalent 80 kN axle load based on an exponential equivalency of 4.5
E80 (Tanzania). The standard axle load is an 80 kN single axle load with a dual
wheel configuration.
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. xiv
Term Definition
An Engineer from the consultant firm or from road agency who is responsible for
Engineer
a specific construction project.
Functional properties of
These are mainly; riding quality, noise reduction and skid resistance.
asphalt
In this asphalt type, the aggregate grading diverges from the maximum density
Gap-graded asphalt curve and is lacking in aggregate particles between the 0.600 and 4.75 mm
sieve sizes.
Goods vehicle Motor vehicles designed and constructed primarily for the carriage of goods.
All goods vehicles having three axles including steering axle, and 3 tonnes
Heavy goods vehicles
empty weight, or more.
The upward movement of water through the pavement based layers during hot
Hydrogenises days followed by condensation of the water underneath or in the asphaltic layer
which is usually more dense.
A general term describing vehicles with un-laden weight of less than 3 tonnes. It
Light vehicles
includes buses with a seating capacity of less than 40.
An Engineer in-charge of the pavement materials design, or his/her appointed
Materials engineer
representative.
All goods vehicles having two axles including steering axle, and 3 tonnes empty
Medium goods vehicles
weight, or more.
Used over cracks to distribute stresses at the crack tip over a wide area and, by
Membrane / layer
so doing, prevents it from reflecting through an asphalt overlay.
A binder in which the bitumen is modified with a prescribed percentage of
Modified binder polymers or other approved chemical constituents, alternatively with less than
15% ground rubber. (See also bitumen-rubber).
In this asphalt type, the aggregate grading is lacking in fines to make it more
Open-graded asphalt
permeable and it contains more than 13% voids.
A bitumen of which the viscosity or composition has not been adjusted by
Penetration-grade
blending with solvents or any other substance. Classified according to
bitumen
penetration value obtained in laboratory tests.
The measure of satisfaction given by the pavement to the road user over a
Performance
period of time, quantified by a serviceability / age function.
Performance-grade binder with a maximum seven-day average temperature of
PG 64-16
64°C and a minimum average daily temperature of -16°C.
PG 70-16
PG 76-16
This is an open-graded type of asphalt that allows water to drain through it
Porous asphalt
easily, with a typical air void content in the range of 18% to 22%.
An application of low-viscosity bituminous binder to an absorbent surface,
usually the top of the base course. Its main purpose is to protect the surface of
Prime
a granular material during construction and to improve the bond between
granular materials and bituminous mixes or seals.
This is a measure of the surface roughness of an aggregate particle. Rounded
Rugosity
particles or aggregate with smooth, glassy surfaces would have a low rugosity.
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. xv
Term Definition
The loads on the asphalt layer are mainly carried by the finer aggregate fraction,
Sand-skeleton mixes with the larger fractions providing bulk and replacing a proportion of the finer
fraction.
Stiff asphalt This is an asphalt mix with a high modulus of elasticity.
A gap-graded asphalt composed of a coarse crushed aggregate skeleton,
Stone mastic asphalt
bound with a mastic mortar (filler and bitumen).
The spaces between the coarser aggregate fractions are filled by the finer
Stone-skeleton mixes aggregate fractions, but they do not push the coarser aggregates apart. Contact
between the coarser aggregate fractions is thus assured.
Stress-relieving
Refers to a geofabric material or single modified binder seal.
material
These are asphalt properties that determine the structural life of the asphalt,
Structural properties
such as resistance to cracking, resistance to ageing, etc.
The uppermost pavement layer(s) that provide(s) the riding surface for vehicles.
Surfacing, bituminous Include(s) bituminous wearing course and bituminous binder course where
used.
An application of bituminous binder to a bituminous surface, subsequent to
Tack coat placing a bituminous layer. Usually made of bitumen emulsion with the purpose
to improve the bond between bituminous layers.
This term refers to the grading characteristics of the asphalt aggregate (e.g.
Type of asphalt
open-graded, gap-graded or dense graded)
Very heavy goods All goods vehicles having four or more axles, including steering axle, and 3
vehicles tonnes empty weight, or more.
This is the net electrical charge on the surface of an aggregate particle.
Aggregates that are over-saturated with quartz, or that contain quartz particles,
Zeta potential usually have a negative zeta potential. Saturated, unsaturated (basic) and
carboniferous rocks usually have a positive zeta potential. Examples are
dolerite and dolomite.
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. xvi
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Tanzania’s continued economic growth has seen large increases in volumes of heavy vehicles
on the country’s road network over recent decades. To ensure long-term serviceability of roads
and highways, and to underpin low-intervention strategies and sustainable practice, asphalt
mix design technology has to keep abreast of the higher demands placed on pavements.
Based on the review of the current mix design in the country, it is clear that the existing
manuals require initiatives to revamp them in order to appropriately mitigate the impact of high
volumes of heavy traffic on the roads. The current design methods are limited and cover only
conventional asphalt mixes. In view of this, TANROADS commissioned a project to develop
interim guidelines as a starting point for the design of hot-mix asphalt in the country.
There is consensus among stakeholders and practitioners in the road construction industry in
the country that asphalt mix design should include the superior performing pavements
(Superpave) system so as to effectively tackle the problem of premature failures in asphalt
pavements.
The general perception is that mix design methods without performance-related tests to verify
engineering properties such as stiffness, permanent deformation /rutting, cracking, tensile
strength, permeability, and durability of the mix are inadequate. This is seen as a major
limitation, especially for the design of asphalt mixes placed on heavily trafficked roads and
highways in the country. These roads experience overloading, use of super-single tyres, and
high pavement temperatures during the greater part of the year.
A need has therefore been identified to develop asphalt design guidelines that should address
the following issues:
 The increase in volumes of heavy truck traffic on roads and highways
 Premature failures on asphalt concrete pavements with high volumes of traffic
 Inadequate mix designs that do not consider the prevailing traffic and climate
1.2 Current mix design in Tanzania

The design methods for asphalt mixes in Tanzania have been traditionally based on the
Marshall mix design principles, and in some instances supplemented by aspects of the
Superpave volumetric design principles. The most recent asphalt mix design guidelines for
the country were developed between 1999 and 2003 (more than a decade ago). Significant
developments have taken place in asphalt technology since the publication of these
documents and therefore they need to be updated, particularly in the light of new
developments. Examples of these developments are the increased volume of heavy vehicles
on the roads and highways, and the advent of super-single tyres that are known to cause
relatively more damage on the road than the traditional dual tyres. Furthermore, the methods
proposed in the existing mix design documents are mostly empirical and can at best be used
for low to medium traffic volume roads.
Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication Interim Guidelines for HMA: 2018 pg. 1-1
The four main documents associated with asphalt mix design and specifications (The Ministry
of Works, Transport and Communication, MoWTC) are:
1. Standard Specifications for Road Works (SSRW, 2000)
2. Pavement and Materials Design Manual (PMDM, 1999)
3. Laboratory Testing Manual (LTM, 2000)
4. Field Testing Manual (FTM, 2003)
These manuals reflect the experience gained by the MoWTC in the road sector over a period
of about 30 years.
The following is a summary of the highlights from PMDM, SSRW, LTM, and FTM documents:
i. Five asphalt mixes (namely AC-20, AC-14, AC-10, DBM 30 and DBM 40) with 40/50
and 60/70 penetration grade bitumens are specified for new construction and
rehabilitation. The AC-20, AC-14 and AC-10 are dense-graded asphalt mixes
recommended for asphalt wearing courses, whereas the DBM30 and DBM40 are the
recommended mixes for asphalt base courses. The only asphalt mix type proposed to
address rutting is the dense-graded AC-20 mix with 40/50 penetration grade bitumen.
Although the use of this mix type may not necessarily be wrong, there are no detailed
guidelines for its application.
ii. The Marshall mix design approach is the recommended mix design method with no
modifications. Thus, the current practice for asphalt mix design and construction is
based on empirical methods and criteria.
iii. Aggregate selection for wearing and base course asphalt mixes is based on grading,
strength (TFV, i.e. 10% Fines Value) and water absorption. Other important properties
such as particle shape, texture and durability of aggregates, as well as aggregate
packing characteristics are not considered in the selection of aggregates.
iv. It is suggested in these documents that historical good-performing modified binders

can be used as an alternative for the 40/50 binder. However, no specific polymer
modifiers are recommended. In addition, no binder specifications are available to
provide guidance in the selection of modified binders.
COMMENT: Based on the review of the current asphalt mix design in the country, it is clear
that the existing design manuals required an update in order to appropriately mitigate the
impact of high volumes of heavy traffic on the roads and highways.
1.3 Views on mix design in Tanzania

As part of the development of this document, the project team interacted with asphalt mix
designers and asphalt producers in the country, and reported on some of the current
challenges facing the local asphalt industry. The outcomes of the interviews with different
stakeholders in the asphalt industry provided useful information that could enhance the
development of the Interim Guidelines.
The following issues related to HMA design were raised:

i. Only AC-20 and AC-14 with 40/50 or 60/70 bitumen have been used as the main
asphalt mix for surfacing courses in the country. Thus, the expertise in mix design is
limited to these asphalt materials.
ii. Two mix design methods are used – Marshal mix design and refusal density design.
These methods are based mainly on the details adopted from British Standards (BS).
The main challenge is that implementation is difficult (e.g. fitting design grading in the
specification envelope).
iii. Mix designs are normally done locally, and there is no involvement of overseas
specialists.
iv. Aggregate design is done based on experience gained by trial and error. Three trial
aggregate gradings are usually considered for the mix design, as they allow designers
a window for selecting a grading that is suitable for different terrains within the same
project.
v. Five binder contents are usually used in the Marshal mix design to determine the
optimum binder content. The initial binder content of the mix is chosen based on the
density of the aggregate. High-density aggregates are associated with low bitumen
content, and the reverse is true for low-density stones (i.e. higher bitumen content).
Hence, only more experienced designers can determine the initial binder content of
the mix.
vi. Sampling and sample preparation – HMA is sampled properly from the paver and sent
to the laboratory for testing. The concern was that sampling should only be done by
qualified / skilled technicians to avoid possible errors.
vii. Mix volumetric properties are determined according to the recommendation given in
the project specification. For modified Marshal mix design, which is refusal density
design, air voids are calculated and checked against specification requirements.
viii. Only a wheel-tracking test is conducted as part of the mix design process. The test is
conducted according to the test procedures in BS 598-110 at a temperature of 60°C,
using a maximum tracking rate of 5.0 mm/hr. The rut depth criterion for a good rut
resistance mix is 7.0 mm.
ix. Current asphalt mix designs do not appear practical, as neither climate nor traffic
conditions are adequately addressed, and the engineering properties of mix are not
evaluated during the mix design.
x. There are instances where aggregates from local quarries do not meet requirements
of asphalt concrete, hence the contractor is obliged to haul suitable quarry stones over
long distances to the crusher and asphalt plant. These situations can affect the quality
of materials that are finally used in the mix, as designers may be tempted to use
marginal materials instead of the scarce and good materials.
xi. The contractor is responsible for the asphalt mix design. The contractor’s team
normally comprises a quality control manager and a materials engineer. Designs done
by the contractor are verified by a consulting engineer who gives permission for the
asphalt design to be implemented.
In addition, a questionnaire was prepared to assist with the understanding of the practices and
challenges associated with the selection of aggregate for asphalt production in the country.
The target respondents were professionals working in the road construction sector from
TANROADS / CML, local government road authorities, contractors, consultants and quarry
owners. The objective was to gather viewpoints from various main stakeholders.
A Altogether 14 responses were received (seven from TANROADS, five from consultants, and
two from contractors). The results of the questionnaire assisted in the establishment of
important properties and requirements of aggregates in this Guideline. The questionnaire and
the responses received are included in Appendix E.
1.4 Recent trends in asphalt mix design

Significant developments in asphalt technology have taken place worldwide. However, these
have not been translated into a holistic review of the design methodology in some countries.
Recently, a trend was noticed towards the implementation of performance specifications for
asphalt mixes. Performance specifications are based on the notion that mix properties should
be evaluated based on the loading and environmental conditions that the material will be
subjected to in the field. This is in contrast to the traditional Marshall mix design approach in
which specifications are based on empirical test methods.
The intention of these specifications is to describe the performance requirements, without

necessarily prescribing the composition of the composite materials. An advantage of this
approach is that it reduces barriers to innovation and promotes the efficient use of natural
resources without sacrificing performance. The material parameters determined during the
mix design phase should directly relate to the performance of the material in the pavement
structure. In addition, performance-related design methods are geared towards specifying a
limited number of performance criteria to be met by a mix design.
In the USA, performance testing of asphalt was introduced as part of the strategic highway
research programme (SHRP) in 1993. The output of the programme was collectively called
the Superpave systems. Innovations in terms of asphalt design included
 a performance-based grading system for bituminous binders,
 aggregate grading requirements, and
 mix design procedures and test methods.
In Europe, performance testing is also becoming dominant. Notable contributions to the

paradigm shift towards performance testing have come from France where performance-
related testing was introduced in the 1980s. The European Union recently released the EN
13108 and EN 12697 standards series for bituminous mixtures. The intention is that the
second generation of these standards will be fully performance related.
The association of Australian and New Zealand road transport and traffic authorities,
Austroads, also implemented a performance-related asphalt design method. The Austroads
performance-related method has three levels of complexity and the structure of the different
analysis levels shares similarities with the European and American design methods.
The design viewpoint proposed in this Guideline follows the international trend, which is to
move from a more empirical-based mix design approach towards future implementation of
performance-related specifications for asphalt mixes in the country. The test parameters of
the empirical methods have, at best, limited correlation to actual field performance (e.g.
Marshall stability and flow). A three-year project to develop a performance-related asphalt
design manual in South Africa, funded by the Southern Africa Bitumen Association, was
completed in 2015 (Anochie-Boateng et al., 2015) and fully adopted in South Africa as Sabita
Manual 35 /TRH 8 (2016). There is, therefore, tried-and-tested knowledge available on the
design of asphalt mixes for heavy-trafficked roads and highways.
1.5 Purpose of the design guidelines

The purpose of these Interim Guidelines is to provide general guidance and make
recommendations to assist clients, consultants, paving contractors and asphalt manufacturers
to design, construct and manage the quality of hot-mix asphalt layers on roads and highways
that carry medium to very heavy goods vehicles.
Specifically, these design guidelines are intended to
i. provide background information for consideration during the selection of the mix type,
as well as the relevant performance-related tests for the design situation;
ii. provide designers with information that pertain to climate, pavement structure and
aspects of construction (e.g. materials availability) that may have an impact on mix
selection and design;
iii. provide designers with basic information on the selection and evaluation of
aggregates, binders and fillers;
iv. introduce new approaches to volumetric design and the selection of optimum binder
content for a particular asphalt mix, and
v. introduce step-by-step guidance for performance-related testing.
The Interim Guidelines are not intended to serve as an asphalt mix design manual. That is,
the document does not provide a step-by-step formulation of the design of different mix types.
Rather, it outlines the methodology and most important procedures to be considered during
the mix design stage. The procedures used in the Interim Guidelines are in line with the current
international best practice. Also, values provided in some instances are typical values, and
should not be construed as specifications for projects.
1.6 Scope and structure

The Interim Guidelines are structured in such a way that users can follow them and easily link
them to the order in which an asphalt mix design is done. Figure 1-1 provides an overview of
the ten chapters in this document. The appendices deal with the following:
1. Sample preparation and gyratory compaction

2. Types and functions of bitumen additives/modifiers
3. Recommended future development of binder specification for Tanzania
4. Overview of the Bailey method for determining aggregate proportions
5. Responses to the aggregate questionnaire
Chapter 2 Chapter 3
Chapter 1 Discusses the HMA mix Focuses on performance-
Introduces the Interim types that should be used grade binder selection for
Guidelines and mainly for a given application.The asphalt mix design.The
provides the background to process of selecting an procedures for selection of
the document, its purpose appropriate mix type for a binders based on the
and scope. specific design situation is environment and traffic
also presented. conditions are provided.
Chapter 5
Presents a comprehensive,
Chapter 4 up-to-date design Chapter 6
Focuses on aggregate methodology applicable to
selection, based on the Presents a step-by-step
asphalt mixes. In addition,it procedure for the design
demands determined by the describes specific
design situation. of dense-graded mixes.
performance tests to be used
in the evalution of asphalt
mixes.
Chapter 7
Chapter 8 Chapter 9
Presents a step-by-step
Presents a step-by-step Deals with asphalt
procedure for the design of
procedure for the design of production and
SMA mixes.
porous asphalt mix. construction.
Chapter 10
Discusses quality
control/quality assurance.
Figure 1-1: Outline of the interim design guidelines
1.7 General applications

The interim guidelines were developed for use by a wide spectrum of practitioners, such as:
 Road-funding agencies
 Ministries and road agencies
 Asphalt mix designers
 Road designers
 Road contractors
 Road owners
 Road maintenance managers
Table 1-1 broadly distinguishes between project-specific and non-project-specific uses of the
guidelines.
Table 1-1: Typical guideline for usage
Categories Example of use

Overall assessment and development of asphaltic road programmes
Project use Development of project-specific guidelines, design catalogues or requirements
Selection and design of asphalt mix types for specific roads
Development of national or regional policies, classifications, standards and
requirements
Development of national or regional design catalogues
General use
Drafting of national or regional asphalt design or construction manuals
Technology transfer and dissemination of good practice at national, regional or
local authority levels
1.8 Validation and implementation

In their present form, the interim guidelines are intended to disseminate knowledge and to
introduce new approaches to asphalt mix design that incorporate performance testing.
Although many of the design aspects and test methods are well known, some of the methods
were developed only recently and have not yet been validated in practice. An implementation
phase has to be planned in which the newly introduced methods and techniques will be tested
and refined in laboratories in the country. Further work will also include validation studies to
ensure that the design approach is conducive to high-quality designs that are cost effective.
The programme to implement these guidelines should be scheduled by TANROADS / CML

after the final acceptance of the Interim Guidelines. During the implementation, it is
recommended that the guidelines be pilot-tested in construction projects in the country. The
findings from the implementation programme may provide inputs to further refine and improve
the Interim Guidelines, and set a stage to develop a substantive asphalt mix design manual
for The country.
References
Anochie-Boateng, J., O’Connell, J., Verhaeghe, B., and Myburgh, P. 2015. Development of a
new asphalt mix design manual for South Africa. In Proceedings, Conference on Asphalt
Pavements for Southern Africa, Sun City, South Africa, August.
EN 12697, Bituminous mixtures - Test methods for hot mix asphalt - Part 19: Permeability of
specimens; European Committee for Standardization, B-1050 Brussels.
EN 13108, Bituminous mixtures - Material specifications - Part 1: Asphalt concrete,

European Committee for Standardization, B-1050 Brussels.
Sabita Manual 35/TRH 8. 2016. Design and use of asphalt in pavements. Sabita. Cape Town
South Africa. www.sabita.co.za
The United Republic of Tanzania Ministry of Works. 1999. Pavement and materials design
manual. Dar es Salaam (PMDM).
The United Republic of Tanzania Ministry of Works. 2000. Laboratory testing manual. Dar es
Salaam (LTM).
The United Republic of Tanzania Ministry of Works. 2000. Standard specifications for road
works. Dar es Salaam (SSRW).
The United Republic of Tanzania Ministry of Works. 2003. Field testing manual. Dar es Salaam
(FTM).
2. Asphalt Mix Types and Selection
2.1 Introduction
The characterisation of a mix type depends primarily on the spatial composition of the mix
(e.g. nominal aggregate size, grading, aggregate, filler and binder characteristics and content,
and the packing characteristics of the mineral components). The selection of a mix type can
be optimised by considering the relative demand for each of the different design objectives
(i.e. stability, durability, skid resistance, etc.) as determined by the expected traffic, pavement
and climatic situation, as well as other special design considerations.
The designer should be able to identify the required level of design reliability that needs to be
achieved during design, and once the design requirements have been established, the
designer would proceed with the selection of the most appropriate mix type; whether it is a
mix type with a strong coarse aggregate skeleton (e.g. open-graded or stone mastic asphalt)
or a mix type that will carry the traffic load by a combination of both coarse and fine aggregate,
or only fine aggregate (e.g. dense-graded or gap-graded asphalt mixes).
Stone mastic asphalt (SMA), for instance, has become the preferred choice of mix type used
on heavily trafficked roads in the United States and Europe. However, it has not been fully
implemented in the country (only few demonstration sections were constructed in 2015). This
is partly because SMA has stringent requirements / specifications and should be used with
caution – preferably by experienced designers and contractors only.
2.2 Mix types and characteristics

This Guideline document deals exclusively with three main types of hot-mix asphalt mixes, i.e.
dense-graded mixes, gap-graded mixes, and open-graded mixes. Dense-graded mixes or
asphalt concrete (AC) are the most common asphalt types used on roads in the country.
Table 2-1 provides the characteristics of the three main HMA types, as well as their
advantages and disadvantages to aid in their selection.
Table 2-1: Characteristics of commonly used HMA types
Type of mix Characteristics Advantages Disadvantages

Dense-graded asphalt  The basis of most structural  Good interlock of aggregate particles if  Selection of optimum binder content:
mix applications of asphalt in construction compacted well. o Needs enough binder for good
of new and rehabilitated pavements,  Relatively low permeability if compacted durability and cracking resistance, BUT
as well as a versatile surfacing well. not too much binder for good
material for streets to highways.  Strength and stiffness derived from permanent deformation (rutting)
 Dense aggregate grading or relatively binder and aggregate structure. resistance.
little space between the aggregate  Relatively cheaper than other asphalt mix o Optimum binder content generally
particles is used in the mix. types (e.g. less binder, allows use of results in relatively thin binder film
 Binder content: typically 4.5 to 6 per higher percentage of reclaimed asphalt thickness.
cent. pavement).  Air void content and permeability are not
 Design for 4 per cent air voids; optimum for moisture damage resistance.
typically field voids will reduce from  Because of the fact that the voids in the
an initial (post-compacted) void aggregate are designed to be at a
content of around 6 to 8 per cent to minimum, air trapped in the mix and voids
the design voids. formed by poor aggregate distribution will
 Load-bearing capacity, or resistance increase the possibility of the mix being
to plastic deformation, is given by the permeable to air and water, with
aggregate skeleton. associated effects.
Gap-graded – Stone  Contains a large amount of coarse  Good aggregate interlock.  Assesses the magnitude and number of
Mastic Asphalt (SMA) aggregate and a large amount of very  Low permeability. gaps to be introduced into the system
fines.  Strength and stiffness derived from and particle sizes present.
 The high percentage fines requires binder and aggregate structure.  Assesses the optimum mix proportion of
that as much as 5 to 7 per cent  Relatively high binder contents provide the aggregate sizes.
mineral filler is added to the mix. good durability.  Binder suppliers not accustomed to
 Does not require much sand-sized  Best used in areas of heavy traffic where producing.
material. rutting and fatigue cracking are major  Requires additional time and effort in
 Uses a high proportion of coarse concerns. material production (i.e. aggregates).
aggregate to increase texture for  Better wet weather skid resistance and  Higher costs associated with polymer-
reduced noise and water spray, while noise reduction than densely graded modified binders, higher bitumen content,
achieving good resistance to mixes. fibres, lime and anti-stripping liquids.
permanent deformation (rutting) and  Costs typically prohibit use in “normal”
high durability, but with increased traffic areas.
materials cost and construction
complexity.
 Excellent rut-resistant mix type for
use as a wearing course under heavy
traffic conditions.
 High binder content of 6 to 7 per cent
or more.
 Polymer-modified binder and fibres
used to minimise draindown.
 Design for 4 per cent air voids, similar
to dense-graded mixes, field voids
will reduce from an initial (post-
compacted) void content of around 6
to 8 per cent to the design voids. .
 Requires good quality stones (cubical
and tough).
Open-graded surface  Contains very large amounts of  High permeability.  Aggregate interlock is generally poor.
mix – Porous asphalt coarse aggregate, with very little fine  High binder contents result in thick binder  Lower strength and stiffness, usually
aggregate or mineral filler. films for good durability. used as thin overlays.
 Binder content is typically in the  Lower noise generated by tyres as  Higher costs associated with polymer-
range of 6 to 7 per cent. compared to dense-graded mixes. modified binders, higher bitumen content
 Air void content is typically 18 to 22  Porous nature allows for surface water to fibres, and anti-stripping agent such as
per cent. drain off surface (reduces splash and hydrated lime.
 Specifically designed as a surface spray).  Recommended not to be used in areas of
drainage layer to drain surface water  Best applied in areas of faster, heavy turning vehicles (may cause
away and thus limit spray and splash continuous traffic with minimal sharp shoving) and slow-moving traffic (may
behind vehicles in wet weather. turns. clog porous structure).
 The aggregate should also have a  Better wet weather skid resistance and  Requires a dense-graded asphalt mix to
high rugosity and should preferably greater noise reduction than densely be constructed directly underneath the
not have adhesion problems. graded mixes. porous asphalt to ensure that water does
 The characterisation of this type of not penetrate the pavement but is
mix is done by Cantabro abrasion removed to the edge of the road.
test.  These mixes have lower durability and
shorter life spans.
2.3 Selection of asphalt mix
The selection of an appropriate asphalt mix type for a specific paving application is important
in the design of new and rehabilitated pavements. In particular, the selection of component
materials, optimisation of volumetric properties for different levels of traffic and
characterisation of resultant performance properties form the basis of asphalt mix design
procedures in the Interim Guidelines. The type of mix selected for the various layers of a
pavement has a major effect on the cost, constructability, and performance of the pavement.
For instance, asphalt mixes with lower binder contents and lower quality aggregates are less
expensive but less durable. On the other hand, asphalt mixes with sufficient binder content
and high quality aggregates could be expensive, but are more stable and durable. Lower
binder contents can however be used in mixes for intermediate and base courses, because
they are protected by the layers above them.
2.3.1 Mix type and components
The selection of a mix type should be based on design objectives (stability, durability, skid
resistance, etc.) as determined by the expected traffic, pavement and climatic conditions .
The spatial composition of the mix (i.e. sand skeleton or stone skeleton) and the type of
grading are important choices to be made as far as mix type selection is concerned. The
aggregate packing characteristics determine to a large extent the binder content and
volumetric properties of the final mix. In turn, these elements determine the relative resistance
of the mix to deformation and deterioration caused by traffic and the environment.
In sand-skeleton mixes, the loads on the asphalt layer are mainly carried by the finer
aggregate fraction, with the larger fractions providing bulk and replacing a proportion of the
finer fraction. There is no meaningful contact between the individual larger aggregate particles.
Examples include asphalt, gap-graded asphalt, and medium or fine densely graded asphalt.
In stone-skeleton mixes, the spaces between the coarser aggregate fractions are filled by the
finer aggregate fractions, but they do not push the coarser aggregates apart. Contact between
the coarser aggregate fractions is thus assured. This situation results in the loads on the layer
being carried predominantly by a matrix (or skeleton) of the coarser aggregate fraction.
Examples include coarse densely graded asphalt, stone mastic asphalt, ultra-thin friction
courses, and open-graded (porous) asphalt.
2.3.2 Design considerations
The following factors should be considered with regard to mix type selection:
i. The selected mix type ultimately determines the grading of the specific blend of
aggregates used in the mix.
ii. For mixes on high traffic volume applications, where friction properties and resistance
to permanent deformation (rutting) under elevated temperatures are key
considerations, the preferred option is stone-skeleton type mixes.
iii. Dense gradings that ensure sand skeletons are frequently selected for general
purposes.
iv. Densely graded asphalt can be manufactured with grading varying from very coarse
to very fine, for a particular maximum aggregate size.
v. To ensure adequate skid resistance of gap-graded asphalt wearing courses, pre-

coated chippings are usually spread on the freshly paved, hot mat prior to rolling.
2.4 Asphalt pavement structure

Asphalt may be used at three main locations within a pavement, namely the wearing (surface)
course, intermediate course, and base course. A course may consist of more than one layer.
The intermediate course is sometimes called the binder course. Some pavements with higher
traffic volumes may also include a wearing course composed of open-graded (porous) asphalt
mix placed over the wearing course.
Wearing course – is often only one lift and in most cases made with nominal maximum
aggregate (NMAS) sizes of 12.5 mm or less. Wearing course mixes must contain highly
angular aggregates and an appropriate performance-graded binder to withstand heavy traffic
and environmental loadings. In addition, aggregates used in the wearing course must be
resistant to polishing under traffic loading to provide appropriate skid resistance over the
service life of the pavement. Dense-graded and SMA mixes are commonly used as wearing
courses. Where dense and SMA mixes are placed as a wearing course in conjunction with an
asphalt base or intermediate course, they form part of the structural layer. On the other hand,
open-graded asphalt used as a wearing course is often discounted as a structural layer due
to relatively low flexural stiffness and the need for more frequent replacement. As a
maintenance treatment, a wearing course may be used to recondition the surface of the
pavement without changing its structural condition. A wearing course may also be used with
or without additional intermediate or base course layers, as a structural overlay.
Intermediate course – is used to describe the layer immediately below the wearing course. In
other respects the term is synonymous with base course. Binder course is another term that
has been used to describe this layer but it is no longer in common use. Not all asphalt
pavements have an intermediate course; the need for an intermediate course depends on the
overall thickness of the asphalt and the thickness of the base and wearing courses. The
purpose of the intermediate course is to add thickness to the pavement when additional
structural capacity is required in new and rehabilitated pavements. Intermediate courses are
typically dense-graded mixes with nominal maximum aggregate sizes of 19 or 25 mm.
Base course – is the element of asphalt pavements that provides structural strength to the
pavement. The base course consists of one or more lifts of asphalt at the bottom of the
pavement structure, and it is the primary load-carrying element in deep-strength flexible
pavements and full-depth flexible pavements. Because base course mixes are deep in the
pavement structure, they do not have to be highly rut resistant. They should be relatively easy
to compact to ensure that they are durable and resistant to fatigue cracking. HMA base
courses are typically dense-graded mixes with nominal maximum aggregate sizes ranging
from 19 mm to 37.5 mm.
Long-lasting / perpetual pavement is intended to provide a pavement with a very long-lasting

underlying structure combined with a durable wearing course. Ideally, the pavement structure
should last 50 years or more without replacement, while the wearing course might need
replacement every 20 years. The selection of mixes for perpetual pavements does not form
part of these guidelines.
An indication of asphalt courses and pavement types is provided in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2-1: Asphalt pavement types
2.5 Mixes for airports and industrial areas

Hot-mix asphalt is used extensively for the construction of all types of pavements and loading
conditions that exist at airports and in industrial areas such as harbours and loading zones.
Although many of the design considerations for road pavement are applicable to pavements
for airports and industrial areas, there are some basic differences between the design
objectives for these different types of pavements.
It is generally known that in the case of road pavements, the mix selection should emphasise
toughness (i.e. roads carry repeated application of comparatively light loads). However, for
airport or industrial area pavements, the emphasis shifts toward strength (i.e. these pavements
carry a few applications of heavy loads). Thus, mixes for airport and industrial areas should
be designed by taken into consideration strength and stability, as well as adequate resistance
to rutting.
For airport or industrial area pavements, the asphalt layer may comprise at least a wearing
course and a base course with the following attributes:
 The wearing course mix should be designed to provide both functional and structural
performance (see Section 2.6).
 The base course mix should be designed to absorb load stresses and to limit strain
responses in the underlying pavement.
 The base course asphalt should be designed to resist fatigue cracking.
Specifications for the design of asphalt mixes for airport pavements are provided in the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Aerodrome Design Manual Part 3
(www.icao.int) and US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 150/5370-10
Part 5 – Flexible Surface Courses.
The mixes described in Table 2-1 and their respective test procedures are applicable and
widely utilised in airport and industrial asphalt pavements with modifications that comply with
project and agency specifications.
2.6 Factors that have an impact on mix selection

2.6.1 Traffic considerations
Traffic loading
Traffic loading is normally expressed as the number of 80 kN equivalent single-axle loads

(E80s) that the pavement is projected to carry over its design life. The number of trucks and
their axle loads need to be taken into account in the design of an asphalt mix. Pavements with
large volumes of truck traffic require greater resistance to rutting and fatigue cracking,
particularly if the underlying pavement is stiff and flexible, respectively.
The intensity of axle loads applied to the pavement will influence the required degree of
resistance to permanent deformation of an asphalt layer.
Traffic intensity or traffic classes should be evaluated as indicated in Table 2.2.
Table 2-2: Traffic classification
20-year design E80 [millions] Description Traffic load class (TLC)

< 0.3 Low / Light TLC 02
0.3 to 3 Medium TLC 05, TLC 1, TLC 3
3 to 30 Heavy TLC 10, TLC 20
≥ 30 Very heavy TLC 50
NOTE 2.1: In Tanzania, E80 is an equivalent 80 kN axle load based on an exponential equivalency of
4.5. The standard axle load is an 80 kN single axle load with a dual-wheel configuration.
Traffic speed
The speed of heavy vehicles may significantly influence the performance of an asphalt mix.
Specifically, low speeds influence rutting potential (increase in loading time and more rapid
closure of voids). Asphalt mixes designed for climbing lanes, intersections or any other
condition where heavy vehicle speeds are predominantly less than approximately 30 km per
hour require special consideration.
At high vehicular speeds, the impact of the load on the pavement system is resisted not only
by the combined stiffness of the pavement layers, but also by the inertial and damping forces
generated within the pavement structure. These resisting forces will increase with vehicle
speed, with a resultant reduction in the amount of deflection and bending that takes place in
the asphalt layer. Dynamic pavement models and strain measurements taken at various
vehicle speeds have shown that tensile strains at the bottom of the asphalt layer may decrease
by 50% as vehicle speeds increase from creep speed to about 80 km/h.
Tyres
Heavy vehicle tyre configurations and tyre pressures play a significant role in rutting and
fatigue cracking on roads and highways. The use of the super-single tyre is becoming
prevalent in Europe, North America and southern Africa, and its use in Tanzania is also
increasing.
Based on recent studies (Anochie-Boateng and Mataka, 2016), tyre pressures of 900 kPa are
not uncommon on roads and highways in the country. Such high pressures place greater
stress on the asphalt layers and demand more stable mixes for high traffic conditions.
Pertinent features can be summarised as follows:
 While changes in tyre construction from cross-ply to radial-ply have reduced fuel
consumption by up to 30% through reducing the contact area, this change has resulted in
increased contact stresses.
 By using fewer tyres (e.g. super-single tyres) and carrying heavier load, modern trucks are
exerting much higher contact stresses on the road surface than did their predecessors. If
the tyre is under-inflated for the rated tyre loading, the tyre walls will exert significantly
higher contact stress on the surface of the pavement relative to the centre of the tyre
contact patch.
 On the other hand, higher tyre inflation pressures generally place greater contact stress
on the asphalt layers (albeit to a lesser extent when compared to the under-inflated case
above) and therefore more stable asphalt mixes are demanded for these conditions.
Three tyre inflation pressures (i.e. 689 kPa, 758 kPa and 896 kPa) were analysed in the study
by the CSIR and TANROADS (2016) to compare contact stresses applied by super-single and
dual tyres (Figure 2-2) of heavy vehicles. The results indicated that the stress ratios (i.e.
contact stress divided by tyre pressure) of the super-single tyres are generally high compared
to the dual tyres, meaning that the asphalt wearing course experiences higher stresses under
super-single tyres than under dual tyres.
Super-single tyres Dual truck tyres
Figure 2-2: Dual and super-single truck tyres on pavement
Source: Anochie-Boateng and Mataka, 2016
2.6.2 Braking and traction
At intersections or steep gradients (vertical), braking and traction forces can be significant and
may lead to increased horizontal shear stress and the potential for distortion or tearing of the
layer. For example, medium to fine dense-graded mixes are not recommended for
intersections or steep sections.
2.6.3 Fuel spillage
Spillage of fuel, particularly diesel, can cause softening of the binder, which leads to premature
asphalt failures (mainly rutting). Where excess fuel spillage is expected, it may be necessary
to protect the asphalt wearing course or use a polymer-modified binder type that is fuel
resistant (e.g. EVA modified type).
2.6.4 Wander
The degree of wander in the traffic lane can have a significant effect on rutting and fatigue.
Wander is normally greater on lanes that are wide and carry fast-moving traffic than on narrow
lanes with slow-moving heavy traffic, e.g. on dedicated bus routes. In the latter situation, the
degree of channelisation is increased and consequently rutting resistance of the mix should
be commensurate with the increased concentration of loading. Mixes with both rutting and
fatigue resistant ability (“balanced mix”) are recommended for areas that experience
substantial wander.
2.6.5 Layer thickness and particle size
The maximum aggregate particle size is a fundamental property of aggregate grading and
asphalt mix type selection, and should be chosen with due consideration of the intended
asphalt layer thickness, and layer applications.
The selected maximum particle size for the asphalt mix should be determined mainly by the
location of asphalt course in the pavement. For improved compactability, it is recommended
that the thickness / NMAS ratio be at least 3 for fine-graded mixes, and 4 for coarse-graded
mixes. Based on the data from NCHRP Report 531 (2004), the ratio for SMA mixes should
also be at least 4.
The recommended minimum layer thicknesses in relation to NMAS are indicated in Table 2-
3, and the recommended mix types for various courses based on traffic level and NMAS are
presented in Table 2-4.
Table 2-3: Recommended minimum layer thickness
NMAS (mm) Minimum layer thickness (mm)

37.5 ---
25 120
19 90
12.5 50
9.5 35
Source: Sabita Manual 35/TRH 8, 2016
Table 2-4: Recommended asphalt mix types
Wearing course Intermediate course Base course

Design traffic
loading [E80] NMAS NMAS NMAS
Mix type Mix type Mix type
(mm) (mm) (mm)
Dense-graded,
< 0.3 million 9.5 Dense-graded 19, 25 Dense-graded 19, 25, 37.5
medium-graded
0.3 to 3 million Dense-graded 9.5, 12.5 Dense-graded 19, 25 Dense-graded 19, 25, 37.5
Dense-graded, 9.5, 12.5,
3 to 30 million Dense-graded 19, 25 Dense-graded 19, 25, 37.5
SMA, porous 19
Dense-graded,
≥ 30 million 12.5, 19 Dense-graded 19, 25 Dense-graded 19, 25, 37.5
SMA, porous
2.6.6 Climatic considerations
The selection of a mix type, as well as the rating of design objectives, is influenced in many
ways by climatic conditions.
Maximum temperature
Temperature is a key determinant of rutting potential. Maximum temperature influences the

selection of mix type, aggregate type, and binder type. In addition, binder hardening (ageing)
is severe in high temperature climates.
Intermediate and minimum temperatures
These temperatures are determinants of fatigue and temperature fracture potential. For
binders, intermediate temperature influences fatigue characteristics, and fracture potential is
influenced by low temperature.
Temperature differentials
Temperature differentials increase the need for a balanced mix. Situations where extreme
temperature fluctuations occur during the year increase the demand for a balanced, optimised
asphalt mix that offers good resistance to rutting at high temperatures, as well as increased
resistance to fatigue and temperature fracture at lower temperatures. Consideration should
also be given to the selection of the binder type to guard against thermal fracture.
Rainfall
Mixes located in high rainfall areas or in areas with a large number of rainy days have an
increased potential for stripping and may require special attention to durability issues. Such
mixes may also have greater waterproofing requirements, depending on the underlying layers,
and therefore permeability may become an important issue. Rainfall considerations may thus
influence the choice of aggregate type, filler type, and binder type.
2.6.7 Functional requirements
Special functional requirements may include:

Dust, spilled diesel, oil and
 High level of noise reduction in urban areas excessive bitumen can
significantly decrease skid
 High skid resistance for high-speed applications resistance.
and in high rainfall areas
In addition to the selection of mix type, these considerations may have an impact on
construction cost and availability of materials.
Recommended mixes for improving skid resistance (friction) and reducing noise are provided
in Table 2-1.
2.6.8 Geometric conditions
 Situations where braking, acceleration, crawling and turning of heavy vehicles are likely to
occur on a regular basis require asphalt mixes with increased resistance to rutting,
shoving, skidding and ravelling.
 Some difficulty may be expected in achieving specified finish tolerances and compaction
at intersections, steep gradients, and highly flexible supports; maintaining a minimum layer
thickness is therefore a mandatory requirement.
2.6.9 Material availability and project specifications1
The availability of aggregates, filler and bitumen of the required quality should be evaluated
before project specifications are finalised. Such evaluation at an early stage may lead to
innovative practices in the interest of cost-effectiveness or may alert the client and tenderer to
additional costs that may be incurred through transport or special manufacturing processes
needed to produce the desired quality of materials in the mix.
 The designer should ensure that component materials available from particular sources
are in adequate supply, and can meet the project and product specifications. Materials
should preferably be obtained from a fixed commercial source.
 The properties of a material product supplied should not vary significantly during the supply
period. In addition, the quality of the products should be such that it will not be negatively
affected by transportation to site.
 Situations in which the standard specifications are modified to suit the needs of the project
require special attention to be paid to availability and properties of local materials.
1Manual 35/TRH 8. 2016. Design and use of asphalt in pavements. Sabita. Cape Town, South Africa.
Designers should alert tenderers to non-standard project specifications that may have an
impact on material availability, especially situations in which locally available materials do
not meet the project specifications.
 The decision to procure a material from a particular source depends on factors such as
location of the source in the project proximity, availability of the required materials (in
quality and quantity) from the source, as well as the economic consequences for the
project.
 In some cases, to promote equitable tendering, the client is well advised to indicate
nominal proportions of component materials, e.g. bitumen, filler and aggregates based on
preliminary mix designs.
The aggregate types available from commercial sources and bitumen materials commonly
used for asphalt production in the country are given in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4.
References
JK Anochie-Boateng and MO Mataka. 2016. A Study on the causes of premature failures of
road bituminous layers and review of the Tanzanian asphalt mix design methods. Final Report
CSIR/BE/TIE/ER/2016/0022/C
NCHRP Project 531, 2004. Relationship of air voids, lift thickness, and permeability in hot mix
asphalt pavements. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA.
3. Selection of Bituminous Binders
3.1 Introduction
The binder within a bituminous mix affects the properties of the mix in two major ways:
1. The effective binder quantity affects the bituminous mix properties in terms of the effective
volume it constitutes within the mix system. The optimum effective volume as a
percentage of the mix volume is an integral part of the asphalt mix design process, and it
affects mix properties such as stiffness, durability, flexibility, etc.
2. The binder properties also have an effect on the mix properties. However, binder is one
of three components within an asphalt mix (the other two being aggregate/filler and air
voids). The extent to which the binder properties affect the mix properties is dependent
on the type of mix (grading, voids, etc.), as well as on the temperature and loading
conditions at which the effect is measured.
The binder properties can affect the mix properties as follows:

i. Workability – Good handling, spreading, compaction and uniformity of the layer are
possible under the prevailing conditions. This property is essential for the achievement
of a uniformly acceptable product on the road (SANRAL, 2011).
ii. Resistance to deformation – The asphalt layer is able to resist permanent or plastic
deformation under the influence of traffic and elevated temperatures (SANRAL, 2011).
iii. Resistance to fatigue cracking – The asphalt layer can withstand tensile strains without
fracture. Such tensile strength is progressively reduced or fatigued by repeated traffic-
related stresses (SANRAL, 2011).
iv. Resistance to environmental cracking – The asphalt layer is able to withstand cracking
induced as a result of expansion or contraction of the mix due to diurnal road
temperature differentials. It is considered a non-traffic-associated distress and
becomes more pronounced as a surfacing mix ages. The time taken for crack initiation
to occur and the rate at which the cracks occur are a function of the aged binder
rheology with time (among others).
v. Resistance to reflective cracking – Cracks can be formed in the lower pavement layers
through stabilisation shrinkage, fatigue cracking or layer subsidence. Under such
circumstances the crack is reflected upward to the pavement surface. Binder
properties such as cohesion and flexibility may retard (but never prevent) reflective
cracking. The presence of elastomeric polymers in the binder can significantly improve
the resistance to reflective cracking.
vi. Resistance to low temperature cracking (sometimes also referred to as thermal

cracking) – Cracking occurs at low temperatures, as a single-event occurrence, when
the asphalt is brittle.
vii. Resistance to ageing – Ageing results in increased stiffness of the bituminous binder
due to oxidation, loss of volatiles, physical (steric) hardening and loss of oily bituminous
fractions due to absorption of these into porous aggregates (exudative hardening)
(SANRAL, 2011). Binder ageing takes place in two phases. The first is a rapid ageing
phase at elevated temperature during the manufacture of the mix, bin storage at the
mix plant, transportation to site and placement. This is followed by a lower ageing rate
determined by the environment (temperature, UV radiation, etc.) at the mix location.
The rate of ageing also decreases with increased compaction (lower voids) and
increasing distance from the surface (depth).
viii. Adhesive and cohesive strength – Poor adhesive properties can result in the binder
stripping from the aggregate (ravelling, moisture susceptibility). Poor cohesive strength
promotes cracking and deformation and may lower the dynamic modulus of the mix.
3.2 Historical developments

“It is important that we know where we come from, because if you do not know where you
come from, then you don't know where you are, and if you don't know where you are, you
don't know where you're going. And if you don't know where you're going, you're probably
going wrong.” – Terry Pratchett
3.2.1 Empirical testing vs performance prediction
Empirical tests such as the Fraass brittle-point test, penetration and softening point were
developed between 1888 and 1937. Although these properties did not reflect fundamental
engineering characteristics within the range of pavement service temperatures, general
relationships between these empirical-type values and pavement performance were
developed based on decades of experience. In the 1960s, Heukelom developed a system
whereby the Fraass brittle point, penetration and softening point could be related to binder
viscosity. Figure 3-1 illustrates the concept (Mturi et al., 2010).
Source: Mturi et al., 2010
Figure 3-1: Heukelom Plot of properties of a binder before and after RTFOT
Figure 3-1, which is commonly referred to as the bitumen test data chart (BTDC) enables all
the test data points (Fraass point, penetration, softening point and Brookfield viscosity) to be
combined on one viscosity temperature plot. The horizontal and vertical scales of the chart
have been chosen in such a manner as to enable penetration grade bitumens with so-called
‘normal’ temperature susceptibilities to be plotted as straight lines. Bitumens such as these
were generally bitumens obtained directly from a double distillation process (straight-run
bitumen), without blowing or modification. The BTDC is based on the principle that the
softening point and Fraass point are equi-penetrational temperatures, the first being
equivalent to a penetration of 800 dmm and the second being equivalent to 1.25 dmm (Mturi
et al., 2010).
A major drawback of the BTDC was that the straight-line relationship between viscosity and
temperature applied only to so-called ‘neat’ or ‘straight-run’ bitumens with ‘normal’
temperature susceptibilities. The plotting of waxy, blown or modified bitumens resulted in
discontinuities (Green, 1991; O’Connell et al., 2011).
The attempt to predict performance from empirical properties resulted in a series of

nomographs linking penetration and penetration index (PI) to performance indices ranging
from stiffness modulus to rutting performance. However, the nomographs were only applicable
to rheologically simple binders, and modified binders, waxy binders and blown bitumens were
exempted. The fact that such non-rheologically simple binders were increasingly being used
in the asphalt industry presented a problem for performance prediction.
3.2.2 Development of Superpave
Until the 1990s all bitumen specifications were based on empirical properties, being
penetration or viscosity controlled. A generalisation of how penetration and softening point test
results can relate to each other is shown in Figure 3-2. In this figure, bitumens that fall outside
to the left of these grading boxes (i.e. have low softening points for a given penetration) tend
to be poor quality bitumens of high temperature susceptibility (Mturi et al., 2010).
Source: Mturi et al., 2010

Figure 3-2 Examples of penetration-based bitumen specifications
Higher traffic volumes and loads towards the end of the twentieth century led to an increase
in premature pavement failures as empirical values increasingly failed to predict pavement
performance as a result of these changing conditions. Moreover, empirical tests could not (and
still cannot) effectively characterise polymer-modified binders that were increasingly used
(D’Angelo, 2010; O’Connell et al., 2011). This resulted in a proliferation of binder specifications
internationally, to accommodate the expanding database of modified binder classes.
Various international efforts were undertaken to establish specifications based on fundamental

engineering properties capable of accurately predicting the performance of hot-mix asphalt.
The first successful effort culminated in the AASHTO Superpave specification MP1 in 1993
(designated as AASHTO M 320 in 2005), also known as the Performance-Graded (PG)
Asphalt Binder Specification. With this specification, binder selection is based on
 environmental temperatures,
 traffic loading, and
 traffic speed.
The introduction of the PG binder specification required the availability of the dynamic shear
rheometer (DSR) in the bitumen industry. The DSR is capable of characterising the
viscoelastic properties of binders at various rates of loading at in-service pavement
temperatures. This had not been possible with viscometers, which required elevated
temperatures to transform the binders into their softer states for testing.
When performing oscillatory tests, a rheometer produces two independent sets of raw data.
In the controlled shear strain mode, the operator inputs the target strain 𝛾(t) [%] and shear
rate (frequency), and in turn the DSR determines the shear stress (𝜏) and phase angle (𝛿 ).
From these two independent variables, all viscoelastic functions are mathematical
conversions of the original two independent sets of raw DSR data. Bitumen is tested according
to AASHTO T 315, and the following guidelines are set out for selecting plate diameters and
sample thickness (gap) (Anderson et al., 1994):
 8 mm parallel plates with a 2 mm gap are recommended when 0.1 MPa < G* < 30 MPa
 25 mm parallel plates with a 1 mm gap are recommended when 1.0 kPa < G* < 100 kPa
The PG binder specification is illustrated in Figure 3-3.
Source: Asphalt Institute, USA
Figure 3-3: Illustration of the PG binder specification used in the USA
A bitumen is classified by two numbers, e.g. “64-28”, “58-22”, etc. The first of these numbers
is an indication of the ability of the binder to perform at high temperature and the second
relates to its low temperature performance. The Superpave system is applicable to both neat
and polymer-modified bitumens, provided that they are homogenous in composition.
The specification has been designed to address three main failure mechanisms for asphalt
mixes as follows:
1. Permanent deformation (rutting) at high service temperatures

2. Fatigue cracking at intermediate service temperatures
3. Brittle fracture at low service temperatures
The specification includes measurements on binders in three states: original (unaged); after
ageing using the Rolling Thin Film Oven Test (RTFOT) to simulate initial ageing during
manufacture and laying; and after ageing in the Pressure Ageing Vessel (PAV) to simulate
long-term ageing in the field.
The specifications also include a pumping and handling requirement (viscosity at 135°C) and
a flash point specification (safety).
PG 64-22 grade is evaluated as an example. The grade implies the following:
 64°C is the 7-day average maximum pavement ‘design’ temperature (Tmax). G*/sinδ at 10
rad/s (measured using the DSR) must have an original minimum value of 1 kPa followed
by a minimum value of 2.2kPa after RTFOT. To perform well in terms of resistance to
permanent deformation, a binder should either be stiff (high G*), or elastic (low δ), or both.
 The value of -22°C is the minimum pavement design temperature (Tmin).
The Bending Beam Rheometer (BBR) test is used to determine the asphalt binder’s ability to
resist low temperature cracking by determining the low temperature stiffness and relaxation
properties of the asphalt binder. In line with the principles of performance grading, the actual
temperatures anticipated in the area where the asphalt binder will be placed determine the
test temperatures used. With development of the BBR test, a limiting stiffness based on two
hours of loading at the minimum pavement design temperature was selected as the
specification target.
In order to shorten the test time, the time-temperature superposition principle was used to
raise the test temperature by 10°C, shortening the testing time to 60 seconds. In other words,
the BBR stiffness at 60 seconds loading time measures at 10°C above the minimum pavement
design temperature (Tmin + 10°C) could be equated to the asphalt binder stiffness at two hours
in the field at the minimum pavement design temperature (Tmin) (Pavementinteractive.org,
2018). At -12°C, the binder must have a maximum stiffness (S) of 300 MPa and a minimum
m-value (slope of creep stiffness vs. loading time) of 0.3 after PAV ageing. The m-value (m)
is a measure of the ability of the binder to relax thermal stresses that build up.
 The fatigue parameter (G*sinδ at 10rad/s) is determined at an intermediate temperature

(Tint). The Superpave intermediate temperature is defined as Tint = (Tmax + Tmin)/2 +4°C.
For the PG 64-22 grade, it is measured at 25°C.
Grading bands (Figure 3.3) have been selected to reflect the climatic conditions that the binder
must be able to withstand. High temperature grades are in 6°C increments and the official US
set (which can be extended for other climatic conditions) is from PG 46 to PG 82. Low
temperature grades are divided within the high temperature bands in 6°C intervals, the official
US range being -46 to -10.
The PG binder grade used on site is not decided by the pavement temperature only, but the
Superpave design procedure may require ‘bumping’ (moving up a high-temperature grade or
two) as a result of high- and/or slow-moving traffic loads. Table 3-1 shows the recommended
adjustments for speed and loading.
Table 3-1: Adjustments to the binder grading based on loading and speed
Adjustment to PG binder specification¹

Traffic speed
20-year design E80
[millions] Standing Slow
Standard
(Ave. speed < 20 (Ave. speed 20 – 70
(Ave speed > 70 km/hr)
km/hr) km/hr)
< 0.3 -² - -
0.3 to < 3 2 1 -
3 to <10 2 1 -
10 to < 30 2 1 -²
≥ 30 2 1 1
¹Increase the high temperature grade by the number of grade equivalents (1 grade equivalent represents a 6°C
increase).
²
Consideration should be given to increasing the high temperature grade by 1 grade equivalent.
The advent of the Superpave binder specification introduced a new mind-set in asphalt
technology, one in which critical mechanical properties would be measured under conditions
that mimic climate and traffic conditions in order to predict the contribution of binders to
performance of the HMA in pavements. The basis of the PG binder specification system is
summarised in Figure 3-4.
Source: Asphalt Institute
Figure 3-4: Illustration of the principles of PG binder specification
3.3 Superpave for Tanzania

3.3.1 Introduction
Binder selection for an asphalt layer should be supported by the following general
considerations:
 Traffic
 Climate
 The modes of damage to which the asphalt mix layer will be subjected, e.g. rutting, fatigue,
ravelling (structural composition and condition of the existing pavement)
 Availability of binder
The goal should be to select a binder that will contribute, in conjunction with the aggregate, to
the performance of the asphalt under the prevailing conditions in such a manner as to provide
the best value for money.
The Interim Guidelines focus on Superpave protocols, with a few recommended changes to
make the process more suitable for prevailing conditions in the country.
3.3.2 Temperature mapping
In Superpave binder selection, the evaluation of binder properties is based on the loading and
environmental conditions to which the binder will be subjected in the field.
Temperature maps were generated for the country, while the protocols that were followed and
the rationale for them are fully described in a separate report (Temperature Mapping
Procedure for Selection of Tanzanian Bituminous Binders)1, associated with the development
of this Guideline.
The maps of the country depicting the 7-day average maximum asphalt temperatures at 20
mm depth and the 1-day minimum asphalt temperatures at the surface are presented in Figure
3-5 and Figure 3-6, respectively.
Researchers from the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), which led to the
establishment of Superpave, felt that using the pavement temperature at the surface of the
asphalt layer would be too conservative, as the temperature decreases within the asphalt layer
during the hottest part of the day (see Figure 3-7). SHRP researchers agreed to use the
pavement temperature at 20 mm depth.
1 Due to a lack of climatic records maintained over the past twenty years, an alternative approach to
obtaining climatic data had to be followed. The project team acknowledges limitations to the approach
that was used in determining the pavement temperatures. These limitations are a consequence of the
limited data available.
Figure 3-5: Maximum 7-day average pavement temperatures
Figure 3-6: Minimum pavement temperatures at the surface
Source: Denneman, 2007
Figure 3-7: Typical pavement temperatures with depth as a function of time of day
Based on the map in Figure 3-5, the country comprises of a PG 64 high temperature zone
interspersed with some small PG 58 zones, including:
1. Along the coast line, including Dar-es-Salaam and Zanzibar

2. A small area centred on Bukoba
3. A small area centred on Mount Kilimanjaro National Park
4. A medium-sized area centred around Kilosa, north of Mikumi
5. A medium-sized area centred around Mkalam, east of Lake Kitangiri
6. A larger area centred around Mafinga
The total area of the PG 58 Zone is small when compared to the PG 64 Zone, but the logistical
implications of having an additional high temperature PG zone are significant, taking into
account the additional storage facilities required when using an additional binder grade. It is
therefore recommended that the entire country be converted into one temperature zone,
namely a PG 64 zone. The implications are as follows:
 The PG 58 zones indicated on the map will have additional insurance against permanent
deformation by being re-classified as PG 64 zones.
 The binder selection process will be greatly simplified.
 The storage and supply of binder will be more economical from a logistical point of view.
The country has high minimum temperatures, typical of equatorial areas. Based on the map
in Figure 3-6, the country comprises of three low temperature zones, namely:
1. PG +20 along the coastline

2. PG +14 in the east, west and north-west of the country
3. PG +8 situated centrally in the country
Due to the nature of the process by which the maps have been generated, the minimum
temperatures for the Kilimanjaro National Park and the Eastern Arc mountain range may not
be correct at higher altitudes, where the pavement surface may be colder. This must be borne
in mind when selecting binders in any areas with high mountainous zones. Additional climatic
data may need to be analysed for projects in such areas.
Two approaches are possible for the low temperature binder selection process:
1. Treat the entire country as a PG +8 zone, which would greatly simplify the binder selection
process, reduce storage requirements from a logistical point of view, as well as give added
performance to the PG +14 and PG +20 zones. This would in principle be correct from a
Superpave point of view.
2. In order to optimise the fatigue properties of the binder, it may be prudent to have a
minimum of 80°C difference between Tmax and Tmin for the base binder before adjusting
for traffic loading and speed. This is an approach followed in South Africa as well as many
states in the USA. Such an approach maintains consistency in terms of binder
composition and manufacturing, as well as facilitates the testing of the binder at low
temperatures (many binders deform under their own weight when tested at high minimum
temperatures). The second approach is adopted in this Guideline.
3.3.3 Proposed binder selection for Tanzania
Based on the temperature maps, the binder grades and specifications for Tanzania are
presented in Table 3-2, allowing for “bumping” up to two grades. The grades and specifications
are aligned with the Superpave performance-graded binder specifications.
Table 3-2: Proposed Binder grades for Tanzania

PG 64-16 PG70-10 PG76-4
Performance grade Adjustment by Adjustment by
Standard grade
1 Grade 2 Grades
Maximum 7-day Average Design Temperature
64°C 70°C 76°C
(Tmax)
Minimum Design Temperature (Tmin) -16°C -10°C -4°C
Original Binder
Flash Point Temperature, °C, ASTM D 92b ≥ 230
Viscosity @135°C, Pa.s, ASTM D 4402 ≤ 3.0
G/Sinδ @ 10 rad/s, kPa, ASTM D7175 ≥ 1.0 @ 64°C ≥ 1.0 @ 70°C ≥ 1.0 @ 76°C
After RTFO Ageing, ASTM D2872
Mass Loss, % ≤ 1.0
G/Sinδ @ 10 rad/s, kPa, ASTM D7175 ≥ 2.2 @ 64°C ≥ 2.2 @ 70°C ≥ 2.2 @ 76°C
After PAV Ageing, ASTM D 6521
≤ 5000 ≤ 5000 ≤ 5000
G*Sinδ @ 10 rad/s, kPa, ASTM D7175
@ 28°C @ 34°C @ 40°C
Creep stiffness @ Tmin + 10, MPa, ASTM
≤ 300
D6648
m-Value at -16°C, ASTM D6648 ≥ 0.300
The “80 degree rule” which maintains a difference of 80°C between the maximum and
minimum temperatures, has been implemented as opposed to the standard Superpave
procedure, whereby the minimum temperature is fixed. This will allow for greater flexibility in
the choice of binders, resulting in greater competition and financial savings.
DTT direct tension has been left out intentionally as it was found to be unnecessary in the
overwhelming majority of circumstances in the USA, and especially taking into account the
high minimum temperatures of the country.
It is proposed that the adjustment for traffic loading and speed be done according to the
specification in Table 3-1.
This would result in defining Table 3-1 precisely, as illustrated in table 3.3 below
Table 3-3: Specified binder grade based on loading and speed
Adjustment to PG binder specification¹

Traffic speed
20-year design E80
[millions] Standing Slow
Standard
(Ave. speed < 20 (Ave. speed 20 – 70
(Ave speed > 70 km/hr)
km/hr) km/hr)
< 0.3 PG64-16 1 PG64-16 PG64-16
0.3 to < 3 PG76-4 PG70-10 PG64-16
3 to <10 PG76-4 PG70-10 PG64-16
10 to < 30 PG76-4 PG70-10 PG64-16 1
≥ 30 PG76-4 PG70-10 PG70-10
1
Consideration should be given to using PG 70-10 under these specific conditions if a conservative approach is
called for in terms of prevailing circumstances (which may be a previous history of rutting, a new untested design,
a poor performing trial section or an unpredictable growth in traffic loading) .
3.3.4 Evaluation of three PG binders based on the proposed specifications
The results for three different binders available to Tanzania are presented in Table 3-4. The
binders were analysed in terms of the proposed specification classes.
It is important to note that NOT ALL 50/70 pen binders will conform to a PG 64-16 grade,
as different factors including the actual penetration value will affect conformance. Each
source of 50/70 or 60/70 or 35/50 will need to be analysed individually for conformance.
The purpose of the results is to illustrate that there are binders available that can conform to
the requirements of the proposed binder classes.
Table 3-4: Evaluation of three binders proposed for use in Tanzania
Binder types that were supplied

50/70pen 35/50pen Elvaloy binder
Property Specification
Tested for PG Grade
PG 64-16 PG 70-10 PG 76-4
Maximum design
64°C 70°C 76°C
temperature (Tmax)
Dynamic viscosity at 135°C
0.4 0.6 2.4 ≤ 3.0
(Pa.s)
Flash point (°C) 305.5 281.5 317.6 ≥ 230
G*/sinδ @ Tmax, 10 rad/s 1.43 1.17 1.71 ≥ 1.00kPa
After RTFOT Ageing
Mass change (%) +0.1 + 0.0 -0.1 ≤ 1.0
G*/sinδ @ Tmax, 10 rad/s 2.50 2.23 2.62 ≥ 2.20
After PAV Ageing
Intermediate design
28°C 34°C 40 °C
temperature (Tint)
G*.sinδ @Tint, 10 rad/s 2 630 < 3 000 < 1 000 ≤ 5 000
Minimum design
- 16°C - 10°C - 4°C
temperature (Tmin)
Creep stiffness pass
temperature
-22 -16 -16 ≤ Tmin + 10
(°C, where S < 300 MPa, m
> 0.300)
Satisfies classification
PG 64-16 PG 70-10 PG 76-4 NA
requirements for:
References
AASHTO M 320, Standard specification for performance-graded asphalt binder, AASHTO,
Washington DC, USA.
AASHTO T 315, Standard method of test for determining the rheological properties of asphalt
binder using a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR), AASHTO, Washington DC, USA.
Anderson D. A., and Kennedy, T. W. 1993. Development of SHRP binder specification.

Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technology, Vol. 62, pp. 1–6.
D’Angelo, J. 2010. New high-temperature binder specification using multistress creep and
recovery, development in asphalt binder specifications, Transportation Research Circular,
Number E-C147, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., USA.
Denneman, E. 2007. The application of locally developed pavement temperature prediction

algorithms in performance grade (PG) binder selection. Proceedings of the 26th Southern
African Transport Conference, Pretoria.
Green, G. 1991. South African Shell Bitumen Handbook. Pretoria.
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/bending-beam-rheometer/. [Accessed 30 May 2018].
Mturi, G., O’Connell, J., and Zoorob, S.E. 2010. Investigating the rheological characteristics
of South African road bitumens. 29th Southern African Transport Conference, South Africa,
August 2010
Mturi, G., Zoorob, S.E., and O'Connell, J. 2011. Effect of shear rate on bitumen viscosity
measurements – relevance to high temperature processing of bituminous products, 10th
Conference on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa, Drakensberg, South Africa.
O’Connell, J., Mturi, G., Anochie-Boateng, J., and Maina, J. 2011. Limitations for the Witczak
predictive equation for hot-mix asphalt with SBS-modified bitumen, 7th International
Conference on Road and Airfield Pavement Technology, Thailand, August 2011.
SANRAL, 2011. The South African pavement engineering manual, materials utilisation and
design, Chapter 9. Publication of the South African National Roads Agency Ltd, South Africa.
4. Selection of Aggregate Materials
4.1 Introduction
Aggregate materials used in road construction range from some of the oldest rocks on earth
to sands that have developed in the past several years. Rock aggregates may be of igneous,
sedimentary or metamorphic origin, which also affects their internal structure and the nature
of fragmentation during crushing. This in turn affects the properties of the aggregate produced
and therefore also the performance of the asphalt mix. Each aggregate thus has a unique
property that influences its performance. In addition, the type and degree of processing during
preparation of the material for use in construction affect its properties.
Aggregates constitute approximately

95% of the mass and 85% of the volume
of dense-graded asphalt mixes. Since
aggregates provide most of the load-
bearing characteristics of an asphalt mix
and contribute to the functional
attributes of a friction course, their
composition, quality and physical
properties are critical to the structural
and functional performance of an
asphalt mix.
Aggregates for asphalt mixes are

usually classified into three sizes,
namely coarse aggregates, fine aggregates, and mineral fillers. A 4.75 mm sieve is commonly
used as the dividing sieve between coarse and fine aggregates. Thus, in the Interim
Guidelines, aggregate materials are defined as follows:
 Coarse aggregates – aggregate particles retained on the 4.75 mm sieve
 Fine aggregates – aggregate particles passing the 4.75 mm sieve but retained by the
0.075 mm sieve
Mineral fillers shall preferably have at least
 Mineral filler – material passing 70% (by mass) passing the 0.075 mm
through the 0.075 mm sieve sieve, all (100%) passing the 0.600 mm
sieve.
4.2 Aggregate sources
4.2.1 Natural aggregate
Natural aggregates are naturally occurring deposits found on land, in rivers or the seabed.
Gravel and sand are the two commonly used natural aggregates for asphalt mixes. Gravel is
formed from the breakdown of any natural rock, whereas sand consists primarily of the most
resistant final residue of the deterioration of natural rock. Sand deposits that contain silt and/or
clay particles may need to be washed prior to use in asphalt mixes. Natural aggregates
comprise mostly rounded particles, which may promote the workability of the asphalt mix on
the one hand, but on the other, compromise its resistance to permanent deformation (rutting).
4.2.2 Processed aggregate
Processed (crushed) aggregates are obtained by crushing the igneous, sedimentary and
metamorphic rocks. Crushed aggregates constitute a larger proportion of aggregates used for
the manufacture of asphalt mix in the country. It is recommended that these aggregates be
cubical and angular in shape to enhance performance of the mix. Aggregate particles that are
flat, elongated, or both, can lead to poor performance of an asphalt mix.
4.2.3 Manufactured aggregate
Manufactured aggregates include by-products of industrial processes, such as industrial slag

(steel or chrome). Although slag aggregates can produce high-quality asphalt mix with good
skid resistance, their absorption is often high, and may hence require a higher amount of
binder when compared with naturally occurring aggregates. Manufactured aggregates include
products specifically obtained and processed for use as aggregates (e.g. reclaimed asphalt
pavement and recycled concrete aggregate). Although manufactured aggregates are not
commonly used in the country, their economic and environmental benefits may have to be
investigated for their future use in asphalt production.
4.2.4 Mineral filler
Mineral fillers used in asphalt mixes are generally grouped into two categories:
1. Non-active (inert) fillers, which include

Generally, the amount of active filler to be
dust from the crushing and screening
used in asphalt mixes shall not exceed
of aggregates, baghouse fines,
2% by mass. Inert fillers such as crusher
limestone dust and fly ash.
dust used to improve grading shall not be
2. Active fillers, which include hydrated subjected to this limitation. Note that the
lime and Portland cement. amount of hydrated lime in the mix should
not exceed 1.5 %
The required amount of filler must be
used, otherwise the mix properties would be adversely affected. An excessive amount of filler
may reduce voids in mineral aggregate to the point that sufficient binder content for a durable
mix cannot be added. Furthermore, too much filler may stiffen the mix, and the mix will be
difficult to compact. On the other hand, too little filler could result in low cohesion, and the mix
may fall apart.
4.3 Aggregate production

Aggregates used for the manufacture of asphalt mixes are usually sourced from a quarry. The
aggregate production process in the quarry can significantly affect the quality of the aggregate
(Mgangira et al., 2016; Komba et al., 2016). The shape properties of aggregate and grading
are for instance affected by the type of crusher or crushing operations.
Crushers used for the production of aggregates are grouped into two main categories, namely
compression-type and impact crushers. Compression-type crushers (Figure 4-1a), which are
made of jaw, gyratory and cone crushers compress the rock until it breaks. The impact crusher
(Figure 4-1b) consists of rotating hammers that transfer kinetic energy to the rock by striking
it until it breaks. The mechanism of crushing affects the shape properties of the produced
aggregates. Generally, compression-type crushers tend to produce flat and elongated
particles, while impact crushers produce cubical aggregates.
(a) Compression-type (jaw) (b) Impact (hammermill-type)

Source: Cecala et al. (2012)
Figure 4-1: Schematic illustration of compression and impact crushers
Quarry operation involves three basic steps:
1. Removing a sound rock from the face of the quarry. This usually involves drilling and
blasting.
2. Crushing the blast material to reduce

Selection of crushers is based primarily on
size. Size reduction processes will
material size reduction and throughput
typically contain at least one crushing
requirements. Other considerations include
unit, and they involve multiple crushers,
the composition, hardness and
often of different types. The types of
abrasiveness of the parent rock. It is
crushers must be carefully selected to
recommended that the crushing process
produce aggregate that meets the
should involve a primary crusher (usually a
required specifications. Crushing
jaw crusher), secondary crusher (usually a
normally produces a significant amount
cone crusher) and tertiary crusher
of air-borne dust (see Figure 4-2, Kolo
(preferably an impact shaping crusher).
quarry in Tanzania). Dust control at
crushers may be achieved through the application of water or by enclosing the dust source
(Cecala et al., 2012).
3. Screening so as to size the materials into a sufficient number of fractions or components

to produce the desired aggregate for the project. The screened materials are usually
stockpiled into different fractions based on their size.
The properties of aggregate produced by a specific quarry may vary over time as different
seams or layers in the quarry are operated. Figure 4-3 shows a typical cross-section of quarry
with different rock layers that can possibly produce aggregate with varying properties. The
quality control tests during the crushing operation must ensure that physical properties of the
aggregate remain consistent. It is therefore important to sample and test the material on a
regular basis to ensure that aggregate properties are consistent and meet the specified
standards.
Figure 4-2: Dust emissions during crushing operation at Kolo quarry
Figure 4-3: Section of Kolo quarry showing different rock layers
4.4 Mineralogy and aggregate properties

The physical and chemical properties of aggregate are associated with the mineralogy of
aggregates (Roberts et al., 1996). The basic chemical properties such as wetting, adhesion
and stripping are functions of the composition and structure of minerals in aggregate. As such,
the understanding of the aggregate mineralogy can provide information on the suitability of
the aggregates for use in asphalt mixes, and can help avoid the use of aggregates containing
harmful mineral constituents. It should, however, be recognised that the chemical properties
of aggregate may be altered by factors such as oxidation, hydration, leaching, weathering and
foreign coatings. Therefore, mineralogy alone cannot provide a basis for predicting the
behaviour of aggregate in asphalt mixes. Other alternatives such as petrographic
examinations (ASTM C 295) and past performance of similar aggregates under similar
environment and loading conditions can be helpful in evaluating aggregates.
The surface chemistry of aggregate particles can have a significant influence on the adhesion
between aggregate and binder, as well as on the resistance of asphalt mixes to moisture
damage (Roberts et al., 1996). Aggregates
such as sandstones, quartz and siliceous The designer should take into consideration
gravel are hydrophilic (water-loving) and that aggregate mineralogy may affect
tend to be acidic in nature, hence when adhesion of the binder to the aggregate and
used in asphalt mixes they are more compatibility with antistripping additives that
susceptible to moisture damage. On the may be incorporated in the binder.
other hand, aggregates such as limestone
and other calcareous materials are hydrophobic (water-hating) and basic, hence they are less
susceptible to moisture damage.
Table 4-1 provides typical engineering properties for common rock types, and Table 4-2
summarises desirable properties of rocks for aggregates used in asphalt.
Table 4-1: Engineering properties of rocks

Presence of
Mechanical Chemical Surface
Type of rock¹ Durability undesirable
strength stability characteristics
impurities
Igneous
Granite, syenite,
Good Good Good Good Possible
diorite
Felsite Good Good Questionable Fair Possible
Basalt, diabase,
Good Good Good Good Seldom
gaboro
Periodotite Good Fair Questionable Good Possible
Sedimentary
Limestone,
Good Fair Good Good Possible
dolomite
Sandstone Fair Fair Good Good Seldom
Chert Good Poor Poor Fair Likely
Conglomerate,
Fair Good Good Seldom
breccia
Shale Poor Poor Poor Possible
Metamorphic
Gneiss, Schist Good Good Good Good Seldom
Quartzite Good Good Good Good Seldom
Marble Fair Good Good Good Possible
Serpentinite Fair Fair Good Fair to poor Possible
Amphibolic Good Good Good Good Seldom
Slate Good Good Good Poor Seldom
¹ Source: Highway Research Board, Special Report 98, 1968
Table 4-2: Desirable properties of rocks for asphalt mix
Hardness, Resistant to
Type of rock¹ Surface texture Crushed shape
toughness stripping
Igneous
Granite, Fair Fair Fair Fair
Syenite Good Fair Fair Fair
diorite Good Fair Fair Good
Basalt (trap rock) Good Good Good Good
Diabase (trap rock) Good Good Good Good
Gaboro (trap rock) Good Good Good Good
Sedimentary
Limestone, dolomite Poor Good Good Fair
Sandstone Fair Good Good Good
Chert Good Fair Poor Good
Shale Poor Poor Fair Fair
Metamorphic
Gneiss Fair Fair Good Good
Schist Fair Fair Good Fair
Slate Good Fair Fair Fair
Quartzite Good Fair Good Good
Marble Poor Good Fair Fair
Serpentinite Good Fair Fair Fair
¹: Source: Gordon W.A., 1979
4.5 General requirement of aggregates

Aggregates for use in asphalt mixes should comply with the following general requirements:
i. Coarse and fine aggregates obtained from crushing or natural sources should be clean
and free from decomposed materials, vegetation matter or any deleterious substances.
ii. The coarse aggregate is in most cases crushed natural rock. The fine aggregate may
be crusher sand, clean natural sand, mine sand, selected river gravel or a mixture of
these.
iii. The aggregate blend may contain natural fines that were not obtained from the same
parent rock being crushed, and it may be subject to limitations regarding the proportion
of such materials based on mix type and experience with the materials.
iv. All aggregate materials must be handled and stockpiled in a manner that will prevent
contamination, segregation or damage.
v. Aggregates should be cubical rather than flat, thin or elongated so as to attain a greater
interlock and internal friction, resulting in greater mechanical stability of the compacted
mix. Mixes containing rounded particles have better workability and require less
compactive effort to obtain the required density. This ease of compaction is not
necessarily an advantage, because mixes that are easy to compact during construction
may continue to densify under traffic and result in excessive rutting due to low voids.
4.6 Physical properties of aggregates
The physical properties of aggregate depend on many factors, including the following:
 The mineralogy of the parent rock
 The extent to which the parent rock has altered (i.e. leaching and oxidation)
 The process required to produce aggregate particles (i.e. type of crusher or crushing
operations)
Aggregates for use in asphalt mixes must possess suitable characteristics with respect to the
properties discussed below.
4.6.1 Toughness
The ability of the aggregate to withstand the rigors of handling, construction processes and in-
service loading without degrading is a measure of the aggregate’s toughness.
Aggregates are responsible for transmitting the traffic loads to the underlying pavement layers,
and also for resisting abrasion and polishing due to traffic. Aggregates are furthermore
subjected to abrasive wear during the various stages of crushing, screening, manufacturing
and placing, and compaction of asphalt mixes. Therefore, aggregates must be hard and tough
enough to resist crushing and degradation during handling, construction and service. The
proposed tests to evaluate the toughness, hardness and abrasion resistance in this Interim
Guidelines document include the aggregate crushing value (ACV), ten per cent fines value
(TFV), aggregate impact value (AIV), and Los Angeles abrasion (LAA).
4.6.2 Soundness (durability and strength)
Aggregates used in asphalt should be durable to minimise disintegration due to climatic factors
or traffic actions. When aggregate particles are excessively cracked during compaction, the
grading may change, and the integrity of the asphalt mix could be compromised. Since this is
especially true for densely graded and open mixes where aggregate-to-aggregate contact
stresses may be considerable, high and durable aggregates should be used. For gap-graded
mixes, slightly softer or less durable aggregates can be used, as the cushioning effect of the
sandy matrix will protect the aggregate to a certain extent.
In the Interim Guidelines, the durability and soundness of aggregate are to be evaluated by
the methylene blue adsorption indicator and magnesium sulphate soundness tests
respectively (see Table 4-4).
4.6.3 Cleanliness
Cleanliness refers to the absence of foreign / deleterious materials that make the aggregates
undesirable for use in asphalt mixes. The foreign materials include vegetation, shale, soft
particles, clay lumps or clay coating on aggregate surfaces and excess dust from crushing
operations. Cleanliness can be ensured by proper quarrying and storage, as well as by
washing the dirty aggregates to reduce the amount of undesirable foreign materials to an
acceptable level. The sand equivalent test is the proposed test to determine the proportion of
plastic fines and dust in fine aggregate, whereas the clay lumps and friable particles test is
used to determine the presence of clay and friable particles that may affect the durability of
asphalt mixes (see Table 4-4).
4.6.4 Particle shape
The shape of the aggregate particles in the asphalt mix determines the degree of aggregate
interlock and resultant mechanical strength of the mix. In dense-graded mixes, mechanical
interlock will play a bigger role than
in gap-graded mixes. Angularity Aggregates for use in asphalt should be cubical
or angular rather than flat, thin or elongated.
ensures a high degree of aggregate
Angular-shaped and rough-textured aggregate
internal friction and aids in rutting particles exhibit greater interlock and internal
resistance. Mixes with crushed friction, resulting in greater mechanical stability
coarse aggregates that are highly of compacted asphalt mix. On the other hand,
angular usually have the greatest asphalt mixes containing rounded particles have
resistance to shear, hence they better workability and require less compaction
effort to obtain the required density. This ease of
exhibit the highest resistance to
compaction is not necessarily an advantage
permanent deformation (rutting). because mixes that are easy to compact during
These aggregates potentially create construction may continue to densify under
asphalt mixes with the highest VMA traffic and result in excessive rutting, due to low
values. voids.
Flat and elongated (F&E) particles ratio is the percentage by mass of coarse aggregates that
have a maximum to minimum dimension-ratio greater than five. Too much flat and elongated
particles are undesirable, because they have a tendency to break during construction and
under traffic, which may result in a potentially unstable asphalt mix.
4.6.5 Specific gravity
Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of a material to the density of water at 25°C and at
standard air pressure. The density of water under these conditions is 1 g/cm³ (i.e. specific
gravity is interchangeable with relative density, and is dimensionless). A material with a bulk
specific gravity of 2.652 has a density of 2.652 g/cm³.
Mass Equation 4.1

𝐒pecific Gravity =
Volume × (unit mass of water)
Asphalt mix design is a volumetric process. However, the volumes of the constituent materials
of the asphalt mix (i.e. aggregate and binder) are difficult to measure directly. To conceptualise
the spatial composition of asphalt mixes, volume considerations are most often used. These
considerations need to be controlled by means of mass measurements, for which the density
of the aggregate is needed. To do this, the relationship expressed by the equation above is
used as follows:
Mass Equation 4.2

Volume =
Specific Gravity
The three generally accepted types of specific gravity for aggregates use in asphalt mixes are
described as follows:
(i) Bulk specific gravity (𝑮𝒔𝒃)

𝐺𝑠𝑏 assumes
Bulk specific gravity is defined as the ratio of the aggregate looks like
oven-dry mass of a unit volume of aggregate this:
(including both the impermeable and water-
permeable void volumes) to the mass of the same
volume of water. It is recommended that the bulk
specific gravity of each aggregate be determined on
samples submitted for mix design. Some stockpiles
will be essentially coarse (> 4.75 mm sieve size),
some will be fine (< 4.75 mm sieve size) and some
will have both coarse and fine portions.
Mass of oven dry aggregate Equation 4.3

Gsb =
(Vol. of aggregate)+(Vol. of permeable voids)
Determining coarse aggregate Gsb
The coarse bulk specific gravity is determined using ASTM C127. The size of the test sample
is specified and determined by the nominal maximum aggregate size. This procedure requires
that the dry aggregate be saturated to determine the volume of the aggregate plus the water-
permeable voids.
Determining fine aggregate Gsb
The fine aggregate bulk specific gravity is determined using ASTM C128. The dry aggregate
is saturated to account for the volume of the aggregate plus the water-permeable voids. If the
designer is using aggregates with a high water absorption (3 to 4%), total submersion as
recommended by Asphalt Institute MS-2 is adopted for the Interim Guidelines.
Determining mineral filler Gsb
The bulk specific gravity of mineral filler is difficult to determine accurately. However, the
apparent specific gravity (Gsa) of mineral filler can easily be determined. This can be done for
the filler only, as the amount of mineral filler added is typically small and the difference between
Gsb and Gsa is relatively small.
Calculating the Gsb for the aggregate blend
Once the bulk- (dry) specific gravity for each stockpile has been determined, the combined
bulk- (dry) specific gravity for the aggregate blend is calculated as follows:
𝑷𝟏 + 𝑷𝟐 + ⋯ + 𝑷𝒏 Equation 4.4
𝑮𝒔𝒃 = 𝑷𝟏 𝑷𝟐 𝑷𝒏
+ + ⋯+
𝑮𝟏 𝑮𝟐 𝑮𝒏
where, Gsb = bulk- (dry) specific gravity of the aggregate
P1, P2, Pn = percentages by mass of aggregates 1, 2, through n
G1, G2, Gn = bulk- (dry) specific gravity of aggregates 1, 2, through n
The calculated coarse and fine Gsb can be verified by batching the combined aggregates,
splitting them on the 4.75 mm sieve and determining the coarse and fine Gsb for the design.
(ii) Apparent specific gravity (𝑮𝒔𝒂) 𝐺𝑠𝑎 assumes aggregate

looks like this:
Apparent specific gravity is the ratio of the mass of
the oven-dry aggregate to the volume of the
aggregate excluding the volume of the voids
occupied by absorbed water. Laboratory testing to
determine the bulk specific gravity also provides data
to determine the apparent specific gravity and the
water absorption of the aggregate. Apparent specific
gravity is intended to only measure the specific
gravity of the aggregate volume, therefore it is the
highest of the aggregate specific gravities.
Mass of oven dry aggregate Equation 4.5

𝑮𝒔𝒂 =
bulk vol. of aggregate − vol. of water permeable voids
Effective Specific Gravity (𝑮𝒔𝒆) 𝐺𝑠𝑒 assumes aggregate

looks like this:
The effective specific gravity is the ratio of the oven
dry mass of a unit volume of aggregate (including
both the solid volume of the aggregate and the water
permeable voids not filled with absorbed binder) to
the mass of the same volume of water. Effective
specific gravity lies between apparent and bulk
specific gravity. Effective specific gravity is
determined by a different procedure and is not
covered in this Guideline.
Mass of oven dry aggregate

𝑮𝒔𝒆 =
(Vol. of solid aggregate)+(Vol. of water permeable voids not filled with binder)
Equation 4.6
NOTE 4.1:
 The difference between Gsa and Gsb is the volume of aggregate used in the calculations. The
difference between these volumes is the volume of absorbed water in the aggregate’s permeable
voids. Both use the aggregate’s oven-dry mass.
 The difference between Gsa, Gse and Gsb is the volume of aggregate used in the calculations. All
three use the aggregate’s oven-dry mass.
 The following relationships are always true:
 Gsa ≥ Gse ≥ Gsb
 Gsa, Gse, and Gsb are all ≥ the maximum theoretical specific gravity of the mix (Gmm) – Gmm
includes the binder that has a lower specific gravity than the aggregate.
Table 4-3 provides typical specific gravity values for common rocks used in asphalt.
Table 4-3: Typical specific gravity values¹
Material Specific gravity

Basalt 2.86
Diabase 2.96
Dolomite 2.70
Glass 2.50
Gneiss 2.74
Granite 2.65
Limestone 2.66
Marble 2.63
Quartz 2.65
Quartzite 2.69
Sandstone 2.54
Shale 1.85-2.50
¹Source: NCHRP 673 (2016)
NOTE 4.2: Although the effective specific gravity is difficult to determine, when it is used in air void
calculations, the calculated voids are truly those of the asphalt mix. The most correct aggregate specific
gravity to use in air void calculations would therefore be the effective specific gravity (used to calculate
the maximum theoretical specific gravity of the mix).
NOTE 4.3: Apparent specific gravity assumes that all surface cavities in the aggregate voids will be
fully penetrated by the binder. This is not actually the case, since part of these cavities will be too fine
or small for the binder to penetrate (although still large enough for water to penetrate). Thus the
apparent specific gravity overestimates the increase in available void space due to bitumen absorption.
If the apparent specific gravity is used in design calculations, the actual voids will be less than that
shown by the design calculations.
4.6.6 Water absorption
The porosity of an aggregate is usually

It is recommended that the binder absorption
indicated by the amount of water it
characteristics of the aggregates be
absorbs when soaked. A certain degree assessed. Often, the use of highly absorptive
of porosity is desirable for aggregate aggregates increases the propensity of the
used in asphalt mixes as it permits the mix to be tender, especially if the rate of
aggregate to absorb bitumen, which absorption is slow. Since additional binder
then forms a mechanical link between may have to be used to allow for eventual
the bitumen film and the aggregate binder absorption, the mix may be temporarily
too rich in binder, which may result in a
particle. Highly absorptive aggregates, tender mix at the time of construction. This is
on the other hand, will require a exacerbated by the fact that the asphalt mix
significant amount of extra bitumen, voids determination includes large amount of
which will be lost in the aggregate, and voids in the aggregate, implying that the
which will make the mix expensive. actual voids in the mix could be much lower
than that determined.
It has also been found that the smaller
molecular-sized particles in the binder, such as the aromatic fraction, are absorbed first. This
is called selective sorption. The result of selective sorption is that the binder becomes harder
due to the loss of lighter fractions that leads to premature ageing and cracking.
In cases where the absorption of binder is very small, the various specific gravities will tend to
be very similar. The following three procedures are described, dependent on the estimated
surface voids and the accessibility of the voids in the specimen, expressed as the specimen
water absorption:
1. Bulk specific gravity (specimen water absorption < 0.85%), saturated surface dry for
specimens with a closed surface
2. Bulk specific gravity (specimen water absorption between 0.85% and 15%), sealed with
an elastomeric film covering for specimens with an open or coarse surface
3. Bulk specific gravity (specimen water absorption > 15%), by measurement for specimens
with a regular surface and geometric shape, that have high void contents
Figure 4-4 shows a schematic illustration of an aggregate particle coated with a film of binder.
The aggregate has a cavity that has been partly filled by the binder. Binder that has entered
such cavities is referred to as absorbed binder.
Figure 4-4: Schematic illustration of coated aggregate with absorbed binder
NOTE 4.4: Because of the larger surface area of very fine sands, fillers and aggregate particles, more
binder is required to coat these particles. A higher binder demand could thus be wrongly interpreted as
absorption.
NOTE 4.5: Designers should be careful when making assumptions based on absorption when
considerable percentages of finer material are present such as those used in gap-graded mixes.
Examples on specific gravity and absorption
Example 1: A coarse aggregate sample is used to determine bulk- and apparent specific
gravities.
The following quantities are determined:
Mass of the oven-dry test sample = 914.0 g (= A)
Mass of the saturated surface-dry (SSD) = 926.2 g (= B)
Mass of submerged container plus water plus aggregate = 881.2 g.

Mass of the saturated sample in water = 351.2 g (= C)
Find the bulk- and apparent specific gravities. Always report specific gravities to the third
decimal place.
𝐴 914.0
Gsb = = = 2.307
𝐵 − 𝐶 926.2 − (881.2 − 351.2)
𝐴 914.0
Gsa = = = 2.380
𝐴 − 𝐶 914.0 − (881.2 − 351.2)
Example 2: Suppose two different samples of aggregate are used to conduct absorption and
specific gravity tests. Compute absorption, bulk and apparent specific gravity, given the
following:
Sample 1:
Mass of oven-dry aggregate = 961.1 g (=A)
SSD mass of aggregate = 982.0 g (= B)
Sample 2:
Mass of container with sample submerged in water = 760.9 g
Mass of empty container submerged in water = 68.1 g
Oven-dry mass of aggregate =1068.1 g (= A)
Sample 1: Absorption,
𝐵−𝐴
Wab = × 100
𝐴
982 − 961.1
Wab = × 100 = 2.17%
961.1
Sample 2: A = 1068.1 g, C = 760.9 – 68.1 = 692.8 g
𝐵−𝐴
Wab = × 100 = 2.17
𝐴
 B = (1068.1 x 2.17) + 1068.1 = 1091.28 g
𝐴 1068.1
Gsb = = = 2.680
𝐵 − 𝐶 1091.28 − 692.8
𝐴 1068.1
Gsa = = = 2.846
𝐴 − 𝐶 1068.1 − 692.8
4.6.7 Surface area
The primary reason for estimating aggregate surface area is to determine the binder film
thickness, which provides an indication of whether aggregate particles are sufficiently coated
with binder to ensure the durability of the mix. The approach proposed for the Interim
Guidelines was adapted from the Hveem method of asphalt mix design, and it is the most
commonly used method to date.
The surface area of the blended aggregate affects the amount of binder required to uniformly
coat the aggregate particles. The finer the asphalt mix grading, the larger the total surface
area of the aggregate and the greater the amount of binder required to uniformly coat the
aggregate particles.
The specific surface area (SA) of aggregates (m2/kg) for estimating bitumen film thickness is
calculated based on surface area factors presented in Equation 4.7:
𝑆𝐴 = (2 + 0.02𝑎 + 0.04𝑏 + 0.08𝑐 + 0.1𝑑 + 0.3𝑒 + 0.6𝑓 + 1.6𝑔) × 0.20482 Equation

4.7
where:
a = percentage passing 4.75 mm sieve
b = percentage passing 2.36 mm sieve
c = percentage passing 1.18 mm sieve
d = percentage passing 0.60 mm sieve
e = percentage passing 0.30 mm sieve
f = percentage passing 0.15 mm sieve
g = percentage passing 0.075 mm sieve
NOTE 4.6: A more rigorous calculation of surface area requires the contribution of each size fraction to
the total specific surface of the aggregate as presented by Anochie-Boateng et al (2012).
4.7 Test methods

Table 4-4 presents the standard test methods and recommended requirements to determine
the suitability of aggregates for asphalt mix design in this document. It is recommended that
the latest version of the standard test methods be used.
Table 4-4: Recommended tests and requirements¹
Standard test CML Test
Property Test Requirement
method method
Fine graded, max 25%
Aggregate Crushing
BS EN1097-4. LTM 2000 Coarse graded: max
Value (ACV)
(2.6) 21%
 Asphalt surfacings and
base: min 160 kN
 Open-graded surfacings
Hardness / 10% Fines Value (TFV) BS EN1097-4
and SMA: min 210 kN
Toughness LTM 2000 Wet/dry ratio ≥ 0.75 for
(2.7) all asphalt mixes
Aggregate Impact Value LTM 2000
BS EN1097-4 Max 30%
(AIV) – Optional (2.8)
Loss Angeles Abrasion ASTM C535/ LTM 2000
Max 35%
(LAA) C131 (2.9)
12 to 20% is normally
Soundness Magnesium sulphate or acceptable. Some
ASTM C88
/ durability Sodium sulphate LTM 2000 specifications require ≤
(2.10) 12% loss after 5 cycles
Flat and elongated particles² ASTM D4791 - Max 10%
Particle - 95/90 (at least 95% of
shape and coarse fractions should
Coarse aggregate
surface ASTM D5821 have one fractured face
angularity³
texture and 90% has two or
more fractured faces
Fine aggregate angularity ASTM C1252 - Min 45%
- Min 50% total fines
Sand equivalent ASTM D2419
fraction
Cleanliness
Clay lumps and friable ASTM C142/ -
Max 10%
particles AASTHO T330
Coarse aggregate (> 4.75 Maximum absorption of
Specific ASTM C127 LTM 2000
mm) 1% by mass
gravity and (2.2)
water
Maximum absorption of
absorption Fine aggregate (< 4.75 mm) ASTM C128 LTM 2000
1.5% by mass
(2.2)
¹Aggregate requirements contained in this table shall preferably be applied to combined aggregate blends rather
than to individual aggregate fractions or components. However, some designers find it useful to perform the
aggregate tests on the individual aggregate fractions.
²5:1 Flat and elongated particles ratio is used for Superpave requirements. However, preliminary research
conducted at the CSIR using modern 3D laser techniques (Anochie-Boateng, 2015) indicates that 3:1 ratio would
be a better parameter. A higher percentage may be used if the 3:1 ratio is adopted. Some agencies in the USA are
considering a maximum value of 20% for the 1:3 ratio.
³Uncompacted voids in coarse aggregate (AASHTO T326) can be evaluated by TANROADS to determine
angularity of coarse aggregates. This method is the same as the uncompacted voids in fine aggregates, except
that the size of the equipment has been increased to accommodate the larger aggregate.
4.8 Aggregate grading

Aggregate grading refers to the distribution of particle sizes expressed as a percentage of the
total mass. In this document, aggregate grading will be determined in accordance with the
procedures contained in ASTM C136 (dry sieve analysis) and ASTM C117 (washed sieve
analysis). The Superpave standard sieves (see Table 4-6) are recommended for sieve
analysis in this Guideline.
Gradings for asphalt mixes are unusually referred to by their maximum aggregate sizes as
presented in Table 4-6. Two designations for maximum aggregate size are defined below:
1. Maximum nominal aggregate size (NMAS) – One sieve size larger than the first sieve to
retain more than 10% (Superpave).
2. Maximum aggregate size (MAS) – One sieve larger than the NMAS.
Table 4-5: Superpave maximum aggregate size designation

Superpave Nominal maximum aggregate
Maximum aggregate size
designation size
37.5 mm 37.5 mm 50 mm
25 mm 25 mm 37.5 mm
19 mm 19 mm 25 mm
12.5 mm 12.5 mm 19 mm
9.5 mm 9.5 mm 12.5 mm
4.8.1 Grading control points
Grading of an aggregate blend should lie within certain key control points; the nominal
maximum particle size; the 2.36 mm sieve, and the 0.075 mm sieve
A design aggregate structure (i.e. the cumulative frequency distribution of aggregate particle
sizes) that lies between the control points meets the requirements of this Guideline with
respect to grading. Table 4-6 provides grading control points for five nominal maximum
aggregate sizes for dense-graded asphalt mixes (Asphalt Institute, MS-2).
Table 4-6: Aggregate grading control points

Percentage passing nominal maximum aggregate size (NMAS)
Sieve NMAS = 37.5 mm NMAS = 25 mm NMAS = 19 mm NMAS = 12.5 mm NMAS = 9.5 mm
sizes
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
50 mm 100
37.5 mm 90 100 100
25 mm 90 90 100 100
19 mm 90 90 100 100
12.5 mm 90 90 100 100
9.5 mm 90 90 100
4.75 mm 90
2.36 mm 15 41 19 45 23 49 28 58 32 67
1.18 mm
0.6 mm
0.3 mm
0.15 mm
0.075 mm 0 6 1 7 2 8 2 10 2 10
NOTE 4.7: The initial version of the Superpave mix design method recommended that the grading
should not pass through certain restricted zones. Recent research studies, however, indicate that
asphalt mixes that violate the restricted zone of design gradings could perform similarly to (or in some
cases better than) those that did not violate it.
4.8.2 Aggregate test results
Six aggregate sources used for asphalt production in the country were evaluated as part of
the development of the Interim Guidelines.
Test results of six aggregate sources (S1 to S6) are presented in Table 4-7 as typical values
and guidelines for evaluation of physical properties of aggregates used in HMA.
Table 4-7: Results of aggregates from Tanzania

Aggregate source1
Property Test
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
Aggregate Crushing
19.7 23.8 15.0 29.3 23.0 9.2
Value (ACV)
10% Fines Value (TFV) 214 168 255 118 159 419
Hardness /
Aggregate Impact
Toughness 17.7 25.0 14.7 28.2 25.3 7.9
Value (AIV)
Loss Angeles Abrasion
23.8 33.8 18.4 36.3 35.4 10.1
(LAA)
Magnesium sulphate
Soundness (Durability) 4.1 0.0 1.2 15.8 2.8 9.4
soundness
Flat and elongated
2.7 0.15 5 0.8 1.55 3.5
particles
Particle shape and Coarse aggregate
86/76 88/80 91/80 87/77 89/84 82/73
surface texture angularity
Fine aggregate 49.6 45.4 47.6 46.3 49.2 47.2
angularity
Sand equivalency test 65.4 76.6 57.7 40.2 71.0 57.8
Cleanliness Clay lumps and friable
1.37 0.59 0.93 2.78 2.14 4.03
Particles
Coarse aggregate (>
0.501 0.500 0.489 2.250 0.700 1.384
4.75 mm)
Water absorption
Fine aggregate (< 4.75
0.900 1.500 1.800 3.700 1.000 2.550
mm)
4.9 Chemical properties

The primary chemical property of an aggregate that has a direct impact on the asphalt
performance is its affinity to the binder. This property is related to the surface chemistry of the
aggregate. The bond that forms when bitumen coats the surface of the aggregate can weaken
in the presence of water. For hydrophilic (water-loving) aggregates, the binder film on the
aggregate may become detached, or ‘strip’ in the presence of water.
While the Modified Lottman test (AASHTO T283 / ASTM D 4867M) is used extensively to give
an indication of stripping potential of aggregates in asphalt mixes, a wheel tracking test should
be investigated to evaluate stripping of aggregates in the mix for this set of Interim Guidelines.
1 Rock types: S1 = Granite; S2 = Granite; S3 = Granite; S4 = Calcrete; S5 = Amphibole; S6 = Basalt.
Values in orange cells do not meet requirements presented in Table 4-4.
References
AASHTO T 326, Standard method of test for uncompacted void content of coarse aggregate
(as influenced by particle shape, surface texture, and grading. AASHTO, Washington DC.
USA..
Anochie-Boateng J. 2015. Determination of Flat and Elongated Ratio Shape Property of

Aggregates: An Innovative 3-D Laser Scanning Approach at CSIR, Research Outcome,
Pretoria, South Africa
Anochie-Boateng, J., Komba, J., & Tutumluer, E. 2012. Aggregate surface areas quantified
through laser measurements for South African asphalt mixtures. Journal of Transportation
Engineering, 138(8), pp.1006-1015.
ASHTO T330, Standard method for the qualitative detection of harmful clays of the smectite
group in aggregates using methylene blue. AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
ASTM C117, Standard test method for materials finer than 75-μm (No. 200) sieve in mineral
aggregates by washing. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, www.astm.org
ASTM C1252, Standard test methods for uncompacted void content of fine aggregate (as
influenced by particle shape, surface texture, and grading. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2012, www.astm.org
ASTM C136 / C136M, Standard test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, www.astm.org
ASTM C142, Standard test method for clay lumps and friable particles in aggregates. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, www.astm.org
ASTM C295 / C295M, Standard guide for petrographic examination of aggregates for
concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, www.astm.org
ASTM C535, Standard test method for resistance to degradation of large-size coarse
aggregate by abrasion and impact in the Los Angeles machine. ASTM International, West
ASTM C88, Standard test method for soundness of aggregates by use of sodium sulfate or
magnesium sulfate. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, www.astm.org
ASTM D2419, Standard test method for sand equivalent value of soils and fine aggregate.
ASTM D4791, Standard test method for flat particles, elongated particles, or flat and elongated
particles in coarse aggregate. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012,
www.astm.org
ASTM D5821, Standard test method for determining the percentage of fractured particles in
coarse aggregate. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, www.astm.org
BS EN 1097-4, Tests for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates. Determination of
the voids of dry compacted filler. European Standards.
Cecala, A.B., Brien, A.D., Schall, J., Colinet, J.F., Fox, W.R., Franta, R.J., Joy, J.J., Reed, R.,
Reeser, P.W. Rounds, J.R. and Schultz, M.J. 2012. Dust control handbook for industrial
minerals mining and processing. Report of investigation 9689. Department of Health and
Human Services. Pittsburgh.
Komba J., Mgangira M.B.M. and Mohale, L. 2016. Investigation of the effects of type of crusher
on coarse aggregates shape properties using three-dimensional laser scanning technique.
Geochina.
Martin B Mgangira, Joseph Anochie-Boateng, Renee Koen, Julius Komba, Erol Tutumluer.
2016. Measurement of shape property distributions of quartzite aggregate from different
crushers using 3D laser scanning system. Transportation Research Board 95th Annual
Meeting. Washington DC, USA.
MS-2 Asphalt mix design methods, Asphalt Institute, KY, USA.
NCHRP Project 673, 2011. A Manual for design of hot mix asphalt with commentary.
Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA.
Roberts, F., P. Khandal, E. Brown, D. Lee, and Kennedy, T. Hot mix asphalt materials, mixture
design, and construction. 2nd edition: NAPA Education Foundation, 1996
The United Republic of Tanzania Ministry of Works, 2000. Laboratory testing manual, Dar es
Salaam (LTM 2000).
5. Asphalt Mix Design
5.1 Introduction
The design of an asphalt mix primarily involves selecting the component materials (i.e.
aggregate, binder and filler) to be used, testing the asphalt mixes, and selecting the optimum
mix design that meets design requirements. An important aspect of mix design is to ensure
that specimens prepared in the laboratory have properties that are similar to the asphalt mix
placed on the road.
The asphalt mix design methodology suggested in the Interim Guidelines involves five basic
steps:
1. Evaluation of the design situation and identification of design objectives
2. Preliminary considerations leading to mix type selection
3. Evaluation of main components (binder, aggregate, filler)
4. Volumetric design leading to the selection of grading and design binder content
5. Rutting performance evaluation to determine the optimum mix
5.2 Asphalt mix properties

Asphalt mix designed for heavy traffic should meet the requirements of certain performance-
related properties for satisfactory performance of the mix on the road.
Key performance-related properties that are to be considered for mix design in the Interim
Guidelines are described below. The causes and effects of insufficiency of these properties
are presented in Tables 5-1 to 5-6.
5.2.1 Workability
Workability is the property of asphalt mix that facilitates good handling, spreading, compaction
and uniformity of the layer under the prevailing conditions. Factors that influence workability
are the following:
 Binder content, viscosity and setting properties
 Aggregate grading, shape and type
 Filler grading and type
 Temperature of the mix
For a given aggregate grading, workability is usually improved by the following:
 Increase in binder content
 Decrease in binder viscosity
 Decrease in aggregate angularity
 Decrease in filler/binder ratio
 Decrease in mix density (i.e. open-graded mixes are more workable)
 Construction controls that ensure the mix is compacted at the proper temperature (this is
normally carried out quickly within an acceptable compaction time window)
Table 5-1: Causes and effects of poor workability

Property Causes Effects
Large maximum-sized aggregate
Rough surface, difficult to place
particle
Excessive coarse aggregates in the
Difficult to compact
mix
Uncoated aggregate, not durable,
Too low a mix temperature
Poor workability rough surface, difficult to compact
Too much medium-sized sand in the Mix shoves under roller, remains
mix tender
Low mineral filler content Tender mix, highly permeable
Mix may be dry hard to handle, not
High mineral filler
durable
5.2.2 Durability
Durability, often measured through moisture resistance, refers to the ability of the asphalt mix
to resist the following:
 Hardening of the bituminous binder due to
o oxidation,
o loss of volatiles,
o physical (steric) hardening, and
o loss of oily substances due to absorption of these into porous aggregates (exudative
hardening);
 Disintegration of the aggregate;
 Stripping of the bituminous binder from the aggregate;
 Action of traffic.
Durability of mixes can be improved by using
 an appropriate bituminous binder in sufficiently thick films,
 dense aggregate packing, i.e. low air voids, and
 sound, durable aggregate, resistant to stripping of binder films.
Table 5-2: Causes and effects of poor durability
Low binder Dryness or ravelling
High void content through design or lack Early hardening of bitumen followed by
Poor durability
of compaction cracking or disintegration
Water-susceptible aggregate in the mix Films of bitumen strip from aggregate
5.2.3 Stiffness
The stiffness of an asphalt layer determines the ability of the layer to carry and spread traffic
loads to underlying layers. For hot-mix asphalt, stiffness is expressed in terms of resilient
modulus or dynamic modulus of the material. Stiff asphalt is generally required for asphalt
base courses for effective load spreading to underlying layers. Less well-supported surfacing
course may be better served by a lower stiffness asphalt so as to avoid traffic-induced
cracking, provided that the underlying support is still adequate to carry the traffic loads.
Generally, the stiffness of asphalt mix is influenced by the following:
 Aggregate packing and shape
 Filler type and grading
 Filler content
 Binder content
 Stiffness of the binder
 The degree of compaction achieved during construction
 Temperature and loading time
5.2.4 Resistance to permanent deformation (Rutting)
The ability of an asphalt layer to resist permanent deformation under the influence of traffic
and elevated temperatures depends primarily on
 internal frictional resistance, and
 cohesion (tensile strength).
Of these, frictional resistance is the dominant contributor to deformation resistance, especially

at pavement temperatures in excess of 40°C, which frequently occur in the country during
summer. Aggregate grading, angularity and roughness that produce optimal packing and
provide adequate frictional resistance should be used where permanent deformation (rutting)
is a key consideration.
Table 5-3: Causes and effects of mix susceptible to rutting
Excess binder in mix Rutting, flushing or bleeding
Tenderness during rolling and for
Mix susceptible to Excess medium-size sand in mix period after construction; difficulty in
rutting compacting
Rounded aggregate, little or no
Rutting and channelling
crushed surfaces
5.2.5 Resistance to fatigue cracking
Resistance to cracking is the ability of the layer to withstand tensile strains without fracture.
This tensile strength is progressively reduced by repeated traffic and temperature-related
stresses, a process known as fatigue. Failure in tension (cracking) therefore occurs when the
applied stresses exceed the reduced tensile strength. Different types of asphalt mix exhibit
varying resistance to this type of cracking.
In most cases, cracking occurs at low temperatures when the asphalt is brittle.
Table 5-4: Causes and effects of poor fatigue resistance

Low binder content Fatigue cracking
Early ageing of binder, followed by
High design voids
Poor fatigue resistance fatigue cracking
Excessive bending, followed by
Inadequate pavement thickness
fatigue cracking
5.2.6 Permeability
Permeability of an asphalt layer is a measure of the penetration of the mix by air, water and
water vapour. Low permeability of an asphalt surfacing promotes long-term durability and
protects underlying layers from the ingress of water, which may lead to failure. The following
factors reduce permeability:
 High binder contents with adequate film thickness
 Dense aggregate packing
 Dispersion rather than inter-connection of air voids within the mix
 Well-compacted layers
Table 5-5: Causes and effects of mix too permeable

Low binder content Thin binder films will cause early ageing
and ravelling
High voids content in design mix Water and air can easily enter
pavement, causing oxidation and
Mix too permeable
disintegration
Inadequate compaction Will result in high voids in pavement,
leading to water infiltration and low
strength
5.2.7 Skid resistance
Skid-resistant riding surfaces are especially important in high-speed applications, particularly

in areas with high precipitation. Skid resistance is improved by
 ensuring that adequate air voids exist in the mix to prevent the bitumen flushing off the
surface,
 selecting aggregates that have a rough surface texture, that are resistant to polishing
under the action of traffic and that provide good micro-texture, and
 an adequate amount of coarse aggregate remaining proud of the surface of the layer,
providing macro-texture.
Table 5-6: Causes and effects of poor skid resistance

Excess binder Bleeding, low skid resistance
Smooth pavement, potential for
Poor skid resistance Poorly textured or graded aggregate
skidding
Polishing aggregate in the mix Low skid resistance
5.3 Aims of hot-mix asphalt design

The primary objective of asphalt mix design is to achieve a durable mix that meets certain
specifications by using an economical blending of aggregates and binder. This should not be
considered a straightforward process, as the asphalt mix should meet particular design
requirements. It is expected that the asphalt mix should be workable in the field, with sufficient
binder to ensure satisfactory durability, fatigue performance and suitable aggregate
configuration. The mix should also provide structure and space between particles to
accommodate the binder and prevent bleeding and permanent deformation /rutting. If the
asphalt mix is used as a wearing course, the aim is to provide a surfacing that is waterproof
(with the exception of porous asphalt) and meets functional requirements such as friction,
noise attenuation and comfort.
Some of the most common mistakes that must be avoided when designing heavy duty asphalt
mixes are the following:
i. Incorrect mix design, including the selection of binder contents that are too high
ii. Selection of the wrong binder type or grade
iii. Too much middle-sized sand in the mix, particularly if a high percentage of natural sand
is used, as well as the presence of smooth, rounded aggregates
iv. Small maximum size aggregate with respect to layer thickness
v. Inadequate aggregate skeleton structure
vi. Use of excessive filler material (minus 0.075 mm sieve material)
vii. Insufficient amount of filler in the mix
5.4 Methods of asphalt mix design
Asphalt mix design procedures generally have some commonalities, i.e. preparation and
compaction of samples in the laboratory to simulate field conditions; emphasis on volumetric
analysis and requirements for voids (Va, VMA and VFB); and the determination of the optimum
mix design based on the set criteria. However, design methods generally differ from one
another in terms of the following:
 Equipment and method used to prepare and compact the asphalt mixes
 Selection of the properties of compacted specimens to be evaluated
 Criteria used for selecting optimum mix designs that satisfy minimum requirements
The Marshall and Superpave mix design methods remain the most widely used asphalt mix
design systems in the world.
5.4.1 Marshall mix design
The Marshall mix design method was originally developed by Bruce Marshall from the USA in
the 1940s. The Marshall mix design method is simple and inexpensive to use. Due to its
widespread use throughout the world, much experience has been gained in the use of this
method. The Marshall stability is related to the tensile strength, while a high Marshall flow is
related to low resistance to rutting of the asphalt mix. However, several engineers and road
agencies have proposed improvements and variations to this design procedure.
The specific requirements for air void content, VMA, VFB, and stability and flow varied over
time and from agency to agency. The following are some of the key limitations associated with
the Marshall mix design method:
 The aggregate orientation in the compacted Marshall specimens is not representative of

that in the field-compacted mixes. The aggregates in the Marshall-compacted specimens
tend to get crushed at high compaction levels.
 The design optimises bitumen content, not grading. Grading is assumed to be acceptable
as long as it is in the envelope. However, grading envelopes may not be the best grading
for the aggregates to be used.
 Several field studies indicated that even 75 blows with a mechanical hammer, which tend
to yield high densities, do not always produce the densities ultimately achieved in the field
under traffic.
5.4.2 The Superpave system
The Superpave mix design method that was developed during the early 1990s was intended
to be an improvement over the Marshall and other empirical asphalt mix design methods. The
merit of the Superpave method is that it uses a gyratory compactor to prepare the asphalt
samples to closely simulate field compaction. In addition, the Superpave design method
requires rigorous evaluation of aggregate properties for the mix.
The Superpave mix design system involves three levels:
Level 1: Volumetric mix design
Level 2: Volumetric mix design and performance prediction
Level 3: Volumetric mix design and enhanced performance prediction
To date, only the Level 1 (Asphalt Institute’s MS-2; AASHTO R 35; AASHTO M 323) mix
design methodology has been adopted in several countries worldwide. This is mainly due to
the fact that the Level 1 mix design method is inexpensive compared to the Level 2 and Level
3 methods that require sophisticated equipment.
Key features of the Superpave system include the following:
1. Selection of the binder grade is based on local climate and expected traffic level. Binder
grading is done using a performance-based system of tests and specification
requirements.
2. Evaluation of design mixes is done in the laboratory on gyratory-compacted specimens (a

gyratory compactor better simulates field compaction).
The Superpave volumetric mix design (Level I) has come under scrutiny as designers have
associated it with the following limitations:
 No performance test is incorporated in the design process for the evaluation of stability,
stiffness and strength.
 Some mixes that meet the volumetric design criteria have exhibited different field
performance.
5.5 Mix design process

The main process for designing asphalt mixes in this document has been developed around
dense-graded mixes. A flow chart to describe the summary process is shown in Figure 5-2.
i. Phase 1: Evaluate the design situation and identify design objectives – this involves
traffic, pavement, climate, construction, material availability, geometry and the
environment. This information is typically included in the contract documents and is
used in both the selection of bitumen grade and aggregate materials.
ii. Phase 2: Select mix type and materials – the process of asphalt mix design begins by
selecting the mix type and component materials; aggregates, binder and additives, to
provide mixes that meet contract requirements. Selection of the mix type for a particular
design situation and objective will set the parameters for aggregate grading, binder,
volumetric properties, and the general performance characteristics of the mix.
iii. Phase 3: Evaluate components – this includes the aggregates and binder that will be
used in the mix. It is desired that the characteristics of mix components are known at
the initial mix design process in order to facilitate subsequent adjustments/refinements
(if needed) to comply with the design specifications.
iv. Phase 4: Volumetric design process – in most cases, the design mix is prepared from
blend aggregates with different proportions of binder to allow the selection of a binder
content that optimises the desired volumetric properties. A major component of
volumetric design is sample preparation and gyratory compaction of samples to
determine volumetric properties of the mix (see Appendix A).
v. Phase 5: Performance testing – the proposed performance-related tests required for

mix design in this Interim Guideline are presented in the flow chart. The first
performance test is aimed at creating a workable mix. If the workability criterion is met,
specimens are subjected to a durability and other performance tests. The optimum mix
is selected based on those binder contents with greater resistance to rutting. The mix
is assessed for stiffness and fatigue life characteristics primarily to link mix properties
with pavement design. For gap-graded and open-graded mixes, permeability and
draindown tests are required.
NOTE 5.1: The mix design guidelines and procedures presented in the Interim Guidelines are built on
the Superpave Level 1 mix design system with an evaluation of performance characteristics of the
asphalt (based on the laboratory determination of the mechanical properties of the mix).
5.5.1 Mix composition and volumetric properties
Volumetric principles form the basis of the design approach suggested in the Interim
Guidelines. For many applications, the asphalt mix design process ends at this point.
Designers should therefore be familiar with the most important facets of volumetric design.
The volumetric properties are defined in accordance with the schematic representation of the
volume of compacted asphalt mix, shown in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1: Volumetric parameters of compacted asphalt specimen
Va The volume of air voids in a compacted mix, expressed as a percentage of the total
mix volume.
VMA The voids created by the aggregate structure of a compacted asphalt mix,
expressed as a percentage of the total mix volume. VMA represents the volume of
air voids and effective (non-absorbed) binder.
Vb Total volume of binder within the asphalt mix
Vba Volume of absorbed binder that penetrates into the aggregate pores
Vbe Effective volume of binder, i.e. that which does not penetrate into aggregate pores
Vsb Bulk volume of aggregate, including all permeable surface pores
Vse Effective volume of aggregate, excluding surface pores filled with binder
Vmm Total volume of binder and aggregate in the mix
Vmb Total volume of compacted asphalt specimen
Figure 5-2: Performance-related mix design flow chart
5.5.2 Effect of voids in the mineral aggregate
Figure 5-3 shows the typical shape of voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) curve. Normally,
the VMA curve exhibits a parabolic shape, decreasing to a minimum value and then increasing
with increasing binder content. In some mixes, the bottom of the parabolic curve is very flat,
meaning that the compacted mix is not as sensitive to binder content in this range as some
other factors. In the normal range of binder contents, compactability is influenced more by
aggregate properties. However, at some point, the quantity of binder will become critical to the
behaviour of the mix, and the effect of binder will dominate as the VMA increases drastically.
Figure 5-3: Relationship between binder content, voids and VMA
The design binder content should not

be selected at the extremes of the There is some flexibility in selecting target
acceptable range, even if the minimum values for VMA and air void content, which
criteria are met. It is recommended to indirectly allows for adjustments in binder
avoid binder contents on the increasing content. Lower VMA values will give less binder,
higher VMA values will give more binder. Lower
side of the VMA curve (right-hand side,
i.e. above point “A” in Figure 5-3), even air void contents will provide additional binder at
if the minimum air void and VMA criteria a given VMA value, while higher air void
are met. On this side of the curve, the contents will provide less binder at a given VMA
mix is likely to rut. On the left-hand side, value. When considering increasing VMA
the mix would be too dry, prone to requirements, it should be remembered that
segregation and probably too high in air many HMA performance problems are the result
voids. On the right-hand side, the mix is of construction problems, especially poor field
likely to rut. compaction, rather than improper mix design. If
high in-place air void content is the cause of
When the bottom of the parabolic curve poor durability – ravelling and surface cracking
falls below the minimum criteria, this is – increasing VMA or decreasing 𝑵𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏 will not
an indication that changes to the design improve field performance unless these
grading formula are necessary. changes result in a significant improvement in
Specifically, the aggregate grading field compaction.
should be modified to provide additional
VMA.
The following recommendations are made to increase VMA if a change in the design
aggregate is required:
 Reduce the amount of material passing 0.075 mm sieve. However, if the dust content is
already low, this is not a viable option.
 Reduce the percentage of rounded natural sand and use a higher percentage of angular
or crushed sand.
 Change the aggregates to incorporate material with better packing characteristics (e.g.
fewer flaky aggregate particles). Use highly angular and a rougher surface texture
aggregate particles to achieve this.
5.5.3 Effect of compaction level
Figure 5-4 shows the importance of choosing an appropriate compaction level during the
design. If compaction effort A is used to determine the design binder content and the actual
densification due to construction, and traffic is equal to compaction effort B, then the selected
binder content will eventually be too high. This is likely to result in an overfilling of available
void space and emphasises the importance of two things: (a) choosing a compaction device
that accurately simulates traffic compaction, and (b) selecting a compaction level that is
appropriate for the traffic class.
It is also important to note that the VMA criteria do not change based on the level of
compaction. The reasoning for having sufficient VMA (providing space for the binder and air
voids) is consistent, regardless of the traffic level for which the mix is being designed.
Figure 5-4: Influence of compaction density on VMA curve
5.5.4 Effect of air voids
It is important to note that the design air voids (4% in the Interim Guidelines) is the level desired
after several years of traffic consolidation. The design voids do not vary based on traffic – the
laboratory compactive effort varies and is selected for the expected traffic. This design air void
range will normally be achieved if the mix is designed at the correct compactive effort and the
percentage of air voids after construction is between 6 and 8%.
It is well known that mixes that ultimately consolidate to less than 2% air voids are likely to rut
and shove under heavy traffic. Several factors may contribute to this occurrence, such as an
arbitrary or accidental increase in binder content at the mixing facility, or an increased amount
of fine particles passing the 0.075 mm sieve, which can act as a binder extender. Similarly,
problems can occur if (after years of traffic) the final air void content of the pavement is above
5%, or if it was initially constructed with over 8% air voids. Brittleness, premature cracking,
ravelling and stripping are all possible under these conditions.
5.5.5 Effects of voids filled with binder
Another important volumetric property of asphalt mixes is the voids filled with binder (VFB).
VFB is the percentage of the intergranular void space between aggregate particles (VMA) that
are filled with binder. The main effect of the VFB criteria is to limit maximum levels of VMA,
and subsequently, maximum levels of binder content.
Although VFB, VMA and air voids are all interrelated and only two of the values are necessary
to solve for the other, including VFB criteria helps prevent the design of mixes with marginally
acceptable VMA. In addition, the VFB requirement is aimed at providing an additional factor
of safety in the design and construction process in terms of performance.
The lower limit of VFB range should always be met at 4% air voids if the VMA requirements
are met. If the VFB upper limit is exceeded, then the VMA is substantially above the minimum
required. In a situation like this, the mix should be re-designed to reduce the VMA in the
interest of cost savings – increase the amount of material passing 0.075 mm fraction.
5.6 Performance tests to evaluate asphalt mix

The performance tests must provide fundamental asphalt mix properties, and the means to
link asphalt mix design with pavement design. In the Superpave mix level 1 design method
(Asphalt Institute MS-2), performance testing is not mandatory after completing a volumetric
mix design. In the mix design procedures described in the Interim Guidelines, it is a
requirement that the optimum mix is selected based on rutting performance, and assessed by
other performance-related mix properties. In line with international practice, the following
performance-related properties are to be assessed as part of the Interim Guidelines:
i. Workability
ii. Durability (moisture resistance)
iii. Stiffness
iv. Permanent deformation (rutting) resistance
v. Fatigue cracking resistance
vi. Permeability (only SMA and porous mixes)
vii. Draindown (only SMA and porous mixes)
5.6.1 Workability
Workability relates to the effort required to compact the asphalt mix in the field. The workability
of the mix should be assessed using a gyratory compactor. The Interim Guidelines
recommend the use of the gyratory compactor to determine workability of the asphalt mix
based on AASHTO PP 60. The main principle of gyratory compaction is illustrated in Figure
5-5. The recommended testing conditions and number of specimens for workability for the
Interim Guidelines are provided in Table 5-7.
Figure 5-5: Configuration of a gyratory specimen during compaction
5.6.2 Durability (moisture resistance)
Durability relates to the stripping susceptibility of the asphalt mix. The two commonly accepted
tests to evaluate the durability of the mix are ASTM D 4867M or AASHTO T 283. In many
cases, the two tests provide similar results, probably because they all simulate moisture
damage processes. The use of the ASTM D 4867M is recommended in the Interim Guidelines.
The recommended testing conditions and number of specimens for durability for this Guideline
are provided in Table 5-7.
NOTE 5.2: If the tensile strength ratio is less than the requirement value (e.g. 0.8), adjust the mix design
to increase the moisture resistance of the mix to an acceptable level (as measured using ASTM D
4867M). Such adjustments might include adding hydrated lime to the mix, adding various anti-strip
additives, changing the source of the aggregate binder, or both.
NOTE 5.3: The use of a wheel tracking test to evaluate stripping potential of asphalt mixes has recently
been promoted worldwide. The wheel tracking test indicates susceptibility to premature failing of asphalt
mixes due to weak aggregate structure, inadequate binder stiffness, moisture damage, and inadequate
adhesion between aggregate and binder. Both tests should be investigated and the industry in
TANROADS can decide on the most suitable and cost-effective moisture damage test for mix designs
in the country.
5.6.3 Stiffness
The stiffness of asphalt determines its ability to carry and spread traffic loads to the underlying
layers. Stiffer mixes are typically expected to have the ability to resist permanent deformation
/rutting under high traffic volumes and elevated temperatures.
Two stiffness tests are described in the Interim Guidelines (i.e. resilient modulus and dynamic
modulus). Modern pavement design methods have placed greater emphasis on the use of
dynamic modulus rather than resilient modulus to determine the stiffness property of asphalt
mixes. The main reason is that the dynamic modulus can express the viscoelastic behaviour
of the asphalt material over a range of temperatures and loading frequencies – for pavement
analysis and design. The resilient modulus test is, however, best suited for asphalt cores from
the road, since the dynamic modulus test has size limitation for most field samples.
Resilient Modulus
Resilient modulus of asphalt mixes measured in the indirect tensile mode is a form of stress-
strain measurement used to evaluate the elastic properties of asphalt mixes. The resilient
modulus (along with other information) can be used as input to pavement design. The indirect
tensile test (ITT) is the most commonly used method for determining the resilient modulus of
asphalt mixes. The test is relatively easy to perform and, most importantly, it can be performed
on asphalt cores from the road.
The resilient modulus test described in ASTM D7369 is recommended in the Interim
Guidelines. The test is conducted on a cylindrical specimen that is 100 mm diameter by
approximately 63.5 mm thick at a test temperature of 25°C (Figure 5-6). The specimen is
loaded to a stress level between 5 and 20% of the indirect tensile strength test (ITS, ASTM
D6931) using a repeated pulse load of 0.1 sec and a rest period of 0.9 sec. The resilient
modulus is defined after 100 repetitive loading cycles. The reported value for 𝑀𝑅 is the average
of the last five cycles. The deformation is measured vertically (in the direction of loading) and
horizontally by δv and δh respectively, as indicated in Figure 5-6.
𝛿𝑣
𝛿ℎ
Figure 5-6: Schematic illustration of the indirect tensile test
The resilient modulus (in MPa) is calculated as follows:
𝑃
𝑀𝑅 = (0.27 + 𝑣)
𝛿ℎ . 𝑡. Equation 5.1
where:
P = applied load, N
δh = horizontal deformation, mm
t = thickness of specimen, mm
ʋ = Poisson’s ratio
A value of 0.35 for Poisson’s ratio has been found to be reasonable for asphalt mixes at 25°C.
NOTE 5.4: It is recommended that the thickness of specimens for ITT be as close to the layer thickness
as possible – not exceeding 75 mm but not less than 38 mm.
Dynamic Modulus
The values of dynamic modulus obtained from maximum stress and strain of cyclic loading
tests are used as performance criteria for HMA mixes over a range of field-loading frequencies
and temperatures. For a one-dimensional case of a sinusoidal loading, the applied stress and
the corresponding strain are illustrated in Figure 5-7.
Figure 5-7: Representation of stress and strain in the dynamic modulus testing
The dynamic modulus is an absolute value, and is computed as the ratio of the compressive
axial stress to the corresponding axial resilient strain.
σ0
E*  Equation 5.2
ε0
|E*| = the dynamic modulus of the asphalt mix
𝜎0 = peak-to-peak stress amplitude
𝜀0 = peak-to-peak strain amplitude
The recommended testing conditions and number of specimens for dynamic modulus for this
Guideline are provided in Table 5-7.
Dynamic modulus master curves
Analysis of HMA stiffness modulus laboratory test data for mechanistic pavement designs
often involves generating master curves. The master curve of an asphalt mix allows
comparisons to be made over extended ranges of test temperatures and frequencies.
Figure 5-8 presents an example of a master curve for a typical asphalt mix based on South
African protocol.
Source: Anochie-Boateng et al., 2011
Figure 5-8: Master curve for asphalt mix
5.6.4 Permanent deformation
Permanent deformation or rutting

of asphalt mix is one of the most
frequent and more serious forms
of distresses associated with
asphalt mixes. In major cities and
towns, intersections, and climbing
lanes for instance, where traffic is
channelled or heavy vehicles
move slowly and stop frequently,
both rutting and shoving
(permanent displacement of the
asphalt) can occur (see photo
embedded in this paragraph).
Generally, rutting can occur as a
result of problems with the
subgrade, unbound base course,
or asphalt. With increasing traffic loads and tyre pressures it is reported that most rutting
occurs in the asphalt layers rather than the granular base or subgrade layers (Huang, 2004).
Laboratory tests to assess rutting performance are conducted at practically high temperatures
intended to represent the in-service temperature experienced by the asphalt mix.
The available tests for evaluating the rutting resistance of HMA include:
 Loaded wheel tests (e.g. asphalt pavement analyser, and Hamburg wheel-tracking, BS
598-110 wheel tracking method)
 Repeated load axial (asphalt mixture performance tester—flow number test) and the
repeated shear constant height test.
The use of both repeated load permanent deformation tests and wheel tracking tests is
recommended in these Interim Guidelines. Whereas the repeated load test is recommended
for the mix design, the wheel tracking test is recommended only for verification of rutting
potential of the mix in the field.
Flow number test
The Asphalt Mixture Performance Tester (AMPT) flow number test is proposed for this
Guideline. The recommended testing conditions are provided in Table 5-7. Figure 5-9 shows
the typical number of load cycles and permanent strain of the repeated-load /flow number
testing programme.
Source: Anochie-Boateng and George T (2017)
Figure 5-9: Typical data from flow number test
5.6.5 Fatigue cracking
Load-associated fatigue cracking is

one of the major distress types
occurring in flexible pavement
systems. It is the result of repeated
loading caused by traffic-induced
tensile and shear stresses in the
pavement system (see photo
embedded in this paragraph). Fatigue
cracks are initiated at points where
critical tensile strains and stresses
occur. Once the damage initiates at
the critical location, the action of
traffic eventually causes these cracks
to propagate through the entire
bound layer. Air voids in the asphalt mix and binder viscosity have a significant effect on fatigue
resistance. As the air voids in the pavement increase, the length of time during which an in-
service pavement is adequately fatigue resistant, is shortened. Also, a pavement containing
aged and hardened binder reduces resistance to fatigue.
Fatigue failure is generally defined by the number of load cycles applied, which reduces the
stiffness of the specimen to 50% of its initial value (AASHTO T 321).
The results of fatigue tests are presented in the form of the applied strain (S) and the
corresponding number of cycles to failure (N). Figure 5-10 presents a typical S-N diagram f
generated from laboratory test data of three mix types.
Figure 5-10: Typical fatigue live curves for three asphalt mixes
5.6.6 Permeability
Higher permeability increases the probability of moisture ingress into the mix, and areas of
poorer compaction will have greater degrees of permeability. Also, high traffic volumes early
in the life of the mix will assist in post-construction compaction and hence reduce permeability.
The permeability of an asphalt surface depends largely on the type of asphalt and mix design.
A permeable asphalt will have the following effects:
 Air will enter the asphalt causing accelerated hardening of the binder, which may, with
time, increase the stiffness of the binder to such an extent that cracking may develop.
 Water may enter the asphalt and increase the risk of stripping of the binder.
 Water may penetrate the asphalt and saturate the base course, leading to base and/or
surface failures.
In the Interim Guidelines, permeability can be assessed using either water permeability or air
permeability test method1.The permeability test can be performed on laboratory-compacted
asphalt specimens or cores taken from the road.
Water Permeability
Water permeability should be assessed by means of the test procedure described in EN12697
(constant head water permeability).
Calculation of water permeability of the asphalt sample is based on Darcy’s law:
4×𝑄×𝑙
𝐾= Equation 5.3
ℎ × 𝜋𝐷 2
Where
K, is the vertical permeability, expressed in meters per second (cm²/s)
Q is the rate of water flow through specimen (cm3/s)
l is the thickness of the specimen, expressed in meters (cm)
h is the actual height of water column, expressed in meters (cm)
D is the diameter of the specimen, expressed in meters (cm)
NOTE 5.5: Usually the permeability of porous asphalt mix is between 0.5 × 10−3 m/s and 3.5 × 10−3 m/s.
Air Permeability
In the interim, air permeability should be assessed by means of the test procedure described
in the Technical Recommendations for Highways (TRH 8, 1987) using asphalt paving meter,
which is a self-contained device capable of measuring air flow rates of up to 5 litres per minute
at low pressure differentials.
1 Requires verification to determine the most appropriate method during the validation phase of the guidelines.
The air permeability is calculated using the following formula:
𝑄×𝑙
𝐾 = 2.331 𝑥 10−9 Equation 5.4
ℎ
NOTE 5.6: Equation 5.4 applies only to a 101.6 mm diameter cylindrical specimen.
NOTE 5.7: Usually for asphalt surfacing layers, the air permeability should not exceed 1 x 10-8 cm/s
(maximum for dense-graded mixes).
NOTE 5.8: It is unnecessary to test mixes that have voids content below 5% for air permeability
NOTE 5.9: Indirect field measures often make use of some material factors and can be used to get an
estimate of permeability value as indicated in Equation 5.5 (Cooley et al, 2002).
𝑡
𝐿𝑛(𝑘𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 ) = −1.787 + 0.592 (𝑉𝑎) + 0.196 (𝑁𝑀𝐴𝑆) − 0.23 ( )
𝑁𝑀𝐴𝑆 Equation 5.5
Where
𝑘𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 is the field water permeability, expressed in 10-5 cm²/s for coarse-graded mix
Va is the air voids (%)
NMAS is the Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size
t is the thickness of the asphalt layer, expressed in mm
5.7 Performance testing recommendations
Table 5-7 summarises the recommended performance-related testing methods and conditions
for asphalt mixes designed using this Guideline.
Table 5-7: Recommended performance-related tests

Number of Test
Property Test conditions
specimens method
Determine workability on short-term aged
gyratory-compacted specimens of dimensions
Workability 150 mm diameter by 170 mm high. The air voids 3 AASHTO PP 60
of the specimen after 25 gyrations should not
exceed the design air voids by more than 3%¹.
Conduct the test in ITS testing device on 100
mm diameter by approximately 63.5 mm high
Durability of the
specimens. Specimens should be short-term 6 ASTM D 4867M
mix
aged and compacted in a gyratory device to air
voids of 7± 1%.
Use the AMPT dynamic modulus testing
procedure conducted on 100 mm diameter by
150 mm height cylindrical specimens having air
voids of 7± 1%. For mix design purposes, the
Stiffness/ test must be conducted at six loading
(dynamic frequencies of 25, 10, 5, 1, 0.5, 0.1 Hz and at 5 AASHTO T 378
modulus) one test temperature of 20°C. To develop a
master curve for pavement design purposes, a
full factorial testing is conducted at six
frequencies and five temperatures (-5, 5, 20, 40
and 55°C).
Use the AMPT flow number testing procedure
conducted on 100 mm diameter by 150 mm
height cylindrical specimens having air voids of
7± 1%; test temperature is 50°C; specimen is
Flow number 5 AASHTO T 378
unconfined; the applied axial stress is 600 kPa;
a pulse loading of 0.1 sec is applied to the
sample with 0.9 sec rest period; maximum
number of load cycles is 10,000.
The test should be conducted on a beam
specimen 400 mm length by 60 mm width by 50
mm thick (prepared from slab or beam) at
design voids in the four-point beam device;
conduct the test at a loading frequency of 10 Hz,
Fatigue life² 9 AASHTO T 321
and a temperature of 20°C, four strain levels
varying from 200 to 600 micro-strain must be
applied. The recommended failure criterion is
50% stiffness reduction from initial stiffness
measured at 50 load cycles.
¹ These criteria serve as a guide only, and should be considered in conjunction with a number of factors such as
shape and surface texture of the aggregate and mix types.
²In this Guideline, it is recommended that fatigue testing be conducted on the mix only when the anticipated traffic
exceeds 10 million E80.
5.8 Job mix
The job mix is usually the accepted trial mix, which is in turn based on the design mix. In the
absence of a trial mix, the final design mix becomes the job mix. It determines the type and
source of components, target grading and binder content, and volumetric properties of the
mix. These are used as the basis for manufacturing process control.
Production tolerances allow for variations in the mix composition due to changing feed rates,
raw material fluctuations, sampling and testing limitations, etc. In many cases, manufacturing
process control is applied to grading and binder content only, although some agencies also
require volumetric testing (and possibly some mechanical testing) to monitor the consistency
of production. Any change in the type or source of components, or any significant variation in
the proportion of any component, generally requires the redesign of the mix and determination
of a new job mix.
References
AASHTO M 323, Standard specification for Superpave volumetric mix design, AASHTO,
Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO PP 60, Standard practice for preparation of cylindrical performance test specimens
using the Superpave gyratory compactor - SGC, AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO R 35, Standard practice for Superpave volumetric design for asphalt mixtures,
AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 283, Standard method of test for resistance of compacted asphalt mixtures to
moisture-induced damage. AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 324, Standard method of test for Hamburg wheel-track testing of compacted hot
mix asphalt (HMA). AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 378, Standard method of test for determining the dynamic modulus and flow
number for asphalt mixtures using the asphalt mixture performance tester (AMPT). AASHTO,
Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T321, Standard method of test for determining the fatigue life of compacted hot mix
asphalt subjected to repeated flexural bending, AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
Anochie-Boateng Joseph, Theresa George. 2017. Investigation of the use of waste crushed
glass in the production of asphalt mixes. Journal of the Institution of Civil Engineers-
Construction Materials, pp. 1-8.
ASTM D4867 / D4867M-09(2014), Standard test method for effect of moisture on asphalt
concrete paving mixtures, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014, www.astm.org
ASTM D6931, Standard test method for indirect tensile (IDT) strength of bituminous mixtures,
ASTM D7369, Standard test method for determining the resilient modulus of bituminous
mixtures by indirect tension test, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011,
www.astm.org
BS 598-110, Sampling and examination of bituminous mixtures for roads and other paved
areas: Methods of test for the determination of wheel-tracking rate and depth, standard by BSI
Group.
Cooley, L.A.; Prowell, B.D. and Brown, E.R. 2002. Issues Pertaining to the Permeability
Characteristics of Coarse-Graded Superpave Mixes. NCAT Report No. 02-06. National Center
for Asphalt Technology.
EN 12697-19, Bituminous mixtures - Test methods for hot mix asphalt - Part 19: Permeability
of specimens; European Committee for Standardization, B-1050 Brussels.
EN 13108-1, Bituminous mixtures - material specifications - Part 1: Asphalt concrete,

EN 13108-5,Bituminous mixtures - Material specifications - Part 5: Stone mastic asphalt.

EN 13108-7, Bituminous mixtures - Material specifications - Part 7: Porous asphalt, European

Committee for Standardization, B-1050 Brussels.
EN12697-26. Bituminous mixtures - Test methods for hot mix asphalt - Part 26: Stiffness.
Huang, Y.H. Pavement analysis and design. 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ, 2004.
MS-2, Asphalt mix design methods, Asphalt Institute, KY, USA.
NCHRP Project 673, 2011. A Manual for design of hot mix asphalt with commentary.
Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA.
Roberts, F., P. Khandal, E. Brown, D. Lee, and Kennedy, T. Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture
Design, and Construction. 2nd Edition: NAPA Education Foundation, 1996
6. Design of Dense-Graded Mix
6.1 Introduction
This dense-graded mix design procedure was developed according to performance-based
principles. Performance-based design of asphalt mixes involves the evaluation of key asphalt
mix performance properties (e.g. rutting, fatigue cracking, thermal cracking) in combination
with traditional volumetric design methods (e.g. Marshall and Superpave methods) to select
the optimum mix parameters. The design described herein is based on the Superpave
volumetric mix design and three performance-based tests (dynamic modulus test, fatigue test
and flow number test) to determine the optimum mix. Even though the procedure has been
developed for the design of dense-graded mixtures, the approach can be applied to the design
of other mix types described in the Interim Guidelines.
At the beginning of the mix design, the designer must

More than 90% of hot-mix
gather as much information as possible, including the
asphalt types paved in Tanzania
design traffic level, the climate at the place of
are dense-graded mixes. These
construction, information on available materials,
mixes have been used on roads,
anticipated layer thickness, pavement type (i.e.
highways and airfields alike.
wearing, intermediate, or base course), and any
special issues pertaining to the mix design or
pavement construction. It should be noted that often the agency requesting the mix design will
provide specific information concerning the aggregates and binders to be used, thus
eliminating these steps from the mix design process and making the process of gathering
information somewhat simpler. The design procedure involves five main steps, as will be
described next.
6.2 Mix design steps

6.2.1 Step 1: Select mix type
The type of information required upfront to confirm the selection of the dense-graded mix type
(based on the design objectives and situation), includes the following:
 Site information
o Geographic location
o Layout of the site (gradients, intersections, etc.)
o Climate (related to binder grade, testing conditions, etc.)
o Traffic (traffic volume, composition, speed, etc.)
 Construction information
o Layer thickness
o Construction temperatures
o Unusual specification requirements
o Unusual construction requirements
 Pavement information
o Design life
o Layer type (wearing course, intermediate course, base course)
o Distance from pavement surface (pavement thickness)
 Functional requirements
o Skid resistance for high-speed applications and in high rainfall areas

 Materials information
o Information on available / recommended aggregates

 Nominal maximum aggregate size
 Grading (dense-graded mix characteristics such as coarse/finer grading, grading
control points, etc.)
 Specific gravity and absorption
 Pertinent specification properties
o Information on available / recommended binders
 Performance grade
 Mixing and compaction temperatures
 Type of modification, if applicable
 Other specification properties
o Information on other mix materials
 Additives (fibre, lime, etc.)
 Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP)
 Type and dosage rate of anti-stripping additives
 Other issues pertaining to mix design
o Quality control
o Specification
o Construction
o Performance evaluation
NOTE 6.1: No manual /guideline exist for use of RAP in Tanzania. It should be noted that RAP materials
vary significantly from one country to the next, and to some extent, from one project to the next in the
same country. It will require specific investigation into practices regarding the use of RAP materials,
and the establishment of additional testing facilities to produce a design document for the use of RAP
in the country.
6.2.2 Step 2: Select appropriate binder
Select a binder that is appropriate for the climate and traffic situation at the project site. Once
available, the selection of an appropriate performance grade (PG) binder as detailed in
Chapter 3 is recommended. The binder selection should generally depend on the following
factors:
 Base performance grade dictated by the climate
 Grade adjustment required for traffic level and traffic speed
 Performance grade contractually specified by the road agency
6.2.3 Step 3: Select aggregates
The procedures and acceptance requirements described in Chapter 4 should be followed to

select aggregate fractions for the mix design. The aggregates must meet all specification
requirements of the project.
6.2.4 Step 4: Develop three trial aggregate blends
To minimise mix design cost, proven (existing) gradings should be used where possible as
the starting point for any new design. When new materials (aggregates, binders) are required
for the mix design, then a new grading may be required. It is recommended that designers
develop at least three gradings (coarse, medium and fine) within the grading control points
presented in Chapter 4 (Table 4-6).
The steps below apply to either an existing grading or one of the three proposed gradings,
commencing with the coarse one. If at the end of determining the optimum binder content, the
mix does not conform to volumetric requirements, the designer shall re-evaluate the steps
below using a new grading to optimise the grading for known good performing mixes, and
determine the optimum mix by following Step 5.
(a) Determine minimum binder content

The total binder content of the
Determine minimum binder content for the selected mix should be such that the
grading using the minimum requirements for binder film binder film thickness, F, based
thickness, specific surface area and density of the on the effective binder
aggregate fraction passing 4.75 mm sieve of the blend. content, will be ≥ 6.0 μm.
To calculate the binder film thickness, the designer should note that the volume of binder used
is the effective binder, i.e. the volume of binder not absorbed by the aggregate.
The film thickness F, in μm (micron) is computed from Equation 6.1.
𝑃𝑏𝑒 1 1000 Equation 6.1

𝐹= . .
(100 − 𝑃𝑏 ) 𝑆𝐴 𝐺𝑏
where, Pbe = effective binder content expressed as a percentage of the total mass of the mix
according to Equation 6.2.
𝑃𝑏 = total binder content expressed as a percentage of the total mass of the mix
𝐺𝑏 = density of the binder (at 25°C)
𝑆𝐴 = specific surface area calculated as per Equation 4.7
The effective binder content, Pbe, is determined as follows:
𝑃𝑏𝑎 Equation 6.2

𝑃𝑏𝑒 = 𝑃𝑏 − . (100 − 𝑃𝑏 )
100
Where:
𝑃𝑏𝑎 = the binder absorbed expressed as a percentage of the total aggregate mass
A good approximation for 𝑃𝑏𝑒 where 𝑃𝑏 ≤ 5 is
𝑃𝑏𝑒 = 𝑃𝑏 − 𝑃𝑏𝑎 Equation 6.3
Substitution of Equation 6.3 in Equation 6.1 results in Equation 6.4:
𝑃𝑏 − 𝑃𝑎 1 1000 Equation 6.4

𝐹= . .
(100 − 𝑃𝑏 ) 𝑆𝐴 𝐺𝑏
Solving for 𝑃𝑏 results in Equation 6.5:
100 × (𝑆𝐴 × 𝐹 × 𝐺𝑏 + 10 × 𝑃𝑎 ) Equation 6.5

𝑃𝑏 =
1000 + 𝑆𝐴 × 𝐹 × 𝐺𝑏
Using approximations for 𝑃𝑎 and 𝐺𝑏 as follows:
𝐺𝑏 = 1
𝑃𝑏𝑎 = 0.5 × Wab
where Wab the water absorption of the aggregate (Section 4.6.6).
For the condition F = 6.0, Equation 6.5 is simplified to:
600 × 𝑆𝐴 + (500 × Wab ) Equation 6.6

𝑃𝑏 =
(1000 + 6.0 × 𝑆𝐴)
Where Pb is the initial minimum binder content
NOTE 6.2: The determination of the specific surface area according to Equation 4-6 yields a theoretical
value and, given the wide variety of aggregate shapes and textures, it is not a precise computation of
the actual area. Use of Equation 4-6 should, however, be done in a consistent manner.
NOTE 6.3: Use of the binder film thickness, F, is recommended practice for asphalt in general use. The
binder content of SMA and porous asphalt mixes should, however, be designed in accordance with
requirements presented in Section 7 and Section 8. Mixes containing RAP would require some
corrections.
(b) Blending of aggregates
Trial blending consists of varying percentages of individual aggregate fractions (stockpiles) to

obtain blended gradings that meet the grading requirements of the selected mix type. Initial
conformance to aggregate specifications is normally estimated based on the properties of
individual aggregates fractions and the composition of the aggregate blend. Final
conformance must be based on actual measurement of the final aggregate blend. In the
Interim Guidelines, a minimum of three aggregate fractions (stockpiles) are to be blended for
the mix.
Equation 6.7 is the basic formula that expresses the blend.
𝑃 = (A × a) + (B × b) + (C × c) Equation 6.7
where:
P = the blended percentage passing for a The designer should be mindful that the
given sieve blending process assumes that all the
aggregate fractions have the same
A, B, C = the percentage (by mass) passing
specific gravity. Superpave recommends
a sieve for individual fraction
that if the specific gravity of individual
a, b, c = proportion of aggregate fraction to aggregate fractions differ significantly (by
be added in the blend (a + b + c…. = 1.00) 0.2 or more), the aggregate proportions
should be adjusted for the variance.
The trial-and-error method of aggregate
blending involves the following steps:
1. Selecting the control sieves for the aggregate in the blend (Table 4-7).
2. Determining an initial set of proportions a, b, c…, which will meet the specification
requirements for the critical sieves (based on experience, or trial and error).
3. Checking the calculated blend by using the proportions determined for all sieves in the
specification requirements.
4. Adjusting the proportions, as necessary, to ensure that the percentage for all sieves is
within the specification limits.
Once the percentages of the individual fractions have been established, the combined specific
gravity of the aggregates is computed as follows:
𝑃1 + 𝑃2 + ⋯ + 𝑃𝑛
𝐺= 𝑃1 𝑃 𝑃 Equation 6.8
+ 𝐺2 + ⋯ + 𝐺𝑛
𝐺1 2 𝑛
G = average (weighted) specific gravity
𝐺1 , 𝐺2 ,… 𝐺𝑛 = specific gravity values for aggregate fractions 1, 2, …,n
𝑃1 , 𝑃2 ,… 𝑃𝑛 = mass percentages of aggregate fractions 1, 2, …,n
An illustration of grading requirements for an aggregate blend with 25 mm nominal maximum
size is presented on the 0.45 power graph in Figure 6-1. The straight line in this figure
represents the grading with the anticipated lowest VMA.
Figure 6-1: Grading requirements for 25 mm Nominal Size
NOTE 6.4: It is recommended that trial aggregate blends be plotted on a 0.45 power chart and
compared with the guidelines provided in Table 4-7. In a situation where the blended aggregate fails to
meet requirements, consideration should be given to adjusting the aggregate proportions.
NOTE 6.5: The grading of dense-graded mixes should not be too close to the 0.45 power maximum
density curve (Figure 6-1). If it is, then the VMA is likely to be too low, and this may lead to low binder
content to attain minimum voids in the mix.
NOTE 6.6: Designers should note that several tools or methods exist for blending aggregates, to assist
in obtaining optimum packing. The Asphalt Institute mix design manual (MS-2) provides detailed
descriptions of aggregate blending methods typically used with the Superpave design method.
(c) Batch aggregates and prepare asphalt samples
The composition for the aggregate blends must be determined by batching, mixing,
compacting, and testing laboratory specimens for each trial mix. The steps involved in sample
preparation of materials for the asphalt mix are described in Appendix A.
(d) Determine the optimum binder based on volumetric properties
1. Select four trial binder contents based on (1) minimum binder content (Step 4a); (2)
minimum binder content + 0.5%; (3) minimum binder content + 1.0%; and (4) minimum
binder content + 1.5% by mass of total mix.
2. Prepare1 three replicate mixes at each trial binder content. Each trial binder content should
be mixed with the same aggregate composition. Also prepare two loose asphalt samples
1 See Appendix A; each aggregate fraction should be riffled down to as close as possible to the mass required.
per binder content (total of eight samples) to determine the maximum theoretical specific
gravity (Gmm) as per AASHTO T 209 / ASTM D2041.
3. Specimens should then be short-term aged by placing the loose mix in an oven at
compaction temperature for 4 hours, regardless of the aggregate absorption. Samples
should be mixed and compacted at the appropriate mixing and compaction temperatures
based on the selected binder grade.
4. Compact the three replicate specimens (150 mm in diameter by 115 mm in height)

immediately after completion of short-term oven ageing in a gyratory compactor following
the test procedures contained in AASHTO T 312. A total of twelve specimens for the four
binder contents (i.e. three specimens for each binder content) are compacted to
𝑵𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏 (number of gyrations at air voids content of 4%, See Table 6-1).
Table 6-1: Compaction levels for dense-graded mixes
20-year design E80 [millions] 𝑵𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏

< 0.3 50
0.3 to 3 75
3 to 30 100
≥ 30 125
5. Determine the bulk specific gravity (Gmb) of the compacted specimens in accordance with
AASHTO T 166.
6. Use the average values of Gmb and Gmm results for each trial binder content to obtain the
following volumetric properties at Ndesign
 Voids in the total mix (Va)
 Voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA)
 Voids filled with binder (VFB)
7. Use the selected aggregate grading to determine the optimum binder content by
generating graphs of the following relationships:
 Air voids versus binder content
 VMA versus binder content
 VFB versus binder content
8. The design (optimum) binder content is established at 4% air voids (on the Va versus
binder content graph). The VMA and VFB are checked at the design binder content to
verify that they meet the requirements presented in Table 6-2 and Table 6-3.
Table 6-2: VMA requirements

NMAS Minimum percentage VMA
37.5 mm 11.0
25 mm 12.0
19 mm 13.0
12.5 mm 14.0
9.5 mm 15.0
Table 6-3: VFB requirements (%)
20-year design E80 [millions] Minimum Maximum
< 0.3 70 80
0.3 to 3 65 78
3 to 30 65 75
≥ 30 65 75
9. Select the design aggregate grading and a corresponding volumetric binder content on the
basis of satisfactory conformance of a trial blend with requirements for Va, VMA, and VFB
at design compaction level 𝑁𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 . If any of the requirements cannot be met, then consider
adjustments to be made in aggregate or binder type,. and aggregate grading..
10. If all volumetric requirements are met, proceed to Step 5.
NOTE 6.7: The design compaction levels presented in Table 6-1 are guidelines that could be modified.
It is possible that slightly lower or higher 𝑁𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 values could be adopted based on experience, to assist
in the design of mixes for the country.
NOTE 6.8: 𝑁𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 of 125 can be used for special applications such as airfields, truck-weighing stations
or truck-climbing lanes on two-lane roadways.
NOTE 6.9: The target air voids value should be set at 4.0%, but in these guidelines such values may
vary from 3.5% to 4.5% for wearing course and 3% to 5% for base or intermediate course mixes.
Example: Calculating volumetric properties
The following steps are followed to compute the volumetric properties of the asphalt samples:
Step 1: Calculate the total binder content (by volume) as a percentage of total mix volume:
𝑃𝑏 × 𝐺𝑚𝑏 Equation 6.9

𝑉𝑏 =
𝐺𝑏
𝑉𝑏 = total binder content, % by volume of total mix

𝑃𝑏 = total binder content, % by mass of total mix
𝐺𝑚𝑏 = bulk specific gravity of the mix
𝐺𝑏 = specific gravity of the binder
Step 2: Calculate the absorbed binder content (by volume) as a percentage of total mix
volume:
𝐺𝑠𝑒 − 𝐺𝑠𝑏
𝑃𝑏𝑎 = 100 × [( )] × 𝐺𝑏 Equation 6.10
𝐺𝑠𝑒 × 𝐺𝑠𝑏
𝐺𝑠𝑏 = bulk specific gravity of the aggregate
𝑃𝑆 + 𝑃𝑏 = 100
Step 3: The effective binder (by volume), i.e. 𝑉𝑏𝑒 is obtained by subtracting the percentage
binder absorbed (𝑉𝑏𝑎 ) from the total binder content.
𝑉𝑏𝑒 = 𝑉𝑏 − 𝑉𝑏𝑎
Equation 6.11
Step 4: Calculate 𝑉𝑎
(𝐺𝑚𝑚 − 𝐺𝑚𝑏 )
𝑉𝑎 = 100 × [ ] Equation 6.12
𝐺𝑚𝑚
𝑉𝑎 = voids in the mix
𝐺𝑚𝑚 = maximum theoretical specific gravity of the mix
Step 5: Calculate VMA

𝑃𝑆 ×𝐺𝑚𝑏
𝑉𝑀𝐴 = 𝑉𝑎 + 𝑉𝑏𝑒 or 𝑉𝑀𝐴 = 100 − 𝐺𝑠𝑏 Equation 6.13
Step 6: Calculate VFB
𝑉𝑏𝑒
𝑉𝐹𝐵 = 100 × ( ) Equation 6.14
𝑉𝑀𝐴
Assume the following for an asphalt mix:
i. Binder content = 6.0%
ii. Specific gravity of the binder =1.011 g/𝑐𝑚3
iii. Bulk specific gravity of total aggregates = 2.577 g/𝑐𝑚3
iv. Effective specific gravity of aggregate = 2.580 g/𝑐𝑚3
v. Bulk specific gravity of compacted samples = 2.214 g/𝑐𝑚3
vi. Maximum theoretical specific gravity of the samples = 2.360 g/𝑐𝑚3
Determine voids content, voids in mineral aggregate and voids filled with binder for an asphalt
mix:
Based on 100 𝑐𝑚3 of compacted asphalt mix:
Mass of aggregates = 2.214 × (100 − 6) = 208.11g
Mass of binder in the sample = 2.214 × 6 = 13.28 g
Mass of absorbed binder (percentage by mass of aggregate):
2.580-2.577
=100× [( )] ×1.011=0.30
2.580×2.577
2.360−2.214
Voids content in the mix = 100 × [ ] = 6.2%
2.360
Mass of effective binder = 13.28 − 0.30 = 12.98 g
12.98
Volume of effective binder = 1.011 = 12.84𝑐𝑚3
208.11
Volume of aggregates = = 80.76 𝑐𝑚3
2.577
Voids in mineral aggregates = 100 − 80.76 = 19.24%

(100−6)×2.214
(Alternative VMA calculation) = 100 − = 19.24%
2.577
Or VMA = 6.2% + 12.84% = 19.04% (difference due to decimal approximations)
12.84
Void filled with binder = 19.24 ×100 = 66.7%
6.2.5 Step 5: Select the optimum mix based on performance
The basic steps to select the optimum design are given below:
1. Evaluate workability based on voids of the specimen after 25 gyrations1. The voids at this
number of gyrations should not exceed the design voids by more than 3%.
2. Determine the optimum mix design based on flow number (rutting parameter) performance
as per the repeated load axial test prescribed in AASHTO T378.
The following guidelines should be followed:
i. Evaluate the mix at three binder content levels (optimum, i.e. binder content at 4% voids
from Step 4 (d); optimum −0.5%, and optimum +0.5%.
ii. Prepare three replicate specimens for each binder content (i.e. a total of nine
specimens) following AASHTO PP60 and sample preparation procedures presented in
Appendix A (specimens diameter = 150 mm; specimen height = 170 mm).
iii. Conduct the flow number tests on 100 mm diameter by 150 mm high specimens cored
and cut from the 150 mm diameter by 170 mm high to air voids of 7± 1%. Obtaining the
air voids of the 100 diameter by 150 mm high specimen would require a trial-and-error
process.
iv. Apply an axial stress of 600 kPa with no confining stress on the specimen subjected to
a haversine loading of 0.1 s and 0.9 s rest period, and test the specimen at 50°C.
v. Conduct the test until the minimum rate of change in permanent strain occurs or until
10,000 load cycles. The suggested flow number requirement for dense-graded mixes
tested under these conditions is presented in Table 6-4.
vi. Select the optimum mix – the binder content that provides the best resistance to
permanent deformation (rutting) is selected as the design asphalt mix.
1Sabita Manual 35 /TRH 8. It is recommended that TANROADS verify /validate this number of gyrations for asphalt
mixes successfully constructed in Tanzania.
Table 6-4: Flow number requirements¹
20-year design E80 [millions] Minimum flow number, cycles
<3 ---
3 to < 10 53
10 to < 30 190
≥ 30 740
¹Source: NCHRP 673, 2011 (Based on USA dense-graded mixes that might be different from Tanzania mixes. It is
suggested that the country set its own minimum numbers after this Guideline has been fully validated.)
3. Assess durability1 of the optimum mix design by conducting the Modified Lottman testing
(ASTM D4867M) on the mix. Prepare short-term aged loose samples, and compact the
specimens to 7± 1%. Calculate the tensile strength ratio (TSR), and check results against
the minimum requirements in Table 6-5.
Table 6-5: Moisture resistance requirements

Wearing course Intermediate course Base course
0.80 0.75 0.70
4. Evaluate stiffness/dynamic modulus of the optimum mix in accordance with the procedures
contained in AASHTO T 378, using the testing conditions presented in Table 5-7.
5. Assess fatigue life of the optimum mix in a four-point beam testing device as described in
AASHTO T 321, using the testing conditions presented in Table 5-7.
6. Accept the final mix design when it meets the flow number performance requirements. If
one or more of the mix design criteria cannot be met, then consider adjustments to be
made in aggregate type, grading, or binder type in the design process.
NOTE 6.10: Stiffness, rutting based on wheel tracking, and fatigue cracking tests are not a requirement.
However, they are important for a balanced mix performance ranking, and for pavement design
purposes (stiffness, permanent deformation and fatigue characteristics are used to model the
performance of asphalt mixes in the pavement structure).
NOTE 6.11: The maximum asphalt temperature for the country was computed based on the 7-day
average maximum air temperature with a 97.5% reliability, and accordingly the asphalt temperature
range between 50.8 and 64.1°C (an average of 57.5°C, Section 3, Figure 3-5). However, the practical
test temperature proposed for this test is 50°C as, at temperature of 57.5°C, the flow number tests may
not reasonably discriminate between performances of asphalt mixes in the laboratory.
NOTE 6.12: The applied axial stress level should be verified for asphalt mixes used in the country. High
stress levels may lead to a few number load cycles to fail the sample, especially at temperatures higher
than 40°C (,not reasonable to discriminate between performances of the asphalt mixes).
NOTE 6.13: All specimens compacted for performance testing must be four hours short-term aged in a
forced-draft oven at the compaction temperature, regardless of the aggregate absorption.
NOTE 6.14: Most of the testing conditions and requirements presented in the mix design process are
based on practices in the USA and other parts of the world. These should be interpreted as provisional,
as they still require validations/ verifications for conditions and practices of the country.
1 See NOTE 5.3
6.3 Compiling the mix design report
The mix design report should include the following information:
i. Completion date of the mix design
ii. Sources of aggregates and reason (s) for their selection
iii. Selection and details of supplier, location of binder production
iv. Details of manufacturer and manufacturing plant where the mix will be produced
v. Design grading and binder content
vi. Details of constituent materials and their proportions, as well as test results from a
TANROADS-approved laboratory demonstrating that the constituents comply with
acceptable requirements.
vii. Test results provided by a TANROADS-approved laboratory demonstrating that the mix
design complies with acceptable requirements.
viii. Brief comments on the workability of the mix.
ix. References to test methods and specifications.
x. Statement of compliance or proposed deviation from the volumetric parameters and

acceptable asphalt mix and bitumen performance requirements.
xi. Rutting performance results, and other performance-related results for mixes
designated for traffic levels in excess of 30 million E80s.
xii. A signed declaration that the mix design complies with requirements of the Interim
Guidelines.
6.4 Typical performance-based values

As part of the development of this Interim Guideline, two Superpave mixes that have been
designed and constructed on highways in the country were evaluated for their flow number
(rutting parameter) and dynamic modulus performance properties. These mixes were SP-12.5
and SP19 dense-graded mixes with PG 64-16 and PG70-10 binders, respectively.
The dynamic modulus was determined at the optimum binder contents (4.5% for SP 12.5;
4.7% for SP 19), whereas the flow number was determined at three binder content levels
(optimum, optimum −0.5%, and optimum +0.5%).
Table 6-6 and Table 6-7 present dynamic modulus of the two mixes at five temperatures, and
six loading frequencies. Similarly, Table 6-8 and Table 6-9 present the flow number of the two
mixes at three binder contents.
Table 6-6: Dynamic modulus values for SP 12.5 dense-graded mix
Temperature (°C)
Parameter Frequency (Hz)
-5 5 20 40 55
25 29 291 24 257 13 815 3 597 1 145
10 28 273 22 687 11 615 2 459 699
Dynamic modulus 5 27 358 21 331 10 042 1 781 500
(MPa) 1 24 897 17 939 6 742 786 233
0.5 23 710 16 375 5 516 592 212
0.1 20 659 12 735 3 163 317 158
Table 6-7: Dynamic modulus values for SP19 dense-graded mix
Temperature (°C)
-5 5 20 40 55
25 25 734 21 984 15 453 5 142 1 838
10 25 044 20 999 13 902 3 898 1 117
Dynamic modulus 5 24 437 20 171 12 592 3 048 747
(MPa) 1 22 808 18 028 9 536 1 473 297
0.5 22 050 17 034 8 255 1 046 223
0.1 20 082 14 568 5 591 457 129
Table 6-8: Flow number values for SP 12.5 dense-graded mix

Mix type Binder type Binder content (%) FN (Cycles)
SP 12.5 dense-graded mix @
PG 64-16 4.0 629
optimum binder content -0.5%
PG 64-16 4.5 493
optimum binder content
SMA @ optimum binder content
PG 64-16 5.0 350
+0.5%
Table 6-9: Flow number values for SP 19 dense-graded mix

PG 70-10 4.2 1 973
optimum binder content -0.5%
PG 70-10 4.7 1 496
optimum binder content
PG 70-10 5.2 1 143
optimum binder content +0.5%
References
AASHTO PP 60. Standard practice for preparation of cylindrical performance test specimens
using the Superpave gyratory compactor (SGC), AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 166. Standard method of test for bulk specific gravity (Gmb) of compacted hot mix
asphalt (HMA) using saturated surface-dry specimens, AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 209, Standard method of test for theoretical maximum specific gravity (Gmm) and
density of hot-mix asphalt (HMA), AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 312. Standard method of test for preparing and determining the density of asphalt
mixture specimens by means of the Superpave gyratory compactor, AASHTO, Washington
DC. USA.
AASHTO T 312. Standard method of test for preparing and determining the density of asphalt
mixture specimens by means of the Superpave gyratory compactor, AASHTO, Washington
DC. USA.
AASHTO T 321 : Standard method of test for determining the fatigue life of compacted asphalt
mixtures subjected to repeated flexural bending. AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 324. Standard method of test for Hamburg wheel-track testing of compacted hot
mix asphalt (HMA). AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 378. Standard method of test for determining the dynamic modulus and flow
number for asphalt mixtures using the asphalt mixture performance tester (AMPT). AASHTO,
Washington DC. USA.
ASTM C117, Standard test method for materials finer than 75-μm (No. 200) sieve in mineral
aggregates by washing, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017, www.astm.org
ASTM D2041 / D2041M, Standard test method for theoretical maximum specific gravity and
density of bituminous paving mixtures, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011,
www.astm.org
ASTM D2726 / D2726M. Standard test method for bulk specific gravity and density of non-
absorptive compacted asphalt mixtures, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011,
www.astm.org
ASTM D4867 / D4867M, Standard test method for effect of moisture on asphalt concrete
paving mixtures, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014, www.astm.org
NCHRP, 2011. A manual for design of hot mix asphalt with commentary, NCHRP Report 673,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., USA. www.TRB.org
7. Design of Stone Mastic Asphalt Mix
7.1 Introduction
Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) is a premium asphalt wearing course that possesses key
structural and functional, economic and practical advantages compared to conventional
dense-graded mixes for surfacing. It is a durable material suited to high-volume roads and
intersections. SMA mixes are generally placed at compacted thicknesses that vary from 40
mm to 75 mm. Major structural and functional advantages include the following:
i. Superior rut resistance
ii. Decreased ageing, improved durability
iii. Superior cracking resistance
iv. Superior skid resistance
v. Excellent ride quality
One of the key characteristics of an SMA mix is that it must have an aggregate skeleton with
stone-on-stone contact. The coarse aggregate is generally considered to be that fraction of
the aggregate retained on the 4.75 mm sieve but may be designated as other sizes, depending
on the nominal maximum aggregate size of the mix. The mix relies on this stone-on-stone
contact to provide its internal strength.
The highly desirable rich binder mortar It is of prime importance to compose the
of SMA mixes is a mixture of mineral stone skeleton and the mastic in such a way
filler, stabilising fibres and binder. The that the stone-to-stone contact remains
purpose of the mortar is to partially fill the intact, i.e. the stone skeleton should not be
voids in the coarse aggregate skeleton dilated by the mastic. The risk of undesirable
and also to prevent draindown of the dilation of the coarse particles will be
binder (cellulose fibres, typically 0.3 to minimised if the spaces in the stone skeleton
0.5% m/m of the total mix, are widely are sufficiently large, while the proportion of
used for this purpose). The use of a larger particles in the mastic component is
polymer-modified binder is strongly kept low.
recommended for SMA mix design in this
set of Interim Guidelines.
Typically, SMA mixes use a high binder content of 6 to 7% or more to improve durability.
SMA mixes suggested for the Interim Guidelines are to be used for wearing course only.
Typically, a nominal maximum size of SMA surface mixes are 9.5 mm and 12.5 mm. In an
unlikely situation where SMA is used as a base/binder course, the recommended nominal
maximum size should be 19.0 mm.
7.2 Three key volumetric parameters

The integrity of the aggregate skeleton is assured by meeting the requirements of three key
volumetric properties (i.e. VCA (DRC), VCA (MIX) and VMA) of the SMA mix. The differences
between these properties are illustrated in Figure 7-1.
Voids in Coarse Aggregate (DRC)
Voids in Coarse Aggregate (Mix)
Voids in Mineral Aggregate (VMA)
Figure 7-1: Differences between VCA (DRC), VCA (MIX) and VMA
7.3.1 Step 1: Select the SMA mix type
The type of information required upfront to confirm the selection of the particular type of SMA
mix (based on the design objectives and situation) is similar to mix design Step 1 of the dense-
graded mixes(Chapter 6).
7.3.2 Step 2: Select appropriate binder
Select a binder that is appropriate for the climate and traffic situation at the project site. Once
Chapter 3 is recommended. Stabiliser is typically used in the SMA mix to prevent draindown
of the binder during construction. Both cellulose and mineral fibres have been successfully
used.
The procedures and acceptance requirements for coarse and fine aggregates are presented
in Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 respectively. The aggregates must meet all specification
Table 7-1: Coarse aggregate quality requirements
Property Test Standard Requirements

LTM 2000 (2.9) /ASTM
LA Abrasion Max 30, % loss
C535/ C131
LTM 2000 (2.7) /BS
Hardness /Toughness TFV Min 210 kN
EN1097-4
Aggregate Impact Value LTM 2000 (2.8) /BS
Max 30%
(AIV) – Optional EN1097-4
Magnesium sulphate or LTM 2000 (2.10) /
Soundness/Durability 12 to 20%, 5 cycles
Sodium sulphate ASTM C88
Flat and elongated 3:1: max 20%
ASTM D 4791
particles 5:1: max 5%
Particle shape
Coarse aggregate One face: min 100%, Two
ASTM D 5821
angularity faces: min 90%
Coarse and fine LTM 2000 (2.2)
Water absorption Max 2%
aggregates /AASHTO T 85
Table 7-2: Fine aggregate quality requirements
Property Test Method Requirements

Magnesium sulphate or
Soundness/Durability AASHTO T 104 12 to 20%, 5 cycles
Sodium sulphate
Particle shape Angularity ASTM C1252 Table 4-4
Cleanliness Sand equivalent ASTM D2419 Table 4-4
Liquid Limit AASHTO T 89 Max 25%
Atterberg limits
Plasticity Index AASHTO T 90 Non-plastic
7.3.4 Step 4: Develop three trial aggregate blends1
Similar to the dense-graded mix design, when new materials (aggregates, binders) are
required for the SMA mix design, then a new grading may be required – it is recommended
that designers develop at least three gradings within the envelope (coarse, medium and fine).
The steps below apply to either an existing grading or to one of the three proposed gradings,
commencing with the coarse one.
Table 7-3 provides guidelines to select the minimum binder content (based on the bulk specific
gravity of the combined grading).
Table 7-3: Minimum binder content requirements2
Combined aggregate bulk specific gravity Minimum binder content by mass, %

2.40 6.8
2.45 6.7
2.50 6.6
2.55 6.5
2.60 6.3
2.65 6.2
2.70 6.1
2.75 6.0
2.80 5.9
2.85 5.8
2.90 5.7
2.95 5.6
3.00 5.5
Source: NCHRP 673 (2011)
Aggregate proportioning/blending for SMA mixes must be done in the same manner as dense-
graded mixes (Section 6.2.4b). For most dense-graded mixes, grading is based on mass
percentages since the specific gravities of the different aggregate fractions are close to each
other. On the other hand, with SMA mixes, it is recommended that grading be based on
volume. Equation 7.1 should be used to determine the volume of aggregate retained on each
sieve for each fraction. Table 7-4 presents typical SMA grading bands recommended for the
Interim Guidelines.
𝑀𝑠 Equation 7.1
𝑉𝑠 = [ ]
𝐺𝑠𝑏 × 𝛾𝑤
where:
𝑉𝑠 = volume of aggregate retained on a given sieve, cm³
NOTE 7.1: Grading requirements recommended for SMA mixes in this Interim Guidelines document
are not based on the 0.45 power graph and control points (Table 7-4).
1The trial blends should be selected within the grading range presented in Table 7-4.
2 Minimum binder content values are provided only as a guideline
𝐺𝑠𝑏 = bulk specific gravity of the total aggregate
𝑀𝑠 = mass of aggregate retained on a given sieve, g
𝛾𝑤 = density (unit weight) of water (1 g/cm³)
Table 7-4: SMA grading requirements, percentage passing by volume

19 mm NMAS 12.5 mm NMAS 9.5 mm NMAS
Sieve size
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
25 mm 100 100
19 mm 90 100 100 100
12.5 mm 50 74 90 100 100 100
9.5 mm 25 60 26 78 90 100
4.75 mm 20 28 20 28 26 60
2.36 mm 16 24 16 24 20 28
1.18 mm 13 21 13 21 13 21
0.6 mm 12 18 12 18 10 18
0.3 mm 12 15 12 15 12 15
0.075mm 8 10 8 10 8 10
¹NAPA, USA. If the bulk specific gravity of the individual aggregates, including mineral filler for the aggregate
blend, vary by 0.02 or less, then grading based on mass percentages is acceptable.
Source: NCHRP Report 425
Example 1: Blending SMA aggregates by volume
(1) Grading results for 19 mm SMA
Table 7.1 provides the results of washed grading tests performed on four aggregate fractions
that are to be blended. The bulk specific gravity (Gsb) is also needed to determine aggregate
gradings based on volume of the different fractions. Table 7.1 provides the Gsb values for each
fraction. Notice that the Gsb values differ by more than 0.02 in the table.
Table 7.1: Percentage passing based on mass (%)

Sieve, mm Aggregate type 1 Aggregate type 2 Aggregate type 3 Mineral filler
25 100 100 100 100
19 95 100 100 100
12.5 66 71 97.4 100
9.5 43 46 84.6 100
4.75 9 6 48.9 100
2.36 5 4 27.8 100
1.18 2 4 16.6 100
0.6 2 3 10.7 100
0.3 2 3 7.6 100
0.075 1 1.5 4.6 72.5
Gsb 2.616 2.734 2.736 2.401
(2) Determine percentage mass retained on each sieve
For a given sieve, this is done by subtracting the percentage passing the sieve from the
percentage passing the next larger sieve. For example, using Aggregate type 3 in Table 7.1,
the percentage mass retained on the 4.75 mm sieve would be calculated as 84.6−48.9 =
35.7%.
Table 7.2 presents the values of percentage mass retained for all sieves and fractions. Note
that a row has been added to reflect that material finer than the 0.075mm (minus 0.075) sieve
is included in the calculations.
Table 7.2: Percentage by mass retained on each sieve

Sieve, mm Aggregate type 1 Aggregate type 2 Aggregate type 3 Mineral Filler
25 0 0 0 0
19 5 0 0 0
12.5 29 29 2.6 0
9.5 23 25 12.8 0
4.75 34 40 35.7 0
2.36 4 2 21.1 0
1.18 3 0 11.2 0
0.6 0 1 5.9 0
0.3 0 0 3.1 0
0.075 1 1.5 3 27.5
minus 0.075 1 1.5 4.6 72.5
(2) Convert percentage mass retained to volume per sieve
The volume of aggregate retained on each sieve for each fraction can be determined from
Equation 7.1.
The following calculation demonstrates how the volume is calculated for the aggregate
retained on the 4.75 mm sieve of Aggregate type 3 (Table 7.1).
35.7 g
Volume = =13.05cm3
2.736×1.0 g/cm3
The volumes retained on all sieves for each aggregate fractions are provided in Table 7.3.
Table 7.3: Volumes of aggregate retained on each sieve (cm³)

Sieve, mm Aggregate type 1 Aggregate type 2 Aggregate type 3 Mineral Filler
25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
19 1.91 0.00 0.00 0
12.5 11.09 10.61 0.95 0
9.5 8.79 9.14 4.68 0
4.75 13.00 14.63 13.05 0
2.36 1.53 0.73 7.71 0
1.18 1.15 0.00 4.09 0
0.6 0.00 0.37 2.16 0
0.3 0.00 0.00 1.13 0
0.075 0.38 0.55 1.10 11.45
0.075 0.38 0.55 1.68 30.20
(3) Blend aggregate fractions
The values provided in Table 7.3 are used to blend the different fractions to meet the desired
grading based on volumes. This process is identical to blending fractions by mass and is a
trial-and-error process.
To perform the blending, select the estimated percentages of the different fractions to be used.
For this example, the following percentages will be evaluated:
Stockpile /Fraction % blends

Aggregate 1 40
Aggregate 2 41
Aggregate 3 10
Mineral filler 9
The percentage of each fraction in the blend is multiplied by the volume retained on a given
sieve for each fraction to determine the total volume retained on that sieve.
The total volume retained on the 4.75 mm sieve = (0.4 ×13.00) = (0.41 × 14.63) + (0.1
×13.05) + (0.09 × 0.00) = 5.20 + 6.00 + 1.30 + 0 = 12.50 cm3
Table 7.4 presents the total volume retained on the sieves for each of the four aggregate
fractions.
Table 7.4: Total volume of aggregate (by blend) retained per sieve, 𝐜𝐦𝟑
Sieve, mm Aggregate type 1 Aggregate type 2 Aggregate type 3 Mineral Filler Total Volume
25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
19 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76
12.5 4.43 4.35 0.10 0.00 8.88
9.5 3.52 3.75 0.47 0.00 7.73
4.75 5.20 6.00 1.30 0.00 12.50
2.36 0.61 0.30 0.77 0.00 1.68
1.18 0.46 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.87
0.6 0.00 0.15 0.22 0.00 0.37
0.3 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.11
0.075 0.15 0.22 0.11 1.03 1.52
0.075 0.15 0.22 0.17 2.72 3.26
Total Blend 37.69
(4) Calculate percentage retained by volume
Based on the total volume retained per sieve and the summed total volume of the blended
aggregates, the percentage retained per sieve by volume can be determined for the blend.
This is accomplished for a given sieve by dividing the volume retained on that sieve by the
total volume of the blend.
The following example illustrates this calculation for the 4.75 mm sieve.
12.5
Percentage volume retained on 4.7 mm sieve = ×100 = 33.2
37.69
Table 7.5 provides the percentages retained based on volumes for each of the sieves and
converts this to percentage volume passing. From this, cumulative percentages retained and
passing each sieve is calculated (similar to the method used for gradings based on mass),
and checked against grading requirements by volume.
Table 7.5: Percentage passing based on volumes for 19 mm SMA

Cumulative Grading
Percentage Percentage passing
Sieve, mm percentage requirement by
retained per sieve by volume
retained volume
25 0.0 0.0 100.0 100
19 2.0 2.0 98.0 90-100
12.5 23.6 25.6 74.4 50-74
9.5 20.5 46.1 53.9 25-60
4.75 33.2 79.3 20.7 20-28
2.36 4.5 83.7 16.3 16-24
1.18 2.3 86.0 14.0 13-21
0.6 1.0 87.0 13.0 12-18
0.3 0.3 87.3 12.7 12-15
0.075 4.0 91.3 8.7 8-10
(c) Determine voids in coarse aggregate (VCA)
A fundamental requirement of SMA mixes is to ensure coarse aggregate skeleton with stone-
on-stone contact that will not dilate due to excessive mastic in the voids of the coarse
aggregate. For this purpose, it must be ensured that the VCA (MIX) is less than the VCA of the
dry aggregate VCA (DRC). The coarse aggregate fraction is defined as that portion of the total
aggregate blend retained on the “break” sieve.
Table 7-5 presents the various nominal maximum aggregate sizes for SMA mixes with their
corresponding “break” sieves.
Table 7-5: Definition of coarse aggregate fraction

Nominal maximum particle size (NMAS) Portion of aggregate retained on break sieve
25 mm 4.75 mm
19 mm 4.75 mm
12.5 mm 4.75 mm
9.5 mm 2.36 mm
The VCA of the coarse aggregate fraction is determined by compacting the aggregate with
the dry-rodded technique according to AASHTO T 19. When the dry-rodded density of the
coarse aggregate fraction has been determined, the VCA (DRC) for the fraction can be
calculated using Equation 7.2.
(𝐺𝐶𝐴 𝛾𝑤 − 𝛾𝑠 )
𝑉𝐶𝐴𝐷𝑅𝐶 = 100 × [ ] Equation 7.2
𝐺𝐶𝐴 × 𝛾𝑤
where:
𝑉𝐶𝐴𝐷𝑅𝐶 = voids in coarse aggregate in dry-rodded condition
𝐺𝐶𝐴 = bulk specific gravity of the coarse aggregate fraction
𝛾𝑠 = density (unit weight) of the coarse aggregate fraction in the dry-rodded
condition (kg/m³)
𝛾𝑤 = density (unit weight) of water (1g/cm³)
(d) Determine the optimum binder based on volumetric properties
1. Steps 1-6 of the procedures for dense-graded mix should be followed. However,
a. compaction level for SMA is fixed at 100 gyrations (i.e. does not depend on traffic), and,
b. the required volumetric properties are Va, VMA, VCA (MIX) as illustrated in Figure 7-1.
The volumetric properties are calculated as follows:
(𝐺𝑚𝑚 − 𝐺𝑚𝑏 ) Equation 7.3

𝑉𝑎 = 100 × [ ]
𝐺𝑚𝑚
𝐺𝑚𝑏 Equation 7.4

𝑉𝐶𝐴𝑀𝐼𝑋 = 100 − [ × 𝑃𝐶𝐴 ]
𝐺𝑠𝑏 𝐶𝐴
𝐺𝑚𝑏 Equation 7.5

𝑉𝑀𝐴 = 100 − [ × 𝑃𝑠 ]
𝐺𝑠𝑏
where:
𝑃𝑠 = percentage of aggregate in the mix
𝑃𝐶𝐴 = percentage aggregate by total mass of the mix retained on break-point sieve
(4.75 mm, i.e. coarse aggregates)
𝑃𝐶𝐴 = 𝑃𝑠 × 𝑃𝐴𝐶𝐴
𝑃𝐴𝐶𝐴 = percentage aggregate by total mass of aggregate retained on break-point sieve

(4.75 mm, i.e. coarse aggregates)
𝐺𝑚𝑏 = bulk specific gravity of mix
𝐺𝑠𝑏 𝐶𝐴 = bulk specific gravity of the coarse aggregate (coarser than break-point sieve)
𝐺𝑠𝑏 = bulk specific gravity of the total aggregate
2. Use the selected aggregate grading to determine the optimum binder content by
generating graphs of the following relationships:
 Air voids versus binder content
 VMA versus binder content
3. The design (optimum) binder content is established at 4% air voids (on the Va versus
binder content graph). The VMA and VCA (MIX) are checked at the design binder content
to verify that they meet the requirements presented in Table 7-6.
Table 7-6: Volumetric requirements
Property Requirements
Minimum binder content, % Table 7-3
Va, % 4.0
VMA, % Minimum 17
VCA (MIX) Less than VCA(DRC)
NOTE 7.2: Mixing times for SMA mixes should be slightly longer than for dense-graded mixes to ensure
a good distribution of the stabilising additives.
4. Select the design aggregate grading and a corresponding volumetric binder content on the
basis of satisfactory conformance of a trial blend with requirements for Va, VMA, and VCA
(MIX) at design compaction level Ndesign. If any of the requirements cannot be met, then
consider adjustments to be made in aggregate or binder type, and aggregate grading in
the mix design procedures.
5. If all volumetric requirements are met, proceed to Step 5 below.
Example 2: Determining volumetric properties of design grading
Determining grading based on percentage by volume
The percentage aggregates passing by volume of 19.0 mm SMA is given in Table 7.6.
Table 7.6: Percentage of aggregate passing by volume

Sieve size Design blend
25 100
19 97.2
12.5 67.3
9.5 52.8
4.75 21.8
2.36 17.8
1.18 15.2
0.60 13.2
0.30 11.9
0.075 9.0
Gsb 2.715
Determine voids in the coarse aggregate (Dry-rodded condition, 𝑽𝑪𝑨𝑫𝑹𝑪 )
For the selected design blend, the VCA(DRC) was determined for the coarse aggregate fraction
according to AASHTO T 19. The results are provided in Table 7.7.
Table 7.7: VCA(DRC) and density results

VCA(DRC) Density (𝒌𝒈/𝒎𝟑 )
Design blend
40.9 1,598
The calculation for VCA(DRC) for the design blend is illustrated below:
(𝐺𝐶𝐴 𝛾𝑤 − 𝛾𝑠 ) (2.704)(1000) − 1598

𝑉𝐶𝐴𝐷𝑅𝐶 = 100 × [ ]=( ) × 100 = 40.9%
𝐺𝐶𝐴 × 𝛾𝑤 (2.704)(1000)
Determine volumetric properties of compact specimens
Assuming the following:
Binder content: 6.5%

Bulk specific gravity (Gmb): 2.379
Maximum theoretical specific gravity (Gmm): 2.468
Then Va, VMA and VCA(MIX) are determined as follows:
 Va = 4.0 (specified)
 Calculate 𝑉𝐶𝐴𝑀𝐼𝑋 :
𝐺𝑚𝑏
𝑉𝐶𝐴𝑀𝐼𝑋 = 100 − [ × 𝑃𝐶𝐴 ]
𝐺𝑠𝑏 𝐶𝐴
𝑃𝐶𝐴 = ( 𝑃𝑠 × 𝑃𝐴𝐶𝐴 ) × 100
Ps =100 − 6.5 = 93.5%
 Percentage passing the break point sieve for 19 mm SMA ( = 4.75 mm sieve)
𝑃𝐴𝐶𝐴 = 100 − 21.8 = 78.2% (Ex. Table 2.1, % passing = 21.8, hence % retained = 78.2 )
𝑃𝐶𝐴 = (0.935)(0.782) × 100
𝑃𝐶𝐴 = 73.1%
2.379
𝑉𝐶𝐴𝑀𝐼𝑋 = 100 − (2.704) × 73.1 = 35.7%
𝐺𝑚𝑏 2.379
𝑉𝑀𝐴 = 100 − [ × 𝑃𝑠 ] = 100 − [ × 93.5] = 18.1
𝐺𝑠𝑏 2.715
 The volumetric results for the design blend are summarised in Table 7.8.
Table 7.8: Test results for design blend¹

Property Design blend
Gmb 2.379
Gmm 2.468
Air Voids, % 4.0
VMA, % 18.1
VCA(MIX), % 35.7
¹VCA(MIX) (35.7%) < VCA(DRC) (40.9%)
7.3.5 Step 5: Select the optimum mix based on performance
1. All six steps presented in Section 6.2.5 (Chapter 6) for dense-graded mix are to be
followed to select the optimum SMA mix, except that:
The flow number criteria for SMA mixes are provided in Table 7-7.
Table 7-7: Minimum flow number requirements for SMA

20-year design E80 [millions] Minimum flow number
<3 ---
3 to < 10 200
10 to < 30 320
≥ 30 580
Source: NCHRP 673, 2011
2. Draindown should be assessed in addition to the mix performance tests – the draindown
test should be conducted on loose asphalt mix according to AASHTO T 305 (ASTM
D6390) at a temperature 15°C higher than the production temperature, to determine the
amount of fibre needed for the SMA mix.
The test measures the potential for binder to drain from the coarse aggregate structure while
the mix is held at an elevated temperature. Draindown sensitivity (mass loss) should not
exceed 0.3%. If a value of more than 0.3% is measured, adjustments in the type or percentage
of fibre should be made and the draindown test should be repeated.
NOTE 7.3: Cellulose fibres can be damaged by high temperature and it is important that they do not
come into contact with aggregates or drum-mix gases at a temperature greater than 200°C. Such
restrictions do not apply to mineral fibres such as rock wool and glass fibre.
NOTE 7.4: Potential problems and solutions during SMA design are presented in Table 7-8.
Table 7-8: Problems and potential solutions for SMA mixes
Problem Possible cause Potential solution
 Percentage passing 4.75 mm sieve  Reduce the percentage passing the

VMA too low or 0.075 mm sieve too high 4.75 mm sieve and/or 0.075 mm
 Excessive aggregate breakdown sieve
 Increase the percentage passing

 Percentage passing 4.75 mm sieve
VMA too high the 4.75 mm sieve and/or 0.075 mm
and/or 0.075 mm sieve too low
sieve
 VMA too low  Reduce the binder content or
Voids too low
 Binder content too high increase the VMA
 VMA too high  Increase the binder content or
Voids too high
 Binder content too low reduce the VMA
 Percentage passing the 4.75 mm  Reduce the percentage passing the
VCA too high
sieve too high 4.75 mm sieve
 Insufficient filler content  Increase stabiliser content

 Insufficient stabiliser  Change the type of stabiliser
Draindown too high
 Proportion of coarse aggregate too  Modify the grading to reduce the
high percentage of coarse aggregate
7.4 Typical performance-based values
Similar to the dense-graded mixes, one SMA mix that has been demonstrated on roads in the
country was evaluated for its flow number and dynamic modulus performance properties.
This mix was a 12.5 mm dense-graded mix with a modified binder. The dynamic modulus was
determined at the optimum binder content of 5.7%, whereas the flow number was determined
at three binder content levels (optimum, optimum −0.5%, and optimum +0.5%).
Table 7-9 presents dynamic modulus values of the mix at five temperatures, and six loading
frequencies, whereas Table 7-10 presents the flow number of the mix at three binder contents.
Table 7-9: Dynamic modulus values for 12.5 mm SMA mix
Temperature (°C)
-5 5 20 40 55
25 25 379 20 954 12 721 3 768 1 331
10 24 571 19 868 11 203 2 824 907
Dynamic modulus 5 23 863 18 903 10 039 2 228 691
(MPa) 1 21 985 16 417 7 384 1 168 336
0.5 21 104 15 304 6 368 911 289
0.1 18 837 12 654 4 204 483 187
Table 7-10: Flow number values for 12.5 mm SMA mix

SMA @ optimum binder content -0.5% PG 76-4 5.2 4 421
SMA @ optimum binder content PG 76-4 5.7 2 522
SMA @ optimum binder content +0.5% PG 76-4 6.2 2 197
References
AASHTO T 104, Standard method of test for soundness of aggregate by use of sodium sulfate
or magnesium sulfate. AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 166. Standard method of test for bulk specific gravity (Gmb) of compacted hot mix
asphalt (HMA) using saturated surface-dry specimens, AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 19, Standard method of test for bulk density ("unit weight") and voids in aggregate
(ASTM Designation: C 29/C 29M-09), AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 209, Standard method of test for theoretical maximum specific gravity (Gmm) and
density of hot-mix asphalt (HMA), AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 305, Standard method of test for determination of draindown characteristics in

uncompacted asphalt mixtures. AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 85, Standard method of test for specific gravity and absorption of coarse
aggregate (ASTM Designation: C 127-12). AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 89, Standard method of test for determining the liquid limit of soils. AASHTO,
Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 90, Standard method of test for determining the plastic limit and plasticity index of
soils. AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO TP33, Fine aggregate angularity as determined by uncompacted void content of fine
aggregate, AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
ASTM C1252, Standard test methods for uncompacted void content of fine aggregate (as
influenced by particle shape, surface texture, and grading). ASTM International, West
ASTM C131 / C131M, standard test method for resistance to degradation of small-size coarse
aggregate by abrasion and impact in the Los Angeles machine, ASTM International, West
www.astm.org
ASTM D5821, Standard Test method for determining the percentage of fractured particles in
ASTM D6390, Standard test method for determination of draindown characteristics in

uncompacted asphalt mixtures, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017,
www.astm.org
BS EN 1097-4, Tests for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates. Determination of

NAPA, 2002. Designing and constructing SMA mixtures—State-of-the-practice, Quality

Improvement Series 122, NAPA, Maryland. www.asphaltpavement.org
NCHRP Report 425, 1999, Designing stone matrix asphalt mixes for rut-resistant pavements,
NCHRP Report 673, 2011. A manual for design of hot mix asphalt with commentary,
The United Republic of Tanzania Ministry of Works, 2000. Laboratory testing manual, Dar es
Salaam (LTM 2000).
8. Design of Porous Asphalt Mix
8.1 Introduction
Porous asphalt mixes1 are designed to have high voids content so that water can drain through
and over the surface of the pavement. The void content for porous mixes is typically in the
range of 18 to 22%, with most voids being interconnected.
The stiffness of porous asphalt mixes is generally significantly less than the stiffness of
densely graded mixes, rendering them not well suited for use as a structural layer (best used
only as a functional layer with typical thickness of less than 40 mm). Because of their open
void structure, porous asphalt mixes are more prone to stripping and ravelling.
The design of porous asphalt mixes is similar to SMA mixes in the sense that both mixes
should have stone-on-stone contact and low potential for draindown. In addition, porous
asphalt mixes are designed to have a large percentage of a single-size coarse aggregate with
a low percentage of fine aggregates. A suitable void content is a primary consideration in the
design of porous asphalt mixes.
A porous asphalt layer provides many benefits, including:
 Reduced splash and spray
 Reduced potential for hydroplaning
 High skidding resistance on wet pavement
 Enhanced visibility of pavement markings
 Reduced tyre-pavement noise

8.2.1 Step 1: Select the porous mix type
The type of information required upfront to confirm the selection of the particular type of porous
mix (based on the design objectives and situation) is similar to mix design Step 1 of the dense-
graded mixes (Chapter 6).
8.2.2 Step 2: Select appropriate binder2
Select a binder that is appropriate for the climate and traffic data for the project site. Once
1 This Guideline only focuses on the design of porous surfacing (wearing course) mixes. Many road agencies have
their own methods of designing porous wearing course mixes. A typical design is presented in this Guideline.
2 Polymer-modified and unmodified binders used with fibres to prevent excessive binder run-off are recommended
in this set of Interim Guidelines.
Chapter 3 is recommended. Similar to SMA mixes, stabilising additives such as cellulose or
mineral fibres should be used in porous wearing course mix to prevent draindown.
Recommended requirements of binder types are as follows:
 Viscosity susceptibility to temperature should be low within the temperature range
 Cohesive strength of the binder should be high
 Adhesion of the binder to the aggregate should be high
 Durability must be high
The aggregate structure of porous surface mix is often made up solely of coarse aggregates
to maximise the void space. In some instances, a fine aggregate such as manufactured sand
is included to enhance the mix durability.
The procedures and acceptance requirements for coarse and fine aggregates are presented
in Table 8-1 and Table 8-2 respectively. The aggregates must meet all specification
Table 8-1: Coarse aggregate quality requirements

Property Test Standard Requirements
Hardness /Toughness LA Abrasion ASTM C535/ C131 Max 25, % loss
TFV LTM 2000 (2.7) /BS Min 210 kN
EN1097-4
Aggregate Impact Value LTM 2000 (2.8) /BS Max 30%
(AIV) – Optional EN1097-4
Soundness/ durability Magnesium sulphate or LTM 2000 (2.10) / 15%, 5 cycles
Sodium sulphate ASTM C88
Particle shape Flat and elongated ASTM D 4791 3:1: max 20%
particles 5:1: max 5%
Coarse aggregate ASTM D 5821 100% of the aggregate
angularity particles should have
two or more fractured
faces
Water absorption Coarse and fine AASHTO T 85 < 1%
aggregates
Table 8-2: Fine aggregate quality requirements

Property Test Method Requirements
Soundness/ durability Magnesium sulphate AASHTO T 104 Max 20%, 5 cycles
Cleanliness Sand equivalent ASTM D2419 Table 4-4
Particle shape Angularity ASTM C1252 Table 4-4
Liquid limit AASHTO T 89 Max 25%
Atterberg limits
Plasticity index AASHTO T 90 Non-plastic
8.2.4 Step 4: Develop three trial aggregate blends1
Similar to the dense-graded mix design, when new materials (aggregates, binders) are
required for the porous mix design, then a new grading may be required. It is recommended
that designers develop at least three gradings within the envelope (coarse, medium and fine).
The steps below apply to either an existing grading or one of the three proposed gradings,
commencing with the coarse one.
Use Table 7-3 (Chapter 7) to select the minimum binder.
Aggregate proportioning /blending for porous mixes must be done in the same manner as for
dense-graded mixes (Section 6.2.4 b), and by volume, as prescribed for SMA mixes.
Nominal maximum aggregate sizes of 9.5 mm and 12.5 mm with low fine aggregate contents
(the fraction passing the 2.36 mm sieve being less than 15% and containing hydrated lime2)
are generally used to obtain the required voids content.
Table 8-3: Grading requirements of porous surface mixes
12.5 mm mix 9.5 mm mix

Sieve size
Lower Upper Lower Upper
37.5 mm
25 mm
19 mm 100
12.5 mm 80 100 100
9.5 mm 35 60 85 100
4.75 mm 10 25 20 30
2.36 mm 5 10 5 15
1.18 mm
0.6 mm
0.3 mm
0.15 mm
0.075mm 0 4 0 4
Source: NCHRP 640
NOTE 8.1: A key feature of porous asphalt mixes is the gap in the grading of the aggregate, usually
between the 2.36 mm and 4.75 mm sieve sizes.
NOTE 8.2: Grading of porous asphalt mixes usually varies according to the type of binder used in the
mix (i.e. unmodified, polymer-modified, and bitumen-rubber binders). The use of polymer-modified
binders in combination with cellulose fibres is advantageous. This allows the use of much higher binder
contents for improved durability and abrasion resistance with good cohesive properties.
1 The trial blends should be selected within the grading range presented in Table 8-3.
2 Ca(OH)2 content (minimum 90%); percentage passing 0,075 mm sieve (minimum 90)
(c) Determine voids in coarse aggregate (VCA)
The procedures presented for SMA mixes should be followed.
(d) Determine the optimum binder content1
Four key parameters that influence the selection of optimum binder content are as follows:
1. Air voids content – the design void content for a given grading controls the maximum
amount of binder that can be used.
2. Abrasion loss – the maximum permissible abrasion loss controls the minimum amount
of binder that may be used. Abrasion loss is determined by means of the Cantabro
abrasion test. This test is conducted on compacted mix specimens in an L.A. Abrasion
machine using ASTM C131.
3. Durability – a nominal minimum binder content of 4.5% is often adopted to ensure
adequate binder film thickness.
4. Draindown – a maximum binder content is specified to prevent excessive draindown
during transport and construction. The draindown tests are conducted on loose mix
according to AASHTO T 305/ ASTM D6390 at a temperature 15°C higher than the
anticipated production temperature. The binder run-off for a given combination of
aggregate, binder and fibre additives (if required) is determined by means of the basket
drainage test.
 The design (optimum) binder content is selected as the average of the higher of the
minimum binder content (durability and abrasion resistance) and the lower of the
maximum binder contents (void content and binder run-off).
The results of the procedures involved in the determination of the optimum binder content are
illustrated in Figure 8-1 (Sabita Manual 17).
Figure 8-1: Illustration of the determination of optimum binder content
1 Adopted from Sabita Manual 17
For a given grading and selected binder type, the optimum binder content is determined based
on four binder contents as described in Section 6.2.4 (d), for dense-graded mixes.
Voids content, abrasion and draindown test results are to be verified that they meet the
requirements presented in Table 8-4.
Table 8-4: Porous asphalt mix requirements

Test Method Requirements
Air voids AASHTO T 331 18–22%
VCA(DRC) AASHTO T 19 VCA(MIX) < VCA(DRC)
Abrasion loss ASTM C131 Max 25%
Draindown ASTM D6390 0.2-0.3%
8.2.5 Step 5: Evaluate performance of the design mix
Use the following to evaluate the performance of the design mix:
(1) AMPT flow number (AASHTO T 378) - Section 6.2.5
(2) AMPT dynamic modulus (AASHTO T 378) - Section 6.2.5
(3) Resistance to moisture damage (ASTM D4867M) - Section 6.2.5
NOTE 8.3: Performance test specimens are prepared using the design voids content of the porous mix.
NOTE 8.4: Fatigue test should not be performed on the porous mix.
NOTE 8.5: Use of bitumen rubber binder in porous asphalt is recommended.
References
AASHTO T 104, Standard method of test for soundness of aggregate by use of sodium sulfate
or magnesium sulfate. AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 331. Standard method of test for bulk specific gravity (Gmb) and density of
compacted hot mix asphalt (HMA) using automatic vacuum sealing method, AASHTO,
Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 85, Standard method of test for specific gravity and absorption of coarse
aggregate (ASTM Designation: C 127-12). AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 89, Standard method of test for determining the liquid limit of soils. AASHTO,
Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO T 90, Standard method of test for determining the plastic limit and plasticity index of
soils. AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
AASHTO TP33, Fine aggregate angularity as determined by uncompacted void content of fine
aggregate, AASHTO, Washington DC. USA.
ASTM C131 / C131M, Standard test method for resistance to degradation of small-size coarse
www.astm.org
ASTM D5821, Standard test method for determining the percentage of fractured particles in
ASTM D6390, Standard test method for determination of draindown characteristics in

uncompacted asphalt mixtures, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017,
www.astm.org
BS EN 1097, Tests for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates. Determination of

NCHRP Report 640: Construction and maintenance practices for permeable friction courses,
Washington DC. USA.
Sabita Manual 17, The Design and use of porous asphalt mixes. Sabita. Cape Town South
Africa. www.sabita.co.za
9. Asphalt Production and Construction
9.1 Introduction
This chapter refers to the production, transport and paving of hot-mix asphalt. Certain quality
aspects pertaining to these activities in particular are addressed here, while the overall project
quality control guidance is presented in Chapter 10.
Although some of the many available excellent reference works are listed here, this chapter is
not meant to be a reference work on asphalt production and construction. Instead, it aims to
introduce the subject matter, aimed at making the designer aware of the complexities of mix
manufacture and construction, and how these can affect mix performance.
As part of the quality assurance system, all the relevant safety policies, training manuals and
policies and work procedures or manuals must be agreed upon and available. This would
include documents such as copies of the manufacturer’s handbooks and copies of checklists
prepared in terms of ISO 9002. These may be applicable to the mixing, remixing and paving
plants and contain details of the correct settings and calibration procedures of all plants and
equipment.
9.2 Hot-mix asphalt manufacture

The manufacturing of hot-mix asphalt involves combining the aggregate, filler and binder
components in the correct ratios in accordance with the mix design or “job-mix” AND at the
correct pre-determined temperature. Hot-mix asphalt can be produced in batch plants or drum
plants and the plant layout is affected accordingly as discussed below.
It is essential that the plant operates within its rated capacity to prevent insufficient drying of
the aggregates or insufficient burning of the heating fuel. When black smoke emanates from
the chimney, the latter is most often the problem and may lead to all sorts of problems with
the mix, especially with drum-type mixers.
9.2.1 Mixing plant

Batch Plants
Batch plants produce hot-mix asphalt one “batch” at a time. This means the components are
weighed off individually, then mixed together and dispensed into a truck or storage equipment
on a “batch” basis, one load at a time. A typical diagram of a batch plant is shown in Figure 9-
1. The plant varies according to the manufacturer and model.
The basic process by which material flows through a batch plant can be described as follows:
i. The cold feed bins (1) hold each of the aggregate sizes and from there it is proportioned
and sent via the cold feed conveyor (3) into the dryer (4) where it is dried and heated
to the required temperature.
ii. The heated aggregate is fed into the hot elevator (5) and then onto a screen deck (6)
where it is separated into the various sizes that will be used in the production of the hot-
mix asphalt. The various sizes of aggregates are stored in hot bins (7). The gates below
these bins are typically referred to as “supply gates” or “hot bin gates”. The plant
operator either manually or automatically “draws” material from each hot bin to match
the job-mix formula and weighs the aggregate in the aggregate “weigh hopper,” which
is positioned directly below the hot-bin gates.
iii. The binder is stored in either horizontal or vertical storage tanks (2). The required
amount of binder is pumped into the “weigh bucket”.
iv. The aggregate is transferred to the “pugmill” (9) where it is mixed for a small amount of
time prior to the addition of the binder (dry-mix cycle). The binder is then added to the
“pugmill” and mixed with the aggregate (wet-mix cycle). The distance between the
bottom of the pugmill and the tops of the tips as they rotate is referred to in the industry
as the “live zone”. Generally, specifications require that aggregate is not charged into
the pugmill above the live zone. If the pugmill load is too high or too low, segregation of
the mix can occur.
v. After mixing, the product is taken up a conveyor belt (10) to the hot storage silos (or
bins) (11).
vi. The hot-mix asphalt is loaded either into delivery trucks placed below the storage silos
(12) or into trucks immediately below the pugmill (15).
vii. The plant operation is controlled from a control house (13). The plant is also provided
with an air pollution control system (14) which in this diagram is a baghouse.
Figure 9-1: Typical batch plant
Batch plant scales should be calibrated in compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions and
the quality assurance system.
Drum Plants
In the drum-type mixing plant, the aggregate and other materials are dried, heated, and mixed
with the binder in the drum in a continuous process. With a drum-mixer, the grading is
controlled at the cold feed, the total aggregate flow being measured with a belt scale device.
The asphalt binder is metered or proportioned to the aggregate flow. Surge and storage silos
are required with drum-mixers for storing the mix prior to dispatching.
A typical diagram of a batch plant is shown is shown Figure 9-2. Plant varies according to the
manufacturer and model.
The basic process by which material flows through a drum plant can be described as:
i. The cold feed bins (1) hold each of the aggregate sizes and from there it is proportioned
and sent via the cold feed conveyor (2) into the drum (4). An automatic weighing system
monitors the weight of the aggregate flowing into the drum-mixer.
ii. The aggregate weighing system is interlocked with the controls on the binder storage
pump that draws the asphalt binder from a storage tank (3) and introduces it into the
drum (4).
iii. The binder and aggregate are then mixed in the drum.
iv. From the drum-mixer, the hot-mix asphalt is transported by conveyor (6) to a surge bin
or storage silo (7), from which it is loaded into trucks and hauled to the paving site.
Surge bins are not isolated and if paving operations are delayed for longer than two
hours, it is possible that the asphalt in these bins will be cold. When the temperature of
the mix in the surge bins is less than 10°C below the paving temperature, the mix should
be discarded. The asphalt in isolated storage bins will maintain its temperature for
extended periods, especially if these bins are heated. The asphalt unfortunately
degrades during extended hot storage due to hardening of the binder. Therefore,
maximum storage times should be established in the quality assurance system to
prevent the use of mixes that will not perform optimally. Due to the fact that the binder
may drain off the aggregate in porous asphalt mixes, storage of this type of mix will not
be allowed. Stone mastic asphalt may also not be stored and must be mixed
immediately prior to paving.
v. The entire operation is controlled from a control house (8).
vi. A dust collection system captures the excess dust escaping from the drum (9).
When calibrating a drum-mixer, the belt scale is first calibrated before the feeders are
calibrated. The binder meter is typically calibrated after the belt scale, in case a simulated run
is desired to ensure that the binder is tracking the aggregate flow.
Figure 9-2: Typical drum mix plant
9.2.2 Aggregate
Aggregate and sand stockpiles should be constructed on a firm base and used in a controlled
manner to eliminate variations in aggregate grading and contamination as far as possible.
Ideally, two stockpiles should be constructed for each aggregate size. While the one is feeding
the plant, the other one is constructed.
Where possible, samples of the aggregate from the stockpiles should be taken during
construction to prevent out-of-specification materials in the stockpile. Refer to Chapter 10 for
sampling and test methods as well as test frequencies.
Stockpiles should, where possible, be constructed on the downwind side (of the prevailing
wind direction) of the plant to prevent dust problems. They should not be higher than two
metres to limit segregation and should be far enough from each other to prevent
contamination. If required, bulkheads can ensure that no cross-contamination occurs.
Figure 9-3 shows a proper set of bin wall dividers. Note that there are no bin extensions on
the back sides of the cold feed bins. This reduces the possibility of the loader operator
overfilling the bins and materials overflowing from one bin to the other.
Figure 9-3: Cold bin wall dividers
The aggregate dryer (Figure 9-4) is one of the key pieces of equipment at any hot-mix plant,
the function of which is to dry the aggregate and heat the aggregate to the required mix
temperature. Drying is the operation that governs the production rate of any type of plant
facility.
Figure 9-4: An aggregate dryer in a drum plant
9.2.3 Filler
Filler is usually stored in bags or in a silo. Care should be taken that the bags are kept dry and
are used on a first-in-first-out basis. Silos should be adequately sealed.
9.2.4 Binder
Bituminous binders may degrade during extended storage at elevated temperatures. If more
than one storage tank is used for the same binder, the mixing plant should be alternately fed
from these tanks to prevent the binder in the one tank ageing excessively. Storage tanks
should be well marked and proper temperature control should be exercised. The tanks should
be fitted with calibrated thermometers and a continuous temperature record of each tank
should be kept. This can either be automatically recorded by chart, or manually three times a
day. Samples of the binder are taken as it is delivered. Refer to Chapter 10 for sampling and
test methods as well as test frequencies.
9.2.5 Troubleshooting problems in the plant

Designers should be familiar with problems in plant mixes and their possible causes as
indicated in Figure 9-5.
Bin overflow not functioning
Asphalt scales not adjusted
Asphalt and aggregate feed

Asphalt meter not adjusted
Aggregate temperature too
Over-rated drying capacity
Segregation of aggregates
Aggregates feed gates not
Temperature indicator not
Insufficient asphalt in hot

Improper dryer operation
Carry-over in bins due to
Feed of mineral filler not
Undersized or oversized
Irregular plant operation

Faulty screen operation
Improperly set or worn

Mixing time not proper
Aggregates scales not
asphalt to aggregates
Faulty distribution of
shakedowns in bins
Aggregates too wet
overloading screen
Insufficient asphalt
Dryer set too steep
Improper weighing
Improper weighing
Inadequate bunker
Too much asphalt

Worn-out screens
not synchronised
Faulty dump gate
Occasional dust
Faulty sampling
properly set
Leaky bins
separation
sequence
adjusted
adjusted
paddles
uniform
Types of problems that may
in bins
batch
high
bins
be encountered in
producing plant mixes
Asphalt content does not

A B B A A A B C B B B C A
check job-mix formula
Aggregate gradation does not
A A B B B B A A B B B A B B B C B A
check job-mix formula
A A B B B A A B B B A B B C B A Excessive fines in mix
Uniform temperatures difficult
A A A A A A A
to maintain
Truck weights do not check
B B B B
batch weights
B B A A B C B B C Free asphalt on mix in truck
B B Free dust on mix in truck
A A A A A A A B C B B B C A Large aggregate uncoated
B B A A A B B B A B A B C B B B C B A Mixture in truck not uniform
B A B B B A Mixture in truck fat on one side
A A A B C B C A Mixture flattens in truck
A A A A A Mixture burned
A A A A A B A B C B C A Mixture too brown or grey
B B B A A A B C B C A Mixture too fat
A A A A Mixture smokes in truck
A A A A A A Mixture steams in truck
A A A A A A Mixture appears dull in truck
Figure 9-5: Possible causes of problems in plant mixes
A – Applicable to batch and drum mix plants; B - Applicable to batch plants; C - Applicable to drum mix plants.
Source: Asphalt Institute Manual Series No. 22
9.3 Hot-mix asphalt transport
To ensure a smooth paving operation resulting in a high quality mat, the mix manufacture
needs to be balanced with an appropriate transport system to ensure a constant supply of mix
at the correct temperature for compaction. Not only should a sufficient number of trucks be
available, but there should be reserve trucks in case of any truck failures. Truck drivers must
receive adequate technical and safety training. Adequate traffic control must be available on
site to ensure safe passage.
9.3.1 Types of transport trucks

There are primarily three types of mix haul trucks. Each is loaded at the plant in the same
manner from the silo or pugmill. The differences are their capacity and the manner in which
the load is unloaded:
 End dump truck (Figure 9-6a) – With a capacity of 12 to 20 tons, the truck delivers the mix
directly into the paver hopper. The advantage of an end dump is that it is commonly
available, has the shortest wheel base, and is easiest to manoeuvre. The disadvantage is
that this type of truck requires more manoeuvring skill, increased vertical height to dump
(overhead obstructions such as wires, bridges, trees), and increased potential for
segregation. It can also impose a larger load on the front of the paver when fully raised.
 Bottom (or belly) dump truck (Figure 9-6b) – The load is delivered from beneath the body
into a windrow. The capacity is about 20 to 25 tons. This requires an additional piece of
equipment to pick up the material and place it in the hopper. Advantages: no contact with
the paver. Keeping the windrow correctly sized to ensure consistent HMA supply to the
paver is very important.
 Horizontal discharge (or live bottom) truck (Figure 9-6c) – Operates by using a conveyor
belt or slat conveyor that discharges mix from the back, without raising the bed, directly
into the paver. Capacity varies up to 45 ton.
a) An end dump truck (courtesy hawaiiasphalt.org) b) A bottom dump truck (courtesy

pavementinteractive.org)
c) A horizontal discharge truck (courtesy pavementinteractive.org)
Figure 9-6 a-c: Types of transport trucks
9.3.2 Maintenance of transport trucks

Trucks must be in a mechanically sound condition. Items to maintain include the engine, drive
train, hydraulic system, brakes, and lights. Under no circumstances may a truck have an oil
leak. The truck bed must be inspected and cleaned prior to loading the mix. It must be free
from old HMA, extraneous materials, debris, and it may have no major dents or depressions.
Modified bituminous binders may result in greater sticking problems in the bed.
Once the bed is clean, apply an approved release agent such as non-petroleum materials
sprayed uniformly on the sides and bottom – just enough to coat the bed without runoff. Diesel
fuel and other petroleum-based solvents can cause problems with the HMA, and they are also
hazardous to the environment.
9.3.3 Temperature control

It is important that the mix temperature be controlled. Overheating of the mix will result in
premature ageing of the mix, with fatigue-related consequences. Excessive cooling of the mix
will in turn result in compaction difficulties. Determine the temperature of the mix using a quick-
reading thermometer through a hole in the side of the loaded truck immediately after loading.
Locate the hole within the middle third of the length of the body, and at a distance of 150 to
250 mm above the surface supporting the HMA. If a truck body already has a hole located in
the general vicinity of the specified location, use this hole. Tarp the truck after loading the mix
in order to maintain the mix temperature.
9.4 Hot-mix asphalt paving

9.4.1 Safety
Safety is of paramount importance and all personnel must have had appropriate safety training
prior to the commencement of the paving operations.
Traffic control according to the relevant road regulations is important to ensure the safety of
everyone involved in the project, as well as of the motorists passing through the work zone.
All safety apparel must be worn at all times.
9.4.2 Paving1
The purpose of the paver is to place the mix to the desired width and thickness and to produce
a satisfactory mat texture. The paver consists of two primary components: the tractor unit and
the screed. The tractor unit provides all of the power for the paver, and carries the mix from
the hopper back to the screed. The screed is towed by the tractor unit, and provides the initial
density and smoothness to the mat.
Check the paver for worn drive chains or systems and under-inflated tyres, etc., that would
lead to erratic movement of the paver. The screed unit must be properly set, operated correctly
and, at all times, be at a temperature that will prevent pulling and shearing of the mix. Means
for heating the screed unit must be available and in working condition at all times.
The augers, which supply asphalt to the front of the tamper and screed, must function properly,
they must not be unduly worn and they must be set at the correct height. If the augers are not
feeding correctly and steadily, one side of the screed will hold more material than the other
side, which could cause a rolling action on the screed and lead to a poor and uneven surface
finish.
The temperature of the asphalt behind the paver must be checked on a regular basis. Asphalt
that has cooled down to below the minimum specified paving temperature must be removed
and discarded. If a breakdown occurs during paving, or if paving operations have to be
stopped due to inclement weather conditions, any material in the paver that has cooled down
to below the compaction temperature must be discarded.
9.4.3 Compaction
Compaction is the process by which the mix is compressed and reduced in volume.
Compaction affects the ultimate performance of a HMA pavement. Compacting to the correct
voids ensures that
i. the asphalt mix layer is impermeable to water ingress;
ii. the mix layer attains sufficient strength and stability to withstand rutting and shoving;
iii. traffic loads do not indent the mix layer due to excessive further traffic compaction after
construction of the mix;
iv. fatigue life is increased; and
v. ageing is reduced.
The paving machine will compact the mix to about 85% of Gmm. Generally the first roller will
be a vibratory roller (compacting the mix to about 91% of Gmm), followed by a pneumatic roller
1
The following references are recommended for further information:
 “Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving – Handbook 2000“ – by Jim Scherocman. Accessed at

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1
025447.
 “Guide to Pavement Technology Part 4B: Asphalt” – a publication by Austroads. Accessed at
http://www.onlinepublications.austroads.com.au/items/AGPT04B-14
(compacting the mat to about 94% of Gmm). A final steel-wheeled roller is used to seal off the
surface and iron out any marks that may have been left by the pneumatic roller.
For dense-graded mixes, the densification behind the rollers typically results in 6-8% air voids
so that over the long term. The time available for compaction is the time (in minutes) that a
particular mix is at the right temperature range for efficient compaction. This temperature is
binder dependant. Many factors affect the ease of compaction of a mix. These include:
 Properties of the mix and materials in the mix: surface texture and binder content of the
mix, grading and shape properties of the aggregate and the viscosity of the binder
 Environmental variables: temperature, wind, and solar radiation
 Laydown site conditions: existing road surface texture, lift thickness, profile and stability of
lower layers
Dense-graded asphalt mixes are the most common types of surfacing and they are more
difficult to compact than gap-graded mixes such as SMA. A higher fines content within the mix
results in an increase in resistance to compaction. Angular aggregate particles offer more
resistance to compaction than rounded particles. A higher binder content improves
compaction.
Lift thickness is the thickness of the asphalt layer, and it is the most important variable in the
rate of cooling of the mix. It is very difficult to obtain the desired density on thin lifts in cool
weather, because of the rapid loss in temperature in the HMA mix. A portion of the heat in the
HMA layer is lost to the air as well as to the base as the mix is placed. Depending on the air
and base temperature as well as moisture content, the loss of heat could be large or small.
A thin layer of HMA mix will cool more quickly in a strong wind than when there is little or no
wind. Wind has a greater effect on the surface of the HMA mix than inside the HMA mix, and
it can cause the surface to cool down so rapidly that a crust may form and cracks may appear
in the surface of the layer.
10. Quality Control /Quality Assurance
10.1 Introduction
This chapter endeavours to illustrate basic quality control principles. A number of quality
control statistical schemes are referenced at the end of the chapter, but the final scheme for
national adoption will be decided upon by industry after sufficient data has been collated from
projects in the country.
After the successful design of a new mix in a laboratory, a trial mix is produced to assess
workability of the mix and compare the in-situ properties of the mix with those of the laboratory-
produced specimens. Upon successful completion of the trial section, the asphalt mix design
specifications are adjusted in line with the trial mix results – which are then referred to as the
job-mix specifications. Plant production and mix paving then commence as per contractual
requirements.
Comprehensive documented quality procedures are required from the initial asphalt mix
design to the final paving and handover to ensure that the final product meets the contractual
specifications and performance requirements.
10.2 Terms and definitions

10.2.1 Quality control
Quality control is product orientated. Quality control of asphalt mix production refers to the
testing that is in in place to ensure that the final product conforms to the contractual
specifications of the asphalt mix pavement. Typically, the processes involved are monitoring
the quality of materials (binder and aggregate), asphalt mix proportions and aggregate
grading, as well as field monitoring of compaction and the layer depth (as discussed in
Chapter 9). Quality control is therefore monitored in terms of pre-defined properties such as
aggregate characteristics, binder content, binder stiffness, grading, air voids, etc.
A proper quality control plan that conforms to contractual requirements and includes inputs
from all the parties involved in the mix design, production and construction (designer,
engineer, contractor and client) should be devised prior to commencement of the contract.
Alternatively, a suitable existing plan may be adopted. This could reduce the number of
premature failures due to poor workmanship, and assist in reducing any misunderstandings
between the parties.
Asphalt layers cannot be reworked in situ or be re-compacted (as is possible with granular
materials), which emphasises the need for a high degree of quality management for hot-mix
asphalt.
10.2.2 Quality assurance

Quality assurance is process orientated. Quality assurance refers to those measures and
procedures that are in place to allow designing, manufacturing and paving the mix in such a
way that these objectives would be achieved correctly and in a timely manner. The aim is to
achieve the expected contractual specifications of the mix by employing effective procedures
that involve comprehensive method statements and equipment manuals, for which the
relevant personnel have received adequate training.
10.3 Levels of quality control
Various levels of quality control are possible, depending on the economic importance and/or
loading of the pavement.
As the loading or economic importance of the road increases, the complexity and number of
quality control processes should also increase accordingly, with increases in the number and
complexity of the testing.
Options exist whereby the amount of testing, especially for complex performance testing, can
be reduced if the production plant is a well-established fixed plant that routinely uses the same
sources of raw materials. Such a plant may approach a regional or international quality
assurance entity (such as Agrément South Africa) to certify the performance of selected
standard mixes.
Certification would be valid for a predetermined fixed period (such as two years), provided that
there were no changes to the raw material components used in such a certified mix.
The schematic processes for quality control of certified vs non-certified mixes are illustrated
in Table 10-1, along with typical parameters that need to be controlled at each major step of
the paving process.
Table 10-1: Process for quality control of mixes
Non-certified mixes Certified mixes

Mix design Mix design
Aggregate properties, binder properties, grading, Mix design already exists. Aggregate properties,
binder content, voids, VMA, VFB binder properties, grading, binder content, voids,
VMA, VFB are confirmed. Performance-related mix
properties (not for certified mixes), refusal density
Plant mix and trial section Plant mix and trial section
Aggregate properties, binder properties, grading, Grading, binder content, voids, VMA, VFB and
binder content, VIM, VMA, VFB, compaction compaction density are confirmed
density
Field/Site
Binder content, grading, voids, VMA, VFB,
compaction density, layer thickness
Field/Site Frequency and acceptance limits
Binder content, grading, VIM, VMA, VFB,
compaction density, layer thickness
Frequency and acceptance limits
10.4 Basic principles of quality control
Quality control requires that the three main asphalt mix components (i.e. aggregates that
include fillers, binders and air) must be subjected to acceptance control testing:
i. The specified requirements of the asphalt mix are first established in the mix design
stage. Thereafter, full-scale plant, paving and compaction trials are undertaken to
verify these results and to prove constructability of the mix.
ii. Adequate quantities of the various aggregates should be stockpiled and dedicated to
the project. Production for a particular project has to occur on a continuous basis and
may not be interrupted by the batching of other mix types for other customers. Failure
to follow this approach makes it very difficult to exercise an acceptable level of
proactive acceptance control, as errors easily occur due to non-uniform aggregate
supply, as well as frequent changes in plant settings.
iii. Continually ensuring that the approved production mix design targets are met, is
critically important in the overall quality management process. If at any time it becomes
evident that the asphalt produced consists of component materials no longer
representative of those used in the approved production mix (or certified mix), the
situation should be rectified. Alternatively, a review of the production mix design should
be implemented without delay. Such a review process may result in the adjustment of
the relative proportions of the components, so as to meet the contractual
specifications.
iv. During the manufacturing process, the temperature and storage time of the binder
used in the mix should be monitored to ensure that they are kept within the supplier’s
specified limits for mixing. Retained binder samples that are representative of each
week’s production must be kept under controlled temperature conditions (< 20°C) and
inside sealed containers.
As part of quality control, the temperature of the mixed asphalt should be taken at the plant.
Mix temperatures are taken in the skip, before the mix is stored in the silo, and also in the
delivery truck at the mixing plant’s weighbridge. Temperature measurements, as part of
acceptance control, should be taken for each delivery truck as it arrives at the paving site.
A suitable report form shows the following details:
i. Date
ii. Truck arrival time
iii. Time that mix is tipped into the paver hopper
iv. Mix temperature
v. Location of the section paved
Acceptance control testing for bitumen content and aggregate grading is usually carried out
on samples taken from the site, whereas acceptance control testing for compaction is taken
from the compacted asphalt layer.
During construction, every attempt should be made to meet the compaction density
specifications of asphalt. For dense-graded mixes, the desired as-constructed density is
usually set at between 92% and 94% of the maximum theoretical specific gravity (𝐺𝑚𝑚 ).
Typically, field voids in a well-designed and well-constructed hot-mix asphalt will reduce from
an initial (post-compacted) voids content of around 6% to 8% to the design voids of between
4% and 5% (for a Marshall design voids value of 4.5%) after approximately two years. Mixes
that compact too quickly may be tender during construction and unstable when subjected to
traffic.
Maximum density (refusal density) should also be specified to prevent over-compaction of

asphalt, which may result in bleeding as well as rutting. The maximum density specifications
for Superpave mixes, for example, are set at 98% of 𝐺𝑚𝑚 .
The following should be determined from the trial sections:
i. Optimum asphalt paver settings
ii. Optimum rolling techniques to ensure optimal compaction and achieve compaction
density specifications
iii. Mix properties and fine-tuning of laboratory-based mix design to cater for shifts
between laboratory and construction operations (including the asphalt plant)
iv. A precise recording of the process between laboratory and plant to be used for quality
control
v. Performance-related properties of as-built asphalt. The end product of the construction

process should be a fit-for-purpose asphalt mix of adequate density with not only
adequate frictional resistance and cohesion to resist shear deformation under traffic,
but also of sufficient durability to resist fatigue cracking and moisture-induced damage.
10.5 Acceptance limits

During the asphalt paving, the mix characteristics including grading, binder content, voids and
compaction levels stiffness shall be monitored to ensure that the job specification and
performance-related properties are met. Similar to the trial section, the field mix characteristics
should not differ significantly from the trial mix or certified values. An example of typical
deviation limits with testing frequencies are shown in Table 10-2.
Table 10-2: Permissible deviations from specification values at the paving stage as well as
testing frequency
Permissible deviation from Testing frequency
certified/contractual values
± 0.3% for dense-graded mixes
Binder content ± 0.4% for gap-graded (SMA, porous) 6 per lot **
mixes
Sieve size (mm)
25 ±3.0%
19 ±3.0%
12.5 ±3.0%
9.5 ±3.0%
Grading 4.75 ±3.0%
(percentage
2.36 ±2.0%
passing sieve 6 per lot**
size) 1.18 ±2.0%
0.600 ±2.0%
0.300 ± 2.0%
0.150 ± 2.0%
0.075 ± 0.7%*
1 per lot
Voids Job-mix ± 0.5% 4 per lot**
Compaction density of the paved mix 93% of Gmm ± 1% One day’s work
Layer thickness ± 5mm One day’s work
** A construction lot is a section that is constructed at the same time, of the same materials, and using the same method. It is
considered to be the same for testing purposes. A lot is generally about a day’s work or an element of a structure.
Quality assurance specifications or acceptance limits are typically based on a specific

statistical procedure that is best suited to the conditions of the contract. That procedure usually
employs random sampling. Sampling procedures are detailed in the quality assurance method
statements and can be either contract-specific or refer to national or international standards.
Recommended reading
 “Quality control and acceptance of Superpave-designed hot mix asphalt” accessed at

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_409.pdf
 “Quality control and quality assurance of hot mix asphalt construction in Delaware”
accessed at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/17965/dot_17965_DS1.pdf?
 “Guide to Project Delivery Part 5: Road construction quality assurance” accessed at

https://www.onlinepublications.austroads.com.au/items/AGPD05-18
10.6 Test methods
Table 10-3 presents a list of test methods for evaluation of material properties, mix
characteristics and performance-related parameters. The latest version of a particular test
method is deemed to be the correct one.
Table 10-3: Test methods
Property Test method CML Test method

Los Angeles Abrasion (LAA) ASTM C535/ C131 LTM 2000 (2.9)
10% Fines Value (TFV) BS812:Part 111 LTM 2000 (2.7)
Aggregate crushing value (ACV) BS812:Part 110 LTM 2000 (2.6)
Flat and Elongated particles ASTM D4791 ---
Aggregate impact value (AIV) BS812:Part 112 LTM 2000 (2.8)
Coarse aggregate angularity ASTM D5821 ---
Fine aggregate angularity ASTM C1252 ---
Coarse aggregate bulk specific LTM 2000 (2.2)
gravity, apparent specific gravity and ASTM C127
Aggregate/filler
water absorption
Fine aggregate bulk specific gravity, LTM 2000 (2.2)
apparent specific gravity and water ASTM C128
absorption
Magnesium sulphate or Sodium LTM 2000 (2.10)
ASTM C88
sulphate
Sand equivalent ASTM D2419 ---
Clay lumps and friable particles ASTM C142 ---
Grading ASTM C136 LTM 2000 (1.7)
Binder content Report value LTM 2000 (3.2.2)
Mix Design voids @ Ndesign Report value Report value
characteristics Bulk specific gravity AASHTO T 166 LTM 2000 (3.1.4)
Theoretical max specific gravity AASHTO T 209 LTM 2000 (3.1.3)
Dynamic modulus AASHTO T 378 ---
Fatigue AASHTO T 321 ---
Flow number AASHTO T 378 ---
Mix performance Workability AASHTO PP60 ---
parameters Durability ASTM D4867M ---
ITS ASTM 6931 LTM 2000 (3.2.1)
Water permeability EN 12697 ---
Air permeability BS1377:Part 5:1990 LTM 2000 (1.15)
¹Method for determining permeability of asphalt mixes with interconnecting voids
11. Appendices
Appendix A: Sample preparation and gyratory compaction
Appendix B: Types and functions of bitumen additives /

modifiers
Appendix C: Recommended future development of binder

specification
Appendix D: Overview of the Bailey method for determining

aggregate proportions
Appendix E: Response to the aggregate questionnaire
Appendix A: Sample preparation and gyratory compaction
Preparation of aggregate and binder
Prior to the selection of the design grading, the individual aggregates and the binder must be
selected and approved. Aggregate fractions are selected based on nominal maximum
aggregate size, available materials and the values of specified properties. The selection
should be made in such a manner that the final aggregate blend will likely pass aggregate
requirements. This can be achieved by experienced designers and contractors. A sufficient
amount of the proposed aggregate blend will need to be prepared – firstly to permit 12 asphalt
specimens to be compacted in the gyratory compactor to determine the bulk specific gravity
(Gmb), and secondly to permit eight specimens for determining the maximum theoretical
specific gravity (Gmm) at each of the four binder contents for volumetric analysis.
Steps and guidelines for aggregate sampling and preparation are as follows:
i. Source representative samples of raw aggregate materials from stockpiles, including

filler, as per appropriate sampling procedures (i.e. ASTM D75). Each stockpile usually
contains a given size of an aggregate fraction. A minimum of three fractions are used
to generate a combined grading for the mix
ii. Oven dry aggregates for approximately 16 h (preferably, overnight) in an oven at a

temperature of approximately 110°C to a constant mass. Separate pans should be used
for each aggregate sample.
iii. Prior to batching, conduct wet sieve analysis test LTM 2000 (2.3) / ASTM C117 on
randomly selected bags of samples to check if aggregates are adequately riffled.
Samples for sieve analysis are reduced by (riffling / quartering). Ensure homogeneity
of samples by mixing together, bags of similar aggregate sizes. Determine the specific
gravities and water absorption for each coarse and fine aggregate fraction, as per
Table 4-4, as well as bulk specific gravity of the mineral fillers (BS 812 procedures).
iv. Determine properties of individual aggregate fractions. The recommended test methods
and requirements are presented in Table 4-4.
v. Compute the blend proportion of aggregates required to produce the desired mix
grading, using the full grading for individual aggregate.
vi. Combine the individual aggregate fractions into trial blends of a single grading by using
Equation 6.7. Initial percentages are assumed for each aggregate in the blend and the
resulting grading is calculated and compared to the desired grading.
vii. Calculate the mass of each aggregate fraction required to constitute the mix, and the
mass of each aggregate fraction required per specimen as demonstrated below.
Calculating trial mix batch mass
For volumetric analysis, three specimens 150 mm in diameter by 115 mm high are proposed
for this Guideline. The total mass of material required for a batch should be determined by
following the steps (figure) below:
Breaking down aggregates and calculating aggregate batch masses
Total mass of specimens required Aggregate mass in batch (g) = Bulk SG x Vol. of Specimen (cm 3) x Total no. of specimens
Aggregate Bulk specific Gravity 2.715

Step 1: Determine
Volume of specimen 2032 cm3  Bulk specific gravity
Diameter 150 mm  Diameter and height of mould
Height 115 mm  Number of specimens
Number of specimens 3  % Wastage
% Wastage 20 % Enter data into spreadsheet
% Binder 5 %
Total mass of aggregate required 19863 g

Mass of binder required for one specimen 348 g ( Equation A1)
Aggregate Total mass of

10 - 14 5 - 10 3- 5 0- 3 Plant Filler Lime
fractions aggregate required (g)
Split (%) 20.1 20.1 26.1 30.1 2.1 1.5 100 19863
Sieve (mm) Grading (% Passing)
25 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 100 100 100 100 100 100
12.5 90.4 100 100 100 100 100
9.5 11.1 93.4 100 100 100 100 Step 2a: Determine
4.75 0.4 2.8 86.7 99.7 100 100  Aggregate types
2.36 0.1 0.4 15.1 97.3 100 100  Fraction splits (%)
1.18 0.1 0.2 1.3 68.1 100 100  Grading (% Passing)
0.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 42.1 99.9 100
0.3 0 0 0.1 23.5 99.7 99.9 Enter data into spreadsheet
0.075 0 0 0 6.9 91.4 97.2
Sieve (mm) % retained on sieve

25 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0
12.5 9.6 0 0 0 0 0
9.5 79.3 6.6 0 0 0 0 Step 2b: Determine
4.75 10.7 90.6 13.3 0.3 0 0 % retained on each sieve
2.36 0.3 2.4 71.6 2.4 0 0
1.18 0 0.2 13.8 29.2 0 0 [% Sieve n] - [% Sieve (n-1)]
0.6 0 0.1 1 26 0.1 0
0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 18.6 0.2 0.1
0.075 0 0 0.1 16.6 8.3 2.7
Pan 0 0 0 6.9 91.4 97.2
Mass split of each fraction (g)

Step 2c: Determine
Aggregate
Mass split of each fraction:
Fraction 10 - 14 5 - 10 3- 5 0- 3 Plant Filler Lime Total (g)
Mass (g) 3992 3992 5184 5979 417 298 19863
Split (%) * Total Mass (g)
Mass required for each sieve and fraction (g)

Sieve (mm) 10 - 14 5 - 10 3- 5 0- 3 Plant Filler Lime Total
25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
19 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
12.5 383.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 383.3
9.5 3166.0 263.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3429.5
4.75 427.2 3617.2 689.5 17.9 0.0 0.0 4751.8 Step 3: Complete riffling
2.36 12.0 95.8 3711.9 143.5 0.0 0.0 3963.2 until each mass of each
1.18 0.0 8.0 715.4 1745.8 0.0 0.0 2469.2
0.6 0.0 4.0 51.8 1554.5 0.4 0.0 1610.7
0.3 4.0 4.0 10.4 1112.0 0.8 0.3 1131.5
0.075 0.0 0.0 5.2 992.5 34.6 8.0 1040.3
Pan 0.0 0.0 0.0 412.5 381.2 289.6 1083.4
Total 3992.4 3992.4 5184.2 5978.7 417.1 297.9 19863
Assume a binder content of 5%; the mass of binder required = 0.05 x 19,863 = 993 g.
The quantity of binder required for the specimen may also be calculated as follows:
𝑀𝐴 × 𝑃𝐵 Equation A1
𝑀𝐵 = ( )
100 − 𝑃𝐵
Where
𝑀𝐵 is the mass of binder required for one specimen, expressed in grams (g)
𝑀𝐴 is the mass of aggregate required for one specimen, expressed in grams (g)
𝑃𝐵 is the percentage of binder, expressed as a percentage of total mix
NOTE A1.1: The batching method 3 in MS-2 is recommended for the Interim
Guidelines”Fractionate each aggregate source with a sieve shaker on every specified sieve,
with each aggregate fraction individually batched for each specimen. After shaking, remove
the material from each tray and place in a separate, labelled pan.” Using grading data for four
aggregate fractions (stockpiles) and 11 sieves for instance, will result in 44 pans from which
to batch.
NOTE A1.2: For mix durability, six specimens 150 mm in diameter by 95 mm in height are needed.
NOTE A1.3: For flow number, five specimens 150 mm in diameter by in diameter by 170 mm in height
are needed.
NOTE A1.4: For dynamic modulus, five specimens 150 mm in diameter by in diameter by 170 mm in
height are needed.
NOTE A1.5: For Hamburg rutting, six specimens 150 mm in diameter by in diameter by 65 mm in height
are needed.
NOTE A1.6: Because the use of 150 mm diameter specimens requires very large batch sizes,
laboratory mixing should be done with a large, heavy-duty mechanical mixer. Mixing should be done
quickly and efficiently, so that the materials do not cool significantly before mixing is completed.
Heating and mixing of materials
The following procedure should be followed:
i. For unmodified binders, determine the mixing and compaction temperatures using a
plot of viscosity versus temperature (mixing and compaction temperature
corresponding with binder viscosity of 0.17 ± 0.02 Pa.S and 0.28 ± 0.03, respectively).
When modified binders are used the value of the mixing and compaction temperatures
should be obtained from the supplier.
ii. Place dishes (mixing bowls) containing the aggregates in an oven set approximately
25°C above the required mixing temperature. Two to four hours are required for the
aggregates to reach the mixing temperature, heat all mixing apparatus.
iii. Heat the binder (unmodified) to the desired mixing temperature for 3 to 5 h. Do not use
hotplate to heat the binder, and avoid reheating of the binder. Heat modified binder as
per Asphalt Academy Technical Guideline 1: The use of Modified Bituminous Binders
in Road Construction, 2001, South Africa”) or any applicable test method.
iv. When the aggregates and binder have reached the mixing temperature, place the
mixing bowl on the scale and zero the scale.
v. Form a “crater” in the blended aggregate and add the required amount of binder into
the mixture to achieve the desired mass of a batch /specimen. Add the mineral filler, if
it is required by the design, at this stage.
vi. Mix the binder and aggregate using the mechanical mixer until the aggregate is
thoroughly coated sunning a minimum of 5 minutes mixing time.
Ageing of samples
 Age the mix at the compaction temperature before compaction takes place.
 Place the asphalt mix in a flat shallow pan at an even thickness (25 to 50 mm), and place
the pan in the forced draft oven at compaction temperature.
 Age mix design samples for 2 h ± 5 min in accordance with the short-term oven ageing
procedure in AASHTO R 30. Samples for mix performance property testing are to be aged
for 4 h ± 5 min before compaction.
Production of the gyratory specimens
The following guidelines are used to compact specimens:
i. Set up the gyratory compactor while the asphalt mixture is short term ageing. This
includes verification of compaction stress, making sure the angle and number of
gyrations are set to their required values, and software is functioning.
ii. Before compaction of the first specimen place the compaction mould and base plate,
wide-mouth funnel, and spatula in the oven set at the compaction temperature.
iii. Remove the mixture from the oven after short term ageing.
iv. Measure the temperature of the mix to ensure that it is within the compaction
temperature.
v. Set the gyratory compactor (software) to a vertical stress of 600 kPa.
vi. Select total gyrations to termination in the software and input the required value as per
Table 6-1 when compacting specimens for mix design. For performance testing, put
the desired height of specimen into the software.
vii. Set the angle of gyration at 1.25°.
viii. Remove the mould and base plate from the oven and wipe the inside lightly with a damp
rag moistened with releasing agent.
ix. Place the base plate in the mould and place a paper disk on top of the base plate.
x. Mix the entire aged asphalt mixture to be compacted with a heated spoon and then
carefully put the sample in the wide-mouthed funnel.
xi. Place the loose asphalt mixture (aged sample) in the mould in a single lift, the top of
the sample should be slightly rounded.
xii. Place a paper disk on top of the mixture.
xiii. Compact samples in accordance with AASHTO T312 / AASHTO PP60.
xiv. When the specified number of gyrations (or height) has been reached, the gyratory
compactor automatically stops, angle and stress are released and the loading ram will
be raised.
xv. Remove the mould containing compacted specimen.
xvi. Cool the mould for a suitable period of 5 to 10 min to facilitate specimen removal without
undue distortion.
xvii. Extrude the specimen from the mould using appropriate equipment.
xviii. Remove the paper disk from top and bottom of the specimen and allow the specimen
to cool undisturbed.
xix. Identify specimen with a suitable marker.
xx. Allow specimens to sit at room temperature overnight before further testing (i.e. bulk
density, performance property testing, etc.).
Calculating the adjustment of the specimen mass
If the gyratory specimen does not compact to the specified height, then use the following
equation to correct the amount of material to put in the mould.
𝒉𝑨 × 𝑴𝟏 Equation A2
𝑴𝑨𝑫𝑱 = ( )
𝒉𝑩
Where
𝑀𝐴𝐷𝐽 is the adjusted mass of material for the next specimen, expressed in grams (g)
ℎ𝐴 is the required height of the specimen, mm
𝑀1 is the mass of the compacted specimen, g
ℎ𝐵 Is the specimen height obtained, mm
Changes in specimen density
Results of height measurements taken during compaction are used to calculate changes in
specimen density expressed as a percent of the maximum theoretical specific gravity (𝐺𝑚𝑚 %).
A plot is usually made of the percent 𝐺𝑚𝑚 versus the log of number of gyrations.
At the completion of the specific gravity, determine the percent compaction (%𝑮𝒎𝒎 ) at any
point in the compaction process as follows:
𝑮𝒎𝒃 × 𝒉𝒎 Equation A3
% 𝑮𝒎𝒎 = ( ) × 𝟏𝟎𝟎
𝑮𝒎𝒎 × 𝒉𝒙
Where
% 𝑮𝒎𝒎 is corrected relative density expressed as a percentage of the maximum theoretical

specific gravity
𝑮𝒎𝒃 is bulk specific gravity of the extruded specimen
𝑮𝒎𝒎 is the maximum theoretical specific gravity of the mix
ℎ𝑚 is height in millimetres of the extruded specimen
ℎ𝑥 is height in millimetres of the specimen after "x" gyrations
Appendix B: Types and functions of bitumen additives /
modifiers
Types Function Generic examples
Fillers  Supplement aggregate fraction in  Mineral fillers (crusher fines, lime,
mastic Portland cement, fly ash)
 Carbon black
Fibres  Improve the tensile strength and  Natural: asbestos
cohesion in hot mix asphalt  Man-made: polypropylene, polyester,
 Allow higher binder content with fiberglass, mineral, cellulose
reduced risk of draindown in open-
graded asphalt and SMA
 Improve durability through increased
binder film thickness
Extenders  Substitute a portion of bitumen to  Sulphur
decrease the amount of bitumen  Lignin
and/or polymer required
 Improve the storage stability of SBS-
modified binders
Polymers  Improve resistance to rutting  Thermoplastic: Polyethylene (PE),
(plastomer) or fatigue (elastomer) Polypropylene (PP), Ethyl-vinyl-acetate
(EVA)
 Thermosetting: Epoxy
 Elastomer: Natural latex, synthetic latex
(SBR), block copolymer (Styrene-
butadiene-styrene, SBS; Styrene-
isoprene-styrene, SIS), reclaimed
rubber (crumb rubber modifier)
Hydrocarbons  Extend the plasticity range of  Recycling and rejuvenating oils
bitumen  Hard and natural bitumen: Gilsonite,
Trinidad Lake Asphalt (TLA)
 Long-chain hydrocarbons: i.e. high
molecular weight wax produced in the
Fischer-Tropsch synthesis process,
known as FT wax
Surface-active  Reduce stripping of binder from  Emulsifiers
agents aggregate  Anti-stripping agents: Amines, lime
Waste material  Reduce costs  Roofing shingles
 Recycling tyres
 Glass
Miscellaneous  Increase the durability of HMA by  Oxidants (manganese salts)
retarding oxidation  Antioxidant (lead compounds, carbon,
calcium salts)
 Silicones
Fuel resistance  Improve the resistance of the HMA  FT Wax
to fuel spillages  Selected grades of EVA
Cut-backs  Cut back penetration grade bitumen  Power paraffin
for constructing surfacing seals and
widen the window of acceptable
binder viscosity
Appendix C: Recommended future development of binder
specification
MSCR test for prediction of permanent deformation
Since it’s unveiling in 1992, the AASHTO Superpave specification M-320 has become the
most widely used asphalt binder specification in the USA (D’Angelo, 2010). The initial
specification limits were based on validation studies carried out primarily on neat (unmodified)
binders, but the specification was assumed to be equally applicable to modified binders. After
almost thirty years of experience this initial assumption has proven to be incorrect. As such,
many highway agencies have been forced to prescribe specification tests for modified binders,
which were in addition to the existing AASHTO M-320. Collectively, these modified binder
specification tests became known as the Superpave Plus (or SHRP+) tests. These Superpave
Plus tests are listed in Table C1:
Table C1 List of Superpave plus tests

Test Test Method Description of Property Measured
Measuring the recovery of a length of binder
Elastic Recovery (ER) AASHTO T301 extended to a pre-determined length. The test is
performed at 25˚C.
Typically the test is performed at 4˚C at a
deformation rate of 5 cm / min. A load cell measures
Forced Ductility (FD) AASHTO T300 the force required to maintain the fixed deformation
rate. The output is used to construct a stress-strain
curve.
Toughness is defined as the work required
to separate a tension head from a sample of asphalt
Toughness and
ASTM D5801 binder at a specified set of test conditions. Tenacity
Tenacity (TT)
is defined as the work required to stretch the
material after the initial resistance is overcome.
In the past 30 years, the use of modifiers has increased significantly in the USA. Modification
of asphalt binders can serve several purposes. It can enhance the overall performance of a
binder by widening the range between the binder’s high- and low-temperature grades, or it
can target a specific improvement in a binder’s performance in response to a particular severe-
service condition, such as a pavement carrying a very high traffic volume or a high percentage
of slow-moving, heavy vehicles. Many diverse materials are added to neat bitumen as
modifiers:
 The elastomers styrene-butadiene rubber and styrene-butadiene-styrene block copolymer

are widely used.
 Plastomers such as polyethylene and ethylene vinyl acetate
 Crumb rubber prepared from scrap tyres
 Miscellaneous additives including hydrated lime, elemental sulphur and gilsonite
A major drawback of the use of Superpave Plus tests is that they do not relate to performance,
but at most, in some instances, only indicate the presence of a particular modifier in the binder
(D’Angelo J., 2010). Furthermore, with ‘bumping’ a grade or two with higher traffic levels or
slower speeds, the binder would be tested at 6˚C or 12˚C higher than the specific pavement
temperature under which performance is expected. Modified binders at such higher
temperatures are very stress sensitive and not likely to be much stiffer than a unmodified
binder (D’Angelo, 2010; Zoorob, et al., 2010). The principle for time-temperature super-
positioning does in general not hold for polymer modified binders, meaning that testing at
higher temperatures lead to results that will not correlate with performance.
In response, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored a study into the
development of a PG binder test that is both performance-based and blind to modification type
(applying equally to modified and neat binders). The result was the Multistress Creep and
Recovery (MSCR) test, developed as a possible replacement for the current AASHTO M-320
high-temperature (G*/Sin δ) binder test after the rolling thin film oven test (RTFOT). The MSCR
test is determined using the same DSR equipment required for the current Superpave PG
specification.
The MSCR test has been circumscribed in test method ASTM D7405. The test uses 1-s creep
loading with a 9-s recovery period over the multiple stress levels of 0.025, 0.050, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4,
0.8, 1.6, 3.2, 6.4, 12.8, and 25.6 kPa at 10 cycles for each stress level, starting at the lowest
stress level. The test is illustrated for three cycles at a particular stress level in Figure C1.
Figure C1: Illustration of three cycle of the MSCR test at a particular stress level.
The average non-recovered strain for the 10 creep and recovery cycles at a particular stress
level is then divided by the applied stress for those cycles, yielding the non-recoverable
compliance Jnr.
𝑱𝒏𝒓 = 𝐚𝐯𝐠. 𝐕𝐮 / 𝐓 Equation C1
where γu = unrecovered strain from the end of the 9-s recovery portion of the creep and
recovery test, τ = shear stress applied during the 1-s creep portion of the creep and recovery
test.
The standard RTFOT environmental parameter in the existing PG binder specification, |G*|/sin
of 2.2 kPa, has been shown to be equivalent to an average MSCR Jnr value of 4.0 kPa-1 at a
stress level of 3.2 kPa (D’Angelo, 2010). As the level of polymer modification increases, and
strain recovery increases, so the value of Jnr decreases and the resistance to deformation
increases. The value of Jnr is also affected by the type of modifier, with modifiers with greater
networking and cross-linking (e.g. radial SBS vs linear SBS) giving lower values of Jnr.
Multiple binders both neat and polymer-modified were evaluated in the development of the
MSCR test (D’Angelo, 2010). Validation of the MSCR property, Jnr, as performance indicator
was done using the Hamburg Rut Test (Reinke, 2010; Marasteanu et al., 1999), resulting in a
new specification which has replaced the RTFOT |G*|/sinδ (Table 3-4). This new specification
is laid down in AASHTO M332 and is currently in the process of adoption in South Africa.
Binder fatigue properties
Studies have shown that the current PG property for predicting binder fatigue performance,
G*Sinδ is not sufficiently accurate as a result of its reliance on measurements within the linear
viscoelastic (LVE) range of non-damaged specimens. (Anderson et al., 1993; Marasteanu et
al., 1999). Consequently, poor correlation between the linear viscoelastic G*sinδ and HMA
fatigue performance has been reported (Tsai et al., 2005; Stuart et al., 2002).
Currently, a number of improved fatigue indicators are being investigated in the USA as well
as South Africa. These include:
 The master curve R-value
 Tc is nowadays used to check the intermediate temperature cracking and it is likely that
this will be specified by agencies in the USA.
 The Glover-Rowe (G-R) parameter from the binder master curve after PAV ageing
Rotational viscosity
Currently, the Superpave PG specification requires that the rotational viscosity be tested at
135°C and specifies a maximum value of 3.0 Pa.s. In the case of modified binders, this limit
is often exceeded, with the end result that this specification limit is often ignored.
Bituminous binder, especially modified binders, are not Newtonian fluids at high temperature
and often they are shear-thinning. As a result, South Africa has specified that a test
temperature of 165°C must be used to minimise the effect of shear rate. Furthermore, South
Africa has specified that the calculated shear rate of the rotational viscometer must be equal
or greater than 30 s-1, and that the specification limit should be 0.9 Pa.s @ 165°C.
References
AASHTO M 320, Standard Specification for Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder, AASHTO,

Washington DC, USA
Anderson D. A., and Kennedy, T. W. 1993. Development of SHRP binder specification.

Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technology, Vol. 62, 481-507, pp. 1–6.
ASTM D7405, Standard Test Method for Multiple Stress Creep and Recovery (MSCR) of
Asphalt Binder Using a Dynamic Shear Rheometer, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2015, www.astm.org
D’Angelo, J. 2010. New high-temperature binder specification using multistress creep and
recovery, development in asphalt binder specifications, Transportation Research Circular,
Number E-C147, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., USA.
Marasteanu, M. O., and Anderson, D. A. 1999. Improved model for bitumen rheological
characterization. Presented at Eurobitume Workshop, Luxembourg, May 3–6, 1999.
Reinke, G. 2010. Use of Hamburg rut testing data to validate the use of Jnr as a performance
parameter for high-temperature permanent deformation, Development in Asphalt Binder
Specifications, Transportation Research Circular, Number E-C147, Transportation Research
Board. Washington.
Stuart, K. D., and Mogawer, W. S. 2002. Validation of the SUPERPAVE asphalt binder fatigue
cracking parameter using the fhwa’s accelerated loading facility. Journal of the Association of
Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 71, pp. 116–146.
Tsai, B.W., Monismith, C. L., Dunning, M. Gibson, N. D’Angelo, J., Leahy, R., King, G.
Christensen, D., Anderson, D., Davis, R., and Jones, D. 2005. Influence of asphalt binder
properties on the fatigue performance of asphalt concrete pavements. Journal of the
Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 74, pp. 733–789.
Zoorob, S.E., Mturi, G. A. J., and O’Connell, J. 2010. Challenges in rheological

characterisation of road bitumens. SASOR 2010 Conference Proceedings, South Africa.
Appendix D: Overview – Bailey method for determining
aggregate proportions1
Introduction
The Bailey method provides valuable guidance in determining the proportioning of asphalt
mixes for a wide range of applications and instil an enhanced understanding of aggregate
packing configurations that are not possible by assessing particle size distributions only.
Designers should note that requirements provided in this document is based on aggregates
in the USA. Therefore, the application of this method in in the country should be approached
with some caution and should preferably be validated for aggregates in the country.
Aggregate grading
The Bailey method may be used to evaluate three types of asphalt mixes (fine-graded, coarse-
graded and SMA).
Definitions
 Coarse aggregates – particles that when placed in a unit volume creates voids.
 Fine aggregates – particles that can fill the voids created by the coarse aggregate in the
mix
 Half sieve – the closest sieve to one half the NMAS.
 Primary control sieve (PCS) – the sieve that controls the designation between coarse and
fine aggregates. PCS is the closest sieve to 22 percent of the nominal maximum particle
size (Equation 1).
 Secondary control sieve (SCS) – the closest sieve to 22 percent of the primary control
sieve size.
 Tertiary control sieve (TCS) –the closest sieve to 22 percent of the secondary control
sieve.
𝑃𝐶𝑆 = 0.22 × 𝑁𝑀𝐴𝑆 (Equation D1)
The 22 percent used to determine the Bailey control sieves is determined from the estimation
of void size created by the four aggregate shape combinations.
Unit weight of aggregates
Unit weight is the traditional terminology used to describe the property determined in the Bailey
method, which is weight per unit volume (mass per unit volume or density). Table D1 shows
unit weights and test methods used in the Bailey concepts. Table D2 presents recommended
1 Source Anochie-Boateng et al 2016 /Sabita Manual 35
chosen unit weights of mix types, whereas the characteristics of the various mix types are
presented in Table D4.
Table D1: Bailey unit weights and test methods
Unit weight Characteristics Test method Criteria

 No compactive effort VLUW : 43% – 48%1
 Start of particle-to-particle
Loose unit
contact AASHTO T19
weight (LUW)  G  LUW 
 Determine LUW (kg/m³) VLUW  100   sb 
 Determine volume of voids  Gsb 
 Requires compactive effort
o Three layers VRUW 2: 37% – 43%
o Rodded 25 times each
Rodded unit
 Increased particle-to-particle AASHTO T19  G  RUW 
weight (RUW) VRUW  100   sb
contact 
 Gsb 
 Determine RUW (kg/m³)
 Determine volume of voids
 Value that the designer selects
based on the desired interlock
of coarse aggregate
 The designer must decide the
Chosen unit
desired mix type; fine-graded,
weight (CUW) N/A Table D2
coarse-graded or a stone
(Table D2)
mastic mix
 After the mix type is selected,
the percent chosen unit weight
can be selected
1:V
LUW = Loose unit weight voids; Gsb = Bulk specific gravity of aggregate;
2V
RUW = Rodded unit weight voids
Table D2: Recommended chosen unit weights
Mix type Unit weight CUW %

Fine-graded CA LUW < 90
Coarse-graded CA LUW 95 to 105
SMA CA RUW 110 to 125
CA = Coarse aggregate.
Note D1: The term unit weight is used in the reference material for the Bailey method, although the
value is actually density since the units are kilograms per cubic meter. The common term of unit weight
is used throughout the text to comply with the convention.
Loose and rodded unit weight voids
The loose unit weight voids is derived from the loose unit weight, and the bulk specific gravity
of the coarse aggregate as presented in Equation D2. Similarly, the rodded unit weight voids
is derived from the rodded unit weight, and the bulk specific gravity of the coarse aggregate
as presented in Equation D3.
Typical ranges of voids are presented in Table D3.
 G  LUW 
VLUW  100   sb  (Equation D2)
 Gsb 
 G  RUW 
VRUW  100   sb  (Equation D3)
 Gsb 
where:
𝑉𝐿𝑈𝑊 = Loose unit weight voids
𝑉𝑅𝑈𝑊 = Rodded unit weight voids
LUW = Loose unit weight
RUW = Rodded unit weight
Gsb = Bulk specific gravity of aggregate
Table D3: Recommended unit weight voids
Aggregate fraction LUW voids range RUW voids range

Fine-aggregates 35% - 43% 28% - 36%
Coarse-aggregates 43% - 49% 37% - 43%
Table D4: Characteristics of the mix types
Mix type Characteristics

 Coarse aggregate volume < LUW
Fine-graded  Little to no particle-to-particle contact of coarse aggregate
 Fine fraction carries most of the load
 Coarse aggregate volume ≈ LUW (95 – 105)
Coarse-graded  Some particle-to-particle contact of coarse aggregate
 Coarse and fine fractions carry load
 Coarse aggregate volume ≫ LUW
SMA  Coarse fractions carries load
 Remaining voids filled with mastic
Aggregate packing analysis
The design and analysis of an aggregate blend is built on three important ratios:
1. Coarse aggregate (CA) ratio – describes grading of the coarse aggregate; how the coarse
aggregate particles pack together and, consequently, how these particles compact the fine
aggregate portion of the aggregate blend that fills the voids created by the coarse
aggregate.
2. FAc ratio– describes the grading of the coarse portion of the fine aggregate; how the coarse
portion of the fine aggregate packs together and, consequently, how these particles
compact the material that fills the voids it creates.
3. FAf ratio– describes the grading of the fine portion of the fine aggregate; how the fine
portion of the fine aggregate packs together. It also influences the voids that will remain in
the overall fine aggregate portion of the blend because it represents the particles that fill
the smallest voids created.
Percentage passing half sieve  Percentage passing PCS
CA ratio  (Equation D4)
100  Percentage passing half sieve
Percent agepassing SCS
FAc ratio  (Equation D5)
Percent agepassing PCS
Percentage passingTCS
FA f ratio  (Equation D6)
Percentage passingSCS
Tables D5 to D7 show the control sieves and recommended aggregate ratios for fine-graded,
coarse graded and SMA mixes.
Table D5: Control sieves for fine-graded mixes

NMPS Original PCS New Half New New New
(mm) (New NMPS) sieve PCS SCS TCS
37,5 9.5 4.75 2.36 0.6 0.15
25 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.3 0.075
19 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.3 0.075
12.5 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.15 --¹
9.5 2.36 1.18 0.6 0.15 --¹
4.75 1.18 0.6 0.3 0.075 --¹
¹Sieve sizes too small for values to be determined.
Table D6: Control sieves for coarse-graded mixes
(NMPS, mm) Half sieve PCS SCS TCS

37,5 19 9.5 4.75 2.36
25 12.5 4.75 2.36 1.18
19 9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18
12.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.3
9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.3
Table D7: Control sieves for SMA mixes
(NMPS, mm) Half sieve PCS SCS TCS

19 9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18
12.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.3
9.5 4.75 2.36 1.18 0.3
Note D2: PCS, SCS and TCS constitute the control sieves when using the Bailey concepts, similar to
the conventional way of aggregate blending in which the NMAS, 2.36 mm, and 0,075 mm sizes for
instance, are critical sieves for control (target) points.
Table D8: Recommended ranges for aggregate ratios in fine and coarse mixes¹
Coarse and fine -graded
NMPS (mm) CA (coarse-graded) CA (fine-graded) FA FA
c f
37,5 0.80–0.95
25 0.70-0.85
0.60-1.00 0.35–0.50 0.35–0.50
19 0.60-0.75
12.5 0.50-0.65
9.5 0.40-0.55
4.75 0.30-0.45
¹These ranges provide a starting point where no prior experience exists for a given set of aggregates. If the designer
has acceptable existing designs, they should be evaluated to determine a narrower range to target for future
designs.
Table D9: Recommended ranges for aggregate ratios in SMA mixes
NMPS (mm) CA FA FA
c f
19 0.35-0.50 0.60-0.85 0.65-0.90
12.5 0.25-0.40 0.60-0.85 0.60-0.85
9.5 0.15-0.30 0.60-0.85 0.60-0.85
Effects of aggregate ratios on VMA
Table D8 and Table D9 present the recommended aggregate ratios for different NMPS. The
effect of aggregate ratios on the VMA is dependent on whether the aggregate blend is
considered fine or coarse by Bailey definition.
Table D10 shows the general effect on the VMA based on changes in the aggregate ratios.
Also, the change in value of the Bailey parameters resulting in a 1% change in VMA is shown
Table D11.
Table D10: Effect on VMA – Increasing aggregate ratios
Fine-graded Coarse-graded SMA

CA increase increase increase
FAc decrease decrease decrease
FAf decrease decrease decrease
Table D11: Change in value of Bailey parameters to produce 1% change in VMA

Fine-graded Coarse-graded
CA 0.35 0.20
FAc 0.05 0.05
FAf 0.05 0.05
Note D3: Bailey ratios are calculated based on aggregate grading. The effect of change in grading on
VMA is similar to the effect of change in the Bailey aggregate ratios on VMA.
Note D4: Changes in the new ratios for fine-graded mixes create similar results in regards to the VMA.
Procedure to blend aggregates
The designer needs the following information:

 Grading and the bulk density of aggregate fractions and,
 Loose and rodded unit weights .
The designer should also decide on the following for the individual aggregate fractions:
 Chosen unit weight as a percentage of the loose unit weight;
 Desired percent passing 0,075 mm sieve;
 Blend by volume of coarse aggregates, and
 Blend by volume of fine aggregates.
Steps for blending aggregates using the Bailey method:
1. Conduct three laboratory tests on all aggregate fractions; (a) grading (b) BRD of
aggregates, and (c) Unit weights - LUW, RUW.
2. For aggregates designed to obtain fine-graded mixes, select CUW (%) based on coarse
aggregate LUW (Table 2). On the other hand for aggregates designed to obtain SMA
mixes the CUW is based on coarse aggregate RUW.
3. Determine the unit weight (LUW or RUW) contributed by each coarse aggregate according
to the desired proportions (by volume) of coarse aggregate (contribution = percent coarse
aggregate x chosen unit weight).
4. Determine the voids in each coarse aggregate according to its corresponding CUW and
contribution by volume. Then sum the voids contributed by each coarse aggregate.
5. Determine the unit weight (LUW or RUW) contributed by each fine aggregate according to
the desired proportions (by volume) of fine aggregate.
6. Determine the voids in each fine aggregate according to its corresponding CUW and
contribution by volume. Then sum the voids contributed by each fine aggregate.
7. Determine the chosen unit weight for the total aggregate blend (contributions of coarse
and fine fractions, % by volume).
8. Determine the initial blend percentage by weight of each aggregate. Divide the unit weight
of each aggregate fraction by the unit weight of the total aggregate blend.
9. Determine the amount of material passing 0,075 mm sieve contributed by each aggregate
fraction.
10. Determine the amount of filler required, if any, to bring the percent passing the 0,075 mm
sieve to the desired level.
11. Once the desired amount of material passing 0,075 mm sieve is achieved, adjust the final
blend percentages (by volume) of fine aggregate fractions. In this step the blend
percentage of coarse aggregate is not changed.
12. The final blending percentages (by mass) and aggregate ratios are determined and
checked against Bailey requirements.
Appendix E: Responses to aggregate questionnaire
Responses to questionnaire to determine current practices and challenges
associated with the selection of aggregate for hot-mix asphalt production in the
country
Response 1: Results of 14 respondents from various institutions or organisations who

participated in the interview /questionnaire are presented below.
TANROADS/CML Head Quarters 14%

TANROADS Regional Office 36%
Local Government Road Authority 0%
Contractor 14%
Consultant 0%
Response 2: Results of 14 respondents who indicated the sources of aggregates for use in
hot-mix asphalt design in the country are presented below.
Private/commercial quarries 50%

Quarries established by contractors for a specific project 100%
Quarries established by national and local road authorities 7%
Quarries established by other government institutions 0%
Response 3: Results of 14 respondents who were asked to indicate aggregate properties or

characteristics considered to be important or not important for aggregate selection during
asphalt mix design for high-volume roads are presented below.
Properties/characteristics Important Not important Unfamiliar

Grading 100% --- ---
Flat & elongated particles ratio 100% --- ---
Coarse aggregate angularity 79% 7% 14%
Fine aggregate angularity 79% 7% 14%
Specific gravity of aggregates 93% --- 7%
Water absorption of aggregates 93% --- 7%
Magnesium sulphate or Sodium sulphate 72% 14% 14%
Methylene blue adsorption indicator 7% 14% 79%
Sand equivalent 86% --- 14%
Clay content 79% 7% 14%
Aggregate impact value 43% 36% 21%
Aggregate crushing value 72% 21% 7%
10% fines aggregate crushing value 100% --- ---
Polished stone value 14% 7% 79%
Los Angeles Abrasion 64% 29% 7%
Coarse aggregate loose unit weight 29% --- 71%
Fine aggregate rodded unit weight 29% --- 71%
Petrographic examination 7% 14% 79%
Response 4: Results of 14 respondents who were asked to indicate at what stage various
aggregates properties or characteristics should be determined are presented below.
At the During mix During

Properties/characteristics
quarry design construction
Aggregate grading 64% 100% 100%
Flat & elongated particles ratio 50% 100% 72%
Coarse aggregate angularity 21% 64% 14%
Fine aggregate angularity 14% 64% 14%
Specific gravity of aggregates 43% 100% 50%
Water absorption of aggregates 29% 93% 43%
Magnesium sulphate or Sodium sulphate 29% 79% 7%
Methylene blue adsorption indicator 7% 14% ---
Sand equivalent 7% 79% ---
Clay content NR 57% ---
Aggregate impact value 43% 36% ---
Aggregate crushing value 50% 64% 29%
10% fines aggregate crushing value 50% 93% 50%
Polished stone value 7% 7% ---
Los Angeles abrasion 14% 72% 21%
Coarse aggregate loose unit weight --- 21% ---
Fine aggregate rodded unit weight --- 21% ---
Petrographic examination --- 7% ---
Response 5: The following results were obtained based on the opinion of the 14 respondents
about the quality of aggregates typically used in asphalt production in the country.
Aggregate quality
Property
Very good Good Fair Poor Very poor
Toughness (i.e. aggregate crushing
value and 10% fines aggregate crushing 21% 72% 7% 0% 0%
value)
Particle shape (i.e. flat & elongated
particles ratio and coarse aggregate 7% 72% 21% 0% 0%
angularity)
Durability and soundness (i.e.
Magnesium sulphate or Sodium 14% 57% 29% 0% 0%
sulphate)
Affinity to bitumen binder 64% 29% 7% 0% 0%

Tanzania's Interim Guidelines for Hot-Mix Asphalt Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tanzania's Interim Guidelines for Hot-Mix Asphalt Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

MINISTRY OF WORKS, TRANSPORT AND

Interim Guidelines for

This Guidelines document is based largely on a project commissioned by the Tanzania

Dr Joseph Anochie-Boateng – Project Team Leader and Principal Author

Johan O’Connell – Author

Julius Komba – Author

Dr Martin Mgangira (Technical reviewer and contributing author)

Benoit Verhaeghe (Technical reviewer)

Technicians from the CSIR’s Advanced Pavement Materials Lab

Eng. Mussa O. Mataka – Head of Materials and Research

Eng. John T. Malisa – Author

Technicians from CML

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... iii

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... ix

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... x

List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ xii

Description of Terminology............................................................................................. xiv

1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background .............................................................................................................1-1

2. Asphalt Mix Types and Selection ........................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................2-1

3. Selection of Bituminous Binders ........................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................3-1

4. Selection of Aggregate Materials ........................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................4-1

5. Asphalt Mix Design .............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................5-1

6. Design of Dense-Graded Mix ............................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................6-1

7. Design of Stone Mastic Asphalt Mix ................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................7-1

8. Design of Porous Asphalt Mix ............................................................................. 8-1

8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................8-1

9. Asphalt Production and Construction ................................................................ 9-1

9.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................9-1

10. Quality Control /Quality Assurance................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................10-1

11. Appendices ......................................................................................................... 11-1

Appendix A: Sample preparation and gyratory compaction ........................................11-2

 The increase in volumes of heavy truck traffic on roads and highways

 Premature failures on asphalt concrete pavements with high volumes of traffic

1.2 Current mix design in Tanzania

1. Standard Specifications for Road Works (SSRW, 2000)

2. Pavement and Materials Design Manual (PMDM, 1999)

3. Laboratory Testing Manual (LTM, 2000)

4. Field Testing Manual (FTM, 2003)

iv. It is suggested in these documents that historical good-performing modified binders

1.3 Views on mix design in Tanzania

The following issues related to HMA design were raised:

1.4 Recent trends in asphalt mix design

The intention of these specifications is to describe the performance requirements, without

 a performance-based grading system for bituminous binders,

 aggregate grading requirements, and

 mix design procedures and test methods.

In Europe, performance testing is also becoming dominant. Notable contributions to the

1.5 Purpose of the design guidelines

Specifically, these design guidelines are intended to

v. introduce step-by-step guidance for performance-related testing.

1.6 Scope and structure

1. Sample preparation and gyratory compaction

Figure 1-1: Outline of the interim design guidelines