You are on page 1of 22

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98
www.elsevier.com/locate/IJPRT

State of the art: Asphalt for airport pavement surfacing


Greg White
University of the Sunshine Cost, Sippy Downs, Queensland, Australia

Received 8 January 2017; received in revised form 12 July 2017; accepted 25 July 2017
Available online 29 July 2017

Abstract

Airport runways and taxiways are commonly comprised of a flexible pavement with an asphalt surface. Marshall-designed asphalt
with sawn grooves is the most frequent airport asphalt surface material. However, some airports have adopted alternate asphalt mixtures
for improved resistance to shear stress and for increased surface texture, allowing grooving to be avoided. Of the alternate asphalt mix-
tures, stone mastic asphalt is the most commonly reported. Resistance to shear stress is a critical performance requirement for airport
surface asphalt. Shear stress resistance minimises the risk of rutting, shoving and groove closure. However, fracture resistance must not
be ignored when developing even more shear resistance asphalt mixtures. Significant distress in airport asphalt surfaces, compliant with
the traditional prescriptive specification, has increased interest in a performance-based airport asphalt specification. Commonly reported
distresses include groove closure in slow moving aircraft areas and shearing in heavy aircraft braking zones. Development of reliable
performance-indicative test methods is expected in the future and will enable warranted performance-based asphalt mixture design
for airport surfaces.
Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Airport; Pavement; Asphalt; Surface

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2. Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.1. Regulatory requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.2. Marshall designed asphalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.3. Changes in bitumen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
2.4. The evolution of aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
3. Examples of distress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.1. Rutting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.2. Shearing/shoving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.3. Top-down cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.4. Groove closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.5. Asphalt stripping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.6. Premature ravelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4. Airport asphalt requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

E-mail address: gwhite2@usc.edu.au


Peer review under responsibility of Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijprt.2017.07.008
1996-6814/Ó 2017 Chinese Society of Pavement Engineering. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
78 G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98

4.1. Deformation resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84


4.2. Fracture resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.3. Surface friction and texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.4. Durability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5. Asphalt constituents and their contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.1. Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.2. Chemical fillers and liquid additives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.3. Bituminous binder. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.4. Bituminous mastic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6. Alternate airport asphalt mixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.1. Open graded friction course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.2. Stone mastic asphalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.3. Beton Bitumeux Aeronautique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.4. Larger sized dense asphalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.5. Warm mix asphalt and Recycled asphalt pavement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.6. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
7. Laboratory test methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
7.1. Deformation resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
7.2. Fracture resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.3. Surface friction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
7.4. Durability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
7.5. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
8. Towards performance-based asphalt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
9. Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

1. Introduction design, specification and construction of airport asphalt


surfaces. Alternate asphalt mixture types, such as Stone
Many airport runways, taxiways and aprons are con- Mastic Asphalt (SMA) and Open Graded Friction Course
structed of flexible pavements with asphalt surfaces. The (OGFC) have also been adopted by some airports [12].
performance of the surface is critical to the safe operation Further deviation from the traditional approach to airport
of aircraft. The design methods for airport asphalt sur- surface asphalt specification is expected to overcome
faces, like airport pavement structures, were primary devel- challenges.
oped in the 1940s and 1950s by the US Army Corps of This paper summarises the state of the art and future
Engineers (the Corps) [1]. Many airports and aviation opportunities relating to asphalt mixtures for airport pave-
authorities retain the basis of the Corps methods in current ment surfacing. This paper does not address base and bin-
airport asphalt design, specification and construction prac- der course asphalt mixtures, with the focus being on
tice. As a result, the majority of airport asphalt surfaces are asphalt for runway surfacing. Although critical to airport
constructed from a 40 to 60 mm thick, 14 mm (nominal asphalt surface performance, the bond with the underlying
maximum aggregate size), densely graded and Marshall- pavement layer is a function of the underlying pavement
designed asphalt [2]. Grooves are generally sawn trans- and the construction specification. The surface layer itself
versely in runway surfaces to promote aircraft skid resis- has a little impact on the durability or strength of the bond
tance [3]. achieved [13]. Surface layer bond to the underlying pave-
In recent years, aircraft have become substantially heav- ment is not considered in this paper. First, regulatory
ier and more demanding of airport pavement surfaces [4]. requirements are summarised and the traditional Marshall
Moreover, the quality of bitumen, an essential ingredient specification is outlined, before the effects of bitumen
for adequate airport asphalt performance, has decreased changes and more demanding aircraft are presented. Sec-
[5]. It follows that the traditional and empirical airport ond, common distress modes are described and lead to
asphalt specification has failed to guarantee good airport defining airport asphalt surface performance requirements.
asphalt surface performance [6]. Rather, in some cases, Third, the contribution of the constituent materials to ade-
compliant and well-constructed airport-quality asphalt quate performance is discussed before alternate asphalt
has not performed adequately under aircraft loading [7– mixture types are considered. Finally, test methods avail-
11]. able for measurement of performance properties are pre-
To address these issues, coupled with a desire to avoid sented and the opportunity for a performance-based
runway grooving, some engineers have revisited the mix specification is considered.
G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98 79

2. Background  The Marshall Stability and Marshall Flow values are


determined over a range of binder contents and the opti-
Airports, including airport pavements, are internation- mal binder content selected.
ally regulated to provide a standardised minimum level of
infrastructure at the origin and destination of international Grading, bitumen content, compacted density, Marshall
flights. Traditionally, Marshall-designed dense graded Flow and Marshall Stability are the primary design criteria
asphalt was used to meet the regulatory requirements. and quality assurance parameters. In practice, Marshall-
However, alternate asphalt mixture types are also suitable. designed dense graded airport asphalt mixtures generally
Changes in bitumen for airport asphalt production and contain 5.4–5.8% of bitumen (by mass) and 4–6% of aggre-
more demanding aircraft have combined to result in some gate passing 75 mm sieve (by volume). The result is around
traditionally designed airport asphalt surfaces falling below 14% (by volume) of airport asphalt being comprised of
the requirements of the international standards. mastic (combination of bitumen and very fine aggregate).
The high bitumen content results in the deformation resis-
2.1. Regulatory requirements tance of Marshall-designed asphalt being highly influenced
by the engineering properties of the bitumen [15] as a crit-
The physical characteristics of runways are specified by ical element of the bituminous mastic that glues the coarse
the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) aggregate particles together.
through a document commonly known as Annex 14 [14].
According to Annex 14, an airport asphalt surface must be: 2.3. Changes in bitumen

 Constructed and maintained without deviations or There is a widely held perception that bitumen quality
bumps that would adversely affect aircraft operation. has reduced over the last thirty years. There is significant
In practice this requires asphalt that is resistant to defor- evidence to show that crude oil quality has reduced, oil
mation by shearing, shoving and rutting so as to remain refining processes have become more efficient and bitumen
smooth and free-draining. is extended by the addition of what would traditionally
 Constructed and maintained to provide good friction have been waste or by-product [5]. Changes in bitumen
characteristics when the surface is wet. In practice this supply and quality have anecdotally been linked to a num-
requires either an asphalt surface with naturally not less ber of airport asphalt surface distresses, including early life
than 1 mm surface texture or grooving of the asphalt shearing, premature ageing and early life top-down crack-
surface. ing [16].
 Maintained free of loose material on the surface to pre- Traditionally, conventional bitumen (unmodified by
vent damage to aircraft. In practice this requires airport polymers or acid, usually graded by viscosity or penetra-
asphalt to be durable and resistant to ravelling and tion) was the normal binder for airport asphalt and for
cracking. many years provided good asphalt performance. However,
stripping issues, horizontal deformation, groove closure
Some of these requirements are conflicting. For exam- and early ageing prompted many airports and designers
ple, a highly deformation resistant mixture can be con- to move to premium or modified binders around the year
structed with coarsely graded asphalt with a low portion 2000. Since then, premium (often polymer modified) bin-
of a hard bitumen. However, such an asphalt mixture is ders have been adopted for the majority of airport works.
unlikely to be durable. It follows that airport asphalt In countries where the Performance Grading (PG) system
design and specification requires a balance of the various developed in the USA is used, one or two grade-bumps
competing requirements. are required for airport asphalt accommodating aircraft
with significant wheel loads [17].
2.2. Marshall designed asphalt In practice, bitumen is being ever more engineered,
through the addition of polymers and other additives, to
The Marshall mixture design method was developed in maintain an acceptable level of asphalt performance. The
1939 by Bruce Marshall for the Mississippi Highways increase in engineering of bitumen is required to overcome
Department [1]. During the 1940s and 1950s, it was the reduced reliability of binder response to load, as well as
adapted and adjusted for significant military aircraft loads. the increased load being applied by modern aircraft.
Many countries, including Australia, predominantly retain
Marshall-designed asphalt for airport surfacing. The pri- 2.4. The evolution of aircraft
mary aims of the Marshall design method include [1]:
Since their first introduction in the early 1900s, aircraft
 A densely graded aggregate skeleton with 15% voids in have become progressively larger and heavier. Particularly
the mineral aggregate. since WWII, aircraft wheel loads and tyre pressures have
 Filling the voids in the mineral aggregate with bitumi- increased significantly [18–19]. At the time of its introduc-
nous binder so as to retain 4% air voids. tion in 1958, the DC 8–50 was the most damaging commer-
80 G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98

cial aircraft in the world with a tyre pressure of 1.35 MPa stresses applied to asphalt surfaces, even when the pave-
and wheel load of 19.0 t, which is quite modest by ment structure is protected by increased wheel spacing.
modern-day reckoning. Since that time, tyre pressures More stress resistant asphalt is required to meet the
and wheel loads have increased incrementally. In 2001 Air- increasing demand of modern aircraft and avoid an
bus introduced its extended wide body A340-600 commer- increase in surface distress.
cial passenger jet. This modern and technologically
advanced aircraft remains one of the most demanding on 3. Examples of distress
pavements with a tyre pressure of 1.61 MPa and wheel load
of 30.8 tonnes [20]. Airport asphalt distress modes are not significantly dif-
The A380-800 became the largest passenger aircraft in ferent from road and highway asphalt distresses. However,
the world when it was introduced in 2005. Although heav- the particular requirements of airport pavements, relating
ier than other aircraft, its wheel load is less severe at to pavement-generated loose material, known as Foreign
26.8 tonnes with a tyre pressure of 1.40 MPa [20]. The com- Object Debris (FOD), and aircraft skid resistance, reduce
bined twenty-wheel main landing gear allowed for the less the tolerance of such distresses. Table 1 summarises com-
critical pavement loading. The B787-8, introduced in 2009, mon airport asphalt distress modes, how they impact air-
was a smaller aircraft with 1.60 MPa tyre pressure and craft pavement performance and what material factors
27 tonne wheel loads [21]. The most recent large aircraft affect their risk. Temperature is critical to all distress modes
advancement by Boeing was the B747-800F, introduced due to the temperature dependence of bitumen properties.
in 2010. With new gull-shaped wings, this aircraft joined Load-induced stress is also important as the primary trig-
the A380 as the only Code F (wingspan exceeding 65 m) ger of many modes of distress.
commercial jets in the world. Based on a B747-400, the Bottom-up asphalt fatigue cracking is rarely encoun-
landing gear remains relatively modest at 1.55 MPa tyre tered in airport pavements. This reflects the generally low
pressure and 26.5 tonnes [21]. traffic volumes and the greater thickness and stiffness of
In contrast, the newest aircraft from Airbus, the A350, airport pavements, when compared to road pavements
first flew in 2013. Its variants entered service in 2015 [16]. That is not to say that airport pavements are immune
(A350-900) and 2016 (A350-800). At 1.66 MPa and from asphalt fatigue and crocodile cracking. When pave-
31.8 tonnes [20] the A350-900 is now the most demanding ments are overloaded, high vertical deflection occurs under
commercial aircraft in the world, based on tyre pressure load. When exposed to such high deflections, pavement
and individual wheel load. The impact on the pavement surfaces fail rapidly by bottom-up asphalt fatigue.
structure is reduced by a wider wheel spacing. However, Bleeding is also rarely encountered in airport asphalt
asphalt surfaces are exposed to higher tyre pressures and and is avoided by maintaining a minimum in situ void con-
individual wheel loads than ever before. These higher tyre tent of 3–4% [15]. Aggregate breakdown is rarely a signifi-
pressures and wheel loads combine to impart higher shear cant issue with minimum aggregate properties specified,
stresses in asphalt surface layers [22]. such as abrasion resistance and parent rock soundness lim-
In practice, aircraft wheel loads and tyre pressures will its. The higher-risk distress modes include rutting, shear-
continue to increase as aircraft manufacturers strive for ing/shoving, top-down cracking, groove closure, stripping
ever greater fuel efficiency [2]. The result is higher shear and ravelling, as described in detail below.

Table 1
Summary of airport asphalt distresses.
Distress mode Impacts on Affected by Level of risk
Rutting Skid resistance Deformation resistance Medium
Surface smoothness
Shearing/shoving Skid resistance Deformation resistance High
Surface smoothness
Top down cracking Loose material generation Fracture resistance Medium
Water tight surface
Fatigue cracking Loose material generation Fracture resistance Low
Water tight surface
Groove closure Skid resistance Deformation resistance High
Bleeding Skid resistance Volumetric compositionAir void content Low
Deformation resistance
Stripping Deformation resistance Moisture susceptibility Medium
Aggregate grading
Premature ravelling Loose material generation Aggregate grading Medium
Bitumen ageing
Aggregate breakdown Loose material generation Aggregate properties Low
G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98 81

3.1. Rutting is a critical functional property of airport asphalt surfaces


and is essential for safe aircraft operations. Rutting is
Asphalt surface rutting (Fig. 1) must be considered sep- therefore a low-likelihood but high-consequence risk for
arately from pavement rutting that results from permanent airport asphalt surfaces.
vertical subgrade deformation and base course densifica-
tion or instability. Where it does occur, asphalt rutting is 3.2. Shearing/shoving
a significant distress mode for airport surface asphalt
[23]. However, even in hot countries such as Australia, as Horizontal surface shearing and shoving (referred to as
long as the asphalt mixture is designed and constructed shearing) results from accumulated horizontal deformation
appropriately, asphalt surface rutting has rarely been or creep [26]. It is most commonly experienced in areas of
reported [2]. Some Australasian examples include Cairns heavy aircraft braking or turning [9,22,27–29]. Where mul-
(Australia), Perth (Australia), Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), tiple rigid axles of a single (four wheel dual tandem or six
Doha (Qatar) and Dubai (UAE) airports [10]. It is gener- wheel tridem) landing gear are dragged across the surface
ally expected that the majority of rutting occurs in summer during aircraft turning, the damage has been referred to
months, when pavement temperatures in the region can as sluing [9].
exceed 75 °C [24]. Horizontal shearing is similar to rutting in that it results
In preparing to construct a new airport at Inchon from permanent deformation of the asphalt surface due to
(Korea) laboratory and field trials of various asphalt mix- excessive shear stress. The primary difference between rut-
tures was undertaken. SMA and dense graded asphalt with ting and shearing is the direction of deformation, which
elastomeric modified binder rutted the least of the various reflects the direction of the critical stress condition. Hori-
mixtures evaluated [25]. Taxiways at San Francisco airport zontal shearing can also occur at lower magnitudes of
(USA) rutted during hot weather, under slow moving and stress than rutting. This reflects the reduced level of con-
sharp turning B747 aircraft [9]. It was concluded that the finement in the horizontal direction at the pavement sur-
bitumen was too soft to provide adequate shear resistance face [22]. The surface distress manifests differently
to the aggregate matrix. depending on whether the aircraft is braking, turning or
A number of airports have also detected asphalt mix- sluing. In severe cases (Fig. 2), shearing distress leads to
tures with high rutting risk through laboratory testing as tearing of the pavement surface which presents a FOD haz-
part of the mixture design process. Examples include ard to aircraft.
Walvis Bay (Namibia) where the work was re-designed Monismith et al. [9] and Vallerga et al. [30] both
following wheel tracking evaluation of the proposed reported shearing and tearing resulting from sharply turn-
mixture [7] and Johannesburg airport (South Africa) ing B747 aircraft at San Francisco airport (USA). It was
where alternate asphalt mixture designs were developed concluded that a more viscous binder was required to
following unacceptable wheel track rutting in the labora- improve the shear strength of the asphalt mixture.
tory [8]. Similarly, Mooren et al. [28] investigated surface tearing
In summary, asphalt rutting is not a frequently reported resulting from aircraft turning at Amsterdam airport
mode of distress in airport pavement surfaces. However, (Netherlands). A lack of mixture cohesion at elevated tem-
where it does occur, free water retained in the resulting peratures, due to softening of the bitumen, was concluded
depression adversely affects skid resistance. Skid resistance to result in inadequate shear strength in the mixture.

Fig. 1. Asphalt surface rutting [2]. Fig. 2. Severe surface asphalt shearing under aircraft braking.
82 G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98

An Australian airport was reported to experience unu- [32]. No other reports of severe top down cracking of air-
sual asphalt surface softness during the summer months port surface asphalt have been located. However, increases
[15]. High temperature susceptibility of the binder was con- in aircraft wheel load and tyre pressures combine to
cluded, although a reduction in softness was observed after increase the shear and tensile stresses at the pavement sur-
three years. A similar case of surface tenderness was face. It follows that the risk of top down cracking in airport
reported at another Australian airport [26]. A change in pavements can only increase in the future. At this time, top
the modified binder crude oil source resulted in a more down cracking is a low-likelihood and moderate-
shear susceptible asphalt surface, leading to shearing and consequence risk to airport asphalt surfaces, mitigated by
tearing in the aircraft braking zone. Like the previous avoiding acid-modified bitumen.
example, the tenderness reduced after three years [11].
Newark airport, in New Jersey (USA) experienced
3.4. Groove closure
asphalt shearing in the heavy aircraft braking zone associ-
ated with aircraft landings [27]. It was concluded that inad-
Groove closure is one of the most commonly reported
equate aggregate interlock resulted in a reduction in shear
airport asphalt surface distresses, particularly in hot coun-
strength.
tries such as Australia [2]. Groove closure adversely
In summary, asphalt shearing is concerning for airport
impacts aircraft skid resistance because the effective volume
asphalt surfaces and there appears to be a growing fre-
of the grooves is reduced (Fig. 4) affecting the efficiency of
quency of incidents reported. Deviation in the groove
water egress from under the tyre. Groove closure most
alignment is not necessarily detrimental. However, the risk
commonly occurs where aircraft move slowly and in a
of surface tearing, allowing water ingress and potential
direction that is parallel to the alignment of the grooves
FOD generation, is significant and the potential to
[33] such as where taxiways intersect with runways.
adversely impact safe aircraft operation is high. Surface
Traditionally, grooves were cut transversely to the run-
asphalt shearing is therefore a high-likelihood and
way centreline and are generally 6 mm by 6 mm in dimen-
moderate-consequence risk.
sion and spaced 32 mm apart [17]. However, some airports
have recently used trapezoidal grooves for increased resis-
3.3. Top-down cracking tance to groove closure, as well as reduced build-up of tyre
rubber from landing aircraft [3]. The presence of the
Top down cracking is distinctly different to tearing of grooves also reduces the support provided to the asphalt
the surface due to shearing. It is also different to bottom- surface between the grooves. If follows that the deforma-
up fatigue cracking, which is generally not an issue for air- tion resistance of the asphalt mastic is critical to runway
port pavements [2]. Top down cracking results from high groove closure resistance [34].
shear and tensile stresses at the surface of the pavement, Groove closure has been reported at numerous airports
resulting from stress concentrations around the ribs and in Australia, usually occurring within the first three years
side walls of tyres [31]. Australian airports have experi- after resurfacing and most commonly during extended
enced significant top down cracking, likely associated with periods of unusually hot weather [15]. Significant groove
chemical hardening in acid modified bitumen [32]. In one closure was reported at the new Hong Kong airport,
severe case, FOD was generated from interconnected despite trafficking being delayed for 12 months after its
cracks (Fig. 3) and the asphalt surface required full construction [33]. Similarly, the runway at the new airport
removal and replacement, just five years after construction

Fig. 3. Severe top down cracking in an airport asphalt surface. Fig. 4. Groove closure in an airport asphalt surface.
G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98 83

at Delhi (India) was intended to be grooved following its


construction in 2008. In order to confirm the grooves
would not close, a test section of grooving was constructed
in the shoulder and trafficked by a heavy pneumatic tyred
roller. The grooves closed, under the lower loads associated
with the roller. As a result, grooving was deferred until a
similar test confirmed the ability for the grooves to resis-
tant closure and in March 2014 the surface remained un-
grooved [33].
The two ends (approximately 800 m long each) of the
main runway at Brisbane airport (Australia) were resur-
faced in 2013. Grooving was performed over the full length
and width of the new asphalt six weeks following construc-
tion. During a week of unusually hot weather in the follow-
ing summer, significant groove closure was observed,
particularly at the intersection of the dominant departure Fig. 5. Asphalt stripping evident in a core hole [37].
taxiway and the runway proper [33]. This was a concerning
experience for Australian airport designers, as the same production, has also proven effective [39]. However, not
grade of binder had not been associated with significant all anti-stripping agents (hydrated lime or liquid) suit all
groove closure during the previous ten years of regular use. mixtures and mixture-specific testing is required [36].
In summary, groove closure is frequency reported, par- In some cases, stripping has little or no adverse impact
ticularly at airports in hot climates. Groove closure on the performance of the asphalt surface for many years.
adversely impacts aircraft skid resistance and therefore is However, rutting and shoving can rapidly develop, partic-
a critical distress mode. It follows that groove closure is a ularly when hot weather follows a significant rain event
high-likelihood and high-consequence distress for airport [35]. Further, stripping often occurs in asphalt layers below
asphalt. Further, groove closure resistance is highly influ- the surface layer.
enced by the deformation resistance of the asphalt mastic, Many airports were constructed in the 1940s and 1950s
which also contributes to asphalt shearing and rutting. It in support of increased military aviation activity during
follows that a mastic that is designed for high resistance and after World War II [40]. The original thin surfaces
to groove closure will also substantially reduce the risk of have since been overlayed multiple times, resulting in thick
asphalt shearing and rutting. asphalt at the pavement surface. In many cases, stripping
has been identified only in the older layers of asphalt. Fur-
3.5. Asphalt stripping ther, where a permeable asphalt surface is overlayed, the
moisture trapped in the more permeable underlying layer
Moisture damage is often referred to as asphalt ‘strip- often initiates stripping, despite good performance prior
ping’. More correctly, moisture damage can be caused by to the overlay [2]. Prior to the overlay, the more permeable
cohesion failure with the binder film or by adhesion failure asphalt surface could ‘breath’ and load-induced water pres-
at the interface between the aggregate and the binder film. sure could escape through the pavement surface. This abil-
Only the latter is actual ‘stripping’. However, both failure ity reduces when resurfaced by overlay with a new and less
mechanisms are moisture related and both appear visually permeable mixture, leading to stripping.
similar (Fig. 5) [35]. Pavement drainage, asphalt permeabil- In summary, the actual frequency of stripping distress is
ity, dusty aggregate, wet aggregate and weak aggregate all not known as it can exist without adversely impacting the
contribute to the risk of asphalt moisture damage [36]. The runway surface for many years. However, where it has
most common mitigations against asphalt moisture dam- resulted in rutting and shearing, the deterioration often
age are polymer modified binder and anti-stripping agents, occurs more rapidly than it can be addressed. As a result,
either in liquid form or as hydrated lime filler [35]. Often stripping is a low-likelihood and moderate-consequence
believed to be load related, stripping of airport asphalt distress for airport asphalt surfaces. Where impermeable
has been observed outside of the trafficked areas, indicating asphalt mixtures are designed and either anti-stripping
that other factors also contribute to asphalt moisture dam- agent or hydrated lime are included, stripping risk is signif-
age susceptibility [15]. icantly reduced.
Asphalt stripping was first reported in the USA in the
1930s and in Australia in the 1970s [2]. Once moisture dam-
age was identified as an issue, hydrated lime filler was 3.6. Premature ravelling
added to asphalt mixtures, typically at 1–2% by mass, as
an anti-stripping agent [38]. This remains common practice Ravelling is the process of gradual coarse aggregate loss
although it can present a challenge and liquid from the surface of asphalt. Where rutting, moisture dam-
anti-stripping agent, added to the binder prior to asphalt age and cracking are not excessive, ravelling is the normal
84 G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98

mode of distress triggering airport asphalt resurfacing [41]. of the surface is impacted. Excessive surface-generated
As the binder ages and oxidises, the mastic becomes brittle FOD presents a risk to aircraft safety and surface ravelling
and erodes from the surface by wind, vehicle tyres and rain is a moderate-likelihood and moderate-consequence dis-
[15]. When mastic erosion progresses, the coarse aggregate tress for airport asphalt surfaces.
is exposed and is eventually lost from the surface (Fig. 6).
Resurfacing is triggered by the loss of coarse aggregate pre- 4. Airport asphalt requirements
senting an unacceptable FOD risk to aircraft [2,15].
Binder ageing, mastic erosion and the loss of coarse Airport asphalt surface requirements have not been
aggregate is an accepted mechanism of surface ageing. extensively researched or documented but must minimise
However, where ravelling occurs prematurely the service the risk of the most important modes of distress described
life and whole of life cost of the surface are compromised. above. EAPA [12] proposed skid resistance, freedom from
It has been reported in Australia that the average airport FOD and stability under high aircraft wheel loads as the
asphalt surface life has reduced from 15 or more years primary requirements. Emery [34] agreed and specifically
down to just 10 years [42]. More rapid binder ageing, noted resistance to groove closure and viscous deforma-
resulting in premature mastic erosion, is likely to be a sig- tion. In related work, compactability during construction
nificant factor. and durability were also noted [15]. In a more recent work,
Binder ageing is complex and not well understood [43]. White & Embleton [16] recommended that fatigue life also
Ageing is a function of oxidation, which is impacted by be considered as stiffer asphalt mixtures and binders are
binder film thickness, surface permeability and exposure developed to improve deformation resistance. The impor-
of the surface to thermal loading and radiation [44]. Accel- tance of fatigue resistance was also noted by Hachiya
erated ageing of binder samples in the laboratory is a com- et al. [47] along with deformation resistance. Further, Rod-
mon method of evaluation. A Pressurised Ageing Vessel way [2] noted asphalt moisture damage resistance and dur-
(PAV) was developed by Christensen & Andersen [45] able bond to the underlying pavement as important.
and is now the most common method for determining bin-
der susceptibility to rapid ageing [43]. 4.1. Deformation resistance
Reports of ravelling in airport asphalt surfaces are not
common. This likely reflects ravelling being an accepted Airport asphalt mixtures with high resistance to perma-
age-related phenomenon and a gradual acceptance of the nent deformation reduce the risk of shearing, shoving, rut-
reduction in average service life. However, premature rav- ting and groove closure. Surface layer asphalt rutting
elling was reported at Newmark airport in New Jersey results from shear deformation rather than densification
(USA) resulting in unacceptable FOD risk to aircraft of the mixture [48]. Shoving of the surface is also shear-
[46]. It was concluded that the polymer modified binder related and results from horizontal shear stresses associ-
had aged significantly faster than expected, resulting in a ated with braking and turning aircraft [49]. Groove closure
prematurely brittle mastic. results from shear and compressive deformation of the
In summary, asphalt surface ravelling due to binder oxi- asphalt between the grooves. Because of the smaller scale
dation and mastic embrittlement is a normal and expected and reduced support provided by the coarse aggregate
process for asphalt surfaces. However, where the rate of skeleton, groove closure resistance is more dependent on
deterioration is greater than expected, the serviceable life the mastic properties than rutting or shearing.
The impact of asphalt deformation is significant.
Groove closure impacts aircraft skid resistance and both
shearing and groove closure have necessitated significant
early intervention in recent years. It follows that improve-
ment in asphalt deformation resistance is required to pro-
tect airport asphalt against the effects of new aircraft
with higher tyre pressures and wheel loads. Concerningly,
the traditional Marshall mixture design method does not
include reliable deformation prediction tools [6–7]. Mastic
resistance to deformation must also be characterised to bet-
ter understand resistance to groove closure.

4.2. Fracture resistance

Fracture resistance reduces the risk of cracking, both


from the top-down and from the bottom-up. Generally,
excessive cracking is not a common distress mode for air-
port pavements. The acid modified bitumen related top-
Fig. 6. Asphalt raveling of a runway surface. down cracking reported in Australia is an exception [32].
G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98 85

However, if a high emphasis is placed on increasing defor- 4.5. Summary


mation resistance, fracture resistance may be compromised
[50]. It follows that airport asphalt must be evaluated for Airport asphalt requirements can generally be cate-
fracture resistance to ensure both fatigue and top-down gorised as resistance to deformation, resistance to fracture,
cracking issues are not introduced in the future [16,47]. the skid resistance provided to aircraft and the durability of
Further, top-down cracking is of greater concern than fati- the surface. Deformation resistance and skid resistance are
gue of airport asphalt due to the high wheel loads and tyres high priorities (Table 2). Durability impacts whole of life
pressures associated with modern aircraft [4]. cost so must be maximised to the extent that it does not
adversely impact the other operational requirements.
4.3. Surface friction and texture Although of less importance than in road pavements, frac-
ture resistance must not be neglected, particularly when
Surface friction and texture are complex because skid more deformation resistant asphalt mixtures are developed.
resistance is provided by the aggregate properties and the Importantly, the overall composition and constituent mate-
asphalt mixture volumetrics, as well as the any treatments, rial properties both contribute to achieving these perfor-
such as grooving. As the surface ages, the texture generally mance requirements.
increases. However, the grooves can also be impacted by
groove closure, rubber contamination from landing aircraft 5. Asphalt constituents and their contribution
[3,17] and rejuvenation treatments applied to reduce aggre-
gate loss from the surface [42,51]. Removal of rubber con- Asphalt is a complex material consisting of aggregates,
tamination by mechanical treatment also impacts skid air voids and bitumen, as well as added fillers and/or addi-
resistance over the asphalt life by increasing surface tives [54]. Each of these constituents plays an important
texture. role in defining the overall mixture characteristics and
The effects of maintenance activities aside, the asphalt achieving the performance requirements detailed above.
surface must provide an adequate level of surface friction The combined fine aggregate, filler and bitumen is referred
and this must be maintained over the life of the surface. to as the mastic [55]. The impact of the mastic properties on
The surface friction must also remain above a minimum mixture performance is universally acknowledged [15,56–
level when the surface is wet during rain events [52]. The 59]. As discussed, above, mastic is particularly important
use of fully crushed coarse aggregate generally provides for airport asphalt because the portion of mastic within
adequate dry friction characteristics. The wet weather skid the mixture is relatively high, as well as the reduced support
resistance is generally maintained by allowing paths for provided by the coarse aggregate skeleton after runway
surface water to escape from under aircraft tyres [17]. As grooving.
discussed later, this can be achieved either by highly tex-
tured asphalt mixtures or grooving the surface of a dense
5.1. Aggregate
graded mixture.
While the bituminous mastic dominates many mixture
4.4. Durability
properties, the aggregate properties and skeleton are also
important for asphalt performance [60]. In fact, by mass,
Durability reflects the period between asphalt resurfac-
aggregate comprises some 95% of a typical asphalt mixture
ing requirements. Where there is no significant shoving,
and has a significant impact on the mechanical properties
rutting or cracking, airport asphalt resurfacing is scheduled
of a surface layer [61].
in response to coarse aggregate loss from the surface, man-
Aggregates are complex particles of minerals and ions
ifesting as surface-generated FOD [2]. Mixture volumetrics,
[62]. Even seemingly similar sources of aggregate may
bitumen embrittlement with age, binder-aggregate adhe-
possess significantly different characteristics [11]. The
sion and environmental factors all impact the timing and
rate of coarse aggregate loss. Alternate asphalt mixtures Table 2
fall outside the empirical relationship between mixture vol- Summary of airport asphalt performance requirements.
umetrics and surface durability. It follows that where alter- Physical requirement Protects against Level of
nate asphalt mixtures are considered, laboratory importance
evaluation of asphalt ravelling potential is required. Deformation resistance Groove closure High
Moisture damage, or stripping, also impacts asphalt Rutting
durability. Stripped asphalt is unstable and lacks shear Shearing/shoving
Fracture resistance Top down cracking Moderate
strength [53]. Deformation results in rutting, shoving and
Fatigue cracking
tearing, thereby reducing asphalt surface life. Resistance Surface friction and Skid resistance High
to moisture damage is an important requirement of airport texture Compliance requirement
asphalt surfaces, particularly for underlying layers of Durability Pavement generated FOD Moderate
asphalt which are more disruptive to replace than the sur- Resistance to moisture
damage
face layer.
86 G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98

characterisation of aggregate sources is based on a combi- As discussed above, the natural sand content is often
nation of consensus properties (angularity, size and shape) limited in airport asphalt to avoid excessive round particles
as well as source properties (abrasion resistance, strength, resulting in mixture instability [69]. Although natural sands
deleterious material content and chemical composition) commonly have more rounded particles than manufactured
[63]. The relative importance of the consensus and the sands, there is a significant overlap [76]. Measured shape
source properties are different for the coarse and the fine and texture of particles is a more reliable differentiator of
aggregate fractions. rounded and angular sands than generic categorisation as
The separation between coarse and fine aggregate is gen- ‘manufactured’ or ‘natural’ [77].
erally defined as the material passing a 4.75 mm or 2.0 mm Clay minerals are commonly present in quarried aggre-
sized sieve, depending on the soil classification system gate sources [38]. Aggregates containing clay minerals that
being used [64]. Commonly, the very fine aggregate is con- exhibit significant plasticity are potentially deleterious and
sidered part of the asphalt mastic rather than the aggregate are either avoided or treated with active filler such as
skeleton, and is usually defined as the portion passing the hydrated lime [78]. Deleterious clay minerals in coarse
100, 75 or 63 mm sieve, depending on the jurisdiction [40]. aggregate is not usually detrimental. However, the same
The skeleton of an asphalt mixture is determined by the clay minerals in fine aggregate sources affect asphalt perfor-
structure and gradation of the aggregates, primarily the mance. This reflects the increased interaction between fine
coarse fractions, as well as the coarse aggregate particle aggregate and bitumen, as well as the exposure of the fine
shape. These properties have a significant impact on the aggregate to air and moisture. Established testing for mois-
deformation resistance of the asphalt [65]. Further, the ture damage susceptibility of asphalt mixtures and the pres-
importance of air void distribution [66–67] and grading ence of excessive reactive clay minerals in fine aggregate is
[68] have also been demonstrated. Regarding the coarse readily available [38].
aggregate particles, shape is commonly characterised by In summary, aggregate represents a significant portion
the parameters; form, angularity and texture [69–70]. How- of the mass of asphalt and the coarse aggregate forms the
ever, the scale of each parameter depends on the size of the skeleton of the mixture. Coarse aggregate shape and
particle being characterised [63]. particle packing are important to asphalt deformation
Regarding the overall aggregate skeleton of an asphalt resistance. The fine aggregate is equally important and con-
mixture, characterisation is performed either directly tributes to the asphalt mastic, which as detailed below,
through microstructure assessment or via bulk material determines the visco-elastic properties of the asphalt.
properties using macrostructure measurements [71]. Although aggregate properties are important, established
Research has shown asphalt performance to be affected consensus and source properties provide reliable indication
by variations in the orientation and spatial distribution of the contribution of the aggregate to the overall asphalt
of coarse aggregate particles [72]. The number and length performance.
of contact points is known to influence asphalt shear
strength [73] as does the distribution of the air voids within 5.2. Chemical fillers and liquid additives
the sample [74]. Further, the orientation of the aggregate
particles changes significantly during the first two to three Fillers are added to asphalt mixtures to improve density
years of trafficking, impacting the modulus, strength and and strength [79] through both physical and chemical inter-
other mixture characteristics [75]. actions with the bitumen [80]. Fillers stiffen bitumen by
Fine aggregate is commonly obtained from natural or thickening it and reducing viscous flow potential [81]. Some
manufactured sources. Natural sources include river sands fillers also reduce temperature susceptibility [82] and pro-
or sand pits. Manufactured sands are usually a by-product mote improved bitumen-aggregate adhesion [78] which
of quarry crushing operations associated with the produc- reduces the risk of stripping. Fillers can be chemically
tion of coarse aggregate fractions and graded crushed rock. active or inert minerals. Common fillers include limestone
Manufactured sands are commonly referred to as ‘dust’ as dust, hydrated lime, fly ash, general purpose or blended
they are the captured as airborne mineral particles gener- cement, as well as sandstone and granite dusts [80]. While
ated by crushing equipment. a range of fillers are commonly incorporated into asphalt,
Fine aggregate shape and packing properties impact their specific advantages and risks are not well understood
asphalt deformation resistance [75]. Further, the fine aggre- [55].
gate shape contributes more to asphalt performance than Different filler types and sources have very different
large aggregate particle shape does. The improved defor- chemical compositions, as well as different shapes, densities
mation resistance associated with angular fine aggregate and voids [83]. Of the various fillers, hydrated lime has
has been demonstrated by many researchers [76]. However, been most commonly specified for airport asphalt since
highly angular fine aggregate inhibits workability during the 1970s [2]. Hydrated lime is an effective asphalt filler
construction. In practice, a blend of rounded (usually nat- as it promotes anti-stripping properties by reducing mois-
ural) and angular (usually manufactured) sands provides a ture sensitivity [38]. Lime also reacts chemically to harden
balance between workability during construction and the bitumen while reducing the rate of post-production oxi-
deformation resistance under traffic. dation [78]. However, adding significant volumes of min-
G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98 87

eral fillers, such as hydrated lime, often introduces other extended with propane precipitated asphalt and other
challenges. products [90]. Commonly a combination of these processes
Crushing hard rock sources for coarse aggregate pro- is used. The properties of bitumen are responsible for the
duces a high portion of fine particles. This creates a chal- time and temperature dependence of visco-elastic asphalt
lenge for the mixture designer to maintain the portion of performance [90]. However, these properties are also essen-
aggregate passing the 75 mm sieve in the 4–6% range and tial for the production and paving of asphalt surfaces.
also achieve the specified grading on the 150 to 600 mm It has long been acknowledged that bitumen properties
sieves [84]. It follows that for many hard aggregate sources, can change and migrate over time and that multiple
adding 1–2% of active filler is not viable without creating batches or shipments from the same source of crude will
mixture instability risk through excess fine material con- have variability [91]. For example, bitumens manufactured
tent. Further, in many regional and remote areas, hydrated from light crudes are more susceptible to high temperature
lime is prohibitively expensive and logistically challenging. asphalt shear creep than those from heavier crudes [92].
Liquid anti-stripping agents provide an alternate to Crude source variability may also require changes in the
hydrated lime for improving resistance to moisture damage refining process. These processing changes could further
[85]. alter some properties of the resulting paving grade bitumen
Introduced in the 1960s, liquid anti-stripping agents are in order to meet the applicable specification requirements.
generally nitrogen based and contain amines, fatty amines There is a perception that bitumen properties have chan-
or polyamines [53]. Different studies have reported signifi- ged and performance has declined over the years [5,34,92–
cantly different effectiveness of liquid ant-stripping agents 96]. There have certainly been changes in crude oil sources
compared to active fillers such as hydrated lime. For exam- [15,97] and associated rheological properties [92,95]. This is
ple, Putman & Amirkhanian [86] found hydrated lime and likely the result of refineries using new technologies to
liquid anti-stripping agent to be equally effective based on extract more high-demand products from crude oil sources
indirect tensile strength retained after moisture condition- of reducing quality and increasing variability. This has led
ing. In contrast, Sebaaly et al. [85] found hydrated lime to reduced confidence in non-performance based specifica-
to be significantly more effective than liquid anti-stripping tions and increased use of rheological bitumen testing [98].
agent. However, Pickering et al. [87] reported one liquid The traditional binder testing regimes were largely empiri-
agent to be significantly less effective than hydrated lime, cal in nature and lack linkage to performance in the field
while another liquid agent was found to be equivalent to [99]. In response to these concerns, the USA introduced
hydrated lime. Finally, Nazirizad et al. [88] found liquid PG grading, of binders in the 1990s. However, some
anti-stripping agent to be superior to hydrated lime. The researchers have questioned the reliability of PG grading,
above differences likely reflect the importance of aggregate particularly for highly modified binders [100] such as those
properties on the effectiveness of anti-stripping products, commonly used in airport asphalt production.
including hydrated lime [89]. It follows that moisture sus- The contribution of the binder to asphalt performance is
ceptibility, and the benefit of liquid anti-stripping agents significant [65]. Otherwise identical asphalt mixtures with
or hydrated lime, must be evaluated on a case-by-case different binder types, or even two sources of nominally
basis. identical bitumen, can respond differently due to differences
In summary, chemical fillers provide a range of benefits in chemical composition and rheology [96,101]. This sug-
to asphalt. However, the most important are to stiffen the gests that compliance with empirical specifications does
bituminous mastic and to increase resistance to moisture not guarantee adequate or consistent performance in the
damage. Despite these benefits, lime and other fillers are field.
expensive and logistically challenging in remote areas. It Complicating asphalt binder performance is the process
follows that there is a trend towards liquid anti-stripping of bitumen ageing. As discussed above, bitumen hardening
agents in asphalt mixture design. Liquid agents also avoid results from chemical ageing, steric hardening, oxidation
the challenge of accommodating the fine mineral filler with- and loss of volatiles [43,81,102]. Ageing is often measured
out impacting the overall grading and the target 4–6% (by via the evolution of viscosity or penetration and the hard-
volume) of aggregate passing the 75 mm sieve. Variation in ening of bitumen during asphalt production may only be
the relative effectiveness of hydrated lime and liquid anti- around 30% of the hardening expected over the life of
stripping agents indicates a mixture-specific evaluation of the asphalt [103]. Oliver [95] found that ageing also signif-
stripping potential is required. Established moisture dam- icantly affected the rheological composition of bitumen.
age tests are effective and readily available. Similarly, White [96] reported concerningly different ageing
profiles for different sources of the same grade of acid-
5.3. Bituminous binder modified bitumen.
In summary, bituminous binder is arguably the single
Conventional (unmodified by polymers or acid) paving most important constituent affecting the performance of
grade bitumen is the residue from the second distillation asphalt mixtures. Binder determines the relationship
of crude oil. The unmodified bitumen is then either blown between asphalt modulus and temperature as well as
with hot air, modified with polymers, has oils added or is visco-elastic response of asphalt to load. The change in
88 G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98

bitumen resulting from oxidation over time is largely acterise the complex visco-elastic properties of asphalt will
responsible for the erosion of mastic and the ravelling of likely focus more on testing mastic, primarily with regard
asphalt with age. Importantly, binder is also the most com- to asphalt groove closure susceptibility.
plex and variable of the asphalt constituents and confi-
dence in the empirical testing for performance prediction 6. Alternate airport asphalt mixtures
has been eroded over time. Test methods that are more
indicative of field performance have been developed. How- Grooving of dense graded Marshall-designed airport
ever, a direct and reliable link between binder properties asphalt is costly and introduces the risk of groove closure.
and asphalt field performance, across a range of binder As discussed above, groove closure is likely the most diffi-
materials and types, has not been established. cult mode of airport asphalt distress to avoid in hot cli-
mates due to the high reliance of airport asphalt on the
5.4. Bituminous mastic deformation resistance of the mastic. Moreover, grooves
cut through the coarse aggregate particles reduce the con-
As discussed above, asphalt mastic comprises the com- tribution of the coarse aggregate skeleton to groove defor-
bined bituminous binder, added filler and very fine aggre- mation resistance. Further, in wet climates, the delay
gate and Delaporte et al. [56] and Qiu et al. [104] both between surfacing and grooving, when the surface has less
suggested mastic is the ‘real’ binder in asphalt. Tashman skid resistance than after grooving, presents a skidding risk
et al. [58] supported this by stating that the micro- to aircraft safety. It follows that a range of alternate airport
constituents govern the behaviour of the overall mixture. asphalt surfaces have been considered. These alternate mix-
It follows that testing mastic provides greater insight into tures aim to provide the surface texture and skid resistance
asphalt performance than testing binder [57]. However, levels recommended by ICAO, without requiring grooving
the impact of mastic on asphalt performance is dependent of the surface. Importantly, the definition of airport
on the mixture type. Muraya et al. [105] found mastic had asphalt surface performance requirements (Table 2)
greater influence on the response of dense graded, high bin- enables an objective basis for considering the relative per-
der content mixtures than on stone-to-stone mixes, such as formance of these alternate asphalt mixtures.
stone mastic and porous asphalt. Airport asphalts are usu-
ally specified to be dense graded with high binder contents 6.1. Open graded friction course
and rely heavily on mastic performance to resist deforma-
tion [15]. It follows that mastic properties are critical for OGFC, also referred to as popcorn mix or porous
typical airport asphalt mixture performance. asphalt, utilises a low portion of fine aggregate to create
Despite this agreement regarding importance, less is a surface that is self-draining through interconnected air
known about mastic response than that of bitumen [80]. voids [110]. OGFC is generally placed in a thin layer and
Faheem & Bahia [106] explained that mastics of seemingly is intended to reduce water spray and increase wet weather
similar constituents can perform significantly different. skid resistance. Disadvantages of OGFC include clogging
This can only be explained by physico-chemical interaction by detritus, reducing the effectiveness over time, as well
between the binder and mineral elements. Such interactions as the relatively short life until binder oxidation leads to
cannot be assessed by considering the binder and mineral unacceptable asphalt ravelling. Draining of binder from
components separately. Like binder, mastic exhibits plas- the mixture during transportation has also been reported
tic, elastic and viscous properties that are inherently tem- [111]. Improvements, including polymer modified binder,
perature dependent [107]. Creep and recovery testing is changes in aggregate grading and fibres have resulted in
therefore suited to mastic characterisation. OGFC being a common surfacing for high speeds roads
The ratio of filler to binder in mastic has been shown to around the world [112].
be critical to asphalt performance. As the filler portion The benefit of OGFC for improved aircraft slid resis-
increases, the mastic stiffens [55,104]. Liao et al. [80] found tance on runways was first recognised in the 1970s [113–
that the filler portion had a greater impact on mastic 114] and the UK used OGFC extensively for runway sur-
response than filler type did. Little & Petersen [108] demon- facing for over 40 years [12]. However, dense graded
strated that filler type and portion had different effects on asphalt is still used in parking aprons and slow moving
different binder sources. Using a range of binder, mastic taxiways where OGFC is less suited. Hydrated lime and
and mixture tests, a relationship was established between polymer modified binder have also been introduced to
filler:binder ratio and mixture creep performance [109]. improve the OGFC for airport surfaces in the UK.
In summary, mastic is the combination of bituminous Experimental surface sections in the touchdown zone of
binder, very fine aggregate and chemical fillers. Mastic is the runway at Johannesburg airport (South Africa)
the effective binder of an asphalt mixture and is critically included OGFC [115]. Although the skid resistance
important to airport asphalt performance. Mastic proper- remained good over the trial period, stone loss from the
ties also provide insight into aggregate-binder interactions surface resulted in OGFC not being recommended for fur-
that cannot be assessed by testing the binder and fine ther consideration. Australia also experimented with
aggregate separately. It follows that future efforts to char- OGFC, as early as 1973, to improve skid resistance prior
G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98 89

to grooving machines being economically available [33]. In in the USA remain primarily surfaced with dense graded
some cases, OGFC performed well and lasted up to asphalt and are grooved [3] or are rigid (concrete)
18 years. However, at other Australian airports excessive pavements.
stone loss resulted in the OGFC being urgently removed
and replaced. When grooving machines became routinely 6.3. Beton Bitumeux Aeronautique
available in Australia in the 1980s, OGFC was discontin-
ued as a runway surface layer, in favour of grooved dense Beton Bitumeux Aeronautique (BBA) is an example of
graded asphalt [33]. the high modulus asphalt mixtures developed in France
since the 1980s [123]. BBA includes four classes of asphalt,
6.2. Stone mastic asphalt closed and gap graded mixtures, each with maximum
aggregate particle size of 10 mm or 14 mm. When a gap
SMA was developed in Germany in the 1970s for resis- graded and 14 mm sized mixture is selected, the surface tex-
tance to damage from studded snow tyres. Associated ben- ture is generally 1.2–1.3 mm immediately following con-
efits regarding durability and resistance to shearing were struction and grooving of the surface is avoided [124].
quickly recognised [116]. SMA aggregate is gap graded Where grooving is required, regardless of the asphalt sur-
and the voids are filled with mastic. The result is a stone- face texture, a dense graded mixture is preferred, either
on-stone matrix, with a bitumen-rich mastic mortar [117]. 10 mm or 14 mm in size.
The high binder content provides durability while the BBA has been used as the standard airport surfacing for
stone-on-stone matrix provides a deformation resistant French runways for more than 30 years [125]. BBA is most
surface [118]. SMA subsequently became a popular road commonly used in conjunction with a high modulus, base
surface in high traffic applications across Europe, the or binder course, asphalt mixtures known as Enrobes a
USA, Asia, South Africa and Australia [116–117]. Module Eleve Class 2 (EME2) [126]. Since 2006, seven run-
SMA has been used as an airport runway surface in ways in the UK have been surfaced with a BBA product.
parts of Europe for many years. For example, SMA, along Of these, three comprised the ungrooved, gap graded
with dense graded asphalt, is a normal runway surface in 14 mm version [127]. Visually, ungrooved BBA (Fig. 7)
Denmark, Germany and Norway [12]. Campbell [117] also appears similar to the 20 mm coarse graded mixtures
reported SMA on European airports in Austria, Switzer- adopted in Australia in the 1970s. These coarse mixtures
land and the Czech Republic. The main runway at Brussels were discontinued in the 1980s due to significant loose
airport (Belgium) was also surfaced with SMA with good stone generation [2] as discussed below. It is likely that
performance reported. However, complications associated the improved stone retention of BAA reflects the modified
with de-icing agents prompted engineers to revert to dense binder, which also results in a higher asphalt modulus. The
graded asphalt for subsequent work [119]. Despite this, the first ungrooved BBA runway surface in the UK was at
Belgian military continued with SMA for runway resurfac- Manchester airport (England) constructed in 2011.
ing [117]. SMA was also used on the runway of Aviano mil- Whether a reduced surface life, like that associated with
itary airport (Italy) [120]. Further, SMA was selected for OGFC, will result from the open surface texture, will not
the surfacing of the King Shaka airport runway, near Dur- be determined until around 2020.
ban (South Africa) based on higher deformation resistance
than other mixtures and to avoid grooving [120].
Asia followed Europe with China now the world leader
in SMA for runway surfacing [119]. SMA, either 13 mm of
16 mm maximum aggregate size, is a normal surface for
Chinese airports with over 35 runways surfaced with
SMA starting with Beijing airport in 1996 [121–122].
Reported benefits include high shear (deformation) resis-
tance, combined with acceptable skid resistance and sur-
face texture without requiring grooving [122].
Australia has made only limited use of SMA for airport
pavements. Cairns airport has SMA on a number of apron
areas and Sydney airport performed a small production
and construction trial in 1999 [119]. Variable success dur-
ing apron and taxiway trials, as well as perceived ravelling
risk, has prevented any significant use of SMA on Aus-
tralian airport runways [2].
In northern America, SMA has been successfully used
for surfacing at least two runways in Mexico in 2004 and
2005 [119]. Indianapolis airport (USA) surfaced a signifi- Fig. 7. Gap graded 14 mm sized BBA runway surface (Ó Daru
cant taxiway with SMA in 2005 [119]. However, runways Widyatmoko).
90 G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98

6.4. Larger sized dense asphalt lent performance of seven to ten year old surfaces. Guercio
& McCarthy [135] reported that airport surface asphalt
Increasing the maximum particle size in the surface containing both RAP and WMA presented a saving of
asphalt mixture increases the surface texture. However, lar- up to 27% and recommended incorporation into future
ger sized surfaces also require thicker layers, which are FAA specifications. In Australia, WMA has been used at
more expensive. The additional cost of the surface layer a number of airports for rapid trafficability in hot climates
thickenings may be offset by a saving associated with not and where multiple layers of asphalt were constructed in
grooving the surface. However, even larger sized mixtures one work period [131]. Christchurch airport (New Zealand)
are unlikely to achieve the 1 mm surface texture recom- also trialled WMA on taxiways and runways since 2009
mended by ICAO [33]. Consequently, larger sized asphalt [136]. It is expected that use of WMA and RAP in airport
mixtures are not recommended for improved skid asphalt will increase as confidence in the performance of
resistance. the technology improves.
For example, prior to routine grooving of dense graded
asphalt some Australian airports utilised 20 mm sized 6.6. Summary
dense graded mixtures with the aim of increasing the sur-
face texture above that achieved by 14 mm mixtures. How- The cost and risk associated with grooving dense graded
ever, surface texture was still only 0.5–0.6 mm. The new asphalt for runway surfacing has increased interest in alter-
Hong Kong airport was similarly surfaced with a 20 mm nate mixtures types. The aim for these alternate airport
mix in the 1990s [2]. The lack of surface texture was asphalt surfaces is to provide adequate surface texture
accepted without grooving. and skid resistance to avoid grooving. However, a durable
Although field trials were not reported, Japanese surface must also be maintained to prevent FOD being
researchers investigated 30 mm and 40 mm sized asphalt generated in the form of loose stones ravelling out of the
surface mixtures for airports [128]. Interestingly, the larger surface layer. Alternate asphalt types include OGFC,
sized mixtures were compared against 13 mm and 20 mm SMA and BBA (gap graded) materials. Of these, SMA is
mixtures, both of which were reported to be conventional the most widely reported and has properties that appear
for Japanese airport surfaces. Durability, by stone loss to provide adequate surface texture and skid resistance,
from the surface, was unfortunately not reported. without significant ravelling risk. Further, SMA is likely
to provide a comparable or better surface life than grooved
6.5. Warm mix asphalt and Recycled asphalt pavement dense graded asphalt. Increased use of WMA and RAP is
also expected as environmental sustainability becomes a
Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) and Recycled Asphalt higher priority. Importantly, as airport asphalt surfaces
Pavement (RAP) are complementary technologies that pro- move further away from the traditional mixtures with
vide environmental and safety benefits. WMA relies on empirical performance records, test methods that are
additives or bitumen foaming to allow asphalt to be pro- indicative of airport asphalt performance properties
duced, paved, compacted and finished 30–40 °C cooler (Table 2) become more important.
than comparable hot asphalt [129]. Among other benefits,
this results in less oxidation of the bitumen during produc- 7. Laboratory test methods
tion. In contrast, replacement of some of the virgin aggre-
gate with RAP introduces a portion of bitumen than has As discussed above, there is a need for better performing
already been oxidised during production and in the field, airport asphalt mixtures. The basis for comparing and
resulting in a significantly harder binder [130]. The softer developing alternate airport surface asphalt must include
WMA binder and the harder RAP binder counter each laboratory test methods that are indicative of the field per-
other, making the two technologies complementary [131]. formance requirements (Table 2). This is particularly
Su et al. [132] recommended WMA for rapid trafficabil- important when considering changing the type(s) of asphalt
ity where runways are resurfaced in limited work periods. mixture utilised.
It was also recommended that any increased risk of mois-
ture damage be mitigated by the addition of anti- 7.1. Deformation resistance
stripping agent into the asphalt mixture design. The mois-
ture concern was also reported by Rushing et al. [133] after Deformation resistance of asphalt mixtures is charac-
comparing hot and warm asphalt mixtures produced in the terised in both static and dynamic load modes. Dynamic
laboratory and in production plants. In contrast, White loading is usually applied either by a wheel tracking device
[131] found no statistically significant differences in mois- or by a cyclic loading apparatus. Static testing is not rec-
ture content for otherwise nominally identical hot and ommended because the aggregate skeleton often locks-up,
warm mixed asphalt. which is not realistic under dynamic vehicle loading, reduc-
In the USA, RAP has been incorporated into airport ing the reliability of the results [48].
asphalt surfaces for over fifteen years [134]. A field inspec- There are a number of scaled or controlled load wheel
tion of three runways containing RAP found good to excel- tracking devices. Common machines include the Asphalt
G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98 91

Pavement Analyzer (APA), Hamburg Wheel Tracking applications. For research applications, the greater capabil-
Device and the French Rutting Tester [137–138]. These ity of the MMLS3 provides significant advantage over
common scaled-load test devices are useful for routine smaller wheel tracking devices. However, the MMLS3 is
and practical applications. Rushing et al. [6] recommended expensive compared to the simpler devices and it is not
the APA, modified to achieve higher wheel load, for quality widely available.
assurance of airport asphalt construction, citing compati-
bility with cores recovered from the asphalt layer for qual- 7.2. Fracture resistance
ity assurance testing. The UK and Australia predominantly
use the Cooper’s Wheel Tracker, which is also similar to Asphalt fatigue is traditionally characterised as a rela-
the APA [139]. tionship between tensile strain magnitude and number of
The University of Stellenbosch’s Institute of Transport cycles to failure [144]. This traditional approach is conve-
Technology (South Africa) developed a mobile load simu- nient for design and practical applications, but is not based
lator in the 1990s [140]. The current version, known as the on fundamental physical effects. Material characterisation
Mobile Model Load Simulator Mark 3 (MMLS3) provides for fracture resistance uses a number of test modes and
greater capability and flexibility for specialised arrangements [145] (Fig. 8). Two-point bending, four-
investigation and research applications than the more com- point bending, uniaxial tension, indirect tension and notch
mon laboratory wheel tracking devices. The MMLS3 is a bending are common laboratory test modes [146–147].
one-third-scale, accelerated loading facility and was first In practice, asphalt fatigue is most commonly charac-
produced in 1997. It comprises four single wheels of tyre terised by repeated load beam bending and indirect tensile
pressure up to 850 kPa and wheel load up to 2.7 kN. The modes. However, the low frequency of excessive cracking
four wheels cyclically traverse nine 100 mm diameter circu- in airport surfaces has resulted in little interest in the devel-
lar samples aligned in a track, at between 1800 and 7200 opment of airport-specific test methods [2]. A greater inter-
load applications per hour. The test bed is temperature est in airport asphalt fracture is expected in the future in
controlled ( 5 to 60 °C) and can be in a saturated or dry response to top-down cracking associated with higher
condition [140]. Key advantages of the MMLS3 over con- wheel loads and tyre pressures [32]. Road asphalt research-
ventional wheel tracking devices include the ability to scale ers in the USA have developed complex models based on
the load and tyre pressure and to test at a broad range of visco-elastic damage initiation and finite element based
temperatures, in wet and dry conditions. crack propagation for top-down cracking prediction,
Turning to mechanical testing of asphalt, the Trans- including the effects of ageing and healing, for road pave-
portation Research Board (TRB) selected and assessed a ments [149]. This work could be extended to airport asphalt
number of simple deformation performance tests [141]. surfaces in the future.
The three most appropriate tests were the repeated load tri- In summary, fracture resistance is not generally an issue
axial (returning a dynamic modulus), repeated uniaxial for aircraft asphalt surfaces due to the thick and stiff pave-
compression (returning a Flow Number) and static uniax- ment structures, combined with relatively low traffic fre-
ial compression (returning a Flow Time) [142]. Sousa et al. quency. The traditional fatigue tests, including beam
[48] recommended the Flow Number test over Flow Time bending and indirect tension modes, provide a reliable
due to the cyclic loading. In contrast, Rushing & Little basis for ensuring that more deformation resistant mixtures
[143] found the rut rate from the APA was better correlated are no more susceptible to fracture than current airport
to Flow Time than to Flow Number. It is possible that the asphalt mixtures. Where top-down cracking is a significant
particular mixtures assessed by Rushing & Little [143] did risk, more sophisticated evaluation methods are required,
not experience aggregate lock-up, as described by Sousa such as those developed for roads.
et al. [48] as a risk associated with static load testing.
White & Embleton [16] used the Flow Number test to
compare different bitumen types in the same aggregate
and mixture design. The strain rate per cycle indicated
the resistance to deformation of the bituminous mastic
while the cumulative strain at the commencement of ter-
tiary flow indicated the resistance to deformation of the
aggregate skeleton. This provided a mechanism for sepa-
rating the relative contributions of the aggregate skeleton
and the mastic to asphalt mixture deformation resistance.
In summary, mechanical testing and scaled wheel track-
ing both provide an established basis for the relative defor-
mation resistance of asphalt mixtures and both approaches
are applicable to aircraft pavement surfaces. Of the
mechanical tests, Flow Number is preferred while the smal-
ler wheel tracking devices are suited to routine or practical Fig. 8. Crack test mode arrangements [148].
92 G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98

7.3. Surface friction prediction of surface texture from mixture parameters is


likely to only be reliable for particular mixture types. In
In the laboratory, the British Portable Skid Resistance similar work, Rajaei et al. [156] first found a high correla-
Tester, known as the British Pendulum, has been the most tion (R2 = 0.92) between sand patch and laser measured
commonly reported friction measurement device for aggre- mean texture depth. Using regression analysis and artificial
gates in asphalt mixtures since the 1970s [150]. When tested neural networks, a model for predicting mean texture
after accelerated loading, the British Pendulum result is depth from mixture properties (volumetric properties,
known as the Polished Stone Value (PSV) and indicates aggregate grading, specific gravity, air void content and
the propensity for a particular aggregate source to polish binder content) was also developed and showed high corre-
under the effects of traffic [151]. Aggregate polishing is less lation (R2 = 0.79–0.86) [155]. However, the 16 mixtures
important to airport asphalt due to a lower frequency of evaluated were all similar in type, despite the mean texture
less channelised traffic [40]. Further, the higher vehicle depth ranging from 0.5 mm to 2.5 mm.
speeds associated with aircraft landing and take-off mean In summary, the link between asphalt aggregate friction,
that macro-texture, not measured by the British Pendulum, surface texture and aircraft skid resistance is empirical.
is more important to aircraft asphalt skid resistance than Where grooves are provided in the existing surface, it is less
micro-texture [52]. It follows that airport asphalt skid resis- important to measure either skid resistance or asphalt sur-
tance is most commonly evaluated in the field by continu- face friction. However, where alternate asphalt mixtures
ous friction measuring devices [52]. are used to avoid grooving, skid resistance measurement
ICAO publishes minimum recommended levels of skid or prediction in the laboratory becomes more important.
resistance, measured by various continuous friction mea- Maintaining the internationally recommended 1 mm sur-
suring devices, immediately behind a 1 mm thick surface face texture is the most viable approach until a fundamen-
water film [52]. This approach is internationally accepted tal basis for relating surface texture and friction to aircraft
for airport asphalt surface friction testing. However, mea- skid resistance is developed. A laboratory laser scanner,
surement can only be made after an asphalt surface is con- calibrated to sand patch test results, provides reliable indi-
structed over a large area. It follows that such friction cation at mixture design stage.
surveys are more suited to friction management through-
out the life of the surface than to mixture design or 7.4. Durability
evaluation.
ICAO also recommends a minimum 1 mm surface tex- Durability of airport asphalt includes breakdown due to
ture to provide adequate skid resistance for aircraft. Tradi- moisture damage (stripping) as well as coarse aggregate
tionally, the surface texture is measured by calculating the loss from the surface (ravelling). Both are critical to airport
area over which a known volume of material can be spread asphalt surface life. With regard to asphalt stripping, the
flush with the surface [52]. Sand (sand patch test) and pet- modified Lottman test is commonly reported [35]. The
roleum grease (grease patch test) are common materials for method compares the indirect tensile strength of samples
the test. However, in recent years, advances in high speed with and without conditioning, intended to simulate
laser scanning of pavement surfaces has allowed an alter- extended exposure to moisture in the field. The result,
nate approach. Abe et al. [152] demonstrated the use of known as the Tensile Strength Ratio (TSR) indicates the
laser surface scanners to calculate the mean texture depth portion of the unconditioned strength retained after accel-
of asphalt surfaces. A high correlation (R2 = 0.81–0.97) erated laboratory conditioning. Other methods are similar,
was found for the mean texture depths measured by sand with variations on the conditioning protocols [35]. One
patch test and laser scanner. Sengoz et al. [153] found sim- alternate approach is the Texas Boiling Test, in which a
ilarly high correlation (R2 = 0.97) across 31 pavement sur- sample of asphalt is treated in boiling water and then visu-
faces ranging in mean texture depth from 0.3 mm to ally inspected for damage [157]. Also, the MMLS3 has an
1.4 mm, indicating the reliability of the laser scanner across immersed sample protocol for evaluating asphalt mixtures
a range of surface textures. In contrast, airport, road and under cyclic loading in saturated conditions [140]. Simi-
highway dense graded mixtures were evaluated with digital larly, the Hamburg wheel tracking device can be operated
image processing, with much lower correlation to sand with the samples immersed in water [158].
patch results (R2 = 0.43) [154]. Stripping aside, airport asphalt durability is determined
Taking one step further, mathematical models relating by the loss of coarse aggregate from the surface. The tradi-
asphalt mixture properties to the resulting mean texture tional dense graded Marshall-designed mixture, with high
depth were developed in the USA [155]. The predicted sur- bitumen content, presents a balance between deformation
face texture was based on the maximum aggregate size and resistance and a durable surface [15]. However, when alter-
various factors calculated from the grading of the aggre- nate mixtures are considered, measurement of durability is
gate and the voids in the mineral aggregate. All models a more important factor.
required calibration and the reliability reduced as the mix- The Cantabro losses test (UCL) was developed at the
ture being considered moved further away from those on University of Catalonia (Spain) to assess mastic effective-
which the calibration was based [155]. It follows that ness and durability. Asphalt mixtures are exposed to an
G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98 93

abrasive conditioning and the reduction in sample mass remain important because laboratory asphalt mixture char-
due to breakdown and erosion is measured [81]. Pérez- acterisation is unlikely to identify significant deficiencies.
Jiménez at al. [55] reported UCL of the asphalt mixture Importantly, the trend towards alternate mixtures and per-
to assess mastic durability, as an indicator of coarse aggre- formance testing of asphalt surfaces is well suited to the
gate loss from the surface. performance-based specification and procurement of air-
At the constituent material level, bitumen ageing and port pavement surfacing.
oxidation impact the durability of the asphalt mixture by
mastic erosion and coarse aggregate loss with time. Bitu-
men durability testing, based on accelerated ageing in the 8. Towards performance-based asphalt
PAV, is well established [43] and provides an indirect mea-
sure of the contribution of the bitumen to coarse aggregate As discussed above, there are a number of examples of
loss. Similarly, evaluation of aggregate source rock resis- compliant airport asphalt, constructed appropriately and
tance to breakdown is well established in airport asphalt with a high level of scrutiny, not performing as expected
specifications [15]. in the field. As a result, there has been a reduction in con-
In summary, the TSR is an established indicator of fidence that the traditional, prescriptive, Marshall-based
asphalt durability due to moisture damage. Wheel tracking specification reliably delivers the level of performance
tests using either the MMLS3 or the Hamburg wheel required by modern aircraft, as summarised in Table 2.
tracker, with immersed samples, also provides an indica- In response to these concerns, a number of airports have
tion of moisture susceptibility of the asphalt mixture. With attempted to transfer the responsibility for asphalt surface
regard to aggregate loss and ravelling due to ageing and performance to suppliers and contractors.
oxidation, durability testing of bitumen is well established. Where a prescriptive mixture design method is specified,
However, the UCL provides the advantage of taking into also requiring performance outcomes in the field is not
account the interaction between bitumen and fine aggre- appropriate. Rather, a relaxation of the prescriptive speci-
gate within the bituminous mastic. fication is required, with a focus on asphalt characteristics
that are more indicative of field performance. This
approach allows suppliers and contractors to innovate
7.5. Summary for overall efficiency and risk reduction, as well as provid-
ing airport owners with field-performance guarantees, via
Laboratory testing of asphalt mixtures is critical to iden- contractual warranty provisions. Importantly, the stochas-
tifying potential issues prior to construction of airport sur- tic nature of constituent ingredients, tolerances in asphalt
faces. This reflects the high disruption cost associated with mixture production and variability in construction must
unplanned runway closures. It is likely that airport asphalt all be considered in developing a performance based spec-
characterisation will become more focussed on test meth- ification [159].
ods that are more indicative of performance in the field In the USA, a number of Departments of Transport
(Table 3). As a result, the traditional and empirical test have developed nine year warranty provisions for asphalt
methods will become less important for mixture design. surfacing works [160]. The aim was to extend pavement life
However, the specialised testing equipment required for by making the contractor responsible for the performance
performance characterisation is often not available in of the asphalt. However, other agencies have avoided a per-
regional and remote locations. It follows that once the mix- formance warranty approach citing concerns regarding
ture design is completed, the traditional volumetric and reduced competition and increased project delivery cost
Marshall testing will likely remain the basis of asphalt pro- [161]. In contrast to this concern, Krebs [162] found that
duction quality control and compliance verification. Fur- warranted highways were 30% smoother and 14% less
ther, the key evolutionary constituent material properties, expensive than un-warranted works of comparable age.
such as bitumen ageing and aggregate weathering, will Importantly, the reduction in cost was only associated with

Table 3
Summary of airport asphalt test methods.
Physical requirement Traditional Test Methods Future Test Methods
Deformation resistance Marshall Stability Wheel tracking
Marshall Flow Flow Number/Flow Time
Mastic MSCR
Fracture resistance Not traditionally tested Two/Four point bending beam
Repeated load indirect tension
Surface friction and texture Sand patch testing Laser scanning
Continuous Friction testing devices
Durability Prescriptive grading (ravelling) TSR (stripping)
Aggregate source properties (breakdown) Cantabro losses (ravelling)
Bitumen PAV ageing (ravelling)
94 G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98

projects that were appropriately selected as being suited to It follows that alternate asphalt mixture types, such as
warranted delivery. Where circumstances were not con- SMA, which is more resistant to deformation and allows
ducive to warranty provisions, the costs were higher than grooving to be avoided, are of increasing interest to the air-
for un-warranted works [162]. port pavement industry. Performance-based specification
More recently, the Netherlands has delivered the major- of asphalt mixtures is also desired. Importantly, improved
ity of highway projects using either design and construct or asphalt surface performance must be driven by both defor-
design, construct and maintain contracts. Initially a five to mation resistance and fracture resistance. However, surface
ten year warranty was required but this has recently been texture and skid resistance must not be compromised and
increased to twenty or twenty-five years, with the addition surfaces must be durable with regard to ravelling and mois-
of long term maintenance responsibility [163]. The war- ture damage. Test methods indicative of airport asphalt
ranty extension reportedly reduced cost, as well as improv- performance requirements have been developed. However,
ing pavement quality, both attributed to the introduction some remain inaccessible to practitioners.
of innovation. Warranted performance guarantees of alternate asphalt
More focused on the asphalt mixture, increased traffic mixtures are expected to allow innovation for risk reduc-
loading and volumes prompted the Superpave project in tion, as well as reducing cost and providing better perform-
the USA. A number of tests, intended to be indicative of ing airport asphalt surfaces. Performance-based mixture
asphalt mixture field performance were developed, includ- design, with contractually robust performance guarantees,
ing fatigue, cold temperature fracture, dynamic modulus is expected to become a normal approach to airport asphalt
and creep/flow [164]. These tests potentially replace the tra- procurement in the future.
ditional Marshall and Hveem mixture design parameters
and provide a pathway to performance-based asphalt mix- References
ture specification [164]. Despite these efforts, only 11 of the
50 State Departments of Transport of the USA have imple- [1] T.D. White, Marshall procedures for design and quality control of
mented moisture damage evaluation at the mixture design asphalt mixture’, Asphalt Pavement Technol. 54 (1985) 265–285.
[2] B. Rodway, Flexible aircraft pavement surfacing – Australian
stage [165]. It was also reported that only four States practice, 8th International Conference on Maintenance and Reha-
required wheel tracking as part of the asphalt mixture bilitation of Pavements, Singapore, 27–29 July, 2016.
design. All other States of the USA remained reliant on [3] P. Zuzelo, The benefits of runway grooving, Airfield Engineering
volumetric properties for asphalt mixture design and qual- and Maintenance Summit, Furama Riverfront, Singapore, 25–28
March, 2014.
ity control. For example, performance-based asphalt mix-
[4] G. White, Limitations and potential improvement of the aircraft
ture design properties were developed in Louisiana pavement strength rating system, Int. J. Pavement Eng. (2016),
(USA). Key parameters included deformation resistance http://dxdoi.org/10.1080/10298436.2016.1155122 (in press).
by laboratory wheel tracking, intermediate temperature [5] G. White, Changes in Australian paving-grade bitumen: are they
cracking (fatigue) and low temperature fracture [165]. real and what should Australia do about it?, 27th ARRB Confer-
However, it was recommended that these parameters be ence, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 16–18 November, 2016.
[6] J.F. Rushing, D.N. Little, N. Garg, Asphalt pavement analyser used
added to the existing volumetric-based specification, rather to assess rutting susceptibility of hot-mix asphalt designed for high
than replace it. tire pressure aircraft, Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board
Overall, there has been a reduction in confidence in the 2296 (2012) 97–105.
traditional prescriptive approach to airport asphalt specifi- [7] E. Horak, S. Emery, I. Mihaljevic, Balancing asphalt rut resistance
cation. It follows that there is an increasing desire to tran- with durability and safety requirements on runway rehabilitations,
Airfield Pavements Seminar, XXIVth World Road Congress,
sition to performance-based specification of airport asphalt Mexico City, Mexico, 28–29 September, 2011.
surfaces. It is expected that a performance-based asphalt [8] P. Molenaar, F. Hugo, J. Buekes, G. Catin, Rehabilitation of RWY
specification will enable innovation for risk reduction and 03L–21R at Johannesburg international airport: selection of asphalt
is essential to the introduction of warranted performance mixes using MMLS3 testing, in: 8th Conference on Asphalt
guarantees. Replacement of the prescriptive requirements Pavement for Southern Africa, Sun City, South Africa, 12–16
September 2004.
by laboratory test methods more indicative of the key per- [9] C.L. Monismith, B.A. Vallerga, J.T. Harvey, F. Long, A. Jew,
formance requirements for airport asphalt surfaces is Asphalt mix studies – San Francisco International Airport, 26th Air
expected to become common in the future. Transportation Conference, San Francisco, California, USA, 19-21
June 2000, 113-124.
[10] B. Rodway, Asphalt deformation due to high tyre pressure, FAA
9. Summary and conclusions Airport Pavement Working Group Annual Meeting, Atlantic City,
New Jersey, USA, 21–23 July, 2009.
[11] G. White, Asphalt tenderness in an Australian runway overlay,
A number of airport asphalt surfaces have failed to per- Transport. Geotechn. 6 (2016) 66–74.
form as expected in the field. This has resulted in a reduc- [12] Airfield use of Asphalt, European Asphalt Pavement Association,
tion in confidence in the traditional and prescriptive May. http://www.eapa.org/usr_img/position_paper/airfield.pdf.
Marshall-designed dense graded asphalt mixture. The fail- (accessed 25.11.13).
ures likely reflect the combined impact of bitumen quality [13] G. White, State of the art: interface shear resistance of asphalt
surface layers, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 1126270 (2015), http://dx.doi.
and more demanding aircraft. org/10.1080/10298436.2015 (in press).
G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98 95

[14] Aerodrome Design and Operations. Annex 14, Volume 1, to the [34] S. Emery, Bituminous surfacings for pavement on Australian
Conventions on International Civil Aviation, International Civil airports, Proceedings Australian Airports Association Convention,
Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada, February 2013. Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 14–17 November 2005.
[15] S. Emery, Asphalt on Australian airports, Proceedings AAPA [35] G.D. Airey, Y.-K. Choi, State of the art report on moisture
Pavements Industry Conference, Surfers Paradise, Queensland, sensitivity test methods for bituminous materials, Road Mater.
Australia, 18–21 September 2005. Pavement Des. 3 (4) (2002) 355–372.
[16] G. White, K. Embleton, Next Generation Binder for Airport [36] P.S. Kandhal, Field and laboratory investigation of stripping in
Asphalt, 16th AAPA International Flexible Pavement Conference, asphalt pavements: state of the art report, Transport. Res. Rec. J.
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, 13–16 September 2015. Transport. Res. Board 1454 (1994) 35–46.
[17] J. Gagnon, Runway grooving – the past, present and future, 8th [37] Pavement Interactive, Pavement Management: Stripping, 16 August
International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of 2007 (2007). http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/stripping/
Pavements, Singapore, 27–29 July 2016. (accessed 18 September 2016).
[18] C. Fabre, J. Balay, P. Lerat, A. Mazars, Full-scale aircraft tire [38] D.N. Little, J.A. Epps, The Benefits of Hydrated Lime in Hot Mix
pressure test, in: Proceedings Eight International Conference Asphalt, National Lime Association, 2001.
on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields, [39] F. Xiao, W. Zhao, T. Gandhi, S.N. Amirkhanian, Influence of
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA, 29 June – 2 July 2009, pp. antistripping additives on moisture susceptibility of warm
1405–1413. mix asphalt mixtures, J. Mater. Civil Eng. 22 (10) (2010) 1047–
[19] M.J. Roginski, Effects of aircraft tire pressures on flexible pave- 1055.
ments, Advanced Characterisation of Pavement and Soil Engineer- [40] G. White, Challenges for Australian flexible airport pavements,
ing Materials, Athens, Greece, 20-22 June 2007, 1473-1481. Aust. Geomech. 51 (3) (2016) 39–46.
[20] Airbus Aircraft Characteristics. http://www.airbus.com/support/ [41] C. Gorkem, B. Sengoz, Predicting stripping and moisture induced
maintenance-engineering/ technical-data/aircraft-characteristics/, damage of asphalt concrete prepared with polymer modified
2014 (accessed 27.01.14). bitumen and hydrated lime, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 2227–
[21] Boeing Commercial Airport Planning Manuals. http://www.boe- 2236.
ing.com/boeing/commercial/ airports/plan_manuals.page. (accessed [42] G. White, M. Thompson, Australian airport asphalt surface
27.01.14). treatments, in: 6th Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress, Prague,
[22] G. White, Shear stresses in an asphalt surface under various aircraft Czech Republic, 1–3 June 2016.
braking conditions, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 9 (2016) 89–101. [43] G.D. Airey, State of the art report on ageing test methods for
[23] J.F. Rushing, D.N. Little, N. Garg, Selecting a rutting performance bituminous pavement materials, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 4 (3) (2003)
test for airport asphalt mixture design, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 165–176.
15 (S1) (2014) 172–194. [44] D.K. Paul, O. Sirin, E. Kassem, Laboratory investigation of asphalt
[24] E.J. Dickinson, Pavement Temperature Regimes in Australia: their mixture aging, in: 6th Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress, Prague,
effect on the Performance of Bituminous Constructions and their Czech Republic, 1–3 June 2016.
Relationship with Average Climate Indicators, Special Report 23, [45] D.W. Christensen, D.A. Anderson, Interpretation of dynamic
Australian Road Research Board, August 1981. mechanical test data for paving grade asphalt cements, J. Assoc.
[25] H.-J. Lee, J.S. Daniel, Y.R. Kim, Laboratory performance evalu- Asphalt Pavement Technol. 61 (1992) 67–119.
ation of modified asphalt mixtures for Inchon airport pavements, [46] G. King, G. Rowe, G. Reinke, Newark airport runway: a forensic
Int. J. Pavement Eng. 1 (2) (2000) 151–169. study revisited, Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 2372
[26] G. White, Cyclic shear deformation of asphalt at Melbourne airport, (2013) 9–16.
FAA World Wide Airport Technology Transfer, Galloway, New [47] Y. Hachiya, O. Takahashi, H. Ooki, M. Kanno, Applicability of
Jersey, USA, 5–7 August 2014. concept of perpetual pavement to airport pavements, in: 8th
[27] C.J. Bognacki, A. Frisvold, T. Bennert, Investigation into asphalt International Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of
pavement slippage failures on Runway 04R–22L Newark Interna- Pavements, Singapore, 27–29 July 2016.
tional Airport, Proceedings 2007 FAA Worldwide Airport Tech- [48] J.B. Sousa, M. Solaimanian, S.L. Weissman, Development and Use
nology Transfer Conference, Galloway, New Jersey, USA, 16–18 of the Repeated Shear Test (Constant Height): An optional
April 2007. Superpave Mix Design Tool, Report SHRP-A-698, Strategic High-
[28] F. Mooren, M. Stet, P. Hopman, Tire induced surface cracking due way Research Program, National Research Council, August 1994,
to extreme wheel loads, FAA Worldwide Airport Technology 1994.
Transfer Conference, Galloway, New Jersey, USA, 5–7 August [49] G. White, S. Tighe, S. Emery, J. Yeaman, Developing a framework
2014. for diagnosis of shear distress in asphalt surfaces, Int. J. Pavement
[29] H. Wang, M. Li, N. Garg, Investigation of shear failure in airport Eng. (2016), http://dxdoi.org/10.1080/10298436.2016.1141413 (in
asphalt pavements under aircraft ground manoeuvring, Road press).
Mater. Pavement Des. (2016), http://dxdoi.org/10.1080/ [50] H.J. Park, Y.R. Kim, Primary causes of cracking in asphalt
14680629.2016.1211030 (in press). pavement in North Carolina: field study, Int. J. Pavement Eng. 16
[30] B.A. Vallerga, A. Jew, W.A. Nokes, Case study of an innovative (8) (2015) 684–698.
high stability asphalt mix for heavy aircraft wheel loads, 26th Air [51] S. Emery, A. Norheim, I. Mihaljevic, Slippery asphalt runways after
Transportation Conference, San Francisco, California, USA, 19-21 rejuvenation, Airfield Pavements Seminar: XXIVth World Road
June 2000, 334–345. Congress, Mexico City, Mexico, 28–29 September 2011.
[31] A.C. Collop, R. Roque, Report on the prediction of surface-initiated [52] T.J. Yager, Runway Friction Assessment and Maintenance for
longitudinal wheel path cracking in asphalt pavements, Road Mater. Airports, Airfield Engineering and Maintenance Summit, Equip
Pavement Des. 5 (4) (2004) 409–434. Global, Furama Riverfront, Singapore, 25–28 March 2014.
[32] G. White, Potential causes of top-down cracking of Australian [53] C.W. Curtis, A Literature Review of Liquid Antistripping and tests
runway surfaces, 27th ARRB Conference, Melbourne, Victoria, for Measuring Stripping, Report SHRP-A/UIR-90-016, Auburn
Australia, 16–18 November 2016. University, Auburn, Alabama, USA, 1990.
[33] G. White, B. Rodway, Distress and Maintenance of Grooved [54] H.M. Zelelew, A.T. Papagiannakis, Interpreting asphalt concrete
Runway Surfaces, Airfield Engineering and Maintenance Summit, creep behavior through non-Newtonian mastic rheology, Road
Equip Global, Furama Riverfront, Singapore, 25–28 March 2014. Mater. Pavement Des. 13 (2) (2012) 266–278.
96 G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98

[55] F.P. Pérez-Jiménez, R. Miró Recasens, A. Martı́nez, Effect of the [74] E. Masad, B. Muhunthan, N. Shashidhar, T. Harman, Aggregate
nature and filler content on the behavior of the bituminous mastics, orientation and segregation in asphalt concrete, application of
Road Mater. Pavement Des. 9 (2008) 417–431. Geotechnical Principles in Pavement Engineering, Geotechn. Spec.
[56] B. Delaporte, H. Di Benedetto, P. Chaverot, G. Gauthier, Filler and Pub. 85 (1998) 69–81.
binder influence on the linear viscoelastic behavior of mastics, [75] G. White, The effect of aircraft traffic on the structure and response
Proceedings Advanced Characterisation of Pavement and Soil of asphalt, Transport. Geotechn. 2 (2015) 56–64.
Engineering Materials, Athens, Greece, 20–22 June 2007, Taylor [76] P.S. Kandhal, J.B. Motter, M.A Khatri, Evaluation of Particle
and Francis, 3–13. Shape and Texture: Manufactured versus Natural Sands, NCAT
[57] M. Elnasri, G. Airey, N. Thom, Experimental investigation of Report 91–03, National Centre for Asphalt Technology, Auburn,
bitumen mastics under shear creep and creep-recovery testing, Alabama, USA, January 1991.
Proceedings T&DI Airfield and Highway Pavement Speciality [77] P.S. Kandhal, M.A. Khatri, J.B. Motter, Evaluation of Particle
Conference, Los Angeles, California, USA, 9-12 June (2013) 921– Shape and Texture of Mineral Aggregates and their blends, NCAT
932. Report 92–4, National Centre for Asphalt Technology, Auburn,
[58] L. Tashman, E. Masad, D. Littl, H. Zbib, A microstructure-based Alabama, USA, 1992.
viscoplastic model for asphalt concrete, Int. J. Plast. 21 (2005) 1659– [78] D. Lesueur, J. Petit, H.-J. Ritter, The mechanics of hydrated lime
1685. modification of asphalt mixtures: a state of the art review, Road
[59] G. White, Shear creep response of an airport asphalt mastic, Int. J. Mater. Pavement Des. 14 (1) (2013) 1–16.
Pavement Eng. (2015), http://dxdoi.org/10.1080/ [79] H. Wang, I.L. Al-Qadi, A.F. Faheem, H.U. Bahia, S.-H. Yang, G.
10298436.2015.1095914 (in press). H. Reinke, Effect of mineral filler characteristics on asphalt mastic
[60] N.A. Hassan, G.D. Airey, R. Khan, A.C. Collop, Nondestructive and mixture rutting potential, Transport Res. Rec. J. Transport.
characterisation of the effect of asphalt mixture compaction on Res. Board 2208 (2011) 33–39.
aggregate orientation and segregation using x-ray computed tomog- [80] M.-C. Liao, G. Airey, J.-S. Chen, Mechanical properties of filler-
raphy, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 5 (2) (2012) 84–92. asphalt mastics, Int. J. Pavement Res. Technol. 6 (5) (2013) 576–581.
[61] J.-S. Chen, S.Y. Wong, K.Y. Lin, Quantification of movement of [81] H. Bianchetto, R. Miró, F. Pérez-Jiménez, A.H. Martı́nez, Effect of
flat and elongated particles in hot mix asphalt subject to wheel load calcareous fillers on bituminous mix aging, Transport Res. Rec. J.
test, Mater. Struct. 38 (277) (2005) 395–402. Transport. Res. Board 2007 (1998) 140–148.
[62] M.E. Labib, A.W. Hefer, D.N. Little, Surface-chemistry at the [82] S.E. Zoorob, J.P. Castro-Gomes, L.A. Pereira Oliveira, J. O’Con-
bitumen-aggregate interface, Advanced Characterisation of Pave- nell, Investigating the multiple stress creep recovery
ment and Soil Engineering Materials, Athens, Greece, 20-22 June bitumen characterisation test, J. Construct. Build. Mater. 30
2007, 1589–1599. (2012) 734–745.
[63] I.S. Bessa, V.T.F. Castelo Branco, J.B. Soares, Evaluation of [83] P. Bryant, Filler: is it fixing your binder, Proceedings AAPA
different digital image processing software for aggregates and hot Pavements Industry Conference, Surfers Paradise, Queensland,
mix asphalt characterizations, Constr. Build. Mater. 37 (2012) 370– Australia, 18–21 September 2005.
378. [84] G.W. White, Systematic Diagnosis of Factors Leading to Cyclic
[64] R.D. Holtz, W.D. Kovacs, An introduction to Geotechnical Shear Creep of Airport Asphalt Surfaces, A Dissertation submitted
Engineering, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, USA, 1981. to the Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering,
[65] A. Motamed, H.U. Bahia, Influence of test geometry, temperature, University of the Sunshine Coast, for the Award of Doctor of
stress level and loading duration on binder properties measured Philosophy, August 2015.
using DSR, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 23 (2011) 1422–1432. [85] P.E. Sebaaly, D. Little, E.Y. Hajj, A. Bhasin, Impact of anti-strip
[66] M.E. Kutay, E. Arambula, N. Gibson, J. Youtcheff, Three-dimen- agents on properties of Idaho hot-mix asphalt mixture, Transport.
sional image processing methods to identify and characterise Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 2007 (1998) 65–74.
aggregates in compacted asphalt mixtures, Int. J. Pavement Eng. [86] B.J. Putman, S.N. Amirkhanian, Laboratory Evaluation of Anti-
11 (6) (2010) 511–528. stripping Additives for Hot Mix Asphalt, Report number FHWA-
[67] E. Masad, B. Muhunthan, N. Shashidhar, T. Harman, Internal SC-06-07, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA,
structure characterisation of asphalt concrete using image analysis, 2006.
J. Comput. Civil Eng. 13 (2) (1999) 88–95. [87] K. Pickering, P.E. Sebaaly, M. Stroup-Gardiner, J.A. Epps, Eval-
[68] F.A. Farcas, Evaluation of asphalt field cores with simple perfor- uation of new generation of antistripping agents, Transport. Res.
mance tester and X-ray computer tomography, Licentiate Thesis Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 1342 (1992) 26–34.
submitted to the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, [88] M. Nazirizad, A. Kavussi, A. Adbi, Evaluation of effects of anti-
2012. stripping agent on the performance of asphalt mixtures, Constr.
[69] E. Masad, J.W. Button, Unified imaging approach for measuring Build. Mater. 84 (2015) 348–353.
aggregate angularity and texture, Computer-Aided Civil Infrastruct. [89] T.W. Kennedy, W.V. Ping, Evaluation of effectiveness of anti-
Eng. 15 (2000) 273–280. stripping additives in protecting asphalt mixtures from moisture
[70] L. Tashman, L. Wang, S. Thyagarajan, Microstructure character- damage, J. Assoc. Asphalt Paving Technol. 60 (1991) 230–263.
ization for modeling HMA behaviour using imaging technology, [90] K. Josh, The Shell Bitumen Handbook, sixth ed., ICE Publishing,
Road Mater. Pavement Des. 8 (2007) 207–238. Italy, 2015.
[71] J.-S. Chen, M.K. Chang, K.Y. Lin, Influence of coarse aggregate [91] H. Abraham, Asphalts and Allied Products: Their occurrence,
shape on the strength of asphalt concrete mixtures, J. Eastern Asia Modes of Production, uses in the Arts and Methods of Testing:
Soc. Transport. Studies 6 (2005) 1062–1075. Volume Three: Manufactured Products, 6th ed., D Van Nostrand
[72] A.R. Coenen, E.M. Kutay, N.M. Sefidmazgi, H.U. Bahia, Aggre- Company, New York City, USA, 1962.
gate structure characterisation of asphalt mixtures using two- [92] G. Holleran, I. Holleran, J. Vercoe, A. D’Angelo, S. Bearsley, A.
dimensional image analysis, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 13 (3) Stevens, J. Towler, Bitumen in New Zealand – performance based
(2012) 433–454. asphalt binder specification, NZTA/NZIHT 15th Annual Confer-
[73] E. Masad, B. Mahunthan, N. Shashidhar, T. Harman, Quantifying ence, Queenstown, New Zealand, 2–4 November 2014.
laboratory compaction effects on the internal structure of asphalt [93] F.W. Button, J.A. Epps, Identifying tender asphalt mixtures in the
concrete, Transport Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 1691 (1999) laboratory, Transport Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 1034
179–185. (1985) 20–26.
G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98 97

[94] G. Holleran, I. Holleran, Bitumen chemistry using cheaper sources – [115] P.B. Joubert, L. GounderL, S. van Wyk, Experimental asphalt
an improved method of measurement by TLC-FID and the sections in the runway touch down zone on Johannesburg interna-
characterisation of bitumen by rheology and compositional means, tional airport, 8th Conference on Asphalt Pavements for Southern
24th ARRB Conference, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 12–15 Africa, Sun City, South Africa, 12–16 September 2004.
October 2010. [116] M.E. Nunn, Evaluation of Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA): A high
[95] J.W.H. Oliver, Changes in chemical composition of Australian stability wearing course material, TRL Report PR 65, Transport
bitumens, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 10 (3) (2009) 569–586. Research Laboratory, Wokingham, England, UK, 1994.
[96] G. White, Inter-batch and Inter-feedstock variability of an acid [117] C. Campbell, The Use of Stone Mastic Asphalt on Aircraft
modified bitumen, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 17 (3) (2016) 658– Pavements, Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements for
677. SEN713 Research/Professional Practice Projects, School of Engi-
[97] G. Holleran, I. Holleran, Bitumen processing, rheology, composi- neering and Technology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria,
tion and performance, 25th ARRB Conference, Perth, Western Australia, 1999.
Australia, Australia, 23–26 September 2012. [118] Y.F. Qiu, K.M. Lum, Design and performance of stone mastic
[98] G. Baumgardner, J.A. D’Angelo, Evaluation of new dynamic shear asphalt, J. Transport. Eng. 132 (12) (2006) 956–963.
rheometer testing geometry for performance testing of crumb [119] Evaluation of Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) for Airfield Pavements,
rubber-modified binder, Transport Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. AAPTP 04–04, National Centre for Asphalt Technology, February
Board 2293 (2012) 73–79. 2009.
[99] J.A. D’Angelo, Current status of Superpave binder specification, [120] W. Hofsink, M.C. Barnard, SMA wearing courses on runways and
Roads Materials and Pavement Des. 10 (1) (2009) 13–24. taxiway – recent experience in South Africa, in: 13th International
[100] G. White, Grading highly modified binders by multiple stress creep flexible pavement conference, Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Aus-
recovery, Road Mater. Pavement Des. (2016) (in press) 101080/ tralia, 11–14 October 2009.
14680629.2016.1212730. [121] S.U. Xin, SMA and heated pavement in China, Federal Aviation
[101] P.M. Harnsberger, M.J. Farrar, S.-C. Huang, R.E. Robertson, Administration Pavement Working Group Meeting, Atlantic City,
Comparative field performance using multiple crude oil sources, in: New Jersey, USA, 15–17 April 2013.
Proceedings Transport Research Board Annual Meeting, Washing- [122] S.U. Xin, Research and practice on asphalt overlay in China, ICAO
ton, USA, 23–27 January 2011. Regional Workshop on Airport Pavements-Design & Evaluation,
[102] J. Wu, E. Lepercq, G.D. Airey, Aging bitumen in bulk versus the Macao, China, 4–6 March 2015.
aging of bitumen in an asphalt mixture, Advanced Characterisation [123] EME Technology Transfer for Australia: An Explorative Study, AP-
of Pavement and Soil Engineering Materials, Athens, Greece, 20–22 T249-13, Austroads Project Number TT1353, Sydney, New South
June 2007 1631–1640. Wales, Australia, October 2013, 2013.
[103] C. Crawford, Tender Mixes, Report QIP 108, National Asphalt [124] B. Hakim, D. Widyatmoko, C. Ferguson, J. Richardson, UK airfield
Pavement Association, Maryland, USA, 1986. pavement design using French asphalts, Transportation 167 (1)
[104] H. Qiu, X. Tan, S. Shu, H. Zhang, Influence of filler-bitumen ratio (2014) 27–35.
on performance of modified asphalt mortar by additive, J. Modern [125] I. Widyatmoko, B. Hakim, C. Fergusson, Pavement sustainability
Transport. 21 (1) (2013) 40–46. and performance improvement: case studies, XXIVth PIARC
[105] P.M. Muraya, A.A.A. Molenaar, M.F.C van de Ven, Contribution Congress – Airfield Pavement Seminar, Mexico City, Mexico, 27–
of asphalt mix components to permanent deformation resistance, in: 30 September 2011.
Eight International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads, [126] I. Widyatmoko, B. Hakim, C. Fergusson, J. Richardson, S. Cant,
Railways and Airfields, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, USA, 29 June - Sustainable airport pavement using French asphaltic materials (BBA
2 July 2009, 259–268. and EME2), 2nd European Airport Pavement Workshop, Amster-
[106] A.F. Faheem, H.U. Bahia, Modelling of asphalt mastic in terms of dam, Netherlands, 13–14 May 2009.
filler-bitumen interaction, Road Mater. Pavement Des. 11 (2010) [127] I. Widyatmoko, J. Richardson, C. Ferguson, Long-term monitoring
281–303. of high performance airfield pavement surfacing, Int. J. Pavement
[107] A. Drescher, N. Kringos, T. Scarpas, On the behaviour of a parallel Res. Technol. 6 (5) (2013) 582–587.
elasto-visco-plastic model for asphaltic materials, Mech. Mater. 42 [128] O. Takahashi, Y, Hachiya, Y. Tsubokawa, Applicability of the large
(2010) 109–117. stone asphalt concretes for surface course of heavy-duty airport
[108] D.N. Little, J.C. Petersen, Unique effects of hydrated lime filler on pavements, FAA Airport Technology Transfer Conference, Gal-
the performance-related properties of asphalt cement: physical and loway, New Jersey, USA, May 2002.
chemical interactions revisited, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 17 (2) (2005) 207– [129] Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) Review, AP-T91/07, Austroads Project
218. Number TT1220, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, November
[109] L. Ping, W. Lieping, L. Wei, X. Baolin, The research on the index of 2007.
high temperature performance of asphalt mixture in airfield, Adv. [130] E.Y. Hajj, P.E. Sebaaly, P. Kandiah, Use of Reclaimed Asphalt
Mater. Res. 723 (2013) 1076–1083. Pavement (RAP) in Airfields HMA Pavements, AAPTP Project
[110] Performance Survey on Open-Graded Friction Course Materials, Number 05–06, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA, 2008.
Synthesis of Highway Practice 284, Transportation Research Board, [131] G. White, Warm mix asphalt for Australian airports, Int. J.
Washington, District of Columbia, USA, 2000. Pavement Eng. Asphalt Technol. 16 (1) (2015) 11–29.
[111] A.I. Cooley, E.R. Brown, D.E. Watson, Evaluation of OGFC [132] K. Su, R. Maekawa, Y. Hachiya, Laboratory evaluation of WMA
containing Cellulose Fibers, NCAT Report 00–05, National Centre mixture for use in airport pavement rehabilitation, Constr. Build.
for Asphalt Technology, December 2000. Mater. 23 (2009) 2709–2714.
[112] W. Song, X. Shu, B. Huang, M. Woods, Factors affecting shear [133] J.F. Rushing, M. Mejias-Santiago, J.D Doyle, Assessment of warm-
strength between open-graded friction course and underlying layer, mix asphalt for heavy traffic airfields, Transport. Res. Rec. J.
Constr. Build. Mater. 101 (2015) 527–535. Transport. Res. Board, 2371 (2013) 41–48.
[113] M.P. Jones, Friction overlay improves runway skid resistance, Civ. [134] E.Y. Hajj, P.E. Sebaaly, P. Kandiah, Evaluation of the use of
Eng. 43 (3) (1973) 45–48. reclaimed asphalt pavement in airfield HMA Pavements, J. Trans-
[114] T.D. White, Field Performance of Porous Friction Surface Course, port. Eng. 136 (3) (2010) 181–189.
Report Number FAA-RD-74-38, Department of Transportation, [135] M.C. Guercio, L.M. McCarthy, Quantifying the performance of
Washington, District of Columbia, USA, 1976. warm-mix asphalt and reclaimed asphalt pavement in flexible airfield
98 G. White / International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology 11 (2018) 77–98

pavements, Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 2471 lande 911A–2001, Swedish National Road and Transport Research
(2015) 33–39. Institute, 2001.
[136] B.J. Hayward, B. Pidwerbesky, CoolPave with LEA: low energy [151] I.M. Asi, Evaluating skid resistance of different asphalt concrete
asphalt, the future of asphalt paving, Proceedings 10th NZTA & mixes, Build. Environ. 42 (2007) 325–329.
NZIHT Annual Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand, November [152] H. Abe, A. Tamai, J.J. Henry, J. Wambold, Measurement of
2009, 2009. pavement macrotexture with circular texture meter, Transport. Res.
[137] Pavement Interactives, Laboratory Wheel Tracking Devices, 1 July Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 1764 (2001) 201–209.
2011. http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article /laboratory- [153] B. Sengoz, A. Topal, S. Tanyel, Comparison of pavement surface
wheel-tracking-devices/, (accessed 21.11.14). texture determination by sand patch test and 3D laser scanning, Civ.
[138] R.C. Williams, B.D. Prowell, Comparison of laboratory wheel- Eng. 56 (1) (2012) 73–78.
tracking test results with WesTrack performance, Transport Res. [154] V.M.C. Araujo, I.S. Bessa, V.T.F. Castelo Bracno, Measuring skid
Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 1681 (1999) 121–130. resistance of hot mix asphalt using the aggregate image measurement
[139] S. Emery, I. Mihaljevic, Accelerated load testing of asphalt mix system, Construct. Build. Mater. 98 (2015) 476–481.
design for heavy duty pavements in hot climates, in: Proceedings [155] Evaluation of Circular Texture Meter for Measuring Surface
23rd ARRB Conference, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, 22– Texture of Pavements, NCAT Report 04–05, National Centre for
23 July 2008. Asphalt Technology, September 2004.
[140] F. Hugo, I. Bowler, J. Liebenberg, D. Rossman, Evaluation of [156] M. Rajaei, N.M. Sefidmazgi, H. Bahia, Establishment of a
performance of asphalt paving mixes under harsh conditions using relationship between pavement surface friction and mixture design
the MMLS3, in: 10th Conference on Asphalt Pavements for properties, Transport Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 2457
Southern Africa, Natal, South Africa, 11–14 September 2011. (2014) 114–120.
[141] K.E. Kaloush, Simple Performance Test for Permanent Deforma- [157] T.W. Kennedy, F.L. Roberts, J.N. Anagnos, Texas Boiling Test for
tion of Asphalt Mixtures, A Dissertation presented in Partial Evaluating Moisture Susceptibility of Asphalt Mixtures, Technical
Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Report FHWA/TX-85/63, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, USA,
Philosophy, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA, May 1984.
2001. [158] Accelerated Laboratory Rutting Tests: Evaluation of the Asphalt
[142] Simple Performance Tests, Summary of Recommended Methods Pavement Analyzer, NCHRP Report 508, Transportation Research
and Database, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Board, Washington, District of Columbia, USA, 2003.
Report 547, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, [159] M.G. Jeong, M. El-Basyouny, Statistical applications and stochastic
USA, 2005. analysis for performance-related specification of asphalt quality
[143] J.F. Rushing, D.N. Little, Static creep and repeated load as rutting assurance, Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board 2151
performance tests for airport HMA mix design, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. (2010) 84–92.
26 (9) (2014) 1–8. [160] B.K. Diefenderfer, J.W. Bryant, Development of a pavement
[144] M.A. Castell, A.R. Ingraffea, L.H. Irwin, Fatigue crack growth in warranty contract and performance specification for hot-mix asphalt
pavements, J. Transport. Eng. 126 (4) (2000) 283–290. resurfacing project, 2006 Airfield and Highway Pavements Specialty
[145] A. Mollenhauer, M. Wistuba, Evaluation of hot-mix asphalt Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 1–3 May 2006.
susceptibility to temperature-induced top-down fatigue cracking by [161] Q. Cui, M.E. Bayraktar, M. Hastak, I. Minkarah, Use of warranties
means of uniaxial cyclic tensile stress test, Road Mater. Pavement on highway projects, J. Manage. Eng. 20 (3) (2004) 118–124.
Des. 13 (1) (2012) 171–190. [162] S.W. Krebs, B. Duckert, S. Schwandt, J. Volker, T. Brokaw, Asphalt
[146] A.A.A. Molenaar, Prediction of fatigue cracking in asphalt pave- Pavement Warranties: A five year progress report, Wisconsin
ments: do we follow the right approach?, Transport Res Rec. J. Department of Transportation, June 2001.
Transport. Res. Board 2007 (2001) 155–162. [163] M. Moenielel, E. de Vries, New opportunities in performance based
[147] M.P. Wagoner, W.G. Buttlar, G.H. Paulino, Development of a contracts, 6th Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress, Prague, Czech
single-edge notched beam test for asphalt concrete mixtures, J. Test. Republic, 1–3 June 2016.
Eval. 33 (6) (2005) 1–9. [164] O. Ero-Phillips, Recent advances in performance based character-
[148] N. Thom, Asphalt cracking: a Nottingham perspective, Engenharia isation of asphalt mixtures – a review, 8th International Conference
Civil 26 (2007) 75–84. on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Pavements, Singapore, 27–29
[149] Top-Down Cracking of Hot-Mix Asphalt Layers: Models for July 2016.
Initiation and Propagation, National Cooperative Highway [165] M. Kim, L.N. Mohammad, H. Challa, M.A. Elseifi, A simplified
Research Program, Report 1-42A, Web-Only Document 162, performance-based specification for asphalt pavements, Road
Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA, 2010. Mater. Pavement Des. 16 (S2) (2015) 168–196.
[150] C.-G. Wallman, H. Astrom, Friction Measurement Methods and the
Correlation between Road Friction and Traffic Safety, VIT medde-

You might also like