Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Asphalt Mixtures
Bradley J. Putman, A.M.ASCE1; and Laura C. Kline2
Abstract: Porous asphalt mixtures have been used for more than 60 years, but it was not until 1974 that the first formalized procedure was
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ARIZONA,UNIVERSITY OF on 05/14/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
created by the Federal Highway Administration to design mixtures for open-graded friction courses (OGFC). Since that time, there have been
several other mix design procedures developed and adapted, mainly for OGFCs on high-volume roadways. In the past decade, porous asphalt
pavements have been gaining popularity as a storm water best management practice and utilize similar mixtures as those used for OGFCs.
However, for any porous mixtures to perform as intended, they must be designed and constructed properly. Across the United States, there are
currently more than 20 different methods used to design these mixtures. The objective of this research was to compare the different mix design
procedures currently used in the United States. The results indicated that some of the procedures result in a range of design binder contents
instead of a single value. This does not provide much guidance to inexperienced designers, which could result in pavement performance
issues that could deter the future use of porous asphalt mixtures. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000529. © 2012 American Society
of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Asphalt pavements; Asphalts; Mixtures; Stormwater management; Best Management Practice; Streets;
Pavements.
Author keywords: Asphalt pavements; Storm water management; Best management practice; Streets; Porous pavements.
Fig. 1. Water movement through (a) porous asphalt pavement; (b) asphalt pavement with an OGFC overlay; (c) conventional asphalt pavement
Problem Statement and Objectives oil absorption test; and procedures that determine OBC by visual
observation of loose porous asphalt mix.
Because of all of the potential benefits of porous pavements related
While the mix design methods fall into three main categories, it
to storm water management, many municipalities have accepted
is important to mention that many of the methods within a category
porous pavements as a storm water best management practice.
have either different mix design requirements or different proce-
Many state departments of transportation (DOTs) also recognize
the safety benefits of porous asphalt for OGFCs. However, it is par- dures and/or calculations to determine the OBC. Table 1 summa-
amount that these pavements perform as intended, and this requires rizes the mix design requirements of 10 of the methods that were
proper design of the mixture, among other variables. There are identified in the survey of state DOT mix design procedures that
currently several methods recommended to design porous asphalt fall in the compacted specimens category (Kline 2010). For these
mixtures, and some of these procedures are more complex than methods, a certain number of cylindrical specimens are compacted
others. Most of these design procedures are used to design OGFC over a range of binder contents. Tests are conducted on these
or porous friction courses for high volume roadway overlays, but specimens to determine volumetric properties [air voids, voids in
there is relatively little guidance for the design of mixtures used for mineral aggregate (VMA), and voids filled with asphalt (VFA)],
porous asphalt pavements for storm water management. Until re- abrasion resistance (Cantabro abrasion test), and/or permeability.
cently, there has not been any comparison of the different design The OBC is determined based on the values specified in the table.
methods being used. Previous research has involved in-depth analy- After determining the OBC, some methods require that the mois-
ses of a single design method to determine the performance char- ture susceptibility of the mix be evaluated by means of the tensile
acteristics of porous asphalt mixtures. Additionally, over the past strength ratio (TSR). Additionally, the draindown of the mix is also
two decades, researchers have looked into the trends of porous as- tested at the OBC. The 10 methods included in Table 1were used to
phalt used as OGFC in the United States. These studies have found determine OBCs in this study for the compacted specimens cat-
that poor performance in some states has encouraged agencies to egory (ASTM 2008a; Kandhal 2002; GDOT 2009; NMDOT 2009;
update their mix design methods, while others have stopped using NCDOT 2009; MDOT 2005; MODOT 2004; NDOR 1997; TDOT
OGFCs completely, and still other states use their original mix de- 1995; VDOT 2007).
sign procedures. There is limited information comparing the results The methods in the oil absorption category determine the OBC
of different mix design methods and the potential performance- of a porous asphalt mixture by measuring the absorption capacity of
related characteristics of these different design outcomes. the aggregate using a specified oil. The procedures are similar in
The main objective in this research was to compare the various concept in that the predominant aggregate size is soaked in oil for a
porous asphalt mix design methods currently used in the United specified period of time after which the aggregate is drained under
States. Porous asphalt has many applications from interstate road- particular conditions. The amount of oil absorbed by the aggregate
ways to parking lots, and it is important that the mix is properly is then used in a series of calculations to determine the OBC of
designed for the specific application so that the many benefits the mixture. Some states also measure the absorption capacity
of porous asphalt can be realized. of the fine aggregate portion of the mix using kerosene instead
of oil. The absorption values of the fine and coarse aggregate
are then used to calculate the OBC. The mix design methods from
Porous Asphalt Mix Design Procedures this category that were used in this study included the procedures
created by the FWHA (1990) and the Georgia DOT (2009). It is
A survey was circulated to state DOTs across the United States to worth noting that the Alabama DOT (1999) and Kentucky Trans-
identify what methods are used to determine the optimum binder portation Cabinet (2008) also use the FHWA procedure.
content (OBC) for porous asphalt mixes in each state. The DOTs The final group of porous asphalt mix designs fall in the visual
were targeted for the survey because most projects that specify determination category. In general, this procedure involves mixing
asphalt mixtures (including porous asphalt) specify that DOT porous asphalt mixtures over a range of binder contents and placing
procedures and specifications be followed. From the survey, it a specific amount of the loose mixture into a clear glass container
was determined that the mix design procedures used for porous that is conditioned in an oven at a certain temperature for a speci-
asphalt in the United States can be divided into three main catego- fied duration. After conditioning, the OBC is determined by look-
ries (Kline 2010): Procedures that determine the OBC using com- ing at the containers from underneath. The designer is looking for
pacted asphalt specimens; procedures that determine OBC using an the binder content at which there is neither too much binder that has
particles
Flat and
≤10d
≤10d
≤10d
≤10d
≤20e
≤20e
≤5d
(%)
container nor too little binder on the bottom of the container. Many
Aggregate properties methods provide guidance similar to that provided by the Florida
DOT (FDOT) in Fig. 2 (FDOT 2009). The two different procedures
used in this study included those from the Florida DOT and the
(>1= ≥ 1)
Fractured
90=100
90=100
90=95
90=95
faces South Carolina DOT (2010).
100
75
90
70
Experimental Materials and Procedures
loss (%)
abrasion
≤30
≤30
≤45
≤45
≤45
≤50
≤40
≤40
LA
Xa
≥100
≥30
Materials
Three different crushed granite aggregate sources and one grada-
≥95b
TSR
≥80
≥80
≥80
≥80
(%)
Xc
≤30
≤30
≤40
(%)
dent that aggregates A and B have similar properties and are mined
from the same region. Aggregate C, while still crushed granite, has
The Mississippi design procedure requires the moisture susceptibility to be checked; no requirement is given for the value.
different properties than the other sources and is better suited for
Unaged abrasion
porous asphalt owing to its lower Los Angeles (LA) abrasion loss
The New Mexico TSR value is a static immersion moisture susceptibility test, not an indirect tensile strength ratio.
≤20
≤30
≤20
≤20
≤20
(%)
≤0.3
≤0.3
≤0.3
≤0.3
≤0.3
≤0.3
(%)
≥18
≥18
≥18
≥15
≥18
≥16
(%)
Air
5.8–6.8
content
≥6.0
(%)
6.5
X
X
X
X
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
contents
binder
3
3
4
Compacted Specimens
For this study, 30 specimens were compacted for each of the three
North Carolina DOT
New Mexico DOT
Tennessee DOT
Nebraska DOR
Virginia DOT
Georgia DOT
NAPA/NCAT
A 5∶1 ratio.
A 3∶1 ratio.
ing temperature was the same for all specimens (167 3°C). After
mixing, the loose mix was placed in a pan and conditioned in an
b
d
a
Fig. 2. Visual determination mix design image references for (a) too little binder; (b) just right amount of binder; (c) too much binder
(FDOT 2009)
Table 2. Properties of Aggregates Used to Produce Porous Asphalt to that of dense-graded mixtures for which the standard was
Mixtures in This Study originally developed. Preliminary testing revealed that the smaller
Property Aggregate A Aggregate B Aggregate C diameter standpipe did not allow for enough time for accurate
measurements of flow rate and the smaller diameter outlet appeared
Aggregate type Granite Granite Granite
to limit the flow of water through the permeameter when testing
Bulk specific gravity 2.66 2.64 2.62 specimens having high permeability values.
Bulkspecific gravity (SSD) 2.67 2.65 2.63
Apparent specific gravity 2.69 2.68 2.65 Oil Absorption
Absorption (%) 0.6 0.4 0.5 In these procedures, 100 g of the predominant aggregate size was
LA abrasion (%) 51 49 28 soaked in Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) No. 10 oil for
5 min. It was then drained for 2 min at room temperature and an
additional 15 min in a 60°C oven. The mass of the dry aggregate
Table 3. Aggregate Gradation Used to Produce Porous Asphalt Mixtures and the oil-soaked aggregate were recorded. After acquiring the
in This Study necessary data, the OBC was calculated using Eqs. (1)–(3) for
the FHWA method (FHWA 1990) while Eqs. (1) and (4) were used
Sieve % passing
to calculate the OBC for the Georgia DOT method (GDOT 2009).
19.0 mm (3=4 in) 100 It should be noted that the surface constant (K c1 ) in Eq. (3) was
12.5 mm (1=2 in) 94 calculated using Eq. (2) and the K c2 in Eq. (4) was determined from
9.5 mm (3=8 in) 63
Figure 114-1 in GDT-114 (GDOT 2009).
4.75 mm (No. 4) 17
2.36 mm (No. 8) 6 Gsa B − A
0.075 mm (No. 200) 1 Percent oil retained ðPORÞ ¼ × × 100 (1)
2.65 A
where Gsa = apparent specific gravityof the coarse aggregate;
oven at the compaction temperature (154 3°C) for 2 h A = mass of dry aggregate; and B = mass of oil-soaked aggregate.
before compacting using 50 gyrations of the gyratory compactor.
There were six specimens at each of five different binder contents, Surface constant ðK c1 Þ ¼ 0.1 þ 0.4ðPORÞ (2)
which ranged from 5 to 7% (by weight of mixture) in 0.5% incre-
ments. This covered the binder content range for most procedures; 2.65
OBC ¼ ð4 þ 2K c1 Þ × (3)
however, the Virginia DOT recommends a range of 5.75 to 7.25% Gsa
(VDOT 2007). Each specimen was tested to measure bulk specific
gravity and porosity (ASTM 2011a, D7063), permeability (modified
OBC ¼ 3.5 þ 2K c1 (4)
ASTM 2001, PS129), and unaged and aged abrasion loss (ASTM
2008b, D7064). Additionally, uncompacted specimens were pre-
pared to measure the maximum specific gravity (ASTM 2011b,
D2041), which was used to calculate the air voids, VMA, and Visual Determination
VFA for each specimen. Table 1 provides an overall summary The visual determination of OBC design procedures all have the
of the requirements of the 10 procedures in this category that were same general steps as described previously: An uncompacted speci-
used in this research. The TSR was not completed for this research men is placed in a clear glass container and conditioned for a period
as it is a check for stripping potential, not to determine the OBC. of time at a specified temperature. The two methods used in this
For the permeability testing, there were slight modifications study were those from the Florida DOT (FM 5-588) and South
made to the ASTM PS129 procedure. The first change was using Carolina DOT (SC-T-91). The major differences include binder
a 63.5-mm interior diameter standpipe instead of the specified grades and time and temperature of conditioning. For the Florida
31.8-mm interior diameter pipe to account for the high expected DOT procedure, loose mixture consisting of aggregate, fiber, and
permeability values. The outlet was also modified to a 50-mm in- binder (PG 67-22) is produced at different binder contents and
side diameter that was located below the bottom of the specimen. placed in a clear glass pie plate (225-mm diameter) and conditioned
These modifications were made to accommodate the extremely in an oven at 160°C for 1 h before inspection. For the South
high rates of permeability of the porous asphalt mixtures compared Carolina DOT procedure, loose mixture consisting of aggregate,
Fig. 9. Relationship between abrasion loss and binder content for compacted specimens in (a) unaged condition; (b) after aging
Table 4. Optimum Binder Contents Determined by Each Mix Design procedures yielded OBC ranges that did not encompass the OBCs
Procedure determined from the other two categories. In fact, in all but four of
Optimum binder content (%) those cases, the range from the compacted specimens was below
that of the oil absorption or visual determination. As previously
Category Procedure Aggregate A Aggregate B Aggregate C
discussed, this could potentially lead to performance issues related
Compacted ASTM 5.2–5.7 5.0 6.0 to raveling.
specimens NAPA 5.2–5.8 5.0 5.9–6.7
GDOT 7.0 5.0 7.0
NMDOT 6.5 6.5 6.5 Conclusions
NCDOT 5.2–5.7 5.0 6.0
MDOT 5.0–7.0 5.0–6.3 5.4–7.0 The objective of this research was to evaluate and compare the dif-
a a
MODOT 6.0–6.7
a ferent mix design procedures currently in use for porous asphalt
NDOR 5.8–6.2 6.3–6.8
TDOT 5.2–7.0 5.0–7.0 6.0–7.0 mixtures in the United States and to provide any guidance related
VDOT 5.2–6.6 5.0–5.8 6.0–7.0 to the advantages and disadvantages of different types of design
procedures. A survey of porous asphalt mix design procedures used
Oil absorption FHWA 5.8 6.1 6.0
in the United States revealed that there are many different mix
GDOT 5.4 5.7 5.5
design recommendations, but all of the procedures can be grouped
Visual SCDOT 6.2 6.0 6.5 into three categories: (1) those that base the OBC on the properties
determination FDOT 5.8 5.8 6.0 of compacted specimens; (2) those that calculate the OBC on the
a basis of the absorption capacity of the aggregate; and (3) those that
Did not meet the criteria in the range of binder contents evaluated.
determine the OBC on the basis of visual inspection of loose mix.
The OBCs determined from the 14 procedures evaluated
which the mix satisfies the criteria outlined in Table 1. In some showed variability between the different procedures for the same
cases, the range is approximately 0.5%, which will not likely result aggregate source. The largest variability came within the com-
in significant problems during either construction or performance. pacted specimens mix design category. For many of the procedures
However, there are some cases where the OBC range is 1% or in the compacted specimens category, the outcome was a range for
more. This could result in significant draindown issues or raveling the OBC. In some cases this range was as wide as the range of
issues, depending on which end of the range the designer selects binder contents evaluated in the procedure (5–7%). This does
for the job mix formula. Additionally, for aggregate B, four of the not provide any guidance to the designer as to what the OBC should
compacted specimens procedures resulted in an OBC of 5%, which be for a particular mixture. Additionally, in some cases the OBC
is very low for a porous asphalt mixture made with polymer was determined to be the lowest binder content evaluated in the
modified binder and fibers. Porous asphalt mixtures produced at range, which is likely too low to ensure long-term durability in
this low binder content could potentially result in accelerated aging the field as evidenced by the relatively high abrasion loss values
and raveling in the field. Furthermore, there were three cases where for mixtures containing lower binder contents. A contributing fac-
none of the binder content met the established criteria in Table 1. tor to these mix design methods resulting in a range of acceptable
The other two contents of mix design methods (oil absorption binder contents could be the variability in some of the test methods,
and visual determination) resulted in a single binder content for specifically, the Cantabro test.
each method as compared with a range. For the oil absorption An advantage of these types of methods is that they do evaluate
methods, the FHWA procedure resulted in a binder content that the performance properties (permeability and durability) of the
was approximately 0.5% higher than the GDOT procedure. Finally, mixtures at the different binder contents, which can provide valu-
the visual determination methods used resulted in binder contents able information to the informed designer.
that were generally higher than the oil absorption procedures, but The procedures in the other two categories (oil absorption and
not more than 0.5% higher. visual determination) resulted in a single value for OBC for each
By comparing the three different mix design categories, it can be procedure, which is an advantage depending on the experience of
seen that in almost half of the cases, the compacted specimens the designer. The OBC values from the oil absorption procedures
Recommendations
air voids of compacted bituminous paving mixture samples.” D7063,
On the basis of the results of this study, it is recommended that West Conshohocken, PA.
designers employ a visual determination procedure after proper ASTM. (2011b). “Standard test method for theoretical maximum specific
training to determine the OBC of porous asphalt mixtures. These gravity and density of bituminous paving mixtures.” D2041, West
Conshohocken, PA.
types of procedures are more repeatable than methods centered
Bean, E. Z., Hunt, W. F., and Bidelspach, D. A. (2007). “Field survey
around the use of test procedures that have a relatively high level
of permeable pavement surface infiltration rates.” J. Irrig. Drain Eng.,
of variability, such as the Cantabro test used in the compacted spec- 133(3), 249–255.
imens category. It should be noted, however, that the designers need Brattebo, B. O., and Booth, D. B. (2003). “Long-term stormwater quantity
to understand what they are looking for because of the subjectivity and quality performance of permeable pavement systems.” Water
of these procedures. This guidance, in the form of visual aids, is Resour., 37, 4369–4376.
typically provided in the specific procedures outlined by DOTs that Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (1990). “Open graded friction
specify this type of mix design method. courses.” T 5040.31, Washington, DC.
In addition to determining the OBC, it is recommended that the Florida Dept. of Transportation (FDOT). (2009). “Florida method of test
mixture properties are verified at the OBC. This should involve an for determining the optimum asphalt binder content of an open-graded
evaluation of the susceptibility of the mixture to moisture-induced friction course using the pie plate method.” FM 5-588, Gainesville, FL.
damage (or freeze-thaw resistance where necessary) and permeabil- Georgia Dept. of Transportation (GDOT). (2009). “Determining optimum
asphalt content for open-graded bituminous paving mixtures.” Atlanta.
ity. There are several methods to evaluate the moisture susceptibility
Kandhal, P. (2002). “Design, construction, and maintenance of open-
of a mixture, including boil tests and TSR of compacted specimens
graded asphalt friction courses.” Information Series 115, National
(similar to AASHTO 2011, T283). When evaluating the permeability Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD.
of a particular porous asphalt mix, the designer should understand Kandhal, P., and Mallick, R. (1998). “Open-graded friction course: State of
the permeability needs for the specific application for which the mix the practice.” Rep. No. E-C005, Transportation Research Board of the
will be used. For example, if the porous asphalt pavement will National Academies, Washington, DC.
receive runoff from adjacent impervious land cover (pavement, roof- Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KTC). (2008). “Method for designing
tops, etc.), the permeability will need to be high enough to accom- open-graded friction course mixtures.” KM 64-424, Frankfort, KY.
modate the infiltration requirements. However, if the porous asphalt Kline, L. C. (2010). “Comparison of open graded friction course mix de-
pavement will receive only rainfall and no additional runoff, then the sign methods currently used in the United States.” M.S. thesis, Clemson
permeability requirements for that particular mix can be reduced. Univ., Clemson, SC.
While it would be advantageous to evaluate the raveling suscep- Mallick, R., Kandhal, P., Cooley, L. A. Jr., and Watson, D. (2000). “Design,
tibility of the porous asphalt mixture at the OBC, studies need to be construction, and performance of new-generation open-graded friction
courses.” NCAT Rep. No. 00-01, National Center for Asphalt Technol-
completed to identify the best methods to evaluate raveling of these
ogy, Auburn, AL.
types of mixtures. Currently, the Cantabro abrasion test is used Mississippi Dept. of Transportation (MDOT). (2005). “Mix design of open
by some for this purpose, but it does not always give sufficient graded friction course hotmix asphalt.” MT-83, Jackson, MS.
guidance about durability as shown in this study and others Missouri Dept. of Transportation (MODOT). (2004). “Missouri standard
(Alvarez et al. 2010). specification book for highway construction.” Jefferson City, MO.
Nebraska Dept. of Roads (NDOR). (1997). “Standard specifications for
highway construction.” Lincoln, NE.
Acknowledgments New Mexico Dept. of Transportation (NMDOT). (2009). “New Mexico
Dept. of Transportation special provisions.” Santa Fe, NM.
The authors wish to acknowledge the South Carolina Department North Carolina Dept. of Transportation (NCDOT). (2009). “North Carolina
of Transportation for sponsoring this research. The input of all of test method for determining optimum asphalt content for open-graded
bituminous paving mixtures.” A-101, Raleigh, NC.
the survey respondents from state departments of transportation
Sansalone, J. J., and Buchberger, S. G. (1995).“An infiltration device for
was also greatly appreciated. a bestmanagement practices for immobilizing heavy metals in urban
highway runoff.” Water Sci. Tech., 32(1), 119–125.
South Carolina Dept. of Transportation (SCDOT). (2010). “Standard
References method of test for method of determining the optimum binder content
in an uncompactedbituminous mixture.” SCDOT Designation SC-T-91,
AASHTO. (2011). Standard specifications for transportation materials Columbia, SC.
and methods of sampling and testing, Washington, DC. Tennessee Dept. of Transportation (TDOT). (1995). “Tennessee Dept. of
Alabama Dept. of Transportation (ALDOT). (1999). “Open-graded Transportation specifications and procedures.” Nashville, TN.
asphalt concrete friction course design method.” ALDOT-259, Virginia Dept. of Transportation (VDOT). (2007). “Virginia Dept. of Trans-
Montgomery, AL. portation road and bridge specifications.” Richmond, VA.