Citation
Evaluation of Performance-Based Gradation Guidelines

Material Information

Title:
Evaluation of Performance-Based Gradation Guidelines
Creator:
KOTHARI, VIRENDRA RAJMAL
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Asphalt ( jstor )
Construction aggregate ( jstor )
Design volume ( jstor )
Particle interactions ( jstor )
Particle size classes ( jstor )
Particle size distribution ( jstor )
Perceptual localization ( jstor )
Porosity ( jstor )
Ruts ( jstor )
Specimens ( jstor )
City of Gainesville ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Virendra Rajmal Kothari. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
12/31/2015
Resource Identifier:
658201980 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE-BASED GRADATION GUIDELINES By VIRENDRA RAJMAL KOTHARI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Virendra Kothari

PAGE 3

To my parents who have supported all of my endeavors

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to first thank to my adviso r and my committee chairman, Dr. Reynaldo Roque for his advice, guidance, and suppor t. Without his technical and personal expertise, this would not have been possibl e. I would also like to acknowledge my other committee members (Dr. Bjorn Birgisson, Dr. Mang Tia, and Dr. Edward Minchin, Jr.) who have lent their knowl edge and experience. My special thanks go to Mr. George Lopp, Ms.Tanya Reidhammer, Dr. Christos Drakos, Mr. Gregory Sholar , Mr. Howie Moseley, Mr.Vishal Reddy, and Dr. Claude Villiers, for their support and valuable advice. My deepest thanks go to all the members of the Civil Engineering materials group for their friendship and support during the past 2 years. They include Sungho Kim, Alva ro, Collins Donkor, Mahir Dham, Lokendra Jaiswal, JaeSeung Kim, and Raza. I would also like to express sincere appreciation to all of my family members and friends for their love, support, and friendship.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................x ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................xi v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 1.1 Background...........................................................................................................1 1.2 Objectives.............................................................................................................2 1.3 Scope.................................................................................................................... .3 1.4 Research Approach...............................................................................................3 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................5 2.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................5 2.2 Aggregate Gradation.............................................................................................5 2.3 Performance Test Parameters...............................................................................8 2.4 Performance Measurement in the Field..............................................................10 2.5 Summary and Conclusion...................................................................................10 3 MATERIALS AND TESTING METHODS..............................................................11 3.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................11 3.2 Materials.............................................................................................................11 3.3 Selection of Section and Marking of Location...................................................14 3.4 Rut Depth Measurement on Field.......................................................................15 3.5 Coring Operation................................................................................................15 3.6 Plant Mixture......................................................................................................19 3.7 Lift Measurements and Core Cutting.................................................................20 3.8 Volumetric Test..................................................................................................20 3.9 Selection of Locations for Indirect Tensile Testing (IDT).................................21 3.10 Asphalt Content and Gradations.......................................................................21 3.11 Indirect Tensile Testing (IDT)..........................................................................21 3.11.1 Specimen Preparation.............................................................................21

PAGE 6

vi 3.11.2 Testing Method.......................................................................................23 3.11.2.1 Resilient modulus (Mr)................................................................23 3.11.2.2 Creep compliance test..................................................................24 3.11.2.3 Strength test..................................................................................25 3.12 Servopac Test....................................................................................................25 3.13 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) Test..........................................................27 4 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH.....................................................................28 4.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................28 4.2 Requirements for Good Mixtures.......................................................................29 4.3 Basic Premises....................................................................................................29 4.4 Basic Concepts....................................................................................................30 4. 4.1 Dominant Aggreg ate Size Range (DASR)..............................................30 4.4.2 Topographical Characteristics of Interstitial Surface (TCIS)...................31 4.4.3 Interstitial Volume (IV) a nd Interstitial Components (IC).......................32 4.4.4 Local Stress Concentration.......................................................................33 4.4.5 DASR Porosity.........................................................................................34 4.4.5.1 Porosity in soil mechanics..............................................................34 4.4.5.2 Application to asphalt mixture.......................................................35 4.4.5.3 Individual porosity analysis...........................................................36 4.4.5.4 Particle spacing on the interstitial surface......................................38 4.4.5.5 Porosity analysis considering interaction.......................................41 5 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS...................................................................................44 5.1 Results Summary..................................................................................................60 6 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................61 6.1 Summary Conclusion..........................................................................................61 6.2 Recommendations...............................................................................................62 APPENDIX A INDIRECT TENSILE TESTING (IDT) GROUPS....................................................63 B GRADATION AND VOLUMETRIC PROPERTIES OF JMF AND IN-PLACE MIXTURES................................................................................................................65 C JOB MIX FORMULA (JMF) AND POWER GRADATION CURVE.....................85 D DIAGRAMS OF INTERACTION PERCENTAGE OF BIGGER PARTICLES FOR CONTIGUOUS RANGE S FOR PROJECTS....................................................98 E IDT, DASR POROSITY, SERVOPAC TEST AND APA TEST RESULTS.........111

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................119 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................122

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Projects investigated.................................................................................................12 3-2 Materials used..........................................................................................................13 3-3 Rut depth measurements using TP and RSP............................................................16 3-3 Continued.................................................................................................................1 7 A-1 Groups of selected locations for IDT of all projects top lift....................................63 A-2 Groups of selected locations fo r IDT of all projects bottom lift..............................64 B-1 Project 1 top lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.............................66 B-2 Project 1 bottom lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.......................67 B-3 Project 2 top lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.............................68 B-4 Project 2 bottom lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.......................69 B-5 Project 3 top lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.............................70 B-6 Project 3 bottom lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.......................71 B-7 Project 4 top lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.............................72 B-8 Project 4 bottom lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.......................73 B-9 Project 5 top lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.............................74 B-10 Project 5 bottom lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.......................75 B-11 Project 6 top lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.............................76 B-12 Project 7 top lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.............................77 B-13 Project 7 bottom lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.......................78 B-14 Project 8 top lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.............................79

PAGE 9

ix B-15 Project 8 bottom lift groups – grad ations and volumetric properties.......................80 B-16 Project 9 top and bottom lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties..........81 B-17 Project 10 top and botto m lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties........82 B-18 Project 11 top and botto m lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties........83 B-19 Project 12 top and botto m lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties........84 E-1 Projects 8, 9, and 10 APA results of plant mixtures..............................................116 E-2 Projects 11 and 12 APA results of plant mixtures.................................................117 E-3 Projects 8 to 12 Servopac results for plant mixtures..............................................118

PAGE 10

x LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Project locations on Florida map...........................................................................14 3-2 Transverse profiler.................................................................................................18 3-3 Schematic of core locations...................................................................................18 3-4 Coring in the field....................................................................................................19 3-5 Marked and labeled full core, and cut specimen....................................................20 3-6 Cut specimen with gage point attached.................................................................22 3-7 IDT chamber..........................................................................................................22 3-8 Creep compliance power law parameters..............................................................26 3-9 Determination of fracture energy and DCSE.........................................................27 4-1 Topographic view of failure plan e of asphalt concrete specimen..........................31 4-2 Structure with DASR particles, inte rstitial components (IC) and interstitial volume (IV)............................................................................................................32 4-3 Finite element model of aggr egate and interstitial volume....................................33 4-4 Interstitial spacing vs. local stress..........................................................................33 4-5 Relationship among soil phases.............................................................................34 4-6 Trial gradations of coarse-gra ded and fine-graded mixture types.........................37 4-7 Individual particle size porosity results.................................................................37 4-8 Hexagonal pattern distribution and spacing calculation for each size...................40 4-9 Spacing result for the binary mixture with 9.5-mm and 4.75-mm particles..........40 4-10 Slope (spacing change) for the binary mixture......................................................41 4-11 Example for spacing analysis to check interaction for each contiguous size........42 4-12 Porosity result after considering interaction..........................................................43 5-1 DASR porosity of Projects 6 and 7 along the sections..........................................47

PAGE 11

xi 5-2 Energy ratio calculated for Projects 6 and 7..........................................................47 5-3 DCSE determined for Projects 6 and 7..................................................................48 5-4 Rut depth / ESALs measured from fiel d using transverse profiler for Projects 1-8..........................................................................................................................48 5-5 DASR porosity of Projects 9, 10 and 12 along the sections..................................49 5-6 Rut depth and area change (%) from APA test for Projects 8, 9, 10, and 12........50 5-7 Energy ratio calculated for Projects 9, 10, and 12.................................................50 5-8 Servopac results of both Layers A and B for Projects 8-12...................................51 5-9 Plant mixture gradation for Project 8.....................................................................53 5-10 In-place field gradations of Layer A for Project 8.................................................53 5-11 In-place field gradations of Layer B for Project 8.................................................54 5-12 DASR porosity of Layers A and B for Project 8...................................................54 5-13 Asphalt content of Layer B for Project 8...............................................................55 5-14 ER of Layers A and B for Projects 4 and 5............................................................56 5-15 DASR porosity of Layers A and B for Projects 4 and 5........................................56 5-16 DASR porosity of Layers A a nd B for Projects 1, 2, and 3...................................57 5-17 Energy ratios of Layers A and B for Projects 1, 2, and 3......................................58 5-18 DCSE of Layers A and B for Projects 1, 2, and 3.................................................58 5-19 Creep rate of Layers A and B for Projects 1, 2, and 3...........................................59 C-1 Project 1 top lift gradation curve...........................................................................86 C-2 Project 1 bottom lift gradation curve.....................................................................86 C-3 Project 2 top lift gradation curve...........................................................................87 C-4 Project 2 bottom lift gradation curve.....................................................................87 C-5 Project 3 top lift gradation curve...........................................................................88 C-6 Project 3 bottom lift gradation curve.....................................................................88 C-7 Project 4 top lift gradation curve...........................................................................89

PAGE 12

xii C-8 Project 4 bottom lift gradation curve.....................................................................89 C-9 Project 5 top lift gradation curve...........................................................................90 C-10 Project 5 bottom lift gradation curve.....................................................................90 C-11 Project 6 top lift gradation curve...........................................................................91 C-12 Project 7 top lift gradation curve...........................................................................92 C-13 Project 7 bottom lift gradation curve.....................................................................92 C-14 Project 8 top lift gradation curve...........................................................................93 C-15 Project 8 bottom lift gradation curve.....................................................................93 C-16 Project 9 top lift gradation curve...........................................................................94 C-17 Project 9 bottom lift gradation curve.....................................................................94 C-18 Project 10 top lif t gradation curve.........................................................................95 C-19 Project 10 bottom lift gradation curve...................................................................95 C-20 Project 11 top lif t gradation curve.........................................................................96 C-21 Project 11 bottom lift gradation curve...................................................................96 C-22 Project 12 top lift gradation curve.........................................................................97 C-23 Project 12 bottom lift gradation curve...................................................................97 D-1 Project 1 top lift ....................................................................................................99 D-2 Project 1 bottom lift ..............................................................................................99 D-3 Project 2 top lift................................................................................................. 100 D-4 Project 2 bottom lift ............................................................................................100 D-5 Project 3 top lift ..................................................................................................101 D-6 Project 3 bottom lift ............................................................................................101 D-7 Project 4 top lift ..................................................................................................102 D-8 Project 4 bottom lift ............................................................................................102 D-9 Project 5 top lift ..................................................................................................103

PAGE 13

xiii D-10 Project 5 bottom lift ............................................................................................103 D-11 Project 6 top lift ..................................................................................................104 D-12 Project 7 top lift ..................................................................................................105 D-13 Project 7 bottom lift ............................................................................................105 D-14 Project 8 top lift ..................................................................................................106 D-15 Project 8 top lift ..................................................................................................106 D-16 Project 9 top lift ..................................................................................................107 D-17 Project 9 bottom lift.............................................................................................107 D-18 Project 10 top lift ................................................................................................108 D-19 Project 10 bottom lift ..........................................................................................108 D-20 Project 11 top lift ................................................................................................109 D-21 Project 11 bottom lift ..........................................................................................109 D-22 Project 12 top lift ................................................................................................110 D-23 Project 12 bottom lift ..........................................................................................110 E-1 Projects 1-12 top lift (Layer A) – IDT results......................................................112 E-2 Projects 1-12 bottom lift (Layer B) – IDT results113 E-3 Projects 1-12 top lift (Layer A) – DASR porosity and spacing numbers............114 E-4 Projects 1-12 bottom lift (Layer B) – DASR porosity and spacing numbers......115

PAGE 14

xiv Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE-BASED GRADATION GUIDELINES By Virendra Rajmal Kothari August 2005 Chair: Reynaldo Roque Cochair: Bjorn Birgisson Major Department: Civil and Coastal Engineering The SuperpaveTM Mix Design procedure, developed as part of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), debut ed in 1993. Currently, the Superpave Mix Design procedure incorporates only the evaluation of vol umetric properties of asphalt concrete mixtures. Therefore, it is also referred to as the Vo lumetric Mix Design procedure. In recent years, researchers in va rious institutes and organizations have made numerous attempts to strengthen the mix desi gn criteria to enhance mixture performance. In 1999, the Florida Department of Trans portation (FDOT) initiated a Superpave monitoring project that include d the evaluation of 12 Superpave projects from throughout the state of Florida. During this same tim e period, a framework was established by the materials research team at the University of Florida to evaluate the effect of gradation on mixture performance. Their work led to spec ific guidelines and criteria for selecting gradations for optimal performance.

PAGE 15

xv My study focused on evaluating this fr amework and proposed guidelines and criteria using laboratory a nd field performance data from the Superpave monitoring project. As part of this framework, the Do minant Aggregate Size Range (DASR) theory was developed and the porosity of DASR wa s identified as a potential criterion. The DASR theory was developed by analyzing the center-to-center spacing between the aggregate particles. The spacing analysis in the DASR theory was found to explain the interaction between two con tiguous sieve size particles. Based on the gradation analysis, a relati onship was found between the parameters obtained from the Indirect Tensile Testi ng (IDT), Servopac test , Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) test, and field rut measur ement and the parameters obtained from gradation analysis. Results indicated that the gradation criteria established were able to explain observed differences in perf ormance between Superpave mixtures.

PAGE 16

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The SuperpaveTM Mix Design procedure, developed as part of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), debut ed in 1993. Currently the Superpave Mix Design procedure incorporates only the evaluation of vol umetric properties of asphalt concrete mixtures, therefore, it is also calle d the Volumetric Mix De sign procedure. In recent years, researchers in various institu tes and organizations have made numerous attempts to strengthen the mix design criter ia, to enhance the mixture performance. In 1999, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) initiat ed a Superpave monitoring project that evaluated 12 Supe rpave projects throughout the stat e of Florida. That project was introduced with the inte ntion of studying construction and performance data of Superpave mixtures in the state of Florid a, to establish appropriate and realistic performance based specifications. The current Superpave Mix Design proce dure partially addresses the gradation effect on mixture performance by using cont rol points and a restricted zone on a 0.45 power gradation curve. These control points we re developed to help ensure continuous gradations, whereas a restricted zone was proposed to prevent the production of tender mixes. Significant evidence suggests that potentially good mixes have been rejected because their gradations pass through th e restricted zone (Chowdhury et al. 2001, Kandhal et al. 2001). Moreover, poo r mixtures are still produced that meet the volumetric requirements of the Superpave Mix Desi gn (Nukunya et al. 2001). These scenarios

PAGE 17

2 prompted studies of the aggregate struct ure of asphalt mixture and modification of specifications for Superpave mixtures. Criteri a leading to good aggr egate structure will result in mixtures that can sustain high tra ffic load because of th eir strong inter-particle interactions. The current Superpave volumet ric criterion is base d on Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size and is independent of particle size distributio n; and thus may lead to rut susceptible mixtures (Kandhal et al. 1996, 1998). Several studies have shown that particle size distribution may significantly affect mixt ure properties. For example, Ruth et al. (2002) identified the gradation characterizati on factors related to mi xture properties that might provide guidance in selecting aggr egate gradations for improved pavement performance. Roque et al. (1997) found that coarse aggregate grad ation controlled the shear resistance of mixtures even though fi ne aggregate dilated the coarse aggregate structure. Hence, mixture design criteria shou ld give more importance to gradation, to prevent the use of poorly graded or poorly structured aggregates that usually produce mixtures with low resistance to deformation. Therefore, my study focused on evaluating gradation parameters that can ensure a more continuous gradation and provide tighter gradation guidelines for better performance of mixtures. 1.2 Objectives Prior material research at the Univers ity of Florida led to development of a framework to evaluate mixture gradation and led to specific criteria and guidelines for selecting gradations for optimal performa nce. My study focused on evaluating that framework and the proposed guidelines and criteria, using laboratory and field performance data from the Superpave monito ring project. Specific objectives are as follows:

PAGE 18

3 Conduct a comprehensive analysis of all avai lable data (laborator y, plant, in place, etc.) to identify specific mixture charact eristics and trends in construction and performance. Evaluate mixture gradations using the pr oposed gradation framework, to determine whether proposed gradation parameters were related to observed trends in laboratory and field performance. Develop recommendations for conducting furt her research to ev aluate or modify the proposed framework. 1.3 Scope The scope of my study included 12 Superp ave monitoring projec ts in Florida. These projects included a broad range of materials that are approved and placed in different parts of the state of Florida. A 5-mile roadway section in each project was selected for monitoring and evaluation. Select ed roadway sections were divided into 30 locations. Sufficient numbers of cores were obtained as a function of time from each location for testing and evaluation. Rut profile s were measured for each roadway section during the coring operation. Samples of plant mixt ure were obtained from the field before the laydown process for the last 5 projects. Laboratory tests were conducted to determ ine the volumetric properties and asphalt content of the mixtures. Performance tests were performed in the laboratory at the University of Florida and FDOT to determin e and evaluate mixture properties related to rutting and cracking. 1.4 Research Approach A brief detail of work performed, to m eet all the objectives of this study are described as follows: Literature study to identify the following: o Major potential problem s resulting in poor performance of asphalt mixture.

PAGE 19

4 o Effect of aggregate grada tion on mixture performance. o Role of gradation in the current Superpave Mix Design criteria. Field operations o Field cores were obtained at multiple times (from 0 to 3 years after construction) from each location of the section. o Rut profiles were measured for each s ection during the coring operation. o Plant mixes were obtained for the last 5 projects. Laboratory tests o Volumetric properties were determ ined for each Superpave layer at various locations. o The in-place gradations and plant mix gradations were also determined for each Superpave layer at various locations. o Performance tests (developed or modifi ed at the University of Florida) such as Superpave Indirect Tens ile Test (IDT), Servopac tests and modified Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) tests were performed on field cores as well as compacted plant mixes from various locations. Cooperative work with other members of th e University of Florida research team led to the establishment and further refi nement of a framework to determine the effect of gradation parameters on mixtur e performance in the field and in the laboratory. Every effort was made to obtain mixture design, production, and placement (laydown) data from the files of the cont ractors, the District Construction Office, and the State Materials Office. These data were organized and placed in the master database developed as a part of the Superpave monitoring project.

PAGE 20

5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction A thorough literature review was conducted to understand the past work done by various researchers on the effects of aggreg ate gradation on mixture performance. The review also focused on understanding th e gradation criteria in SuperpaveTM Mix Design and the parameters found by various researchers to help evaluate the field performance of mixtures. Previous studies that investigated methods and models to evaluate mixture performance in the field we re also reviewed. 2.2 Aggregate Gradation Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) is a material compos ed of aggregates and binder. Ideally the aggregates form a skeleton by interl ocking among them, which should allow the HMA to carry and support the traffic load. Since the aggregates cannot bond themselves tightly (because of their noncohesive behavi or), the binder should be added to bond them by acting as glue. In Superpave aggregate gr adation, various sieve sizes are provided for particles to form different t ypes of aggregate stru cture by trying various combinations of particle distributions. The charac teristics of different types of aggregate structures can be seen more clearly when the percent passing of each particle size is plotted on a 0.45 power curve. The Superpave gradation criter ia also provided some control points and a restricted zone (RZ) to help ensure the quali ty and durability of the mixture. The primary reason to use RZ is to prevent the tender mixes by controlling the amount of rounded sand particles. However, Kandhal et al. ( 2001) and Chowdhury et al . (2001) indicated

PAGE 21

6 that some gradations passed through RZ but still met the other Superpave requirements and performed well. In recent years, research ers in various institutes and organizations have made numerous attempts to strengthen the mix design criteria to enhance the mixture performance; some of them ar e described later in this chapter. Ruth et al. (2002) used power law c onstants and exponents established by regression analysis for the coarse and fine aggregate portions of the mixture. They identified the gradation characteristics that affect mixture proper ties, specifically gapgraded mixtures and continuous-graded mixtur es. Gap-graded mixtures did not yield the properties equivalent to the well balanced, c ontinuously-graded mixtures. In their study, asphalt content and percent passing the 4.75 mm sieve were found to be critical in terms of tensile strength and fracture energy. Th eir investigation implied that gradation characterization factors relate well to mixture properties and potentially could provide guidance in the selection of aggregate gradations for improved pavement performance. Roque et al. (1997) investigated the in fluence of aggregate gradation on shear resistance of the mixtures that relate to the rutting potential of the mixtures. They tested the coarse-graded mixtures ranging from Stone Matrix Asphalt (SMA) to those corresponding to maximum density line. The gr adation of the coarse-graded fraction was found to be well correlated to gyratory shear (Gs) as measured with the Gyratory Testing Machine (GTM). It was evident in their study that coarse aggregate gradation controlled the shear resistance even when fine aggregat e dilated the coarse aggregate structure. Cooper et al. (1985) studied the design of aggregate grading for asphalt base course. Their work was concentrated on investigating resistance to permanent deformation. Based on this study they conclude d that asphalt mixtur e requires low voids

PAGE 22

7 in mineral aggregate (VMA) for attaini ng good resistance to permanent deformation. They concluded that their void ratio diagram provided a useful technique to minimize the VMA by means of blending two pa rticular aggregate sizes. Currently, the Superpave Mix Design is solely based on volumetric design specifications. One of the major control parame ters in Superpave is the VMA percentage. Recent studies done by Nukunya et al. (2001) an d Brian et al. (2001) showed that VMA requirements based on the nominal maximum aggregate size does not account for the gradations of the mixtures, ignores asphalt film thickness, and is therefore insufficient to correctly differentiate good-performing mixt ures from poor performing ones. Kandhal et al. (1998) suggested a minimum average aspha lt film thickness be used instead of a minimum VMA to ensure mixture durability. Vavrik et al. (2002) modifi ed the Bailey method that provides a systematic approach to selecting and ad justing aggregate gradation in hot mix asphalt design. The basic approach was to create a blend such th at the coarse aggregate density should be between 95% and 105% of the loose density of the coarse aggregate portion even after the fine aggregate is included in the blend. The framework established by Vavrik et al. mainly focused on achieving the VMA requireme nts by means of balancing the ratio of coarse aggregate to fine a ggregate. The Bailey criteria attempted to create continuous gradation, particularly on the fine aggregate si de, but did little to a ddress gradation on the coarse aggregate side. The Bailey criteria we re also not performance based but rather verified volumetric properties . In other words, the Bailey method criteria may not provide optimal performance of a mixture.

PAGE 23

8 2.3 Performance Test Parameters Researchers in various institutes and organizations have made numerous attempts to come up with the parameters from laboratory tests that relate to behavior of a mixture in the field. Several studies have been review ed by the author to choose some of the most reliable parameters, to evaluate the performance of mixtures. The Superpave Indirect Tensile Test (ID T) was developed under the Strategic Highway Research Program. It has been wide ly used to determine the creep compliance and tensile strength of an asphalt mixture at low and intermediate pavement temperatures. Creep compliance and indirect tensile stre ngth at low temperatures (-20, -10 and 0 C), are normally used to predict th ermal cracking in pavement. Roque et al. (1997) have used the IDT to evaluate the mitigation of cracking in asphalt pavements and overlays. It was found that the Dissi pated Creep Strain Energy (DCSE) limit is one of the most important f actors that control cracking performance of an asphalt mixture. The DCSE limit is ca lculated by using fracture energy (FE) and resilient modulus from the strength and MR test, respectively. Recent work done by Jaljiardo (2003) and Roque et al. (2004) have shown that no single pr operty can reliably predict the top-down cracking performance of asphalt mixtures. The parameter termed as energy rRatio (ER) was derived by using the HMA fracture mechanics model developed at the University of Florida. Roque et al. (2004) provided the energy ratio (ER) criteria for evaluation of the cracking perfor mance of mixtures. The ER (C hapter 5) was derived as a ratio of the DCSE at thres hold to the DCSE minimum. Birgisson et al. (2004) devel oped the framework to evalua te the rutting potential of mixtures by means of inducing instability in a mixture during compaction. The

PAGE 24

9 parameters termed as vertical failure strain and gyratory shear slope were measured and calculated by means of analyzing the resu lts obtained from the Servopac Superpave gyratory compactor. In this study, the para meters were measured by increasing the gyratory angle from 1.25 to 2.5 after achieving the 7% air voids, which is usually associated with air voids in the field af ter construction. The responses observed were a) brittle response (where mixtures lose thei r strength almost immediately); b) plastic response (where once the mixtures lose the strength due to rearrangement they never regain another stable rearrange ment); and c) optimal response (which is bracketed by the plastic and brittle types of responses). Optimal mixtures eventually lock up again in a stable arrangement. The Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) is a physical laboratory model that attempts to simulate realistic traffic loading on pavement to evaluate the rutting potential of a mixture. Drakos et al. (2002) identified the difference be tween stress states under the existing APA loading device (hos e) and stress states under ra dial truck tires that may indicate the potential difference in the rutti ng mechanisms of the two. They developed the new method at the University of Florida to measure deformations on the surface of APA specimens by using a contour gauge that record ed and stored the entire surface profile of the sample throughout the progress of the test . A new loading device (rib) was designed and constructed for use in the APA that more closely represents stress states found under radial tires. The study showed that the new system (loading strip and profile measurement method) appears to have greater potential fo r evaluating the potential for instability rutting of a mixture than the original (hose and single rut-depth measurement) configuration, especially for SMA or other open-graded coarse mixtures.

PAGE 25

10 2.4 Performance Measu rement in the Field Two well-known devices adopted by various state agencies, including FDOT, for measuring rut depth in the field caused by tr affic loading, are the road surface profiler (RSP) and the transverse profiler (TP). Meht a et al. (2001) identif ied the difference in accuracy of rut measurements from these de vices mentioned earlier. They simulated the lateral movement of vehicle used in RSP, effectively vehicle wander. The comparison of the rut depth measurements between the actu al RSP and the simulated RSP showed that the RSP vehicle had wandered from the center in almost all cases. It was concluded that using the TP is the most accurate method for measuring rut depth. 2.5 Summary and Conclusion Based on the findings and conclusions ma de by various researchers the following conclusions were made: The restricted zone (RZ) defined in th e Superpave Mix Design criteria may not control the actual behavior of a mixture. Voids in mineral aggregate (VMA) requirements by themselves may not capture the behavior of aggregate structure. Indirect Tensile Test (IDT) parameters such as ER and DCSE can be used to evaluate the cracking performance of a mixture. Servopac and APA tests can help in evalua ting the rutting poten tial of a mixture. The transverse profiler (TP) has been found to be the most accurate method to measure the field rutting of a mixture.

PAGE 26

11 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND TESTING METHODS 3.1 Introduction As a part of the Superpave monitoring project conducted at the University of Florida (UF), twelve Superpave sections we re monitored and specimens of mixtures tested in the laboratory by the UF research team. The scope of our study was mainly focused on evaluation of these twelve secti ons by using a gradation approach that is currently under development at UF. These twelve projects included both coarse and fine mixes (see Table 3-1). The projects were selected and separated into two groups by FDOT and Federal Highway Admi nistration (FHWA) personnel. Group 1: Seven projects were selected from among projects that were recently constructed. Group 2: An additional five projects were se lected from among projects that were scheduled for construction within the next year. Figure 3-1 shows the locations of the pr ojects in Florida. An approximately 5-mile section in the each project was select ed for monitoring and evaluation. This length was anticipated to represent a significant amount of production over which variance can be reliably determined. The laboratory testing was reduced to five larger locations for the last 5 projects from Group 2. 3.2 Materials A wide range of materials and binders we re used in these projects. Table 3-2 shows the amount and type of ma terials used for these projec ts. Mainly, granite and/or limestone aggregates were used for both la yers. Some projects in cluded the use of

PAGE 27

12Table 3-1. Projects investigated Mile post Mix typea Financial number Project (UF) ID US route From To County Top Bottom Traffic level 2134391 1 I-10 WB 5.138 0.500 Madison 9.5C 19.0C D/5 2133971 2 I-75 SB 25.578 20.571 Hamilton 12.5C 19.0C D/5 2133961 3 I-75 SB 15.700 10.723 Hamilton 12.5C 19.0C D/5 2133001 4 I-10 EB 4.317 7.681 Duval 9.5C 19.0C E/6 2423161 5 I-95 NB 1.055 6.559 Brevard 9.5C 12.5C D/5 2387491 6 US301 SB 4.565 0.750 Marion 12.5F N/A C/4 2325941 7 Turnpike NB 98.300 105.463 Palm Beach 12.5F 12.5F C/4 2225961 8 I-10 WB 19.670 15.665 Leon 12.5C 12.5C D/5 2078442 9 SR-121 SB 7.678 2.640 Alachua FC-6 12.5F C/4 2080202 10 SR-16 EB 0.000 3.801 Bradford FC-6 12.5F B/4 2132592 11 I-295 SB 26.215 22.096 Duval 12.5C 12.5C E/6 4039221 12 SR 73 SB 24.195 19.650 Calhoun FC-6 12.5F C/4 a Mix Types: C = coarse mixtures; F = fine mixtures; N/A = not applicable

PAGE 28

13Table 3-2. Materials used Project (UF ID) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 % Granite 80 65 0 2025 0 0 0 90 90 85 80 Aggregate Type Layer A % Limestone 0 0 85 5560 80 80 90 10 10 0 20 % Granite 80 65 0 0 20 0 0 65 65 75 50 Aggregate Type Layer B % Limestone 0 0 85 8060 N/A 80 90 10 15 0 30 Asphalt Binder Added Layer A AC-30ARB-5 PG 76-22ARB-5 Asphalt Binder Added Layer B AC-30AC-20AC-30 AC-20 AC-20AC-20 PG76-22 PG64-22 PG 64-22PG 64-22 Note: Milled material is used to make up the 100%

PAGE 29

14 Figure 3-1. Project locations in Florida recycled asphalt pavement (RAP), which was obtained from milling of the existing pavements. 3.3 Selection of Section and Marking of Location A 5-mile section from within each project was selected for monitoring and evaluation. This length was anticipated to represent a significant amount of production over which variance can be reliably determined. Location survey stakes and bench marks we re identified. The test sections were clearly marked for coring crews and for de termination of rutting and roughness measurements. General observations were made relati ng to field performan ce or coring locations.

PAGE 30

15 3.4 Rut Depth Measurement on Field The rutting usually manifests as a depre ssion channel in the wheel path (WP) on the pavement surface. Rut depth measurements , using the transverse profiler (TP) and road surface profiler (RSP), were taken on 30 locations marked on the field along the section. The rut depth measurements using TP were taken during the coring operations, therefore three rounds of measurements were taken for all projects except the last four projects where only two rounds were taken since they were recently constructed. The RSP, with its three sensors spaced at 0.87 m, was used to measure the rut depth. The rut depth using RSP was recorded at different intervals of time (see Table 3-3). The rut depths of left and right WP (in inches) were recorded using TP. The average of left and right WP rut depths was then calculated. The average rut depths (in inches) for the thirty locations was also calculated from the averages of the left and right WP rut depths. The accumulated Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESALs ), 18 kip / past traffic values for each section was calculated based on the available data from pavement design sheets and the data obtained from the State Materials office and/or Distri ct office in Florida. As presented by Mehta et al. (2001), the rut de pths using TP were found to be the most accurate. The rut depth per million ESALs was calculated for further evaluation. Table 3-3 shows the average rut depth measured using both methods. In Figure 3-2, the transverse profiler can be seen. 3.5 Coring Operation Three rounds of coring (extraction of co res) were scheduled at three time intervals. The cores from the third round fo r Projects 9-12 are not completed. Pavement section cores were obtained as scheduled from 30 locations along the length of the test sections (see Figure 3-3) at the following three time intervals:

PAGE 31

16 Table 3-3. Rut depth measurements using TP and RSP Transverse Profilograph (UF) Road Surface Profiler (FDOT) Project ID Date Acc. Rut, (in.) Acc. ESALs, (million) Rd/ESALs, (in./million) Date Acc. RD (in.) Jan-98 to Dec-99 0.14 0.81 0.17 Feb 2000 0.00 Dec-99 to Dec-00 0.20 1.25 0.14 Oct 2000 0.05 Dec-00 to Feb-03 0.23 2.25 0.03 Jan 2001 0.07 Oct 2002 0.10 Jan-2003 0.14 Jan-2004 0.10 1 Jan-2005 0.08 May-98 to Dec-99 0.17 1.29 0.13 Jan 2000 0.06 Dec-99 to Dec-00 0.22 2.24 0.05 Oct 2000 0.10 Dec-00 to Feb-03 0.30 4.01 0.05 Jan 2001 0.12 Jan 2002 0.15 Jan2003 0.22 Jan2004 0.18 2 Jan2005 0.19 May-98 to Dec-99 0.12 1.21 0.10 Jan 2000 0.04 Dec-99 to Dec-00 0.15 2.14 0.03 Nov 2000 0.12 Dec-00 to Feb-03 0.19 4.03 0.02 Jan 2001 0.12 Jan 2002 0.13 Jan2003 0.17 Jan2004 0.16 3 Jan2005 0.13 Oct-98 to Dec-99 0.07 1.10 0.06 Feb 2000 0.00 Dec-99 to Mar-01 0.10 2.31 0.02 Nov 2000 0.09 Mar-01 to Mar-03 0.16 4.36 0.03 Feb 2001 0.06 Feb2003 0.12 Mar2004 0.14 Nov2004 0.12 4 Feb2005 0.14 Jun-98 to Dec-99 0.07 1.70 0.04 Oct 1999 0.08 Dec-99 to Mar-01 0.11 3.26 0.03 Oct 2000 0.03 Mar-01 to Mar-03 0.16 6.00 0.02 Dec 2001 0.13 Oct2002 0.09 Oct2003 0.17 5 Nov2004 0.14

PAGE 32

17 Table 3-3. Continued Transverse Profilograph (UF) Road Surface Profiler (FDOT) Project ID Date Acc. Rut, (in.) Acc. ESALs, (million) Rd/ESALs, (in./million) Date Acc. RD (in.) 6 Aug-98 to Aug-99 0.07 0.44 0.16 Aug – 1999 0.08 Aug-99 to Feb-01 0.09 1.09 0.03 Feb – 2000 0.08 Feb-01 to Mar-03 0.11 2.00 0.02 Nov – 2000 0.13 Aug – 2001 0.14 Aug2002 0.07 Aug2003 0.16 7 Sep-98 to May-00 0.10 2.09 0.05 Jun – 2000 0.00 May-00 to May-01 0.10 3.42 0.00 Jan – 2001 0.00 May-01 to Jan-03 0.16 6.66 0.023 Jan – 2002 0.00 Feb2003 0.04 Mar2004 0.01 Jan2005 0.08 8 Oct-00 to Oct-01 0.11 0.46 0.24 Jan 2002 0.00 Oct-01 to Feb-03 0.16 1.10 0.08 May 2002 0.01 Feb-03 to Jan-05 0.17 2.06 0.082 Jan2003 0.04 Jan2004 0.05 Jan2005 0.01 9 May-02 to Feb-03 0.02 0.05 0.48 Jan 2005 0.11 Feb-03 to Nov-03 0.03 0.10 0.27 10 Nov-02 to May-03 0.05 0.02 2.92 May – 2003 0.00 May-03 to June-04 0.10 0.05 1.98 Nov – 2003 0.01 May – 2004 0.00 11 Mar-03 to Jan-04 0.07 1.05 0.07 Mar – 2004 0.09 Jan-04 to June-05 0.17 2.86 0.06 Oct 2004 0.15 12 May-03 to Dec-03 0.02 0.02 0.88 Dec-03 to Feb-05 0.34 0.06 0.17

PAGE 33

18 Figure 3-2. Transverse profiler Figure 3-3. Schematic of core locations

PAGE 34

19 Round I: Soon after construction four cores from the wheel path (WP) and two cores from between wheel paths (BWP) were taken from the outer lane at each of the 30 locations for a total of 90 cores from each project. Round II: Approximately 12 months after th e first coring operation two cores from the WP and one core from BWP were taken from the outer lane at each of the 30 locations for a total of 90 cores from each project. Round III: Approximately 36 months after th e first coring operation two cores from the WP and one core from BWP were ta ken from the outer lane at each of the 30 locations. All the cores were labeled cl early and direction of traffic was also marked on top of the core sample. See the co ring operation in Figure 3-4. Figure 3-4. Coring in the field 3.6 Plant Mixture As mentioned earlier the last 5 projects (Projects 8-12) were constructed recently (after the Superpave monitoring project starte d), therefore samples of the plant mixture used in the field at these 5 locations (befor e the laydown process) were obtained projects.

PAGE 35

20 3.7 Lift Measurements and Core Cutting All field cores were visually inspected, a nd asphalt concrete layers were identified and clearly marked for cutting. Lift measurem ents were taken from the field cores. The specimens of each layer were obtained by cutt ing the cores. See specimen core samples in Figure 3-5. Figure 3-5. Marked and labeled full core, and cut specimen 3.8 Volumetric Test The volumetric properties, such as bulk specific gravity (Gmb) and theoretical maximum specific gravity (Gmm), of the cut specimens were determined in the laboratory. The Gmb of the specimens were determined in accordance with American Association of State Highway Transportatoin Officials (AASHTO) T166. Two specimens were broken down to determine the Gmm in accordance with AASHTO T209-94/ FM1T209. The Gmb and Gmm were used to determine the air voids (Equation 3-1). Air Voids (AV) = ((Gmm-Gmb)/Gmm) * 100 (3-1)

PAGE 36

21 3.9 Selection of Locations for Indirect Tensile Testing (IDT) The locations selected along the section for the performance test in the laboratory were based on the air voids of the bulk specimen as well as gradation of the locations. To obtain three replicates for the IDT test, the locations were groupe d based on similar air voids and gradations. Appendix A shows the details of the groups defined for performance tests. 3.10 Asphalt Content and Gradations To determine the asphalt content and grad ations of the selected locations, the following basic laboratory tests were pe rformed on cores and plant mixes. Asphalt contents were determined using two methods: 1) use of non-chlorinated solvent (FM5-544)/ reflux extraction (FM5 -524), and 2) use of an ignition oven (FM5-563). Mechanical analysis (sieve analysis) wa s performed on aggregates extracted by use of non-chlorinated solvent and the ig nition oven method. (ASTM C 136-95a). Appendix B shows the results obtained fo r asphalt content and gradations of selected cores. 3.11 Indirect Tensile Testing (IDT) 3.11.1 Specimen Preparation The selected specimens of each layer were sliced off to 1 to 2 inches as recommended for the UF-IDT test procedure. It was ensured that the specimens were flat and smooth and parallel on both faces. The followi ng procedure was followed before testing the specimen: After Gmb test, the specimens were air dried for 48 hrs and gage points were attached to them (see Figure 3-6). The di rection of loading was marked along the direction of traffic. To reduce any moisture that may affect the test results, the dried specimen was kept in a dehumidifier chamber for at least 12 hrs.

PAGE 37

22 The strain gages (extensometer) were att ached and adjusted on the specimens gage points. After that, the specimens were kept in the IDT chamber (see Figure 3-7) for at least 8 hrs to assure the temp erature stability of the specimen. Figure 3-6. Cut specimen with gage point attached (Courtesy : Villiers 2004) Figure 3-7. IDT chamber (Courtesy: Villiers 2004)

PAGE 38

23 3.11.2 Testing Method The method used for the IDT test was de veloped by Roque et al. (1997) for the FDOT. Three replicates were tested for 1 set of IDT results at 10 C. The results obtained from the test were analyzed using the softwa re developed at the University of Florida. The three tests performed were resilient m odulus, creep compliance, and strength test. The purpose of these tests was to get the fracture mechanics properties, including Mr (stiffness), Dt (creep complia nce), and fracture energy (FE). A brief description of the testing procedures follows: 3.11.2.1 Resilient modulus (Mr) Resilient modulus is the ratio of applie d stress to the recoverable strain (see Equation 3-2). The resilient modulus was pe rformed by applying a repeated havershine waveform at 0.1 second, followed by a rest pe riod of 0.9 second. The load was carefully recorded during the test to ma ke sure that the horizontal st rain limit was within the range of 150-350 micro-strains. The equations used to calculate resilient modulus and PoissonÂ’s ratio were developed by Roque et al. (1997). The equations used in the software are given below in Equations 3-3 to 3-5. r RM (3-2) where MR = resilient modulus = applied stress r = resilient (recoverable) strain CMPL RC D t H GL P M (3-3) 332 . 0 * 6354 . 01 Y X CCMPL (3-4)

PAGE 39

24 2 2 2) / ( ) / ( 778 . 0 480 . 1 1 . 0 Y X D t Y X (3-5) where MR = resilient modulus P = maximum load GL = gage length H = horizontal deformation t = thickness D = diameter = PoissonÂ’s ratio CCMPL = non-dimensional creep compliance (X/Y) = ratio of horizontal to vertical deformation 3.11.2.2 Creep compliance test Creep compliance is a function of time dependent strain ( t) divided by a constant stress ( ). Since the MR is not a destructive test, the same specimen was used for the creep compliance test. The creep test wa s conducted by applying a static load for 1000 seconds. The stress and strain were recorded. The ITLT soft ware developed at UF was used for data reduction. Equations 3-6 and 3-7 represent the ones used in the software. ) ( ) ( t t D (3-6) CMPLC GL P D t t D * * * * ) ( (3-7) where D (t) = creep compliance at time t, 1/psi The other parameters are the same as those presented for Eq. 3-5. Creep compliance could explain the relaxati on of stress in the mixtures. The power law model was used to express the creep co mpliance function as described in Equation 3-8. In this research, the creep compliance over time was plotted on a log-log scale to calculate the creep parameters namely Do, D1, and m-value. Equation 3-8 describes the procedures used to isolate the creep a nd the elastic portion from the creep test. D (t) = Do + D1 tm (3-8)

PAGE 40

25 The derivative of the creep compliance was taken to evaluate the rate of accumulation of damage in the asphalt mixtures (Equation 3-9). Creep compliance was used to evaluate the rate of damage accumulation in the asphalt mixtures. 1 1 m crt mD (3-9) where cr = creep rate 3.11.2.3 Strength test This is a destructive test and therefore th e last to be performed. The specimen from the creep test was used. The data from the st rength test and the MR test was used to calculate the FE and DCSE. The equations us ed in the ITLT software are presented in Equations 3-10 through 3-12 a nd Figures 3-8 and 3-9: R t o f EEM S (3-10) R t t EEM S S EE 1 2 1 2 12 (3-11) EE FE DCSE (3-12) where FE = area under the stress/strain curve, to tal energy applied to the specimen until fracture EE = elastic energy, recovery energy DCSE = absorbed energy that damaged the specimen, or the higher the DCSE the more energy to failure DCSEf = dissipated creep strain energy to failure, the higher the DCSEf the more tolerance the mixture to fracture 3.12 Servopac Test This is the framework established at the University of Florida by Birgisson et al. (2004). This test evaluates the mixture res ponse due to induced instability during

PAGE 41

26 Figure 3-8. Creep compliance power law parameters (Courtesy: Villiers 2004) gyratory compaction. The procedure followe d was as presented by Birgisson et al. (2004). The parameters measured were gyratory shear slope and vertic al failure strain. These parameters, with the help of above sa id framework, evaluate the rutting potential

PAGE 42

27 Figure 3-9. Determination of fracture ener gy and DCSE (Courtesy: Villiers 2004) of mixtures. This test was performed on th e plant mixtures of the last 5 projects. Appendix E shows the results of the Servopac test. 3.13 Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) Test The Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) is the physical model modified by Drakos et al. (2004) at the University of Florida, from the existing APA. This model provides a reliable prediction about the ability of a mixture to resist permanent deformation under realistic traffic and environmental conditions that exist in a pavement. The test was performed on plant mixtures of the last 5 projects. The procedure followed was as presented by Drakos et al. (2004). The abso lute rut depth on the specimen was measured after the test. Appendix E shows the results obtained from the APA test.

PAGE 43

28 CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH 4.1 Introduction This section describes the method used to analyze the gradation for new mix design and in-service pavement mixtures. This is a part of the work cu rrently being conducted by the materials research team at the University of Florida. In order to develop effective gradation guidelines for the FDOT, a fr amework was established to understand how particle size distribution relate s to aggregate structure. A st udy of prior work and review of literature clearly indicated that volumetric properties are not generally related to performance and not enough detailed wo rk has been done on how particle size distribution relates to the aggr egate skeleton or interlocking ch aracteristics. Based on the background and literature revi ew, it was hypothesized that fo r a mixture to perform well in terms of rutting and crack ing, large enough coarser partic les (that is, aggregates retaining on a 1.18-mm sieve and above) should be a dominant aggregate in the pavement mixture. Dominant aggregates interact with each other and thus carry the load-induced stresses. It is important that the skeleton of dominant coarser aggregat es acts as a unit to carry the maximum amount of external load. Obviously, the structure of dominant coarse particles also needs the support of smaller/fine r particles along with the binder to fill the gaps between them, but these finer part icles and asphalt do not provide sufficient resistance to load-induced stress. The met hodology and approach are further described below.

PAGE 44

29 4.2 Requirements for Good Mixtures Based on past experience, literature, and best engineering judgment, it was hypothesized that for a mixture to perform we ll in terms of cracki ng and rutting, large enough aggregates should be dominant in the mixt ure structure. The part icle size retained on a 1.18-mm sieve size was considered to be the smallest in the dominant coarse size range for providing good resistan ce to fracture and rutting. It was also hypothesized that either a single size or a range of particle si zes could form the dominant structure for good performance results. This size range was cal led the “Dominant Aggregate Size Range” (DASR). The DASR is dependent on the amount of coarse aggregate (>1.18 mm) and the interaction between contiguous sizes of the coar se particles. In addition, it was clearly understood that sufficient volume between th e DASR would be required for asphalt, air voids, and particles smaller than DASR, to in crease the durability of the mixture and reduce mixture sensitivity (described later) alon g with local stress c oncentrations between the DASR particles. The volume and stiffness of the components smaller than DASR need to be optimal to prevent brittle behavi or (poor resistance to cracking) or excessive creep strain rate (poor resist ance to rutting and cracking). 4.3 Basic Premises Prior work performed for FDOT, which led to the development of the HMA Fracture Mechanics Model and the energy ratio criterion fo r cracking, clearly indicated that mixture cracking performance improves with a lower creep strain rate and a higher dissipated creep strain energy to failure (DCSEf) rate.

PAGE 45

30 The creep strain rate was determined to be directly related to the rate of damage of the mixture, whereas DCSEf was the dissipated energy the mixture could tolerate prior to fracture. In general, excessive cree p rate resulted when o excessively fine particles (which are less capable of carrying stress than coarser particles) were the dominant pa rt of the aggregate structure; or o there was inadequate interlock of dominant aggregate size range, even when the dominant range was composed of coarser particles. Low DCSEf rates resulted when there was o an excessively dense mixture (which re sulted in brittle mixture behavior); or o an excessive amount of fines (which resu lted in brittle mastic behavior). Excessively dense mixtures and mixtures w ith an excessive amount of fine particles as the dominant range were also sensitive to changes in asphalt content or gradation and were also to be avoided. 4.4 Basic Concepts 4. 4.1 Dominant Aggregate Size Range (DASR) The dominant aggregate size range (DASR) is based on the concept that there is either one size or a range of sizes that make up the network of aggregates that carry the load through an asphalt mixture. The partic les smaller than this range fill the gaps between the DASR particles and provide support to the DASR particle network. However, particles larger th an those within the DASR essentially float in the DASR matrix. Consequently, these larger particles did not play a major role in the aggregate structure. Particle sizes retained on the 1.18mm sieve size and higher were considered to be large enough to provide sufficient interloc k to help resist th e stresses that induce rutting and cracking.

PAGE 46

31 4.4.2 Topographical Characteristics of Interstitial Surface (TCIS) The failure surfaces of asphalt concrete core specimens (see Figure 4-1) were tested using the Superpave IDT and then examined. Mo st asphalt mixtures failed in tension at intermediate temperatures, thus, a very r ough failure surface resulted. The failure developed along a surface pl ane through the interstices between larger aggregate particles. The topographical characteristics of the interstitial surface (TCIS) were noted to obtain information relating to the ability of the asphalt concrete mixture to resist deformation and fracture resulting from load -induced stresses. Basic knowledge of frictional materials tells us that rougher surf aces provide greater resistance to deformation and higher strength. Strength and resistance to deformation are further enhanced if particles on the surface ar e arranged in such a way as to form an interlocking network of particles. It was hypothesized that the DASR was primarily responsible for defining the TCIS. Figure 4-1. Topographic view of failure plane of asphalt concrete specimen In addition to the TCIS, the properties of the interstitial components (IC) play a strong role in the resistance of the mixture to both cracking and rutt ing. The IC serve as the glue that holds the larg er particles together. From the standpoint of cracking and durability, it is important to ensu re the IC is not brittle and th at its volume (referred to as

PAGE 47

32 interstitial volume or IV) be sufficient for ad equate durability, thus preventing local stress concentrations that result when thin films ar e present between coarse r aggregate particles. The stiffness of the IC can help resist rutti ng by helping coarser part icles resist dilation. 4.4.3 Interstitial Volume (IV) an d Interstitial Components (IC) As mentioned above, the inters titial volume (IV) is deri ved from the interstitial surface and is described as the volume of components between DASR interstices (see Figure 4-2). Moreover, the components occupy ing the IV are defi ned as interstitial components (IC). The characteri stics of IV are defined by th e materials smaller than the smallest particles of DASR, which include bi nder and all aggregat es smaller than the DASR. It should be noted that the IC are diffe rent from traditional mastic, which includes only binder and fines. Properties of IC that affect mixture performance follow. Excessively low stiffness and/or excessi vely high volume may result in a high creep rate, which is directly related to the rate of damage development. Excessively high stiffness a nd/or insufficient volume may result in a brittle mixture with low DCSE. Figure 4-2. Structure with DAS R particles, interstitial components (IC) and interstitial volume (IV) IC , IV Dominant Aggregate

PAGE 48

33 4.4.4 Local Stress Concentration Local stress concentration develops at or near contact points between DASR particles. Interstitial volu me between same-size aggregat e particles decreases as the particles are moved closer toge ther (see Figure 4-3). Results of a finite element analysis (FEM) showed that tensile stress within th e IC increased as the IV decreased, even though the properties of the aggregate and the IC were exactly the same (see Figure 4-4). Thus, an optimal IV minimizes creep strain while maintaining DCSE. Figure 4-3. Finite element model of aggregate and in terstitial volume Figure 4-4. Interstitial spacing vs. local stress

PAGE 49

34 4.4.5 DASR Porosity In searching for a quantitative parameter to effectively represent the state of the DASR, it was important to review the basic principles and parameters used in soil mechanics. After all, an asphalt mixture is ba sically granular material cemented together by asphalt binder. 4.4.5.1 Porosity in soil mechanics In soil mechanics, a typical element of so il contains three distinct phases: solid (mineral particles), gas, and liqui d (usually water) (see Figure 4-5). Figure 4-5. Relationship among soil phases Porosity ( ), one of the important relationships of volume, is the ratio of void volume ( Vv) to total volume ( V ). This void volume is filled wi th fluid, either gas or liquid, usually water in soil mechanics. V V V V PorosityV Total Void , (4-1) Porosity ranges are well defined for granular materials. For soil particles to be in contact with each other in a loose state, a maximum or lower porosity is desirable. The V VsVvVwVgW WsWwWg 0VolumesWeights Gas Liquid SolidV VsVvVwVgW WsWwWg 0VolumesWeights Gas Liquid Solid

PAGE 50

35 maximum porosity for granular particles in c ontact with each other in a loose state is approximately constant between 45% and 50% (see Lambe and Whitman 1969), regardless of gradation or particle size. Ther efore, porosity was used as a criterion for stone-to-stone contact, whic h was important for adequate resistance to load-induced deformation in a mixture. A maximum poros ity of 50% was selected as a reasonable starting point for evaluating this as a criterion for asphalt mi xtures that contain asphalt and fines between aggregates. However, it was critical to determine what portion of the aggregate acted together as a unit to form a continuous structure in order to determine a porosity that was relevant. For example, gapgraded mixtures (such as SMA) that are composed of only very coarse and very fine particles form a structure composed of only the coarse particles; the fines simply float between the coarser particles held together by the binder. The coarser particles form the DASR and the re levant porosity was calculated on the basis of the co arse particles only. 4.4.5.2 Application to asphalt mixture The concept of voids in mineral aggreg ate (VMA) in asphalt mixture is analogous to void volume ( Vv). It is the portion of the total vo lume remaining after taking out the aggregate (solid) volume ( Vagg). aggV V VMA (4-2) By assuming that a mixture has certain e ffective asphalt content and air voids for a given gradation, porosity ( ) can be calculated for each aggregate particle size. For example, the porosity of pa rticles retained on the 4.75-mm sieve and passing the 9.5-mm sieve was calculated by subtra cting the volume of the larger aggregates (i.e., those retained on the 9.5-mm sieve) from the total volume of mixtures (V)

PAGE 51

36 VT(4.75-9.5) = VTM – VAGG( 9.5) (4-3) where VT(4.75-9.5) = total volume available for partic les retained on the 4.75-mm sieve and passing the 9.5-mm sieve VTM = total volume of mixture VAGG( 9.5) = volume of particles reta ined on the 9.5-mm sieve. The volume of voids within VT(4.75-9.5) included the volume of aggregates passing the 4.75-mm sieve, in addition to the volume of effective asphalt plus the volume of air (i.e., the VMA of the mixture). VV(4.75-9.5) = VAGG(<4.75) + VMA (4-4) where VV(4.75-9.5) = volume of voids within VT(4.75-9.5) VAGG(<4.75) = volume of particles pa ssing the 4.75-mm sieve VMA = voids in mineral aggregate of the mixture. The porosity for this aggregate particle was then calculated as follows: ) 5 . 9 ( ) 75 . 4 ( ) 5 . 9 75 . 4 ( ) 5 . 9 75 . 4 ( ) 5 . 9 75 . 4 ( AGG TM AGG T vV V VMA V V V (4-5) Similar calculations can be performed for any other size or range of sizes of particles. 4.4.5.3 Individual porosity analysis Mixture types were given trial gradations of coarse-graded (C1) and fine-graded (F1) (see Figure 4-6). The porosity of each i ndividual particle size was calculated (see Figure 4-7). The coarse-graded gradation (C1), that is pa rticles retaining on the 4.75-mm and 2.36-mm sieve sizes, had the lowest porosity because of the relatively higher amount

PAGE 52

37 Project Gradations 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Sieve size, ^0.45% passin g #30#16 1.18 #8 2.36 #4 4.75 "½"¾"#100 Figure 4-6. Trial gradati ons of coarse-graded and fine-graded mixture types Porosity0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1912.59.54.752.361.180.60.30.150.0750sieve size, mmporosity, % C1 F1 Figure 4-7. Individual part icle size porosity results

PAGE 53

38 of aggregates retained. The fine-graded grada tion (F1) did not have any particle size with distinctly lower porosity. In Figure 4-7, none of the individual sieve si ze particles have a porosity lower than 50% indica ting that if considered to act independently, there would be no particle contact in these mixtures, whic h is obviously not the case. Therefore, it was necessary to develop an approach to determin e which particle sizes interact with each other to form a network of particles that are in contact with each other. 4.4.5.4 Particle spacing on the interstitial surface As part of a separate research projec t on gradation effects on asphalt mixture performance, an approach was developed to determine the spacing between specified particle sizes in the interstitia l surface (IS). The a pproach is based on the fact that for a given particle size distribution compacted to a specified density, th e number of particles of any given size that are present within a sp ecified representative vo lume can be easily calculated. Furthermore, the quantity of par ticles of each size pres ent within a crosssectional area taken from a representative vo lume can be calculated. The spacing between each particle size in the representative area can also be cal culated if certain characteristics regarding the distribu tion between the different partic les sizes are known or assumed. For asphalt mixtures, it was reasonable to assume that particles were generally uniformly distributed within the representative volume or area. In a ddition, if the mixture was not segregated, the largest particles were uniformly distributed within the remaining volume or area (i.e., the volume or area between the larger aggregate particles). In other words, smaller particles were uniformly di stributed locally but not globally over the entire volume or area. Based on particle distribution, spacing be tween particles for each size in the representative volume could be calculated fo r a binary mixture to check whether there

PAGE 54

39 was interaction between contiguous sizes from the basic information of the mixture such as gradation, specific gravity, asphalt weight, and air void. It was assumed that particles were distributed in a hexagonal pattern within the available area. The center-to-center spacing among the same size particles was cal culated in descending order from the largest to the smallest size. At first, the la rgest particles were distributed within the total representative area of a mixtur e with the hexagonal pattern, th en the particles next down in size were distributed with the same pattern within the available area which is the area remaining after subtracting the area of the largest particles from the total representative area. The organization of particles in a he xagonal pattern and the calculated spacing for each size is given in Figure 4-8. The spaci ng within a hexagonal pattern is easily determined if the number of particles and th e total area are known. This procedure can be repeated to the smallest particle size. The spacing among the la rgest particles within the total area was calculated with the hexagonal pattern di stribution. If the largest particles took 20% of the total area, the remaining area, 80%, was the representative total area for the next step. The particles next down in size we re distributed in the same pattern within this area. The spacing result was calculated for a binary mixture of 9.5-mm and 4.75-mm particles in Figure 4-9. As the percentage passing for the larg er particle (9.5 mm) increased, the spacing increased. In other words, as the larg er particles diminished in size, the spacing increased. The smaller par ticles (4.75 mm) showed a reverse trend. To check the point at which the spacing steep ly changed, the spacing change slope was plotted in Figure 4-10. The slope increased after about 70% for both sizes. Therefore, if one size of particles was retained above 70% or below 30% (meaning that the other was

PAGE 55

40 (a) The biggest part icles distribution Solid particles = **20% *Shaded rest area = **80% (b) The 2nd size partic les distribution Solid particles = 30% x 80% = **24% *Rest area = 70% x 80% = **56% Figure 4-8. Hexagonal pattern distribution and spacing ca lculation for each size Figure 4-9. Spacing result for the binary mixture with 9.5-mm and 4.75-mm particles spacing, 9.5 & 4.75 (fixed total vol)0 1 2 3 4 0102030405060708090100 % passing for Bigger agg.spacing, cm Big, C-C Next, C-C

PAGE 56

41 Figure 4-10. Slope (spacing change) for the binary mixture retained above 30% or below 70%), the spaci ng for one of both changed steeply. Within the 30% to 70% range, both were within the DASR acting as a unit, but outside of this range, they did not interact to gether, thus were considered as different units. The interaction diagram was developed to easily check interaction between the contiguous sizes (see Figure 4-11). 4.4.5.5 Porosity analysis considering interaction It is well known that ag gregate-to-aggregate contact in a coarse aggregate structure is very important for having good resistance to external forces. Therefore, porosity analysis was applied to the intera cting ranges (DASR) determined from spacing analysis. As defined earlier, the key coarse aggregate range which carried the maximum amount of load was from th e largest down to the 1.18-mm size. The continuous interaction between contiguous ranges of coarser particles (retained on the 1.18-mm sieve size spacing slope, 9.5 & 4.750 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0102030405060708090100 % passing for sectionsslope Big Next

PAGE 57

42 Figure 4-11. Example for spacing analysis to check interaction for each contiguous size and above), were considered as DASR. Spacing analysis for the same gradation used in Figure 4-6 is provided in Figur e 4-11. Coarse gradation show ed interaction at the 4.75mm to 2.36-mm and the 2.36-mm to 1.18-mm sieve ranges. However in the case of fine gradation, interaction sh owed at the 9.5-mm to 4.75mm, 4.75-mm to 2.36-mm and 2.36-mm to 1.18-mm sieve ranges. Therefore, the DASR for coarse gradation was 4.75 mm to 1.18 mm and for fine gr adation was 9.5 mm to 1.18 mm. Based on interaction of the gradations, th e porosity of individual gradations and DASR was then calculated (see Figure 4-12). The porosities for indi vidual coarse and fine gradations were 65% and 74%, respec tively, and for DASR coarse and fine gradations were 36% and 46%, respectively. Therefore, it was determined that the aggregate-to-aggregate contact was achieved in the 4.75-mm to 1.18-mm and 9.5-mm to 1.18-mm sieve ranges for coarse and fine gradations, respectively. Interacting Unit Check0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 12.5-9.59.5-4.754.752.36 2.361.18 1.18-0.60.6-0.30.3-0.150.150.075 0.075-0 contiguous sizes, mmBig particle % retained

PAGE 58

43 Figure 4-12. Porosity result after considering interaction 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100porosity, % Coarse 6536 Fine 7446 No interactionInteraction

PAGE 59

44 CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS Twelve Superpave mixtures in Florida were evaluated for cracking and rutting performance. Sufficient numbers of cores of 6inch diameter were obt ained from field test sections for laboratory testing. Results from Superpave IDT test s were further analyzed to determine resilient modulus (MR), creep compliance, failure limits (tensile strength, failure strain, fracture energy and dissipa ted creep strain energy to fa ilure), and energy ratio (ER). Energy ratio is the dimensionless value obtai ned by dividing dissipate d creep strain energy to failure (DCSEf) by the minimum DCSE required fo r good cracking performance. Roque et al. (2004) developed the rela tionship for determining DCSE min based on the cracking performance of mixtures in Florid a ER as defined in the following: ER= DCSEf / DCSEmin (5-1) where, DCSEmin = m2.98* D1/ A (5-2) m and D1 = creep compliance parameters A = parameter dependent on tensile strength (St) and tensile stress ( t), which is a function of pavement stru ctural characteristics. A = 0.0299 * t -3.10 * (6.36-St) + 2.46 * 10-8 (5-3) An applied tensile stress of 150 psi was used to evaluate the relative performance of mixtures. The other parameters used from ID T test for evaluation are the fracture energy (FE), DCSEf, tensile strength (St), and normalized creep strain rate. The normalized creep

PAGE 60

45 compliance strain rate was determined as the ra te of change of creep compliance, which is the creep strain rate per unit stre ss (i.e., normalized strain rate). dD(t)/dt = D1*m* (1000)m-1 (5-4) where, dD(t)/dt = normalized creep strain rate D(t) = creep compliance All twelve Superpave mixtures from the fiel d and laboratory test data were evaluated by using the parameters from the gradation analys is described earlier. In order to relate the rutting performance with gradation parameters , the average rut depth was calculated using the measurements obtained from the field by using The transverse profiler on 5-mile sections of each project. The average rut dept h in mm per million ESALs was calculated for Projects 1 to 8 only since the la st 4 projects (Projects 9 to 12) were recently constructed (see Table 3-3). Samples of mixture (plant mix) for the last 5 projects (Projects 8 to 12) were obtained from the plant before the laydown process in the field. Gyratory shear slope and vertical failure strain were determined for the plant mixture from Servopac tests (Birgisson et al. 2004). The absolute rut depth was measured for the plant mixture from tests performed with the Asphalt Pavement Analyzer (APA) (see Dra kos et al. 2004). The Servopac and APA test results were analyzed to evaluate th e rutting performance of the mixtures. In-place gradations were analyzed for Proj ects 1 to 8 and the plant mix gradations were analyzed for Projects 8 to 12. Gradations for Projects 6, 7, and 9 to 12 were found to be potentially sensitive because there was no break in interaction between the 1.18-mm size and finer particles (see Appendix D). In othe r words, the particles smaller than 1.18 mm appeared as part of the DASR that made the mixtures potentially sensitive.

PAGE 61

46 Project 6 was constructed with one layer (Lay er A) of asphalt concrete while Project 7 was constructed with two layers (Layers A a nd B) of asphalt concrete. Both projects used 12.5-mm fine mixture, constructed with virgin limestone aggregates and recycled asphalt pavement (RAP). AC-20 binder was used for bot h layers (see Table 3-2). Figure 5-1 shows the DASR porosity results for Projects 6 and 7. As mentioned earlier, the Project 6 mixture was potentially sensitive so relatively small ch anges in gradation or asphalt content were likely to increase the porosity of the DASR, and may have adversel y affected mixture performance. As shown in Figure 5-1, the porosity of th e DASR of the Project 6 mixture along the section was more than 50%. Conversely, por osity of DASR was le ss than 50% along the entire section for Project 7. The ER and DC SE of Project 6 vari ed between 200-300% along the section (see Figure 5-2). The porosity of the DASR of Project 7 was below 50% and consistent along the section. Therefore, the ER and DCSE of Project 7 were also consistent along the section (see Figure 5-3). The average rut depth/ million of ESAL (RD/ESAL) were relatively high for Project 6 and low for Project 7 (see Figure 5-4). Al so, Project 6 showed better cracking results in the lower section. Projects 9, 10 and 12 were constructed with two layers of asphalt concrete mixtures (Layers A and B). Layer A was composed of an FC-6 mix using granite aggregates, whereas Layer B was composed of a 12.5-mm fine-grade d Superpave mix using granite aggregates and RAP. PG64-22 modified binder (with 5% ground tire rubber) was used for Layer A and PG64-22 unmodified binder was used for Layer B (see Table 3-2). As stated earlier, the mixtures for Proj ects 9, 10 and 12 were determined to be potentially sensitive mixtures. Figure 5-5 show s the DASR porosity results for Projects 9, 10

PAGE 62

47 Project 6 and 740.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00 6-1A6-2A6-3A7-1A7-2A7-3A Project-Group-LayerDASR Porosity, % DASR Porosity PROJECT 6PROJECT 7 Figure 5-1. DASR porosity of Projec ts 6 and 7 along the sections Project 6 and 70.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 6-1A6-2A6-3A7-1A7-2A7-3A7-1B7-2B7-3B Project-Group-LayerER @ 150 psi Energy Ratio PROJECT 6PROJECT 7 Figure 5-2. Energy ratio calcula ted for Projects 6 and 7

PAGE 63

48 Figure 5-3. DCSE determined for Projects 6 and 7 Figure 5-4. Rut depth/ESALs measur ed from field using transverse profiler for Projects 1-8 Project 6 and 70.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 6-1A6-2A6-3A7-1A7-2A7-3A7-1B7-2B7-3B Project-Group-LayerDCSE (KJ/m^3) DCSE PROJECT 6PROJECT 7 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 12345678ProjectsRut Depth/ ESALs (mm/Million) Round I Round II Round III

PAGE 64

49 Figure 5-5. DASR porosity of Projec ts 9, 10, and 12 along the sections and 12. The DASR porosity and interaction at the 4.75-mm to 2.36-mm sieve range for Projects 10 and 12 varied signi ficantly along the section (see Appendix E). The APA test results performed on plant mix had shown relati vely high absolute rut depth for all these projects (see Figure 5-6). In addition, the DASR porosity for Projects 9 and 12 was greater than 50%. As expected from the sensitivity resu lts, the ER values were affected significantly by variation in DASR poro sity (see Figure 5-7). In addition, the Servopac test results for plant mixes from various locations along the length of these projects were found not to be in the optimal mixture range (see Figure 5-8). Moreover, earlier work performed by Claude et al. (2004) showed that mixtures used in Projects 9, 10 and 12 were very sensitive to AC and/or dust conten t; their creep rate increased or decreased significantly even when the variance was within acceptable levels. Project 8 was composed of two layers (L ayer A and B) of the same mixture, a 12.5-mm coarse-graded mixture c onstructed with limestone aggregate. PG76-22 blended Project 9 , 10 and 1240.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00 70.00 9-1A9-2A9-3A9-1B10-1A10-2A10-1B12-1A12-1B Project-Group-LayerDASR Porosity, % DASR Porosity PROJECT 9PROJECT 10PROJECT 12

PAGE 65

50 Figure 5-6. Rut depth and area change (%) fr om APA test for Projects 8, 9, 10, and 12 Figure 5-7. Energy ratio calculate d for Projects 9, 10, and 12 Projects 9, 10 and 120.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 9-1A9-2A9-3A9-1B10-1A 10-2A10-1B12-1A12-1B Project-Group-LayerER @ 150 psi Energy Ratio PROJECT 9PROJECT 10PROJECT 12 APA test Results -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Project 8Project 9Project 10Project 12Rut Depth (mm), Area Change (%) Absolute Rut Depth Percent Area Change

PAGE 66

51 Superpave Servopac Results Project 8-120 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 11.21.41.61.822.22.4 Vertical Failure Strain, %Gyratory Shear Slope, kPa P8 L6A P8 L15A P9 L15A P9 L25A P9 L15B P10 L15A P10 L25A P10 L15B P11 L15A P11 L25A P11 L5B P11 L15B P11 L25B P12 L15A P12 L15B Series16 Series17 Series18 Low Shear Resistance O p timal Mixtures Brittle Mixtures Plastic MIxtures Figure 5-8. Servopac results of bot h Layers A and B for Projects 8-12

PAGE 67

52 with SBS modifier was used as the binder (s ee Table 3-2). The in-place and the plant mix gradation were determined to be sign ificantly different for this project. Reports during construction indicated that th e mixture was cooler than expected, so additional compaction with vibr atory rollers was applied to achieve density. Breakdown of aggregate resulting from this compaction a ppeared to cause the difference in gradation observed between plant mixture and fieldcompacted specimens. Project 8 Job Mix Formula (JMF) gradation met all Superpave re quirements. Rut depth measurements from the field, APA test results and Servopac test results for Project 8 were presented in Figures 5-4, 5-6, and 5-8, respectively. The absolute rut depth from APA, which was based on compacted plant mix samples, wa s relatively low for Project 8. The plant mixture was also found to be within the optim al mixture range based on the Servopac test results. However, the field performance in terms of RD/ESAL was highest among all the projects. It was hypothesized that the difference was related to the difference in gradation observed between the plant and in-place mixtures. The plant mixture gradations for Project 8 (see Figure 5-9) were similar to mix design gradation (JMF). However, the in-pl ace gradations were finer than mix design gradation (Figures 5-10 and 5-11). As noted ea rlier, the mixture had cooled significantly before laydown in the field, which probabl y resulted in aggregate breakdown during compaction. The DASR porosity for in-place gradations was determined to be higher than 50% for all locations evaluated (s ee Figure 5-12). In addition, the 2.36-mm to 1.18-mm sieve range was marginally interactiv e at 70% for the in-place mixture, which resulted in a potentially sensitive mixture. This was compounded by the fact that the

PAGE 68

53 Figure 5-9. Plant mixture gradation for Project 8 Figure 5-10. In-place field grada tions of Layer A for Project 8 Project 8 Layer A (12.5mm Mix) Field Gradation0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line) Project 8 Layer A (12.5mm Mix) Plant Mix Gradation0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Mile 1 Mile 2 Mile 3 Mile 4 Mile 5 MAXDensityLine Linear(MAXDensityLine)

PAGE 69

54 Figure 5-11. In-place field grada tions of Layer B for Project 8 Figure 5-12. DASR porosity of Layers A and B for Project 8 Project 8 Layer B (12.5mm Mix) Field Gradation0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line) Project 8 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00 JMF8-1A8-2A8-3A8-1B8-2B8-3BProject-Group-LayerDASR Porosity, % DASR Porosity

PAGE 70

55 asphalt content for Layer B varied significantl y along the section and was slightly higher than optimum asphalt content from mix design (see Figure 5-13). Projects 4 and 5 were cons tructed with two layers of asphalt concrete mixture (Layers A and B). Layer A of both projects was composed of a 9.5-mm coarse-graded Superpave mixture, whereas Layer B of Proj ects 4 and 5 were composed of 19-mm and 12.5-mm coarse-graded Superpave mixture, re spectively. The mixtures for both layers were constructed with limestone aggregates and RAP. AC-30 and AC-20 binders were used for top and bottom layers , respectively (see Table 3-2). The RD/ESAL for Projects 4 and 5 was rela tively low (see Figure 5-4). The ER for these projects (Figures 5-14) were found to be consistent between 1 and 2, except for Layer B of Project 5 which was higher. These mixtures met all gradation criteria, except the DASR porosity of some locations wa s marginal at 50% (see Figure 5-15). Figure 5-13. Asphalt content of Layer B for Project 8 Project 8 Layer-B (Vacuum Extraction)5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 6.5% 7.0% 7.5% 051015202530LocationAsphalt Content, % UF Mix Design QC IA QA

PAGE 71

56 Figure 5-14. ER of Layers A and B for Projects 4 and 5 Figure 5-15. DASR Porosity of La yers A and B for Projects 4 and 5 Projects 1 and 3 were constr ucted with two layers of asphalt concrete mixtures (Layers A and B). Layer A for Projects 1 a nd 3 was composed of a 9.5-mm coarse-graded and a 12.5-mm coarse-graded Superpave mixture, respectively. Layer B for both projects was composed of a 19-mm coarse-graded Superpave mixture. Granite was used on Project 4 & 50.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 4-1A4-2A4-3A4-1B4-2B4-3B5-1A5-2A5-3A5-1B5-2B5-3B Project-Group-LayerER @ 150 psi Energy Ratio PROJECT 4PROJECT 5 Project 4 & 540.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00 4-1A4-2A4-3A4-1B4-2B4-3B5-1A5-2A5-3A5-1B5-2B5-3BProject-Group-Layer DASR Porosity, % DASR Porosity PROJECT 4 PROJECT 5

PAGE 72

57 Project 1 and limestone on Pr oject 3. RAP was used on bot h projects. AC-30 and AC-20 binder was used for Layers A and B, respectiv ely. The mix design gradations for Projects 1 and 3 met all Superpave and gradation requ irements based on the proposed University of Florida framework. The DASR porosity, ER, DCSE and creep rate values are presented in Figures 5-16, 5-17, 5-18, and 519, respectively, for Projects 1, 2 and 3. The interaction of the mix design gradations (JMF) clearly broke at the 2.36-mm to 1.18-mm sieve size range, and the DASR porosity was below 50%. However, the in-place field gradations for these two projects varied along the sections, which affected the DASR porosity (see Appendix D for interaction di agram of in-place gradations). Although the energy ratios of Project 1 were consistent ly above two along the section, the average RD/ESAL was relatively high in the field base d on the transverse profiler measurements (see Figure 5-4). The in-place gradations of both layers fo r Project 3 varied significantly along the section. Moreover, except for Group 3-2A, all in -place gradations exhibited interaction at the 2.36-mm to 1.18-mm range, indicating a potentia lly sensitive mixture. Therefore, the Figure 5-16. DASR porosity of Laye rs A and B for Projects 1, 2, and 3 Project 1-335 40 45 50 55 60 65 1-1A1-2A1-3A1-1B1-2B1-3B2-2A2-3A2-1B3-1A3-2A3-3A3-1B3-2B3-3BProject-Group-Layer DASR Porosity, % DASR Porosity PROJECT 1 PROJECT 3

PAGE 73

58 Figure 5-17. Energy ratios of Laye rs A and B for Projects 1, 2, and 3 Figure 5-18. DCSE of Layers A and B for Projects 1, 2, and 3 Project 1-30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1-1A1-2A1-3A1-1B1-2B1-3B2-2A23A2-1B3-1A3-2A3-3A3-1B3-2B3-3B Project-Group-LayerER @ 150 PSI Energy Ratio PROJECT 3 PROJECT 2 PROJECT 1 Project 1-30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1-1A1-2A1-3A1-1B1-2B1-3B2-2A2-3A2-1B3-1A3-2A3-3A3-1B3-2B3-3B Project-Group-LayerDCSE (KJ/m^3) DCSE PROJECT1PROJECT 2PROJECT 3

PAGE 74

59 Figure 5-19. Creep rate of Laye rs A and B for Projects 1, 2, and 3 energy ratios among the groups for Project 3 vari ed by 100%. In addition, the average rut depth/ ESALs measured from the field was re latively high compared to Projects 4 and 5. Project 2 was also constructed with tw o coarse-graded Superpave mixtures of 12.5mm and 19.0mm for Layers A and B, respectiv ely. Limestone aggregate was used along with AC-30 binder for both layers. Project 2 had the hi ghest amount of RAP (35% for each layer) among the twelve projects. The JMF gradation of Project 2 did not meet the gradation criteria and no contiguous range of particle s interacted above the 1.18-mm particle size. The porosity of i ndividual particle sizes was higher than 50%. However, due to variation in construction, the in-place grada tions did result in interaction within the 4.75-mm to 2.36-mm or the 2.36-mm to 1.18-mm si eve range for some locations, but even this was marginal. The DCSE and creep rate were relatively high for the project. The rut depth/ ESALs (inch/million) was also relatively high. Project 1-30.00E+00 1.00E-08 2.00E-08 3.00E-08 4.00E-08 5.00E-08 6.00E-08 7.00E-08 8.00E-08 1-1A1-2A1-3A1-1B1-2B1-3B2-2A2-3A2-1B3-1A3-2A3-3A3-1B3-2B3-3BProject-Group-LayerCreep Rate Creep Rate PROJECT 1PROJECT 2PROJECT 3

PAGE 75

60 5.1 Results Summary The proposed framework appeared to e xplain the relative la boratory and field performance of all Superpave test section mixtures to assess mixture gradation. The system accurately distinguished between mixtures with relatively good rutting performance and those exhibiting relatively poor rutting performance. Overall results of the assessment may be summarized as follows: Mixtures with DASR porosity less than 50% along the section exhibited little or no rutting. This includes in-place gradations of projects 3, 4, 5, 7 and 11, for which no rutting was observed in the field, and pl ant mix gradation of project 8 which performed very well in the APA and Servopac. The plant mix gradation for project 11 performed well in the APA, Servopac results indicated potentially marginal performance. Plant-mix was not available for projects 3, 4, 5, and 7, while the inplace gradation of project 8 was different than the plant mix gradation due to aggregate breakdown during compaction. The DASR porosity of the in-place mixture for project 8 was greater than 50%. Mixtures with DASR porosity greater th an 50% along the length of the section exhibited relatively poor rutting performance. This includes in-place gradations of projects 6 and 8 for which relatively high ra tes of rutting were observed in the field, and plant mix gradations for projects 9 and 12 which exhibited relatively poor rutting performance in the APA and Servopac tests. Reliable field data are not yet available for these test sections which were constructed more recently and have relatively low traffic levels. Mixtures with marginally interactive gr adations resulted in variable DASR porosity along the length of the section (sometimes greater than 50%, sometimes less than 50%) and relatively poor rutti ng performance. This includes in-place gradations of project 1 and 2, which exhibi ted relatively high rate s of rutting in the field and plant mix gradations for proj ect 10, which exhibited relatively poor rutting performance in the APA and Servopac tests.

PAGE 76

61 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Summary Conclusion In 1999, FDOT initiated a Superpave m onitoring project which included the evaluation of twelve Superpave projects from throughout the state of Florida. During this same time period, a framework was establishe d by the materials research team at the University of Florida to eval uate the effect of gradation on mixture performance. Their work led to specific guidelines and criter ia for selecting gradations for optimal performance. My study focused on evaluating this fr amework and proposed guidelines and criteria using laboratory a nd field performance data from the Superpave monitoring project. The porosity of intera ctive coarse particles called the dominant aggregate size range or DASR ( 1.18 mm) was identified as a potenti al criterion for evaluating mixture performance. It was determined that DASR porosity must be less than 50% to assure sufficient aggregate interlock for good resistan ce to deformation and cracking. As a part of the framework, analysis of particle sp acing between the interstitial surfaces was performed in order to determine the degree of interaction between th e particle sizes. It was also determined that mixtures are pot entially sensitive to generally acceptable construction variance in asphalt content a nd air voids when particles finer than 1.18mm are part of the DASR and the DASR porosity is near 50%. Analysis of laboratory and field performa nce of Superpave mixtures led to the following findings:

PAGE 77

62 Mixtures with a high DASR porosity (great er than 50%) exhibited relatively poor rutting and/or cracking performance. Mixtures identified as potentially sensitive resulted in problems when there was construction variance. Aggregate breakdown due to over-compaction occurred when a mixture had cooled before laydown. The established framework appears to be promising and could be pursued further for use in mixture design and evaluation. 6.2 Recommendations With the limited scope of this study, additional work must be done to further our understanding of the effects of aggregate ty pe, shape, texture, and binder on the shear resistance (interlocking) of the asphalt mi xture. To further evaluate the provided framework, it is recommended that a mixtur e be produced and tested in the very controlled environment of a laboratory. It is further recommended that the mixture be treated under various conditions, such as l ong-term oven aging (LTOA), short-term oven aging (STOA), moisture conditioning, and differe nt temperatures in the lab to determine the gradation effects on mixture properties. This knowledge would contribute to the ability of the FDOT to develop guidelines for mixture design procedures to optimize mixture performance.

PAGE 78

63 APPENDIX A INDIRECT TENSILE TESTING (IDT) GROUPS Table A-1. Groups of selected locations for IDT of all projects top lift * 6-7 Location 6 Core number7

PAGE 79

64 Table A-2. Groups of selected locations for IDT of all projects bottom lift Projects Temperature Group1 Group2 Group3 6-7 16-7 30-8 4-8 14-8 28-8 1 10° 6-8 18-8 26-7 1-8 11-7 22-7 3-8 13-7 20-8 2 10° 5-8 10-7 24-8 17-7 21-7 27-7 11-8 20-8 27-8 3 10° 13-8 23-7 30-7 6-8 11-7 25-7 5-8 14-7 28-7 4 10° 7-8 13-8 27-7 5-8 16-7 25-7 7-8 15-7 28-7 5 10° 6-7 19-7 26-8 7-7 16-8 27-7 7-8 19-8 28-8 7 10° 5-7 21-8 28-7 3-8 17-7 21-7 7-8 19-8 25-8 8 10° 7-7 14-8 23-8 15-7 15-8 9 10° 25-8 5-7 25-7 10 10° 25-8 15-2 25-1 15-3 25-2 11 10° 14-4 25-3 15-1 15-2 12 10° 15-3

PAGE 80

APPENDIX B GRADATION AND VOLUMETRIC PROPERTIES OF JMF AND IN-PLACE MIXTURES

PAGE 81

66 Table B-1. Project 1 top lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 SP97-0051 Location Location Location Sieve Size JMF 6-7 7-7 7-8 Avg. 16-8 18-7 18-8 Avg. 25-7 26-7 26-8 Avg. 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.00 1/2" 12.5mm 100 98.8 100.0 99.39 98.6 98.2 98.41 99.7 99.7 99.68 3/8" 9.5mm 95 91.1 99.0 95.03 79.3 78.9 79.13 98.5 98.2 98.32 No. 4 4.75mm 67 58.9 68.3 63.59 47.5 48.9 48.20 66.7 64.5 65.59 No. 8 2.36mm 35 38.9 41.8 40.38 35.4 37.2 36.29 41.8 40.4 41.10 No. 16 1.18mm 24 28.5 30.3 29.36 26.6 27.9 27.24 30.7 29.5 30.10 No. 30 0.6mm 17 21.9 23.3 22.62 20.6 21.5 21.04 23.9 22.8 23.32 No. 50 0.3mm 13 16.1 17.5 16.78 15.0 15.7 15.37 17.9 16.8 17.32 No. 100 0.15mm 8 10.5 11.9 11.17 9.7 10.1 9.87 12.0 11.0 11.52 No. 200 0.075mm 5 7.0 8.1 7.55 6.2 6.5 6.32 8.5 7.3 7.89 Gmm 2.484 2.5502.554 2.552 2.5542.559 2.5572.5512.546 2.548 AC, % 5.5 4.99 5.02 5.00 5.14 5.45 5.30 4.90 4.92 4.91 AV, % 4.0 5.58 5.82 5.995.80 2.91 2.83 2.862.87 3.91 4.42 4.244.19 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.667 2.667 2.667 2.667 Gse 2.706 2.767 2.788 2.758 Pba, % 0.56 1.40 1.67 1.28

PAGE 82

67 Table B-2. Project 1 bottom lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 Sieve Size SP970052B Location AverageLocation AverageLocation Avg. JMF 4-8 6-7 6-8 14-8 16-7 18-8 26-7 28-8 30-8 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 99 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 1/2" 12.5mm 89 93.8 91.4 92.62 91.3 89.38 89.7 90.12 85.4 88.9 90.9 88.39 3/8" 9.5mm 79 84.0 81.1 82.54 81.1 76.9 80.4 79.46 74.8 80.0 80.6 78.47 No. 4 4.75mm 46 50.3 48.2 49.24 49.1 46.3 48.1 47.83 44.4 48.2 49.4 47.35 No. 8 2.36mm 29 32.2 31.7 31.97 31.9 29.5 30.5 30.62 29.1 30.9 31.4 30.48 No. 16 1.18mm 22 24.5 24.3 24.39 24.5 22.7 23.7 23.63 22.6 23.7 24.3 23.54 No. 30 0.6mm 17 19.4 19.6 19.50 19.7 18.2 19.4 19.10 18.2 19.2 19.9 19.10 No. 50 0.3mm 12 14.1 14.8 14.41 14.9 15.2 14.9 14.98 13.7 14.7 15.1 14.51 No. 100 0.15mm 7 7.2 9.7 8.45 10.1 10.6 9.9 10.22 9.1 10.0 9.8 9.61 No. 200 0.075mm 4.7 4.1 6.3 5.20 6.8 7.4 6.4 6.88 6.1 6.8 6.4 6.40 Gmm 2.516 2.5842.581 2.5822.6032.600 2.6082.6042.6032.5962.5922.597 AC, % 4.7 4.90 4.84 4.87 4.64 4.72 4.69 4.68 4.83 4.72 4.55 4.70 AV, % 4.0 3.49 4.53 3.994.00 4.06 5.45 5.01 4.84 5.39 4.76 6.18 5.44 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.689 2.689 2.689 2.689 Gse 2.709 2.798 2.815 2.808 Pba, % 0.279 1.498 1.712 1.622

PAGE 83

68 Table B-3. Project 2 top lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 SP97-0062A Location Avg. Location Avg. Location Avg. Sieve Size JMF 3-8 4-7 4-8 8-7 8-8 11-8 20-7 20-8 21-7 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.00 1/2" 12.5mm 98 98.7 99.1 98.91 98.5 98.745 98.61 98.6 99.1 98.59 3/8" 9.5mm 89 92.2 90.7 91.42 91.3 91.1 91.19 90.1 90.4 90.08 No. 4 4.75mm 45 52.0 50.5 51.25 50.5 51.8 51.16 45.1 49.3 45.10 No. 8 2.36mm 28 30.8 30.9 30.86 30.4 30.9 30.62 30.3 30.7 30.25 No. 16 1.18mm 22 23.8 23.7 23.75 23.4 23.8 23.63 23.3 23.7 23.28 No. 30 0.6mm 17 19.5 19.2 19.34 18.9 19.5 19.21 18.8 19.4 18.83 No. 50 0.3mm 12 15.0 14.6 14.78 14.2 15.0 14.57 14.1 14.8 14.11 No. 100 0.15mm 7 9.8 9.5 9.65 9.0 9.8 9.42 9.0 9.9 8.98 No. 200 0.075mm 4.9 6.1 6.0 6.04 5.7 6.4 6.07 5.6 6.6 5.59 Gmm 2.525 2.5422.543 2.5432.5532.537 2.5452.5482.549 2.548 AC, % 5 4.94 4.30 4.62 5.12 5.12 5.12 4.99 5.00 4.99 AV, % 4.0 3.05 2.92 3.002.99 4.01 3.61 3.693.77 3.19 3.06 3.033.19 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.685 2.685 2.685 2.685 Gse 2.734 2.738 2.765 2.762 Pba, % 0.685 0.736 1.103 1.063

PAGE 84

69 Table B-4. Project 2 bottom lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 SP970054A Location Avg. Location Avg. Location Avg. Sieve Size JMF 1-8 3-8 5-8 10-7 11-7 13-7 20-8 22-7 24-8 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 98 97.9 99.3 99.1 98.78 100.0 100.0 97.6 99.19 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 1/2" 12.5mm 89 94.2 92.1 94.2 93.47 90.0 91.51 90.9 90.81 92.4 91.6 91.1 91.70 3/8" 9.5mm 83 89.5 86.0 89.8 88.43 82.6 83.6 82.8 82.97 85.8 84.3 83.2 84.43 No. 4 4.75mm 43 52.6 49.0 53.3 51.65 47.1 49.7 47.7 48.18 51.1 49.3 47.5 49.29 No. 8 2.36mm 26 30.4 27.8 29.2 29.10 30.8 30.8 29.4 30.32 30.5 28.9 28.0 29.11 No. 16 1.18mm 21 23.1 21.3 21.7 22.01 24.3 23.6 23.3 23.71 24.1 22.7 21.7 22.86 No. 30 0.6mm 17 18.9 17.5 17.7 18.02 19.9 19.3 19.3 19.50 20.3 19.2 18.1 19.20 No. 50 0.3mm 12 14.5 13.7 13.6 13.97 15.6 14.9 14.9 15.14 16.0 15.3 14.1 15.10 No. 100 0.15mm 7 9.7 9.3 9.2 9.41 9.7 9.9 9.9 9.84 10.7 10.5 9.2 10.11 No. 200 0.075mm 4.9 6.3 6.1 6.0 6.13 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.28 6.9 6.8 5.6 6.43 Gmm 2.525 2.5342.5282.5222.5282.5222.501 2.4982.5072.5262.5332.5462.535 AC, % 5 5.47 5.51 6.15 5.71 5.58 5.51 5.73 5.61 5.85 5.67 5.28 5.60 AV, % 4.0 1.51 2.59 3.28 2.46 2.16 0.29 1.25 1.23 2.43 2.07 2.75 2.42 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.693 2.693 2.693 2.693 Gse 2.734 2.772 2.741 2.775 Pba, % 0.571 1.091 0.664 1.135

PAGE 85

70 Table B-5. Project 3 top lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-3 Mix Design Group-2 SP970037A Location Location SP970038A Location Sieve Size JMF-1 5-7 11-8 12-8 Avg. 26-7 28-8 29-8 Avg. JMF-2 14-7 20-8 23-7 Avg. 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1/2" 12.5mm 96 97.9 97.6 98.5 98.04 97.1 97.0 96.8 96.98 94.00 97.0 96.40595.9 96.45 3/8" 9.5mm 89 92.8 89.8 91.4 91.34 91.2 91.5 91.3 91.36 90.00 92.6 92.0 92.7 92.40 No. 4 4.75mm 68 70.9 65.6 68.2 68.21 65.7 67.7 69.2 67.52 67.00 66.8 66.4 68.5 67.25 No. 8 2.36mm 35 47.7 43.5 43.2 44.81 42.5 46.4 46.6 45.14 34.00 36.7 36.6 36.3 36.54 No. 16 1.18mm 25 33.2 30.4 29.2 30.92 28.7 32.2 31.4 30.77 25.00 27.8 27.2 26.1 27.04 No. 30 0.6mm 18 24.1 21.8 21.3 22.38 20.4 23.6 22.9 22.28 18.00 21.6 20.7 19.2 20.50 No. 50 0.3mm 13 17.4 15.5 15.6 16.15 14.7 17.4 17.0 16.35 13.00 16.1 15.3 13.4 14.91 No. 100 0.15mm 7 11.8 10.7 10.9 11.13 10.1 12.0 12.1 11.38 7.00 9.9 9.7 8.2 9.30 No. 200 0.075mm 4.6 8.5 7.8 7.9 8.09 7.3 8.9 9.1 8.40 4.40 6.7 6.6 5.8 6.33 Gmm 2.312 2.392 2.3682.3612.3742.3722.3552.337 2.3552.2982.2862.3222.2812.296 AC, % 8.3 8.04 8.00 8.14 8.06 8.16 8.40 8.33 8.30 7.50 7.58 7.44 7.48 7.50 AV, % 4.0 6.18 5.30 5.65 5.71 6.19 5.98 6.64 6.27 4.00 4.62 5.56 5.01 5.06 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.407 2.407 2.407 2.3822.382 Gse 2.606 2.680 2.665 2.55 2.550 Pba, % 3.261 4.360 4.147 2.8932.853

PAGE 86

71 Table B-6. Project 3 bottom lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 SP970034B Location Avg. Location Avg. Location Avg. Sieve Size JMF 11-8 13-8 17-7 20-8 21-7 23-7 27-7 27-8 30-7 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.87 100.0 99.3 99.67 100.0 100.0 100.00 1/2" 12.5mm 90 90.1 94.6 86.4 90.35 94.1 91.01 92.56 94.8 96.2 95.52 3/8" 9.5mm 81 78.3 87.8 73.3 79.82 85.1 82.0 83.54 86.8 87.3 87.02 No. 4 4.75mm 57 54.1 61.7 48.0 54.59 59.4 55.9 57.64 58.3 60.7 59.51 No. 8 2.36mm 30 33.5 37.3 29.5 33.45 35.8 34.2 34.98 36.0 36.4 36.19 No. 16 1.18mm 22 23.1 24.2 20.6 22.64 24.0 23.4 23.70 25.6 24.4 24.96 No. 30 0.6mm 16 17.2 17.6 15.6 16.79 18.0 17.4 17.68 20.1 18.2 19.18 No. 50 0.3mm 12 12.9 13.3 11.7 12.64 13.5 12.9 13.19 15.8 13.8 14.79 No. 100 0.15mm 7 9.2 9.6 8.2 8.99 9.4 8.8 9.08 11.2 9.8 10.47 No. 200 0.075mm 4.4 6.8 7.5 6.0 6.79 6.9 6.6 6.72 8.2 7.6 7.90 Gmm 2.34 2.3672.3772.3812.3742.3682.387 2.3772.4232.371 2.397 AC, % 7.8 7.43 7.94 7.40 7.42 7.47 7.21 7.34 7.32 7.66 7.49 AV, % 4.0 5.97 6.88 5.40 5.69 6.15 5.91 6.926.33 0.06 0.06 0.070.06 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.414 2.414 2.414 2.414 Gse 2.622 2.651 2.652 2.686 Pba, % 3.387 3.821 3.830 4.316

PAGE 87

72 Table B-7. Project 4 top lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 SP980168B Location Avg. Location Avg. Location Avg. Sieve Size JMF 6-7 8-7 8-8 12-7 12-8 13-7 25-7 25-8 27-8 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.00 1/2" 12.5mm 100 99.6 98.8 99.19 99.2 99.76 99.46 99.7 99.3 99.47 3/8" 9.5mm 95 96.0 94.6 95.32 94.0 94.6 94.30 94.2 93.5 93.87 No. 4 4.75mm 67 69.6 67.4 68.51 66.6 68.1 67.38 68.3 67.1 67.71 No. 8 2.36mm 35 39.1 38.2 38.61 37.3 37.8 37.57 37.6 36.8 37.20 No. 16 1.18mm 24 26.8 26.7 26.76 26.6 26.3 26.47 25.9 25.6 25.74 No. 30 0.6mm 17 20.4 20.5 20.47 20.5 20.1 20.33 19.6 19.6 19.59 No. 50 0.3mm 13 15.5 15.5 15.50 15.5 15.3 15.40 14.8 14.7 14.74 No. 100 0.15mm 8 10.2 10.1 10.11 9.9 10.1 10.04 9.5 9.4 9.41 No. 200 0.075mm 5 7.2 7.1 7.14 7.0 7.1 7.05 6.5 6.4 6.46 Gmm 2.336 2.389 2.3892.3892.381 2.4032.3922.380 2.3662.373 AC, % 7.1 6.32 6.45 6.38 6.38 6.41 6.40 6.45 6.65 6.55 AV, % 4.0 6.75 6.876.42 6.68 8.91 8.45 8.49 8.61 7.34 7.236.23 6.93 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.494 2.494 2.494 2.494 Gse 2.587 2.625 2.630 2.611 Pba, % 1.479 2.060 2.136 1.855

PAGE 88

73 Table B-8. Project 4 bottom lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 SP980111B Location Avg. Location Avg. Location Avg. Sieve Size JMF 5-8 6-8 7-8 11-7 13-8 14-7 25-7 27-7 28-7 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 97 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 1/2" 12.5mm 87 79.6 81.3 83.7 81.52 86.4 84.41 83.8 84.87 83.6 83.8 85.8 84.40 3/8" 9.5mm 77 65.7 71.7 75.9 71.07 79.5 76.4 74.8 76.91 74.4 76.0 76.8 75.73 No. 4 4.75mm 50 36.2 43.8 48.8 42.93 50.4 47.4 44.9 47.55 47.5 47.5 47.3 47.42 No. 8 2.36mm 23 25.3 25.7 27.8 26.27 27.5 26.2 25.1 26.28 29.4 29.3 25.0 27.91 No. 16 1.18mm 18 20.9 20.4 21.6 20.96 21.4 20.6 20.0 20.65 24.0 23.2 19.1 22.09 No. 30 0.6mm 15 18.1 17.4 18.3 17.93 18.0 17.5 17.2 17.57 21.2 20.2 16.2 19.18 No. 50 0.3mm 13 15.5 13.7 15.4 14.87 13.8 14.6 14.6 14.34 18.8 17.6 12.1 16.16 No. 100 0.15mm 6 8.1 6.3 7.7 7.37 5.5 6.8 6.9 6.40 12.3 11.6 5.9 9.91 No. 200 0.075mm 3.7 5.4 4.7 5.0 5.02 3.7 4.1 4.9 4.22 9.0 7.3 4.3 6.89 Gmm 2.295 2.3082.3332.3102.3172.3072.300 2.3102.3062.3282.3232.3082.320 AC, % 6.2 5.63 5.81 6.19 5.88 6.65 6.50 6.20 6.45 5.85 6.25 6.04 6.05 AV, % 4.0 3.29 5.34 5.58 4.74 4.25 6.36 6.13 5.58 4.57 5.71 5.18 5.15 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.393 2.393 2.393 2.393 Gse 2.498 2.523 2.521 2.523 Pba, % 1.805 2.221 2.183 2.216

PAGE 89

74 Table B-9. Project 5 top lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 SP980126B Location Avg. Location Avg. Location Avg. Sieve Size JMF 7-7 7-8 8-8 17-7 19-7 19-8 28-8 30-7 30-8 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1/2" 12.5mm 100 100.0 100.0 100.00 99.3 99.9 99.60 99.7 99.67 3/8" 9.5mm 94 96.3 95.5 95.85 95.2 94.02 94.61 95.5 95.46 No. 4 4.75mm 64 70.3 67.7 68.99 66.8 63.9 65.36 69.3 69.33 No. 8 2.36mm 34 41.5 40.5 41.03 39.5 38.3 38.87 40.3 40.25 No. 16 1.18mm 24 29.3 28.8 29.04 28.6 28.1 28.33 28.2 28.15 No. 30 0.6mm 19 22.8 22.6 22.73 22.6 22.4 22.51 22.0 21.99 No. 50 0.3mm 13 18.0 17.9 17.95 17.9 17.9 17.85 17.4 17.43 No. 100 0.15mm 8 12.2 12.1 12.16 12.3 12.3 12.27 11.8 11.81 No. 200 0.075mm 3.9 7.5 7.4 7.43 7.7 7.5 7.60 7.3 7.32 Gmm 2.336 2.405 2.3982.4022.405 2.374 2.390 2.394 2.368 2.381 AC, % 6.4 6.00 5.91 5.96 6.05 5.79 5.92 6.04 6.04 AV, % 4.0 6.02 6.265.86 6.04 6.91 5.43 6.286.21 6.33 6.66 6.226.40 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.459 2.459 2.459 2.459 Gse 2.558 2.623 2.606 2.600 Pba, % 1.617 2.620 2.362 2.273

PAGE 90

75 Table B-10. Project 5 bottom lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 SP970079B Location Avg. Location Avg. Location Avg. Sieve Size JMF 5-8 6-7 7-8 15-7 16-7 19-7 25-7 26-8 28-7 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 1/2" 12.5mm 96 96.6 97.0 97.1 96.91 97.2 96.07 96.1 96.46 97.1 99.3 97.9 98.08 3/8" 9.5mm 88 87.9 90.8 91.3 89.98 93.6 90.7 86.8 90.39 89.8 92.9 90.8 91.15 No. 4 4.75mm 58 55.8 62.5 63.4 60.57 66.2 59.8 57.4 61.14 60.3 61.0 62.0 61.09 No. 8 2.36mm 31 33.4 35.7 36.9 35.33 37.7 33.5 34.7 35.27 34.9 35.1 37.7 35.91 No. 16 1.18mm 23 24.7 25.1 26.2 25.32 26.9 24.2 26.5 25.88 25.6 25.5 27.4 26.17 No. 30 0.6mm 18 19.8 19.8 20.5 20.04 21.5 19.3 21.8 20.88 20.6 20.7 21.9 21.02 No. 50 0.3mm 13 15.8 15.6 16.0 15.79 16.7 15.1 17.2 16.33 16.2 16.4 16.9 16.52 No. 100 0.15mm 9 9.6 9.8 9.4 9.61 10.7 8.0 10.6 9.77 9.1 10.3 10.4 9.94 No. 200 0.075mm 4 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.76 6.2 5.1 5.8 5.72 5.6 5.8 6.1 5.84 Gmm 2.324 2.3302.3312.3442.3352.3242.324 2.2922.3132.3152.3342.3402.330 AC, % 6.1 6.11 6.16 6.09 6.12 6.33 6.27 6.50 6.37 6.16 6.24 6.09 6.16 AV, % 4.0 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.04 2.85 2.96 4.35 3.39 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.443 2.443 2.443 2.443 Gse 2.531 2.545 2.528 2.540 Pba, % 1.458 1.690 1.410 1.616

PAGE 91

76 Table B-11. Project 6 top lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 SP980155C Location Avg. Location Avg. Location Avg. Sieve Size JMF 10-8 13-7 13-8 19-8 21-7 21-8 28-8 30-7 30-8 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100.0 99.2 99.58 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.00 1/2" 12.5mm 95 95.7 96.8 96.21 96.4 96.61 96.49 94.3 94.5 94.40 3/8" 9.5mm 88 90.5 89.6 90.02 91.6 90.7 91.17 85.1 89.2 87.15 No. 4 4.75mm 75 78.5 75.3 76.90 79.3 76.8 78.07 70.9 78.3 74.63 No. 8 2.36mm 58 61.3 57.3 59.32 61.2 60.2 60.72 54.7 61.9 58.29 No. 16 1.18mm 44 47.0 44.3 45.62 47.7 47.3 47.52 42.6 48.8 45.72 No. 30 0.6mm 34 37.0 34.9 35.94 36.6 36.1 36.37 33.9 37.9 35.89 No. 50 0.3mm 21 26.0 24.1 25.06 24.8 23.9 24.33 23.4 26.1 24.75 No. 100 0.15mm 9 11.4 10.1 10.77 11.3 10.3 10.82 10.9 11.9 11.39 No. 200 0.075mm 5 7.2 6.3 6.75 7.2 6.1 6.65 6.9 7.5 7.21 Gmm 2.313 2.3322.331 2.3312.3422.339 2.3402.3442.330 2.337 AC, % 7 7.50 7.18 7.34 7.12 7.28 7.20 6.72 7.07 6.90 AV, % 4.0 5.82 5.56 5.255.55 5.79 5.60 5.645.67 4.96 4.38 4.984.78 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.438 2.438 2.438 2.438 Gse 2.552 2.556 2.580 2.572 Pba, % 1.892 1.944 2.326 2.195

PAGE 92

77 Table B-12. Project 7 top lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 SP980139A Location Avg. Location Avg. Location Avg. Sieve Size JMF 5-8 8-8 10-8 16-7 17-8 19-8 22-7 23-8 26-7 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 1/2" 12.5mm 95 95.0 97.4 96.5 96.27 95.8 95.03 95.5 95.45 94.9 95.5 96.7 95.73 3/8" 9.5mm 88 87.1 89.6 88.0 88.24 89.0 86.3 85.7 86.97 84.2 86.3 86.8 85.80 No. 4 4.75mm 70 66.4 69.5 68.6 68.20 69.2 65.3 63.4 65.95 64.0 65.9 67.9 65.94 No. 8 2.36mm 57 51.6 54.3 53.7 53.20 54.5 50.5 49.7 51.57 50.6 52.2 53.1 51.97 No. 16 1.18mm 41 37.6 38.8 39.7 38.69 40.2 37.0 37.3 38.17 37.5 38.8 39.1 38.46 No. 30 0.6mm 30 28.7 29.2 30.6 29.50 30.6 28.3 28.9 29.26 28.9 29.9 29.8 29.51 No. 50 0.3mm 19 21.1 21.3 22.6 21.65 22.3 20.7 21.3 21.43 21.1 21.8 21.8 21.59 No. 100 0.15mm 9 11.4 11.3 12.0 11.57 11.8 11.2 11.7 11.56 10.7 11.3 11.4 11.16 No. 200 0.075mm 4.2 6.8 6.6 6.8 6.71 6.8 6.7 7.0 6.84 6.1 6.2 6.5 6.26 Gmm 2.364 2.4162.4082.4182.4142.3732.360 2.3902.3742.3762.3802.4172.391 AC, % 6.1 5.62 5.71 5.20 5.51 5.73 5.50 5.54 5.59 5.76 5.69 5.90 5.78 AV, % 4.0 6.54 6.57 6.35 6.49 5.69 6.12 6.50 6.10 5.82 5.42 5.64 5.62 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 Gse 2.581 2.619 2.573 2.602 Pba, % 1.461 2.034 1.337 1.779

PAGE 93

78 Table B-13. Project 7 bottom lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Mile-1 Mile-2 Mile-3 Mile-4 Mile-5 SP980139A Loc Loc Loc Loc Loc Sieve Size JMF 4 & 6 8 & 12 17 & 18 20 & 24 27 & 29 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 1/2" 12.5mm 95 96.9 96.4 94.5 95.46 94.7 3/8" 9.5mm 88 87.9 87.0 83.4 86.89 85.7 No. 4 4.75mm 70 72.0 69.8 68.7 70.13 67.3 No. 8 2.36mm 57 56.1 54.7 54.7 55.28 53.3 No. 16 1.18mm 41 40.2 39.4 39.7 40.06 38.8 No. 30 0.6mm 30 30.0 29.5 29.7 30.22 29.2 No. 50 0.3mm 19 21.5 21.6 21.7 21.99 21.4 No. 100 0.15mm 9 11.0 11.6 11.7 11.66 11.7 No. 200 0.075mm 4.2 6.0 6.9 8.5 6.58 9.1 Gmm 2.364 2.356 2.375 2.372 2.387 2.370 AC, % 6.1 5.67 5.80 5.47 5.80 5.92 AV, % 4.0 5.30 5.12 5.28 5.89 3.80 Gb 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.49 2.49 Gse 2.581 2.554 2.583 2.566 2.598 2.581 Pba, % 1.46 1.04 1.49 1.22 1.72 1.46

PAGE 94

79 Table B-14. Project 8 top lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 Location Avg. Location Avg. Location Avg. Sieve Size JMF 2-7 4-7 8-8 15-7 15-8 17-7 20-7 21-7 24-8 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 1/2" 12.5mm 94 100.0 100.0 94.1 98.03 93.4 93.1 94.44 92.5 95.1 93.6 93.74 3/8" 9.5mm 90 91.8 91.6 90.6 91.34 90.7 89.5 91.37 87.8 89.0 89.3 88.70 No. 4 4.75mm 59 67.4 66.4 66.3 66.65 70.0 67.7 67.98 61.2 62.8 63.0 62.35 No. 8 2.36mm 32 40.2 39.6 38.8 39.54 44.4 41.9 41.96 37.2 38.7 37.7 37.86 No. 16 1.18mm 25 29.1 28.6 27.6 28.44 34.2 31.0 31.64 28.0 28.9 27.8 28.23 No. 30 0.6mm 18 20.9 20.6 19.7 20.39 22.4 22.2 21.71 20.8 20.8 19.8 20.47 No. 50 0.3mm 12 13.9 13.6 12.9 13.48 15.0 14.0 14.41 14.3 13.5 12.6 13.46 No. 100 0.15mm 7 10.1 9.9 9.3 9.78 10.8 9.4 10.36 10.7 9.7 8.8 9.75 No. 200 0.075mm 4.5 7.7 7.5 7.0 7.41 7.9 6.6 7.66 8.3 7.2 6.3 7.28 Gmm 2.38 2.4042.4072.3862.3992.371 2.3912.3812.3792.3902.3702.380 AC, % 6 6.27 6.02 6.09 6.13 6.51 6.52 0.00 6.52 5.87 6.19 6.31 6.12 AV, % 4.0 4.77 6.21 5.22 5.40 3.59 4.44 4.02 3.71 3.36 2.92 3.33 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.503 2.503 2.503 2.503 Gse 2.597 2.627 2.621 2.602 Pba, % 1.494 1.940 1.846 1.566

PAGE 95

80 Table B-15. Project 8 bottom lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties Mix Design Group-1 Group-2 Group-3 Location Avg. Location Avg. Location Avg. Sieve Size JMF 3-8 7-7 7-8 14-8 17-7 19-8 21-7 23-8 25-8 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 1/2" 12.5mm 94 95.1 92.5 93.79 92.4 92.26 95.5 93.39 95.0 94.2 92.8 94.00 3/8" 9.5mm 90 90.1 88.7 89.39 89.4 87.1 92.5 89.66 92.2 91.3 89.2 90.86 No. 4 4.75mm 59 66.3 66.4 66.36 66.7 64.1 69.2 66.65 69.1 66.8 64.3 66.75 No. 8 2.36mm 32 44.1 41.1 42.58 40.1 39.6 42.4 40.71 43.5 40.6 37.8 40.63 No. 16 1.18mm 25 34.2 30.8 32.48 29.6 29.8 30.9 30.08 32.3 30.0 27.9 30.05 No. 30 0.6mm 18 25.8 21.9 23.85 21.0 21.3 22.2 21.49 23.5 21.7 20.0 21.75 No. 50 0.3mm 12 17.5 13.5 15.46 13.3 13.3 14.2 13.59 15.6 14.0 12.9 14.17 No. 100 0.15mm 7 11.7 9.1 10.38 9.1 8.9 9.7 9.24 10.9 9.6 8.7 9.75 No. 200 0.075mm 4.5 8.5 6.5 7.50 6.6 6.3 6.9 6.59 7.8 6.8 6.0 6.88 Gmm 2.38 2.3962.412 2.4042.3992.4112.4052.405 2.4012.4202.411 AC, % 6 6.41 6.24 0.006.33 6.59 6.35 6.15 6.40 6.536.51 6.17 6.40 AV, % 4.0 2.70 3.19 2.94 3.96 2.49 3.38 3.28 2.463.28 3.15 2.96 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.503 2.503 2.503 2.503 Gse 2.597 2.642 2.647 2.654 Pba, % 1.494 2.164 2.233 2.339

PAGE 96

81 Table B-16. Project 9 top a nd bottom lift groups – gradatio ns and volumetric properties Mix Design Location Mix Design Locations SP000925A Top lift groups – gradations a nd volumetric properties (Layer-A) SP021829A Bottom Lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties (Layer-B) Sieve Size JMF 5 15 16 Avg. (15-16) 20 21 Avg. (20-21) 25 JMF 5 15 25 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 98.2 99.5 100.0 99.5 100.00 100.0 100.0 99.5 100 99.0 98.34 100.0 1/2" 12.5mm 95 93.9 92.5 94.6 92.5 97.21 96.2 96.7 93.91 96 95.0 95.24 92.6 3/8" 9.5mm 90 89.6 86.3 86.7 86.3 94.22 93.0 93.6 88.9 90 90.8 91.22 89.7 No. 4 4.75mm 73 70.3 65.6 65.1 65.6 78.60 78.6 78.6 71.3 73 73.5 72.07 73.0 No. 8 2.36mm 54 49.7 45.8 45.3 45.8 56.86 57.1 57.0 51.2 51 52.0 49.89 53.1 No. 16 1.18mm 39 36.0 33.6 33.3 33.6 41.62 41.1 41.4 37.9 38 38.0 38.34 41.1 No. 30 0.6mm 29 27.3 26.0 25.9 26.0 31.76 31.0 31.4 29.6 30 29.6 31.12 33.3 No. 50 0.3mm 19 17.1 16.9 17.0 16.9 20.05 19.1 19.6 18.4 19 18.5 19.92 22.0 No. 100 0.15mm 9 8.1 8.5 8.7 8.5 9.66 9.0 9.4 8.0 8 8.1 8.32 8.9 No. 200 0.075mm 5.5 4.8 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.68 5.5 5.6 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.60 4.8 Gmm 2.46 2.4622.488 2.4882.476 2.476 2.473 2.451 2.463 2.455 2.461 AC, % 5.4 5.78 5.17 5.345.26 6.41 5.095.75 5.74 5.5 5.37 5.26 5.11 AV, % 4.0 4.89 6.31 6.176.24 6.36 6.156.26 6.25 4 5.27 4.90 4.85 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.633 2.633 2.617 2.617 Gse 2.672 2.6922.688 2.6962.713 2.704 2.665 2.674 2.659 2.660 Pba, % 0.567 0.8510.804 0.9151.148 1.022 0.47 0.84 0.626 0.636

PAGE 97

82 Table B-17. Project 10 top a nd bottom lift groups – gradatio ns and volumetric properties Mix Design Top lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties (Layer-A) Mix Design Bottom Lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties (Layer-B) SP02-2133A Location SP02-1938B Location Sieve Size JMF 5 15 25 JMF 5 15 25 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1/2" 12.5mm 98 99.27 99.38 99.4 98 98.08 98.99 98.85 3/8" 9.5mm 88 90.47 89.12 89.32 86 85.36 88.08 86.75 No. 4 4.75mm 67 69.21 62.46 65.95 56 56.61 54.82 50.91 No. 8 2.36mm 45 50.28 44.03 47.34 41 42.87 39.31 37.87 No. 16 1.18mm 35 35.34 31.43 33.99 35 34.23 31.36 30.27 No. 30 0.6mm 27 26.6 23.94 25.6 28 28.47 26.33 25.45 No. 50 0.3mm 16 17.07 15.55 16.32 18 17.59 16.2 15.54 No. 100 0.15mm 8 9.34 8.29 8.29 6 7.4 6.84 6.41 No. 200 0.075mm 5.4 5.78 5.17 5.03 4 4.4 4.08 3.64 Gmm 2.58 2.62 2.621 2.619 2.556 2.578 2.578 2.588 AC, % 4.7 4.87 4.16 4.31 5 4.58 4.81 4.26 AV, % 4.0 11.9 6.7 10.5 4 6.2 2.3 7.4 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.762 2.762 2.714 2.714 Gse 2.787 2.845 2.810 2.815 2.772 2.778 2.790 2.775 Pba, % 0.33 1.08 0.63 0.70 0.80 0.88 1.03 0.83

PAGE 98

83Table B-18. Project 11 top a nd bottom lift groups – gradatio ns and volumetric properties Mix Design Top lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties (Layer-A) Mix Design Bottom Lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties (Layer-B) SP02-2240A Location SP02-1938B Location Sieve Size JMF 5 15 25 JMF 5 15 25 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100 98.16 100 100 100 100 100 1/2" 12.5mm 92 89.91 87.79 90.91 93 92.87 90.29 94.16 3/8" 9.5mm 87 82.63 81.28 85.27 87 84.33 82.9 87.73 No. 4 4.75mm 59 55.18 54.9 58.57 52 52.26 56.24 61.43 No. 8 2.36mm 36 33.78 33.95 35.84 33 32.88 35.08 38.56 No. 16 1.18mm 25 21.93 22.26 23.74 24 23.4 25.09 27.07 No. 30 0.6mm 18 15.55 16.05 17.15 18 15.68 19.43 20.3 No. 50 0.3mm 13 10.91 11.49 12.52 14 11 15.22 15.55 No. 100 0.15mm 8 6.35 7.03 7.82 8 5.54 9.37 8.51 No. 200 0.075mm 4.7 3.69 4.36 5.03 4.7 2.04 5.32 4.47 Gmm 2.46 2.484 2.491 2.489 2.47 2.512 2.513 2.517 AC, % 5 4.93 4.89 4.91 5 4.57 4.55 4.63 AV, % 4.0 5.3 7.1 6.1 4 5.8 6.2 4.4 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.616 2.616 2.619 2.619 Gse 2.654 2.680 2.687 2.685 2.666 2.698 2.698 2.707 Pba, % 0.56 0.94 1.04 1.02 0.70 1.15 1.15 1.27

PAGE 99

84 Table B-19. Project 12 top a nd bottom lift groups – gradatio ns and volumetric properties Mix Design Top lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties (Layer-A) Mix Design Bottom Lift groups – gradations and volumetric properties (Layer-B) SP02-2052B Location SP03-2295A Location Sieve Size JMF 5 15 25 JMF 5 15 25 1" 25.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 3/4" 19.0mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.06 100 1/2" 12.5mm 98 98.9 99.03 98.73 92 93.27 92.67 92.15 3/8" 9.5mm 90 90.16 91.13 90.59 89 88.81 88.84 87.41 No. 4 4.75mm 59 58.11 55.99 56.77 69 68.06 69.4 66.62 No. 8 2.36mm 40 41.24 39.3 40.8 48 47.71 48.99 48.08 No. 16 1.18mm 34 32.83 31.02 32.62 40 37.03 37.26 37.67 No. 30 0.6mm 26 26.03 24.47 26.52 31 28.97 29.01 29.58 No. 50 0.3mm 11 12.27 11.21 13.5 17 17.07 16.7 17.6 No. 100 0.15mm 4 5.5 5.02 5.73 9 8.74 8.63 9.09 No. 200 0.075mm 3.5 3.48 3.07 3.57 5.1 5.68 5.41 5.95 Gmm 2.539 2.562 2.546 2.549 2.488 2.527 2.497 2.497 AC, % 5.6 5.59 5.36 5.50 5.4 5.23 5.36 5.28 AV, % 4.0 6.6 5.8 4.4 4 6.5 5 4.1 Gb 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 Gsb 2.757 2.757 2.65 2.65 Gse 2.781 2.810 2.777 2.788 2.707 2.747 2.716 2.712 Pba, % 0.32 0.70 0.27 0.42 0.81 1.38 0.95 0.89

PAGE 100

APPENDIX C JOB MIX FORMULA (JMF) AND POWER GRADATION CURVE

PAGE 101

86 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-1. Project 1 to p lift gradation curve 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passin g JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-2. Project 1 bot tom lift gradation curve

PAGE 102

87 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-3. Project 2 to p lift gradation curve 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-4. Project 2 bot tom lift gradation curve

PAGE 103

88 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-5. Project 3 to p lift gradation curve 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line JMF-2 Linear (Max line) Figure C-6. Project 3 bot tom lift gradation curve

PAGE 104

89 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-7. Project 4 to p lift gradation curve 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-8. Project 4 bot tom lift gradation curve

PAGE 105

90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-9. Project 5 to p lift gradation curve 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-10. Project 5 bo ttom lift gradation curve

PAGE 106

91 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-11. Project 6 top lift gradation curve

PAGE 107

92 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line ) Figure C-12. Project 7 top lift gradation curve 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Mile 1 Mile 2 Mile 3 Mile 4 Mile 5 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-13. Project 7 bo ttom lift gradation curve

PAGE 108

93 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-14. Project 8 top lift gradation curve 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Max line Linear (Max line ) Figure C-15. Project 8 bo ttom lift gradation curve

PAGE 109

94 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF L 5 L 15 L21 L25 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-16. Project 9 top lift gradation curve 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF L 5 L 15 L25 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-17. Project 9 bo ttom lift gradation curve

PAGE 110

95 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF L 5 L 15 L25 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-18. Project 10 top lift grad ation curve 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF L 5 L 15 L25 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-19. Project 10 bo ttom lift gradation curve

PAGE 111

96 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF L 5 L 15 L25 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-20. Project 11 top lift grad ation curve 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF L 5 L 15 L25 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-21. Project 11 bo ttom lift gradation curve

PAGE 112

97 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF L 5 L 15 L25 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-22. Project 12 top lift grad ation curve 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Sieve Size^0.45 mm% Passing JMF L 5 L 15 L25 Max line Linear (Max line) Figure C-23. Project 12 bo ttom lift gradation curve

PAGE 113

APPENDIX D DIAGRAMS OF INTERACTION PERCENTAGE OF BIGGER PARTICLES FOR CONTIGUOUS RANGES FOR PROJECTS

PAGE 114

99 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012. 59. 5 9. 54. 75 4. 752.36 2.36-1.18 1.18-0.6 0.6-0.3 0.30 .15 0.150. 075 0. 0750Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Figure D-1. Project 1 top lift 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012.5-9.5 9. 54. 75 4.75-2.36 2. 361. 18 1.18-0.6 0. 6-0.3 0.3-0. 15 0 . 15-0.075 0. 0750Contiguous sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Figure D-2. Project 1 bottom lift

PAGE 115

100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1001 2. 5 -9.5 9 .5 4. 7 5 4. 7 52 .36 2. 3 61 .18 1.18-0.6 0 .6-0 . 3 0.3-0. 1 5 0.150 .075 0 .0 7 5 0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Figure D-3. Project 2 top lift 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012. 5 9 .5 9. 54 . 75 4.75-2.36 2.36-1.18 1.18-0.6 0.6-0. 3 0.3 0 . 15 0. 15 0 . 075 0.075-0Contiguous sizes, mmBig particle % retaine d JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Figure D-4. Project 2 bottom lift

PAGE 116

101 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012.5 -9 .5 9. 54.75 4 .7 5-2.3 6 2 .36-1 .1 8 1.18 -0 .6 0 .6-0.3 0.30.1 5 0.15-0.075 0.07 5 -0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Figure D-5. Project 3 top lift 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012 .5 9 . 5 9. 5-4.75 4 . 75-2.36 2. 36 1 . 18 1. 18 0 . 6 0.6-0. 3 0. 30 . 1 5 0. 15 0 . 075 0.075-0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Figure D-6. Project 3 bottom lift

PAGE 117

102 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012. 5 -9. 5 9.54 .75 4.752 .36 2.361 .18 1.18 0.6 0. 6-0.3 0. 30.1 5 0.15 0.075 0.075-0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Figure D-7. Project 4 top lift 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012 . 5-9. 5 9.5-4.75 4.75-2.36 2. 36 1 . 18 1. 1 8-0. 6 0.60 . 3 0.3-0.15 0 . 15-0.075 0. 07 5-0contiguous sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Figure D-8. Project 4 bottom lift

PAGE 118

103 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012 . 5-9. 5 9.5-4.7 5 4.752 .36 2.361 .18 1. 1 8-0 . 6 0 .60 .3 0. 3 -0.15 0. 1 5-0 .0 75 0 .0 7 5-0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Figure D-9. Project 5 top lift 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012 . 5-9.5 9.5-4.75 4 . 75-2.36 2.36-1.18 1.18-0.6 0 . 60 . 3 0.3-0.15 0.15-0.075 0 . 075 0Contiguous sizes, mm\ JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Figure D-10. Project 5 bottom lift

PAGE 119

104 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012.59 .5 9.54. 75 4. 752.36 2. 361 . 18 1. 180 . 6 0.6 0.3 0.30. 15 0 . 150. 0 75 0. 075-0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF Group 1 MDL Group 2 Group 3 Figure D-11. Project 6 top lift

PAGE 120

105 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012.5-9.5 9 .5 -4. 75 4.7 5 -2.36 2.36-1.18 1 . 18-0.6 0.6-0.3 0 .3 -0. 15 0.15-0.075 0.0 7 5-0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF Group 1 MDL Group 2 Group 3 Figure D-12. Project 7 top lift 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012 . 5-9. 5 9.5-4.75 4 .7 5-2. 3 6 2.3 6 1 .1 8 1. 1 8-0. 6 0.6-0.3 0.3-0.15 0.15-0.075 0.075-0contiguous sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF Mile 1 Mile 2 Mile 3 MDL Mile 4 Mile 5 Figure D-13. Project 7 bottom lift

PAGE 121

106 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1001 2 . 5-9. 5 9 . 5-4.75 4 .75-2. 36 2 . 36-1.18 1 .1 8-0.6 0 .6-0.3 0.3-0.15 0 . 15-0.075 0. 075 0contiguous sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 MDL Figure D-14. Project 8 top lift 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1001 2 .5-9 . 5 9.5-4.75 4.7 5 -2.3 6 2.36-1.18 1 . 18-0 . 6 0.6-0.3 0 . 30 .15 0.150 .075 0 .0 7 5 0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retaine d JMF Group 1 MDL Group 2 Group 3 Figure D-15. Project 8 top lift

PAGE 122

107 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012 . 59.5 9. 5 4 .75 4.752 . 36 2.361 . 18 1.18-0 . 6 0.6-0 . 3 0.3-0 .15 0. 1 5-0.075 0.075-0contiguous sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF L5 L15 L25 MDL P9-3A P9 2A Figure D-16. Project 9 top lift 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1001 2 .5-9.5 9 .5 4 . 75 4. 7 5-2.3 6 2. 3 6-1.1 8 1 . 18-0. 6 0.6-0.3 0 . 3-0.15 0.15-0. 0 75 0.075-0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF L5 L15 L25 MDL Figure D-17. Project 9 bottom lift

PAGE 123

108 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012.5 9.5 9.5-4.75 4.75-2.36 2.36-1.18 1 . 1 80.6 0.6-0.3 0.3-0.15 0 . 1 50.075 0.07 5 -0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF L 5 L 15 L25 Figure D-18. Project 10 top lift 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012. 5 -9.5 9 .5-4 .75 4.75-2.3 6 2 .36-1.18 1.1 8 -0.6 0.6-0.3 0 .3-0 .15 0.1 5 -0.075 0 .075-0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF L 5 L 15 L25 Figure D-19. Project 10 bottom lift

PAGE 124

109 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012.5-9 . 5 9 .5 -4 .7 5 4 . 752 .36 2.36-1.18 1. 1 80. 6 0 . 6-0 .3 0.3 0.15 0.1 5 -0 . 075 0 . 075 0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF L 5 L 15 L25 Figure D-20. Project 11 top lift 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012.5 9.5 9.5-4.75 4 .75 2.3 6 2.36-1.18 1 .18 0.6 0 . 6-0 . 3 0. 30.1 5 0.1 50. 075 0. 07 50Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF L 5 L 15 L25 Figure D-21. Project 11 bottom lift

PAGE 125

110 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012.5-9.5 9.5-4 .7 5 4.752.3 6 2.36-1 .1 8 1.18-0.6 0. 6-0 .3 0. 3-0 .15 0.150.0 75 0.075-0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF L 5 L 15 L25 Figure D-22. Project 12 top lift 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10012.5-9.5 9.5-4. 75 4.7 5 2 .36 2.36-1.18 1 .18-0.6 0.6-0.3 0.3 -0.15 0.15-0.075 0. 0 75-0Contiguous Sizes, mmBig particle % retained JMF L 5 L 15 L25 Figure D-23. Project 12 bottom lift

PAGE 126

APPENDIX E IDT, DASR POROSITY, SERVOPAC TEST AND APA TEST RESULTS

PAGE 127

112 Figure E-1. Projects 1-12 top lift (Layer A) – IDT results

PAGE 128

113 Figure E-2. Projects 1-12 botto m lift (Layer B) – IDT results

PAGE 129

114 Figure E-3. Projects 1-12 top lift (Layer A) – DASR porosity and spacing numbers

PAGE 130

115 Figure E-4. Projects 1-12 bottom lift (Lay er B) – DASR porosity and spacing numbers

PAGE 131

116 Table E-1. Projects 8, 9, and 10 APA results of plant mixtures Project Locationlayer Sample ID Absolute rut depth Percent area change A1 1.17 -0.83 A2 0.71 -0.31 A3 1.17 0.09 6A A4 0.82 0.25 A1 1.04 -1.43 A2 1.12 -0.52 A3 1.34 -0.42 15A A4 1.17 -0.29 8 Average 1.07 -0.43 A1 1.86 -0.56 A2 1.77 -0.58 A3 1.86 0.08 15A A4 2.20 0.17 A1 6.00 -0.76 A2 5.53 0.19 A3 5.36 0.38 15B A4 6.48 1.09 A1 1.99 0.14 A2 1.68 0.24 A3 3.02 0.16 25A A4 2.25 0.34 9 Average 3.33 0.08 A1 2.12 1.21 A2 1.99 1.09 A3 2.20 0.71 15A A4 1.81 1.17 A1 4.88 -0.92 A2 4.02 -0.17 A3 3.72 0.17 15B A4 3.85 0.69 A1 2.46 -0.76 A2 1.81 -0.33 A3 1.77 0.28 25A A4 1.55 -0.22 10 Average 2.68 0.24

PAGE 132

117 Table E-2. Projects 11 and 12 AP A results of plant mixtures Project Loc-layer Sample ID Absolute rut depth Percent area change A1 1.17 -0.76 A2 1.51 0.01 A3 0.86 0.97 5B A4 0.47 1.05 A1 0.26 -0.95 A2 0.47 -1.54 A3 0.65 -0.02 15A A4 0.65 -0.17 A1 1.04 -0.59 A2 1.12 -0.95 A3 0.82 -0.68 15B A4 0.86 -0.61 A1 0.04 -0.13 A2 0.26 -0.48 A3 0.22 -0.51 25A A4 0.43 -0.76 A1 1.08 -1.37 A2 1.38 -1.03 A3 1.64 -0.53 25B A4 1.68 -0.42 11 Average 0.83 -0.47 A1 3.20 0.55 A2 2.46 0.09 A3 3.24 0.95 15A A4 3.37 0.82 A1 3.84 0.00 A2 2.81 0.32 A3 2.89 -1.23 15B A4 2.29 -0.83 12 Average 3.01 0.08

PAGE 133

118 Table E-3. Projects 8 to 12 Ser vopac results for plant mixtures Sample Locationlayer Gyratory shear slope Percent failure strain,% 5A 21.53 1.51 8 15A 24.45 1.59 15A 20.41 1.85 25A 11.91 1.35 9 15B 21.72 1.04 15A 17.55 1.3 25A 14.63 1.67 10 15B 28.95 1.35 15A 1.92 1.77 25A 6.69 1.46 5B 1.68 1.14 15B 11.18 1.67 11 25B 6.58 1.67 15A 15.47 1.35 12 15B 13.64 1.39

PAGE 134

119 LIST OF REFERENCES Asiamah, S.A., “Relationship between Laborat ory Mix Properties and Rutting Resistance for Superpave Mixtures,” Master’s thes is, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2002, 110 pages. Birgisson, B., Darku, D., Roque, R., Page, G.C ., “The Need for Inducing Shear Instability to Obtain Relevant Parameters for HMA Rut Resistance,” Journal of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vo lume 73, page number 23, Baton Rouge, LA, 2004. Brian , J. C. et al., “A Laboratory Investig ation into the Effects of Aggregate-Related Factors on Critical VMA in Asphalt Pa ving Mixtures” Annual Meeting of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technol ogists, Volume 70, page number 70, Clearwater, Florida, March 2001 Chowdhury, A., Grau, J.D.C., Button, J.W., Little , D.N., “Effect of Aggregate Gradation on Permanent Deformation of Superpave HMA,” Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. Cooper, K.E., Brown, S. F., Pooley, G.R., “T he Design of Aggregate grading for Asphalt Base-courses,” Proceedings of Associat ion of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Volume 54, page number 18, San Antonio, 1985. Drakos, C., Roque, R., Birgisson, B., Novac, M., “Identification of Physical Model to Evaluate Rutting Performan ce of Asphalt Mixtures,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Volume 20, page number 10, 2002. Florida Method of Test for Measuring Pave ment Longitudinal Profiles Using a Laser Profiler, Florida Sampling and Te sting Manual, FM 5-549, April 2001. Florida Method of Test for Quantitative Dete rmination of Asphalt Content from Asphalt Paving Mixtures by the Ignition Oven Method, Florida Sampling and Testing Manual, FM 5-563, April 1997. Florida Method of Test for Reflux Extrac tion of Bitumen from Bituminous Paving Mixtures, Florida Sampling and Te sting Manual, FM 5-524, March 2000. Florida Method of Test for Sampling Bitu minous Paving Mixtures, Florida Sampling and Testing Manual, FM 1-T 168, September 2000. Florida Sampling and Testing Manual, FM 1-T 209, FM5-544, December 2003.

PAGE 135

120 Jajliardo, P. A., “Development of Speci fication Criteria to Mitigate Top-Down Cracking,” Master’s thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2003. Kandhal, P.S., Chakraborty, S., “Evaluation of Voids in Mineral Aggregates for HMA Paving Mixtures,” NCAT Report 96-4, 1996. Kandhal, P.S., Foo, K., Mallick, R.B., “A Critical Review of VMA Requirement in Superpave,” TRB Transportation Resear ch Record No. 1609, National Research Council, pp. 21-27, 1998. Kandhal, P.S., Mallick, R B., “Effect of Mi x Gradation on Rutting Potential of Graded Asphalt Mixtures,” Transportation Resear ch Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. Lambe, T.W., Whitman, R.V., Soil Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1969. Mehta, Y., Roque, R., Lopp, G., Villiers, C ., “Evaluation of the Road Surface Profiler and the Transverse Profilograph for Dete rmination of Rut Depth Measurements,” Transportation Research Record, Pa per No. 01-0435, Washington, January 2001. Nukunya, B., Roque, R., Tia, M., Birgiss on, B., “Evaluation of VMA and Other Volumetric Properties as Criteria for the Design and Acceptance of Durable Superpave Mixtures,” Journal of Asso ciation of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Volume 70, page number 38, Clearwater, Florida, 2001. Roberts, F.L., Kandhal, P.S., Brown, E.R ., Lee, D., Kennedy, T.W., “Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and Constr uction,” National Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, Alabama, Second Edition, 1996. Roque, R., Birgisson, B., Drakos, C., Dietric h, B., “Development and Field Evaluation of Energy-Based Criteria for Top-down Crack ing Performance of Hot Mix Asphalt,” Preprinted CD, Journal of the Associ ation of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Volume 73, page number 229, Baton Rouge, LA, 2004. Roque, R., Buttlar, W.G., Ruth, B.E., Tia, M ., Dickison, S.W., Reid, B., “Evaluation of SHRP Indirect Tension Te ster to Mitigate Cracking in Asphalt Pavements and Overlays,” Final Report to the Florida Depa rtment of Transportation, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1997. Roque, R., Huang, S.C., Ruth, B., “Maximizi ng Shear Resistance of Asphalt Mixtures by Proper Selection of Aggregate Gradation,” Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, August 1997, Volume I, pp. 249-268. Ruth, B.E., Roque, R., Nukunya, B., “Aggregat e Gradation Character ization Factors and their Relationships to Fracture Energy a nd Failure Strain of Asphalt Mixtures,” Journal of the Associatio n of Asphalt Paving Technol ogists, Volume 71, page number 310, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 2002.

PAGE 136

121 Standard Practice for Determining Maxi mum Rut Depth in Asphalt Pavements, AASHTO PP38-99, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials, 1999. Test Method for Measuring the Longitudina l Profile of Traveled Surfaces With an Accelerometer Established Inertial Prof iling Reference. Annual Book of ASTM Standard E-950, 1994. Vavrik, W., Huber G., Pine, W., Carpenter, S., Bailey, R., “Bailey Method for Gradation Selection in HMA Mixture Design,” Transportation Research Circular, Washington, DC, 2002. Villiers, C., “Sensitivity of Superpave Mixtures for Development of Performance-related Specifications,” Doctoral Dissertatio n, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2004, 186 pages.

PAGE 137

122 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Virendra Rajmal Kothari was born on May 22nd 1979 in Bombay (Mumbai), India. He completed his bachelorÂ’s degree with a major in Civil Engineering from Mumbai University on June 2001. After commencemen t of his undergraduate studies, Virendra joined Vikas Hardware as an assistant sa les manager for about two years. He then decided to pursue his graduate studies in field of constructio n management. Virendra joined the University of Florida, Departme nt of Civil and Costal Engineering as a graduate student in fall 2003. After receivi ng his masterÂ’s degree, Virendra plans to continue contributing to the construction field.