PERMEABLE PORES AND FIELD PERMEABILITY MODEL

Permeable Pores
 Permeability specifications are Method to Determine
developed based on permeability-
total pores correlation
 
 Permeable pores are determined
using tracer method
 Total pores are easy to determine  A salt meter is attached to a
however it contains isolated and permeameter
dead-end pores which has no  Salt-meter measures outflow salt
contribution to flow concentration with time
 No efforts were made to determine  Laboratory permeability is
permeable pores of asphalt calculated as:
pavements  Laboratory permeable pores are
calculated as:
Definition
 Permeable pores: Pores that continue from top to bottom of the sample (np) Tracer Test Set up
 Dead end pores: Pores on top or bottom surface that doesn’t continue to opposite sides
 Isolated pores: Pores that has no connection to top or bottom face of the sample or not where q = Darcy’s velocity, cm/s; Q = discharge rate, cm3/s; A =
connected to permeable or dead end pores ross sectional area of the sample, cm2; kl = laboratory
 Effective pores: Pores that are accessible by water ( sum of permeable and dead end permeability, L = length of the sample, cm; h = head, cm; tb =
pores) breakthrough time;

Procedure
Field Permeability Model   Laboratory permeability and laboratory permeable pores of 6 in. diameter
samples are determined using tracer method (described previous section)
 A 4 in. diameter sample is cored out from 6 in. diameter sample
 Laboratory permeability and laboratory permeable pores of 4 in. diameter
samples are also determined using tracer method
 Field permeable pores and permeability is determined using the following
equation:

where ; kl1 and kl2 are permeability corresponding to 6in. and 4 in.
 Permeability determined in the field is affected by several factors such
as OGFC and different coatings diameter sample respectively; npl1 and npl2 are permeable pore of 6in.
 Field measurement doesn’t gives exact permeability of a layer or mix and 4 in. diameter sample respectively.
 Laboratory permeability give 1D permeability only although field
permeability is 3D

Results and Discussions  All samples contain more permeable 1800

nR²
vs.= kl
0.67
14.00 pores than isolated or dead end pore 1600 Exponential (n
12.00 isolated pores permeable pores  For samples with high pore contents, vs. kl)
1400 ne vs. kl
dead-end pores isolated or dead end pores become
Different type of pores (%)

10.00
kl (x10-5 cm/s)

1200
8.00 negligible
1000
6.00
800 R² = 0.53
4.00  Permeability increases exponentially 600
2.00 with total, effective or permeable pores
400
0.00  Permeability shows a better correlation R² = 0.23
... .... .... 2... 2... .... .... 0.5 6.9 1.8 .82 .84 200
4 9 9 2 2 with permeable pores than effective
P1 28 28 P28 P28 27 27 P6 P4 MP P1 P1 0
5M MP MP 0M 0M MP MP 91M 14M 344 44M 44M pores or total pores 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
8
2 70 70 S7 S7 70 70 S4 M M 3 3
S
U US US U U US US U N N NM NM n, ne or npl (%)

1000 Pavements without OGFC  For pavements with OGFC, 160

Predicted permeability (x10-5 cm/s)

900 Pavements with OGFC

measured k is very high
Laboratory k 140
800 compared to predicted k. A
Predicted k shift factor is not possible to 120
700
Permeability (×10-5 cm/s)

600 Measured k determine in this case 100

500  For pavements without OGFC,
Modefied predicted k 80
400 measured k is less than
predicted k 60
300
200  ANOVA analysis gives an 40
100 intercept of 9.43×10-5 cm/s 20
0 with slope 0.132.
0
.53 T L T L T L
0 .5 6 .9 1 .8 . 82 .84  The mean of error and
4 0 . 26 2.2 67
. P6 P4
M
P P1 P1 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
P1 89 28 72 M M 4 M M standard deviation of error are
2 P 2 1 4 4 4 4 Field measured permeability (x 10-5 cm/s)
8 5M M
P
0 M M
P
S49 M
1
M
3 34 34 12.3% and 6.4%
2 0 7 0 U N N N M NM
S S7 S S7
U U U U For Pavements without OGFC
Pavement sections

Conclusions
 Permeability has a better correlation with permeable pores than effective or total pores
 Permeable pore is the maximum among all pores for highly permeable samples. The scenario may be different for low permeable samples, which has not
been done in this study
 Field and laboratory permeability doesn’t show any correlation
 The model proposed initially gives field permeability of an ideal pavement which has no OGFC, fully saturated, single layer with no coating etc. In reality, no
pavement is ideal therefore, the model cannot be used directly
 A shift factor is used with the prediction which gives results very close to the measured permeability, but it works only for pavements without OGFC.
Pavements with OGFC, the model does not work