Manual24 PDF

User Guide
for the
Design of Hot Mix Asphalt
A support document to the

Interim Guidelines for the
Design of Hot Mix Asphalt
in South Africa (2001)
February 2005
Scope of Document
The Interim Guidelines for the Design of Hot-Mix Asphalt in South Africa (IGHMA) was
prepared in 2001 as part of the Hot-Mix Asphalt Design Project launched in 1998 by
SANRAL (South African National Road Agency Ltd), CSIR Transportek and Sabita (Southern
Africa Bitumen Association). The aim of this project was todevelop a new HMA design
method for South Africa.
This document has been developed by Sabita to provide a practical guideline for designers
of hot mix asphalt. A secondary objective is to simplify and smooth the use of the IGHMA
document, which is currently being validated through a series of projects scheduled for
completion in 2010. As such, extensive reference is made to the IGHMA, rather than
repeating its information, and this document should be considered as a support document
and read in conjunction with the IGHMA. The intention of this document is to:
) Highlight important issues and content given in the IGHMA;
) Caution the reader against certain pitfalls or gaps in the IGHMA;
) Provide some guidance on supplementary procedures to achieve a sound and

workable mix design; and
) Provide comment and guidance on issues that have arisen since the IGHMA
was launched in 2001.
The design of thin layer asphalts (< 25mm) and Ultra Thin Friction Courses (UTFC) is not
covered in this document. A separate design guide, now being prepared for asphalt layers of
less than 25mm and based on functional requirements and the suitability of generally
proprietary brand UTFCs, will be driven through the Agrément system.
The IGHMA document is available from the Asphalt Academy (+27 12 841 2426 or
asac@csir.co.za).
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 - Introduction............................................................................................................1
1.1 General issues related HMA design .........................................................................2
Chapter 2 – Mix Design Procedures ........................................................................................4
2.1 Phase 1: Evaluate Design Situation and Identify Objectives ....................................5
2.2 Phase 2: Mix Type Selection ....................................................................................8
2.3 Phase 3: Component Selection ................................................................................8
2.3.1 Aggregates ...........................................................................................................9
2.3.2 Filler ......................................................................................................................9 Deleted: 9
2.3.3 Binder .................................................................................................................10 Inserted: 9
2.4 Phase 4: Volumetric Mix Design.............................................................................11 Deleted: 10
2.4.1 Spatial Considerations........................................................................................12
2.4.2 Target Grading....................................................................................................12
2.4.3 Mixing and Conditioning .....................................................................................14
2.4.4 Compaction.........................................................................................................14
2.4.5 Density................................................................................................................18
2.4.6 Volumetric evaluation .........................................................................................19
2.4.7 Optimum binder content .....................................................................................20
2.5 Phase 5: Performance testing ................................................................................20
2.5.1 Permanent Deformation......................................................................................21
2.5.2 Fatigue................................................................................................................23
2.5.3 Moisture Sensitivity (Modified Lottman Test)......................................................24
2.5.4 Other Design and Performance Tests ................................................................24
2.5.5 Field trials and final adjustments ........................................................................27
Chapter 3 - Discussions on different mix types and specific design considerations ..............29
3.1 Sand-Skeleton mixes..............................................................................................29
3.1.1 Component selection ..........................................................................................29
3.1.2 Selection of a design gradation ..........................................................................29
3.1.3 Binder content selection and evaluation of compactability .................................30
3.1.4 Performance testing............................................................................................31
3.2 Stone mastic asphalt ..............................................................................................31
3.2.1 Design considerations ........................................................................................31
3.2.2 Design procedure ...............................................................................................31
3.2.4 Selection of design gradation .............................................................................32
3.2.5 Binder content selection .....................................................................................32
3.2.7 Mix deficiencies ..................................................................................................32
3.3 Open-graded mixes ................................................................................................33
3.3.3 Selection of design gradation .............................................................................34
3.3.4 Binder content selection .....................................................................................35
3.4 Large aggregate mixes for bases (LAMBS)............................................................35
3.4.3 Design process ...................................................................................................36
3.4.4 Design criteria.....................................................................................................36
3.5 Semi open-graded mixes........................................................................................36
Chapter 4 – Design Implementation: Construction and Quality Assurance aspects ..............37
4.1 Segregation ............................................................................................................37
4.2 Compaction and layer thickness.............................................................................37
4.3 Temperature control ...............................................................................................38
4.4 Binder variation.......................................................................................................38
4.5 Joints ......................................................................................................................39
4.6 Trial sections ..........................................................................................................39
4.7 Sampling and testing ..............................................................................................39
4.8 Statistical judgement plans .....................................................................................40
References .............................................................................................................................41
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Hot-mix asphalt has been used in South Africa since the 1920s. In 1978, the Technical
Recommendations for Highways (TRH 8) was developed in draft form by the then National
Institute for Transport and Road Research (now CSIR, Transportek), This document was
approved by the Committee of State Road Authorities (CSRA) to serve as a reference for the
design and use of hot-mix asphalt. TRH 8: 19871 is the latest edition of the draft document,
which is centred on the Marshall Design method but includes additional information and
criteria for component evaluation.
Over the years, several changes have taken place in the road building industry which have
exposed deficiencies in the scope and depth of the methodology contained in TRH 8:1987.
These changes include:
• more aggressive design situations caused by increases in legal axle loading limits and
heavy traffic volumes;
• influx of overseas information and of new methods which may lead to fragmentation of
methods used in South Africa;
• increased use of mixes such as Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA), Large Aggregate Mix
Bases (LAMBS), Ultra Thin Friction Courses (UTFC) and other thin layer asphalt
surfaces (< 25mm) for which no adequate provision is made in the TRH 8:19871
document;
• new test methods;
• the introduction and development of modified binders;
• the need to design mixes for high volume roads compared to lower volume roads; and
• the fact that field measurements do not always match the design intentions or
laboratory findings.
Comment: Stated in Scope
A joint project was launched in 1998 by SANRAL, CSIR Transportek and Sabita with the aim
of developing a new HMA design method for South Africa incorporating state-of-the-art
knowledge on materials evaluation, mix design and performance assessment. This new
design method was also to take cognisance of climatic and pavement environments, as well
as aspects related to construction.
The Interim Guidelines for the Design of Hot-Mix Asphalt in South Africa (IGHMA) was
prepared as part of the Hot-Mix Asphalt Design Project, and was intended to be read in
conjunction with TRH 8:19871 until all proposals and criteria contained in the IGHMA could
be validated from practice. It was envisaged that the guidelines could then be finalized and
specifications developed. Projects related to the validation of the IGHMA are currently being
undertaken and should be completed by 2010.
This document has been developed by Sabita to provide a practical guideline for designers
of hot mix asphalt. The intention is to simplify and smooth the use of the more philosophical
IGHMA document launched in 2001 through a series of regional workshops organised by the
Asphalt Academy. It should also be noted that this guideline document should not be used as Comment: Stated in Scope
a substitute for knowledge and expertise. The concepts presented in this document should
be applied by sufficiently experienced practitioners in engineering as an additional guide for
the design of appropriate mixes.
In short, this user guideline serves purely as a signpost to previous documents, and allows
the designer to trace design aspects from simple definitions to detailed research.Comments
and guidance on issues that have arisen since the IGHMA was launched are also provided.
1
The document discusses the design processes under the following headings related to the
IGHMA and other document:
Chapter 1: Introduction - (IGHMA Chapter 1)
Chapter 2: Mix Design Procedure - (IGHMA Chapter 2, 3, 4 and 5)
Chapter 3: Discussions on different Mix Types And Specific Design Considerations -
(IGHMA Chapters 4, 6, 7 and 8)
Chapter 4: Implementation of Design: Construction and Quality Assurance aspects –
(Sabita manual 52)
To assist the reader, the issues and points to be noted have been colour-coded as follows:
) Highlight important issues and content given in the IGHMA;
) Caution the reader against certain pitfalls or gaps in the IGHMA;
) Provide some guidance on supplementary procedures to achieve a sound and

workable mix design; and
) Provide comment and guidance on issues that have arisen since the IGHMA
was launched in 2001.
1.1 General issues related HMA design
The following general issues related to HMA design have been identified subsequent to the
implementation of the IGHMA.
) In terms of the surfacing layer, it is very important to distinguish between

friction courses and surfacing courses, as they may have different functions
and hence design requirements.
) Certain mix types that were used extensively in the past, such as gap-graded
and semi gap-graded mixes, should not be ignored in the mix type selection
process. There is a strong feeling in the industry that these mixes have
performed well in specific design situations, and should be reintroduced where
applicable. However, the previously-used design methods, calculations and
specifications for these mixes will have to be brought into line with the IGHMA,
which incorporates newer methods and criteria. These mixes are considered
in section 4.1 of the IGHMA under densely graded sand skeleton mixes.
) Certain mixes such as semi-open graded mixes with modified binders are
very popular, but are not discussed in detail in the IGHMA or TRH81. It is
suggested that current good practice should be documented and incorporated
in the guidelines at some stage in the future.
2
) Difficulties have been experienced with the use of the IGHMA design process
in respect of density measurements related to thin layer asphalts (< 25mm).
A more rational design method is therefore being developed, and the aim is to
produce separate guidelines for these layers, based on functional
requirements under moderate- to light traffic mainly in residential areas.
Hence, thin layer asphalts less than 25mm will not be discussed in this
document.
) The design and evaluation method for generally proprietary brand ultra thin
friction courses (UTFC) for higher volume roads is being developed through
the Agrément system, and will also not be discussed in this document.
However, both thin layer asphalt and UTFCs should be considered during the
mix type selection process.
) Although not commonly used, sand asphalt is used from time to time in
parking areas and low volume roads where aggregate sources are a problem.
Information on the design and application of sand asphalt can be found in
SABITA Manual 183.
) The mix design process should be fully integrated with the structural
design process. For example, the base stiffness can be increased by in-situ
stabilisation, and this will reduce strains at the bottom of the asphalt layer and
thereby eliminate the need for costly, very flexible asphalt layers.
NB: Designers are urged to read the Overview of the IGHMA to grasp the
basics involved in asphalt mix design
3
Chapter 2 – Mix Design Procedures
As shown in Figure 1, the mix design process can be divided into 5 phases:
PHASE 1 PHASE 2
`` Evaluate Design Situation Select Mix Type
and Identify Objectives
Design Situations
• Traffic PHASE 3
• Pavement Evaluate Components
• Climate
• Construction issues
• Other issues (Geometry,
Material availability, Environment) PHASE 4
Volumetric Design Process
Design Objectives • Spatial considerations &
• Rutting selection of gradation
• Durability & Fatigue • Sensitivity analysis &
• Permeability selection of target binder
• Constructability content
• Moisture susceptibility • Sample conditioning and
• Noise reduction compaction
• Skid resistance
• Volumetric evaluation
• Finalise binder content
Determine required
No
performance tests Are Criteria Met?
Yes
PHASE 5
Performance testing
Yes
Implement No
Are Criteria Met?
Design
Figure 1
Mix Design Process
Each phase shown in Figure 1 is discussed in more detail in the following sections, and
practical suggestions are provided for designers on aspects that should be taken into
consideration during the design process.
4
2.1 Phase 1: Evaluate Design Situation and Identify Objectives
Figure 2 summarises the issues that need to be evaluated for their impact on the selection of
the mix type and subsequent design of the mix. The IGHMA should be consulted for detailed
information on each issue.
ISSUES IMPACTING ON THE

SELECTION OF MIX TYPE
Traffic Pavement Climatic Construction Other issues

issues issues issues issues Geometry
Materials availability
Environmental
• Number of • Structure • Temperature • Layer thickness • Noise reduction

heavy vehicles ranges and aggregate • Skid resistance
• Structural • Rainfall size • Steep slopes
• Axle loads & capacity • Water • Existing cracks and crossfalls
equivalency
factors • Stiffness of sensitivity of • Traffic • Areas of
support layers underlying accommodation braking,
• Tyre pressures • Rehabilitation
layers accelerating &
• Drainage turning
• Truck speeds • New • Materials
• Wander effects pavements availability and
suitability
• Braking & • Support layers • Moisture
shoving effects at intersections damage
• Fuel spillage • Airports & (stripping)
• Light vehicle industrial areas
issues
• Loading time
Figure 2
Design Issues having an Impact on Selection of mix Type
Users of the IGHMA should be aware of the following issues that need adequate
consideration:
) The IGHMA considers a Pavement Structural Capacity of >10million ESALs to

be very heavy traffic. There are many situations in southern Africa at present
where significantly higher volumes must be carried, and the asphalt designs
for these situations should be assigned to experienced designers.
) Designers should be constantly aware of the conflicting requirements of

different design situations on mix parameters as illustrated in Figure 3. The
end product must be a balanced solution that provides the optimal result.
5
High Fatigue
Design
High Rut Resistance Objectives
Increased impermeability
Decreased binder content Increased binder content

Mix
Increased voids Design Reduced voids
Stiff binder Flexible binder
Figure 3
Design Considerations
) When undertaking rehabilitation designs, designers should take the flexibility

or stiffness of the existing pavement into account. A stiff new asphalt mix can
prevent rutting but may crack if placed on a flexible base. The choice of an
appropriate HMA mix using a modified binder may be able to address both
issues.
) In many situations it may not be possible to accommodate all of the design

requirements with a single HMA layer of a particular mix, and a combination of
layers, mixes or techniques may be required.
) Designers should note that partial rehabilitation (in depth and at the surface),
which results in the construction of numerous joints, could be more
susceptible to water ingress. Consideration should therefore be given to the
rehabilitation of larger areas resulting in fewer joints, and appropriate method
statements should be specified.
) Guidelines for the selection of base materials for different traffic classes can
be found in TRH44, TRH145 and COLTO/COTO Standard Specification for
Road and Bridge Works6. Table 2.5 of the IGHMA provides a brief summary of
suitable base types for different traffic classes.
) Designers should note that the temperature maps presented in the IGHMA
indicate the extremes in respect of performance of asphalt. This is because
one heavily loaded truck tyre can cause as much rutting damage at 60°C as
several million at 25°C. Similarly in fatigue performance a single heavily
loaded truck at 5°C can cause as much damage as several million trucks at
25°C.
) Designers should be aware of the difficulties relating to the mix design

processes that are to be followed before a specified mix is actually produced.
These processes will include normal tender procedures where tenderers will
6
estimate how to achieve the required properties, as well as the ultimate
submission of a mix design by the successful contractor using the lowest cost
materials available to meet the requirements. Hence, mix designs must take
this into consideration to ensure that both the designer and tenderer are
reasonably confident that the desired end product will be realised.
) Designers should not specify properties that are unfamiliar to the industry, as
this may either lead to undue risk being incurred by the contractor during the
tender process with consequent increases in the tendered rates or,
alternatively, may lead to tenderers making assumptions that cannot be met
when the final mix design is produced.
) Designers should be aware of the risks associated with material variability that
may occur during construction. Variability in aggregate shape and gradation
may result in excess or insufficient voids during construction, even though the
end product may still be within specification. This is particularly true for the
high stone content mixes that rely on stone-on-stone content and where slight
variability produces substantial differences in the VMA. The COMPACT
programme7 is a useful tool that can be used to make predictive estimates of
changes in VMA by making slight variations in stone content and overall
gradation.
) Designers and those responsible for construction should also be aware of the
variation that occurs in the mix properties across the width and length of a
paver-lane during construction. This variation often occurs due to the mix
segregating within the paver box, or because of temperature differences within
the loads delivered to the paver. Areas that are coarser or appear visually
different from other areas of the completed layer should be marked off and
tested separately as discrete uniform sections.
) When specifying minimum layer thickness, designers should take into

consideration the absolute maximum stone size as well as the quantity of this
stone (and not the nominal maximum used in specifying stone, which normally
refers to the sieve through which 85% to 100% must pass).
) To prevent instability, the maximum layer thickness for stone skeleton mixes
should not normally exceed 4 times the nominal maximum stone size.
) The practice of rolling pre-coated chips into thin layers of continuously graded
asphalt often does more harm to the layer itself compared to the value that is
gained from improved skid resistance. Hence, consideration should be given
to the use of separate friction courses. However, if single seals are used as
friction courses, the underlying asphalt should have a sufficiently high stone
content to prevent embedment of the seal into the underlying fresh asphalt.
The application of grit (even to SMA mixes) to improve skid resistance in the
early life of a wearing course is common practice both locally and overseas.
) In situations where emphasis is placed on noise reduction (generally in urban

areas) mixes such as Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) and porous asphalt should
be considered.
7
) The testing of resistance to stripping due to moisture damage cannot be
overemphasized and is often neglected. The modified Lottman test is
currently the most appropriate test to determine stripping potential. Anti-
stripping agents (including lime) should be seriously considered when there is
any doubt.
) The use of cement to improve resistance to stripping has not been proven and
is not recommended.
) Drum mixers are more frequently used in South Africa, but the correct plant
modification to accommodate additives such as modifiers and anti-stripping
agents in the mix is, in general, not consistent, especially on mobile plants at
construction sites.
2.2 Phase 2: Mix Type Selection
After taking all the design considerations and objectives into account, an appropriate mix or
combination of mixes and layers should be selected to suit their intended use.
) Table 2.6 of the IGHMA provides a useful tool to rank the design objectives
and develop an initial understanding of the precise function of the HMA and its
required properties. The steps involved in this rating process are discussed in
section 2.8 of the IGHMA.
) Designers should use the rating information and Table 2.7 of the IGHMA to
make a preliminary mix selection, as the characteristics of the mix
components can have an influence in the final mix selection as discussed in
the next Phase.
2.3 Phase 3: Component Selection
The components of an asphalt mix comprise:

• Aggregate
• filler and
• binder
and are discussed in detail in Section 3 of the IGHMA. Each component is described in terms
of physical properties or chemical composition. The test methods for evaluating suitability for
use are provided in the IGHMA.
Most of the important issues regarding the mix components are discussed in the IGHMA.
Some additional aspects are discussed in the following sections.
8
2.3.1 Aggregates
Aggregates for Hot Mix Asphalt comprise coarse and fine aggregate that are normally
obtained from crushing operations.
) Coarse aggregate in an asphalt mix normally consists of crushed stone or

other manufactured materials such as blast furnace slag or steel slag that may
be selected and processed from waste products obtained from manufacturing
processes. If materials manufactured from waste products are used the
chemical composition and presence of any deleterious chemicals must be
carefully checked and monitored during construction.
) The fine aggregate can consist of a material such as sand, or crushed fines.
The particle shape of fine aggregate significantly affects the workability of the
asphalt mixture, as well as its resistance to permanent deformation.
) Since improved crushing systems were introduced, the aggregate shape has
become more angular and cubical, resulting in easier compaction and a
significant influence on other performance characteristics of the mix. Hence
comparisons between mixes designed and manufactured with aggregate of a
similar grading, but with different particle shape, should be made with caution.
) Current practice is to minimize the use of natural sands due to their more
rounded shape and the generally poorer rutting resistance of mixes that
include these sands, particularly related to gap and semi-gap graded mixes.
However, these mixes provided good performance in certain design situations
in the past, and their use should not be disregarded without investigation. The
angularity of the sand in these mixes, whether natural or crushed, is critical to
their performance and the engineering properties of mixes incorporating
higher volumes of the sand fraction should be evaluated accordingly.
) The stability and workability of HMA are greatly affected by the shape of
particles, and designers should also be aware that particle packing in a
laboratory mould may differ substantially from the packing in a road layer.
) Variability is a significant issue affecting asphalt layers and their properties. In

particular, the quality of the rock in aggregate quarries often varies, resulting in
the crushing process producing material with different fractions and particle
shapes.
Details of the test methods of effective and bulk densities of aggregates are provided in
Chapter 5 of IGHMA.
2.3.2 Filler
9
Filler is defined as the material passing the 0.075 mm (or 75 µ) sieve. There are two types of
filler:
• Active filler; and
• Inactive (or inert) filler
Table 3.2 of the IGHMA shows the filler types and characteristics, while section 3.3 contains
detailed discussions on the use and application of fillers.
The following paragraphs highlight some particular issues related to the use and application
of fillers:
) The filler/binder ratio has an effect on both the workability and durability of
the mix, as well as on its ultimate stiffness and related tensile strength. In the
case of continuously graded mixes too much filler may make compaction
difficult, while in low stone content mixes such as semi-gap and gap-graded
mixes, the filler-binder ratio will have a significant effect on its resistance to
deformation. Mixes with ratios of 1.5 have greater resistance to deformation,
but are likely to have poorer durability. The effect of this ratio on
compactability of the mix, permanent deformation and durability should
therefore be carefully understood and controlled during the design process.
) It should be noted that filler/binder ratios cannot be applied to all mix

types as this can restrict certain grading requirements. For example, with a
base mix and a target binder content of the order of 4%, the maximum filler
that can be included at a maximum specified filler-binder ratio of 1.5 would be
6%. This may be unnecessarily restrictive for this mix.
) The ratio of filler related to the effective binder content may have more
relevance, as this will take the absorption of the binder into account. Typical
values of absorption of binder in dense graded mixes are between 0.6 and 1.2
percent.
) The tolerance limit of ± 1% of filler should be rigorously applied, except for

open-graded mixes where the filler content could be as low as 2% filler and
the ±1% tolerance may be too high.
2.3.3 Binder
Section 3.4 of the IGHMA provides details in this regard. The following binder types are
used in HMA:
• Penetration Grade Binders
• Modified Binders
The Technical Guidelines of October 2001(TG1): The Use Of Modified Bituminous

Binders In Road Construction8 is available from the Asphalt Academy, and should be used
in selecting, evaluating and using modified binders.
10
The most important properties and characteristics of commonly used modifiers are
summarised in Table 3.3 of the IGHMA. Designers should be aware that the use of modified
binders invariably requires more precise and specialised quality control during construction.
Table 3.4 of IGHMA shows the current SABS 3079 tests and specifications used for
penetration grade bituminous binders.
The following additional comments in respect of binders should be considered:
) Regular evaluation and testing of binders should be incorporated into a quality

assurance system to continuously confirm the binder quality.
) Bitumen is a very complex component of the asphalt mix. Bitumen properties

can vary within the specification ranges, which can influence the performance
of sensitive mixes.
) It should also be noted that binders may change during the course of an HMA
contract due to heating and bulk storage over time. A binder’s viscosity can be
expected to increase by approximately 25% if kept in bulk at elevated
temperatures of over 150°C for a month. While this storage practice is not
recommended, practicalities on site sometime dictate an occurrence of this
nature. In these circumstances changes in properties should be monitored
and, where possible, the original design mix should be modified to
accommodate changes in raw material properties to achieve the required
engineering properties of the mix. Alternatively the stored binder should be
rejected.
2.4 Phase 4: Volumetric Mix Design
Following the determination of the design objectives, preliminary selection of the mix type,
and evaluation of the various components, the actual volumetric design process can begin.
The basic volumetric design procedure consists of:
• determining the quantity of the various fractions of aggregate that will provide a
suitable skeleton that will meet the overall design objectives of the mix; and
• determining the quantity of binder that will fill the voids in the aggregate while
still retaining sufficient voids, even after traffic compaction, to prevent the
aggregate from “floating” in the binder.
Designers will need to develop an understanding, through experience, of how the different
aggregate skeletons will perform. It is important to understand how the voids in the
aggregate and the related binder content is determined, to ensure that the binder will not fill
all of the available voids and result in the aggregate “floating” in the binder. This can lead to
bleeding of the asphalt surface and reduced resistance to permanent deformation.
11
2.4.1 Spatial Considerations
The concept of spatial composition is discussed in detail in IHMGA - Appendix B: Basic

Principles of Spatial Composition – and the concept is shown graphically in Figure B1
and B2 of that Appendix. Basically two opposing packing mechanisms govern the packing of
aggregates as illustrated in Figure 4:
• Substitution (or replacement), in which the space occupied by the fine
aggregate fraction is replaced by an increase in the concentration of the coarse
aggregate fractions. This mechanism applies to sand skeleton-mixes.
• Filling, in which the spaces between coarse aggregates are filled by an
increase in the concentration of fine aggregate without affecting the stone-to-
stone contact of the coarse aggregate. This mechanism applies to stone-
skeleton mixes.
Typical “replacement” Typical “filling” example

example of asphalt of asphalt mixes
mixes
Figure 4
Typical aggregate packing mechanisms
2.4.2 Target Grading
In spite of the extensive experience with asphalt mix designs, there are still many
uncertainties about how to determine the aggregate packing to optimize the mix properties,
and also how to determine the various proportions of the available aggregates to ensure that
the required packing is achieved. The TRB circular on the Bailey Method10 (”Transportation
Research Circular Number E-C044 – October 2002” of The Transportation Research
Board of America- Website: www.TRB.org) provides an approach to selecting and
adjusting aggregate gradations for HMA design. The following comments are provided
related to the method:
) The method is a systematic approach to blending aggregates that provides

aggregate interlock as the backbone of the structure and a balanced
continuous gradation to complete the mixture.
12
) The method provides a set of tools that allows the evaluation of aggregate
blends. These tools provide a better understanding in the relationship between
aggregate gradation and mixture voids.
) Practitioners are also given the tools to develop and adjust aggregate blends
to ensure aggregate interlock (if desired) and good aggregate packing, giving
resistance to permanent deformation, while maintaining volumetric properties
that provide resistance to environmental distress.
) The method uses two principles that are the basis of the relationship between
aggregate gradation and mixture volumetrics; aggregate packing and
definition of the coarse and fine aggregate. With these principles, the primary
steps are to combine aggregates by volume and analyse the combined blend.
) The principles in the method can be used from the asphalt mix design through
to the quality control process, but do not themselves constitute a mix design
method. The method does not address the appropriate aggregate properties
or asphalt mix properties required to produce a quality asphalt mixture.
The following additional comments are provided related to aggregate grading and packing:
) Some of the issues highlighted in the Bailey method10 are the need for careful
consideration of all aggregate fractions to obtain a workable solution, as well
as some areas in which variability will create significant problems. Mix
designers should study the method to obtain a better understanding of
aggregate packing and the effects of small variations in certain fractions on
some sensitive mixes.
) In most instances the gradation limits provided in current specifications will

provide reasonable results for mixes that primarily rely on the sand fraction for
stability. Where greater reliance is placed on the coarse aggregate fraction,
the mix will be more sensitive to small changes in aggregate fractions, shape
and rugosity.
) The permeability of coarse, continuously graded mixes and SMA is a

significant problem in South Africa, where asphalt layers are required to be
impermeable to keep moisture out of water sensitive bases and also to
prevent stripping of the binder from siliceous aggregates. The variability in
aggregate characteristics, as well as segregation during paving, also
contributes to this problem.
) Designers should also make use of software packages such as Compact7 or

Prado11, which are handy in assisting with the calculation and evaluation of
volumetric properties and determining the effects of small changes in
aggregate fractions on these properties.
The recommended aggregate gradings for different mix types and nominal mix proportions
are given in Tables C1 – C5 of Appendix C of the IGHMA. Appendix A from the TRH8
13
guidelines of 19871 describes in detail how to blend various stone size fractions into a given
aggregate grading.
2.4.3 Mixing and Conditioning
The recommended procedure for mixing of the aggregate and the binder is as prescribed for
the Marshall method (see TMH112, Appendix to method C2). No sample conditioning is
performed before compaction.
2.4.4 Compaction
Laboratory compaction of mixes essentially entails compacting specimens to try and simulate
the volumetric characteristics and performance properties that will occur in the field.
Furthermore, while most laboratory compaction methods can produce mixes that reasonably
simulate field mixes with respect to the voids that occur, research has shown that none of the
laboratory compaction devices are capable of producing mixes with an aggregate packing
that closely represents the packing obtained during field compaction. Therefore, performance
properties such as resistance to deformation and fatigue should not be determined on
specimens compacted in typical laboratory compaction devices. The IGHMA recommends
cutting these specimens from slabs that are compacted using rolling wheel compactors.
Further comment on the advantages and disadvantages of the various compaction devices
are discussed in the subsequent sections.
There are a number of general issues related to the compaction of samples in the laboratory
during the design procedure that should be noted:
) Although there are practical limits on setting mixing and compaction

temperatures, more emphasis should be placed on varying temperature
control according to bitumen viscosity, especially for modified binders. A
change in temperature and viscosity can have a significant impact on the
actual densification process of the mix.
) The current Marshall procedure in TMH 112 specifies a compaction

temperature that provides a binder viscosity of 134 ± 14 seconds (Saybolt
Furol method) or 280 ± 30 x 10-6 m²/sec (Kinematic viscosity). In theory, mixes
with modified binders should be compacted at the same viscosity. However,
some modified binders have different compaction characteristics, and
consistently higher densities can be obtained at the same or lower
temperatures. Whatever the temperature selected for laboratory compaction,
practitioners should be aware that for the same binder content, mixes
exhibiting significantly different densities at different temperatures may have a
risk of closing up more than expected under traffic.
) It is desirable to first compact all mixes that will be manufactured with

modified binders using conventional binders and to subsequently assess
whether compaction with the modified binder results in opening or closing of
14
the mix relative to the conventional binder. This approach is not recommended
for non-homogenous binders (bitumen-rubber), which requires specific
gradings.
) Current guidelines for compaction of some SBS modified binders

recommend that the mix must be compacted at a temperature 2°C higher than
the equivalent unmodified binder for every 1% modifier added to the bitumen.
It is proposed that compaction temperatures for modified mixes are obtained
from the modified binder manufacturers, and that the densities achieved within
a range of temperatures close to those recommended are checked to assess
consistency.
) It should be noted that the sequence of adding and mixing different

components to a laboratory could have an influence on the actual properties of
the mix. Care should be taken to monitor the amount of binder sticking to the
mixing bowl to ensure that this is not significant.
) The IGHMA differs an approach from the Superpave procedure13 , in that

while the Superpave procedure uses a different compaction effort (N Design)
depending on the design situation, and specifies a uniform minimum void
content at that effort, the IGHMA proposes that the compaction of all
continuously graded mixes proceed using a uniform compaction procedure,
and that the void content be assessed at different levels of compaction. For
example, according to the IGHMA, a mix in a light traffic situation should have
voids of between 3% and 4.5% after 90 total blows of the Marshall hammer.
However, the Marshall compaction test should proceed to 150 blows and the
designer should also assess the voids at this effort. If the mix has very low
voids of below 2% at 150 Marshall blows, and the designer is concerned about
early heavy traffic loads that may cause the mix to close up and rut, then a
slightly lower binder content or different grading may be selected. In this way,
the designer should have increased confidence regarding both the voids in the
mix immediately after construction (approximated by the voids after 75 blows)
as well as after typical trafficking (approximated by the voids after 75 + 15
blows), as well as the ultimate minimum voids that may occur in the mix if it
were subjected to isolated heavy traffic (approximated by the voids after 150
blows).
The end result of this approach is that if the designer does not have a
Marshall compaction device with a specimen height monitor available to
assess the full compaction curve of the mix, then the design void content at
150 blows can be varied depending on the traffic situation and can be 2 to 3%
for light traffic, 3 to 4% for medium traffic and 4 to 5% for heavy traffic. In any
event it would be this latter void content at 150 Marshall blows that would be
used in the specification, as site mixes should be monitored using 150 blow
Marshall compaction.
) In heavy traffic situations the designer should take care to ensure that the mix
does not have excessive voids immediately after construction which could
result in moisture ingress and stripping. For this reason the IGHMA method
suggests a maximum void content after construction (approximated by 75
Marshall blows in the laboratory) of 8%. Indications are that the 8% limit may
15
be too high for certain mixes and may result in excessive permeability,
particularly where significant density variations occur. Hence a maximum
value of 7% voids is preferred and is normally specified.
In the case of heavily trafficked roads the ultimate void content after 300
gyrations in the Gyratory Shear Compactor is also assessed and can be
varied depending on the severity of traffic loading with respect to rutting. The
void content should however, never be less than 2%.
There are basically 5 different methods of compacting asphalt mixes from which volumetric
properties can be determined:
Marshall compaction
The Marshall compaction is the conventional static, impact compaction method (refer to
TMH 112, Appendix to method C2) applicable to all the mix types, which requires a certain
number of blows on each side of the sample briquette to determine the optimum binder
content. The device is relatively inexpensive and is readily available in South Africa. However
designers should note the following:
) The aggregate packing produced by this device is not representative of field

packing, particularly in densely graded mixes. Hence, specimens compacted
with this device should not be used to determine any performance properties
that will be influenced by this characteristic.
) The device may underestimate the density of mixes that are difficult to
compact, and should be used with caution. Alternatively the results from this
method should be checked using the gyratory shear compaction as
recommended in the IGHMA.
) The number of blows required to compact the asphalt briquettes to refusal

density may differ for different mixes due to the composition of the mix and its
workability. For example, a stone skeleton mix should require fewer blows to
achieve maximum densification than a continuous mix, and additional
compaction may lead to crushing of the aggregate. However, tests with, say,
35, 50 and 75 blows per side should be carried out to assess the differences
in density at different blow counts, and also whether any crushing occurs. A
reduced number of blows should only be used for design purposes when the
designer is satisfied that the additional blows will not produce a significantly
different density result, or cause aggregate crushing that is not likely to occur
in the field.
Modified Marshall compaction

This is described in section 8.9 of IGHMA, and determines the void content a cylindrical
briquette after each blow of the Marshall hammer. This allows the designer to better assess
the mix behaviour during compaction and traffic densification. The method also differs from
the conventional Marshall method in that, instead of using five different binder contents, three
16
binder contents are used. This process and the rationale for its use are discussed in detail in
the IGHMA section 4.1. Essentially, this procedure provides some additional information
during compaction to evaluate the mix densification process and whether this has
progressed to its limit during the test.
Table 4.1 of the IGHMA provides interim guideline criteria for voids of densely graded mixes,
subject to different traffic situations when using this method.
Gyratory Compaction
This compaction effort was developed for the US Strategic Highways Research Programme
(SHRP) Superpave mix design method. Similar to the modified Marshall method, this method
of compaction can also monitor the increase in sample density (expressed as a percentage
of its theoretical maximum specific density) with increasing compactive effort.
) The aggregate packing produced by this method more closely resembles field
compaction, but the edge effects produced by the mould are still significant.
) The method can compact the material to more closely resemble the maximum
density likely to be achieved in the field, although aggregate crushing could
occur at a high number of revolutions with weaker aggregates, and will
influence the densities achieved.
) While in the Superpave method the density is evaluated at 3 points along the
densification curve depending on the expected traffic, in the IGHMA method a
maximum of 300 gyrations is applied to sand skeleton mixes carrying heavy
and very heavy traffic, and 100 gyrations for SMA. In the Superpave method,
the voids and density achieved at different gyrations, as well as the ultimate
density and voids, are evaluated to assess the likely performance of the mix in
different design situations, and to determine the design binder content.
(See also appendix B section B4 of the IGHMA)
Hugo Hammer compaction

This compaction method is mainly applicable to large aggregate mixes for bases (LAMBS),
as it consists of larger compaction moulds to accommodate larger stone sizes. The
compaction hammer, with its unique moulded face, is turned 30o after each blow to simulate
a kneading action in an attempt to ensure aggregate packing that more closely resembles
field packing.
) While this method is capable of producing higher densities than the Marshall
method with mixes that are difficult to compact, the specimens produced by
this method should also not be used for performance testing.
The method of compaction and the compaction process is described in SABITA Manual 13 of
1997 “The design, construction and use of large aggregate mixes for bases”14.
17
Kango Hammer compaction
The Kango (vibratory) hammer compaction to refusal density is commonly used overseas to
compact asphalt samples both in the laboratory and on site, and is considered to provide a
better simulation of field compaction. In addition, the void structure of the samples obtained
from this method better represents that achieved in the field.
) Use of this method by over enthusiastic operators could result in the crushing
of aggregate and the production of very high densities that are unlikely to be
obtained in the field. Therefore, this method should not be used without
undertaking some initial control testing using other compaction devices.
) Further investigation of this method for use in South Africa is recommended.

Designer should note that the results from current laboratory compaction
methods used in South Africa (eg 150 blow Marshall compaction) cannot be
directly related to those obtained from the Kango compaction method.
2.4.5 Density
There are a number of issues related to design and construction density that need to be
considered when specifying HMA densities.
) Experience has shown that most continuously graded mixes or stone skeleton
mixes compacted to less than 93% of MTRD (Maximum Theoretical Relative
Density) are permeable. Therefore, current practice is to rather specify a
minimum relative compaction of at least 93% of MTRD instead of the 97%
minus the design air voids that was used previously. The current SABS
specification of 95% of Marshall density is also too low and should be changed
to 93% of MTRD.
) It should be noted that using a minimum of 93% MTRD could lead to

compaction difficulties on certain mixes where the design air voids exceed
4%. In these cases, the field compaction will have to approach 98% of
Marshall density.
) In specific situations (such as with low stress areas with low traffic loads and
volumes) where design voids of less than 4% are specified, the 97% minus
design air voids specification can be applied, as the resulting mix will still be
compacted to at least 93% of MTRD.
) The IGHMA design process does not include different compaction levels
for different traffic situations, but rather advocates the development of an
understanding of the void content of the mix throughout the compaction
process in the laboratory and in the field. Laboratory compaction procedures
should be consistent and the specified void content of the mix must be varied
depending on the traffic situation.
18
2.4.6 Volumetric evaluation
In order to understand the volumetric properties of a mix design, it is important to first

understand the various parameters and how to calculate them.
The volumetric mix design procedure described in Chapter 4 of the IGHMA is based primarily
on the determination of density, voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA), voids in the total mix
(VIM) and voids filled with binder (VFB), with voids in coarse aggregate (VCA), specifically
applicable to SMA mixes. These values are obtained once the samples have been
compacted by the selected method.
To facilitate volumetric design and evaluation in its totality, the following quantities need to be
measured:
• BRD (Bulk Relative density) of the individual and combined aggregate fractions.
• MTRD (Maximum Theoretical Relative Density-Rice’s method).
• BRD of the compacted mix.
• ERD (Effective Relative Density) of the combined aggregate.
• Effective binder content.
• RD (Relative Density) of the binder.
• Absorption of binder by the aggregate.
Chapter 5 of the IGHMA deals with all the calculations related to the volumetrics. The basic
calculations for determination of component properties and volumetric quantities are listed in
Table 5.1 of the IGHMA.
Issues related to volumetrics are:
) It is very important that volumetric properties should be checked for

consistency and reasonableness when evaluating the various parameters.
) Small errors in the BRD of the fines and the total BRD of the mix, as well as
absorption properties of the aggregates, can result in significant errors in
the calculation of the voids in the mix and hence the design binder content.
) Designers should also be aware of porous aggregate that can continue to

absorb quantities of binder long after construction, which could lead to
apparent binder hardening. Ideally, an alternative, less absorbent aggregate
source should be found. However, should an alternative source not be
available, binder contents on the higher side should be selected, and the
consequences of increasing the binder content critically evaluated.
) Accurate density measurements are critical to the confident calculation of

volumetric parameters.
) The need for different void specifications for slow and fast lanes on heavily
trafficked roads should not be underestimated, as the densification under
traffic will differ.
) In order to ensure that sufficient binder is available to produce a durable

mixture, it is advisable to calculate the average film thickness of the binder in
the mix (using the method in TRH 8 1987: Appendix B1), although there is a
19
belief that surface areas cannot be accurately calculated and should only be
used as an indicator. However, each mix type will have its own unique film
thickness requirement. Furthermore there is a difference between loose and
compacted mixtures. Film thickness calculations assume that each aggregate
particle, including the filler, is separate, each with its own coating of bitumen.
In a compacted mixture the spaces between the coarse aggregate are filled
with mastic of bitumen and fine aggregate. Bitumen surrounding the aggregate
is in fact not a thin film as portrayed by the thickness calculations, but is a
volume of bitumen shared by adjacent aggregate particles.
) In addition to the volumetric parameters described in the IGHMA, the effective

volume of binder should also be reported as a percentage of total volume.
This is because the binder content, reported as a percentage by mass, differs
when the aggregate BRDs differ. In this way users will become familiar with
the volume of effective binder and the extent to which it fills the available
voids. Theoretically, this value should be similar for the same type of mix.
2.4.7 Optimum binder content
An initial estimate of the optimum binder content should be made after evaluation and
consideration of all the volumetric criteria and related issues described in the previous
sections.
2.5 Phase 5: Performance testing
In order to evaluate the performance properties of a mix, the required tests are selected
based on the rated design objectives discussed in Chapter 2.
The three major performance properties to be tested and evaluated are:
• Permanent deformation
• Fatigue
• Moisture damage (stripping)
Other performance tests for specific types of mixes that will also be discussed include:
• Indirect Tensile Strength tests (ITS)
• Resilient Modulus
• Dynamic Creep
• Cantabro Abrasion test
• Shellenbergh drainage test
• Water permeability tests
• Axial Loading Slab test
• Modified Marshall test
Details and references for the test methods are given in Chapters 6, 7 and 8 of the IGHMA
document. The following general key points related to performance testing have relevance:
20
) It is important for designers to understand that no clear qualitative
relationships between the different performance tests and actual field
performance have been derived to date. Therefore, the evaluation of some
performance test results are based on recommended ranges of test values
associated with different situations, rather than on fixed criteria.
It should be noted that thin layer asphalt < 25mm and ultra thin friction courses are not
included in the discussion and recommendations in this document.
) Pavement and HMA designers should be familiar with the typical ranges of
test results that are obtained from the various performance tests. The typical
ranges of test values allow designers to have some freedom to assess the
suitability of the mix for a given situation and also to assess the risk
associated with a specific mix or design situation.
) For most design situations, the evaluation of rutting and fatigue poses the
greatest challenge as far as mix performance evaluation is concerned. The
procedures for rutting and fatigue evaluation are discussed in detail in
Chapters 6 and 7 of the IGHMA respectively.
) In addition to rutting and fatigue, mix durability and permeability also need
to be evaluated. Permeability is assessed by means of the test procedure
described in Chapter 8 of IGHMA. Mix durability (resistance to stripping) is
assessed by means of the Modified Lottman Test described in Section 8.3 of
IGHMA. It should be noted that while the aggregate and volumetric properties
(including density) of the mix are major factors influencing its durability, the
properties of the binder also have a significant influence on durability. A proper
evaluation of binder properties as discussed in Section 3.4 of IGHMA is
therefore essential to counteract potential durability problems.
Valuable tests have been developed in recent years to evaluate and determine the behaviour
of HMA mixes. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 of the interim Guidelines discuss these tests,
interpretations and the failure mechanisms in detail. The validation of recommended test
methods, and the establishment of performance-related specification limits, are ongoing and
scheduled for completion in 2010.
2.5.1 Permanent Deformation
(See also Chapter 6 IGHMA for more details on the evaluation of permanent deformation)
Permanent deformation, or rutting, is a complex phenomenon influenced by packing of
aggregate, stiffness and quality of the binder and underlying support, and is compounded by
high surface temperatures and high traffic volumes. Hence, resistance to rutting poses
significant challenges as far as performance evaluation is concerned.
Rutting is a relatively common type of distress in hot-mix asphalt layers, and can lead to
ponding of water in wheel tracks, which can be a serious road hazard in wet weather. Rutting
can also lead to poor riding quality, which in turn results in increased vehicle operating costs
It is widely acknowledged that rutting is a two-phase process consisting of:
21
• densification accompanied by a decrease in volume; and
• shear deformation at constant volume.
Factors influencing the resistance to permanent deformation are:

• Temperature
• Loading rate or vehicle speed
• Stress state
• Viscosity of the binder
• Packaging characteristics
• Volumetric aspects
• Aggregate characteristics
The following evaluation methods are available
• Expert system approach for sand skeleton mixes (refer to IGHMA Appendix D)
• Wheel tracking devices
o Transportek wheel tracking device

o Soillab wheel tracking device (based on the erosion tester)
o Mini Mobile Loading Simulator (MMLS)
Of the methods available, wheel tracking devices are the most commonly used and the
values shown in Table 6.1 of the IGHMA may be used as tentative guidelines to evaluate the
performance of a mix using these devices. However, when interpreting the results the
following aspects should be kept in mind:
) A number of rut measurement devices are used in South Africa and

cognisance should be taken of their differences and the variation in
interpretation of results.
) To date no South African testing protocols make provision for shear testing,
as the testing requires sophisticated and expensive equipment. Research on
the suitability of shear testing is continuing and is included in the ongoing
validation process of the design method. Shear testing is however highly
recommended as an important indicator during the evaluation process.
) To date, there is no direct correlation between the different wheel tracking

devices. However, despite the differences it is important to obtain a relative
indication of the actual performance of the mix. Factors that can influence the
actual test results are:
Origin and type of samples obtained. (Lab mix or field mix)
Reheating of samples
Correct field simulation in terms of manufacture, construction and
service conditions
) In the absence of further investigation and calibration between different

methods, interpretation of results should be undertaken with due care and
transparency.
22
) The temperatures at which rut measurements are carried out are crucial,
and will lead to significant differences in rutting behaviour depending on the
temperature/stiffness relationship of the binder.
) The MMLS (Mini Mobile Load simulator) device is a very useful tool for
simulating field conditions and assessing mixes, both in the laboratory and in
the field.
2.5.2 Fatigue
(See Chapter 7 IGHMA for the evaluation of fatigue performance)

Factors influencing the fatigue cracking in asphalt are:
• Layer support
• Temperature
• Aging of binder
• Type of binder
• Wander
• Mix gradation
The following evaluation methods are available:
• Indirect Tensile Strength tests (ITS)
• Four-point Bending Beam tests
The most appropriate test result is the four-point bending beam test, but practitioners must
appreciate the testing difficulties associated with fatigue testing and the prediction of fatigue
under real traffic at in-service temperatures. The following issues should be considered when
interpreting fatigue testing results:
) It is virtually impossible to use small differences in fatigue lives, as determined

from laboratory testing, in predictive models and transfer functions in
mechanistic design, and expect to establish reasonable predictors. It is far
better to understand the order of magnitude of the fatigue capability of a mix,
understand the operating conditions of the mix and layer, and then make
nominal estimates of fatigue life.
) Because of the problem highlighted in the previous bullet, very little fatigue
testing is carried out on project mixes, and this field remains in the domain of
research or product manufacturers.
) The ITS test is considered a poor indicator of fatigue for thin layer asphalts
(constant strain). Although not providing a direct relationship, it does give a
better indication of resilient modulus or stiffness in that high ITS values seem
to correlate with high resilient moduli and vice versa. For example, open-
graded bitumen rubber asphalts have ITS values as low as 300 – 400 kPa,
with resilient moduli of between 900 and 1300 MPa. On the other hand,
densely graded asphalt with high viscosity binder and a binder content on the
dry side of the VMA curve could have ITS values in excess of 1500 kPa, and
resilient moduli in excess of 5000 MPa.
23
) Typically, thin wearing courses, particularly those placed on fairly flexible
supports, should have relatively low stiffnesses (within limits) to be able to
resist the repeated tensile strains induced in the layer by traffic action. Hence,
by assuming the relationship discussed previously between ITS and resilient
modulus, the ITS of the asphalt should not be excessive. However, thick layer
asphalts (eg basecourse mixes) should have high stiffnesses to be able to
resist the repeated tensile stresses induced in the layer. Consequently, mixes
with high ITS values should be preferred.
Guidelines for the interpretation of ITS results for Fatigue Performance are shown in Table
7.1 of the IGHMA. Guidelines for the interpretation of Bending Beam Fatigue data (constant
strain) are shown in Table 7.2 of the IGHMA. (Refer also to step 1-3 in Chapter 7.4 of the
IGHMA).
2.5.3 Moisture Sensitivity (Modified Lottman Test)
The Modified Lottman test is used for the determination of moisture sensitivity. This is one of
the most important aspects to be controlled during a mix design. ITS measurements are
taken before and after a sample is subjected to an environmental stress regime (submerging
the specimens in water and then freeze-thawing the wet specimen). The readings obtained
are expressed as a tensile strength ratio (TSR) and represent the mix’s ability to prevent
moisture penetration, and also its ability to withstand the expansive effects of the ice which
forms internally when it freezes.
Typical TSR values based on permeability and climate are listed in Table 8.2 of the IGHMA.
) It is suggested that the TSR tests to determine the moisture sensitivity should
be conducted at 7% voids at a minimum compaction of 93 % of TMRD in the
field to determine the values based on a worst-case scenario.
) TSR tests can also be carried out on cores extracted from the road to simulate
field conditions as close as possible.
2.5.4 Other Design and Performance Tests
(see chapter 8 of the IGHMA 2001)

The following other tests are also used to evaluate additional performance properties of a
HMA mix:
Indirect Tensile Strength (ITS) test

In addition to being an indicator of fatigue performance of thick layers and resilient modulus
as discussed in section 2.5.2 of this document, the ITS also gives an indication of the
24
cohesive strength of a mix, and typical guidelines in this regard are summarised in Table 8.1
of the IGHMA 2001
) The ITS values as referred to in Table 8.1 should be used in conjunction with
the other performance tests discussed above. Considered on its own, the
result can mislead the designer in the interpretation of rut resistance or
fatigue.
Resilient Modulus
The Indirect Tensile Test (ITT) is also used to determine the resilient modulus (MR) or
stiffness of a mix by incorporating repeated loads as well as vertical and horizontal strain
measurements.
) No specific guidelines are available but higher MRs will probably have lower
fatigue lives in constant strain mode (thin asphalt surfacings), while asphalts
with lower MRs are preferred on more flexible pavements as they could
possibly absorb the deflection better without fatigue cracking.
) MR values can vary significantly as they depend on small strain

measurements and hence should not be included in project specifications.
MRshould rather be used as an indicator of potential fatigue performance
during designs.
Dynamic Creep
This involves repeated loading of cylindrical test specimens in the axial direction normally at
40°C. The accumulated permanent deformation is monitored as a function of the number of
load repetitions.
) This test can be used to evaluate the likely rut resistance of mixes with a low
to moderate rut potential. However, the testusually gives very high values for
dense continuous mixes with modified binder, and may overestimate the
rutting performance of the mix. Unstable mixes have been known to
disintegrate in the test.
) Experience has shown that some modified binders reduce the dynamic creep
modulus of mixes, but have performed well in service.
) In general, dynamic creep tests should only be used on sand skeleton mixes,
and preferably on those containing unmodified binders. Stone skeleton mixes
(eg SMA, semi-open graded and porous asphalt) are known to be rut-resistant
Comment: Rephrase??
mixes, but will fail the test as the test is carried out in an unconfined mode.
Typical values are listed in Table 8.3 of the IGHMA.
Cantabro Abrasion test
25
This test is used to evaluate the abrasion of open-graded mixes using the LA Abrasion test
(ASTM C131-81) without the steel balls.
) The recommended maximum abrasion loss is 20%.
Shellenbergh Drainage test

This test is used to evaluate binder run-off in open-graded and SMA mixes. Typical values
with regard to binder run-off are:
% Weight Loss Performance
<0.2% Good
0.2% – 0.3% Acceptable
>0.3% Poor
Water Permeability test
This property can be tested using a number of test methods. The ones commonly used in
South Africa are:
• Constant head water permeability test (carried out on laboratory specimen)
• Marvil water permeability test (carried out on site)
Both tests have shortcomings primarily related to the location and direction of paths that are
available for water to flow through. As can be imagined, the test results vary considerably
due to the myriad possible flow paths, but repeated results with values in the higher range,
as indicated in the IGHMA, will be indicative of definite problems.
The constant head permeability must be regarded as the most appropriate test method to
evaluate permeability, provided the test is carried out in a manner that prevents water from
flowing around the specimen and along the sides instead of through the specimen.
The following issues will assist in developing a better understanding of asphalt permeability:
) Due to the inherently variable nature of the permeability testing, it is suggested

that practitioners should not rely solely on the results of the test, but should
also make visual observations during specific tests for seepage of water
adjacent to sealed edges of cores and moulded specimens. Thisalso applies
to the in situ apparatus related to the Marvil test. Visual assessment of the
amount of voids that are present, and their inter-connectivity, is also
recommended when making a judgement on the permeability of a mix.
) Testing for permeability properties is not recommended on Marshall briquettes

(even at 7% voids). This property should be measured on cores taken from
constructed pavements, especially at new longitudinal joints.
) It should be noted that traffic compaction has the greatest effect on the
surface of the asphalt, and may make the surface less permeable than the
rest of the layer. This will result in increasing the variability of Marvil test
results of the layer as permeability may only be detected where the surface
allows moisture into the underlying more permeable part of the layer.
26
) Marvil tests have been carried out with some success on specimens extracted
from the road as well as on manufactured slabs. One of the criticisms of the
test is that water flows under the sealed edge of the apparatus, although this
problem has been solved to some extent by the use of a neoprene ring to seal
the apparatus to the test surface.
) There is a need to identify and verify a definitive permeability test (or tests)
related to performance criteria for different mixes. The tests are currently used
to test sections and mixes relative to one another.
) High sand content mixes such as gap-graded and semi-gap-graded asphalt

are far less permeable, and easier to construct to a greater degree of
consistency, than continuously graded mixes.
) Moisture sensitivity, and the resultant stripping, is regarded as one of the

major causes of failure, and should be evaluated with care at all stages of
mix design, trial section construction, and final construction.
) Permeable areas are often easier to identify after rain, as these areas retain
moisture for much longer than the impermeable areas. The visual
observations not only provide an indication of the degree of permeability, but
also the extent and location, such as whether the areas adjacent to joints are
more permeable than the rest of the layer.
) The more permeable areas will generally be less dense and additional
testing as well as significantly greater attention needs to be paid to these
areas of asphalt construction than has been the case in the past. Problems of
this nature may have increased in recent times with the change from gap and
semi-gap-graded mixes to continuously graded mixes.
2.5.5 Field trials and final adjustments
In order to evaluate the performance properties indicated from the laboratory mix design
process, and to improve the confidence levels in the design mix, it is essential to carry out
field trials where practicable, especially for roads designed to carry heavier classes of traffic.
The following comments relate to field trials and Appendix A of this document provides
additional information:
) It is suggested that where practicable, all the tests discussed in this section,
including the performance tests, are repeated on the field trial mix and
preferably at three different binder contents to increase the reliability in the
recommended design mix. The length of such a trial section should be at least
150m.
) The trial section provides an opportunity to do some final adjustments to the

mix, and to determine a final production mix (job mix) formula. The job mix
27
formula is the mix that will finally be approved after the necessary adjustments
have been made. This mix will therefore be used for production.
) Another important objective of a trial section is to determine the compactive

efforts of different types of equipment, minimum compaction temperatures and
final paver screed settings.
) It is also highly recommended that the MMLS (Mini Mobile Loading Simulator)
be used to test the performance properties of critical mixes.
) It is suggested that in the absence of a rainstorm, the layer in the field trial be
thoroughly wetted with a water cart to assess the variability and degree of
permeability over the full extent of the layer, including the joints. When the
techniques of constructing the mix without any significant variability and with
effective impermeable joints have been developed, the construction of the
trafficked layer should commence.
) When assessing the degree of permeability, it may also be necessary to wash

the surface of the layer with Teepol or similar to promote moisture penetration
and eliminate surface tension effects.
28
Chapter 3 - Discussions on different mix types and
specific design considerations
This chapter briefly discusses the most frequently used mix types and highlights specific
design considerations. Reference to detailed information is also provided.
The mixes to be discussed are:
• Sand skeleton mixes (Including gap and semi gap mixes);
• Stone mastic asphalt;
• Open-graded mixes;
• Large aggregate mixes for bases; and
• Semi-open graded mixes.
3.1 Sand-Skeleton mixes
(Refer to Section 4.1 of the IGHMA for detailed discussions and TRH8 19871 section 3.2 and
5.2.1)
In the context of these design guidelines, sand-skeleton mixes refer to continuously
graded, semi-gap graded and gap-graded mixes.
) Sand-skeleton mixes are the most commonly used mix types in South
Africa,although gap-graded mixes have fallen out of favour because of the
need to obtain and use a “sharp”, angular sand that will provide adequate
resistance to rutting.
) In a continuously graded mix the spaces between the coarse aggregate

particles are overfilled with the well-graded portions of finer aggregate,
primarily coarse sand.
) Sand skeleton mixes derive their stability from a sand-skeleton (unlike stone
mastic asphalt and open-graded mixes, which rely on a stone-skeleton).
3.1.1 Component selection
The selection of aggregate, filler and binder is discussed in Chapter 2.
3.1.2 Selection of a design gradation
Typical gradation envelopes for densely graded mixes with various nominal maximum stone
sizes are shown in Appendix C of IGHMA.
29
In the selection of the nominal maximum stone size, layer thickness considerations need to
be taken into account (see, Table 2.8 IGHMA).
) It should also be noted that coarser mixes will generally have greater stability,
but may also exhibit high permeability immediately after construction,
particularly if target densities are not met in isolated areas due to segregation.
) The maximum density line theory, as described in TRH 8 - 5.2.1.3, as well as

the comments provided in the Bailey method, are useful tools to adjust
gradings for volumetric and stability considerations.
) The use of TRH 8 19871 Table 3 is suggested when continuous coarse mixes
are designed, and not Appendix C of the IGHMA. The coarse grading mix
specified in Appendix C and in the COLTO/COTO specifications6 is too close
to a grading used for designing asphalt bases, and the maximum stone size
specified can influence the actual performance as a surfacing layer.
3.1.3 Binder content selection and evaluation of compactability
(See also section 4.1 IGHMA for detail discussions)

The procedure requires a thorough understanding of the compaction and volumetric
characteristics of the mix at different binder contents, and for different compactive efforts.
The process for the design of sand skeleton mixes requires that the designer should balance
and evaluate several aspects that will influence performance, such as:
• Traffic;
• Compactability;
• Initial Voids Content after Construction;
• Final Void Content after Trafficking;
• Laboratory Compaction versus Construction and Traffic Compaction.
The following additional comments should be noted:
) The use of the gyratory shear compactor is proposed for coarser mixes in
critical design situations, as opposed to the Marshall compaction, as it
provides a better indication of the likely ultimate density that could be
achieved.
) Table 4.1 of the IGHMA shows the guidelines for void criteria in order to select
the optimum binder content. These criteria ensure that the permeability and
density requirements after construction are met, as well as the stability
requirements based on minimum void content after trafficking.
) Minimum VMA Criteria for continuously graded mixes are shown in Table B2
Appendix B - IGHMA
30
3.1.4 Performance testing
The performance tests are selected on the basis of the rated design objectives (Chapter 2
Phase 1).
3.2 Stone mastic asphalt
Stone mastic asphalt (SMA) is a premium mix type with a complex grading for use as a
surfacing and friction course under heavy traffic conditions. The primary characteristics of a
properly designed SMA are:
• good resistance to permanent deformation and reasonable fatigue properties
because of its stone skeleton structure and high film thickness;
• improved durability and generally better wet weather skid resistance and noise
reduction characteristics compared with continuously graded mixes; and
• improved stability from the stone skeleton. Fibres are normally added to the mix to
prevent drain-down of the binder during transportation and placing of the mix.
3.2.1 Design considerations
SMA mixes are best utilised as thin surfacing on heavily trafficked roads and at intersections.
To achieve the required properties from the mix, the following should be considered at the
design stage:
• high quality aggregates are required;
• a consistent gradation and binder content is required to maintain stability
throughout the life of the mix; and
• it is not economical that SMA mixes be used in a structural layer and therefore, in
practice, this means that the thickness of an SMA layer is generally limited to
40mm or less.
3.2.2 Design procedure
The design method is based on experience in the South African environment. The method is
based on volumetric considerations, with the criteria for voids being derived from experience
and volumetric principles. SMA mixes are normally relatively easy to compact.
Figure 4.7 of the IGHMA shows the steps to follow in the design process.
The component selection process, as outlined in section 2.3 of this document, should be
followed to finalize the grading and selection of the design binder content. In addition, the
following specific consideration applies to the selection of components for SMA mixes:
31
) Fibres are normally added to SMA mixes to stabilise the mastic to prevent
drain-down during construction. Cellulose fibres or mineral fibres in loose or
palletised form can be used. However, care should be taken to avoid
overheating the fibres in the production stage of the SMA, and compaction
temperatures should not be too high as this will result in binder run off and
subsequent bleeding.
3.2.4 Selection of design gradation
Typical gradations for SMA mixes with various nominal maximum stone sizes are shown in
Appendix C of IGHMA. Designers should be aware that in certain circumstances slight
differences, outside the envelopes specified, might occur. The limits should therefore be
seen as a guideline. In the selection of a nominal maximum stone size, the considerations
with respect to layer thickness should be taken into account (see Table 2.7 of IGHMA). The
following comments should also be noted:
) The successful performance of SMA mixes is highly dependent on the particle

composition and spatial arrangement of particles (refer also to Bailey Method).
) Specific steps should be taken to ensure that the stone skeleton of the SMA
mix is not overfilled with mastic. To evaluate whether this is the case, the
voids in the coarse aggregate (VCA) of the compacted mix have to be less
than the VCA of the coarse aggregate without mastic. (see calculations in
section 4.2 of IGHMA)
3.2.5 Binder content selection
Reference should be made to notes 1 to 5 in sections 4.2 of the IGHMA for binder content
selection, and Table 4.2 of that document for volumetric design criteria for SMA Mixes.
The performance tests are selected on the basis of the rated design objectives (Chapter 2).
3.2.7 Mix deficiencies
A useful table to address mix deficiencies is shown in Table 4.3 of the IGHMA. The following
additional references are provided:
) Problems and Potential Solutions for SMA Mixes are addressed in NCHRP
Report 9-8/415.
32
) Although not documented and distributed, valuable research has been carried
out on the Wilhelmi test16 to evaluate the stiffness of the mastic in a SMA
mixture. It is suggested that this test be incorporated as part of the mix design
process.
3.3 Open-graded mixes
(Reference should be made to Sabita Manual 1717 for detailed discussions on open-grade
(porous) asphalt mixes).
Open-graded asphalt (porous asphalt) is used primarily as a surfacing layer to:
• improve skid resistance in wet weather;
• reduce spray and improve visibility in wet weather; and
• reduce noise pollution.
To achieve this, open-graded mixes rely on a stone skeleton for stability and have void
contents typically in the order of 20 per cent. Because of their high permeability, open-graded
mixes have to be laid over an impermeable layer.
The stiffness of open-graded mixes is generally significantly less (typically 50%) than that of
more densely graded mixes, while their resistance to rutting is high in thin layers.
) The tendency of porous asphalt to clog with dust and detritus has caused a
rethink of its use on South African roads. Overseas apparatus has been
introduced to “deep cleanse” the layer periodically, maintaining its efficacy, but
this equipment is currently not available in South Africa.
) Other new innovations include a so-called sacrificial layer, with a smaller stone
size, as an overlay on top of the existing open graded layer, resulting in a
surfacing somewhat similar to a porous double seal
) Because of the open structure and the need for higher than usual binder
content, open-graded mixes are prone to exhibit binder drain-down during
construction.
The following aspects should be considered when designing open-graded mixes:
) The binder content should be as high as possible for the given voids content
and stability requirement to prevent stripping and ravelling.
) If the underlying layer consists of water sensitive materials or has widely

spaced cracks, it is recommended that a stress-absorbing membrane
interlayer (SAMI) be constructed to avoid water ingress and retard crack
reflection.
33
) Provision should be made for the water to pass through the porous layer and
to exit laterally into collecting drains or onto the shoulder.
) An adequate crossfall is needed to prevent water from being trapped in the

open-graded asphalt layer.
) A lateral transition zone or cut-off drain should be constructed between an

open-graded asphalt layer and other sections consisting of impermeable
material.
) Never cut joints with edge blades as this will seal the void structures and
prevent water escaping from the mix through the interconnecting voids.
) Open-Graded Asphalt should preferably not be used:

at intersections;
in industrial areas where there is extensive wear from abrasion, spillage of
fuels or any other contamination from deleterious material which may tend
to clog up the void structure of the mix;
in areas with permeable or soft supporting layers; and
on roads that are frequently soiled by waste or windblown dust and sand.
The first step in the design procedure is the component selection. Apart from the general
guidelines for component selection given in Chapter 2 of this document, the following apply
specifically to open-graded mixes:
) Since open-graded mixes derive their stability from the stone skeleton, it is
vital to ensure that hard and durable aggregates are selected.
) Reduction in binder drain-down is usually achieved by using modified binders

or paving at cooler temperatures.
) A mineral filler content of between 1 and 2 per cent is recommended to

enhance the adhesion properties of the binder.
3.3.3 Selection of design gradation
Typical gradations for open-graded mixes with various nominal maximum stone sizes are
given in Appendix C of IGHMA.
34
3.3.4 Binder content selection
A detailed description of the selection of optimum binder content can be found in Sabita
Manual 1717. See also as a summary Table 4.4 for gradation and binder content selection in
the IGHMA, and the notes that follow Table 4.4 of that document.
The performance tests are selected on the basis of the rated design objectives (Chapter 2).
) For high to very high traffic levels, it is recommended that performance testing
be conducted on open-graded mixes to evaluate durability and moisture
susceptibility.
Durability - evaluated using aged specimens in the Cantabro test
procedure (see SABITA Manual 1717)
Moisture Susceptibility - evaluated using the Modified Lottman procedure
(AASHTO T283) as described in Section 8.3 of the IGHMA
3.4 Large aggregate mixes for bases (LAMBS)
(Reference should be made to Sabita Manual 13 199714 for detail discussions on LAMBS
mixes)
LAMBS are used primarily for asphalt bases as the structural support layer in heavy-duty
pavements. Heavy-duty pavements are those expected to carry traffic volumes in excess of
30 million E80s during their design period. The runways of high-volume airports and certain
loading facilities could also fall into this category.
) Drainage is of the utmost importance and should be carefully designed when

utilising these mixes to minimize the risk of stripping
Consideration must be given to structural and environmental aspects, which must be taken
into account prior to the mix design stage. Other considerations include layer thickness.
See section 4.4 of the IGHMA for detailed calculations and discussion of the Fuller maximum
density equation.
There is limited information available on the gradation design of LAMBS, which promote
stone-skeleton type mixes. The design principles of SMA type mixes should be applied.
35
3.4.3 Design process
Refer to Sabita manual 1314 as well as section 4.4 and figure 4.10 of the IGHMA for the
various steps entailed in the design process.
3.4.4 Design criteria
Design criteria for LAMBS as outlined in Sabita Manual 1314 are shown in Table 4.5.of the
IGHMA 2001.
The following aspects relate to the testing of LAMBS:
) Indirect tensile testing is used to determine the indirect tensile strength (ITS),
the strain at maximum stress, and the resilient modulus (stiffness) of LAMBS.
) The dynamic creep test is used to assess the deformation characteristics of

LAMBS. Sabita Manual 1314 details the specifications for the tests.
) The design criteria are outlined in Table 4.5 of the IGHMA. To assess the
susceptibility of the mix to moisture damage, it is recommended that the
Modified Lottman test method be used.
) Procedures for the conditioning of LAMBS specimens for moisture

susceptibility tests are outlined in Sabita Manual 1314.
3.5 Semi open-graded mixes
Semi open-graded mixes with modified binders are very popular for use on heavily to very
heavily trafficked roads, especially in areas with reduced ultra-violet radiation. Typical
gradations for semi open-graded mixes are shown in Appendix C of the IGHMA.
) Design methods and aspects are not discussed in detail in the IGHMA, but it is
suggested that the current available data be officially documented and
incorporated in the IGHMA guidelines at a later stage. Further information on
semi-open graded mixes is provided by Balmaceda et al18 and Potgieter et
al19.
36
Chapter 4 – Design Implementation: Construction and
Quality Assurance aspects
As part of the design process, it is important to minimize problems related to mixing,

construction (paving operations) and quality assurance of the recommended mix design.
Some of the issues related to implementing the design are highlighted in this section.
Reference is made to SABITA Manual 52: Guidelines for the Manufacture and Construction
of Hot-mix Asphalt, which discusses some of the issues discussed in this section.
4.1 Segregation
) Segregation is a common problem that occurs during manufacturing and

paving of a HMA layer. Certain mixes, such as LAMBS and coarse graded
mixes, are more prone to segregation than others. It is therefore very
important to adjust the paving operation to accommodate these mixes.
) Many problems can originate in the aggregate stockpiling and handling

processes at the plant, while others may occur during mixing and transporting.
Hence these processes should be carefully monitored to ensure early
detection of segregation, and to take appropriate action to eliminate the
problem.
) Segregation may also occur due to improper loading of the paver, and the site
staff should ensure that the loading box is properly filled and that a uniform
and adequately thick mat of asphalt is fed into the paver screed.
) Information and informative illustrations related to segregation can be found in

the Technical brochure: T-117 SEGREGATION: Causes and Cures published
by Astec20. This document also discusses different gradings and gives
guidance on avoiding tender mixes.
4.2 Compaction and layer thickness
While adequate compaction of HMA layers is a function of an appropriate HMA design, good
construction practices and controls are also essential to ensure a uniformly dense layer.
While the purpose of this document is not to provide a manual for asphalt layer construction,
the following critical areas which have caused problems in the past are highlighted for
information:
) The timing of the entire process from batching through to paving and
compacting is crucial to achieving the required compaction.
37
) The type and sequence of use of compaction equipment must be adjusted for
each type of mix to ensure uniform densification and the required riding
quality.
) The rolling speed is also critical on certain mixes and should be controlled
accordingly.
) The transverse distribution of rollers and how the mix is compacted both
longitudinally and transversely are important factors that should be established
early in the construction process, and strictly controlled.
) Correct roller operation is essential.
4.3 Temperature control
) Temperature control is of utmost importance when manufacturing and paving

a HMA mix, as the temperature is directly related to the viscosity of the mix.
Differences in mix temperatures can cause differences in compaction,
resulting in segregation, permeable surfacings, subsequent ingress of water,
and stripping.
) Recent work in the Western Cape, reported at CAPSA 0421, also highlights the
limited time available, in certain situations, from the time of placing the mix
until it is fully compacted.Very useful guidelines are also provided on
compaction windows, especially for thinner layers.
) The technical brochure: T-134 Temperature Differential Damage, published

by Astec20, is recommended to assist and inform users regarding temperature
difficulties.
4.4 Binder variation
Although the specification allows for a certain amount of binder variation, the variances must
be controlled. Variations that are too large, either too low or too high, or varying from high to
low, commonly occur in the industry. A diagnostic flow chart for binder variability is provided
by Astec20 as part of their Technical paper T-114, and provides a useful tool to assist in
identifying and avoiding some of the problems and their causes.
Binder variation also commonly occurs as a result of variances in the mix composition, e.g.
too much fine or coarse aggregate resulting in too high or too low binder respectively.
) Practitioners should note that while binder variation in certain finer mixes may
not be very critical, binder variations in coarser mixes or stone skeleton mixes
may be super-critical, and can cause significant problems. This should be
38
determined and known prior to the commencement of paving, and the use of
tools such as Compact7 and Prado11 are useful in this regard.
4.5 Joints
Inadequate compaction of joints often occurs, resulting in porous areas that experience early
distress. Although more difficult to construct, it is important to avoid any ingress of water. The
most common problems appear to be either transverse segregation in the paver or slightly
thicker, adjacent paved areas that support the edges of rigid steel rollers, thus preventing
adequate compaction.
) Technical brochure T-130 LONGITUDINAL JOINTS: Problems and

Solutions published by Astec20 provides guidelines with informative
illustrations.
4.6 Trial sections
The value of trial sections should not be underestimated, as they provide an important step in
the HMA design process as highlighted in section 2.6 of this document. Hence, where
practical, it is essential to carry out trial sections before a mix can be approved. Trial mixes
provide a process for the validation of the laboratory mix design and the final production
mixes will rely heavily on the outcome of the trial section.
) Appendix A of this document contains a checklist for use during trial sections.
) Small quantities of urban work or mixes for low level designs are not
recommended for trial sections due to practical considerations.
4.7 Sampling and testing
) The importance of correct sampling procedures and subsequent testing

cannot be over emphasized. The whole design process described above is
based on information obtained from testing in the laboratory. However, if
samples of the components of the mix design or the mix itself are incorrectly
taken it will render the results obsolete.
) Sampling and testing is critical, and should be carried out by accredited

laboratories with experienced and proficient personnel.
39
4.8 Statistical judgement plans
Statistical judgement plans are normally specified for each contract for use in accepting or
rejecting completed work.
) It is important to have an agreed quality assurance (QA) plan in place before

commencement of a contract. However, the plan should include, but not
preclude or replace, sound engineering judgement. Sections should not be
rejected (or in some cases accepted) based on extremely minor deviations
from acceptance limits without serious consideration of all the engineering
implications. Similarly, areas that are visually different within a section should
not be regarded as a uniform section, and should be tested and evaluated
separately. This does not mean that the judgement plans should be abused,
but logical evaluation and adequate investigation must precede final decisions
in this regard.
40
References
1. COMMITTEE OF TRANSPORT OFFICIALS. Selection and design of hot mix asphalt

surfacings for highways. Draft TRH 8, Department of Transport, Pretoria, 1987.
2. SOUTHERN AFRICA BITUMEN ASSOCIATION. Guidelines for the manufacture and
construction of hot mix asphalt. Sabita manual 5, Cape Town, 1988
3. SOUTHERN AFRICA BITUMEN ASSOCIATION. Appropriate standards for the use of
sand asphalt. Sabita manual 18, Cape Town, 1996
4. COMMITTEE OF TRANSPORT OFFICIALS. Structural design of flexible pavements for
interurban and rural roads. Draft TRH 4, Department of Transport, Pretoria, 1996.
5. COMMITTEE OF TRANSPORT OFFICIALS. Guidelines for road construction materials.
Draft TRH 14, Department of Transport, Pretoria, 1989.
6. COMMITTEE OF TRANSPORT OFFICIALS. Standard specifications for Roads and
Bridges, Department of Transport, Pretoria.
7. Semmelink CJ. Use of “COMPACT” software package in designing as well as
determining causes of problems with asphalt mixes. Proceeding of the 7th Conference of
Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe, 1999.
8. ASPHALT ACADEMY The use of modified binders in road construction. Technical
Guideline TG1, Pretoria, 2001
9. SOUTHERN AFRICAN BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Standard specifications for
penetration grade bitumens. SABS 307, Pretoria, 1972 (amended 2003)
10. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD Bailey method for gradation selection in hot
mix asphalt mixture design Research Circular Number E-C044, Washington, 2002.
11. BELGIAN ROAD RESEARCH CENTRE Prado-Win software for design of bituminous
mixtures. Brussels, 2002.
12. COMMITTEE OF TRANSPORT OFFICIALS. Standard methods of testing road materials.
TMH 1, Department of Transport, Pretoria, 1986.
13. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION. Background of Superpave asphalt mixture
design and analysis. Publication No SA-95-003, US Department of Transportation,
Washington DC, 1995.
14. SOUTHERN AFRICA BITUMEN ASSOCIATION. LAMBS – the design and use of large
aggregate mixes for bases. Sabita manual 13, Cape Town, 1993.
15. Brown ER, Cooley LA (Jnr), Haddock JE, Hughes CS and Lynn TA. Designing stone
mastic asphalt mixtures Volume IV – Mixture design method, construction guidelines and
quality control procedures. National Cooperative Highways Research Programme
(NCHRP report 9-8/4), Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, 1998.
16. AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE Wilhelmi softening point test. Test
method DIN 1996.
17. SOUTHERN AFRICA BITUMEN ASSOCIATION. The design and use of porous asphalt
mixes. Sabita manual 17, Cape Town, 1995.
41
18. Balmeceda P, Kotze H and Fletcher E. Recent experiences with semi-open graded
bitumen rubber mixes in Gauteng. Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Asphalt
Pavements for Southern Africa, Victoria Falls Zimbabwe, 1999.
19. Potgieter CJ, Sadler DE and de Villiers EM. Bitumen rubber asphalt experiences in RSA.
Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa, Victoria
Falls Zimbabwe, 1999.
20. Astec Industries, web site www.astecinc.com.
21. Wise J and Lorio R. A practical guide for estimating the compaction window time for thin
layer hot mix asphalt. Proceedings of the 8th Conference of Asphalt Pavements for
Southern Africa, Sun City, South Africa, 2004.
42
Appendix A
Field Trial Check List

ASPHALT TRIAL SECTION
A) Pre-Trial Procedures YES NO
Choose a site for the trial. This should have a similar surface,
strength and gradient to that on which the mix on trial is to be
laid.
Details of Site.
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
..........................................................................
B) Aggregates
i) Are there sufficient stockpile areas?
ii) Are the stockpiles constructed correctly and is the

material uniform ?
Size of aggregate :
37.5 mm
26.5 mm
19.0 mm
13.2 mm
9.5 mm
6.7 mm
Crusher dust
Fine sand
Coarse sand
C) Hot Storage for Binder YES NO
i) Is capacity sufficient for the programmed rate of

production?
Capacity ................................ t
Required daily capacity ..................................t/day
ii) Are tanks fitted with automatic temperature recording

systems?
iii) If a modified binder is to be used, are the blending

facilities and methods appropriate to ensure a uniform product
having the required properties?
iv) Is heating thermostatically controlled?
v) Is there a warning system for variation in temperatures?
vi) Is binder circulated in tank and between tank and mixer?
vii) Are supply pipes lagged?
viii) Is there a level indicator?
ix) Are sampling points to specification?
D) Check Cold Feed Bins
i) Are methods of controlling rate of feed operating

smoothly?
ii) Are these controls accurate?
iii) Are there precautions to prevent spill over?
iv) Is there adequate warning system if rate of feed alters?

YES NO
v) Is there an efficient interlock between cold feed and

binder
feed?
vi) Are fine aggregate feeds susceptible to arching?
vii) Is there a method of detecting and compensating for

variations of moisture in the aggregates?
vii) Has contractor cold feeds against RPM of belt pulley?

Attach calibration curves to report.
Report must indicate gate setting.
E) Mixing Plant
i) Is rated capacity sufficient for the programmed rate of

laying?
Rate Capacity .............................. t/h
Required Capacity ....................... t/h
ii) Are the proposed heating fuel and burners compatible?
iii) Is the method of control of the fuel/air mixture adequate?
iv) Are burners clean and nozzles to specification?
v) Are drum rollers correctly set and in good conditions?
vi) Are drum flights in good conditio ?
vii) Are binder spray bar and nozzles clean and in

accordance with specification?
YES NO
viii) Can position of spray bar be altered so as to control filler

in mix and can adjustments be easily made?
ix) Method of determining temperatures of binder at plant. Is

this adequate and are the results visible to the operator?
x) Temperature controls of aggregate and final mix. Are

these adequate and are the results available to the
operator?
xi) Is the plant fitted with appropriate filler feed to allow
accurate proportioning?
F) Emission Control
i) Type
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
............................................................
ii) Is dust collector matched to capacity of mixer?
iii) What method is used to return a portion of the recovered

fines to the mix?
.....................................................................................................
iv) What method is used for the disposal of unwanted fines?
.....................................................................................................
v) Do emissions from the stack comply with Act 45 of

1965?
(As amended)
YES NO
G) Buffer Storage
i) Is this of adequate capacity?
ii) Is this properly lagged?
iii) Do discharge gates operate smoothly?
H) Elevator between Mixer and Buffer Store
i) Are buckets in good condition?
ii) Are chains and cables in good condition?
I) Paver
a) Truck pushing rollers: are these:

i) Clean?
ii) Free running?
b) Hopper
i) Are sides reasonably smooth?
ii) Does side tilt mechanism work properly?
iii) Are rubber skirts in good condition?
iv) Do feed control gates work smoothly?
v) Are feed conveyors in good condition?
- Flights?
- Bed ( no holes )?
- Chains, conditions and tension, OK?
YES NO
1) Screed Unit
i) Are pivots free running?
ii) Are screed plates smooth and flat?
iii) Is bevel on tamper bars to specification?
iv) Are tamper bars straight and correctly set?
v) Is clearance between tamper bars and screed correct?
Note clearance .............................. mm
Specified clearance ........................ 0.05 ........................ mm
vii) Is gap between tamper bars and screed clean?
viii) Are crown controls for screed working smoothly?
ix) Is locking system for crown control adequate?
x) Is screed inclination set correctly ?

xi) Oscillator bar frequency? (tearing of mix?
Note:
Turn buckle gauge reading ..................................
Actual : ................................
Specified : ............................
xi) Are augers in good condition and tight to shaft?
xii) Are the centre auger flights reversed?

YES NO
xiii) Are augers set at correct height?
Actual height ...............................
Specified height ...........................
xiv) If telescope screed is fitted :
a) Do parts move smoothly?

b) Do wings form a smooth continuation of main
screed without steps?
c) Are spreader screw extensions in good condition?

d) Are tamper bar extensions to specification and
is clearance between tamper and screed correct?
e) Do tamper bar extensions protrude the correct

distance below the screed?
xv) If screed is not telescopic :
a) Are there sufficient extension boxes?

b) Are screed, tamper bars, spreader screws in good
condition?
c) Does extension form a continuation of main

screed
unit without steps?
d) Are tamper bar and screed correctly set relative

to each other?
YES NO
e) Do extensions to spreader screws attach tightly

to main section?
xvi) Are screed heater burners working properly?
xvii) Does screed control at working platform work correctly?
xviii) Attachments:
a) Are side cut off plates free to move?
b) Is joint matcher securely attached to chassis?
c) Is joint matcher in good condition?

d) Is mounting for travelling straight edge securely
attached to chassis?
e) Is travelling straight edge free to slide on it’s

mounting?
f) Is travelling straight edge correct length?
g) Are shoes on straight edge free to move?
h) Is tensioning winch in good condition?
i) Is sensor unit working?
j) Are tyre pressures and ballast correct?
• Note pressure .................... KPa,

and ballast .........................
• Specified ...........................
YES NO
k) Are solid tyres on small wheels clean and intact?

l) Check for fuel, oil and hydraulic leaks.
Is paver free of leaks?
m) Is guide chain arm free to move in chassis?
J) Chip Spreader
i) Is spreader correct width?

Width .......................... m
ii) Do gates move freely when hopper is loaded?

iii) Does charging hopper move easily across spreader
when loaded and on an adverse camber?
iv) Are agitator prongs in good condition?
v) Are planks available to allow wheels to travel on hot mix?
vi) Is 1m2 test screed available?
vii) Is 15 or 20 kg spring balance available?

viii) Check for fuel and oil leaks.
Is spreader free of leaks?
K) Steel Wheel Rollers
i) Are edges of rollers in good condition?
ii) Is change of direction smooth (no backlash)?

YES NO
iii) Is roller properly ballasted?

( Record mass and position )
Mass ......................... t
Position .....................
iv) Do wheel spray bars give a uniform cover on wheels?
v) Are wheel clearing mats in good condition?
vi) Are scrapers in good condition and set?

vii) Check for oil, fuel and hydraulic leaks.
Are rollers free of leaks?
viii) Do brakes work?
ix) Is reversing smooth?
L) Pneumatic Rollers
i) Are tyres in good condition?
ii) a) Is there a variable pressure system for tyre

pressure?
If so, is it working and is pressure gauge working
and
visible to driver?
b) Are all tyre pressures uniform?

Note tyre pressures ........................... KPa
iii) Is roller properly ballasted? (Record mass and position)

Mass ........................ t
Position ....................
YES NO
iv) Are spray bars working uniformly?
v) Are cleaning pads in good condition?

vi) Check for fuel, oil and hydraulic leaks.
Is roller free of leaks?
M) Hand Tools, Etc
i) Straight edge, is it clean and straight?
ii) Rakes and shovels, are they clean and in good

condition?
iii) Are thermometers available?

No. ........................ Size .......................
H) Transport Vehicles
i) Are the basins clean?
ii) Do tailgates open and close properly?
iii) Are load covers fitted?
iv) Are vehicles free from fuel, oil and hydraulic leaks?
v) Does tipping gear work?
vi) Registration numbers of vehicles.

Manual24 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual24 PDF

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

Manual24 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

User Guide

A support document to the

) Highlight important issues and content given in the IGHMA;

) Caution the reader against certain pitfalls or gaps in the IGHMA;

) Provide some guidance on supplementary procedures to achieve a sound and

) Highlight important issues and content given in the IGHMA;

) Caution the reader against certain pitfalls or gaps in the IGHMA;

) Provide some guidance on supplementary procedures to achieve a sound and

1.1 General issues related HMA design

) In terms of the surfacing layer, it is very important to distinguish between

ISSUES IMPACTING ON THE

Traffic Pavement Climatic Construction Other issues

• Number of • Structure • Temperature • Layer thickness • Noise reduction

) The IGHMA considers a Pavement Structural Capacity of >10million ESALs to

) Designers should be constantly aware of the conflicting requirements of

Decreased binder content Increased binder content

Stiff binder Flexible binder

) When undertaking rehabilitation designs, designers should take the flexibility

) In many situations it may not be possible to accommodate all of the design

) Designers should be aware of the difficulties relating to the mix design

) When specifying minimum layer thickness, designers should take into

) In situations where emphasis is placed on noise reduction (generally in urban

2.2 Phase 2: Mix Type Selection

2.3 Phase 3: Component Selection

The components of an asphalt mix comprise:

) Coarse aggregate in an asphalt mix normally consists of crushed stone or

) Variability is a significant issue affecting asphalt layers and their properties. In

) It should be noted that filler/binder ratios cannot be applied to all mix

) The tolerance limit of ± 1% of filler should be rigorously applied, except for

The Technical Guidelines of October 2001(TG1): The Use Of Modified Bituminous

) Regular evaluation and testing of binders should be incorporated into a quality

) Bitumen is a very complex component of the asphalt mix. Bitumen properties

2.4 Phase 4: Volumetric Mix Design

The concept of spatial composition is discussed in detail in IHMGA - Appendix B: Basic

Typical “replacement” Typical “filling” example

2.4.2 Target Grading

) The method is a systematic approach to blending aggregates that provides

) In most instances the gradation limits provided in current specifications will

) The permeability of coarse, continuously graded mixes and SMA is a

) Designers should also make use of software packages such as Compact7 or

2.4.3 Mixing and Conditioning

) Although there are practical limits on setting mixing and compaction

) The current Marshall procedure in TMH 112 specifies a compaction

) It is desirable to first compact all mixes that will be manufactured with

) Current guidelines for compaction of some SBS modified binders

) It should be noted that the sequence of adding and mixing different

) The IGHMA differs an approach from the Superpave procedure13 , in that

) The aggregate packing produced by this device is not representative of field

) The number of blows required to compact the asphalt briquettes to refusal

Modified Marshall compaction

Hugo Hammer compaction

) Further investigation of this method for use in South Africa is recommended.

) It should be noted that using a minimum of 93% MTRD could lead to

In order to understand the volumetric properties of a mix design, it is important to first

) It is very important that volumetric properties should be checked for

) Designers should also be aware of porous aggregate that can continue to

) Accurate density measurements are critical to the confident calculation of

) In order to ensure that sufficient binder is available to produce a durable

) In addition to the volumetric parameters described in the IGHMA, the effective