Construction and Building Materials 261 (2020) 119941

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Rutting performance of asphalt mixtures with gradations designed using

Bailey and conventional Superpave methods
Khalid A. Ghuzlan a,⇑, Bara’ W. Al-Mistarehi b, Ahmed S. Al-Momani b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Ajman University, Ajman, UAE (on leave from Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan)
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan

h i g h l i g h t s

The effect of using Bailey method of gradation on the rutting performance of HMA was evaluated (using Flow Number test).

Comparison between Bailey and Superpave gradations was performed by the means of rutting performance.

Four aggregate gradations, and two gradation methods were used in this research.

Results showed that rutting performance is strongly affected by aggregate gradation.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research was conducted to study the possibility of using Bailey method of aggregate gradation in
Received 29 November 2019 designing Superpave HMA mixtures, and study its effect on rutting performance of these mixtures, and
Received in revised form 20 May 2020 comparing it with rutting performance for asphalt mixtures produced using Superpave gradations.
Accepted 10 June 2020
Four aggregate gradations were used in this research including coarse and fine gradations for
Superpave and Bailey methods of gradation. Rutting performance was evaluated using the Simple
Performance Tester (SPT). Results showed that rutting performance is strongly affected by aggregate gra-
Keywords:
dation; finer mixtures give higher flow number, which means less rutting susceptibility and higher rut-
Rutting
Bailey Method
ting resistant pavement.
Superpave Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Flow Number
Asphalt Pavements

1. Introduction Program. The Superpave system includes a method for specifying

Flexible pavement is the most commonly used type of pave-
ment. Usually the cross sectional area of conventional flexible
pavements consist of surface course at the top followed by aggre-
gate layers on the top of natural subgrade. The asphalt pavement
surface course consists of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA). The HMA layer
varies in thickness based on the design life of the pavement, traffic
loading and the properties of its components [1].
Different types of flexible pavement surface course are used to
suit different situations. The dense-graded asphalt course is the
most common type that can be produced by following three mix
design procedures: Hveem, Marshall and Superpave.
Superior performing asphalt pavements or Superpave system
was developed during the period 1987–1992 as a part of the SHRP
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: k.ghuzlan@ajman.ac.ae (K.A. Ghuzlan), bwmistarehi@just.edu.
jo (B.W. Al-Mistarehi), asalmomani155@eng.just.edu.jo (A.S. Al-Momani).
selection of asphalt binders and aggregates, classification system
for asphalt binders, asphalt mixture design procedure, and a proce-
dure for analyzing and predicting pavement performance. A major
difference between the Superpave mix design and other design
methods such as the Marshal and Hveem methods is that the
Superpave mix design method mainly uses performance-based test
methods that correlate laboratory test results with field
performance.
Rutting of flexible pavement has been recognized as a primary
cause of pavement damage and a main design consideration. It
has become a major concern for highway engineers due to the
development in the trucks load carrying capabilities and the asso-
ciated increase in the wheel load and tire pressure on the pave-
ment surface, which has led to aggravate the problem. Rutting is
defined by a depression that appears on the pavement surface
along the wheel path under traffic loading refers to an accumula-
tion in irrecoverable strains from repeated load cycles. Rutting
can be hazardous as ruts filled with water can cause vehicle

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119941
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 K.A. Ghuzlan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 261 (2020) 119941
hydroplaning (vehicles can completely lose contact with the road,
causing immediate danger of sliding out of lane). Two types of rut-
ting are generally known; subgrade rutting and hot mix asphalt
rutting [2].
Subgrade rutting is mainly caused by repeated loads on layers
below the asphalt layer as a result of a structural problem (thin
asphalt pavement) rather than a material problem. On the other
hand, HMA rutting is caused by deformations that cannot be recov-
ered within the asphalt layer when the subgrade does not rut yet
as a result of compaction/mix design problems. This research
focused on the second type of rutting (HMA rutting). This type of
rutting is related to a mixture subjected to repeated heavy loads
at high temperatures [2]. Summary of detailed literature survey
regarding the value of the Bailey method is shown in Table 1.
The main aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of using Bai-
ley method of gradation on the rutting performance of HMA (using
the Flow Number test), and to compare between Bailey and Super-
pave gradations by the means of rutting performance.
2. Aggregate gradation
2.1. Introduction
Aggregate gradation is a key factor in the rutting performance of
HMA mixtures. A strong skeleton pavement used to resist the
application of repeated load, the strong skeleton ensured by a per-
fect packing of aggregate particles. Traditionally, selecting an
appropriate gradation of aggregates for designing asphalt mixtures
was obtained using trial and error procedure. Packing of particles
have been examined by many researchers, they studied the maxi-
mum unit weight and density of particles with a single size and
correlated the aggregate gradation with the maximum density.
They found that a good performance of pavement obtained by
maintaining good gradation for an asphalt mixture with a maxi-
mum density in particles packing, this increases the stability of
asphalt pavement by increasing the points of contact between
coarse and fine particles and reducing air voids.
Fuller and Thompson [16], studied the basic fuller curve defin-
ing the maximum density line using the following formula:
n rutting resistance, and Bailey method of
P ¼ 100ðd=DÞ
where P is the percent passing a sieve with an opening size d; D is
the maximum particle diameter; and n is a parameter based on the
gradation fineness or coarseness.
Nijboer [17] Studied the effect of size and shape of particles in
asphalt mixtures the maximum density line with typical stone par-
ticles has an approximate slope of 0.45 (n = 0.45 in Eq. (1) above) and
it was refined by Goode and Lufsey [18]. Control points and grada-
tion requirements for the Superpave systems were established by
Huber and Schuler [19] by using the FHWA 0.45 power chart.
For classifying gradations, specific definitions were established
and a standard set of sieves were defined by Superpave. It also
defines how to draw the maximum density line. Gradations are
classified by Superpave based on their nominal aggregate size
(NMAS), which defined as one size larger than the first size to pass
less than 90% by weight of aggregate. In addition to establishing
control points by Superpave system. Superpave also defined the
maximum aggregate size as one sieve size larger than NMAS. This
modern approach is not to prescribe gradings but rather just envel-
ope gates at critical points.
This research focused on the effect of different gradations of
aggregate on the rut resistance of asphalt mixtures, obtaining four
aggregate gradations and investigating their effect on the stiffness
of the asphalt mixtures.
Table 1
Summary of detailed literature survey regarding the value of the Bailey method.
Conclusive statements from literature survey Reference
1 Rutting performance of coarse graded asphalt Sivasubramaniam
mixtures is slightly improved (not statistically et al. [3]
significant) compared to fine coarse asphalt
mixtures
2 Mixtures made with aggregate gradation from Golalipour et al. [4]
the upper band (finer portion) has the best
rutting performance, while the highest
permanent deformation associated with the
mixtures of lower band (coarser portion) of
aggregate gradation.
3 HMA characteristics are based on aggregate Vavrik [5]
gradation. Appropriate amount of fine
aggregates will pack coarse aggregate of the
mixture skeleton and produce aggregate
structure that is properly packed. The size of
the voids depends on the coarse aggregate,
which affects the compatibility of the mixture.
Finally, Vavrik provided the bases of the
aggregate gradation using Bailey method.
4 The Bailey Method could provide a useful Zaniewski & Mason
approach to design an optimal mix design with [6]
an adequate prediction of the VMA parameter
and testing its verification when used with
aggregates meeting the Superpave
requirements.
5 Bailey method of gradation can be used as a Thompson [7]
predictor of rut susceptibility as the increasing
VMA (which increased by decreasing CA)
tended to increase rutting.
6 The HMA specimens designed by Bailey Zhu Wei et al. [8]
method of gradation have better performance
response (crack resistance at low temperature,
durability and rutting resistance at high
temperature) than the specimens designed by
the routine method.
7 The use of the Bailey method of gradation in Shang et al. [9]
Superpave mix design procedure gives better
results, by controlling the VMA of the mixture
and producing better rutting resistance
mixtures.
8 Mixtures prepared with Bailey gradation Manjunath &
method perform better than the ones prepared Poornachandra [10]
using the conventional method.
9 Mixes with coarser gradation showed better Teklu [11]
ð1Þ gradation gives better rutting performance
than Asphalt Institute gradation method,
Furthermore, the CA ratio from Bailey has good
correlation coefficient expressed as R2 value to
forecast the rutting resistance.
10 The Bailey method is a useful tool in evaluating Oufa & Abdolsamed
aggregate blends. In particular, mixes with [12]
coarse Bailey gradation have higher resistance
to rutting. The main limitation of the Bailey
method is that it considers only aggregate size
and gradation and pays little attention to other
aggregate properties e.g., shape, strength,
surface texture, type and amount of
compaction energy, . . .etc.
11 Studied the relation between aggregate Komba et al. [13]
gradation parameters and the compactability
of HMA. Five parameters of HMA
compactability with the aggregate packing
parameters and Bailey ratios were correlated
for three coarse gradations mixes. They
concluded that there is a strong correlation
between them. They demonstrated that Bailey
ratios may be very useful tool to predict HMA
compactability.
12 Correlated the revised Bailey ratios to Blaauw et al. [14] and
permeability of hot mix asphalt. Horak et al. [15]
 K.A. Ghuzlan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 261 (2020) 119941
2.2. Bailey method of gradation
Mr. Robert Bailey was first to develop the Bailey method in Illi-
nois Department of Transportation. Bailey method is an approach
of how aggregates pack together to provide good interlock
between aggregates. Three Bailey ratios were proposed to evaluate
the gradation of asphalt mixture. Two principals were considered
in Bailey method to evaluate a mixture: first one is aggregate pack-
ing which considers that aggregates cannot completely fill a cer-
tain volume, because degree of packing are affected by different
factors such as, particle strength, particle surface texture and
shape, gradation, and compaction effort. Second principal is defin-
ing coarse and fine aggregate. Coarse particles are defined as the
particles retained on a pre-specified sieve size and fine aggregates
defined as particles that fill the voids between coarse aggregates.
Bailey method were described by Aurilio et al. [20] as a practical
tool for analyzing and developing HMA in the field and lab; by pro-
viding a starting point for aggregate packing in the mix design,
improving air voids, workability and VMA by adjusting the field
blends of the mixes designed by Superpave or Marshall mix design
methods. The main advantage of using Bailey method of gradation
is providing a systematic process (not trial and error as Superpave)
to evaluate and design blends of aggregates and providing a prac-
tical tool assisting the designer to ensure that the pavement
obtains the required durability and rutting resistance with the
available aggregates.
2.2.1. Control sieves
Three main control sieves were suggested in Bailey method to
classify different particles in the gradation. The first one is the Pri-
mary Control Sieve (PCS), it is defined as the sieve that separates
fine and coarse aggregates, and determined based on the Nominal
Maximum Aggregate Size (NMAS), (Vavrik et al. [21]). The set of US
sieves was initially applied in Bailey method of gradation, and the
PCS can be determined using the following equation, rounding the
result to the closest standard.
PCS ¼ NMAS  0:22
where
PCS = primary control sieve.
The value of 0.22 was taken from the packing theory. This value
was suggested in Bailey method as an average of aggregate diam-
eter ratios that theoretically (from packing theory) range from 0.15
(round aggregates) to 0.29 (flat aggregates).
The second one called the secondary control sieve; it splits the
fine part from the previous equation (passing the PCS) into two fur-
ther fractions. Furthermore, the value of 0.22 is used to calculate
the SCS as in the following Equation:
SCS ¼ PCS  0:22
Then the finer residue in Eq. (3) is then further spliced with the
Tertiary Control Sieve (TCS) which is determined using the same
value of 0.22 multiplied by the SCS, Eq. (4).
TCS ¼ SCS  0:22
2.2.2. Bailey ratios and analysis method
In addition to aggregate blending, Bailey method also suggests
three ratios to evaluate the aggregate blend. They are used to
understand and analyze the structure of the aggregate gradations.
As mentioned in the previous section, aggregates in the blend are
classified into three portions, the coarse portion which retained
on the PCS, the coarser part of fine aggregates which passes the
PCS and retained on the SCS, and the finer part of fine aggregates
which passes through the SCS and retained on the TCS. Based on
these definitions, Bailey suggested three ratios; Coarse Aggregate
3
Ratio (CA Ratio), Fine Aggregate Coarse Ratio (FAc), and Fine Aggre-
gate Fine Ratio (FAf).
2.2.2.1. CA ratio. The CA Ratio obtains the interlock between coarse
particles and also helps in understanding the void structure
between them, by introducing a Half Sieve (Vavrik et al., [21]),
which is half of the NMAS.
The particles with sizes between HS and PCS are called intercep-
tors. Changing the percentages of interceptors affects the VMA of
the mixture because they cannot fill the voids between the larger
particles. The CA ratio is calculated by Eq. (5) below:
%passingHS  %passingPCS
CA ¼ ð5Þ
100%  %passingHS
CA ratio plays an important role in the mixture’s degree of com-
paction (Vavrik et al., [22]); mixtures with lower CA ratios (below
~1.0) have an improved degree of compaction in comparison with
mixtures with higher CA ratio values. However, they also sug-
gested a value of (1.0) for CA ratio, explaining that using equal
amounts of interceptors and coarser aggregate will improve the
degree of compaction by giving a good interlock between them.
Furthermore, they explained that CA ratio with values larger than
(1.0) (excessive proportions of interceptors) may lead to segrega-
tion, producing non-compactable mixtures.
2.2.2.2. FAc ratio. Voids will also be introduced between the parti-
cles of the coarser part of the fine proportion, and the finer parts of
fine proportion will fill these voids. The ratio of theses fractions are
described by FAc, and it is calculated with Eq. (6) below:
%passingSCS
FAc ¼ ð6Þ
%passingPCS
High values of more than (0.5) for FAc ratio leads to excessive
amounts of fine particles, so it is recommended to have mixes with
FAc ratio less than (0.5), taking into considerations that very low
values give a non-uniform gradation because of the low content
ð2Þ of fine aggregates.
2.2.2.3. FAf ratio. FAf ratio is important for understanding some
mixture properties such as binder content and volume of voids,
because it concerns with the very finest material content (includ-
ing filler) in the mixture. It is calculated with the next equation.
%passingTCS
FAf ¼ ð7Þ
%passingSCS
3. Critical thinking of Bailey ratios
ð3Þ In order to ensure more understanding of the aggregate struc-
ture and particles packing and more detail of the grading envelope,
new formulas of Bailey ratios were established in different studies,
some of these ratios are discussed in the following sections.
ð4Þ
3.1. Original Bailey ratios
Three original ratios were established in Vavrik (2000) [5], as
they discussed in Section 2.2.2 of this study.
3.2. New ratios proposed by Al-Mosawe et al. (2015)
After analyzing there gradations, Al-Mosawe et al. [23], found
two gaps in knowledge; first was that original ratios does not give
sufficient understanding of aggregate structure, and second was
that there was no clear representation of the load characteristics
and transferring in the dominant aggregate size. So, they fill these
4 K.A. Ghuzlan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 261 (2020) 119941

gaps by developing two new ratios with contiguous ranges in the 3.3.2. Revised fine aggregate coarse rational ratio
nominator and denominator. This ratio provide an understanding of how the whole fines
range of aggregate supported by the stability of the coarse range
3.2.1. Plugger stability ratio of the fine portion (typically fine sand range).
This ratio gives an understanding of the interaction between The ratio is shown below:
coarse particles in fine fraction and how much the voids filled with
%PassingPCS  %PassingSCS
them in the interceptor fraction. The definition of this ratio is given FArcm ¼ ð11Þ
%PassingSCS  %PassingTCS
in the following Equation:
%PassingPCS  %PassingSCS
Cf =Fc ¼ ð8Þ 3.3.3. Revised fine aggregate fine rational ratio
%PassingHS  %PassingPCS
Horak et al. [24] suggested that this ratio to be referred as the
Mastic Control Ratio, it gives an understanding of how much finer
3.2.2. Pluggers plus interceptors over fines ratio portion of the fines (without the filler component) in the overall
This ratio helps in understanding which size range of aggregate fines portion.
is the most active in transferring the applied load. The formula is The formula of this ratio is shown by next equation:
given in the following equation.
%PassingSCS  %PassingTCS
FArmf ¼ ð12Þ
%PassingPCS %PassingTCS  %Filler
F=C ¼ ð9Þ
%PassingNMPS  %PassingPCS
The real reason for this switch to revised Bailey ratios is show-
ing up the lack of consistency in the original Bailey ratio principle
3.3. Revised rational Bailey ratios of fractions adhering to the 0.22 rule or being contiguous.

Horak, et al. [24] suggested two new ratios based on the logic
promoted by Al-Mosawe et al. [23]. The main reason for suggesting
the rational ratios is to make a clear correlation with the Dominant
Aggregate Size Range (DASR) porosity principles by formulating
the numerator and denominator with contiguous fraction ranges
close to porosity formula. Later they used the inverse of the
rational Bailey ratios for porosity and coarse/fine mass ratio
spreadsheet calculations as a screening tool for probable perme-
ability via benchmark analysis.
3.3.1. Revised coarse aggregate ratio
It is just the inverse of the original coarse aggregate ratio as
shown below. It has contiguous fraction ranges correlated with
DASR porosity principles in its denominator and nominator.
100%  %PassingHS
CAr ¼
%PassingHS  %PassingPCS
4. Methodology and materials testing
Materials properties used in producing the HMA specimens;
including asphalt cement and aggregates with all tests and specifi-
cations used in characterizing these paving materials are
described. Superpave HMA specimens were compacted covering
four types of dense-graded gradations; 12.5 mm Nominal Maxi-
mum Aggregate Sizes (NMAS) using two methods of gradations;
Superpave method and Bailey method, with two types of grada-
tions for each method; coarse and fine, and two binder contents
for each combination of method and type. Fine Gradation (FG) is
when gradation curve passes above the restricted zone while
Coarse Gradation (CG) is when gradation curve passes below the
restricted zone. Two replicates were used for each combination.
Full report of this study can be found in Al-Momani [25].
ð10Þ
4.1. Selection and evaluation of aggregate

A crushed limestone aggregate was used in this study which

Table 2
Summarized results of aggregate properties. was sieved as desired by Superpave specifications. The properties
that are considered in the selection of the aggregate for Superpave
TEST Standard Result
asphalt mixtures are divided into two categories: source properties
Combined bulk specific coarse ASTM C 127-15 2.563 and consensus properties.
gravity aggregate
Source properties refer to aggregate properties that are source
(Gsb) Fine aggregate ASTM C 128-15 2.645
Water Absorption (%) coarse ASTM C 127-15 1.72 specific. These properties can vary from one source to another.
aggregate Source properties were not modified by Superpave. They include
Fine aggregate ASTM C 128-15 1.153 toughness (Los Angeles abrasion test) and soundness & deleterious
Flat and Elongated Particles ASTM D 4791-10 5% content.
Coarse Aggregate Angularity (CAA) ASTM D 5821-13 97/90
Fine Aggregate Angularity (FAA) ASTMC 1252-17 48.24
Aggregate consensus properties are related to the blend of
Sand Equivalent Test (SE) ASTM D 2419-14 67% aggregates in the mixture. These properties were modified by
Superpave. Criteria for the consensus properties vary by traffic

Table 3
Results of asphalt binder tests.

Test Standard Test Temp. (oC) Parameter Specif-ication Test Results Conclusion
RV 135 Viscosity (Pa.s) 3 0.417 Passed
Asphalt Specific Gravity (Gb) ASTM D70 – Kg/cm3 – 1.02
Penetration Test ASTM D5 25 mm/10 60–70 66 60/70 Binder
o
Flash Point ASTM D92 – C 232 296 Passed
o
Softening Point ASTM D36 – C 49–56 49 Passed
Ductility ASTM D113 25 cm 100 128 Passed
 K.A. Ghuzlan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 261 (2020) 119941 5

100

80

S.C
Percent Passing

60

S.F

40 B.C

B.F

20

19
0.3
0.6

9.5

12.5
0.075
0.15

1.18

2.36

4.75
0

Sive Size ( 0.45 Power ), mm

Fig. 1. Gradation Curves.

Table 4 Table 5
Performance testing specimens matrix. Properties of the compacted test specimens at OBC.

Variable Number Total Number of Test Mix Gradation Type OBC VTM, % VMA, % VFA, % DP
Specimens
1 S.C 5.4 4.2 15.2 72.3 1.04
Aggregate Type Limestone 1 1  1  4  2  2  2 = 32 2 S.F 5.9 4.2 16.5 74.7 0.93
Asphalt Binder 60/70 (PG 64– 1 3 B.C 5.5 4.0 14.8 73.2 1.04
Type 10) 4 B.F 5.8 3.8 16.0 76.1 1.08
Aggregate S.C, S.F, B.C and 4
Gradation B.F
Asphalt Binder OBC and 2
content Specified BC level rutting depth in the pavement structure. The consensus prop-
Test Deviator 340 kPa and 2 erties of aggregate contain flat & elongated particles, sand equiva-
Stress 600 kPa
lency, coarse aggregate angularity, and fine aggregate angularity.
Replicates 2 specimens 2
Table 2 summarizes the properties for the aggregate used in
study.

Temperature-Viscosity Relaonship

0. 31
Viscocity, Pa.s

Mixing
0. 25
Range
0. 19
0. 15 Compacon
Range

0.07
135 138 141 144 147 150 153 156 159 162 165
Temperature, C

Fig. 2. Mixing and Compaction Temperatures.

6 K.A. Ghuzlan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 261 (2020) 119941

Fig. 3. Flow Number Test Output.

 K.A. Ghuzlan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 261 (2020) 119941 7

100

80

S.C

Percent Passing
60
S.F

40 B.C

B.F
20

0
0.3

0.6

9.5

12.5

19
0.075
0.15

1.18

2.36

4.75
0

Sive Size ( 0.45 Power ), mm

a. OBC Mixtures

100

80

S.C
Percent Passing

60

S.F

40 B.C

B.F
20

0
19
0.3
0.6

9.5

12.5
0.075
0.15

1.18

2.36

4.75

Sive Size ( 0.45 Power ), mm

b. (5.7%) AC Mixtures

Fig. 4. Flow Number Results for OBC and (5.7%) BC Mixtures on 0.45 Power Gradation Curves.

4.2. Asphalt binder tests
The asphalt binder with a penetration grade of 60/70 was used.
This grade is widely used in flexible pavement construction. To sat-
isfy Superpave requirements asphalt binder should withstand the
expected average seven-day maximum pavement temperatures
and minimum pavement temperatures. The asphalt binder that
used in this study has met with Superpave criteria with PG 70–
10 asphalt grade. Asphalt binder test results are summarized in
Table 3.
4.3. Preparation of testing specimens
Precise gradation control was followed in preparing all mix-
tures. Mechanical sieve shaker machine was used to sieve oven
dried aggregate samples into their size component. These materi-
als were combined to precisely control the desired gradations.
A total number of thirty two Superpave HMA specimens were
used in this study by covering four types of dense-graded grada-
tions each with 12.5 mm NMAS. Selected gradations were prepared
using two methods; first one is the common trial and error Super-
pave method of gradation, and the second is Bailey method of gra-
dation. The two selected Superpave gradations used in this study
consist of coarse and fine gradations. The percent retained on each
sieve had been chosen according to Superpave limits and away
from restricted zone for 12.5 mm NMAS. The two Bailey gradations
selected in this study include coarse and fine gradations. The per-
cent retained on each sieve had been chosen according to mid-
range of the Bailey ratios with 12.5 mm NMAS. Fig. 1 illustrates
these four gradations.
8 K.A. Ghuzlan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 261 (2020) 119941

using the rotational viscosity (RV) test at two temperatures sets:

2.5
S.C 135 °C and 165 °C and it was found that the binder used in this
Accumulated Strain (%)

2 S.F research had an average viscosity of 0.417 Pa.s and 0.104 Pa.s at
135 °C and 165 °C, respectively. The mixing temperature was found
1.5 B.C
to be between 152 and 157 °C and the compaction temperature
1 B.F was between 142 and 147 °C ((145 °C used) as shown in Fig. 2.
0.5 The procedure for obtaining OBC follows the Superpave design
criteria, for each gradation; 12 specimens were prepared in order
0 to determine OBC, and 8 specimens were prepared to obtain the
0 5000 10000 required mass of mixture for preparing 150 mm height specimen
Cycles with 6% ± 0.5 air voids. This means that 80 + 32 specimens were
prepared in this study, with total number of 112 specimens. Table 5
a. OBC mixtures at 340 Kpa Stress illustrates the volumetric properties of all mixtures types used in
the study for performance tests at OBC.
3 The procedure described in ASTM D 6925-15 was followed to
S.C (5.7%)
Accumulated Strain (%)

2.5 prepare the HMA. A mass of aggregate (4500 g–4800 g) is required

S.F (5.7%) to reach an average of two or more specimens of 115 mm ± 5 mm
2
1.5 B.C (5.7%) in height at a specified compaction level. Accordingly, 4500 g of
1 B.F (5.7%) aggregate were used for mixtures preparation and compacted to
Ndesign of 100 gyrations for three compacted specimens.
0.5
The Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC) was used to prepare
0
0 5000 10000 compacted samples using the mass of the mixture determined in
the previous step. The SGC samples were cored from the center
Cycles
of the samples to obtain test specimens of nominal 100 mm diam-
b. (5.7%) BC mixtures at 340 Kpa Stress. eter. To obtain 150 mm height sample, the cored sample were
sawed from both sides top and bottom. Test specimens should be
smooth and the end should be perpendicular to its axis. AASHTO
6
S.C
Accumulated Strain (%)

T269 was followed to determine the targeted air voids content

5
S.F (4 ± 0.5%) of the final test specimens.
4
B.C
3 B.F
2 4.4. Performance testing
1
0 The Simple Performance Tester (SPT) was used to apply
0 5000 10000 repeated loading tests on the tested specimens. Flow number test
Cycles was conducted on test specimens using the SPT.
Axial loading and confining pressure and test temperature con-
c. OBC mixtures at 600 Kpa Stress. trols are all integrated together in the SPT. Load, total deformation,
pressure and temperature all are recorded during the SPT test
using the data acquisition system.
6
The SPT test is started and ended from the software by the user
Accumulated Strain (%)

5
4
S.C (5.7%)
3
S.F (5.7%)
2 flow number test according to NCHRP Report No. 465 (Witczak
1 B.C (5.7%)
0 B.F (5.7%)
0 5000 10000
Cycles
d. (5.7%) BC mixtures at 600 Kpa Stress.
Fig. 5. Accumulated Strain versus No. of Cycles for All Mixtures at Both Stresses.
Four specimens of each gradation were prepared; two of them
prepared using Optimum Binder Content (OBC) and the other
two specimens prepared using constant specified binder content
(i.e. replicates). The final used gradations are: Superpave coarse
gradation (S.C), Superpave fine gradation (S.F), Bailey coarse grada-
tion (B.C) and Bailey fine gradation (B.F). The flow number test was
performed at 50 °C with two deviator stresses 340 and 600 kPa. An
unconfined test condition was used in this study. The testing
matrix is exhibited in Table 4.
According to Superpave criteria, the mixing and compaction
temperatures can be determined by measuring binder viscosity
orders. All test settings (specimen dimensions, load, confining
pressure and test temperature) were input by the user using the
software. The SPT was used to test 32 samples using an unconfined
et al. [26]).
The software is used to input all test setting which includes:
specimen height, specimen diameter, load position, conditioning
time, pulse sampling interval, target repeated deviator stress and
target contact deviator stress.
A cyclic loading of 340 and 600 kPa (haversine load) is applied
to the specimen; with 0.1 sec of loading and 0.9 sec of rest period
i.e. cycle load is 1 s. The test continued up to 8,000 load cycles or
until the specimen fails (5% strain occurred), whichever is reached
first. During the test the axial and radial deflections are measured
from one load cycle to the next using the data acquisition system.
5. Results and discussion
Test equipment used in this study is highly software controlled
and the test data (regarding specimens and test conditions) is
recorded using integrated data acquisition system. At the end of
the test, test results are transferred and saved into output files
(Microsoft Excel spreadsheet). Furthermore, the accumulated axial
strain is plotted versus number of load cycles as shown in Fig. 3.
Francken Model was used to calculate the flow number by fitting
 K.A. Ghuzlan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 261 (2020) 119941 9

6270 1716
1000
900
800

Flow Number (Cycles)

700
600
500 340 Kpa
400 600 Kpa
300
200
100
0
S.C (OBC) S.F (OBC) B.C (OBC) B.F (OBC)

a. OBC mixtures

7715 6270
1000
900
800
Flow Number (Cycles)

700
600
500 340 Kpa
400 600 Kpa
300
200
100
0
S.C (5.7%) S.F (5.7%) B.C (5.7%) B.F (5.7%)

b. (5.7%) BC mixtures

Fig. 6. Number of Cycles to Reach Accumulated Strain of 0.55% for All Mixtures.

the data. It is a composite model and it is divided into three distinct
stages, consolidation (primary stage), creep and constant rate (sec-
ondary stage), and flow (tertiary stage). The following equation
represents Francken Model:
ep ðNÞ ¼ ANB þ CðeDN  1Þ
where:
ep (N): Permanent deformation after N cycles.
N: Number of loading cycles.
A, B, C, and D: regression constants.
Non linear regression and least squares in the Microsoft Excel
Solver was used to determine the regression constants. At each
load cycle, the function was derived and calculated. The load cycle
at which the derivative has the lowest value is defined as the flow
number. This value represents the beginning of tertiary flow where
the rate of strain increases.
The flow number test was carried out using the SPT at four dif-
ferent types of mixtures (S.C, S.F, B.C and B.F) under two stresses
(340 and 600 kPa). Specimens were subjected to load cycles until
tertiary flow started or until reaching 8,000 load cycles.
The Flow Number results for OBC and (5.7%) binder content
mixtures on 0.45 power gradation curves under two stresses
(340 and 600 kPa) for the four gradations are shown in Fig. 4a
and b, it is clear that S.F gradation mixtures have the maximum
flow number followed by B.F, B.C, S.C gradations, the same trend
is observed in OBC and the fixed asphalt content. This leads to con-
clude that finer gradations produce mixtures with higher flow
number, which means more rutting resistant (less permanent
ð13Þ deformation) mixtures, even though stress is carried by coarse
aggregates. This could attribute to that, using more percent of fine
aggregates causes more regular distribution of stresses between
coarse aggregates.
Rutting potential in the sample increases as the accumulated
strain increases (high strain built up) at specific load cycle, in other
words samples become more permanent deformation susceptible.
Fig. 5 presents the accumulated strains for all mixtures at both
subjected stresses, and both asphalt contents. Mixtures with
Superpave fine gradation have lower accumulated lower strain
compared to mixtures with other gradations. Bailey fine (B.F) gra-
dation mixtures have an accumulated strains little higher than S.F
gradations, except in Fig. 5b, where the S.F mixtures exhibited
higher accumulated strain than B.F mixture from cycle number 1
to cycle number 1700, Also B.F mixtures have little lower accumu-
lated strains than B.C gradation. Superpave coarse gradation mix-
tures have the highest accumulated strains. Furthermore, it can
be noticed that for SPT flow number test, resistance to failure (ter-
tiary flow) is higher for mixtures with fine gradations compared to
coarse gradation mixtures; fine Superpave mixtures have the high-
est flow number values, Therefore, lower deformation values are
10 K.A. Ghuzlan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 261 (2020) 119941

2.5

Strain( %)
1.5
340 Kpa
1 600 Kpa

0.5

0
S.C (OBC) S.F (OBC) B.C (OBC) B.F (OBC)

a. OBC mixtures

2.5

1.5
Strain( %)

340 Kpa
1 600 Kpa

0.5

0
S.C (5.7%) S.F (5.7%) B.C (5.7%) B.F (5.7%)

b. (5.7%) BC mixtures

Fig. 7. Accumulated Strain at 1000 Load Cycles for All Mixtures.

experienced under loading, which confirms that using more fine
aggregates in the skeleton of mixture by a systematic arrange with
coarse aggregates attributes in distributing the stresses on the
coarse aggregates to withstand more load cycles.
This agrees with the findings of Golalipou et al. [4] and Elayan
[27], On the other hand, Oufa and Abdolsamed [12] found the
opposite; that coarse Bailey mixtures have better rutting perfor-
mance than fine Bailey mixtures. Furthermore, results of this study
agree with Shang et al. [9], Manjunath & poornachandra [10], Teklu
[11] and Denneman et al. [28] studies, that Bailey gradation mix-
tures gives best performance than other gradations mixtures as
Superpave, conventional and Asphalt Institute gradations.
To study the aggregate gradation impact on rutting potential
during the flow number test within the test cycles in order to
understand the rutting behavior of the proposed mixtures before
the tertiary flow period (failure); charts of number of cycles at
0.55% and strain at cycle number 1000 were plotted and presented
in Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. Superpave Fine (S.F) gradation mix-
tures have the highest number of cycles to reach 0.55% strain at
both conditions (stress and asphalt content), in other words it
has the highest rutting resistance. Coarse and fine Bailey gradation
mixtures have very close number of cycles to reach 0.55% strain
especially at 340 kPa stress, and S.C gradation mixtures have the
lowest number of cycles at both selected strains, which means they
have the lowest rutting resistance.
The three main Bailey ratios (CA, FAc and FAf) were calculated
for all mixtures (Bailey and Superpave gradations mixtures), noted
that Bailey ratios for Superpave gradations were out of the recom-
mended range. The effect of three Bailey ratios on the rutting per-
formance is shown in Fig. 8.
Fig. 8a and b show that increasing CA and FAc ratios increases
the flow number of the mixture, which means more rutting resis-
tance of the proposed mixture. Fig. 8c shows that increasing FAf
ratio results in less rutting resistance mixtures.
5.1. Statistical analysis of data
5.1.1. Correlation between Bailey ratios and the rutting response
variables
The bivariate Pearson Correlation produces a sample correlation
coefficient(r), which measures the strength and direction of linear
relationships between two groups of variables.
In this study, the bivariate Pearson correlation is applied
between different Bailey ratios (original, revised rational and
new ratios) and three rutting response variables, to study the linear
correlation between them. Hence for any group of variables, when
 K.A. Ghuzlan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 261 (2020) 119941 11

the P-value (sig.) is higher than 0.05, Ho is accepted meaning there

10000
is no significant linear relationship between these two groups of
Flow Number (Cycles)

8000
340 Kpa variables.
6000 600 Kpa When the P-value is smaller than 0.05, the alternative hypoth-
4000 esis is concluded indicating that there is a significant linear rela-
2000 tionship between these two groups of variables.
Table 6 summarize the correlation coefficient (r) and how much
0
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 the significant of the correlation. A positive linear correlation or
CA relationship were indicated when (r) values are positive, whereas,
a negative linear correlation were indicated when r values are neg-
a. CA ratios ative. Table 6 shows that there is a significant linear relationship
between most of selected groups, except in some groups at 600
Kpa stress (discussed later), the ratios were correlated with the
rutting response variables. Overall, all rutting response variables
10000
at 340 Kpa shows stronger correlations with most of ratios (r > |
Flow Number (Cycles)

8000 0.81|), also, strain at FN at 600 kpa stress shows medium to strong
340
6000 Kpa correlations with most of ratios (r > |0.73|). However, the correla-
tions for FN and max strain at 600 Kpa stress were found to be rel-
4000
atively weaker to medium compared to 340 Kpa (r ranging from |
2000 0.46| to |0.69|).
0 Weaker correlations and significances for response variables at
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 600 Kpa (compared to 340 Kpa) may attributed to two reasons;
FAc first, the variation in the values of these variables when using dif-
ferent binder contents (OBC and 5.7% BC), second is that larger
b. FAc ratios stresses (such as 600 Kpa) leads to non-uniform performance
response (large strain and less recovery time at each cycle).

10000
340 Kpa
Flow Number (Cycles)

5.1.2. Hypothesis testing

8000 600 Kpa
The statistical comparison was conducted using independent
6000 samples T-test and three-way ANOVA. The P-value method was
the criterion used for decision-making of the existence of any sig-
4000
nificant difference between samples’ means based on a significance
2000 level (a) of 0.05. Accordingly, for the two-sample t-test; when the
0
P-value is higher than 0.05, the Ho hypothesis (null hypothesis) is
0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 accepted meaning that no significant difference exists between the
FAf two samples’ means (equal means). On the other hand, when the P-
value is smaller than 0.05, the alternative hypothesis H1 is con-
c. FAf ratios cluded (the two means are not equal). Furthermore, for the
three-way ANOVA test; when the P-value is higher than 0.05, Ho
is accepted meaning that no significant difference exists between
Fig. 8. Bailey ratios of the Mixtures Vs. Flow Number.
two or more samples’ means (equal means) and, on the other hand,

Table 6
Correlations between ratios and rutting response variables.

Ratio Correlation & Sig At 340 Kpa Stress At 600 Kpa Stress
FN Strain at FN Max Strain FN Strain at FN Max Strain
Ca Correlation 0.99** 0.82** 0.84** 0.67** 0.95** 0.51*
Sig 0 0 0 0.004 0 0.044
FAc Correlation 0.86** 0.53* 0.48 0.46 0.73** 0.48
Sig 0 0.033 0.058 0.077 0.001 0.057
FAf Correlation 0.997** 0.77** 0.77** 0.64** 0.93** 0.52*
Sig 0 0 0 0.008 0 0.038
Carm Correlation 0.96** 0.85** 0.88** 0.70** 0.94** 0.50
Sig 0 0 0 0.003 0 0.051
FArcm Correlation 0.89** 0.64** 0.59* 0.54* 0.78** 0.53*
Sig 0 0.008 0.017 0.033 0 0.033
FArmf Correlation 0.54* 0.64** 0.58* 0.52* 0.51* 0.49
Sig 0.031 0.007 0.02 0.038 0.046 0.052
Cf/Fc Correlation 0.67** 0.83** 0.81** 0.67** 0.69** 0.51*
Sig 0.004 0 0 0.005 0.003 0.042
F/C Correlation 0.94** 0.84** 0.81** 0.69** 0.88** 0.58*
Sig 0 0 0 0.003 0 0.019
**
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
12 K.A. Ghuzlan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 261 (2020) 119941

Table 7
Summarized independent samples T-test results of flow number readings.

Tested Groups Levene’s Test for Equality of Variance (sig.) t-test for Equality of Means (sig.)
Asphalt Content OBC (5.7%) AC 0.113 0.412
Stress Level 340 kPa 600 kPa 0.618 0.000
Aggregate Gradations S.C S.F 0.002 0.017
B.C 0.965 0.276
B.F 0.467 0.112
S.F B.C 0.017 0.093
B.F 0.015 0.171
B.C B.F 0.522 0.620

Table 8 In this study, the three-way ANOVA is applied for the flow num-
Summarized three-way ANOVA test results of Flow number readings.
ber as a dependent variable and between the main three indepen-
Source F Sig. dent variables (asphalt content, aggregate gradations and stress
Corrected Model 387.917 0.000 levels) as a fixed factors to study the interaction between these
Intercept 2.266E4 0.000 three factors and their effect on flow number values when execut-
Gradation 500.827 0.000 ing together, as shown in Table 8.
Asphalt Content 131.430 0.000
The statistical significance level of the three-way interaction
Stress 3.763E3 0.000
Gradation * Asphalt Content 10.764 0.000 term is 0 0.000 for all combinations. Which means that there is a
Gradation * Stress 60.716 0.000 statistically significant three-way (Gradation*Asphalt con-
Asphalt Content * Stress 164.962 0.000 tent*Stress interaction) effect. Furthermore, there is a statistically
Gradation * Asphalt Content * Stress 14.068 0.000
significant one-way effect for each factor alone, and two-way effect
R Squared = 0.997 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.995). for each of two factors combination, So, the variability of the out-
comes of this study is not by chance, it is due to the three main fac-
tors in the analysis, and all the factors separated or combined with
each other doubly or triply are affects the outcomes of the flow
when the P-value is smaller than 0.05, H1 is concluded (at least one number.
mean is different).
6. Conclusions and recommendations

5.1.3. Independent samples T-test 6.1. Conclusions

The independent samples T-test compares the means of two
independent groups with two assumptions for variances equality
in order to determine whether there is statistical evidence that
the associated population means are significantly different. The
Independent Samples t Test is a parametric test.
In this study, the independent samples T-testis applied for the
flow number as a dependent variable and between the three main
independent variables (asphalt content, aggregate gradations and
stress levels) to study the effect of changing these independent
variables on flow number results. Table 7 summarize the results
of the independent samples T-test conducted on flow number
measurements.
Many points may conclude from Table 7 as follows:

Variation of asphalt content between OBC and (5.7%) asphalt
content is not affecting the value of flow number significantly,
which means that using one of these asphalt contents leads to
same results.

Stress level is significantly affecting the flow number, more
stress (more axial loads) leads to lower flow number (higher
rut depth).

S.F gradation flow number results are significantly different
from S.C gradation’s flow number.

S.F gradation flow number results are not significantly different
from both Bailey gradations.

B.C and B.F flow number results are not significantly different,
with almost equal variances, which mean that both of them
act as the same manner against stresses.
5.1.4. Three-way ANOVA
The three-way ANOVA is used to determine if there is an inter-
action effect between three independent variables on a continuous
dependent variable (if a three-way interaction exists).
The following conclusions were reached based on the results of
this study, and are summarized as:
1. Using Bailey type aggregate gradation generally gives good
aggregate packing expressed by good rutting performance.
Moreover, the three Bailey ratios; CA, FAc and FAf are good
classification mechanisms to make proper aggregate
interlock.
2. Bailey mixes are better in their aggregate packing and over-
all mix properties when compared to Superpave mixes as
there is no guide line mechanism to identify erratic grada-
tion in Superpave mixes.
3. Bailey gradation mixtures save money, time and effort; by
giving high rutting performance (flow number) close to the
maximum value in this study for fine Superpave mixtures,
with less optimum binder content and less compact gyra-
tions for Bailey mixtures.
4. Fine Superpave gradation’s mixtures have the highest flow
number and the lowest strain at failure and at any cycle,
which means more rutting resistant pavement, while coarse
Superpave gradation’s mixtures have the lowest flow num-
ber and the highest strain at any cycle, meaning that coarse
graded mixtures have more deformation susceptibility and
less rutting resistance.
5. Bailey mixtures flow number and strains lie between coarse
and fine Superpave mixtures flow number values, with a
non-significant different between the flow number values
of fine Bailey mixtures and fine Superpave mixtures.
6. Variation of asphalt content between OBC and (5.7%) asphalt
content is not affecting the value of flow number signifi-
cantly, which means that using one of these asphalt contents
leads to same results.
 K.A. Ghuzlan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 261 (2020) 119941
7. Stress level significantly affects the flow number; more
stress (more axial loads) leads to lower flow number (higher
rut depth).
8. Flow number results for fine Superpave mixtures are signif-
icantly different from the flow number for coarse Superpave
mixtures, but they are not significantly different from flow
number of both Bailey mixtures.
9. B.C and B.F gradation’s flow number results are not signifi-
cantly different, with almost equal variances, which mean
that both of them act as the same manner against stresses.
10. Main testing variables are statistically significant three-way
(gradation*asphalt content*stress level) effect on Flow num-
ber test results.
11. The revised Bailey ratios and normal Bailey ratios used in the
statistical analysis are not as conclusive as may have been
intended due to the fact that the fundamental porosity val-
ues were not calculated or incorporated in the study. The
original Bailey ratios do not allow this conversion due to
the lack of contiguous aggregate fractions use in the ratio.
6.2. Recommendations
Further research is required to investigate low thermal cracking
and fatigue performance of Bailey gradation mixtures as this
research did not cover this part. Investigations should be carried
out using testing variables (stress, temperature, and confining
pressure). Finally, it is required to investigate other types of Bailey
aggregate gradations by using different values of bailey ratios in
preparing Bailey gradations.
Further investigations should be carried using more Bailey
ratios (such as the rational and revised Bailey ratios) and develop-
ing the original ratios to ensure fully understand of how particles
pack together to withstand and transfer the applied load, and to
overcome the effect of each aggregate fraction in the gradation
on the rutting performance.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Khalid A. Ghuzlan: Conceptualization, Methodology,
Supervision, Investigation, Validation, Writing - original draft,
Writing - review & editing. Bara’ W. AL-Mistarehi: Supervision,
Investigation, Validation, Writing - review & editing. Ahmed S.
Al-Momani: Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This article is a part of Master Degree Thesis in Civil Engineering
at Jordan University of Science and Technology (JUST). A full report
of the research work can be found at Al-Momani [25] at the College
of Graduate Studies at JUST under the title: ‘‘Rutting Performance
of Asphalt Mixtures with Gradations Designed Using Bailey and
Conventional Superpave Methods” and this research was sup-
ported by the deanship of scientific research at JUST (Research
No. 605/2018).
13
References
[1] T. Ma, X. Huang, Y. Zhao, H. Yuan, X. Ma, Degradation behavior and mechanism
of HMA aggregate, J. Test. Eval. 40 (5) (2012) 697–707.
[2] Asphalt Institute, The Asphalt Institute Manual, MS-2. Mix Design Methods for
Asphalt Concrete and Other Hot-Mix Types, 1994.
[3] S. Sivasubramaniam, K.A. Galal, A.S. Noureldin, T.D. White, J.E. Haddock,
Modeling permanent deformation using laboratory, proto-type, and in-service
accelerated pavement testing, Transp. Res. Rec. 1896 (2004) 189–198.
[4] A. Golalipour, E. Jamshidi, Y. Niazi, Z. Afsharikia, M. Khadem, Effect of
aggregate gradation on rutting of asphalt pavements, Procedia-Social Behav.
Sci. 53 (2012) 440–449.
[5] W.R. Vavrik, Asphalt mixture design concepts to develop aggregate interlock
(Doctoral dissertation), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), 2000.
[6] J.P. Zaniewski, C. Mason, An Evaluation of The Bailey Method to Predict Voids
in The Mineral Aggregate, Division of Highways, Charleston, WV, 2006.
[7] G. Thompson, Investigation of the Bailey Method for the design and analysis of
dense-graded HMAC using Oregon aggregates. Final report, Oregon
Department of Transportation, Research Unit. SPR-304-311, 2006.
[8] W. Zhu, H.Z. Li, S.R. Ma, D.B. Liu, Application of Bailey Method for Aggregate
Grading Design of Continuous Dense Gradation Asphalt Mixture, in: Advanced
Materials Research. Trans Tech Publications, 2012, Vol. 413, pp. 154–159.
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.413.154
[9] G.T. Shang, O. Takahashi, R. Maekawa, Recommended combination of the
Bailey parameters in Superpave gradation design for Japanese airfield
pavements, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 6 (6) (2013) 704–713.
[10] K.R. Manjunath, N.B. Poornachandra Dev, Design of hot mix asphalt using
bailey method of gradation, Int. J. Res. Eng. Tech. 03 (06) (2014) 386–393,
https://doi.org/10.15623/ijret.2014.0306072.
[11] W. Teklu, Effect of Gradation of aggregates on the rutting performance of hot
mix asphalt. (Doctoral dissertation), ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY ADDIS ABABA,
2015.
[12] M.S. Oufa, A.A. Abdolsamedb, Controlling rutting performance of hot mix
asphalt, Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 6 (12) (2016).
[13] J.J. Komba, J.W. Maina, E. Horak, W.J. Steyn, Relationship between aggregate
packing characteristics and compactability of Hot-Mix Asphalt mixes, in:
Airfield and Highway Pavements 2019: Testing and Characterization of
Pavement Materials, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2019,
pp. 183–194.
[14] S.A. Blaauw, J.W. Maina, E. Horak, Towards a mix design model for the
prediction of permeability of hot-mix asphalt, Constr. Build. Mater. 221 (2019)
637–642.
[15] E. Horak, J. Maina, P. Myburgh, H. Sebaaly, Monitoring permeability potential
of hot mix asphalt via binary aggregate packing principles correlated with
Bailey ratios and porosity principles, J. South African Inst. Civ. Eng. 61 (3)
(2019) 32–44.
[16] W.B. Fuller, S.E. Thompson, The laws of proportioning concrete, 1907.
[17] L.W. Nijboer, Mechanical stability of bitumen-aggregate mixtures, J. Society
Chem. Industry 67 (6) (1948) 244–249.
[18] J.F. Goode, L.A. Lufsey, A new graphical chart for evaluating aggregate
gradation, 1962.
[19] G.A. Huber, T.S. Shuler, Providing sufficient void space for asphalt cement:
Relationship of mineral aggregate voids and aggregate gradation, in: Effects of
aggregates and mineral fillers on asphalt mixture performance, ASTM
International, 1992.
[20] V. Aurilio, W.J. Pine, P. Lum, Bailey Method-Achieving Volumetrics and HMA
Compactability, in: Fiftieth Annual Conference of the Canadian Technical
Asphalt Association (CTAA) Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, 2005.
[21] W.R. Vavrik, W.J. Pine, S.H. Carpenter, Aggregate blending for asphalt mix
design: Bailey method, Transp. Res. Rec. 1789 (1) (2002) 146–153.
[22] W.R. Vavrik, W.J. Pine, G. Huber, S.H. Carpenter, R. Bailey, The bailey method of
gradation evaluation: the influence of aggregate gradation and packing
characteristics on voids in the mineral aggregate (with discussion), J. Assoc.
Asphalt Paving Tech. 70 (2001).
[23] H. Al-Mosawe, N. Thom, G. Airey, A. Al-Bayati, Effect of aggregate gradation on
the stiffness of asphalt mixtures, Int. J. Pavement Eng. Asphalt Tech. 16 (2)
(2015) 39–49.
[24] E. Horak, H. Sebaaly, J. Maina, S. Varma, Rational bailey ratios and dominant
aggregate size range porosity correlated with rutting and mixture strength
parameters, Southern African Transport Conf. (2017).
[25] A.S. Al-Momani, Rutting Performance of Asphalt Mixtures with Gradations
Designed Using Bailey and Conventional Superpave Methods, MSc thesis,
Jordan University of Science & Technology, Irbid, Jordan, 2019.
[26] M.W. Witczak, K. Kaloush, T. Pellinen, M. El-Basyouny, H. Von Quintus, NCHRP
Report 465 Simple Performance Test for Superpave Mix Design. National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report, 2002.
[27] M. Elayan, Comparison between Unconfined Dynamic Creep and Simple
Performance Tests for Superpave Asphalt Mixtures. Master Thesis. Civil
Engineering Department. Jordan University of Science and Technology, 2013.
[28] E. Denneman, et al., Aggregate packing characteristics of good and poor
performing asphalt mixes, in: Proceedings of the 26th Southern African
Transport Conference 2007, 2007.