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

net/publication/324451858

Superpave Design Aggregate Structure Considering Uncertainty: I. Selection of

Trial Blends

Article  in  Journal of Testing and Evaluation · January 2020

CITATIONS READS

3 686

1 author:

Said Easa
Ryerson University
489 PUBLICATIONS   3,313 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Passing Collision Warning Systems View project

Road Safety and ITS Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Said Easa on 30 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Superpave Design Aggregate Structure Considering Uncertainty:
Selection of Trial Blends

Said M. Easa

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering

Ryerson University
350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 2K3
Email: seasa@ryerson.ca

Note: Paper accepted for publication in Journal of Testing and Evaluation, ASTM.

Abstract. The existing method of selecting Superpave trial aggregate blends is deterministic and
is based on trial-and-error. The primary purpose of this paper is to develop a stochastic
optimization model that includes the uncertainties of individual aggregate gradations, primary
aggregate (PA) properties, and related specifications. The model can directly determine three
different trial blends: (1) a blend close to the minimum specification limits, (3) a blend not close
to the specification limits or to the restricted zone (RZ), and (3) a blend close to the maximum
specification limits and to the restricted zone. The constraints of the model include gradation
control specifications, RZ limits, PA properties, and special and unity constraints. The PA
properties include coarse aggregate fractured faces, fine aggregate angularity, sand equivalent,
and flat and elongated particles. The uncertainty is formulated to ensure that the trial blends
satisfy model constraints for a specified confidence level. A binary variable is used to allow the
designer to produce a blend that passes below, above, or through RZ. Application of the model is
illustrated using a numerical example. The proposed model, which improves the reliability of
trial blends and the efficiency of their selection, should be of interest to practitioners and
researchers.

Keywords: Uncertainty, gradation, sieve analysis, specifications, aggregate properties,

Superpave, trial blends.

Nomenclature

𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 coarse aggregate fractured faces of the blend,

𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝑗 coarse aggregate fractured faces for aggregate j,
𝐸[𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 ] expected value of coarse aggregate fractured faces of the blend,
𝐸[𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 ] expected value of fine aggregate angularity of the blend,
𝐸[𝐹𝐸𝐵 ] expected value of flat and elongated particles of the blend,
𝐸[𝑆𝐸𝐵 ] expected value of sand equivalent of the blend,
𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] expected values of the percent of the blend passing sieve i,
𝐹𝐸𝐵 flat and elongated particles of the blend,
𝐹𝐴𝐴𝑗 fine aggregate angularity for aggregate j,
𝐹𝐸𝑗 flat and elongated particles for aggregate j,
G large number greater than any upper RZ limit (e.g. 100),
i index for sieve number,

1
j index for aggregate number,
𝑘1 𝑡𝑜 𝑘4 number of aggregates used to calculate CAFFB, FAAB, FEB, and SEB, respectively.
m number of sieves corresponding to NMS,
𝑚𝑁𝑆 number of intermediate sieves without specifications,
𝑚𝑅𝑍 number of sieves within RZ,
MDL maximum density line,
n number of aggregates to be blended,
𝑃475𝑗 percent of aggregate j passing sieve 4.75 mm,
𝑃𝑖 percent of the blend passing sieve i,
PA primary aggregate,
𝑝𝑖𝑗 percent of aggregate j passing sieve i,
𝑅95𝑗 percent of aggregate j retained on sieve 9.5 mm,
𝑃236𝑗 percent of aggregate j passing sieve 2.36 mm,
𝑅475𝑗 percent of aggregate j retained on sieve 4.75 mm,
𝑅𝐿𝑖 , 𝑅𝑈𝑖 lower and upper limits of RZ for sieve i (%),
𝑅𝑍 restricted zone,
SD standard deviation,
𝑆𝑀𝑖 mid-point of the lower and upper specification limits for sieve i,
𝑆𝐿𝑖 , 𝑆𝑈𝑖 lower and upper specification limits for sieve i (%),
Superpave Superior Performing Asphalt Pavement,
𝑥𝑗 proportion of aggregate j in the blend (in decimals),
𝑆𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 specification of minimum CAFFB,
𝑆𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 specification of minimum FAAB,
𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐵 specification of minimum SEB,
𝑆𝐸𝑗 sand equivalent for aggregate j,
𝑆𝐸𝐵 flat and elongated particles of the blend,
𝑆𝐹𝐸𝐵 specification of maximum FEB,
VMA voids in mineral aggregates,
zα number of standard deviations corresponding to a confidence level of (1 – α),
λ binary decision variable (1 or 0 if blend lies below or above RZ, respectively),
𝛾 binary input variable (1 if RZ is active and 0 otherwise),
σpij standard deviation of the percent passing sieve i for aggregate j,
𝜎𝑃𝑖 standard deviation of the percent of the blend passing sieve i,
𝜎𝐶𝐴𝐴𝑗 standard deviation of CAFF for aggregate j,
𝜎 𝑃475𝑗 standard deviation of 𝑃475 for aggregate j,
𝜎𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 standard deviation of coarse aggregate fractured faces of the blend,
𝜎𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 standard deviation of fine aggregate angularity of the blend,
𝜎𝐹𝐸𝐵 standard deviation of flat and elongated particles of the blend,
𝜎𝑆𝐸𝐵 standard deviation of sand equivalent of the blend,
𝜇𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝑗 mean of coarse aggregate fractured faces for aggregate j,
𝜇𝑃475𝑗 mean of the percent passing sieve 4.75 mm for aggregate j, and
μpij mean of the percent passing sieve i for aggregate j.

2
Introduction
Uncertainty is an important element of performance-based design and has been increasingly
integrated in many civil engineering applications [1, 2]. This integration has been aided by the
advances in computer technology and database management systems. In asphalt pavement
design, uncertainty has been sporadically implemented in a number of areas. The Federal
Highway Administration [3] has recently evaluated the impact of the variability in specific
gravity measurements on voids in mineral aggregate (VMA). Uncertainty has also been
addressed by several researchers in various components of pavement design, including asphalt
binder and materials [4-6], asphalt mix design [7-8], and pavement design and performance [9-
12].

The Superpave (Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements) design method of hot mix asphalt
(HMA) is one of the principal outcomes of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP).
The method ties together all three stages of mix design: selection of asphalt binder, selection of
aggregate, and determination of optimum asphalt content. Following these stages, moisture
susceptibility of the design mix is checked. The method can be used for the design of HMA with
and without reclaimed asphalt pavements (RAP) and for different types of HMA such as dense-
graded HMA, open-graded friction coarse, and stone matrix asphalt. Details of the method can
be found in Kennedy et al. [13], Brown et al. [14] and in several reports of the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) by Prowell and Brown [15], Christensen and
Bonaquist [16], Kandhal and Cooley [17], Hossain and Fager [18], and Transportation Research
Board [19]. Uncertainty has been considered in the original Superpave method only in the first
stage, selection of asphalt binder. The performance grading (PG) of asphalt binders has two
numbers that refer to extreme high and low pavement temperatures at which the binder is
expected to perform adequately. These extreme temperatures are defined based on reliability
which is established using the means and standard deviations for design high and low-pavement
temperatures [19]. The temperature data have been collected for thousands of sites in the United
States and Canada. A web-based software for selecting asphalt binder PG has been recently
developed [20].

The second stage, selection of design aggregate structure, involves two steps: selection of trial
blends and evaluation of these blends. In the selection step, typically three trial blends are
selected to satisfy gradation control specifications and specifications for four primary aggregate
(PA) properties (formerly called consensus properties): coarse aggregate fractured faces (CAFF),
fine aggregate angularity (FAA), sand equivalent of fine aggregate (SE), and flat and elongated
coarse aggregate particles (FE). In addition, the trial blends were originally required not to pass
through a restricted zone (RZ), but this is no longer required and the RZ is used only as a guide
[14]. The Superpave method has been automated, see for example Zaniewski and Padula [21]
and the Asphalt Institute [22]. To aid the process of aggregate blending, computer programs have
been developed since 1970s for simple blending problems, see for example Miller and Bean [23],
and Easa [24]. In addition, aggregate blending studies for RAP have been conducted; see for
example McDaniel, Soleymani, and Shah [25], McDaniel and Anderson [26], and Swamy and
Das [27]. However, aggregate blending methods for RAP substantially differ from those for
conventional HMA. In the evaluation step, compacted specimens are prepared for each trial
blend to determine the blend that best meets the specified criteria which include voids in mineral

3
aggregate (VMA), voids filled with asphalt (VFA), density at the initial number of gyrations, and
dust proportion [14, 28]. The process starts by calculating bulk and apparent specific gravities
and determining an estimated design binder content. Then, test specimens are prepared for each
trial blend and the volumetric properties are estimated at VMA of 4%. The blend giving
properties closest to the mix criteria is selected for continued refinement in the third stage.

As an alternative to the Superpave method of selecting trial blends, the Bailey method of
aggregate proportioning has recently become popular among some technicians and engineers;
see for example Vavrik et al. [29, 30] and Mohammad and Shamsi [31]. The method is based on
the way the coarse and fine aggregates are packed together in a confined volume to form a strong
aggregate skeleton for rut resistance, durability, and adequate VMA. In this method, a primary
control sieve (PCS) defines the break point between fine and coarse-graded gradations for each
nominal maximum size (NMS) of the aggregate. Then, three other control sieves are defined, one
above PCS and two below it. Using the control sieves, three ratios of the aggregate blend are
defined and used to evaluate the mix volumetric properties. The evaluation tools in the Bailey
method can also be used for quality control during construction.

For the third stage, optimum asphalt content determination, the selected trial blend is used to
prepare specimens using a range of asphalt contents. The design asphalt content is that giving an
air void content of 4%. Recently, a new mix design method that considers uncertainty was
recently developed by the author [32]. The method incorporated the uncertainties of the
measured properties and calculated design parameters. The results showed that the small
uncertainties of the measured properties propagated through the calculations and resulted in
much higher uncertainties in the calculated design parameters that could make them unreliable.
The method was developed in the context of Marshall method, but the same concept can be
applied to the Superpave method.

Based on the preceding discussion, uncertainty has yet to be incorporated in the selection of the
design aggregate structure (second stage). This paper and a companion paper [33] focus on the
Superpave-based method of selecting and evaluating trial blends, respectively. Consideration of
uncertainty in aggregate selection is particularly important since aggregates make up about 95%
of HMA and their characteristics are critical in the performance of the mix [28]. In the selection
of Superpave trial blends, uncertainty exists in the gradation and PA properties of individual
aggregates. That is, if several samples are taken from a stockpile, their gradations and PA
properties would be different. The variability of the sieve analysis gradation has been confirmed
in a Superpave study, where three samples were taken from each stockpile and the standard
deviation (SD) of gradations ranged from 0.1% to 3.6% [34] and that for the reported SE
property was less than 1%. The measurement uncertainties propagate and cause uncertainties in
the calculated blend gradation and PA properties that could make some desired blend gradations
infeasible. In 1985, an optimization model that incorporated uncertainty was developed for a
simple aggregate blending problem by Easa and Can [35]. The model focused only on gradation
uncertainty and on a single blend that satisfied control specifications. More recently, a similar
optimization model based on fuzzy theory was developed by Kikuchi, Kronpraser, and Easa [36].
These models are useful for simple blending problems, but cannot be used for the more complex
Superpave problem which includes a restricted zone, three different types of blends, and PA
properties. In addition, these models do not consider the uncertainties of the specifications.

4
The primary purpose of the optimization model presented in this paper is to incorporate
uncertainty into the selection of Superpave trial blends for conventional HMA. The model
exhibits the following key features: (a) the optimal blend is obtained directly without trial-and-
error, (b) uncertainty of all blend elements (gradation, PA properties, and specifications) are
formulated, (c) the model allows the designer to directly obtain a blend that passes below, above,
or through RZ, (d) the model can be easily run as a deterministic model using a control input
variable, and (e) the model was validated using Monte Carlo simulation. The next section
presents the stochastic optimization model. The following section presents the special features of
the model and its procedure. Application of the model is then presented, followed by concluding
remarks.

Stochastic Optimization Model

The decision (unknown) variables of the optimization model are the proportions of individual
aggregates to be blended and whether the optimal blend passes below or above RZ. The model is
applicable to any nominal maximum size (NMS) of the aggregates. The nominal maximum size
is one sieve size larger than the first sieve size that retains more than 10% of the material. The
maximum size is one sieve larger than NMS [14, 18]. This section first presents basic definitions
and uncertainty modeling, then formulates the objective function and various constraints of the
model.

BASIC DEFINITIONS

Let i = 1, 2, …, m be an index for the sieve number of the stack of sieves used in gradation
analysis, where 1 is the smallest-size sieve (0.075 mm), m is the maximum size sieve, and m - 1
is the nominal maximum size sieve (Fig. 1). In the Superpave method, m = 8 to 13 for NMS =
4.75 mm, 9.5 mm, 12.5 mm, 19 mm, 25 mm, and 37.5 mm, respectively. The straight line from
the maximum size gradation (100%) to the origin is the maximum density line (MDL) which is
based on the 0.45 power gradation.

In the Superpave method, there are three lower specification limits that correspond to sieves i =
1, 6, m-1 and four upper specification limits that correspond to sieves i = 1, 6, m-2, m-1. These
specification sieves are applicable to all NMS, except 4.75 mm for which 6 is replaced with 5.
For RZ, i = 3, 4, .., 𝑚𝑅𝑍 , where 𝑚𝑅𝑍 is the number of sieves within RZ. For NMS = 25 mm and
37.5 mm, there are five lower and upper RZ limits and therefore 𝑚𝑅𝑍 = 7. For NMS = 9.5 mm,
12.5 mm, and 19 mm, there are four lower and upper limits and therefore 𝑚𝑅𝑍 = 6. These limits
are illustrated in Fig. 1 for NMS = 19 mm. The blend must pass between control specifications
and should be outside RZ.

Let j be an index for the aggregates to be blended, where j = 1, 2, …, n and n is the number of
available aggregates. Then,

𝑃𝑖 = ∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝑝𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑗 (1)

where:
𝑃𝑖 = percent of the blend passing sieve i,
5
𝑝𝑖𝑗 = percent of aggregate j passing sieve i, and
𝑥𝑗 = proportion of aggregate j in the blend (in decimals).

MODELING UNCERTAINTY

To formulate the uncertainty of the blend, let the mean and standard deviation of the percent
passing the control sieves for aggregate j be denoted by μpij and σpij, respectively, where i = 1, 6,
m-1 for all NMS, except 4.75 mm sieve where 6 is replaced with 5, and j = 1, 2, …, n. Then,
based on Eq. (1), the expected value and standard deviation of the percent of the blend passing
sieve i can be obtained using Taylor series expansion as [37]

𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] = ∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝜇𝑝𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑗 (2)

𝜎𝑃𝑖 = √∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝜎𝑝2𝑖𝑗 𝑥𝑗2 (3)

where:
i = 1, 6, m-1 for all NMS, except 4.75 mm where 6 is replaced with 5,
𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] = expected values of the percent of the blend passing sieve i,
𝜇𝑝𝑖𝑗 = mean of the percent passing sieve i for aggregate j,
𝜎𝑃𝑖 = standard deviation of the percent of the blend passing sieve i, and
𝜎𝑝𝑖𝑗 = standard deviation of the percent passing sieve i for aggregate j.

To simplify the presentation of the model, the objective function and constraints are first
formulated assuming that the specifications of the gradation and PA properties have no
uncertainty. Then, it is shown later how this uncertainty can be incorporated in the model.

OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS

In the Superpave method, typically three different trial blends are established. The first blend
(Blend L) is selected such that it is close to the control lower-specification limits (coarse blend).
The objective function for this blend minimizes the sum of the squared deviations between the
blend and the lower specification limits. The objective function, zL, can be written as

Minimize zL = ∑𝑖(𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] − 𝑆𝐿𝑖 )2 , (4)

where:
𝑆𝐿𝑖 = lower specification limits for sieve i (%) and
i = 1, 6, m-1 for all NMS, except 4.75 mm for which 6 is replaced with 5.

Note that Eq. (4) is based on the expected value and is the simplest of several forms of objective
functions under uncertainty. In some forms, the objective function is represented as a weighted
function of the expected value and its corresponding standard deviation. Generally, the form
used depends on the differing attitudes of decision-makers toward uncertainty, especially when
financial objectives are involved. Given the nature of the aggregate blending problem and to
make the model simple, the simplest form is used here similar to Easa and Can [35].

6
The second blend (Blend U) is selected such that it is close to the control upper-specification
limits and to lower or upper RZ limits (fine blend). The probabilistic objective function for this
blend, zU, is similarly written as
𝑚𝑅𝑍
Minimize zU = ∑𝑖(𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] − 𝑆𝑈𝑖 )2 + 𝛾 ∑𝑖=3 {𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] − [𝜆 𝑅𝐿𝑖 + (1 − 𝜆) 𝑅𝑈𝑖 ]}2 (5)

where:
𝑆𝑈𝑖 = upper specification limits for sieve i (%),
i = 1, 6, m-2, m-1 for all NMS, except 4.75 mm for which 6 is replaced with 5,
λ = binary decision variable (1 or 0 if the blend lies below or above RZ, respectively),
𝛾 = input binary variable (1 if RZ is required to be active and 0 otherwise), and

As noted, for λ = 1, the last term in brackets in Eq. (5) equals 𝑅𝐿𝑖 and thus the squared deviations
from the lower RZ limits are minimized. For λ = 0, this term equals 𝑅𝑈𝑖 and the squared
deviations from the upper RZ limits are minimized. Thus, the model can select Blend U to lie
below or above RZ. In addition, the designer may force this blend to lie below or above RZ by
setting λ = 1 or 0, respectively, instead of being a decision variable.

The third blend (Blend M) is an intermediate blend (dense graded). The blend is selected such
that it is not close to either the control specification limits or to RZ limits. The objective function
for the blend, zM, is written as
𝑚 𝑚
Minimize zM = ∑𝑖(𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] − 𝑆𝑀𝑖 )2 − 𝛾 ∑𝑖=3
𝑅𝑍
{𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] − 𝑅𝐿𝑖 }2 + ∑𝑖=3
𝑁𝑆
{𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] − 𝑀𝐷𝐿𝑖 }2 , (6)

where:
i = 1, 6, m-1 for all NMS, except 4.75 mm for which 6 is replaced with 5,
𝑆𝑀𝑖 = mid-point of the lower and upper specification limits of sieve i,
𝑚𝑁𝑆 = number of intermediate sieves without specifications, which varies with NMS (e.g. for
NMS = 19 mm, 𝑚𝑁𝑆 = 2 (see Fig. 1),
𝑀𝐷𝐿𝑖 = percent passing sieve i of the intermediate sieves, and

Note that in Eq. (6), the minus sign before the second summation serves to maximize the squared
deviations between the blend and RZ lower limits to make the blend not close to these limits. In
addition, the third summation minimizes the squared deviations between the blend and MDL for
the intermediate sieves. This helps provide a smooth blend gradation that is parallel as much as
possible to MDL.

CONSTRAINTS

There are two types of gradation specifications: specifications related to the source aggregate
properties and specifications related to the blend. Naturally, before blending, the designer should
ensure that specifications for the source aggregate properties are satisfied. The blend
specifications include: (1) gradation control specifications, (2) RZ limits, and (3) PA properties.
The optimization model includes constraints related to the preceding specifications, as well as
special and unity constraints.

7
Constraints for Gradation Control Specifications

For these constraints, the percent passing of the blend must satisfy both the lower and upper
specification limits. Given the mean and standard deviation of the blend of Eqs. (2) and (3), the
specification constraints are expressed as

𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] − 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝑃𝑖 ≥ 𝑆𝐿𝑖 , i = 1, 6, m-1 (7)

𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] + 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝑃𝑖 ≤ 𝑆𝑈𝑖 , i = 1, 6, m-2, m-1 (8)

where:
𝑆𝐿𝑖 , 𝑆𝑈𝑖 = lower and upper specification limits for sieve i (%),
𝑧𝛼 = value of the standard normal variate z for a confidence level of (1 – α), and
𝜎𝑃𝑖 = standard deviation of the percent of the blend passing sieve i.

The geometric meaning of Eqs. (7) and (8) is illustrated for sieve no. 6 in Fig. 2. As noted, for
the lower specification limit the mean of the percent passing of the blend minus (𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝑃6 ) should
be greater than or equal to 𝑆𝐿6 . Similarly, for the upper specification limit, the mean of the
percent passing of the blend plus (𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝑃6 ) should be less than or equal to 𝑆𝑈6 .

The Superpave control specifications require that 100% of the aggregate must pass the m sieve,
at least 90% of the aggregate must be finer than the (m - 1) sieve, and less than 90% of the
aggregate must pass the (m – 2) sieve (for NMS = 9.5 mm, the last two values are 85% and
80%). Note that Eqs. (7) and (8) assume that 𝑃𝑖 of the blend is approximately normally
distributed regardless of the type of distribution of 𝑝𝑖𝑗 . This assumption is accurate when a large
number of aggregates is blended according to the central limit theorem [37].

Constraints for Restricted Zone

For RZ, the blend should pass blow the lower limit or above the upper limit. Therefore, the RZ
constraints can be written as

𝜆 𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] + 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝑃𝑖 ≤ 𝛾 𝑅𝐿𝑖 + (1 − 𝛾) 𝐺, i = 3, 4, …, 6 (or 7) (9)

(1 − 𝜆) 𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] − 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝑃𝑖 + 𝜆𝐺 ≥ 𝛾𝑅𝑈𝑖 , i = 3, 4, …, 6 (or 7) (10)

where:
𝑅𝐿𝑖 , 𝑅𝑈𝑖 = lower and upper limits of RZ for sieve i (%) and
G = large number greater than any upper RZ limit (e.g. 100).

The upper limit 6 is used for all NMS, except 37.5 mm and 25 mm for which the upper limit is 7.
The constraints of Eqs. (9) and (10) are illustrated graphically in Fig. 2. These constraints are
similar to those of the control specifications, except that a plus sign for the term (𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝑃𝑖 ) is used
for the lower limit and a minus sign is used for the upper limit. Note also that the term is set

8
equal to zero for the end sieves of RZ (where 𝑅𝐿𝑖 = 𝑅𝑈𝑖 ) since the mean gradation can lie at the
limit without violating RZ, as illustrated in Fig. 2 for sieves 3 and 6.

As noted, for λ = 1, Eq. (9) forces the percent passing of the blend to be less than or equal to the
lower limit, while Eq. (10) becomes inactive. For λ = 0, Eq. (9) becomes inactive and Eq. (10)
forces the percent passing of the blend to be greater than or equal to the upper limit. For 𝛾 = 1,
the right sides of Eqs. (9) and (10) equals 𝑅𝐿𝑖 and 𝑅𝑈𝑖 respectively, and the constraints would be
active. For 𝛾 = 0, the right sides will be equal to G and 0, respectively, and the constraints would
be inactive.

Constraints for Primary Aggregate Properties

The trial blend must satisfy the criteria of the four PA properties: coarse aggregate fractured
faces (R4.75 mm), fine aggregate angularity (P2.36 mm), flat and elongated particles (R9.5 mm),
and sand equivalent (P4.75 mm), where R and P means that the property is evaluated for
materials retained on or passing the respective sieve. The criteria for these properties vary
according to the expected amount of traffic over a 20-year pavement life and/or the position of
the designed layer within the pavement structure. Minimum criteria for CAFF, FAA, and SE and
a maximum criterion for FE have been established. The presence of angular and rough-textured
aggregates within HMA is important for resisting permanent deformation and fatigue cracking.
On the other hand, the presence of flat and elongated particles is undesirable because such
particles tend to break down during production and construction, leading to raveling, pop-outs,
and potholes. Sand equivalent test identifies the amount of clay in the fine aggregate as clay can
make the mixture moisture-sensitive and tender [28].

Note that the criteria PA properties are intended to be enforced on the blend, not on individual
aggregates. Therefore, an aggregate that does not individually satisfy one or more criteria is not
eliminated from consideration for blending.

The constraints of the PA properties are more complex than those of the specification
constraints. This is due to the fact that the constraints for PA properties are nonlinear functions
of several random variables. Therefore, the expected value and standard deviation of each
property must be obtained first. The coarse aggregate fractured faces of the blend is given by
𝑘1 𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹 𝑥 (100− 𝑃475 )
∑𝑗=𝐽1 𝑗 𝑗 𝑗
𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 = 𝑘1 𝑥 (100− 𝑃475 )
(11)
∑𝑗=𝐽1 𝑗 𝑗

where:
𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 = coarse aggregate fractured faces of the blend,
𝑘1 = number of aggregates considered in calculating CAFFB,
𝐽1 = first aggregate number of the set used in calculating CAFFB,
𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝑗 = coarse aggregate fractured faces for aggregate j, and
𝑃475𝑗 = percent of aggregate j passing sieve 4.75 mm.

9
where the variables k1 and J1 are different for each PA property. For example, if there are four
aggregates to be blended and two aggregates (j = 1 and 2) are used for CAFFB, then k1 = 2 and J1
= 1. If three aggregates (j = 2, 3, and 4) are used for calculating SEB, then k1 = 3 and J1 = 2.

In Eq. (11), CAFFB is a function of two random variables, 𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝑗 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑃475𝑗 . Therefore,
according to Taylor series expansion, the expected value and standard deviation of 𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 are
given by
𝑘
1 𝜇
∑𝑗=𝐽1 𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝑗 𝑥𝑗 (100− 𝜇𝑃475𝑗 ) 𝐴1
𝐸[𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 ] = 𝑘1 𝑥 (100− 𝜇
= (12)
∑𝑗=𝐽1 𝑗 𝑃475𝑗 ) 𝐵1

2 2
𝑘 𝜕 𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹
2 2 𝜕 𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹
𝜎𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 2 ≅ ∑𝑗=𝐽1
1
[( 𝜕 𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 ) 𝜎𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹 (
𝑗 𝜕 𝑃475
𝐵
) 𝜎𝑃475𝑗
] (13)
𝑗 𝑗

where:
𝐸[𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 ] = expected value of coarse aggregate fractured faces of the blend,
𝜇𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝑗 = mean of coarse aggregate fractured faces of aggregate j,
𝜇𝑃475𝑗 = mean of the percent passing sieve 4.75 mm of aggregate j,
A1, B1 = numerator and denominator of Eq. (12),
𝜎𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 = standard deviation of coarse aggregate fractured faces of the blend,
𝜎𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝑗 = standard deviation of CAFF for aggregate j,
𝜎 𝑃475𝑗 = standard deviation of 𝑃475 for aggregate j,

The first derivatives in Eq. (11) can be obtained as

𝜕 𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 𝑥𝑗 (100− 𝜇𝑃475𝑗 )

= (14)
𝜕 𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝑗 𝐵1

𝜕 𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 𝑥𝑗 (−𝐵1 𝜇𝑃475𝑗 + 𝐴1 )

= (15)
𝜕 𝑃475𝑗 𝐵1 2

Now, the constraint for CAFFB can be written as

𝐸[𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 ] − 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 ≥ 𝑆𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 (16)

where:
𝑆𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 = specification of minimum coarse aggregate fractured faces of the blend and
𝜎𝐶𝐴𝐹𝐹𝐵 = standard deviation of coarse aggregate fractured faces of the blend.

Similarly, the constraints for the other three PA properties are given by

𝐸[𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 ] − 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 ≥ 𝑆𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 (17)

𝐸[𝐹𝐸𝐵 ] + 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝐹𝐸𝐵 ≤ 𝑆𝐹𝐸𝐵 (18)

𝐸[𝑆𝐸𝐵 ] − 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝑆𝐸𝐵 ≥ 𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐵 (19)

10
where:
𝐸[𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 ] = expected value of fine aggregate angularity of the blend,
𝐸[𝐹𝐸𝐵 ] = expected value of flat and elongated particles of the blend,
𝐸[𝑆𝐸𝐵 ] = expected value of sand equivalent of the blend,
𝜎𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 = standard deviation of fine aggregate angularity of the blend,
𝜎𝐹𝐸𝐵 = standard deviation of flat and elongated particles of the blend,
𝜎𝑆𝐹𝐵 = standard deviation of sand equivalent of the blend,
𝑆𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 = specifications of minimum 𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 ,
𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐵 = specifications of minimum 𝑆𝐸𝐵 , and
𝑆𝐹𝐸𝐵 = specification of maximum 𝐹𝐸𝐵 .

The expected values and standard deviations of FAAB, FEB, and SEB are calculated similar to
Eqs. (12) and (15), as shown in Appendix 1.

In addition to the four PA properties, other aggregate properties that are important to HMA
pavement performance may be specified by individual highway agencies. These properties
include toughness (Los Angeles Abrasion test), soundness (Sodium or Magnesium Sulfate
Soundness test), and deleterious materials (e.g. clay lumps, friable particles, shale, and
vegetation). The results have shown that values of these properties significantly vary across the
United States and Canada, depending on local conditions [18].

Special and Unity Constraints

The special constraints are required for sieve 1 (0.075 mm) and NMS sieve (m – 1). For sieve 1,
the lower specification limit is small (1% to 3%), depending on the nominal maximum size.
Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the lower tail of the probability distribution curve of the
blend does not correspond to negative values. Since the entire normal probability curve
practically lies within three standard deviations, then the special constraint can be expressed
mathematically as

𝐸[𝑃1 ] − 3𝜎𝑃1 ≥ 0, (20)

where 𝑃1 and 𝜎𝑃1 are the mean and SD of sieve 1 (0.075 mm). This constraint is illustrated
graphically in Fig. 2.

Similarly, for the nominal maximum size the upper specification limit is 100% for all NMS
sieves. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that the upper tail of the curve does not correspond to
values of the percent passing greater than 100%. Thus,

𝐸[𝑃𝑚−1 ] + 3𝜎𝑃𝑚−1 ≤ 100, (21)

where 𝑃𝑚−1and 𝜎𝑃𝑚−1 are the mean and SD of sieve (m – 1) whose size varies with NMS.
Finally, to ensure that the gradation proportions of the blend adds up to 1, the unity constraint is
written as

11
 ∑𝑛𝑗=1 𝑥𝑗 = 1 (22)

The optimization model consists of the objective function of Eq. (4), (5), or (6) and the four
types of constraints formulated above. Note that the model is so flexible that additional blend
properties (e.g. absorption and soundness) can be included in the model. In addition, if needed,
the designer may specify limits for the percent passing specific intermediate sieves (without
control specifications) to smooth out blend gradation.

EXTENSION: UNCERTAINTY OF SPECIFICATIONS

There are also uncertainties associated with the specifications for gradation, RZ, and PA
properties which were based on the performance of many field pavements. As such, these
specifications possess uncertainty. For gradation control specifications, the uncertainty exists in
the lower limits for sieves 1, 6, and (m – 1) and the upper limits for sieves 1, 6, (m – 2), and (m –
1). For PA properties, the uncertainty exists in all four limits. Since the RZ is no longer a
requirement in Superpave mix design [14], it would seem reasonable to ignore its uncertainty.

Consideration of the uncertainty of the specifications requires revising the six constraints of the
control specifications and PA properties. The formulation of the revised constraints is illustrated
next using the constraint of the lower-limit specification of Eq. (7). Let a safety margin Fi be
defined as

𝐹𝑖 = 𝑃𝑖 − 𝑆𝐿𝑖 , i = 1, 6, m-1 (23)

Since the blend gradation of sieve i (𝑃𝑖 ) and the specification lower limit (𝑆𝐿𝑖 ) are random
variables, 𝐹𝑖 is also a random variable. For 𝑃𝑖 ≤ 𝑆𝐿𝑖 , 𝐹𝑖 will be negative and the lower
specification limit is violated. The probability distribution of 𝐹𝑖 is shown in Fig. 3, where the
area corresponding to negative values of 𝐹𝑖 represents the probability of constraint violation. The
expected value and standard deviation of 𝐹𝑖 can be written as

𝐸[𝐹𝑖 ] = 𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] − 𝜇𝑆𝐿𝑖 , i = 1, 6, m-1 (24)

𝜎𝐹𝑖 = √𝜎𝑃2𝑖 + 𝜎𝑆𝐿

2
𝑖
, i = 1, 6, m-1 (25)

where 𝜇𝑆𝐿𝑖 and 𝜎𝑆𝐿𝑖 are the mean and standard deviation of 𝑆𝐿𝑖 . Let 𝑧𝛼 = 𝐸[𝐹𝑖 ]/𝜎𝐹𝑖 be the
number of standard deviations from 0 to 𝐸[𝐹𝑖 ] (Fig. 3). Then, considering the inequality, the
revised constraint would be

𝐸[𝑃𝑖 ] − 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝐹𝑖 ≥ 𝜇𝑆𝐿𝑖 , i = 1, 6, m-1 (26)

As noted, Eq. (26) is similar to Eq. (7), except that 𝜎𝑃𝑖 is replaced with 𝜎𝐹𝑖 and 𝑆𝐿𝑖 is replaced
with 𝜇𝑆𝐿𝑖 . The constraints of Eqs. (8) and (16)-(19) are revised similarly.

SPECIAL FEATURES AND PROCEDURES

The optimization model has the following special features:

12
1. The user can run the model as a deterministic model where the model ignores the effect of
the uncertainty. The user needs only input a control variable IDDR as equal to D for
deterministic or U for uncertainty. In addition, if the uncertainty data of the control
specifications are not available, the respective SDs are input as zero. Although the
mathematical formulas of the proposed model seem complex, the corresponding Excel
spreadsheet is rather simple. The user needs only input the required date and the model is
solved in seconds.
2. Some studies have shown that a blend passing below MDL tends to be permeable, especially
if the required density is not met. For this reason, some state Department of Transportation
(DOT) require that blend gradation pass above MDL. Other state DOTs require or allow the
gradation to pass below MDL since they believe that such mixtures provide better stability
[14, 18]. In the presented model, such blends can be easily obtained by setting 𝜆 = 1 (blend
passes below RZ) or 𝜆 = 0 (blend passes above RZ).
3. The red zone was originally part of Superpave specifications as it helps to ensure that the
designer does not use too much natural sand and helps to meet minimum VMA. However,
studies have shown that some gradations that pass through RZ can still meet minimum VMA
and perform satisfactorily. Therefore, the restricted zone is no longer part of Superpave
requirements, but it is still good to use as a guide [14]. In the proposed model, blends can be
allowed to pass through, below, or above the RZ.
4. In the existing trial-and-error method, the designer first plots the gradations of available
aggregates before actually blending them. These plots along with trial-and-error can help
decide whether a feasible blend that satisfies specification and RZ limits can be found before
attempting to blend aggregates [14]. In the proposed optimization model, this problem can be
directly and easily identified. If no blend can be found to satisfy the requirements, the model
would produce a message to this effect.

The procedure of selecting trial blends using the optimization model is as follows (Fig. 4):
Step 1: Identify source aggregates and obtain three or more samples from the stockpile of each
aggregate, then perform the gradation analysis and the tests of PA properties.
Step 2: For each aggregate, calculate the mean and standard deviation of the percent passing
each sieve.
Step 3: Perform the tests of PA properties for each sample. Then, for each aggregate, calculate
the mean and standard deviation of the PA properties.
Step 4: Input the means and standard deviations of the aggregate gradations and PA properties,
and the specification requirements in the Excel worksheet. Also, input the constants zα
and G. Input control variables: IDtype = L, U, or M (for blend type), IDDS = D or S (for
deterministic or stochastic model), and 𝛾 = 1 or 0 (1 for active RZ or 0 otherwise).
Step 5: If a feasible solution is obtained, the run is complete. Then, run the model for another
blend type. If not, explore some strategies to obtain a feasible blend. Such strategies may
include allowing the blend to go through RZ, changing the confidence level, slightly
revising the PA specifications if the violation is very small.
Step 6: If a feasible blend still cannot be obtained, the aggregate that is likely causing the
problem should be examined and possibly replaced.

The optimization model can be solved using any nonlinear optimization software. However, the
Solver software which is a free add-in to Excel 2010 and later versions [38] was used in this

13
study. Solver includes different solution algorithms, including generalised reduced gradient
(GRG) which is used in this study. The algorithm implements a multi-start strategy for finding
global optimal solutions, where candidate starting points are randomly generated from the
specified bounds of the decision variables. The points are grouped into clusters and the process is
run from cluster, leading successively to smaller clusters to capture each locally optimal solution.
Ultimately, the algorithm converges to a globally optimal solution.

Application
There are four aggregates to be blended: coarse aggregate, intermediate aggregate, manufactured
fines, and natural fines. The state highway agency has specified a nominal maximum size of 19
mm which is required for the pavement layer. Three samples were taken from the stockpile of
each aggregate and sieve analysis was conducted for each sample. The mean and SD of the
gradation of each aggregate are shown in Table 1. The mean values in this table are based on
Harman et al. [39] and the SD values were assumed and ranged from 0.4% to 4%. The minimum
and maximum values of the control specifications and RZ limits for NMS = 19 mm, based on
Superpave method, are also shown.

The measured PA properties of individual aggregates are presented in Table 2 along with the
criteria for the blend. The calculations of the PA properties require the percentage passing or
retained on specific sieves. These data are presented in Table 3, based on the aggregate
gradations of Table 1. The data were first used to validate the developed formulas and then to
illustrate the application of the proposed model.

VALIDATION USING SIMULATION

To validate the developed constraints of the optimization model and to ensure that the formulas
were properly coded into the Excel spreadsheet, the mathematical formulas for the mean and SD
of the four PA properties were compared with those obtained using Monte Carlo simulation. The
number of random variables for each PA depends on the number of aggregates used in the
calculation. For example, for the SE property there are three aggregates, each has two random
variables (𝑆𝐸𝑗 and 𝑃475𝑗 ), resulting in a total of six random variables. A total of 20,000 random
values of each variable were generated and substituted in the respective equation, resulting in
20,000 values of each PA property. These values were then used to calculate the mean and
standard deviation of the property and to establish its histograms. A comparison between
simulated and mathematical probability distributions is shown in Fig. 5. The mathematical
distribution is a normal distribution based on the mean and SD of the respective property; for
example, Eqs. (12) and (13) for CAFFB. As noted, the simulated and mathematical results are
almost identical. It is also noted that the simulated distributions are very close to the assumed
normal distribution of the mathematical formulas. The rationale for the assumption of a normal
distribution for the blend properties can be found in Easa [32].

RESULTS OF DETERMINISTIC MODEL

It is required to design three trial blends for a pavement project using the deterministic model.
This model is a special case of the stochastic model where the uncertainties (SDs) are equal to

14
zero. Running the model using the respective objective functions for Blends L, U, and M
produces the blend gradations designated as Deterministic in Fig. 6. The three gradations
produced manually [39] are shown as dashed lines. As noted, the manual and optimal gradations
are quite close. The binary variable λ was a decision variable. That is, the shown blends were not
forced to be below or above RZ. Note that the optimal Blend M is closer to MDL and appears to
be more reflective of an intermediate blend than the blend obtained manually. This is due to the
fact that the objective function of Blend M tries to minimize the deviations from MDL for the
intermediate sieves.

The special features of the model are illustrated in Fig. 7. Blend U (λ = 0) was obtained when λ
was set as a binary decision variable. Clearly, this blend is the optimal. However, Blend U can
also be forced to lie below RZ if the designer requires. This is simply accomplished by setting λ
= 1 and treat it as input. This resulted in the lower curve in Fig. 7(a). As noted, the curve tried to
be as close as possible to the upper specifications, given the restriction of passing below RZ. The
special feature of passing through RZ, where the designer simply sets 𝛾 = 0, is illustrated for
Blend M in Fig. 7(b). In this case, the blend becomes more intermediate and passes through RZ.
This would be an important option for the designer, especially for the stochastic model where
infeasible solutions are possible due to the effect of uncertainty.

RESULTS OF STOCHASTIC MODEL

The stochastic model was applied, considering the uncertainty data presented in Table 1. The
optimal aggregate proportions, PA properties, and percent passing control and RZ sieves for the
trial blends are presented in Table 4. As noted, the blend gradations satisfy all requirements. The
gradations (means percent passing) of the trial blends are shown in Fig. 8. Trial Blends L and M
of the stochastic model are shown in Fig. 8a (dashed lines) along with the respective
deterministic blends (solid lines). As noted, for Blend L, the stochastic model has shifted the
gradation away from the lower specification limit at sieve 6 (2.36 mm) since the deterministic
blend exactly passes at this sieve’s limit, SL6 = 23%. The mean percent passing this sieve is
24.8%. Thus, the difference between this value and the deterministic value equals 24.8 – 23.0 =
1.8%. This value exactly equals the second term of Eq. (7), 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝑃6 = 1.64x1.09 = 1.8%. For
control sieves (1 and 9) and RZ lower limits, the mean gradation satisfies the constraints with
inequality. Similarly, for Blend M the stochastic model shifts the gradation away from the RZ
lower limit, as noted in Fig. 8a. The mean gradation lies at a distance from sieve 5 equal to 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝑃5
= 1.64x1.15 = 1.9%.

For Blend U (Fig. 8b), the optimal solution for a gradation that passes above RZ was infeasible.
That is, the model was unable to simultaneously satisfy the constraints for gradation and PA
properties. As an alternative, RZ was made inactive (γ = 0) and a gradation that passes through
RZ was obtained. As noted in Table 4, the percent passing sieves 3 and 4 are 12% and 23.3%,
indicating that the gradation indeed passes through RZ. Another alternative was explored by
setting λ = 1 to force the gradation of Blend U to pass below RZ and a feasible gradation was
also obtained (Fig. 8b). Similar to Blend M, the model forced the gradation of Blend U to be
farther from the specification limits to satisfy uncertainty requirements.

15
To further provide some insight into the effect of the stochastic constraints, Fig. 9 shows the 90%
confidence interval along with the mean gradations of the three blends: Blend L, Blend M, and
Blend U (passing through RZ). The mean gradations are shown as solid lines and the confidence
limits as dotted lines. At each sieve, the vertical distances below and above the solid line are
equal to 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝑃6 . In searching for a feasible blend, the model tries to find a feasible solution that
minimizes the objective function while the dotted lines around the mean gradation do not violate
any requirement. Clearly, large uncertainties in the individual aggregates will make the
confidence interval larger. Thus, one can imagine that if the confidence interval is large, it may
not be possible to find a feasible blend. In particular, the infeasibility could be caused by the
inability of Blend U gradation to go through the narrow and steep passage from the area above
RZ leading to sieve 1.

Concluding Remarks
The existing method of selecting Superpave trial blends has two limitations: it is deterministic
and it is based on trial-and-error. This paper has presented a stochastic optimization model that
eliminates these limitations. Based on this research, the following comments are offered:
1. It is recommended that three or more samples from each aggregate stockpile used for selecting
Superpave trial blends be obtained to determine the uncertainties of gradation and PA
properties of individual aggregates. These uncertainties are used as input in the proposed
model to determine the uncertainties of the blend. Various types of constraints were
formulated to ensure that the blend gradation satisfies the requirements for control
specifications, RZ, and PA properties (for a given confidence level). Uncertainty data seems
to be routinely available in testing aggregates, at least for PA properties, but only the average
values are currently being used in selecting trial blends.
2. Not only does the proposed model improve the reliability of the blend, it also improves the
efficiency of selecting trial blends. The model eliminates the existing trial-and-error method
both before and during blend selection. In this method, before attempting to blend the
aggregates, the user has to plot individual aggregate gradations and use some trial-and-error to
decide whether the available aggregates can actually produce a satisfactory blend. In contrast,
if a feasible solution cannot be obtained, the proposed model directly makes this decision and
produces a message at the start of the run. Otherwise, the model can directly determine
feasible trial blends in a few minutes using Excel Solver.
3. The model includes several important features that address practical needs. The designer can
force the blend to pass below or above RZ to satisfy local requirements by changing an input
control variable. In addition, the designer can make RZ inactive using another control variable
that allows the blend to pass through RZ. This flexible feature is especially useful since RZ is
no longer a requirement in Superpave method and it acts only as a guide. In addition, the
experimentation with the model indicated that a feasible blend that passes above RZ is
difficult to obtain, even when the uncertainty of the input variables is small.
4. The proposed model assumes that the probability distributions of the blend percent-passing
and PA properties are normally distributed. This assumption was verified for the PA
properties using Monte Carlo simulation. The close agreement between simulated and
modeled results is not surprising. The reason is that, according to the Central Limit Theorem,
when a random variable is a function of several random variables, its probability distribution

16
 tends to be normal, regardless of the types of distribution of the component variables.
Typically, both blend gradation and PA properties involve several random variables.
5. A novel and interesting feature of the proposed model is that it incorporates the uncertainty of
the specifications. It was shown that this uncertainty would contribute to a larger uncertainty
of the blend that forces the optimal blend to lie even farther from the specified requirements.
The criteria for PA properties certainly possess uncertainty. It has been reported that aggregate
supplies known to yield asphalt mixtures with superior performance could not meet
Superpave standards [40], indicating the presence of criteria uncertainty. In addition, control
specifications were based on the performance of thousands of pavement sections in the United
States and Canada, and presumably represent the average or some percentile values of many
good-performance observations. Until such data become available, the uncertainty of control
specifications in the model can be set equal to zero. Future research may explore the effect of
changing the number of aggregate samples from each of the stockpiles on the results obtained
using the proposed approach. It is hoped that further research will be undertaken to establish
the uncertainty data related to the specifications for blend gradation and PA properties.

Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to four anonymous reviewers, editorial board member, and editor-in-chief
for their thorough and most valuable comments.

Appendix 1: Statistical Moments of PA Properties of the Blend

The expected values and standard deviations of the PA properties of the blend (FAAB, FEB, and
SEB) are derived here similar to those of CAFFB of Eqs. (11)-(16). The fine aggregate angularity
of the blend is written as
𝑘2 𝐹𝐴𝐴 𝑥 𝑃236
∑𝑗=𝐽 𝑗 𝑗 𝑗
𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 = 2
𝑘2 𝑥 𝑃236
(27)
∑𝑗=𝐽 𝑗 𝑗
2
where:
𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 = fine aggregate angularity of the blend,
𝑘2 = number of aggregates considered in calculating FAAB,
𝐽2 = first aggregate number of the set used in calculating FAAB,
𝐹𝐴𝐴𝑗 = fine aggregate angularity for aggregate j, and
𝑃236𝑗 = percent of aggregate j passing sieve 2.36 mm.

Then,
1 𝜇𝑘
∑𝑗=𝐽 𝐹𝐴𝐴𝑗 𝑥𝑗 𝜇𝑃236𝑗 𝐴2
2
𝐸[𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 ] = 𝑘
1 𝑥 𝜇
= (28)
∑𝑗=𝐽 𝐵2
2 𝑗 𝑃236𝑗

2 2
𝑘 2 𝜕 𝐹𝐴𝐴 2 𝜕 𝐹𝐴𝐴
𝜎𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 2 ≅ ∑𝑗=𝐽
1
2
[( 𝜕 𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 ) 𝜎𝐹𝐴𝐴 ( 𝐵
𝑗 𝜕 𝑃236
) 𝜎𝑃236𝑗
] (29)
𝑗 𝑗

𝜕 𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 𝑥𝑗 𝜇𝑃236𝑗
= (30)
𝜕 𝐹𝐴𝐴𝑗 𝐵2

17
 𝜕 𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 𝑥𝑗 (𝐵2 𝜇𝐹𝐴𝐴𝑗 −𝐴2 )
= (31)
𝜕 𝑃236𝑗 𝐵2 2

𝐸[𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 ] − 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 ≥ 𝑆𝐹𝐴𝐴𝐵 (32)

For flat and elongated particles,

𝑘3 𝐹𝐸 𝑥 (100− 𝑃95 )
∑𝑗=𝐽 𝑗 𝑗 𝑗
𝐹𝐸𝐵 = 𝑘
3
3 𝑥 (100− 𝑃95 )
(33)
∑𝑗=𝐽
3 𝑗 𝑗

where:
𝐹𝐸𝐵 = flat and elongated particles of the blend,
𝑘3 = number of aggregates considered in calculating FEB,
𝐽3 = first aggregate number of the set used in calculating FEB,
𝐹𝐸𝑗 = flat and elongated particles for aggregate j, and
𝑃95𝑗 = percent of aggregate j passing sieve 9.5 mm.

Then,
𝑘
3 𝜇
∑𝑗=𝐽 𝑥 (100− 𝜇𝑃95𝑗 ) 𝐴3
3 𝐹𝐸𝑗 𝑗
𝐸[𝐹𝐸𝐵 ] = 𝑘1 𝑥 (100− 𝜇
= (34)
∑𝑗=𝐽 𝑃95𝑗 ) 𝐵3
3 𝑗

2 2
𝑘 2 𝜕 𝐹𝐸 2 𝜕 𝐹𝐸
𝜎𝐹𝐸𝐵 2 ≅ ∑𝑗=𝐽
3
3
[( 𝜕 𝐹𝐸𝐵 ) 𝜎𝐹𝐸 ( 𝐵
𝑗 𝜕 𝑃95
) 𝜎𝑃95 𝑗
] (35)
𝑗 𝑗

𝜕 𝐹𝐸𝐵 𝑥𝑗 (100− 𝜇𝑃95𝑗 )

= (36)
𝜕 𝐹𝐸𝑗 𝐵3

𝜕 𝐹𝐸𝐵 𝑥𝑗 (−𝐵3 𝜇𝐹𝐸𝑗 +𝐴3 )

= (37)
𝜕𝑃95𝑗 𝐵3 2

𝐸[𝐹𝐸𝐵 ] + 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝐹𝐸𝐵 ≤ 𝑆𝐹𝐸𝐵 (38)

For sand equivalent,

𝑘
4 𝑆𝐸 𝑥 𝑃475
∑𝑗=𝐽 𝑗 𝑗 𝑗
𝑆𝐸𝐵 = 𝑘
4
4 𝑥 𝑃475
(39)
∑𝑗=𝐽 𝑗 𝑗
4
where:
𝑆𝐸𝐵 = sand equivalent of the blend,
𝑘4 = number of aggregates considered in calculating SEB,
𝐽4 = first aggregate number of the set used in calculating SEB,
𝑆𝐸𝑗 = sand equivalent for aggregate j, and
𝑃475𝑗 = percent of aggregate j passing sieve 4.75 mm.

Then,
𝑘
4 𝜇
∑𝑗=𝐽 𝑥 𝜇 𝐴4
4 𝑆𝐸𝑗 𝑗 𝑃475𝑗
𝐸[𝑆𝐸𝐵 ] = 𝑘4 = (40)
∑𝑗=𝐽 𝑥 𝜇𝑃475𝑗 𝐵4
4 𝑗
2 2
𝑘 2 𝜕 𝑆𝐸 2 𝜕 𝑆𝐸
𝜎𝑆𝐸𝐵 2 ≅ ∑𝑗=𝐽
4
4
[( 𝜕 𝑆𝐸𝐵 ) 𝜎𝑆𝐸 ( 𝐵
𝑗 𝜕 𝑃475
) 𝜎𝑃475 𝑗
] (41)
𝑗 𝑗

18
 𝜕 𝑆𝐸𝐵 𝑥𝑗 𝜇𝑃475𝑗
= (42)
𝜕 𝑆𝐸𝑗 𝐵4

𝜕 𝑆𝐸𝐵 𝑥𝑗 (𝐵4 𝜇𝑆𝐸𝑗 −𝐴4 )

= (43)
𝜕 𝑃475𝑗 𝐵4 2

𝐸[𝑆𝐸𝐵 ] − 𝑧𝛼 𝜎𝑆𝐸𝐵 ≥ 𝑆𝑆𝐸𝐵 (44)

References
[1] Singh, V. P., Jain, S. K., and Tyagi, A., “Risk and Reliability Analysis: A Handbook for
Civil and Environmental Engineers,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,
Virginia, 2013.
[2] Hughes, I. and Hase, T., “Measurements and their Uncertainties: A Practical Guide to
Modern Error Analysis,” Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 2010.
[3] Federal Highway Administration, “A Review of Aggregate and Asphalt Mixture Specific
Gravity Measurements and Their Impacts on Asphalt Mix Design Properties and Mix
Acceptance.” Report FHWA‐ HIF‐ 11‐ 033, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C., 2010.
[4] Han, D., Kaito, K., Kobayashi, K., and , Aoki, K. “Performance evaluation of advanced
pavement materials by Bayesian Markov Mixture Hazard model,” KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2016, pp. 729-737.
[5] Castillo, D., Caro, S., Darabi, M., and Masad, E., “Studying the effect of microstructural
properties on the mechanical degradation of asphalt mixtures,” Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 93, 2015, pp. 70-83.
[6] Eddhahak-Ouni , A. Dony, A., and Colin, J., “Prediction of the rutting potential of
bituminous binders using a stochastic approach,” Road Materials and Pavement Design,
Vol. 13, No. 1, 2012, pp. 38-48.
[7] Praticò, F. G. and Casciano, A., “Variability of HMA Characteristics and its Influence on
Pay Adjustment,” J. Civ. Eng. and Mgt., Vol. 21, No. 1, 2015, pp. 119-130.
[8] Sadek, H., Masad, E., Al-Khalid, H., and Sirin, O. “Probabilistic Analysis of Fatigue Life
for Asphalt Mixtures Using the Viscoelastic Continuum Damage Approach,” Construction
and Building Materials, Vol. 126, 2016, pp. 227-244.
[9] Bhattacharjee, S., “Incorporating Uncertainties in Flexible Pavement Design.” Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Transport, Vol. 170, No. 3, 2017, pp. 158-170.
[10] Caro, S., Castillo, D., and Sánchez-Silva, M., “Methodology to Model the Uncertainty of
Material Properties in Asphalt Pavements,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol.
26, No. 3, 2013, pp. 440-448.
[11] Easa, S. M., Shalaby, A., and Abd El Halim, A. O., “Reliability-Based Model for
Predicting Pavement Thermal Cracking,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol.
122, No. 5, 1996, pp. 374-380.
[12] Retherford, J. Q., “Management of Uncertainty for Flexible Pavement Design Utilizing
Analytical and Probabilistic Methods,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Civil
Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, 2012.

19
[13] Kennedy, T. W., Huber, G. A., Harrigan, E. T., Cominsky, R. J., Hughes, C. S., Quintus,
H. V., and Moulthrop, J. S., “Superior Performing Asphalt Pavements (Superpave): The
Product of the SHRP Asphalt Research Program,” TRB, Report No. SHRP-A-410,
Washington, D.C., 1994.
[14] Brown, E. R., Kandhal, P. S., Roberts, F. L., Kim, Y. R., Lee, D-Y., and Kennedy, T. W.,
”Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction,” Research and Education
Foundation, National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA), Lanham, Maryland, 2009.
[15] Prowell, B. D. and Brown, E. R., “Superpave Mix Design: Verifying Gyration Levels in the
N(Design) Table,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 573,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007.
[16] Christensen Jr, D. W. and Bonaquist, R.F., “Volumetric Requirements for Superpave Mix
Design,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 567,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.
[17] Kandhal, P. S. and Cooley Jr, L. A., “The Restricted Zone in the Superpave Aggregate
Gradation Specification,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No.
464, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2001.
[18] Hossain, M. and Fager, G. “Superpave Volumetric Mixture Design and Analysis
Handbook,” Vol. 1, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka, Kansas, 2016.
[19] Transportation Research Board, “A Manual for Design of Hot-Mix Asphalt with
Commentary,” National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 673,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.
[20] Federal Highway Administration, “Long-Term Pavement Performance Bind Online
(Product Brief),” FHWA-HRT-17-009, FHWA, Washington, DC, 2016.
[21] Zaniewski, J. P. and Padula, M., “Automation of the Superpave Mix Design Process for the
West Virginia Division of Highways,” Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.,
2003
[22] Asphalt Institute. “Asphalt Mix Design Methods.” Asphalt Institute Series MS-2,
Lexington, KY, 2015.
[23] Miller, L. J. and Bean, D. C., “Selection of Aggregate Components by Computer for
Optimum Mix Design,” Proceedings, Canadian Technical Asphalt Association, Vol. 25,
1980.
[24] Easa, S. M., “Trade-off of Gradation and Cost Requirements in Aggregate Blending,”
Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1985, pp. 29-36.
[25] McDaniel, R., Soleymani, H., and Shah, A. “Use of Reclaimed Pavement (RAP) under
Superpave Specifications,” Final Report, North Central Superpave Center, West Lafayette,
Ind., 2002.[26] McDaniel, R. and Anderson, R. M., Recommended Use of Reclaimed
Asphalt Pavement in the Superpave Mix Design Method: Technician’s Manual, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report No. 452, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2001.
[27] Swamy, A. K. and Das, A. “Optimal Proportioning for Hot Recycled Mix Design under
Superpave Mix Design Consideration,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 36,
2009, pp. 1470-1477.
[28] Federal Highway Administration, “Superpave Mixture Design Guide,” WesTrack Forensic
Team Consensus Report FHWA, Washignton, D.C., 2001.
[29] Vavrik, W. R., Huber, G. A., Pine, W. J., Carpenter, S. H., and Bailey, R. “Bailey Method
for Gradation Selection in HMA Mixture Design,” Transportation Research Circular E-

20
 C044, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
2002.
[30] Vavrik, W. R., Pine, W. J., Huber, G., Carpenter, S. H., and Bailey, R. “The Bailey Method
of Gradation Evaluation: The Influence of Aggregate Gradation and Packing
Characteristics on Voids in the Mineral Aggregate,” Journal of the Association of Asphalt
paving Technology, Volume 70, 2001.
[31] Mohammad, L. N. and Shamsi, K. A. “A Look at the Bailey Method and Locking Point
Concept in Superpave Mixture Design,” Transportation Research Circular E-C124,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2007.
[32] Easa, S. M., “New Design Method of Asphalt Mixtures Considering Uncertainty,” Journal
of Testing and Evaluation, 2017 (in press).
[33] Easa, S. M. “Evaluation of Superpave Design Aggregate Structure Considering Uncertainty:
Issues and New Criteria,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 2018 (under review).
[34] Zaniewski, J. P. and Kanneganti, V. “Comparison of 19 mm Superpave and Marshall Base
II Mixes in West Virginia,” West Virginia Division of Highways, Charleston, W.V., 2003.
[35] Easa, S. M. and Can, E. K., “Stochastic Priority Model for Aggregate Blending,” Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 111, No. 4, 1985, pp. 358-373.
[36] Kikuchi, S., Kronprasert, N., and Easa, S. M., “Aggregate Blending Using Fuzzy
Optimization,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 138. No. 12,
2012, pp. 1411-1420.
[37] Benjamin, J.R. and Cornell, C. A., “Probability, Statistics, and Decision for Civil
Engineers,” McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y., 2014.
[38] Microsoft, “Microsoft Excel 2010 User Guide,” Available online at
https://support.office.com/en-US/article/Getting-started-with-Excel-2010-D8708FF8-
2FBD-4D1E-8BBB-5DE3556210F7, 2016 (accessed on February 23, 2017).
[39] Harman, T., D'Angelo, J., and Bukowski, J. “Superpave Asphalt Mixture Design Workshop
Workbook,” Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1999.
[40] Transportation Research Board, “Superpave performance by Design,” Final Report of the
TRB Superpave Committee, 2005.

21
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Gradation of four aggregates to be blended (NMS = 19 mm) and specification/RZ limits
Table 2 Measured PA properties of individual aggregates and criteria requirements
Table 3 Percent passing and retained on the respective sieves for PA properties
Table 4 Blends of the stochastic and deterministic models

22
Table 1 Gradations of four aggregates to be blended (NMS = 19 mm) and specification/RZ limits
Sieve Sieve Mean and SD of Stockpile Gradations Specification Restricted Zone
No. Size Aggregate 1 Aggregate 2 Aggregate 3 Aggregate 4 Limits (%) Limits
(i) (mm) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Min Max Lower Upper
11 25 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 0 100 100 -a -
10 19 92 2 100 0 100 0 100 0 90 100 - -
9 12.5 50 4 100 0 100 0 100 0 - 90 - -
8 9.5 14 1.2 95 4 100 0 100 0 - - - -
7 4.75 3 0.4 25 2 100 0 100 0 - - - -
6 2.36 2 0.4 6 1.2 87 4 93 4 23 49 34.6 34.6
5 1.18 2 0.4 4 0.4 65 4 64 4 - - 22.3 28.3
4 0.6 2 0.4 4 0.4 42 2 48 2 - - 16.7 20.7
3 0.3 2 0.4 3 0.4 18 2 32 2 - - 13.7 13.7
2 0.15 2 0.4 3 0.4 6 1.2 18 2 - - - -
1 0.075 2 0.4 2.8 0.4 3.7 0.4 10 1.2 2 8 - -
a
Not applicable.

23
Table 2 Measured PA properties of individual aggregates and criteria requirements

PA Tested Aggregate 1 Aggregate 2 Aggregate 3 Aggregate 4 Criteria

Property Aggregates Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD for Blend
CAFF1a R 4.75 mm 99 2 80 2 - - - - ≥ 85.0
CAFF2a R 4.75 mm 97 2 60 2 - - - - ≥ 80.0
FAA P 2.36 mm - b
- - b
- 48 1.2 42 0.1 ≥ 45.0
FE R 9.5 mm 9 0.4 2 0.4 - - - - ≤ 10.0
SE P 4.75 mm - - 45 1.2 51 1.2 39 0.1 ≥ 45.0
a
CAFF1 refers to one or more fractured faces and CAFF2 refers to two or more fractured faces.
b
Not applicable. The test is not performed on coarse Aggregates 1 and 2 even though they have a small percentage
passing the 2.36 mm sieve.

24
Table 3 Percent passing and retained on the respective sieves for PA properties
Percent Passing or Retained on Respective Sieve
Aggregate 1 Aggregate 2 Aggregate 3 Aggregate 4
PA Tested (j = 1) (j = 2) (j = 3) (j = 4)
Property Aggregates Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
CAFF1+ R 4.75 mm 97 0.4 75 2 0 0 0 0
CAFF2+ R 4.75 mm 97 0.4 75 2 0 0 0 0
FAA P 2.36 mm 2 0.4 6 1.2 87 4 93 2
FE R 9.5 mm 86 1.2 5 4 0 0 0 0
SE P 4.75 mm 3 0.4 25 2 100 0 100 0

25
Table 4 Blends of the stochastic and deterministic models a
Blend L Blend U Blend M
b b
D R D R R D R
Below Below Above No Below Below Below Specif. RZ
Element RZ RZ RZ RZ RZ RZ RZ Limits Limits
x1 0.6 0.6 0.24 0.29 0.39 0.42 0.41 -c -
x2 0.16 0.14 0.26 0.21 0.32 0.27 0.31 - -
x3 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.38 0.22 0.31 0.28 - -
x4 0 0 0.24 0.12 0.07 0 0 - -
λ 1 1 0 0 or 1 1 1 1 - -
CAFF1 95.7 93.3 90.3 89.7 89.3 92.7 89.7 85 min -
CAFF2 90.7 89.2 80.0 80.0 80.0 84.7 80.8 80 min -
FAA 48.0 46.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 48.0 46.0 45 min -
SE 50.1 48.5 45.2 46.4 46.2 49.9 48.1 45 min -
FE 9.0 9.7 9.0 9.7 9.7 9.0 9.7 10 max -
P11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 -
P10 95.2 95.2 98.1 97.7 96.9 96.7 96.7 90-100 -
P9 70.0 70.0 88.2 85.7 80.4 79.1 79.4 90 -
P6 23.0 24.8 47.2 46.3 28.2 29.7 27.2 23-49 34.6-34.6
P5 17.4 18.8 33.9 34.0 20.8 22.3 20.4 - 22.3-28.3
P4 11.9 12.7 24.1 23.3 14.6 15.1 13.9 - 16.7-20.7
P3 6.0 6.3 13.7 12.0 7.9 7.3 6.8 - 13.7-13.7
P1 2.5 2.6 4.6 3.8 3.2 2.7 2.7 2-8 -
a
Values of PA properties and percent passing are the mean values.
b
D = deterministic model and R = stochastic model.
c
Not applicable.

26
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Definition of optimization variables for blend gradation, specifications, and restricted
zone
Figure 2 Illustration of effect of uncertainty for control specifications and restricted zone
Figure 3 Combined effect of uncertainties of blend specification and gradation
Figure 4 Procedure for application of stochastic optimization model
Figure 5 Comparison of mathematical (normal distribution) and simulation
results for PA properties of the blend
Figure 6 Comparison of deterministic model and manual gradations
Figure 7 Illustration of the special features of the stochastic model (deterministic case)
Figure 8 Effect of uncertainty on optimal blend gradations
Figure 9 Mean gradation and confidence limits of the three trial blends

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
 40

View publication stats