Aci 8

Major Topics on this Page
8 PCC - ACI
METHOD
The American Concrete Institute (ACI) mix design
method is but one of many basic concrete mix
design methods available today. This section
summarizes the ACI absolute volume method
because it is widely accepted in the U.S. and
continually updated by the ACI. Keep in mind that
this summary and most methods designated as
"mix design" methods are really just mixture
proportioning methods. Mix design includes trial
mixture proportioning (covered here) plus
performance tests.
8.
1
Slump
8.
2
Maximum Aggregate Size
8.
3
Mixing Water and Air Content

Estimation
8.
4
Water-Cement Ratio
8.
5
Cement Content
8.
6
Coarse Aggregate Content
8.
7
Fine Aggregate Content
8.
8
Adjustments for Aggregate

Moisture
8.
9
Summary
This section is a general outline of the ACI proportioning method with specific
emphasis on PCC for pavements. It emphasizes general concepts and rationale
over specific procedures. Typical procedures are available in the following
documents:
The American Concrete Institute's (ACI) Standard Practice for Selecting

Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete (ACI 211.1-91)
as found in their ACI Manual of Concrete Practice 2000, Part 1: Materials
and General Properties of Concrete.
The Portland Cement Association's (PCA) Design and Control of Concrete

Mixtures, 14th edition (2002) or any earlier edition.
The standard ACI mix design procedure can be divided up into 8 basic steps:
1. Choice of slump
2. Maximum aggregate size selection
3. Mixing water and air content selection
4. Water-cement ratio
5. Cement content
6. Coarse aggregate content
7. Fine aggregate content
8. Adjustments for aggregate moisture
8.1 Slump
The choice of slump is actually a choice of mix workability. Workability can be
described as a combination of several different, but related, PCC properties related
to its rheology:
Ease of mixing
Ease of placing
Ease of compaction
Ease of finishing
Generally, mixes of the stiffest consistency that can still be placed adequately
should be used (ACI, 2000). Typically slump is specified, but Table 5.14 shows
general slump ranges for specific applications. Slump specifications are different for
fixed form paving and slip form paving. Table 5.15 shows typical and extreme state
DOT slump ranges.
Table 5.14: Slump Ranges for Specific Applications (after ACI, 2000)
Type of Construction
Slump
(mm)
(inches)
Reinforced foundation
walls and footings
25 - 75
1-3
Plain footings, caissons

and substructure walls
25 - 75
1-3
Beams and reinforced

walls
25 - 100
1-4
Building columns
25 - 100
1-4
Pavements and slabs
25 - 75
1-3
Mass concrete
25 - 50
1-2
Table 5.15: Typical State DOT Slump Specifications (data taken from ACPA,
2001)
Specifications
Fixed Form
Slip Form
(mm)
(inches)
(mm)
(inches)
Typical
25 - 75
1-3
0 - 75
0-3
Extremes
as low as
25
as high as
175
as low as 1 as low as 0 as low as 0

as high as as high as as high as
7
125
5
8.2 Maximum Aggregate Size

Maximum aggregate size will affect such PCC parameters as amount of cement paste,
workability and strength. In general, ACI recommends that maximum aggregate size
be limited to 1/3 of the slab depth and 3/4 of the minimum clear space between
reinforcing bars. Aggregate larger than these dimensions may be difficult to
consolidate and compact resulting in a honeycombed structure or large air pockets.
Pavement PCC maximum aggregate sizes are on the order of 25 mm (1 inch) to
37.5 mm (1.5 inches) (ACPA, 2001).
8.3 Mixing Water and Air Content

Estimation
Slump is dependent upon nominal maximum aggregate size, particle shape,
aggregate gradation, PCC temperature, the amount of entrained air and certain
chemical admixtures. It is not generally affected by the amount of cementitious
material. Therefore, ACI provides a table relating nominal maximum aggregate
size, air entrainment and desired slump to the desired mixing water quantity. Table
5.16 is a partial reproduction of ACI Table 6.3.3 (keep in mind that pavement PCC
is almost always air-entrained so air-entrained values are most appropriate).
Typically, state agencies specify between about 4 and 8 percent air by total volume
(based on data from ACPA, 2001).
Note that the use of water-reducing and/or set-controlling admixtures can
substantially reduce the amount of mixing water required to achieve a given slump.
Table 5.16: Approximate Mixing Water and Air Content Requirements
for Different Slumps and Maximum Aggregate Sizes (adapted from ACI,
2000)
Mixing Water Quantity in kg/m3 (lb/yd3) for the listed Nominal Maximum
Aggregate Size
Slump
9.5 mm
(0.375
in.)
12.5
mm
(0.5 in.)
19 mm
(0.75
in.)
25 mm
(1 in.)
37.5
mm
(1.5 in.)
50 mm
(2 in.)
75 mm
(3 in.)
100 mm
(4 in.)
Non-Air-Entrained PCC
25 - 50
(1 - 2)
207
(350)
199
(335)
190
(315)
179
(300)
166
(275)
154
(260)
130
(220)
113
(190)
75 - 100
(3 - 4)
228
(385)
216
(365)
205
(340)
193
(325)
181
(300)
169
(285)
145
(245)
124
(210)
150 - 175
(6 - 7)
243
(410)
228
(385)
216
(360)
202
(340)
190
(315)
178
(300)
160
(270)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
25 - 50
(1 - 2)
181
(305)
175
(295)
168
(280)
160
(270)
148
(250)
142
(240)
122
(205)
107
(180)
75 - 100
(3 - 4)
202
(340)
193
(325)
184
(305)
175
(295)
165
(275)
157
(265)
133
(225)
119
(200)
150 - 175
(6 - 7)
216
(365)
205
(345)
197
(325)
184
(310)
174
(290)
166
(280)
154
(260)
Typical entrapped air

(percent)
Air-Entrained PCC
Recommended Air Content (percent)
Mild Exposure
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Moderate Exposure
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Severe Exposure
7.5
7.0
6.0
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
8.4 Water-Cement Ratio

The water-cement ratio is a convenient measurement whose value is well correlated
with PCC strength and durability. In general, lower water-cement ratios produce
stronger, more durable PCC. If natural pozzolans are used in the mix (such as fly
ash) then the ratio becomes a water-cementitious material ratio (cementitious
material = portland cement + pozzolonic material). The ACI method bases the
water-cement ratio selection on desired compressive strength and then calculates the
required cement content based on the selected water-cement ratio. Table 5.17 is a
general estimate of 28-day compressive strength vs. water-cement ratio (or watercementitious ratio). Values in this table tend to be conservative (ACI, 2000). Most
state DOTs tend to set a maximum water-cement ratio between 0.40 - 0.50 (based
on data from ACPA, 2001).
Table 5.17: Water-Cement Ratio and Compressive Strength Relationship
(after ACI, 2000)
Water-cement ratio by
weight
28-Day
Compressive
Strength in MPa
(psi)
Non-AirEntrained
AirEntrained
41.4 (6000)
0.41
34.5 (5000)
0.48
0.40
27.6 (4000)
0.57
0.48
20.7 (3000)
0.68
0.59
13.8 (2000)
0.82
0.74
8.5 Cement Content

Cement content is determined by comparing the following two items:
The calculated amount based on the selected mixing water content and
water-cement ratio.
The specified minimum cement content, if applicable. Most state DOTs

specify minimum cement contents in the range of 300 - 360 kg/m3 (500
- 600 lbs/yd3).
An older practice used to be to specify the cement content in terms of the number
of 94 lb. sacks of portland cement per cubic yard of PCC. This resulted in
specifications such as a "6 sack mix" or a "5 sack mix". While these specifications
are quite logical to a small contractor or individual who buys portland cement in 94
lb. sacks, they do not have much meaning to the typical pavement contractor or
batching plant who buys portland cement in bulk. As such, specifying cement
content by the number of sacks should be avoided.
8.6 Coarse Aggregate Content

Selection of coarse aggregate content is empirically based on mixture workability.
ACI recommends the percentage (by unit volume) of coarse aggregate based on
nominal maximum aggregate size and fine aggregate fineness modulus. This
recommendation is based on empirical relationships to produce PCC with a degree
of workability suitable for usual reinforced construction (ACI, 2000). Since pavement
PCC should, in general, be more stiff and less workable, ACI allows increasing their
recommended values by up to about 10 percent. Table 5.18 shows ACI
recommended values.
Table 5.18: Volume of Coarse Aggregate per Unit Volume of PCC
for Different Fine aggregate Fineness Moduli for Pavement PCC (after ACI,
2000)
Nominal Maximum
Aggregate Size
Fine Aggregate Fineness

Modulus
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
9.5 mm (0.375
inches)
0.50
0.48
0.46
0.44
12.5 mm (0.5
inches)
0.59
0.57
0.55
0.53
19 mm (0.75 inches)
0.66
0.64
0.62
0.60
25 mm (1 inches)
0.71
0.69
0.67
0.65
37.5 mm (1.5
inches)
0.75
0.73
0.71
0.69
50 mm (2 inches)
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.72
Notes:
1. These values can be increased by up to about 10

percent for pavement applications.
2. Coarse aggregate volumes are based on ovendry-rodded weights obtained in accordance with
ASTM C 29.
8.7 Fine Aggregate Content

At this point, all other constituent volumes have been specified (water, portland
cement, air and coarse aggregate). Thus, the fine aggregate volume is just the
remaining volume:
Unit volume (1 m3 or yd3)

Volume of mixing water
Volume of air
Volume of portland cement
Volume of coarse aggregate
Volume of fine aggregate
8.8 Adjustments for Aggregate Moisture

Unlike HMA, PCC batching does not require dried aggregate. Therefore, aggregate
moisture content must be accounted for. Aggregate moisture affects the following
parameters:
1. Aggregate weights. Aggregate volumes are calculated based on oven
dry unit weights, but aggregate is typically batched based on actual
weight. Therefore, any moisture in the aggregate will increase its weight
and stockpiled aggregates almost always contain some moisture.
Without correcting for this, the batched aggregate volumes will be
incorrect.
2. Amount of mixing water. If the batched aggregate is anything but
saturated surface dry it will absorb water (if oven dry or air dry) or give
up water (if wet) to the cement paste. This causes a net change in the
amount of water available in the mix and must be compensated for by
adjusting the amount of mixing water added.
8.9 Summary
The ACI mix design method is one of many available methods. It has been
presented here to give a general idea of the types of calculations and decisions that
are typical in PCC mix design.
9 PCC - Testing
9.
1
Workability
When aggregate, water and portland cement paste

are combined to produce a homogenous substance,
9. Strength
that substance takes on new physical properties
2
that are related to but not identical to the physical
properties of its components. Thus, several
9. Durability
common mechanical laboratory tests are used to
3
characterize the basic mixture and predict mixture
properties. Unlike HMA, it is difficult to draw a
9. Early Age Behavior
clean distinction between characterization tests
4
and performance tests. Typically, PCC is
characterized by slump, air content and strength.
9. Summary
However, these characteristics can also be used as
5
performance predictors for workability, durability
and strength respectively. Therefore, this section
does not distinguish between mixture characterization tests and performance tests.
Whereas HMA tests are often scale simulations of actual field conditions (such as rut
tests), PCC tests are directed more at the basic physical properties of PCC as a
material.
The challenge in PCC testing is to develop physical tests that can satisfactorily
characterize key PCC performance parameters and the nature of their change
throughout the life of a pavement. These key parameters are:
Workability. This parameter, typically measured by slump, is indicative

of fresh concrete rheology.
Strength. This parameter is related to a rigid pavement's ability to

support loads. Flexural strength is commonly used in design and then
correlated to compressive strength for use in field tests.
Durability. Several tests can be conducted to determine susceptibility to

freeze-thaw or chemical attack damage.
Early age behavior. HIPERPAV, a software program, can be used to

predict early-age PCC behavior.
Although there are many different PCC tests, only those typically used on pavement
PCC are discussed in this Guide.
9.1 Workability
Workability is a general term used to describe the basic rheological aspects of fresh
PCC (e.g., PCC in a wet, plastic state). Workability is instrumental in the proper
placement and compaction of fresh PCC. In general, excessively stiff (or harsh)
fresh PCC can be difficult to place and compact resulting in large void spaces and a
honeycomb-like structure that can quickly fracture and disintegrate. This is
especially true in and around reinforcing steel. Pavement PCC, especially that used
for slip form paving, is usually quite stiff and must be vibrated into place.
Excessively fluid fresh PCC is easy to place but may not be able to hold the coarse
aggregate in place resulting in segregation and bleeding.
Slump Test
The slump test (see Figure 5.40) is the most common test for workability. The
slump test involves hand placing an amount of fresh concrete into a metal cone and
then measuring the distance the fresh PCC falls (or "slumps") when the cone is
removed.
The slump test is meant to be a basic comparative test. Variation in slump
measurement on the same PCC can be as much as 50 mm (2 inches). The
American Concrete Pavement Association (2001) says the following about slump:
"The bottom line is that the slump test is useful only as a comparative tool. If
changes in slump are greater than 2 inches on a given job, one can conclude that
there was likely a change in the mix. Variation in slump less than 2 inches is more
than likely from a combination of the testing and typical concrete variability. No
conclusion can be drawn from slump tests to the quality of the material. Strength
measurements must be used to indicate quality."
The standard slump test is:
AASHTO T 119, ASTM C 143: Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete
9.2 Strength
Strength is probably the most well-known PCC performance parameter.
Compressive and tensile strength are fundamental to any building material in order
to properly proportion and design structural items made from that material.
Although PCC is most often known for its compressive strength, it is typically its
tensile strength (or more exactly, its flexural strength) that governs its use in rigid
pavements. However, given the popularity and relative ease of the compressive
test, both tests are typically used in pavement applications. Strength concepts
covered are:
Compressive strength
Tensile strength (including splitting tension tests and flexural strength

tests)
A Note on Age vs. Strength

Since PCC continues to gain strength over time, it is important to specify a
particular age at which a certain strength is measured. Most often, 28-day strength
is specified although other strengths such as 1-day, 7-day and 90-day strength can
be used as well. For pavement applications, strength at a particular age is quite
important because typically, rigid pavements cannot be opened to traffic until the
PCC reaches a certain strength. Curing methods can play a major role in PCC strength
gain. Often, PCC maturity is used to estimate strength at a particular time.
9.2.1 Compressive Strength

PCC is most often known by its compressive strength. This is because PCC is much
stronger in compression than it is in tension and thus, is often used in
compression. The ACI Concrete Code gives some rough rules-of-thumb for
converting compressive strength to tensile and flexural strength:
Split Tensile Strength 6.7 f cFlexural Strength 7.5 f c

where:
f c = compressive
strength
Compressive strength is most often measured by forming 150 mm diameter, 300

mm long (6 inch diameter, 12 inches long) test cylinders and then breaking them at
a specified age (typically 28 days) although it can also be performed on specimens
of different sizes and origins (such as field cores or the remnants of a flexural test).
Some state agencies use compressive strength as a field quality assurance
measurement of a flexural strength specification. Flexural strength is first
correlated to compressive strength based on mix design test results. Then, using
this correlation, quality assurance field tests can use the easier and more widely
known compressive strength test, which can be converted back to flexural strength
through the previously determined correlations.
Most pavement PCC has a compressive strength between 20.68 and 34.47 MPa
(3000 and 5000 psi) (ACPA, 2001). High-strength PCC (usually defined as PCC with
a compressive strength of at least 41.37 MPa (6000 psi)) has been designed for
compressive strengths of over 137.90 MPa (20,000 psi) for use in building
applications.
The standard compression tests are:
AASHTO T 22 and ASTM C 39: Compressive Strength of Cylindrical

Concrete Specimens
AASHTO T 140 and ASTM C 116: Compressive Strength of Concrete

Using Portions of Beams Broken in Flexure
9.2.2 Tensile Strength

Although PCC is not nearly as strong in tension as it is in compression, PCC tensile
strength is important in pavement applications. Tensile strength is typically used as
a PCC performance measure for pavements because it best simulates tensile
stresses at the bottom of the PCC surface course as it is subjected to loading. These
stresses are typically the controlling structural design stresses. Tensile strength is
difficult to directly measure because of secondary stresses induced by gripping a
specimen so that it may be pulled apart. Therefore, tensile stresses are typically
measured indirectly by one of two means: a splitting tension test or a flexural
strength test.
9.2.2.1 Splitting Tension Test

A splitting tension test uses a standard 150 mm diameter, 300 mm long (6-inch
diameter, 12" long) test cylinder laid on its side. A diametral compressive load is
then applied along the length of the cylinder until it fails (see Figure 5.41).
Because PCC is much weaker in tension than compression, the cylinder will typically
fail due to horizontal tension and not vertical compression.
Figure 5.41: Split Tension Test (Click picture to animate)
The standard split tension test is:
AASHTO T 198 and ASTM C 496: Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical

Concrete Specimens
9.2.2.2 Flexural Strength Tests

Flexural strength (sometimes called the modulus of rupture) is typically used in PCC
mix design for pavements because it best simulates slab flexural stresses as they
are subjected to loading. Because the flexural test involves bending a beam
specimen, there will be some compression involved, and thus flexural strength will
generally be slightly higher than tensile strength measured using a split tension
test. Usually, mix designs are typically tested for both flexural and compressive
strength; they must meet a minimum flexural strength, which is then correlated to
measured compressive strengths so that compressive strength (an easier test) can
be used in field acceptance tests.
There are two basic flexural tests: the third-point loading (Figure 5.42) and the
center-point loading (Figure 5.43). For maximum aggregate sizes less than 50 mm (2
inches), each test is conducted on a 152 x 152 x 508 mm (6 x 6 x 20 inch) PCC
beam (see Figures 5.44 and 5.45). The beam is supported on each end and loaded
at its third points (for the third-point loading test) or at the middle (for the centerpoint loading test) until failure. The modulus of rupture is then calculated and
reported as the flexural strength. The third-point loading test is preferred because,
ideally, in the middle third of the span the sample is subjected to pure moment with
zero shear (Mindess and Young, 1981). In the center-point test, the area of
eventual failure contains not only moment induced stresses but also shear stress
and unknown areas of stress concentration. In general, the center-point loading
test gives results about 15 percent higher (ACPA, 2001).
Figure 5.44: Flexural Test

Beam
Figure 5.45: Casting Flexural

Beam Test Specimens in the
Field
The standard flexural strength test is:
AASHTO T 97 and ASTM C 78: Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using

Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading)
AASHTO T 177 and ASTM C 293: Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using

Simple Beam with Center-Point Loading)
9.3 Durability
Durability is a measure of how PCC performs over time. Durability is one factor in
PCC pavement performance. Typically, the two major factors that affect PCC
pavement durability are freeze-thaw cycles and chemical attack. Fortunately, steps
can be taken to mitigate these factors and tests are available to determine PCC
vulnerability to them.
9.3.1 Freeze-Thaw
Freeze-thaw resistance is important in order to avoid excessive cracking, scaling
and crumbling. As water freezes it increases in volume by about 9 percent. Thus,
as the water in PCC freezes and expands it exerts osmotic and hydraulic pressures
on capillaries and pores within the cement paste. If these pressures exceed the
tensile strength of the cement paste, the paste will dilate and rupture (PCA, 1988).
As this process repeats itself over a number of freeze-thaw cycles, the result can be
cracking, scaling and crumbling of the PCC mass.
In the late 1930s it was discovered that purposefully increasing PCC air content
(called "air entrainment") mitigates the effects of freeze-thaw damage. This occurs
because the greater air content provides extra void space within the PCC into which
the freezing water can expand. Thus, hydraulic and osmotic pressures on the
cement paste are minimized, which effectively prevents dilation and rupture. The
total air content of the mortar (cement paste + fine aggregate) required to give
optimum freeze-thaw protection is about 9 percent, which results in an air content
by volume of PCC of between 4 and 8 percent (Mindess and Young, 1981). In
addition to the total volume, the distribution of air within the cement paste is also
important for freeze-thaw resistance. A properly air-entrained PCC contains a
uniform dispersion of tiny bubbles throughout the cement paste. As these bubbles
get larger and farther apart, it becomes more difficult for the freezing water to
migrate through the cement paste into them. In general, the smaller the bubbles
and more uniform their distribution, the better. Actions such as excessive vibration
or pumping can adversely affect both total air volume and air distribution. Today,
most PCC for exterior use (this includes pavements) is entrained with air to mitigate
freeze-thaw effects.
9.3.1.1 Freeze-Thaw Test

Laboratory testing of PCC freeze-thaw
resistance involves subjecting a specimen
to a series of rapid freeze-thaw cycles, then
reporting a durability factor. First,
specimens are created such that they are
between 75 - 125 mm (3 - 5 inches) in
width and depth or diameter and between
280 - 400 mm (11 - 16 inches) long (see
Figure 5.46). Specimens are then
subjected to a number of freeze-thaw
cycles in the following manner (AASHTO,
2000a):
1.
2.
The temperature is alternately

lowered from 4.4C (40F) down to
-17.8C (0F) and then raised back to
4.4C (40F).
Figure 5.46: Beam Specimens for

Use in Freeze-Thaw Tests
Each of these cycles should take anywhere from 2 to 4 hours.

3. The specimen can be thawed in either water or air (the procedures are
slightly different).
4. Remove the specimen from the freeze-thaw apparatus at intervals not to

exceed 36 cycles and determine its dynamic modulus of elasticity and
length.
5. Cycles are continued until either of the following occur:
o
The specimen has been subjected to 300 freeze-thaw cycles.
The specimen dynamic modulus of elasticity reaches 60

percent of its initial value.
(Optional) the specimen has experienced a 0.10 percent

increase in length.
The durability factor is then calculated as:
DF
where:
P N
M
DF = durability factor
P = relative dynamic modulus of elasticity at N cycles (in
percent)
N = number of cycles at which P reaches the specified
minimum value for discontinuing the test (usually 60
percent) or the specified number of cycles at which
the test is to be terminated (usually 300 cycles),
which ever is less
M = specified number of cycles at which the exposure is
to be terminated (usually 300)
Typically, a DF < 40 indicates a PCC that may have poor freeze-thaw resistance,
while a DF > 60 indicates a PCC that has good freeze-thaw resistance (Mindess and
Young, 1981). However, there are several limitations to this test. First, it uses 2 4 hour freeze-thaw cycles, which are much more rapid than will be experienced in
the field. ASTM C 671 solves this issue by using only one freeze-thaw cycle every 2
weeks. Second, even though these cycles are rapid when compared to field
conditions, the test can take between 600 and 1200 hours to complete (if the full
300 cycles are tested).
Standard freeze-thaw tests are:
AASHTO T 161 and ASTM C 666: Resistance of Concrete to Rapid

Freezing and Thawing
AASHTO T 121: Mass Per Cubic Meter (Cubic Foot), Yield, and Air
Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete
ASTM C 671: Critical Dilation of Concrete

Specimens Subjected to Freezing
9.3.1.2 Air Content Tests

Although it is actually the air content within the
mortar (cement paste + fine aggregate) that is of
concern, cement paste air content is usually what is
measured. This air content can be measured in
several ways, the most common of which is the
pressure method. Using the pressure method, a
sample of fresh PCC is placed in a pressure vessel
(see Figure 5.47). The remaining volume of the
vessel is filled with water and then the vessel is
pressurized. The water level is read once, then the
vessel is depressurized and the water level is read
again. Finally, using Boyle's law (The principle that
at a constant temperature the volume of a confined
ideal gas varies inversely with its pressure) the
difference in water levels (which corresponds to a
volume) is converted into a volume of air.
Figure 5.47: Pressure

Vessel for Measuring Air
Content
Standard air content tests are:
AASHTO T 152 and ASTM C 231: Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete
by the Pressure Method
AASHTO T 196 and ASTM C 173: Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete
by the Volumetric Method
AASHTO T 199: Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Chace

Indicator
ASTM C 138: Air Content (Gravimetric), Unit Weight and Yield of

Concrete
9.3.2 Chemical Attack

PCC can deteriorate over time due to its interaction with various chemicals.
Chlorides are of the greatest concern for pavement PCC because they are often
contained in deicing compounds. Chloride ions can corrode steel components within
PCC such as reinforcing steel or dowel bars. One standard test used for pavement
PCC (AASHTO T 259) is described here. In this test, multiple slabs of at least 75
mm (3 inches) thick and 300 mm (12 inches) square are formed then abraded
using grinding or sandblasting in order to simulate vehicular wear. Small dams are
then built around all but one slab (designated the control slab) and subjected to
continuous ponding of a 3 percent sodium chloride (NaCl) solution to a depth of 13
mm (0.5 inches) for 90 days. After 90 days the NaCl solution is removed and the
slabs are wire brushed to remove any salt buildup. Slab samples are then taken
and measured for chloride ion content at two depths:
1.6 mm (0.0625 inches) - 13 mm (0.5 inches)
13 mm (0.5 inches) to 25 mm (1.0 inches)
These chloride ion concentrations are compared to the average chloride ion
concentration of the control slab to determine the amount and extent of chloride ion
penetration. Critical chloride ion concentrations for reinforcing steel corrosion are
on the order of 0.6 - 1.2 kg Cl-/m3 (1.0 - 2.0 lb Cl-/yd3) of PCC.
Although sulfate attack is a PCC concern, it is generally not an issue in PCC
pavement.
Some standard tests for chemical attack are:
AASHTO T 259: Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration
AASHTO T 277 and ASTM C 1202: Electrical Indication of Concrete's

Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration
AASHTO T 303 and ASTM C 227: Accelerated Detection of Potentially

Deleterious Expansion of Mortar Bars Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction
9.4 Early Age Behavior (from Transtec, 2002)

The service life of PCC pavements is highly dependent upon their early-age
behavior. Rigid pavements are significantly affected by temperature and moisture
changes during the first 72 hours following placement. Stresses in the PCC build up
primarily due to the combined effects of curling and warping and restraint to axial
movements at the slab-subbase interface. These stresses may be of sufficient
magnitude to cause cracking because PCC strength is relatively low during this earlyage period (see Figures 5.48 and 5.49). Pavement stresses during this time are
extremely important to long term pavement performance.
The FHWA and the Transtec Group, Inc. have produced a software package, termed
HIgh PERformance PAVing (HIPERPAV), that is capable of assessing the influence of
mix design, structural design, construction methods and environmental conditions on the
early-age behavior of rigid pavements. HIPERPAV was originally produced for an
FHWA study of fast-track rigid pavements. The goal of this project was to develop
high early strength rigid pavements that could be rapidly opened to traffic upon
construction completion. What this project discovered was that rapid-setting high
early strength PCC created a new set of concerns including: uncontrolled slab cracking,
spalling and excessive plastic shrinkage. HIPERPAV addresses these issues and
others by modeling early-age PCC pavement performance (see Figure 5.50).
Figure 5.48: PCC Early Age Crack in

Palmdale, CA
Figure 5.49: Close-Up of Early Age

Crack
Figure 5.50: One Output of HIPERPAV Showing Early Age Tensile Strength
vs. Time
(screen shot courtesy of Transtec Group, Inc.)
9.5 Summary
All pavements can be described by their fundamental characteristics and
performance. Thus, PCC tests are an integral part of mix design because they can
describe PCC characteristics and provide the means to relate mix design to intended
performance. Typically, PCC performance tests concentrate on basic physical
properties such as strength and durability. Early age behavior modeling can also be
beneficial in predicting early strength gain, excessive plastic shrinkage, cracking
and spalling. PCC performance modeling provides the crucial link between
laboratory mix proportioning and field
performance.
7 PCC - Fundamentals
PCC consists of three basic ingredients: aggregate,
water and portland cement. According to the Portland
Cement Association (PCA, 1988):
"The objective in designing concrete mixtures is to
determine the most economical and practical
combination of readily available materials to
produce a concrete that will satisfy the
performance requirements under particular
conditions of use."
7.
1
Concepts
7.
2
Variables
7.
3
Objectives
7.
4
Basic Procedure
7.
5
Summary
PCC mix design has evolved chiefly through experience and well-documented
empirical relationships. Normally, the mix design procedure involves two basic
steps:
1. Mix proportioning. This step uses the desired PCC properties as inputs
then determines the required materials and proportions based on a
combination of empirical relationships and local experience. There are
many different PCC proportioning methods of varying complexity that
work reasonably well.
2. Mix testing. Trial mixes are then evaluated and characterized by
subjecting them to several laboratory tests. Although these
characterizations are not comprehensive, they can give the mix designer
a good understanding of how a particular mix will perform in the field
during construction and under subsequent traffic loading.
This section covers mix design fundamentals common to all PCC mix design
methods. First, two basic concepts (mix design as a simulation and weight-volume
terms and relationships) are discussed to set a framework for subsequent
discussion. Second, the variables that mix design may manipulate are presented.
Third, the fundamental objectives of mix design are presented. Finally, a generic
mix design procedure is presented.
7.1 Concepts
Before discussing any mix design specifics, it is important to understand a couple of
basic mix design concepts:
Mix design is a simulation
Weight-volume terms and relationships
7.1.1 Mix Design is a Simulation

First, and foremost, mix design is a laboratory simulation. Mix design is meant to
simulate actual PCC manufacturing, construction and performance. Then, from this
simulation we can predict (with reasonable certainty) what type of mix design is
best for the particular application in question and how it will perform.
Being a simulation, mix design has its limitations. Specifically, there are substantial
differences between laboratory and field conditions. For instance, mix testing is
generally done on small samples that are cured in carefully controlled conditions.
These values are then used to draw conclusions about how a mix will behave under
field conditions. Despite such limitations mix design procedures can provide a cost
effective and reasonably accurate simulation that is useful in making mix design
decisions.
7.1.2 Weight-Volume Terms and Relationships

The more accurate mix design methods are volumetric in nature. That is, they seek
to combine the PCC constituents on a volume basis (as opposed to a weight basis).
Volume measurements are usually made indirectly by determining a material's
weight and specific gravity and then calculating its volume. Therefore, mix design
involves several key aggregate specific gravity measurements.
7.2 Variables
PCC is a complex material formed from some very basic ingredients. When used in
pavement, this material has several desired performance characteristics - some of
which are in direct conflict with one another. PCC pavements must resist
deformation, crack in a controlled manner, be durable over time, resist water
damage, provide a good tractive surface, and yet be inexpensive, readily made and
easily placed. In order to meet these demands, mix design can manipulate the
following variables:
1. Aggregate. Items such as type (source), amount, gradation and size,

toughness and abrasion resistance, durability and soundness, shape and
texture as well as cleanliness can be measured, judged and altered to
some degree.
2. Portland cement. Items such as type, amount, fineness, soundness,
hydration rate and additives can be measured, judged and altered to
some degree.
3. Water. Typically the volume and cleanliness of water are of concern.
Specifically, the volume of water in relation to the volume of portland
cement, called the water-cement ratio, is of primary concern. Usually
expressed as a decimal (e.g., 0.35), the water-cement ratio has a major
effect on PCC strength and durability.
4. Admixtures. Items added to PCC other than portland cement, water and
aggregate. Admixtures can be added before, during or after mixing and
are used to alter basic PCC properties such as air content, water-cement
ratio, workability, set time, bonding ability, coloring and strength.
7.3 Objectives
By manipulating the mixture variables of aggregate, portland cement, water and
admixtures, mix design seeks to achieve the following qualities in the final PCC
product (Mindess and Young, 1981):
1. Strength. PCC should be strong enough to support expected traffic
loading. In pavement applications, flexural strength is typically more
important than compressive strength (although both are important) since
the controlling PCC slab stresses are caused by bending and not
compression. In its most basic sense, strength is related to the degree
to which the portland cement has hydrated. This degree of hydration is,
in turn, related to one or more of the following:
o
Water-cement ratio. The strength of PCC is most directly

related to its capillary porosity. The capillary porosity of a
properly compacted PCC is determined by its water-cement
ratio (Mindess and Young, 1981). Thus, the water-cement
ratio is an easily measurable PCC property that gives a good
estimate of capillary porosity and thus, strength. The lower
the water-cement ratio, the fewer capillary pores and thus,
the higher the strength. Specifications typically include a
maximum water-cement ratio as a strength control measure.
Entrained air (air voids). At a constant water-cement ratio, as

the amount of entrained air (by volume of the total mixture)
increases, the voids-cement ratio (voids = air + water)

decreases. This generally results in a strength reduction.
However, air-entrained PCC can have a lower water-cement
ratio than non-air-entrained PCC and still provide adequate
workability. Thus, the strength reduction associated with a
higher air content can be offset by using a lower watercement ratio. For moderate-strength concrete (as is used in
rigid pavements) each percentile of entrained air can reduce
the compressive strength by about 2 - 6 percent (PCA, 1988).
o
Cement properties. Properties of the portland cement such as

fineness and chemical composition can affect strength and the
rate of strength gain. Typically, the type of portland cement is
specified in order to control its properties.
2. Controlled shrinkage cracking. Shrinkage cracking should occur in a

controlled manner. Although construction techniques such as joints and
reinforcing steel help control shrinkage cracking, some mix design
elements influence the amount of PCC shrinkage. Chiefly, the amount of
moisture and the rate of its use/loss will affect shrinkage and shrinkage
cracking. Therefore, factors such as high water-cement ratios and the
use of high early strength portland cement types and admixtures can
result in excessive and/or uncontrolled shrinkage cracking.
3. Durability. PCC should not suffer excessive damage due to chemical or
physical attacks during its service life. As opposed to HMA durability,
which is mainly concerned with aging effects, PCC durability is mainly
concerned with specific chemical and environmental conditions that can
potentially degrade PCC performance. Durability is related to:
o
Porosity (water-cement ratio). As the porosity of PCC

decreases it becomes more impermeable. Permeability
determines a PCC's susceptibility to any number of durability
problems because it controls the rate and entry of moisture
that may contain aggressive chemicals and the movement of
water during heating or freezing (Mindess and Young, 1981).
The water-cement ratio is the single most determining factor
in a PCC's porosity. The higher the water-cement ratio, the
higher the porosity. In order to limit PCC porosity, many
agencies specify a maximum allowable water-cement ratio.
Entrained Air (Air voids). Related to porosity, entrained air is

important in controlling the effects of freeze-thaw cycles.
Upon freezing, water expands by about 9 percent. Therefore,
if the small capillaries within PCC are more than 91 percent
filled with water, freezing will cause hydraulic pressures that
may rupture the surrounding PCC. Additionally, freezing water
will attract other unfrozen water through osmosis (PCA,
1988). Entrained air voids act as expansion chambers for
freezing and migrating water and thus, specifying a minimum

entrained air content can minimize freeze-thaw damage.
o
Chemical environment. Certain chemicals such as sulfates,

acids, bases and chloride salts are especially damaging to
PCC. Mix design can mitigate their damaging effects through
such things as choosing a more resistant cement type.
4. Skid resistance. PCC placed as a surface course should provide

sufficient friction when in contact with a vehicle's tire. In mix design, low
skid resistance is generally related to aggregate characteristics such as
texture, shape, size and resistance to polish. Smooth, rounded or
polish-susceptible aggregates are less skid resistant. Tests for particle
shape and texture can identify problem aggregate sources. These
sources can be avoided, or at a minimum, aggregate with good surface
and abrasion characteristics can be blended in to provide better overall
characteristics.
5. Workability. PCC must be capable of being placed, compacted and
finished with reasonable effort. The slump test, a relative measurement
of concrete consistency, is the most common method used to quantify
workability. Workability is generally related to one or more of the
following:
o
Water content. Water works as a lubricant between the

particles within PCC. Therefore, low water content reduces
this lubrication and makes for a less workable mix. Note that
a higher water content is generally good for workability but
generally bad for strength and durability, and may cause
segregation and bleeding. Where necessary, workability
should be improved by redesigning the mix to increase the
paste content (water + portland cement) rather than by
simply adding more water or fine material (Mindess and
Young, 1981).
Aggregate proportion. Large amounts of aggregate in relation

to the cement paste will decrease workability. Essentially, if
the aggregate portion is large then the corresponding water
and cement portions must be small. Thus, the same problems
and remedies for "water content" above apply.
Aggregate texture, shape and size. Flat, elongated or angular

particles tend to interlock rather than slip by one another
making placement and compaction more difficult. Tests for
particle shape and texture can identify possible workability
problems.
Aggregate gradation. Gradations deficient in fines make for

less workable mixes. In general, fine aggregates act as
lubricating "ball bearings" in the mix. Gradation specifications

are used to ensure acceptable aggregate gradation.
o
Aggregate porosity. Highly porous aggregate will absorb a

high amount of water leaving less available for lubrication.
Thus, mix design usually corrects for the anticipated amount
of absorbed water by the aggregate.
Air content. Air also works as a lubricant between aggregate

particles. Therefore, low air content reduces this lubrication
and makes for a less workable mix. A volume of air-entrained
PCC requires less water than an equal volume of non-airentrained PCC of the same slump and maximum aggregate
size (PCA, 1988).
Cement properties. Portland cements with higher amounts of

C3S and C3A will hydrate quicker and lose workability faster.
Knowing these objectives, the challenge in mix design is then to develop a

relatively simple procedure with a minimal amount of tests and samples that will
produce a mix with all the qualities discussed above.
7.4 Basic Procedure

In order to meet the requirements established by the preceding desirable PCC
properties, all mix design processes involve four basic processes:
1. Aggregate selection. No matter the specific method, the overall mix
design procedure begins with evaluation and selection of aggregate and
asphalt binder sources. Different authorities specify different methods of
aggregate acceptance. Typically, a battery of aggregate physical tests is
run periodically on each particular aggregate source. Then, for each mix
design, gradation and size requirements are checked. Normally,
aggregate from more than one source is required to meet gradation
requirements.
2. Portland cement selection. Typically, a type and amount of portland
cement is selected based on past experience and empirical relationships
with such factors as compressive strength (at a given age), watercement ratio and chemical susceptibility.
3. Mix proportioning. A PCC mixture can be proportioned using experience
or a generic procedure (such as ACI 211.1).
4. Testing. Run laboratory tests on properly prepared samples to
determine key mixture characteristics. It is important to understand that
these tests are not comprehensive nor are they exact reproductions of
actual field conditions.
The selected PCC mixture should be the one that, based on test results, best
satisfies the mix design objectives.
7.5 Summary
PCC mix design is a laboratory process used to determine appropriate proportions
and types of aggregate, portland cement, water and admixtures that will produce
desired PCC properties. Typical desired properties in PCC for pavement are
adequate strength, controlled shrinkage, durability, skid resistance and workability.
Although mix design has many limitations it had proven to be a cost-effective
simulation that is able to provide crucial information that can be used to formulate
a high-performance PCC.
6 HMA - Testing
When aggregate and asphalt binder are combined to
produce a homogenous substance, that substance,
HMA, takes on new physical properties that are
related to but not identical to the physical
properties of its components. Mechanical
laboratory tests can be used to characterize the
basic mixture or predict mixture properties.
6.
1
Mixture Characterization
Tests
6.
2
Performance Tests
6.
3
Summary
6.1 Mixture Characterization Tests

Mixture characterization tests are used to describe fundamental mixture parameters
such as density and asphalt binder content. The three primary mixture
characterization tests discussed here are:
Bulk specific gravity
Theoretical maximum specific gravity
Asphalt content/gradation
6.1.1 Bulk Specific Gravity

Bulk specific gravity is essentially the density of a compacted (laboratory or field) HMA
specimen. The bulk specific gravity is a critical HMA characteristic because it is
used to calculate most other HMA parameters including air voids, VMA, and TMD.
This reliance on bulk specific gravity is because mix design is based on volume,
which is indirectly determined using mass and specific gravity. Bulk specific gravity
is calculated as:
Specific Gravity
Mass
Volume
There are several different ways to measure bulk specific gravity, all of which use
slightly different ways to determine specimen volume:
1. Water displacement methods. These methods, based on Archimedes
Principle, calculate specimen volume by weighing the specimen (1) in a
water bath and (2) out of the water bath. The difference in weights can
then be used to calculate the weight of water displaced, which can be
converted to a volume using the specific gravity of water.
o
Saturated Surface Dry (SSD). The most common method,

calculates the specimen volume by subtracting the mass of
the specimen in water from the mass of a saturated surface
dry (SSD) specimen. SSD is defined as the specimen
condition when the internal air voids are filled with water and
the surface (including air voids connected to the surface) is
dry. This SSD condition allows for internal air voids to be
counted as part of the specimen volume and is achieved by
soaking the specimen in a water bath for 4 minutes then
removing it and quickly blotting it dry with a damp towel.
One critical problem with this method is that if a
specimen's air voids are high, and thus potentially
interconnected (for dense-graded HMA this occurs at
about 8 to 10 percent air voids), water quickly drains
out of them as the specimen is removed from its water
bath, which results in an erroneously low volume
measurement and thus an erroneously high bulk
specific gravity.
Paraffin. This method determines volume similarly to the

water displacement method but uses a melted paraffin wax
instead of water to fill a specimen's internal air voids (see
Figure 5.15). Therefore, after the wax sets there is no
possibility of it draining out and, theoretically, a more accurate
volume can be calculated. In practice, the paraffin is difficult
to correctly apply and test results are somewhat inconsistent.
Figure 5.15: Paraffin Coated Sample

o
Parafilm. This method wraps the specimen in a thin paraffin

film (see Figure 5.16) and then weighs the specimen in and
out of water. Since the specimen is completely wrapped when
it is submerged, no water can get into it and a more accurate
volume measurement is theoretically possible. However, in
practice the paraffin film application is quite difficult and test
results are inconsistent.
Figure 5.16: Parafilm Application

o
CoreLok. This method calculates specimen volume like the

parafilm method but uses a vacuum chamber (see Figure
5.17) to shrink-wrap the specimen in a high-quality plastic bag
(see Figure 5.18) rather than cover it in a paraffin film. This
method has shown some promise in both accuracy and

precision.
Figure 5.17: CoreLok Vacuum

Chamber
Figure 5.18: CoreLok Specimen
Figure 5.19:Gamma Ray Device

2. Dimensional. This method, the simplest, calculates the volume based on
height and diameter/width measurements. Although it avoids problems
associated with the SSD condition, it is often inaccurate because it
assumes a perfectly smooth surface thereby ignoring surface
irregularities (i.e., the rough surface texture of a typical specimen).
3.
Gamma ray. The gamma ray method is based on the scattering and
absorption properties of gamma rays with matter. When a gamma ray source of
primary energy in the Compton range is placed near a material, and an energy
selective gamma ray detector is used for gamma ray counting, the scattered
and unscattered gamma rays with energies in the Compton range can be
counted exclusively. With proper calibration, the gamma ray count is directly
converted to the density or bulk specific gravity of the material (Troxler, 2001).
Figure 5.19 shows the Troxler device.
The standard bulk specific gravity test is:
AASHTO T 166: Bulk Specific Gravity of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures

Using Saturated Surface-Dry Specimens (this is the SSD water
displacement method discussed previously)
6.1.2 Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity

The theoretical maximum specific gravity (often referred to as theoretical maximum
density and thus abbreviated TMD) is the HMA density excluding air voids. Thus,
theoretically, if all the air voids were eliminated from an HMA sample, the combined
density of the remaining aggregate and asphalt binder would be the TMD - often
referred to as Rice density after its inventor. TMD is a critical HMA characteristic
because it is used to calculate percent air voids in compacted HMA and provide
target values for HMA compaction.
TMD is determined by taking a sample of oven-dry HMA in loose condition (versus
compacted condition), weighing it and then completely submerging it in a 25C
water bath. A vacuum is then applied for 15 minutes (see Figure 5.20) to remove
any entrapped air. The sample volume is then calculated by subtracting its mass in
water from its dry mass. The formula for calculating TMD is:
TMD
where
:
A
AC
TMD = theoretical maximum density
A = mass of oven dry sample in air in grams

C = mass of water displaced by sample at
25C in grams
Figure 5.20: Containers Used to Agitate and Draw a Vacuum on Submerged

TMD Samples
The standard TMD test is:
AASHTO T 209 and ASTM D 2041: Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity
and Density of Bituminous Paving Mixtures
6.1.3 Asphalt Binder Content and Gradation

The asphalt content and gradation test can be used for HMA quality control, acceptance
or forensic analysis. The three major test methods, solvent extraction, nuclear and
ignition furnace are discussed here. Each method offers a way to determine asphalt
content and aggregate gradation from an HMA sample.
6.1.3.1 Solvent Extraction

Solvent extraction, the oldest of the three test methods, uses a chemical solvent
(trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane or methylene chloride) to remove the
asphalt binder from the aggregate. Typically, a loose HMA sample is weighed and
then a solvent is added to disintegrate the sample. The asphalt binder/solvent and
aggregate are then separated using a centrifuge (see Figures 5.21 and 5.22) and
the aggregate is weighed. The initial and final weights are compared and the
difference is assumed to be the asphalt binder weight. Using this weight and the
weight of the original sample a percent asphalt binder by weight can be calculated.
A gradation test can then be run on the aggregate to determine gradation.
Today, the solvent extraction method is only sparingly used due to the hazardous
nature of the specified solvents.
Figure 5.21: Open Centrifuge Used

in
Solvent Extraction
Figure 5.22: Secondary Centrifuge

Used in Solvent Extraction
The standard solvent extraction test is:
AASHTO T 164 and ASTM D 2172: Quantitative Extraction of Bitumen

from Bituminous Paving Mixtures
6.1.3.2 Nuclear Asphalt Content Gauge

A nuclear asphalt content gauge (see Figure 5.23) measures asphalt content by
estimating the actual number of hydrogen atoms contained within a sample.
Similar in theory to a nuclear moisture content gauge used in construction, the
nuclear asphalt content gauge uses a neutron source (such as a 100 Ci specimen
of Californium-252) to emit high energy, fast neutrons, which then collide with
various nuclei in the sample. Due to momentum conservation, those neutrons that
collide with hydrogen nuclei slow down much quicker than those that collide with
other, larger nuclei. The gauge detector counts only thermal (low energy) or
slow neutrons thereby making the detector count proportional to the number of
hydrogen atoms in the sample. Since asphalt is a hydrocarbon, the more hydrogen
atoms, the more asphalt. A calibration factor is used to relate thermal neutron
count to actual asphalt content.
The nuclear asphalt content gauge offers a relatively quick (4 to 16 minutes
depending upon desired accuracy) method for measuring asphalt content. Since
the gauge actually measures hydrogen nuclei and then correlates their number with
asphalt content, anything affecting the number of hydrogen nuclei in the sample
can be a potential source of error. Because water contains a significant amount of
hydrogen (H2O), anything that adds moisture to the sample (e.g., moisture in the
aggregate pores) is a potential error source (Black, 1994).
Figure 5.23: Nuclear Asphalt Content Gauge
Figure 5.24: Ignition Furnace
6.1.3.3 Ignition Furnace

The ignition furnace test, developed by NCAT to replace the solvent extraction
method, determines asphalt binder content by burning off the asphalt binder of a
loose HMA sample. Basically, an HMA sample is weighed and then placed in a
538C (1072F) furnace (see Figure 5.24) and ignited. Once all the asphalt
binder has burned off (determined by a change in mass of less than 0.01 percent
over 3 consecutive minutes), the remaining aggregate is weighed. The initial and
final weights are compared and the difference is assumed to be the asphalt binder
weight. Using this weight and the weight of the original sample, a percent asphalt
binder by weight can be calculated. A gradation test can then be run on the aggregate
to determine gradation.
A correction factor must be used with the ignition furnace because a certain amount
of aggregate fines may be burned off during the ignition process. The correction
factor is determined by placing a sample of known asphalt binder content in the
furnace and comparing the test result with the known asphalt binder content.
Based on a limited National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) study (Prowell,
2002), both traditional and infrared ignition furnaces, if properly calibrated, should
produce statistically similar asphalt contents and recovered aggregate gradations.
The standard ignition furnace test is:
AASHTO T 308: Determining the Asphalt Binder Content of Hot Mix

Asphalt (HMA) by the Ignition Method
6.2 Performance Tests

Performance tests are used to relate laboratory mix design to actual field
performance. The Hveem (stabilometer) and Marshall (stability and flow) mix design
methods use only one or two basic performance tests. Superpave is intended to use
a better and more fundamental performance test. However, performance testing is
the one area of Superpave yet to be implemented. The performance tests
discussed in this section are used by various researchers and organizations to
supplement existing Hveem and Marshall tests and as a substitute for the
Superpave performance test until it is finalized. This section focuses on laboratory
tests; in-place field tests are discussed in Module 9, Pavement Evaluation.
As with asphalt binder characterization, the challenge in HMA performance testing is
to develop physical tests that can satisfactorily characterize key HMA performance
parameters and how these parameters change throughout the life of a pavement.
These key parameters are:
Deformation resistance (rutting). A key performance parameter that can

depend largely on HMA mix design. Therefore, most performance test
efforts are concentrated on deformation resistance prediction.
Fatigue life. A key performance parameter that depends more on

structural design and subgrade support than mix design. Those HMA
properties that can influence cracking are largely tested for in Superpave
asphalt binder physical tests. Therefore, there is generally less attention
paid to developing fatigue life performance tests.
Tensile strength. Tensile strength can be related to HMA cracking especially at low temperatures. Those HMA properties that can influence
low temperature cracking are largely tested for in Superpave asphalt
binder physical tests. Therefore, there is generally less attention paid to

developing tensile strength performance tests.
Stiffness. HMA's stress-strain relationship, as characterized by elastic or

resilient modulus, is an important characteristic. Although the elastic
modulus of various HMA mix types is rather well-defined, tests can
determine how elastic and resilient modulus varies with temperature.
Also, many deformation resistance tests can also determine elastic or
resilient modulus.
Moisture susceptibility. Certain combinations of aggregate and asphalt

binder can be susceptible to moisture damage. Several deformation
resistance and tensile strength tests can be used to evaluate the
moisture susceptibility of a HMA mixture.
6.2.1 Permanent Deformation (Rutting)

Research is ongoing into what type of test can most accurately predict HMA
pavement deformation (rutting) There methods currently in use can be broadly
categorized as follows:
Static creep tests. Apply a static load to a sample and measure how it
recovers when the load is removed. Although these tests measure a
specimen's permanent deformation, test results generally do not
correlate will with actual in-service pavement rutting measurements.
Repeated load tests. Apply a repeated load at a constant frequency to a

test specimen for many repetitions (often in excess of 1,000) and
measure the specimen's recoverable strain and permanent deformation.
Test results correlate with in-service pavement rutting measurements
better than static creep test results.
Dynamic modulus tests. Apply a repeated load at varying frequencies to

a test specimen over a relatively short period of time and measure the
specimen's recoverable strain and permanent deformation. Some
dynamic modulus tests are also able to measure the lag between the
peak applied stress and the peak resultant strain, which provides insight
into a material's viscous properties. Test results correlate reasonably
well with in-service pavement rutting measurements but the test is
somewhat involved and difficult to run.
Empirical tests. Traditional Hveem and Marshall mix design tests. Test
results can correlate well with in-service pavement rutting
measurements but these tests do not measure any fundamental material
parameter.
Simulative tests. Laboratory wheel-tracking devices. Test results can

correlate well with in-service pavement rutting measurements but these
tests do not measure any fundamental material parameter.
Each test has been used to successfully predict HMA permanent deformation
characteristics however each test has limitations related to equipment complexity,
expense, time, variability and relation to fundamental material parameters.
6.2.1.1 Static Creep Tests

A static creep test (see Figure 5.25) is conducted by applying a static load to an
HMA specimen and then measuring the specimen's permanent deformation after
unloading (see Figure 5.26). This observed permanent deformation is then
correlated with rutting potential. A large amount of permanent deformation would
correlate to higher rutting potential.
Creep tests have been widely used in the past because of their relative simplicity
and availability of equipment. However, static creep test results do not correlate
well with actual in-service pavement rutting (Brown et al., 2001).
Figure 5.25: Unconfined

Static Creep Test
Figure 5.26: Static Creep Test Plot
Unconfined Static Creep Test

The most popular static creep test, the unconfined static creep test (also known as
the simple creep test or uniaxial creep test), is inexpensive and relatively easy. The
test consists of a static axial stress of 100 kPa (14.5 psi) being applied to a
specimen for a period of 1 hour at a temperature of 40C (104F). The applied
pressure is usually cannot exceed 206.9 kPa (30 psi) and the test temperature
usually cannot exceed 40C (104F) or the sample may fail prematurely (Brown
et al., 2001). Actual pavements are typically exposed to tire pressures of up to 828
kPa (120 psi) and temperatures in excess of 60C (140F). Thus, the unconfined
test does not closely simulate field conditions (Brown et al., 2001).
Confined Static Creep Test
The confined static creep test (also known as the triaxial creep test) is similar to the
unconfined static creep test in procedure but uses a confining pressure of about
138 kPa (20 psi), which allows test conditions to more closely match field
conditions. Research suggests that the static confined creep test does a better job
of predicting field performance than the static unconfined creep test (Roberts et al.,
1996).
Diametral Static Creep Test
A diametral static creep test uses a typical HMA test specimen but turning it on its
side so that it is loaded in its diametral plane.
Some standard static creep tests are:
AASHTO TP 9: Determining the Creep Compliance and Strength of Hot

Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the Indirect Tensile Test Device
6.2.1.2 Repeated Load Tests

A repeated load test applies a repeated load of fixed magnitude and cycle duration
to a cylindrical test specimen (see Figure 5.27). The specimen's resilient modulus
can be calculated using the its horizontal deformation and an assumed Poisson's ratio.
Cumulative permanent deformation as a function of the number of load cycles is
recorded and can be correlated to rutting potential. Tests can be run at different
temperatures and varying loads. The load varies is applied in a short pulse followed
by a rest period. Repeated load tests are similar in concept to the triaxial resilient
modulus test for unconfined soils and aggregates.
Repeated load tests correlate better with actual in-service pavement rutting than
static creep tests (Brown et al., 2001).
Figure 5.27: Repeated Load Test Schematic
Note: this example is simplified and shows only 6 load repetitions, normally
there are conditioning repetitions followed by a series of load repetitions
during the test at a determined load level and possibly at different
temperatures.
Most often, results from repeated load tests are reported using a cumulative axial
strain curve like the one shown in Figure 5.28. The flow number (FN) is the load
cycles number at which tertiary flow begins. Tertiary flow can be differentiated
from secondary flow by a marked departure from the linear relationship between
cumulative strain and number of cycles in the secondary zone. It is assumed that
in tertiary flow, the specimen's volume remains constant. The flow number (FN)
can be correlated with rutting potential.
Figure 5.28: Repeated Load Test Results Plot

Unconfined Repeated Load Test
The unconfined repeated load test is comparatively more simple to run than the
unconfined test because it does not involve any confining pressure or associated
equipment. However, like the unconfined creep test, the allowable test loads are
significantly less that those experience by in-place pavement.
Confined Repeated Load Test
The confined repeated load test is more complex than the unconfined test due to
the required confining pressure but, like the confined creep test, the confining pressure
allows test loads to be applied that more accurately reflect loads experienced by inplace pavements.
Diametral Repeated Load Test
A diametral repeated load test uses a typical HMA test specimen but turning it on
its side so that it is loaded in its diametral plane. Diametral testing has two critical
shortcomings that hinder its ability to determine permanent deformation
characteristics (Brown et al., 2001):
1. The state of stress is non-uniform and strongly dependent on the shape
of the specimen. At high temperature or load, permanent deformation
produces changes in the specimen shape that significantly affect both the
state of stress and the test measurements.
2. During the test, the only relatively uniform state of stress is tension
along the vertical diameter of the specimen. All other states of stress are
distinctly nonuniform.
Shear Repeated Load Test

The Superpave shear tester (SST), developed for Superpave, can perform a repeated
load test in shear. This test, known as the repeated shear at constant height
(RSCH) test, applies a repeated haversine (inverted cosine offset by half its
amplitude - a continuous haversine wave would look like a sine wave whose
negative peak is at zero) shear stress to an axially loaded specimen and records
axial and shear deformation as well as axial and shear load. RSCH data have been
shown to have high variability (Brown et al., 2001).
Some standard repeated load tests are:
AASHTO TP 7: Determining the Permanent Deformation and Fatigue

Cracking Characteristics of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the Superpave
Shear Tester (SST) - Procedure F
AASHTO TP 31: Determining the Resilient Modulus of Bituminous

Mixtures by Indirect Tension
ASTM D 4123: Indirect Tension Test for Resilient Modulus of Bituminous

Mixtures
6.2.1.3 Dynamic Modulus Tests

Dynamic modulus tests apply a repeated axial cyclic load of fixed magnitude and
cycle duration to a test specimen (see Figure 5.25). Test specimens can be tested
at different temperatures and three different loading frequencies (commonly 1, 4
and 16 Hz). The applied load varies and is usually applied in a haversine wave
(inverted cosine offset by half its amplitude - a continuous haversine wave would
look like a sine wave whose negative peak is at zero). Figure 5.29 is a schematic of
a typical dynamic modulus test.
Figure 5.29: Dynamic Modulus Test Schematic
Dynamic modulus tests differ from the repeated load tests in their loading cycles and
frequencies. While repeated load tests apply the same load several thousand times
at the same frequency, dynamic modulus tests apply a load over a range of
frequencies (usually 1, 4 and 16 Hz) for 30 to 45 seconds (Brown et al., 2001).
The dynamic modulus test is more difficult to perform than the repeated load test
since a much more accurate deformation measuring system is necessary.
The dynamic modulus test measures a specimen's stress-strain relationship under a
continuous sinusoidal loading. For linear (stress-strain ratio is independent of the
loading stress applied) viscoelastic materials this relationship is defined by a
complex number called the complex modulus (E*) (Witczak et al., 2002) as
seen in the equation below:
where:
E* = complex modulus
|E*| = dynamic modulus
= phase angle - the angle by which o lags
behind o.
For a pure elastic material, = 0, and the
complex modulus (E*) is equal to the absolute
value, or dynamic modulus. For pure viscous
materials, = 90.
i = imaginary number
The absolute value of the complex modulus, |E*|, is defined as the dynamic
modulus and is calculated as follows (Witczak et al., 2002):
where:
|E*| = dynamic modulus
o = peak stress amplitude

(applied load / sample cross sectional area)
o = peak amplitude of recoverable axial strain
= L/L. Either measured directly with

strain gauges or calculated from
displacements measured with linear
variable displacement transducers (LVDTs).
L = gauge length over which the sample

deformation is measured
L = the recoverable portion of the change in
sample length due to the applied load
The dynamic modulus test can be advantageous because it can measure also
measure a specimen's phase angle (), which is the lag between peak stress and
peak recoverable strain. The complex modulus, E*, is actually the summation of
two components: (1) the storage or elastic modulus component and (2) the loss or
viscous modulus. It is an indicator of the viscous properties of the material being
evaluated.
Unconfined Dynamic Modulus Test
The unconfined dynamic modulus test is performed by applying an axial haversine
load to a cylindrical test specimen. Although the recommend specimen size for the
test is 100 mm (4 inch) in diameter by 200 mm (8 inches) high, it may be possible
to use smaller specimen heights with success (Brown et al., 2001). Unconfined
dynamic modulus tests do not permit the determination of phase angle ().
Confined Dynamic Modulus Test
The confined dynamic modulus test is basically the unconfined test with an applied
lateral confining pressure. Confined dynamic modulus tests allow for the
determination of phase angle (). Although the recommend specimen size for the
dynamic modulus test is 100 mm (4 inch) in diameter by 200 mm (8 inches) high,
it may be possible to use smaller specimen heights with success (Brown et al.,
2001). Figures 5.30 and 5.31 show a prototype Superpave Simple Performance
Test (SPT). The SPT will provide a performance test for the Superpave mix design
method.
Figure 5.30: A Prototype

Superpave Simple
Performance Test (SPT)
Figure 5.31: The SPT is a Confined

Dynamic Modulus Test
Shear Dynamic Modulus Test

The shear dynamic modulus test is known as the frequency sweep at constant
height (FSCH) test. Shear dynamic modulus equations are the same as those
discussed above although traditionally the term E* is replace by G* to denote shear
dynamic modulus and o and o are replaced by 0 and 0 to denote shear stress
and axial strain respectively. The shear dynamic modulus can be accomplished by
two different testing apparatuses:
1. Superpave shear tester (SST). The SST FSCH test is a is a constant
strain test (as opposed to a constant stress test). Test specimens are
150 mm (6 inches) in diameter and 50 mm (2 inches) tall (see Figure
5.32). To conduct the test the HMA sample is essentially glued to two
plates (see Figures 5.33 through 5.35) and then inserted into the SST.
Horizontal strain is applied at a range of frequencies (from 10 to 0.1 Hz)
using a haversine loading pattern, while the specimen height is
maintained constant by compressing or pulling it vertically as required.
The SST produces a constant strain of about 100 microstrain (Witczak et
al., 2002). The SST is quite expensive and requires a highly trained
operator to run thus making it impractical for field use and necessitating
further development.
2. Field shear tester (FST). The FST FSCH test is a is a constant stress test
(as opposed to a constant strain test). The FST is a derivation of the
SST and is meant to be less expensive and easier to use. For instance,
rather than compressing or pulling the sample to maintain a constant
height like the SST, the FST maintains constant specimen height using
rigid spacers attached to the specimen ends. Further, the FST shears the
specimen in the diametral plane.
Figure 5.32: Superpave Shear

Tester (SST)
Figure 5.34: Prepared Sample
Standard complex modulus tests are:
Figure 5.33: Loading Chamber
Figure 5.35: Prepared Sample (left)

and Sample After Test (middle and
right).
Unconfined dynamic modulus. ASTM D 3497: Dynamic Modulus of

Asphalt Mixtures
Shear dynamic modulus. AASHTO TP 7: Determining the Permanent

Deformation and Fatigue Cracking Characteristics of Hot Mix Asphalt
(HMA) Using the Simple Shear Test (SST) Device, Procedure E Frequency Sweep Test at Constant Height.
6.2.1.4 Empirical Tests

The Hveem stabilometer and cohesiometer and Marshall stability and flow tests are empirical
tests used to quantify an HMA's potential for permanent deformation. They are
discussed in their mix design sections.
6.2.1.5 Simulative Tests - Laboratory Wheel-Tracking Devices

Laboratory wheel-tracking devices (see Video 5.1) measure rutting by rolling a
small loaded wheel device repeatedly across a prepared HMA specimen. Rutting in
the test specimen is then correlated to actual in-service pavement rutting.
Laboratory wheel-tracking devices can also be used to make moisture susceptibility
and stripping predictions by comparing dry and wet test results Some of these
devices are relatively new and some have been used for upwards of 15 years like
the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chauses (LCPC) wheel tracker - also known
as the French Rutting Tester (FRT). Cooley et al. (2000) reviewed U.S. loaded
wheel testers and found:
Results obtained from the wheel tracking devices correlate reasonably

well to actual field performance when the in-service loading and
environmental conditions of that location are considered.
Wheel tracking devices can reasonably differentiate between binder

performance grades.
Wheel tracking devices, when properly correlated to a specific sites

traffic and environmental conditions, have the potential to allow the user
agency the option of a pass/fail or go/no go criteria. The ability of
the wheel tracking devices to adequately predict the magnitude of the
rutting for a particular pavement has not been determined at this time.
A device with the capability of conducting wheel-tracking tests in both air

and in a submerged state, will offer the user agency the most options of
evaluating their materials.
In other words, wheel tracking devices have potential for rut and other
measurements but the individual user must be careful to establish laboratory
conditions (e.g., load, number of wheel passes, temperature) that produce
consistent and accurate correlations with field performance.
Video 5.1: Asphalt Pavement Analyzer - A Wheel Tracking Device
6.2.2 Fatigue Life

HMA fatigue properties are important because one of the principal modes of HMA
pavement failure is fatigue-related cracking, called fatigue cracking. Therefore, an
accurate prediction of HMA fatigue properties would be useful in predicting overall
pavement life.
6.2.2.1 Flexural Test

One of the typical ways of estimating in-place HMA fatigue properties is the flexural
test (see Figures 5.36 and 5.37). The flexural test determines the fatigue life of a
small HMA beam specimen (380 mm long x 50 mm thick x 63 mm wide) by
subjecting it to repeated flexural bending until failure (see Figure 5.38). The beam
specimen is sawed from either laboratory or field compacted HMA. Results are
usually plotted to show cycles to failure vs. applied stress or strain.
Figure 5.36 (left): Flexural Testing
Device
Figure 5.37 (right): Flexural Testing
Device
Figure 5.38: Flexural Test Schematic (click picture to animate)

The standard fatigue test is:
AASHTO TP 8: Determining the Fatigue Life of Compacted Hot-Mix

Asphalt (HMA) Subjected to Repeated Flexural Bending
6.2.3 Tensile Strength

HMA tensile strength is important because it is a good indicator of cracking
potential. A high tensile strain at failure indicates that a particular HMA can tolerate
higher strains before failing, which means it is more likely to resist cracking than an
HMA with a low tensile strain at failure. Additionally, measuring tensile strength
before and after water conditioning can give some indication of moisture
susceptibility. If the water-conditioned tensile strength is relatively high compared
to the dry tensile strength then the HMA can be assumed reasonably moisture
resistant. There are two tests typically used to measure HMA tensile strength:
Indirect tension test
Thermal cracking test
6.2.3.1 Indirect Tension Test

The indirect tensile test uses the same testing device as the diametral repeated load test
and applies a constant rate of vertical deformation until failure. It is quite similar to
the splitting tension test used for PCC.
Standard indirect tension test is a part of the following test:
AASHTO TP 9: Determining the Creep Compliance and Strength of Hot

Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using the Indirect Tensile Test Device
6.2.3.2 Thermal Cracking Test

The thermal cracking test determines the tensile strength and temperature at
fracture of an HMA sample by measuring the tensile load in a specimen which is
cooled at a constant rate while being restrained from contraction. The test is
terminated when the sample fails by cracking.
The standard thermal cracking test is:
AASHTO TP 10: Method for Thermal Stress Restrained Specimen Tensile

Strength
6.2.4 Stiffness Tests

Stiffness tests are used to determine a HMA's elastic or resilient modulus. Although
these values are fairly well-defined for many different mix types, these tests are
still used to verify values, determine values in forensic testing or determine values
for new mixtures or at different temperatures. Many repeated load tests can be
used to determine resilient modulus as well.
Of particular note, temperature has a profound effect on HMA stiffness. Table 5.13
shows some typical HMA resilient modulus values at various temperatures. Figure
5.39 shows that HMA resilient modulus changes by a factor of about 100 for a 56
C (100 F) temperature change for "typical" dense-graded HMA mixtures. This
can affect HMA performance parameters such as rutting and shoving. This is one
reason why the Superpave PG binder grading system accounts for expected service
temperatures when specifying an asphalt binder.
Table 5.13: Typical Resilient Modulus Values for HMA Pavement Materials
Material
Resilient Modulus
(MR)
MPa
psi
HMA at 32F (0
C)
14,000
2,000,000
HMA at 70F (21

C)
3,500
500,000
HMA at 120F
(49 C)
150
20,000
Compare to other materials
Figure 5.39: General Stiffness-Temperature Relationship for Dense-Graded

Asphalt Concrete
6.2.5 Moisture Susceptibility

Numerous tests have been used to evaluate moisture susceptibility of HMA;
however, no test to date has attained any wide acceptance (Roberts et al., 1996).
In fact, just about any performance test that can be conducted on a wet or
submerged sample can be used to evaluate the effect of moisture on HMA by
comparing wet and dry sample test results. Superpave recommends the modified
Lottman Test as the current most appropriate test and therefore this test will be
described.
The modified Lottman test basically compares the indirect tensile strength test
results of a dry sample and a sample exposed to water/freezing/thawing. The
water sample is subjected to vacuum saturation, an optional freeze cycle, followed
by a freeze and a warm-water cycle before being tested for indirect tensile strength
(AASHTO, 2000a). Test results are reported as a tensile strength ratio:
where:
TSR = tensile strength ratio

S1 = average dry sample tensile strength
S2 = average conditioned sample tensile
strength
Generally a minimum TSR of 0.70 is recommended for this method, which should
be applied to field-produced rather than laboratory-produced samples (Roberts et
al., 1996). For laboratory samples produced in accordance with AASHTO TP 4
(Method for Preparing and Determining the Density of Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA)
Specimens by Means of the Superpave Gyratory Compactor), AASHTO MP 2
(Specification for Superpave Volumetric Mix Design) specifies a minimum TSR of
0.80.
In addition to the modified Lottman test, some state agencies use the Hamburg Wheel
Tracking Device (HWTD) to test for moisture susceptibility since the test can be carried
out in a warm water bath.
The standard modified Lottman test is:
AASHTO T 283: Resistance of Compacted Bituminous Mixture to

Moisture-Induced Damage
6.3 Summary
All pavements can be described by their fundamental characteristics and
performance. Thus, HMA tests are an integral part of mix design because they
provide (1) basic HMA characteristics and (2) the means to relate mix design to
intended performance. Without performance tests, mix design has no proven
relationship with performance (Roberts et al., 1996). The Hveem and Marshall mix
design methods use two basic performance tests (Hveem stabilometer and the
Marshall stability and flow), but these tests are empirical and limited in their
predictive ability. New and better performance tests are still being developed and
evaluated. In fact, Superpave has yet to implement performance testing because
of this. The performance tests presented in this section are those that are most
commonly used in the industry today, although it is quite likely that these tests will
change in the future as better methods and equipment are developed.
5 HMA - Superpave Method
5.
1
History
5.
2
Procedure
5. Summary
One of the principal results from the Strategic
3
Highway Research Program (SHRP) was the Superpave
mix design method. The Superpave mix design
method was designed to replace the Hveem and Marshall methods. The volumetric
analysis common to the Hveem and Marshall methods provides the basis for the
Superpave mix design method. The Superpave system ties asphalt binder and
aggregate selection into the mix design process, and considers traffic and climate
as well. The compaction devices from the Hveem and Marshall procedures have
been replaced by a gyratory compactor and the compaction effort in mix design is tied
to expected traffic.
This section consists of a brief history of the Superpave mix design method followed
by a general outline of the actual method. This outline emphasizes general
concepts and rationale over specific procedures. Typical procedures are available in
the following documents:
Roberts, F.L.; Kandhal, P.S.; Brown, E.R.; Lee, D.Y. and Kennedy, T.W.
(1996). Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction.
National Asphalt Pavement Association Education Foundation. Lanham,
MD.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO). (2000 and 2001). AASHTO Provisional Standards.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Washington, D.C.
5.1 History
Under the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), an initiative was undertaken to
improve materials selection and mixture design by developing:
1. A new mix design method that accounts for traffic loading and
environmental conditions.
2. A new method of asphalt binder evaluation.
3. New methods of mixture analysis.

When SHRP was completed in 1993 it introduced these three developments and
called them the Superior Performing Asphalt Pavement System (Superpave).
Although the new methods of mixture performance testing have not yet been
established, the mix design method is well-established.
5.2 Procedure
The Superpave mix design method consists of 7 basic steps:
1. Aggregate selection.
2. Asphalt binder selection.
3. Sample preparation (including compaction).
4. Performance Tests.
5. Density and voids calculations.
6. Optimum asphalt binder content selection.
7. Moisture susceptibility evaluation.
5.2.1 Aggregate Selection

Superpave specifies aggregate in two ways. First, it places restrictions on
aggregate gradation by means of broad control points. Second, it places
"consensus requirements" on coarse and fine aggregate angularity, flat and
elongated particles, and clay content. Other aggregate criteria, which the Asphalt
Institute (2001) calls "source properties" (because they are considered to be source
specific) such as L.A. abrasion, soundness and water absorption are used in Superpave but
since they were not modified by Superpave they are not discussed here.
5.2.1.1 Gradation and Size

Aggregate gradation influences such key HMA parameters as stiffness, stability, durability,
permeability, workability, fatigue resistance, frictional resistance and resistance to moisture damage
(Roberts et al., 1996). Additionally, the maximum aggregate size can be influential in
compaction and lift thickness determination.
Gradation Specifications
Superpave mix design specifies aggregate gradation control points, through which
aggregate gradations must pass. These control points are very general and are a
starting point for a job mix formula.
Aggregate Blending
It is rare to obtain a desired aggregate gradation from a single aggregate stockpile.
Therefore, Superpave mix designs usually draw upon several different aggregate
stockpiles and blend them together in a ratio that will produce an acceptable final
blended gradation. It is quite common to find a Superpave mix design that uses 3
or 4 different aggregate stockpiles (see Figure 5.11).
Figure 5.11: Screen Shot from HMA View Showing a Typical Aggregate
Blend from 4 Stockpiles
Typically, several aggregate blends are evaluated prior to performing a complete
mix design. Evaluations are done by preparing an HMA sample of each blend at the
estimated optimum asphalt binder content then compacting it. Results from this
evaluation can show whether or not a particular blend will meet minimum VMA
requirements and Ninitial or Nmax requirements.
Dust- to-Binder Ratio
In order to ensure the proper amount of material passing the 0.075 mm (No. 200)
sieve (called "silt-clay" by AASHTO definition and "dust" by Superpave) in the mix,
Superpave specifies a range of dust-to-binder ratio by mass. The equation is:
P0.075
Pbe
where:
P0.075 = mass of particles passing the 0.075 mm (No.

200) sieve
Pbe = effective binder content = the total asphalt
binder content of a paving mixture less the
portion of asphalt binder that is lost by
absorption into the aggregate particles.
Dust-to-binder ratio specifications are normally 0.6 - 1.2, but a ratio of up to 1.6
may be used at an agency's discretion (AASHTO, 2001).
5.2.1.2 Consensus Requirements

"Consensus requirements" came about because SHRP did not specifically address
aggregate properties and it was thought that there needed to be some guidance
associated with the Superpave mix design method. Therefore, an expert group was
convened and they arrived at a consensus on several aggregate property
requirements - the "consensus requirements". This group recommended minimum
angularity, flat or elongated particle and clay content requirements based on:
The anticipated traffic loading. Desired aggregate properties are

different depending upon the amount of traffic loading. Traffic loading
numbers are based on the anticipated traffic level on the design
lane over a 20-year period regardless of actual roadway design
life (AASHTO, 2000b).
Depth below the surface. Desired aggregate properties vary depending

upon their intended use as it relates to depth below the pavement
surface.
These requirements are imposed on the final aggregate blend and not the
individual aggregate sources.
Coarse Aggregate Angularity

Coarse aggregate angularity is important to mix design because smooth, rounded
aggregate particles do not interlock with one another nearly as well as angular
particles. This lack of interlock makes the resultant HMA more susceptible to
rutting. Coarse aggregate angularity can be determined by any number of test
procedures that are designed to determine the percentage of fractured faces. Table 5.5
lists Superpave requirements.
Table 5.5: Coarse Aggregate Angularity Requirements (from AASHTO,
2000b)
20-yr Traffic
Loading
(in millions of
ESALs)
Depth from Surface

100 mm (4
inches)
> 100 mm (4
inches)
< 0.3
55/-
-/-
0.3 to < 3
75/-
50/-
3 to < 10
85/80
60/-
10 to < 30
95/90
80/75
30
100/100
100/100
Note: The first number is a minimum requirement for one or

more fractured faces and the second number is a minimum
requirement for two or more fractured faces.
Fine Aggregate Angularity

Fine aggregate angularity is important to mix design for the same reasons as coarse
aggregate angularity - rut prevention. Fine aggregate angularity is quantified by an
indirect method often called the National Aggregate Association (NAA) flow test.
This test consists of pouring the fine aggregate into the top end of a cylinder and
determining the amount of voids. The more voids, the more angular the
aggregate. Voids are determined by the following equation:
W
G sb
V
V
Uncompacted Voids
where:
= volume of cylinder (mL)
= weight of loose fine aggregate to fill the

cylinder (g)
Gsb = bulk specific gravity of the fine aggregate

Table 5.6 shows the Superpave recommended fine aggregate angularity.
Table 5.6: Fine Aggregate Angularity Requirements (from AASHTO, 2000b)
20-yr Traffic
Loading
(in millions of
ESALs)
Depth from Surface

100 mm (4
inches)
> 100 mm (4
inches)
< 0.3
0.3 to < 3
40
3 to < 10
10 to < 30
40
45
30
45
Numbers shown represent the minimum uncompacted void

content as a percentage of the total sample volume.
The standard test for fine aggregate angularity is:
AASHTO T 304: Uncompacted Void Content of Fine Aggregate
Flat or Elongated Particles

An excessive amount of flat or elongated aggregate particles can be detrimental to HMA.
Flat/elongated particles tend to breakdown during compaction (giving a different
gradation than determined in mix design), decrease workability, and lie flat after
compaction (resulting in a mixture with low VMA) (Roberts et al., 1996). Flat or
elongated particles are typically identified using ASTM D 4791, Flat or Elongated
Particles in Coarse Aggregate. Table 5.7 shows the Superpave recommended flat or
elongated particle requirements.
Figure 5.7: Flat or Elongated Particle Requirements (from AASHTO, 2000b)
20-yr Traffic Loading
(in millions of ESALs)
Maximum Percentage of Particles with

Length/Thickness > 5
< 0.3
0.3 to < 3
3 to < 10
10
10 to < 30
30
Clay Content
The sand equivalent test measures the amount of clay content in an aggregate sample.
If clay content is too high, clay could preferentially adhere to the aggregate over
the asphalt binder. This leads to a poor aggregate-asphalt binder bonding and
possible stripping. To prevent excessive clay content, Superpave uses the sand
equivalent test requirements of Table 5.8.
Table 5.8: Sand Equivalent Requirements (from AASHTO, 2000b)
20-yr Traffic
Loading
(in millions of
ESALs)
Minimum Sand
Equivalent (%)
< 0.3
40
0.3 to < 3
3 to < 10
45
10 to < 30
30
50
5.2.2 Asphalt Binder Evaluation

Superpave uses its own asphalt binder selection process, which is, of course, tied to
the Superpave asphalt binder performance grading (PG) system and its associated
specifications. Superpave PG asphalt binders are selected based on the expected
pavement temperature extremes in the area of their intended use. Superpave
software (or a stand-alone program such as LTPPBind) is used to calculate these
extremes and select the appropriate PG asphalt binder using one of the following
three alternate methods (Roberts et al., 1996):
1. Pavement temperature. The designer inputs the design pavement
temperatures directly.
2. Air temperature. The designer inputs the local air temperatures, then
the software converts them to pavement temperatures.
3. Geographic area. The designer simply inputs the project location (i.e.
state, county and city). From this, the software retrieves climate
conditions from a weather database and then converts air temperatures
into pavement temperatures.
Once the design pavement temperatures are determined they can be matched to an
appropriate PG asphalt binder.
5.2.2.1 Design Pavement Temperature

The Superpave mix design method determines both a high and a low design
pavement temperature. These temperatures are determined as follows:
High pavement temperature - based on the 7-day average high air

temperature of the surrounding area.
Low pavement temperature - based on the 1-day low air temperature of

the surrounding area.
Using these temperatures as a starting point, Superpave then applies a reliability

concept to determine the appropriate PG asphalt binder. PG asphalt binders are
specified in 6C increments.
5.2.2.2 Design Pavement Temperature Adjustments

Design pavement temperature calculations are based on HMA pavements subjected
to fast moving traffic (Roberts et al., 1996). Specifically, the Dynamic Shear Rheometer
(DSR) test is conducted at a rate of 10 radians per second, which corresponds to a
traffic speed of about 90 km/hr (55 mph) (Roberts et al., 1996). Pavements
subject to significantly slower (or stopped) traffic such as intersections, toll booth lines and
bus stops should contain a stiffer asphalt binder than that which would be used for
fast-moving traffic. Superpave allows the high temperature grade to be increased
by one grade for slow transient loads and by two grades for stationary loads.
Additionally, the high temperature grade should be increased by one grade for
anticipated 20-year loading in excess of 30 million ESALs. For pavements with
multiple conditions that require grade increases only the largest grade increase
should be used. Therefore, for a pavement intended to experience slow loads (a
potential one grade increase) and greater than 30 million ESALs (a potential one
grade increase), the asphalt binder high temperature grade should be increased by
only one grade. Table 5.9 shows two examples of design high temperature
adjustments - often called "binder bumping".
Table 5.9: Examples of Design Pavement Temperature Adjustments
for Slow and Stationary Loads
Original Grade
Grade for Slow

Grade for
Transient Loads Stationary Loads
(increase 1
(increase 2
grade)
grades)
20-yr ESALs
> 30 million
(increase 1
grade)
PG 58-22
PG 64-22
PG 70-22
PG 64-22
PG 70-22*
PG 76-22
PG 82-22
PG 76-22
*the highest possible pavement temperature in North America is about 70C

but two more high temperature grades were necessary to accommodate
transient and stationary loads.
5.2.3 Sample Preparation

The Superpave method, like other mix design methods, creates several trial
aggregate-asphalt binder blends, each with a different asphalt binder content.
Then, by evaluating each trial blend's performance, an optimum asphalt binder
content can be selected. In order for this concept to work, the trial blends must
contain a range of asphalt contents both above and below the optimum asphalt
content. Therefore, the first step in sample preparation is to estimate an optimum
asphalt content. Trial blend asphalt contents are then determined from this
estimate.
The Superpave gyratory compactor (Figure 5.12) was developed to improve mix
design's ability to simulate actual field compaction particle orientation with
laboratory equipment (Roberts, 1996).
Each sample is heated to the anticipated mixing temperature, aged for a short time
(up to 4 hours) and compacted with the gyratory compactor, a device that applies
pressure to a sample through a hydraulically or mechanically operated load. Mixing
and compaction temperatures are chosen according to asphalt binder properties so

that compaction occurs at the same viscosity level for different mixes. Key
parameters of the gyratory compactor are:
Sample size = 150 mm (6-inch) diameter cylinder approximately 115

mm (4.5 inches) in height (corrections can be made for different sample
heights). Nnote that this sample size is larger than those used for the
Hveem and Marshall methods (see Figure 5.13).
Load = Flat and circular with a diameter of 149.5 mm (5.89 inches)

corresponding to an area of 175.5 cm2 (27.24 in2)
Compaction pressure = Typically 600 kPa (87 psi)
Number of blows = varies
Simulation method = The load is applied to the sample top and covers
almost the entire sample top area. The sample is inclined at 1.25 and
rotates at 30 revolutions per minute as the load is continuously applied.
This helps achieve a sample particle orientation that is somewhat like
that achieved in the field after roller compaction.
Figure 5.12 (left): Gyratory

Compactor
Figure 5.13 (below): Superpave
Gyratory Compactor Sample (left)
vs. Hveem/Marshall Compactor
Sample (right)
The Superpave gyratory compactor establishes three different gyration numbers:

1. Ninitial. The number of gyrations used as a measure of mixture
compactability during construction. Mixes that compact too quickly (air
voids at Ninitial are too low) may be tender during construction and
unstable when subjected to traffic. Often, this is a good indication of
aggregate quality - HMA with excess natural sand will frequently fail the
Ninitial requirement. A mixture designed for greater than or equal to 3
million ESALs with 4 percent air voids at Ndesign should have at least 11
percent air voids at Ninitial.
2. Ndesign. This is the design number of gyrations required to produce a
sample with the same density as that expected in the field after the
indicated amount of traffic. A mix with 4 percent air voids at Ndesign is
desired in mix design.
3. Nmax. The number of gyrations required to produce a laboratory density
that should never be exceeded in the field. If the air voids at Nmax are
too low, then the field mixture may compact too much under traffic
resulting in excessively low air voids and potential rutting. The air void
content at Nmax should never be below 2 percent air voids.
Typically, samples are compacted to Ndesign to establish the optimum asphalt binder
content and then additional samples are compacted to Nmax as a check. Previously,
samples were compacted to Nmax and then Ninitial and Ndesign were back calculated.
Table 5.10 lists the specified number of gyrations for Ninitial, Ndesign and Nmax while
Table 5.11 shows the required densities as a percentage of theoretical maximum
density (TMD) for Ninitial, Ndesign and Nmax. Note that traffic loading numbers are
based on the anticipated traffic level on the design lane over a 20-year
period regardless of actual roadway design life (AASHTO, 2001).
Table 5.10: Number of Gyrations for Ninitial, Ndesign and Nmax (from AASHTO,
2001)
20-yr Traffic
Loading
(in millions of
ESALs)
Number of Gyrations
Ninitial
Ndesign
Nmax
< 0.3
50
75
0.3 to < 3
75
115
3 to < 10*
8 (7)
100 (75)
160 (115)
10 to < 30
100
160
30
125
205
* When the estimated 20-year design traffic loading is between 3

and < 10
million ESALs, the agency may, at its discretion, specify
Ninitial = 7, Ndesign = 75 and Nmax = 115.
Table 5.11: Required Densities for Ninitial, Ndesign and Nmax (from AASHTO,
2001)
20-yr Traffic Required Density (as a percentage of TMD)
Loading
(in millions of
Ninitial
Ndesign
Nmax
ESALs)
< 0.3
91.5
0.3 to < 3
90.5
3 to < 10
10 to < 30
96.0
98.0
89.0
30
The standard gyratory compactor sample preparation procedure is:
AASHTO TP4: Preparing and Determining the Density of Hot-Mix Asphalt

(HMA) Specimens by Means of the Superpave Gyratory Compactor
5.2.4 Performance Tests

The original intent of the Superpave mix design method was to subject the various
trial mix designs to a battery of performance tests akin to what the Hveem method
does with the stabilometer and cohesiometer, or the Marshall method does with the
stability and flow test. Currently, these performance tests, which constitute the
mixture analysis portion of Superpave, are still under development and review and
have not yet been implemented. The most likely performance test, called the
Simple Performance Test (SPT) is a Confined Dynamic Modulus Test.
5.2.5 Density and Voids Analysis

All mix design methods use density and voids to determine basic HMA physical
characteristics. Two different measures of densities are typically taken:
1. Bulk specific gravity (Gmb) - often called "bulk density"
2. Theoretical maximum density (TMD, Gmm)
These densities are then used to calculate the volumetric parameters of the HMA.
Measured void expressions are usually:
Air voids (Va), sometimes called voids in the total mix (VTM)
Voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA)
Voids filled with asphalt (VFA)
Generally, these values must meet local or State criteria.

VMA and VFA must meet the values specified in Table 5.12. Note that traffic
loading numbers are based on the anticipated traffic level on the design
lane over a 20-year period regardless of actual roadway design life (AASHTO,
2000b).
Table 5.12: Minimum VMA Requirements and VFA Range Requirements
(from AASHTO, 2001)
20-yr Traffic
Loading
(in millions of
ESALs)
VFA
Range
(percent)
Minimum VMA (percent)
9.5 mm
(0.375
inch)
12.5 mm 19.0 mm
37.5 mm
25.0 mm
(0.5
(0.75
(1.5
(1 inch)
inch)
inch)
inch)
< 0.3
70 - 80
0.3 to < 3
65 - 78
15.0
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
3 to < 10
65 - 75
10 to < 30
30
5.2.6 Selection of Optimum Asphalt Binder Content

The optimum asphalt binder content is selected as that asphalt binder content that
results in 4 percent air voids at Ndesign. This asphalt content then must meet several
other requirements:
1. Air voids at Ninitial > 11 percent (for design ESALs 3 million). See Table
5.11 for specifics.
2. Air voids at Nmax > 2 percent. See Table 5.11 for specifics.
3. VMA above the minimum listed in Table 5.8.
4. VFA within the range listed in Table 5.8.
If requirements 1,2 or 3 are not met the mixture needs to be redesigned. If
requirement 4 is not met but close, then asphalt binder content can be slightly
adjusted such that the air void content remains near 4 percent but VFA is within
limits. This is because VFA is a somewhat redundant term since it is a function of
air voids and VMA (Roberts et al., 1996). The process is illustrated in Figure 5.14
(numbers are chosen based on 20-year traffic loading of 3 million ESALs).
Figure 5.14: Selection of Optimum Asphalt Binder Content Example

(from Roberts et al., 1996)
5.2.7 Moisture Susceptibility Evaluation

Moisture susceptibility testing is the only performance testing incorporated in the
Superpave mix design procedure as of early 2002. The modified Lottman test is used
for this purpose.
The typical moisture susceptibility test is:
AASHTO T 283: Resistance of Compacted Bituminous Mixture to

Moisture-Induced Damage.
5.3 Summary
The Superpave mix design method was developed to address specific mix design
issues with the Hveem and Marshall methods. Superpave mix design is a rational
method that accounts for traffic loading and environmental conditions. Although
not yet fully complete (the performance tests have not been implemented),
Superpave mix design produces quality HMA mixtures. As of 2000, 39 states have
adopted, or are planning to adopt, Superpave as their mix design system (NHI,
2000).
The biggest differentiating aspects of the Superpave method are:
1. The use of formal aggregate evaluation procedures (consensus

requirements).
2. The use of the PG asphalt binder grading system and its associated
asphalt binder selection system.
3. The use of the gyratory compactor to simulate field compaction.
4. Traffic loading and environmental considerations.
5. Its volumetric approach to mix design.
Even given its many differences when compared to the Hveem or Marshall methods,
Superpave still uses the same basic mix design steps and still strives for an
optimum asphalt binder content that results in 4 percent design air voids. Thus,
the method is quite different but the ultimate goals remain fairly consistent.
4 HMA - Marshall Method
4.
1
history
4.
2
procedure
The basic concepts of the Marshall mix design

method were originally developed by Bruce
4. summary
Marshall of the Mississippi Highway Department
3
around 1939 and then refined by the U.S. Army.
Currently, the Marshall method is used in some
capacity by about 38 states. The Marshall method seeks to select the asphalt
binder content at a desired density that satisfies minimum stability and range of
flow values (White, 1985).
This section consists of a brief history of the Marshall mix design method followed
by a general outline of the actual method. This outline emphasizes general
concepts and rationale over specific procedures. Detailed procedures vary from
state-to-state but typical procedures are available in the following documents:
MD.
Asphalt Institute. (1997). Mix Design Methods for Asphalt, 6th ed., MS02. Asphalt Institute. Lexington, KY.
4.1 History (from White, 1985)

During World War II, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) began evaluating
various HMA mix design methods for use in airfield pavement design. Motivation
for this search came from the ever-increasing wheel loads and tire pressures
produced by larger and larger military aircraft. Early work at the U.S. Army
Waterways Experiment Station (WES) in 1943 had the objective of developing:
"...a simple apparatus suitable for use with the present California Bearing Ratio (CBR)
equipment to design and control asphalt paving mixtures..."
The most promising method eventually proved to be the Marshall Stability Method
developed by Bruce G. Marshall at the Mississippi Highway Department in 1939.
WES took the original Marshall Stability Test and added a deformation
measurement (using a flow meter) that was reasoned to assist in detecting
excessively high asphalt contents. This appended test was eventually
recommended for adoption by the U.S. Army because:
1. It was designed to stress the entire sample rather than just a portion of
it.
2. It facilitated rapid testing with minimal effort.
3. It was compact, light and portable.
4. It produced densities reasonably close to field densities.
WES continued to refine the Marshall method through the 1950s with various tests
on materials, traffic loading and weather variables. Today the Marshall method,
despite its shortcomings, is probably the most widely used mix design method in
the world. It has probably become so widely used because (1) it was adopted and
used by the U.S. military all over the world during and after WWII and (2) it is
simple, compact and inexpensive.
4.2 Procedure
The Marshall mix design method consists of 6 basic steps:
4. Stability determination using the Marshall stability and flow test.

4.2.1 Aggregate Evaluation

Although neither Marshall nor WES specifically developed an aggregate evaluation
and selection procedure, one is included here because it is integral to any mix
design. A typical aggregate evaluation for use with either the Hveem or Marshall
mix design methods includes three basic steps (Roberts et al., 1996):
1. Determine aggregate physical properties. This consists of running
various tests to determine properties such as:
o
Toughness and abrasion
Durability and soundness
Cleanliness and deleterious materials
Particle shape and surface texture
2. Determine other aggregate descriptive physical properties. If the

aggregate is acceptable according to step #1, additional tests are run to
fully characterize the aggregate. These tests determine:
o
Gradation and size
Specific gravity and absorption
3. Perform blending calculations to achieve the mix design aggregate

gradation. Often, aggregates from more than one source or stockpile
are used to obtain the final aggregate gradation used in a mix design.
Trial blends of these different gradations are usually calculated until an
acceptable final mix design gradation is achieved. Typical considerations
for a trial blend include:
o
All gradation specifications must be met. Typical specifications

will require the percent retained by weight on particular sieve
sizes to be within a certain band.
The gradation should not be too close to the FHWA's 0.45

power maximum density curve. If it is, then the VMA is likely
to be too low. Gradation should deviate from the FHWA's 0.45
power maximum density curve, especially on the 2.36 mm
(No. 8) sieve.
4.2.2 Asphalt Binder Evaluation

The Marshall test does not have a common generic asphalt binder selection and
evaluation procedure. Each specifying entity uses their own method with
modifications to determine the appropriate binder and, if any, modifiers. Binder
evaluation can be based on local experience, previous performance or a set
procedure. Perhaps the most common set procedure now in use is based on the
Superpave PG binder system. However, before this system there was no nationally
recognized standard for binder evaluation and selection. Once the binder is
selected, several preliminary tests are run to determine the asphalt binder's
temperature-viscosity relationship.

The Marshall method, like other mix design methods, uses several trial aggregateasphalt binder blends (typically 5 blends with 3 samples each for a total of 15
specimens), each with a different asphalt binder content. Then, by evaluating each
trial blend's performance, an optimum asphalt binder content can be selected. In
order for this concept to work, the trial blends must contain a range of asphalt
contents both above and below the optimum asphalt content. Therefore, the first
step in sample preparation is to estimate an optimum asphalt content. Trial blend
asphalt contents are then determined from this estimate.
4.2.3.1 Optimum Asphalt Binder Content Estimate

The Marshall mix design method can use any suitable method for estimating
optimum asphalt content and usually relies on local procedures or experience.
4.2.3.2 Sample Asphalt Binder Contents

Based on the results of the optimum asphalt binder content estimate, samples are
typically prepared at 0.5 percent by weight of mix increments, with at least two
samples above the estimated asphalt binder content and two below.
4.2.3.3 Compaction with the Marshall Hammer

Each sample is then heated to the anticipated compaction temperature and
compacted with a Marshall hammer, a device that applies pressure to a sample
through a tamper foot (see Figure 5.8). Some hammers are automatic and some
are hand operated. Key parameters of the compactor are:
Sample size = 102 mm (4-inch) diameter cylinder 64 mm (2.5 inches) in

height (corrections can be made for different sample heights)
Tamper foot = Flat and circular with a diameter of 98.4 mm (3.875

inches) corresponding to an area of 76 cm2 (11.8 in2).
Compaction pressure = Specified as a 457.2 mm (18 inches) free fall

drop distance of a hammer assembly with a 4536 g (10 lb.) sliding
weight.
Number of blows = Typically 35, 50 or 75 on each side depending upon

anticipated traffic loading.
Simulation method = The tamper foot strikes the sample on the top and
covers almost the entire sample top area. After a specified number of
blows, the sample is turned over and the procedure repeated.
Figure 5.8: Marshall Drop Hammers

The standard Marshall method sample preparation procedure is contained in:
AASHTO T 245: Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using

the Marshall Apparatus
4.2.4 The Marshall Stability and Flow Test

The Marshall stability and flow test provides the performance prediction measure
for the Marshall mix design method. The stability portion of the test measures the
maximum load supported by the test specimen at a loading rate of 50.8
mm/minute (2 inches/minute). Basically, the load is increased until it reaches a
maximum then when the load just begins to decrease, the loading is stopped and
the maximum load is recorded.
During the loading, an attached dial gauge measures the specimen's plastic flow as
a result of the loading (see Figure 5.9). The flow value is recorded in 0.25 mm
(0.01 inch) increments at the same time the maximum load is recorded.
Figure 5.9: Marshall Testing Apparatus

Typical Marshall design stability and flow criteria are shown in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3: Typical Marshall Design Criteria (from Asphalt Institute, 1979)
Mix Criteria
Light Traffic
(< 104 ESALs)
Min.
Medium Traffic
(104 - 106
ESALs)
Max.
Min.
Max.
Heavy Traffic
(> 106 ESALs)
Min.
Max.
Compaction
35
50
75
2224 N
(500 lbs.)
3336 N
(750 lbs.)
6672 N
(1500 lbs.)
Flow (0.25 mm (0.01

inch))
20
18
16
Percent Air Voids
(number of blows on each end of

the sample)
Stability (minimum)
One standard Marshall mix design procedure is:
AASHTO T 245: Resistance to Plastic Flow of Bituminous Mixtures Using

Marshall Apparatus

1. Bulk specific gravity (Gmb).
2. Theoretical maximum specific gravity (TMD, Gmm).
Air voids (Va), sometimes expressed as voids in the total mix (VTM)
Voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) - see Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Typical Marshall Minimum VMA (from Asphalt Institute, 1979)
Nominal Maximum
Particle Size
Minimum
VMA
(percent)
(mm)
(U.S.)
63
2.5 inch
11
50
2.0 inch
11.5
37.5
1.5 inch
12
25.0
1.0 inch
13
19.0
0.75 inch
14
12.5
0.5 inch
15
9.5
0.375 inch
16
4.75
No. 4 sieve
18
2.36
No. 8 sieve
21
1.18
No. 16 sieve
23.5

The optimum asphalt binder content is finally selected based on the combined
results of Marshall stability and flow, density analysis and void analysis (see Figure
5.10). Optimum asphalt binder content can be arrived at in the following procedure
(Roberts et al., 1996):
1. Plot the following graphs:
o
Asphalt binder content vs. density. Density will generally

increase with increasing asphalt content, reach a maximum,
then decrease. Peak density usually occurs at a higher
asphalt binder content than peak stability.
Asphalt binder content vs. Marshall stability. This should

follow one of two trends:
Stability increases with increasing asphalt binder

content, reaches a peak, then decreases.
Stability decreases with increasing asphalt binder

content and does not show a peak. This curve is
common for some recycled HMA mixtures.
Asphalt binder content vs. flow.
Asphalt binder content vs. air voids. Percent air voids should
decrease with increasing asphalt binder content.
Asphalt binder content vs. VMA. Percent VMA should decrease

with increasing asphalt binder content, reach a minimum, then
increase.
Asphalt binder content vs. VFA. Percent VFA increases with

increasing asphalt binder content.
2. Determine the asphalt binder content that corresponds to the

specifications median air void content (typically this is 4 percent). This is
the optimum asphalt binder content.
3. Determine properties at this optimum asphalt binder content by referring
to the plots. Compare each of these values against specification values
and if all are within specification, then the preceding optimum asphalt
binder content is satisfactory. Otherwise, if any of these properties is
outside the specification range the mixture should be redesigned.
(from Roberts et al., 1996)
4.3 Summary
The Marshall mix design method was developed to address specific mix design
issues confronting the USCOE during World War II. Therefore, it was developed to
be simple, light, quick, and reasonably accurate for the wheel loading of the time.
Since then it has been modified and supplemented to address new concerns but the
basic testing apparatus and selection criteria remain the same.
The biggest differentiating aspects of the Marshall method are the Marshall hammer
and the Marshall stability and flow apparatus. Both are probably overly simplistic
for high-end or high-load pavements but they are simple, light, portable and
inexpensive.
3 HMA - Hveem Method
3.
1
History
3.
2
Procedure
3. Summary
The basic concepts of the Hveem mix design
3
method were originally developed by Francis
Hveem when he was a Resident Engineer for the
California Division of Highways in the late 1920s and 1930s. Currently, the Hveem
method is used by several western states. The basic philosophy surrounding the
Hveem method can be summarized in the following three points (Vallerga and
Lovering, 1985):
1. HMA requires enough asphalt binder to coat each aggregate particle to
an optimum film thickness (allowing for its absorption into the
aggregate).
2. HMA requires sufficient stability to resist traffic loading. This stability is
generated by internal friction between aggregate particles and cohesion
(or tensile strength) created by the binder.
3. HMA durability increases with thicker asphalt binder film thicknesses.
Based on this philosophy, the design asphalt content is selected as that asphalt
content resulting in the highest durability without dropping below a minimum
allowable stability. In other words, as much asphalt binder as possible should be
used while still meeting minimum stability requirements.
This section consists of a brief history of the Hveem mix design method followed by
a general outline of the actual method. This outline emphasizes general concepts
and rationale for the specific procedures. Detailed procedures can vary from stateto-state but typical procedures are available in the following documents:
MD.
Asphalt Institute. (1997). Mix Design Methods for Asphalt, 6th ed., MS02. Asphalt Institute. Lexington, KY.
3.1 History (from Vallerga and Lovering, 1985)

In the late 1920s, the California Division of Highways had come to use an asphaltaggregate blend commonly known as an "oil mix" on many of their rural roads. An
oil mix was a compromise between the more expensive high performance HMA used
on major urban streets and highways and the cheaper low performance penetrative
method (asphalt oil sprayed on a roadway surface of unbound particles) used on
low-volume rural highways. An oil mix consisted of a combination of aggregate and
asphaltic oil that was mixed either in a plant or on the road itself (called a "road
mix"), spread by blade, then compacted by traffic. Unfortunately, there was no
method available for designing these oil mixes. Based on his research, and that of
others, Francis N. Hveem developed a method for determining the correct amount
of oil based on aggregate surface area, which could be determined from gradation.
It also became evident that even given the right oil content, roads containing
aggregates with "hard, glassy surface texture" tended to deform excessively under
load while roads containing aggregates with a "rough, irregular surface texture"
were more stable. Therefore, Hveem worked to develop a device that would
measure stability, which eventually became the Hveem Stabilometer. One more
problem existed: specimens compacted in the laboratory for the Stabilometer did
not produce the same readings as those taken from field cores. Therefore, a new
compaction machine, which eventually became the California Kneading Compactor,
was developed to more closely simulate the compaction produced by rollers in the
field.
3.2 Procedure
The Hveem mix design method consists of 6 basic steps:
4. Stability determination using the Hveem Stabilometer.

Standard procedures used in Hveem mix design are:
AASHTO T 246: Resistance to Deformation and Cohesion of Bituminous
Mixtures by Means of Hveem Apparatus
AASHTO T 247: Preparation of Test Specimens of Bituminous Mixtures by
Means of the California Kneading Compactor
3.2.1 Aggregate Selection

Although Hveem did not specifically develop an aggregate evaluation and selection
procedure, one is included here because it is integral to any mix design. A typical
aggregate evaluation for use with either the Hveem or Marshall mix design methods
includes three basic steps (Roberts et al., 1996):
1. Determine aggregate physical properties. This consists of running
various tests to determine properties such as:
o
Toughness and abrasion
Durability and soundness
Cleanliness and deleterious materials
Particle shape and surface texture
2. Determine other aggregate descriptive physical properties. If the

aggregate is acceptable according to step #1, additional tests are run to
fully characterize the aggregate. These tests determine:
o
Gradation and size
Specific gravity and absorption
3. Perform blending calculations to achieve the mix design aggregate

gradation. Often, aggregates from more than one source or stockpile
are used to obtain the final aggregate gradation used in a mix design.
Trial blends of these different gradations are usually calculated until an
acceptable final mix design gradation is achieved. Typical considerations
for a trial blend include:
o
All gradation specifications must be met. Typical specifications

will require the percent retained by weight on particular sieve
sizes to be within a certain band.
The gradation should not be too close to the FHWA's 0.45

power maximum density curve. If it is, then the VMA is likely
to be too low. Gradation should deviate from the FHWA's 0.45
power maximum density curve, especially on the 2.36 mm
(No. 8) sieve.
3.2.2 Asphalt Binder Selection

Hveem did not specifically develop an asphalt binder evaluation and selection
procedure. However, each agency uses some method of determining the
appropriate asphalt cement and modifiers (if used). Asphalt binder evaluation can be
based on local experience, previous performance or a procedure. The most
common procedure is the Superpave PG binder system. Once the binder is selected,
several preliminary tests are run to determine the asphalt binder's temperatureviscosity relationship.

The Hveem method, like other mix design methods, creates several trial aggregateasphalt binder blends, each with a different asphalt binder content. Then, by
evaluating each trial blend's performance, an optimum asphalt binder content can
be selected. In order for this concept to work, the trial blends must contain a range
of asphalt contents both above and below the optimum asphalt content. This can
be accomplished by either of two ways:
1. Select the asphalt binder content for each trial blend from a
predetermined list. Many agencies have predetermined lists that specify
the asphalt content for each trial blend. It is assumed that the optimum
asphalt binder content will lie within the range of specified trail blend
values.
2. Estimate the optimum asphalt binder content then select trail blends with
asphalt binder contents at, above and below the estimated optimum
content. One common estimation method is the centrifuge kerosene
equivalent test (CKE), although this procedure has been discontinued by
AASHTO (AASHTO, 2000a).
3.2.3.1 Centrifuge Kerosene Equivalent (CKE) Test

The centrifuge kerosene equivalent (CKE) test, used to estimate optimum asphalt
content, involves three basic steps (ASTM, 2000; AASHTO, 2000; Roberts et al.,
1996):
1. Determine the centrifuge kerosene equivalent (CKE). A small fine

aggregate sample (passing the 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve) is first weighed
then submerged in kerosene. Once the sample is saturated with
kerosene it is placed in a centrifuge for 2 minutes to remove excess
kerosene, then reweighed. The difference in these weights gives an
estimate of the fine aggregate's ability to absorb asphalt binder.
CKE
where
:
WW WD
100
WD
CKE = Centrifuge Kerosene Equivalent
WW = Sample wet weight (after running in the centrifuge)

WD = Sample dry weight (before submerging it in kerosene)
2. Determine the coarse aggregate surface capacity. A small coarse

aggregate sample (passing the 9.5 mm (0.375 inch) sieve but retained
on the 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve) is first weighed then submerged in SAE
10 oil for 5 minutes. The sample is then drained and placed in an oven
for 15 minutes after which it is reweighed. The difference in these
weights gives an estimate of the coarse aggregate's ability to absorb
asphalt binder.
Percent Oil Held
where:
WW WD
100
WD
WW = Sample wet weight (after heated in the oven)

WD = Sample dry weight (before submerging it in oil)
3. Estimate the optimum asphalt content. Results from the first two steps
are corrected for aggregate specific gravity then entered on a chart to
determine the percent oil recommended for an asphalt cutback (specific
cutback types referenced are RC-250, MC-250 and SC-250). This
percent oil is then corrected for the increased viscosity of the HMA
asphalt binder used.
The standard CKE tests are:
AASHTO T 270: Centrifuge Kerosene Equivalent and Approximate

Bitumen Ratio (Discontinued)
ASTM D 5148: Centrifuge Kerosene Equivalent
3.2.3.2 Sample Asphalt Binder Contents

Based on the results of the CKE test, samples are typically prepared with the
following asphalt binder contents (Roberts et al., 1996):
The value determined by the CKE test
0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 percent above the CKE value (at least one set of
specimens should have enough asphalt binder to flush after compaction)
0.5 and 1.0 percent below the CKE value
3.2.3.3 Compaction with the California Kneading Compactor

Each sample is then heated to the anticipated compaction temperature and
compacted with the California kneading compactor (see Figure 5.3), a device that
applies pressure to a sample through a hydraulically operated tamper foot. Key
parameters of the
California kneading compactor are:
Sample size = 102 mm (4-inch) diameter cylinder approximately 64 mm

(2.5 inches) in height (corrections can be made for different sample
heights)
Tamper foot = Shield-shaped with an area of 20 cm2 (3.1 in2)
Compaction pressure = Ranges from 2.4 to 3.4 MPa (350 to 500 psi)
Number of blows = 150 (plus any preparatory blows at 1.7 MPa (250 psi)
)
Simulation method = The tamper foot strikes the sample on the top near
the edge. The base rotates 1/6 of a revolution after each blow. This
helps achieve a sample particle orientation that is somewhat like that
achieved in the field after roller compaction.
Figure 5.3: California Kneading

Compactors
The standard kneading compactor sample
preparation procedure is:
AASHTO T 247 and ASTM D

1561: Preparation of Test
Specimens of Bituminous
Mixtures by Means of the
California Kneading Compactor
3.2.4 The Hveem Stabilometer and

Cohesiometer
The Hveem stabilometer (see Figure 5.4)
provides the key performance prediction
Figure 5.4: Hveem Stabilometer
measure for the Hveem mix design method (TRB, 2000). The stabilometer
measures the resistance to deformation of a compacted HMA sample by measuring
the lateral pressure developed from applying a vertical load (AASHTO, 2000). The
cohesiometer then measures the cohesion of the same compacted HMA sample by
measuring the forces required to break or bend the sample as a cantilevered beam
(AASHTO, 2000).
3.2.4.1 Hveem Stabilometer

The stabilometer, a closed-system triaxial test, applies an increasing load to the top
of the sample at a predetermined rate. As the load increases, the lateral pressure
is read at specified intervals. The resulting stabilometer value is calculated as:
where:
22.2
Ph D
0.222
Pv Ph
S = stabilometer value
Pv = vertical pressure - typically 2800 kPa (400
psi)
Ph = horizontal pressure corresponding to Pv in kPa
(psi)
D = displacement of specimen in 0.25 mm (0.01
inch) units
Note: a correction to the stabilometer value is made
if the sample height is not 64 mm (2.5 inches)
With this equation, the stabilometer value can range from 0 to 90. Zero would
represent a condition where lateral pressure is equal to vertical pressure (e.g., a
liquid). Ninety would represent a condition where there is no lateral pressure no
matter what the vertical pressure is (e.g., an incompressible solid). Table 5.2
shows typical stabilometer criteria.
Table 5.2: Typical Hveem Design Criteria (from Asphalt Institute, 1979)
Mix Criteria
Light Traffic
(< 104 ESALs)
Medium Traffic
(104 - 106
ESALs)
Heavy Traffic
(> 106 ESALs)
Stabilometer
Value
30
35
37
Air Voids
Approximately 4 percent
3.2.4.2 Hveem Cohesiometer

The cohesiometer (see Figures 5.5 and 5.6) attempts to measure cohesive strength
across the diameter of a sample on which the stability test had already been
conducted. This is intended to provide some prediction about the ability of the HMA
sample to resist raveling under traffic loading. Basically the sample is bent as a
cantilevered beam until it fails. Although it was useful for oil mixes, HMAs tend to
have large cohesion values as measured by the cohesiometer and rarely, if ever,
fail. As a result, the cohesiometer has fallen out of favor and is rarely used
(Roberts et al., 1996).
C
where
:
L
0.20 H 0.044 H 2
W
C = cohesiometer value
L = weight of shot (grams)

W = diameter or width of specimen
(inches)
H = height of specimen (inches)
Figure 5.5: Cohesiometer
Figure 5.6: Cohesiometer Close-Up

1. Bulk specific gravity (Gmb).
2. Theoretical maximum specific gravity (TMD, Gmm).
Air voids (Va), sometimes expressed as voids in the total mix (VTM)
Voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA)

The optimum asphalt binder content is finally selected based on the combined
results of the stabilometer test, density analysis and void analysis. As a first step,
it is prudent to plot these test results versus asphalt binder content in order to
check them for possible testing errors. Typically, these plots should exhibit the
following characteristics:
Hveem stability should decrease with increasing asphalt binder content.
Density will generally increase with increasing asphalt content. The

curve may or may not reach a maximum.
Percent air voids should decrease with increasing asphalt content.
Recall that the Hveem mix design method strives to select the asphalt content
resulting in the highest durability without falling below a minimum allowable
stability. The "pyramid" method is a common method of selecting the optimum
asphalt binder content (see Figure 5.7).

Using the "Pyramid" Method (from Roberts et al., 1996)
3.3 Summary
The Hveem mix design method was developed to address specific mix design issues
confronting Francis Hveem and the California Division of Highways in the late 1920s
and 1930s. Since then, it has been modified and supplemented to address new
concerns but the basic testing apparatus and selection criteria are still the same.
The Hveem method is based on three basic assumptions:
1. Optimum asphalt binder content is dependent upon aggregate surface
area and absorption.
2. Stability is a function of aggregate particle friction and mix cohesion.
3. HMA durability increases with more asphalt binder.
The two biggest differentiating aspects of the Hveem method when compared to
other mix design methods are the kneading compactor and the Hveem
stabilometer. The kneading compactor uses a special rotating base to simulate
actual field compaction while the stabilometer measures HMA deformation under
load. The design asphalt content is selected as that asphalt content resulting in the
highest durability without going below a minimum allowable stability.
2 HMA - Fundamentals
HMA consists of two basic ingredients: aggregate and
asphalt binder. HMA mix design is the process of
determining what aggregate to use, what asphalt
binder to use and what the optimum combination
of these two ingredients ought to be. HMA mix
design has evolved as a laboratory procedure that
uses several critical tests to make key
characterizations of each trial HMA blend.
Although these characterizations are not
comprehensive, they can give the mix designer a
good understanding of how a particular mix will
perform in the field during construction and under
subsequent traffic loading.
2.
1
Concepts
2.
2
Variables
3.
3
Objectives
3.
4
Basic Procedure
3.
5
Summary
This section covers mix design fundamentals common to all mix design methods.
First, two basic concepts (mix design as a simulation and weight-volume terms and
relationships) are discussed to set a framework for subsequent discussion. Second,

the variables that mix design may manipulate are presented. Third, the
fundamental objectives of mix design are presented. Finally, a generic mix design
procedure (which Hveem, Marshall and Superpave methods all use) is
presented.
2.1 Concepts
Before discussing any mix design specifics, it is important to understand a couple of
basic mix design concepts:
Mix design is a simulation
HMA weight-volume terms and relationships
2.1.1 Mix Design is a Simulation

First, and foremost, mix design is a laboratory simulation. Mix design is meant to
simulate actual HMA manufacturing, construction and performance to the extent
possible. Then, from this simulation we can predict (with reasonable certainty)
what type of mix design is best for the particular application in question and how it
will perform.
Being a simulation, mix design has its limitations. Specifically, there are substantial
differences between laboratory and field conditions. Certainly, a small laboratory
setup consisting of several 100 - 150 mm (4 - 6 inch) samples, a compaction
machine and a couple of testing devices cannot fully recreate actual manufacturing,
construction and performance conditions. For instance, mix design compaction should
create the same general density (void content) to which the traffic will finally
compact a mix in the field under service conditions (Roberts et al., 1996).
However, it is difficult to calibrate a number of tamper blows (laboratory
compaction) to a specific construction compaction and subsequent traffic loading
(field compaction). Currently used correlations between these densities are
empirical in nature and extremely rough (e.g., high, medium and low traffic
categories). However, despite limitations such as the preceding, mix design
procedures can provide a cost effective and reasonably accurate simulation that is
useful in making mix design decisions.
2.1.2 HMA Weight-Volume Terms and Relationships

Mix design, and specifically Superpave mix design, is volumetric in nature. That is, it
seeks to combine aggregate and asphalt on a volume basis (as opposed to a weight
basis). Volume measurements are usually made indirectly by determining a
material's weight and specific gravity and then calculating its volume. Therefore,
mix design involves several different void and specific gravity measurements.
These terms are often used in mix design discussions and are therefore presented
in a separate section for clarity and reference. It is important to have a clear
understanding of these terms before proceeding.
2.2 Variables
HMA is a rather complex material upon which many different, and sometimes
conflicting, performance demands are placed. It must resist deformation and cracking,
be durable over time, resist water damage, provide a good tractive surface, and yet be
inexpensive, readily made and easily placed. In order to meet these demands, the
mix designer can manipulate all of three variables:
1. Aggregate. Items such as type (source), gradation and size, toughness
and abrasion resistance, durability and soundness, shape and texture as
well as cleanliness can be measured, judged and altered to some
degree.
2. Asphalt binder. Items such as type, durability, rheology, purity as well
as additional modifying agents can be measured, judged and altered to
some degree.
3. The ratio of asphalt binder to aggregate. Usually expressed in terms of
percent asphalt binder by total weight of HMA, this ratio has a profound
effect on HMA pavement performance. Because of the wide differences
in aggregate specific gravity, the proportion of asphalt binder expressed
as a percentage of total weight can vary widely even though the
volume of asphalt binder as a percentage of total volume remains
quite constant.
2.3 Objectives
Before embarking on a mix design procedure it is important to understand what its
objectives. This section presents the typical qualities of a well-made HMA mix. By
manipulating the variables of aggregate, asphalt binder and the ratio between the
two, mix design seeks to achieve the following qualities in the final HMA product
(Roberts et al., 1996):
1. Deformation resistance (stability). HMA should not distort (rut) or
deform (shove) under traffic loading. HMA deformation is related to one
or more of the following:
o
Aggregate surface and abrasion characteristics. Rounded

particles tend to slip by one another causing HMA distortion
under load while angular particles interlock with one another

providing a good deformation resistant structure. Brittle
particles cause mix distortion because they tend to break
apart under agitation or load. Tests for particle shape and
texture as well as durability and soundness can identify
problem aggregate sources. These sources can be avoided, or
at a minimum, aggregate with good surface and abrasion
characteristics can be blended in to provide better overall
characteristics.
o
Aggregate gradation. Gradations with excessive fines (either

naturally occurring or caused by excessive abrasion) cause
distortion because the large amount of fine particles tend to
push the larger particles apart and act as lubricating ballbearings between these larger particles. A gradation resulting
in low VMA or excessive asphalt binder content can have the
same effect. Gradation specifications are used to ensure
acceptable aggregate gradation.
Asphalt binder content. Excess asphalt binder content tends

to lubricate and push aggregate particles apart making their
rearrangement under load easier. The optimum asphalt binder
content as determined by mix design should prevent this.
Asphalt binder viscosity at high temperatures. In the hot

summer months, asphalt binder viscosity is at its lowest and
the pavement will deform more easily under load. Specifying
an asphalt binder with a minimum high temperature viscosity
(as can be done in the Superpave asphalt binder selection
process) ensures adequate high temperature viscosity.
2. Fatigue resistance. HMA should not crack when subjected to repeated

loads over time. HMA fatigue cracking is related to asphalt binder
content and stiffness. Higher asphalt binder contents will result in a mix
that has a greater tendency to deform elastically (or at least deform)
rather than fracture under repeated load. The optimum asphalt binder
content as determined by mix design should be high enough to prevent
excessive fatigue cracking. The use of an asphalt binder with a lower
stiffness will increase a mixture's fatigue life by providing greater
flexibility. However, the potential for rutting must also be considered in
the selection of an asphalt binder. Note that fatigue resistance is also
highly dependent upon the relationship between structural layer
thickness and loading. However, this section only addresses mix design
issues.
3. Low temperature cracking resistance. HMA should not crack when
subjected to low ambient temperatures. Low temperature cracking is
primarily a function of the asphalt binder low temperature stiffness.
Specifying asphalt binder with adequate low temperature properties (as
can be done in the Superpave asphalt binder selection process) should

prevent, or at least limit, low temperature cracking.
4. Durability. HMA should not suffer excessive aging during production
and service life. HMA durability is related to one or more of the
following:
o
The asphalt binder film thickness around each aggregate

particle. If the film thickness surrounding the aggregate
particles is insufficient, it is possible that the aggregate may
become accessible to water through holes in the film. If the
aggregate is hydrophilic, water will displace the asphalt film
and asphalt-aggregate cohesion will be lost. This process is
typically referred to as stripping. The optimum asphalt binder
content as determined by mix design should provide adequate
film thickness.
Air voids. Excessive air voids (on the order of 8 percent or

more) increase HMA permeability and allow oxygen easier
access to more asphalt binder thus accelerating oxidation and
volatilization. To address this, HMA mix design seeks to adjust
items such as asphalt content and aggregate gradation to
produce design air voids of about 4 percent. Excessive air
voids can be either a mix design or a construction problem
and this section only addresses the mix design problem.
5. Moisture damage resistance. HMA should not degrade substantially

from moisture penetration into the mix. Moisture damage resistance is
related to one or more of the following:
o
Aggregate mineral and chemical properties. Some aggregates

attract moisture to their surfaces, which can cause stripping.
To address this, either stripping-susceptible aggregates can be
avoided or an anti-stripping asphalt binder modifier can be
used.
Air voids. When HMA air voids exceed about 8 percent by

volume, they may become interconnected and allow water to
easily penetrate the HMA and cause moisture damage through
pore pressure or ice expansion. To address this, HMA mix
design adjusts asphalt binder content and aggregate gradation
to produce design air voids of about 4 percent. Excessive air
voids can be either a mix design or a construction problem
and this section only addresses the mix design problem.
6. Skid resistance. HMA placed as a surface course should provide

sufficient friction when in contact with a vehicle's tire. Low skid
resistance is generally related to one or more of the following:
Aggregate characteristics such as texture, shape, size and

resistance to polish. Smooth, rounded or polish-susceptible
aggregates are less skid resistant. Tests for particle shape
and texture can identify problem aggregate sources. These
sources can be avoided, or at a minimum, aggregate with
good surface and abrasion characteristics can be blended in to
provide better overall characteristics.
Asphalt binder content. Excessive asphalt binder can cause

HMA bleeding. Using the optimum asphalt binder content as
determined by mix design should prevent bleeding.
7. Workability. HMA must be capable of being placed and compacted with

reasonable effort. Workability is generally related to one or both of the
following:
o
Aggregate texture, shape and size. Flat, elongated or angular

particles tend to interlock rather than slip by one another
making placement and compaction more difficult (notice that
this is almost in direct contrast with the desirable aggregate
properties for deformation resistance). Although no specific
mix design tests are available to quantify workability, tests for
particle shape and texture can identify possible workability
problems.
Aggregate gradation. Gradations with excess fines (especially

in the 0.60 to 0.30 mm (No. 30 to 50) size range when using
natural, rounded sand) can cause a tender mix. A gradation
resulting in low VMA or excess asphalt binder content can
have the same effect. Gradation specifications are used to
ensure acceptable aggregate gradation.
Asphalt binder content. At laydown temperatures (above

about 120 C (250 F)) asphalt binder works as a lubricant
between aggregate particles as they are compacted.
Therefore, low asphalt binder content reduces this lubrication
resulting in a less workable mix. Note that a higher asphalt
binder content is generally good for workability but generally
bad for deformation resistance.
Asphalt binder viscosity at mixing/laydown temperatures. If

the asphalt binder viscosity is too high at mixing and laydown
temperatures, the HMA becomes difficult to dump, spread and
compact. The Superpave rotational viscometer specifically
tests for mixing/laydown temperature asphalt binder
viscosity.
Knowing these objectives, the challenge in mix design is then to develop a

relatively simple procedure with a minimal amount of tests and samples that will
produce a mix with all the above HMA qualities.
2.4 Basic Procedure

HMA mix design is the process of determining what aggregate to use, what asphalt
binder to use and what the optimum combination of these two ingredients ought to
be. In order to meet the demands placed by the preceding desirable HMA
properties, all mix design processes involve three basic steps:
1. Aggregate selection. No matter the specific method, the overall mix
design procedure begins with evaluation and selection of aggregate and
asphalt binder sources. Different authorities specify different methods of
aggregate acceptance. Typically, a battery of aggregate physical tests is
run periodically on each particular aggregate source. Then, for each mix
design, gradation and size requirements are checked. Normally,
aggregate from more than one source is required to meet gradation
requirements.
2. Asphalt binder selection. Although different authorities can and do
specify different methods of asphalt binder evaluation, the Superpave
asphalt binder specification has been or will be adopted by most State
DOTs as the standard (NHI, 2000).
3. Optimum asphalt binder content determination. Mix design methods are

generally distinguished by the method with which they determine the
optimum asphalt binder content. This process can be subdivided as
follows:
o
Make several trial mixes with different asphalt binder

contents.
Compact these trial mixes in the laboratory. It is important to

understand that this step is at best a rough simulation of field
conditions.
Run several laboratory tests to determine key sample

characteristics. These tests represent a starting point for
defining the mixture properties but they are not
comprehensive nor are they exact reproductions of actual field
conditions.
Pick the asphalt binder content that best satisfies the mix
design objectives.
2.4.1 The Job Mix Formula

The end result of a successful mix design is a recommended mixture of aggregate
and asphalt binder. This recommended mixture, which also includes aggregate
gradation and asphalt binder type is often referred to as the job mix formula (JMF)
or recipe. For HMA manufacturing, target values of gradation and asphalt binder
content are specified based on the JMF along with allowable specification bands to
allow for inherent material and production variability (see Table 5.1 and Figure
5.2). It bears repeating that these target values and specification bands are based
on the JMF and not any general HMA gradation requirements. Thus, the mix
designer is allowed substantial freedom in choosing a particular gradation for the
JMF and then the manufacturer is expected to adhere quite closely to this JMF
gradation during production.
Table 5.1: Example Job Mix Formula (JMF) with Specification and Tolerance
Bands
Sieve (metric)
19.0
mm
12.5
mm
9.5
mm
2.36
mm
0.075
mm
Sieve Size (U.S.

units)
3/4
inch
1/2
inch
3/8
inch
No. 8
No.
200
Gradation Control
Points
100
min.
90 100
90
max.
28 - 58
2.0 7.0
Job Mix Formula

(JMF)
100
96
75
29
4.5
Tolerance
99 100
Tolerance Limits
99 100
+/- 6% +/- 6% +/- 4%
90 100
69 - 81 25 - 33
+/2.0%
2.5 6.5
Figure 5.2: Job Mix Formula (JMF) with Specification Bands Example
2.5 Summary
HMA mix design is a laboratory process used to determine the appropriate
aggregate, asphalt binder and their proportions for use in HMA. Mix design is a
process to manipulate three variables: (1) aggregate, (2) asphalt binder content
and (3) the ratio of aggregate to asphalt binder with the objective of obtaining an
HMA that is deformation resistant, fatigue resistant, low temperature crack
resistant, durable, moisture damage resistant, skid resistant and workable.
Although mix design has many limitations it has proven to be a cost-effective
method to provide crucial information that can be used to formulate a highperformance HMA.
1 INTRODUCTION
The two key components of pavement design are mix design and structural design.
This section deals with HMA and PCC mix design. The goal of mix design is to
determine the optimum mixture of component materials for a given application.
This includes detailed evaluations of aggregate, asphalt and portland cement as well as a
determination of their optimum blending ratios. This section covers the following
for HMA and PCC mix design:
Mix design fundamentals. These are the fundamental philosophies and

parameters of mix design such as (1) why it is done, (2) what basic
assumptions are made and (3) the specific goals of mix design.
Mix design methods. These sections cover the various mix design
procedures used. For HMA, the Hveem, Marshall and Superpave methods are
covered. For PCC, the ACI method is covered.
Figure 5.1: U.S. Mix Design Methods

(from Tandon and Avelar, 2002; ERES, 1998; White, 1985 and Vallerga and
Lovering, 1985)
Performance Tests. These are the tests performed on laboratory

designed mixes (or field samples) to characterize their performance.
They can consist of basic physical property measurements (such as
stiffness or strength) or laboratory simulation of field conditions (such as
rutting potential or chloride penetration).
This section is only meant to provide a brief overview of mix design methods as well
as their assumptions, inputs and outputs. Resources that provide a detailed
description and analysis of each mix design method are listed in the beginning of
each section.

Aci 8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aci 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Major Topics on this Page

Maximum Aggregate Size

Mixing Water and Air Content

Coarse Aggregate Content

Fine Aggregate Content

Adjustments for Aggregate

The American Concrete Institute's (ACI) Standard Practice for Selecting

The Portland Cement Association's (PCA) Design and Control of Concrete

8. Adjustments for aggregate moisture

Plain footings, caissons

Beams and reinforced

Pavements and slabs

as low as 1 as low as 0 as low as 0

8.2 Maximum Aggregate Size

8.3 Mixing Water and Air Content

Typical entrapped air

Recommended Air Content (percent)

8.4 Water-Cement Ratio

8.5 Cement Content

The specified minimum cement content, if applicable. Most state DOTs

8.6 Coarse Aggregate Content

Fine Aggregate Fineness

1. These values can be increased by up to about 10

8.7 Fine Aggregate Content

Unit volume (1 m3 or yd3)

8.8 Adjustments for Aggregate Moisture

Major Topics on this Page

When aggregate, water and portland cement paste

Workability. This parameter, typically measured by slump, is indicative

Strength. This parameter is related to a rigid pavement's ability to

Durability. Several tests can be conducted to determine susceptibility to

Early age behavior. HIPERPAV, a software program, can be used to

AASHTO T 119, ASTM C 143: Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete

Tensile strength (including splitting tension tests and flexural strength

A Note on Age vs. Strength

9.2.1 Compressive Strength

Split Tensile Strength 6.7 f cFlexural Strength 7.5 f c

Compressive strength is most often measured by forming 150 mm diameter, 300

The standard compression tests are:

AASHTO T 22 and ASTM C 39: Compressive Strength of Cylindrical

AASHTO T 140 and ASTM C 116: Compressive Strength of Concrete

9.2.2 Tensile Strength

9.2.2.1 Splitting Tension Test

AASHTO T 198 and ASTM C 496: Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical

9.2.2.2 Flexural Strength Tests

Figure 5.44: Flexural Test

Figure 5.45: Casting Flexural

AASHTO T 97 and ASTM C 78: Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using

AASHTO T 177 and ASTM C 293: Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using

9.3.1.1 Freeze-Thaw Test

The temperature is alternately

Figure 5.46: Beam Specimens for

Each of these cycles should take anywhere from 2 to 4 hours.

4. Remove the specimen from the freeze-thaw apparatus at intervals not to

The specimen has been subjected to 300 freeze-thaw cycles.

The specimen dynamic modulus of elasticity reaches 60

(Optional) the specimen has experienced a 0.10 percent

The durability factor is then calculated as:

AASHTO T 161 and ASTM C 666: Resistance of Concrete to Rapid

ASTM C 671: Critical Dilation of Concrete

9.3.1.2 Air Content Tests

Figure 5.47: Pressure

Standard air content tests are: