COMPARISON OF LABORATORY COMPACTED PLANT MIX AND FIELD CORES

By

MICHAEL ANKAMAH BEKOE

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2012

1
© 2012 Michael Ankamah Bekoe

2
To my beloved wife, Gloria

3
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Immense appreciation goes to the chair of my supervisory committee, Dr.

Reynaldo Roque, Professor in Civil Engineering for his guidance and support

throughout the course of my studies. I would also wish to acknowledge Dr. Mang Tia for

his continual support and as a member of my committee.

I also want to appreciate the effort of George Lopp for his valuable time and help

with laboratory experiments. Thanks are also extended to Sanghyun Chun, Dr. Jian

Zou, Dr. Yu Chen for their help in the course of this study.

Finally, a very special acknowledgement goes to my brother, Patrick Bekoe, my

wife, Gloria Bekoe for their love, confidence, encouragement and constant guidance

especially in difficult times. I would also extend thanks to all family and friends in Ghana

and Gainesville for their unflinching prayers.

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 8

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... 10

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 12

1.1 Background....................................................................................................... 12
1.2 Objectives ......................................................................................................... 13
1.3 Scope................................................................................................................ 13
1.4 Research Approach .......................................................................................... 13

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 15

2.1 Background....................................................................................................... 15
2.2 General Considerations of Compaction and Research Findings ...................... 15
2.3 Laboratory Compaction Methods ...................................................................... 18
2.3.1 Gyratory Compactor ................................................................................ 18
2.3.2 Vibratory Compactor................................................................................ 19
2.3.3 Kneading Compaction ............................................................................. 20
2.3.4 Impact Compaction.................................................................................. 20
2.4 Effect of Reheating on Compacted Specimens ................................................ 20
2.5 Aging Effect on Asphalt Mixtures ...................................................................... 21
2.6 Prediction of Cracking Performance of Asphalt Mixtures .................................. 22

3 TEST PROCEDURE ............................................................................................... 26

3.1 Sample Preparation and Aging ......................................................................... 26

3.2 Compaction and Determination of Air Void ....................................................... 27
3.3 Cutting .............................................................................................................. 28
3.4 Attaching Gage Points ...................................................................................... 29
3.5 Indirect Tension Test Procedure ....................................................................... 29
3.6 Resilient Modulus Test...................................................................................... 30
3.7 Creep Compliance Test .................................................................................... 31
3.8 Strength Test .................................................................................................... 32

5
4 TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 34

4.1 Background....................................................................................................... 34
4.2 Comparison between Field and Lab Compacted Air Void................................. 34
4.3 Resilient Modulus.............................................................................................. 36
4.4 Creep Compliance/Creep Rate ......................................................................... 38
4.5 Tensile Strength ................................................................................................ 40
4.6 Fracture Energy ................................................................................................ 42
4.7 Failure Strain .................................................................................................... 43
4.8 Energy Ratio ..................................................................................................... 45

5 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 47

5.1 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................ 47

5.2 Issues ............................................................................................................... 47
5.3 Future Research ............................................................................................... 47

APPENDIX

A LABORATORY GRADATION ................................................................................. 48

B FIELD GRADATION ............................................................................................... 51

C T-TEST DATA ......................................................................................................... 54

LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 57

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 58

6
 LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 Energy-based mixture specification criteria ........................................................ 25

3-1 Mixture information ............................................................................................. 26

3-2 Binder information for project sections ............................................................... 26

3-3 Comparison of DASR gradation parameters ...................................................... 27

3-4 Number of gyrations and % air voids .................................................................. 28

4-1 Comparison between field and laboratory mixture properties ............................. 36

A-1 Aggregate gradation for project 8 ....................................................................... 48

A-2 Aggregate gradation for project 9 ....................................................................... 48

A-3 Aggregate gradation for project 10 ..................................................................... 49

A-4 Aggregate gradation for project 11 ..................................................................... 49

A-5 Aggregate gradation for project 12 ..................................................................... 50

B-1 Aggregate gradation for project 8 ....................................................................... 51

B-2 Aggregate gradation for project 9 ....................................................................... 51

B-3 Aggregate gradation for project 10 ..................................................................... 52

B-4 Aggregate gradation for project 11 ..................................................................... 52

B-5 Aggregate gradation for project 12 ..................................................................... 53

C-1 Project 8 ............................................................................................................. 54

C-2 Project 9 ............................................................................................................. 54

C-3 Project 10 ........................................................................................................... 55

C-4 Project 11 ........................................................................................................... 55

C-5 Project 12 ........................................................................................................... 56

7
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Distribution of void content in gyratory compacted specimen. ............................ 16

2-2 Schematic diagram of Superpave Gyratory Compactor ..................................... 19

2-3 Effect of temperature on air voids measured after compaction using different
compaction methods for HMA containing a fine crushed gravel mixture. ........... 21

2-4 Determination of fracture energy ........................................................................ 25

3-1 Specimens in cutting machine ............................................................................ 29

3-2 Specimen in vacuum pump ................................................................................ 30

3-3 Material Testing System ..................................................................................... 30

3-4 Creep compliance curve based on power model ................................................ 31

3-5 Typical failure mode of IDT test specimens ........................................................ 33

4-1 Comparison between field and laboratory air void .............................................. 35

4-2 Correlation between lab and field compacted specimens ................................... 35

4-3 Comparison between field and laboratory resilient modulus .............................. 37

4-4 Correlation between field and laboratory specimens .......................................... 37

4-5 Comparison between field and laboratory creep compliance ............................. 38

4-6 Comparison between field and laboratory creep rate ......................................... 39

4-7 Creep rate correlation between field and laboratory specimens ......................... 39

4-8 Creep compliance correlation between field and laboratory specimens ............. 40

4-9 Comparison between Field and Laboratory Strength ......................................... 41

4-10 Strength correlation between lab and field compacted specimens ..................... 41

4-11 Comparison between field and laboratory fracture energy ................................. 42

4-12 Fracture energy correlation ................................................................................ 43

4-13 Comparison between field and laboratory failure strain ...................................... 44

8
4-14 Failure strain correlation ..................................................................................... 44

4-15 Comparison between field and laboratory failure strain ...................................... 45

4-16 Energy ratio correlation ...................................................................................... 46

9
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

ARB Asphalt Rubber Binder

CP Control Point

DASR Dominant Aggregate Size Range

DCSEf Dissipated Creep Strain Energy to Failure

EE Elastic Energy

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

Gmm Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity

HMA Hot Mix Asphalt

IDT Indirect Tension Test

ITLT Indirect Tension Test at Low Temperature

JMF Joint Mix Formula

LCPC Central Laboratory for Bridges and Roads

MR Resilient Modulus

MTS Material Testing System

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

PG Performance Grade

RZ Restricted Zone

SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

10
 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Science

COMPARISON OF LABORATORY COMPACTED PLANT MIX AND FIELD CORES

By

Michael Ankamah Bekoe

May 2012

Chair: Reynaldo Roque

Major: Civil Engineering

The effect between laboratory compaction and field compaction has been

assessed by many researchers but little has been done to evaluate the effect of

compaction on the prediction of cracking performance. Plant mix asphalt mixtures were

obtained after mixing and compacted in the laboratory under short term aging conditions

to reach the compaction temperatures. Field cores were similarly obtained shortly after

pavement compaction. Mixture properties of the laboratory compacted specimens for

various Superpave projects indicated that compaction in the laboratory generally

predicts conservative values for fracture energy and energy ratio. Energy ratio, which is

the appropriate parameter for HMA crack performance prediction seems to be the

parameter most sensitive to compaction effects, compared to fracture energy and

damage rate (creep rate). Mixture properties such as resilient modulus and strength

were insensitive to compaction effects.

11
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The strategic Highway research program (SHRP) was initiated with the aim of

improving the performance, durability, safety and efficiency of the Nation’s highway

system. Superpave was the principal term of the asphalt research product under this

program and it consisted of three main sections; (1) an asphalt binder specification, (2)

an HMA mix design method (3) HMA tests and performance prediction models. Since its

implementation by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), it became

imperative to monitor the performance and material characteristics of Superpave project

sections in order to establish a database upon which the design procedures and models

could be updated. The performance characteristics of asphalt specimens in the field are

influenced by its characteristics in the laboratory. Studies related to the effect of

laboratory compaction on field performance abounds. Some have looked at the effect of

compaction mode on the mechanical performance and variability of asphalt mixtures.

Superpave recommends the use of the Superpave Gyratory compactor as the best

mode to simulate the density of the Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) obtained in the field under

certain traffic conditions. Significant among them is the evaluation of the relationship

between field compaction method and laboratory compaction method with respect to

their effect on rutting performance. Very little, if any of such relationship between

laboratory compacted specimen and field compacted specimens based on their

cracking performance has been evaluated. This study focusses on characterizing the

cracking behavior of laboratory-compacted plant mix asphalt in comparison with field

compacted asphalt using the HMA fracture mechanics approach developed at the

12
University of Florida. To evaluate this, un-aged cores Superpave project sections were

taken along with samples of plant mix from the same sections which were then

compacted in the laboratory. The mixture properties influencing cracking performance

between the laboratory specimens and the field specimens were analyzed.

1.2 Objectives

The primary focus of this research is to compare the cracking-related mixture

properties of laboratory compacted plant mix specimens to those of field compacted

specimens. The mixture properties to be determined are:

 Energy Ratio (Key parameter that guides cracking performance)

 Fracture Energy
 Creep Rate
 Resilient Modulus
 Strength
 Creep Compliance

1.3 Scope

Material property data of un-aged cores from Superpave project sections have

been determined by Roque et al. (1999-2005). Samples of plant mix asphalt from these

project sections were used in this study. Sample were reheated and compacted to an

air void content of 7% (±0.5%) and the properties of these samples were determined

using the Superpave Indirect Tension test protocol.

1.4 Research Approach

Literature review was conducted to cover the following: general aspects of

compaction, effects of reheating and compaction temperature, and effects of aging on

Hot Mix Asphalt. This was followed by preparation of test specimens. Lastly, specimens

were tested using the indirect tension test protocol. Energy ratio was used as the

13
primary indicator to compare the effect of compaction between laboratory specimens

and field specimens.

14
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Background

This section discusses the general considerations of compaction, research

findings related to compaction and the various modes of compaction. A further review of

the effect of reheating and compaction temperature on asphalt specimens is looked at.

Finally, a review of the HMA fracture mechanics based approach used to evaluate the

crack-related performance of asphalt mixtures is conducted.

2.2 General Considerations of Compaction and Research Findings

The process of compaction involves a reduction in volume of air in HMA mixture

through the application of an external force. It is always desirable that laboratory

compacted specimens should have similar properties as field compacted cores (McRae,

1957). The field compacted mixture should have sufficient voids to allow the asphalt

cement to expand and contract as temperature changes without filling the voids

resulting in flushing. The voids should be high enough to allow for some subsequent

traffic-induced densification during the first few years of service without the void falling

below about 3-4% for dense-graded mixtures. Voids in an asphalt mixture are directly

related to density; thus the in-place voids must be controlled to achieve acceptable

range of air voids. It has been shown that for dense graded mixtures, air voids should

not be greater than 8% or fall below 3%. Gyratory compacted specimens have been

shown to have a relatively uniform air void distribution as shown in Figure 2-1. It is

however recognized that there are variability between laboratory and field specimens.

The main parameters which need to be controlled in order to manage the variability of

the mechanical performance of the asphalt in the field are aggregate gradation

15
changes, aggregate segregation, differential temperature within the mat, the amount of

confinement across the width of the mat, and the mode of compaction

Figure 2-1. Distribution of void content in gyratory compacted specimen. [Masad et al.
1999, 2004]

Many of the factors responsible for site variability are controlled in the laboratory to

a larger extent except the mode of compaction. There have been many research aimed

to simulate field compaction in the laboratory. Key amongst them is the Strategic

Highway Research program which recommends the use of the gyratory compactor as

the preferred means of asphalt mixture compaction (Sousa et al.1991; Harvey and

Monismith 1993). Gibb (1996) found that in terms of permanent deformation, vibratory

compacted specimens generally produced results which were closer to site cores than

steel roller compacted specimens. From their research, it was also found that rolling-

wheel compaction represents most closely field cores in terms of aggregate structure.

Also, their research indicated that kneading compactor produces specimen with the

strongest aggregate structure, while gyratory compaction produces the weakest

specimens. Hartman et al. (2001) compared the indirect stiffness values of specimens

16
manufactured from five laboratory methods of compaction with site cores and found that

steel roller compacted specimens were of comparable stiffness with those of the site

cores. Alistair et al. (2009) looked at the effect of compaction mode on the mechanical

performance and concluded that mold based compaction methods such as gyratory and

vibratory, generally produce stiffer specimens with higher resistance to permanent

deformation when compared to field specimens of comparable air voids. Von Quintus et

al. (1991) investigated the differences between laboratory compaction methods as a

part of the Asphalt Aggregate Mixture Analysis study in the NCHRP project. Five

laboratory compaction methods namely Texas gyratory compactor, ASTM kneading

compactor, Arizona vibratory/kneading compactor, Marshall hammer and steel roller

were examined to decide the method, which most closely simulates actual site

condition. From their report, it is found that specimens compacted by the Texas gyratory

compactor showed similar behavior to actual site cores in terms of mechanical

properties. It should be noted that although the research of Von Quintus et al

successfully compared five laboratory compaction methods, the cores taken from sites

showed relatively higher air voids than the laboratory compacted specimens. Button et

al. (1994) examined the correlation between field cores and laboratory compacted

specimens. They also looked at compaction methods most like actual site compaction.

In their study, field cores were obtained from five different sites, whereas specimens

were manufactured using four laboratory compaction methods (i.e. Texas gyratory,

Exxon rolling wheel, Elf kneading and Marshall Hammer). These were examined

through both mechanical tests and statistical analysis. Their research concluded that

Texas gyratory compactor is the most suitable compaction method to simulate site

17
compaction. The Exxon rolling compactor and Elf linear kneading compactor often

simulate the behavior of actual site cores. However specimens compacted by Exxon

rolling-wheel compactor did not have similar air void contents to other laboratory

compacted specimens. Therefore the specimens were not comparable with field cores.

2.3 Laboratory Compaction Methods

2.3.1 Gyratory Compactor

The gyratory compaction was developed in the 1930’s in Texas. Later this method

of compaction was further developed and applied by the Army Corps of Engineers and

the Central Laboratory for Bridges and Roads (LCPC) in France. One of the final

products of the SHRP was the Superpave mix design method with the Superpave

Gyratory Compactor being a key component of the mix design procedure. The

Superpave Gyratory Compactor was modified from the Texas Gyratory Compactor to

perform several goals:

 Realistically compact mix specimens to densities achieved under actual pavement

climate and traffic loading conditions;

 Capable of accommodating large aggregates;

 Capable of measuring compactibility so that potential tender mix behavior and

similar compaction problems could be identified;

 Portable enough to allow quality control and quality assurance in mixing facility.

Figure 2-2 below shows a schematic diagram of a Superpave Gyratory Compactor

(SGC). The SGC is a mechanical compaction device and is basically composed of the

parts shown in Figure 2-2. The gyratory motion of the SGC applies two simultaneous

stresses during compaction: one is the constant compression stress and the other is a

shearing stress which produces a kneading action on the specimen.

18
Figure 2-2. Schematic diagram of Superpave Gyratory Compactor (Graph courtesy of
Jinsong Chen)

The compaction effort applied to the sample by the SGC is controlled by three

parameters, namely vertical pressure, angle of gyration and number of gyrations.

Typically an angle of 1.25 degrees is used. The number of gyrations applied depends

on the traffic level. Compaction automatically stops when the desired number of

gyrations or height of specimen is reached. The specimen height is constantly

monitored during compaction, which provides a measure of specimen density

throughout the compaction procedure.

2.3.2 Vibratory Compactor

Vibratory compaction is also used to produce laboratory asphalt mixture

specimens. Cooper et al. (1985, 1991) used a vibratory hammer to develop the new Hot

Mix asphalt mixture design method aimed at improving on previous methods. They

applied a vibratory hammer in the Percentage refusal Density test. It was found from

their research that specimens manufactured by the percentage density equipment were

similar to cores taken from the field, in terms of density. Hunter et al. (2004) described

that the vibratory hammer is often used in place of the Marshall compactor because it is

19
easier to achieve target bulk density and void contents. It has a disadvantage in its

application in that the quality of compaction depends on the operator

2.3.3 Kneading Compaction

The compaction method used by Hveem in his mix design procedure is kneading

compaction. Kneading compaction applies forces through a roughly triangular-shaped

foot that covers only a portion of the specimen face. Compacted forces by tamps are

applied uniformly on the free face of the specimen to achieve compaction. The partial

face allows particles to move relative to each other, creating a kneading action that

densifies the mix. Three different kneading compactors include the California kneading

compactor, Linear kneading compactor and the Arizona kneading compactor. (Philip B

et al. 1994)

2.3.4 Impact Compaction

Impact compaction is the oldest method of laboratory compaction. Marshall

developed the mechanical Marshall hammer to simulate impact type compaction. The

number of blows applied to each face of the specimen (35, 50 and 75 blows) was tied to

general traffic levels. Higher energy levels (blows) were used for higher traffic levels.

Unfortunately, different densities, because of the variability in Marshall hammers

(mechanical, rotating and manual hammers), will result when these compaction blows

are applied. (Philip B et al. 1994)

2.4 Effect of Reheating on Compacted Specimens

Studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of reheating and control of test

temperature on compaction of asphalt mixtures. This is important because the viscosity

of asphalt cement changes with temperature. A study conducted at the University of

Wisconsin-Madison under NCHRP 9-10, showed that there was little change in density

20
with change in compaction temperature. The data showed that, though viscosity

changed by three poises, between temperatures of 80°C and 155°C, compaction

temperature had little to no effect on volumetric properties of the compacted samples.

Further evaluation was conducted using different modes of laboratory compaction (i.e.

Marshall, Hveem) along with the Superpave Gyratory Compactor (SGC) at three

different temperatures. They observed that SGC was the least sensitive to temperature

change as can be observed in Figure 2-3 below:

Figure 2-3. Effect of temperature on air voids measured after compaction using different
compaction methods for HMA containing a fine crushed gravel mixture.
[Graph courtesy University of Wisconsin-Madison under NCHRP 9-10]

2.5 Aging Effect on Asphalt Mixtures

The stiffness of the asphalt mixture is affected by the aging phenomenon. To be

able to characterize asphalt mixtures adequately requires that the samples are

sufficiently simulating the in-place properties of the mixture. The aging process in the

field is affected by the amount of densification, the after-construction air void and the

production temperature. There are two types of aging process in the laboratory: 1. the

21
short term oven aging which simulates the change in stiffness during the production,

laying and compaction stage. 2. The Long term oven aging which simulates the

changes in stiffness after several years of oxidation, traffic densification and moisture

damage. Superpave mix design requires that for the short term oven aging, the mixture

be conditioned at a temperature equal to the expected compaction temperature for two

hours after mixing and prior to compaction. For Long term oven aging, the compacted

sample should be left in an oven for an extended period of time (five days) to simulate

the in-service aging in the field.

2.6 Prediction of Cracking Performance of Asphalt Mixtures

Cracks that occur in HMA pavement are due to stresses, moisture damage of

HMA, aging of HMA and inadequate support from underlying layers. Asphalt mixtures

can be evaluated for their cracking performance using the HMA fracture mechanics

approach. The Indirect Tensile test (IDT) protocol is one method of determining the

fatigue characteristics of HMA because it allows for thin specimens of asphalt cored

from the field or compacted in the laboratory to be tested. The Resilient Modulus, M R,

the creep compliance and the strength parameters of the HMA specimen can be

determined from the IDT test. Research by Hiltunen and Roque (2004) shows that low

temperature or thermal cracking can be analyzed from standard IDT test device.

The resilient modulus is the first parameter obtained from the IDT test protocol. It

is a measure of the materials stiffness and it is defined as the ratio of the applied stress

to the recoverable strain under repeated loading. Typically, specimen diameter should

range between 4 to 6 inches. The tensile stresses and strain values can be obtained at

the center of the specimen from the equations stated below:

22
 (2-1)

(2-2)

Where

σt = tensile stress in the vertical diameter of the IDT specimen

εt = tensile strain in the center of the IDT specimen

P = applied load in Ibs

t = sample thickness, inches

d = sample diameter in inches

E = Young’s modulus psi

µ = Poisson’s ratio

Roque et al. (1997) determined that the resilient modulus and the Poisson’s ratio

can be estimated from a load controlled mode system. They applied a repeated

haversine waveform load to the specimen for a 0.1 second period followed by a rest

period of 0.9 seconds. The applied load should be enough to keep the horizontal

deformations within the linear viscoelastic range of 100 to 180 micro-inches. The

resilient modulus and Poisson’s ratio is calculated based on a three dimensional finite

element analysis by Roque and Buttlar (1992) which was incorporated in the Superpave

Indirect Tension Test at Low temperature (ITLT) computer program, developed by

Roque et al. (1997).

(2-3)

⁄ ⁄ ⁄ (2-4)

23
 Where,

MR = Resilient Modulus, P = Maximum Load, GL = Gauge length, ΔH = Horizontal

deformation, t = Thickness, D = Diameter, Ccmpl = 0.6354 x (X/Y)-1-0.332, v = Poisson’s

ratio, and X/Y = Ratio of horizontal to vertical deformation.

The Creep test follows immediately after the resilient modulus test and is used to

determine the creep properties of the asphalt mixture. Creep compliance and Poisson’s

ratio are estimated using the following equations which are already incorporated in the

Superpave Indirect Tension test at low temperature (ITLT) program as:

(2-5)

⁄ ⁄ ⁄ (2-6)

Where,

D (t) = creep compliance at time t (1/psi), ΔH, t, D, Ccmpl, GL, v, P, and (X/Y) are

already defined above.

The total horizontal deformation should be below 750 micro-inches after 1000

seconds under a static load. After 100 seconds the range of horizontal deformation

should be within 180 micro-inches.

The strength test is the last test performed on the mixtures. The tensile strength,

the failure strain and the fracture energy can be estimated from this test. The maximum

tensile strength is calculated as follows:

(2-7)

Where, St = maximum indirect tensile strength, P = Failure Load at first crack, Csx

= 0.948-0.01114 x (b/D) – 0.2693 x v + 1.436(b/D) x v, b = Thickness, D = Diameter and

v = Poisson’s ratio.

24
 From the strength and resilient modulus test, the fracture energy and dissipated

creep strain energy can be determined. The dissipated creep strain energy to failure is

the difference between Fracture energy and the elastic energy as shown in the stress-

strain curve in Figure 2-4 below

Figure 2-4. Determination of fracture energy [Graph courtesy Chun S. 2011]

Roque et al. also suggested the energy ratio criterion based on their investigation

of field samples. The concept was based on the fact that higher creep compliance does

not necessarily imply that cracks initiate or propagate more quickly in mixtures. This

criterion states that the energy ratio must be greater than 1.0 for the mixture to be

acceptable. They defined the energy ratio as the ratio between the final and minimum

dissipated creep strain energy. Table 2-1 shows the minimum energy ratio values for

various traffic conditions.

Table 2-1. Energy-based mixture specification criteria

Traffic ESALs/year x 1000 Minimum Energy Ratio
<250 1
<500 1.3
<1000 1.95

25
 CHAPTER 3
TEST PROCEDURE

3.1 Sample Preparation and Aging

Plant mix asphalt mixtures from the five different Superpave project sections were

reheated for two hours to reach their respective mixing temperatures. To ensure

uniformity in heating, each sample was stirred after an hour of heating. The maximum

specific gravity (Gmm) of each of the project sections was determined by the Superpave

monitoring project group at University of Florida and their values were used in the

subsequent determination of air voids. The tables below summarize the mixture

information for the Superpave projects under investigation.

Table 3-1. Mixture information

Sample LAB COMPACTION % AIR
Project Mix Weight Gyrations DENSITY TEMPERATURE VOID @
No Type (g) @ Ndes Ib/ft3 (°F) OAC
Coarse
SP-12.5
8 recycle 4500 96 142.5 300 4
Fine
FC-6
9 W/GTR 4750 75 147.4 300 4

FC-6
10 ARB-5 5040 75 154.6 300 4.03
Coarse
SP-12.5
11 recycle 4700 125 147.3 325 4

12 FC-6 4900 75 152.1 300 3-5

Table 3-2. Binder information for project sections

Project Binder Type Mixture Type Traffic Level
8 PG 76-22 12.5 Coarse D
9 ARB-5 FC -6 C
10 ARB-5 FC-6 B
11 PG 76-22 12.5 Coarse E
12 ARB-5 FC-6 C

26
 The aggregate gradation for each project section for both the laboratory and the

field specimens are summarized in Appendix A and B. For the laboratory specimens,

DASR porosity was calculated based on the design gradations. Aggregates were

extracted from the in-place field specimens and a sieve analysis was run to determine

its DASR porosity. Table 3-3 compares the laboratory (design) and the in-place (field)

gradation parameters to assess whether compaction has changed the gradation

characteristics of the field specimens. It is evident from the analysis that compaction did

not affect the gradation characteristics of the aggregates.

Table 3-3. Comparison of DASR gradation parameters

Project DASR (mm) DASR porosity (%) DASR (mm) DASR porosity (%)

laboratory Field
8 4.75-2.36 50 4.75-2.36 54.5
9 4.75-1.18 53.6 4.75-1.18 51.5
10 9.5-1.18 43.1 9.5 – 1.18 42
11 4.75 – 1.18 41.4 4.75 – 1.18 41.6
12 4.75 -2.36 52.8 4.75 -1.18 44.1

3.2 Compaction and Determination of Air Void

The process of compaction was to aid in the determination of the bulk specific

gravity of the samples from which the percent air voids can be estimated. The

Superpave Gyratory compactor was used for this project. It applies a ram pressure of

600KPa on a 150mm diameter specimen at angle of 1.25 degrees. The reheated

materials were poured into the preheated mold with a paper disc at the bottom. The

mold was then loaded into the gyratory compactor and the required input data was

recorded onto the computer system. Compaction was based on the number of gyrations

to achieve the design target air void [refer to Table 3-4]. The number of gyrations

corresponding to 7.5% air void was determined after calculations and the specimens

27
were compacted to achieve the laboratory target air void for pills of 7.5% (±0.5). A target

air void of 7% (±0.5) was expected after the pills are cut for testing. To determine the

bulk specific gravity of the specimens, the weight of the dry specimen, the submerged

and the saturated surface dry (SSD) is found. The bulk specific gravity of each of the

specimens is calculated as follows:

(3-1)

Table 3-4 below shows the percent air void for each of the specimens tested

Table 3-4. Number of gyrations and % air voids

Cut
Number weight weight Weight Specimen
of in air submerge SSD Air Voids
Project Gyrations (g) d (g) (g) Gmb Gmm (%)
1315.7 723.9 1319.8 2.208 2.376 7.07
8 1323.1 730.3 1327.9 2.214 2.376 6.82
25 1404.0 776.7 1409.2 2.220 2.376 6.58
1323.1 750.5 1324.5 2.305 2.473 6.79
9 1385.7 787.8 1388.5 2.307 2.473 6.72
22 1424.6 809.5 1427.0 2.307 2.473 6.71
1411.2 834.8 1412.2 2.444 2.620 6.72
10 1502.3 888.6 1503.3 2.444 2.620 6.72
30 1486.4 878.9 1487.4 2.443 2.620 6.77
1245.5 710.1 1248.5 2.313 2.484 6.87
11 1385.0 789.5 1389.3 2.309 2.484 7.04
45 1243.4 707.3 1246.0 2.308 2.484 7.08
1399.8 816.8 1401.0 2.396 2.564 6.55
12 1421.9 829.9 1424.3 2.392 2.564 6.70
15 1265.4 737.4 1266.5 2.392 2.564 6.72

3.3 Cutting

After the specimens have been compacted and dried out enough, a cutting device

was used to slice the pills into the desired thickness of about 1.5 inches. Figure 3-1

28
below show the cutting device used for this project. Specimens were put into the de-

humidifier for at least 48 hours to remove all the moisture absorbed into the mix.

Figure 3-1. Specimens in cutting machine. [Photo courtesy of author]

3.4 Attaching Gage Points

The gauge points are the pointers on which the strain gauges would be mounted.

Gauge points were fixed on to the specimens at positions D/4 where D is the diameter

of the specimen. This is a consideration developed by Dr. Roque (AAPT, 1992).

Attaching the gauge points required the use of a vacuum pump shown in Figure 3-

2 which allows for easy fixing onto the specimen and a strong adhesive which makes for

difficult removal of gauges from the specimens.

3.5 Indirect Tension Test Procedure

After attaching the gauge points, the specimens were placed in the IDT

environmental chamber to condition the specimens to a testing temperature of 10°C.

The test protocol comprises of the resilient modulus, creep compliance and strength

test. These tests provided information on the properties of the asphalt mixtures

compacted in the laboratory. The Material Testing System (MTS) shown in Figures 3-3

29
was used for the testing and the test configuration was set to the indirect tension test

mode.

Figure 3-2. Specimen in vacuum pump. [Photo courtesy of author]

Figure 3-3. Material Testing System. [Photo courtesy of author]

3.6 Resilient Modulus Test

The resilient modulus is the ratio of the applied stress to the recoverable strain

under repeated loading. The test is performed in a load controlled mode by applying a

repeated haversine waveform load to the specimen for 0.1 seconds followed by a rest

period of 0.9 seconds. The resilient modulus and Poisson’s ratio is calculated based on

a three dimensional finite element analysis by Roque and Buttlar (1992) which was

30
incorporated in the Superpave Indirect Tension Test at Low temperature (ITLT)

computer program, developed by Roque et al. (1997).

(3-2)

⁄ ⁄ ⁄ (3-3)

Where,

MR = Resilient Modulus, P = Maximum Load, GL = Gauge length, ΔH = Horizontal

deformation, t = Thickness, D = Diameter, Ccmpl = 0.6354 x (X/Y)-1-0.332, v = Poisson’s

ratio, and X/Y = Ratio of horizontal to vertical deformation.

3.7 Creep Compliance Test

The creep test followed after the resilient modulus test. Creep compliance is a

time-dependent strain over a constant stress function. It can be used to evaluate the

rate of damage accumulation of asphalt mixtures. Mixture parameter values such as D o,

D1, and m-value. Figure 3-4 further explains the meaning of these mixture parameters.

D1 and m-value are related to each other.

Figure 3-4. Creep compliance curve based on power model [Reprinted with permission
from Chun S. 2011]

31
 The creep test was also performed in the load controlled mode. A static load was

applied to the specimen for 1000 seconds. The deformation curve was observed

ensuring that at 100 seconds, the deformation was within 100 -150 micro-inches and at

1000 seconds, the total horizontal deformation was less than 750 micro-inches. The

creep compliance was calculated based on the equations stated below:

(3-4)

⁄ ⁄ ⁄ (3-5)

Where,

D (t) = creep compliance at time t (1/psi), ΔH, t, D, Ccmpl, GL, v, P, and (X/Y) are

already defined above.

3.8 Strength Test

The strength test is a destructive test and is controlled in a displacement mode. An

application of 50mm/min displacement is applied to the specimen until failure. One

advantage of the Superpave Indirect test is the fact that failure is known a-priori and

Figure 3-5 shows a typical failure mode of the specimens. The maximum tensile

strength is calculated as follows:

(3-6)

Where,

St = maximum indirect tensile strength, P = Failure Load at first crack, Csx = 0.948-

0.01114 x (b/D) – 0.2693 x v + 1.436(b/D) x v, b = Thickness, D = Diameter and v =

Poisson’s ratio.

32
Figure 3-5. Typical failure mode of IDT test specimens. [Photo courtesy of author]

33
 CHAPTER 4
TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Background

Indirect tension test results were analyzed using the ITLT computer program

software developed by Roque et al. (1999). The effect of compaction on mixture

properties for all the project sections were assessed with due consideration to the effect

of air voids in mixtures. Comparison between the laboratory compacted specimens and

the field compacted specimens was made for the following mixture properties: Resilient

modulus, strength, creep rate and creep compliance, fracture energy, failure strain and

the energy ratio.

A T-test analysis was done to assess the difference between the laboratory and

the field compacted specimens for each project section for the various mixture

properties using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. Due

to insufficient data, the T-test was not conducted on creep rate, creep compliance,

energy ratio, and fracture energy.

4.2 Comparison between Field and Lab Compacted Air Void

Figure 4-1 shows a comparison between the field air void and laboratory air void.

Except for project 10, the laboratory compacted specimens produced higher air void

content than the field compacted specimens. Generally, higher air voids would result in

accelerating oxidative aging which would increase the embrittlement of the mixture thus

causing a reduction in failure strain. Correlation between field and laboratory specimens

showed a poor correlation between the two as shown in Figure 4-2 below.

Table 4-1 shows a summary of the results between the field and laboratory

mixture properties at 10°C

34
 AIR VOID- FIELD VS LAB
12.00%

10.00%

8.00%
Air Void in %

6.00%

4.00%

2.00%

0.00%
8 9 10 11 12
lab Air Void (%) 6.82% 6.74% 6.73% 7.00% 6.66%
Field Air Void 4.8% 6.4% 9.7% 6.6% 5.4%

Figure 4-1. Comparison between field and laboratory air void [Photo courtesy of author]

AIR VOID-LAB VS FIELD

10.00

9.00

8.00
Lab Air Void in %

7.00
y = -0.9162x + 12.789
R² = 0.004
6.00

5.00

4.00
6.60 6.65 6.70 6.75 6.80 6.85 6.90 6.95 7.00 7.05
Field Air Void in %

Figure 4-2. Correlation between lab and field compacted specimens. [Photo courtesy of
author]

35
Table 4-1. Comparison between field and laboratory mixture properties
Creep Resilient Fracture
Strength Failure strain Energy
(10°C) Compliance Modulus Energy
in (MPa) (microstrain) Ratio
in (1/Gpa) (GPa) (KJ/m3)

Lab 1.426 2.08 10.41 1127.54 1.6 1.76

Project
8
Field 0.829 2.23 11.55 937.92 1.4 2.69

Lab 0.849 2.42 11.84 1035.75 1.8 3.43

Project
9
Field 0.658 2.39 12.13 1268.68 2.3 5.79

Lab 0.727 3.02 16.59 901.54 1.8 3.43

Project
10
Field 0.905 3.01 14.64 1178.81 2.45 3.86

Lab 1.335 2.97 13.94 1179.76 2.4 2.5

Project
11
Field 1.295 3.27 13.39 1701.28 3.95 3.99

Lab 2.457 2.31 10.50 1831.91 3.1 2.02

Project
12
Field 2.257 2.40 10.32 2369.74 4.3 3.02

4.3 Resilient Modulus

The resilient modulus which measures the elastic stiffness of the material is shown

in Figure 4-3. A t-test was conducted to investigate the differences between laboratory

and field resilient modulus. From the results of the T-test shown in Appendix C, it can be

seen that laboratory and field resilient modulus were significantly different for all the

project sections at 10% level of significance with the exception of project 12.

Furthermore, a linear regression analysis was conducted to determine whether there is

any correlation between laboratory and field compacted specimens. From Figure 4-4, it

36
can be seen that there is a good correlation between the field and laboratory resilient

modulus with a correlation coefficient (R-Square) of 0.91. The regression equation is

Field MR=1.5016*Laboratory MR-5.9734

RESILIENT MODULUS- LAB VS FIELD

18.00

16.00

14.00

12.00
Mr in GPa

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
PROJECT 8 PROJECT 9 PROJECT 10 PROJECT 11 PROJECT 12
LAB 10.41 11.84 16.59 13.94 10.5
Field 11.55 12.13 14.64 13.39 10.32

Figure 4-3. Comparison between field and laboratory resilient modulus [Photo courtesy
of author]

RESILIENT MODULUS - LAB VS FIELD

18.00

17.00
y = 1.5016x - 5.9734
16.00
R² = 0.9123
15.00
Field Mr in GPa

14.00

13.00

12.00

11.00

10.00

9.00

8.00
9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00
Lab Mr in GPa

Figure 4-4. Correlation between field and laboratory specimens [Photo courtesy of
author]

37
 4.4 Creep Compliance/Creep Rate

Creep compliance indicates the ability of the mixture to relax stresses. Generally,

the higher the creep compliance the higher the mixtures ability to relax stresses at a

faster rate. Higher creep compliance also gives an indication of permanent damage.

Figure 4-5 shows results of the creep compliance between the field and the laboratory

compacted specimens. Except for Project 10, the other project sections showed a

higher rate of damage accumulation for the laboratory compacted specimens which

could explain why it resulted in a lower energy ratio. The higher rate of damage

accumulation for the laboratory specimens could be attributed to the effect of binder

aging for the laboratory specimens. Creep rate or rate of creep compliance is related to

rate of damage and showed similar trends as illustrated in Figure 4-6. A regression

analysis between the field and the laboratory specimens showed that there is good

correlation between the field and the laboratory creep compliance and creep rate with a

correlation coefficient of (R-Square) of 0.8287 and (R-Square) of 0.8436 respectively.

CREEP COMPLIANCE- LAB VS FIELD

3

2.5

2
Ccmpl in (1/GPa)

1.5

0.5

0
PROJECT 8 PROJECT 9 PROJECT 10 PROJECT 11 PROJECT 12
LAB 1.426 0.849 0.727 1.335 2.457
Field 0.829 0.658 0.905 1.295 2.257

Figure 4-5. Comparison between field and laboratory creep compliance [Photo courtesy
of author]

38
 CREEP RATE - LAB VS FIELD
9.00E-09

8.00E-09

7.00E-09
Creep rate at 1000seconds

6.00E-09

5.00E-09

4.00E-09

3.00E-09

2.00E-09

1.00E-09

0.00E+00
PROJECT 8 PROJECT 9 PROJECT 10 PROJECT 11 PROJECT 12
LAB 3.60E-09 1.88E-09 1.90E-09 3.60E-09 8.21E-09
FIELD 1.89E-09 1.52E-09 2.72E-09 3.83E-09 6.93E-09

Figure 4-6. Comparison between field and laboratory creep rate [Photo courtesy of
author]

CREEP RATE - LAB VS FIELD

9.00

8.00 y = 1.0935x + 0.1442

R² = 0.8436
7.00

6.00
Creep Rate (x10E-9)

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
creep rate (x 10E-9) at 1000sec

Figure 4-7. Creep rate correlation between field and laboratory specimens [Photo
courtesy of author]

39
 CREEP COMPLIANCE - LAB VS FIELD
3.00

2.50 y = 0.9709x + 0.2045

R² = 0.8287
Creep Compliance (1/GPA)

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Creep Compliance (1/GPa)

Figure 4-8. Creep compliance correlation between field and laboratory specimens
[Photo courtesy of author]

4.5 Tensile Strength

The tensile strength of the material is the stress at which it fractures. Figure 4-9

illustrates the comparison between laboratory compacted and field compacted

specimens. As can be observed, the strength parameters between the field and the

laboratory compaction are almost the same. A T-test analysis also shows that at 10%

level of significance, there was no significant difference in strength between the

laboratory and the field compacted specimens for all the project sections as shown in

Appendix C. a good correlation was found between the field and the laboratory

compacted specimens with a correlation coefficient of R2=0.9141 as shown in Figure 4-

10.

40
 STRENGTH- LAB VS FIELD
3.5

2.5

2
ST MPa

1.5

0.5

0
PROJECT 8 PROJECT 9 PROJECT 10 PROJECT 11 PROJECT 12
LAB 2.08 2.42 3.02 2.97 2.31
Field 2.23 2.39 3.01 3.27 2.4

Figure 4-9. Comparison between Field and Laboratory Strength [Photo courtesy of
author]

STRENGTH - LAB VS FIELD

3.30

y = 0.8784x + 0.2234
3.10
R² = 0.9141
2.90

2.70
Strength in MPa

2.50

2.30

2.10

1.90

1.70

1.50
2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40
Strength in MPa

Figure 4-10. Strength correlation between lab and field compacted specimens [Photo
courtesy of author]

41
 4.6 Fracture Energy

Fracture energy is known to be a good indicator to predict the cracking

performance of asphalt pavement and it is the ability of the mixture to resist damage

without fracturing. Figure 4-11 shows the effect of laboratory and field compacted

specimens on fracture energy. It can be observed that in four out of the five project

sections, the laboratory fracture energy were significantly lower than the field. It can be

posited that the compaction effect predicts much conservative values than the effect in

the field. The difference in gradation between the laboratory and the field specimens

were not significant as shown in Appendix A and B and therefore could not have

accounted for the difference. The laboratory specimens could have aged during storage

and reheating the specimens to the compaction temperature could have also increased

the aging process which may explain the observed trend. There was also a very good

correlation between the lab and the field compaction for the entire project section as

seen in Figure 4-12 with a correlation coefficient of R2= 0.8728

FRACTURE ENERGY - LAB VS FIELD

5

4.5

3.5

3
FE in KJ/m3

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
PROJECT 8 PROJECT 9 PROJECT 10 PROJECT 11 PROJECT 12
LAB 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.4 3.1
FIELD 1.4 2.3 2.45 3.95 4.3

Figure 4-11. Comparison between field and laboratory fracture energy [Photo courtesy
of author]

42
 FRACTURE ENERGY - LAB VS FIELD
3.50

3.00
y = 0.474x + 0.7748
R² = 0.8728
Lab Fracture Energy in KJ/m3

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Field Fracture Energy in KJ/m3

Figure 4-12. Fracture energy correlation [Photo courtesy of author]

4.7 Failure Strain

Failure strain is related to the brittleness of the mixture. A lower failure strain is

characterized by a very stiff mixture and thus very brittle. It also informs of the mixtures

aging condition or susceptibility to oxidative aging. Laboratory samples may have aged

resulting in it having lower values of failure strain. The process of reheating to reach the

compaction temperature may also accelerate the aging process and hence the

reduction in failure strains for laboratory mixtures than the field specimens. Figure 4-13

shows the comparison between the field and the laboratory compacted specimens.

Except for project 8, all the other project sections showed a significant difference

between the field and the laboratory specimens at a significance level of 10% from the

T-test analysis shown in Appendix C. There was a good correlation between the

laboratory and the field compacted specimens for the entire project section as seen in

Figure 4-14 with a correlation coefficient of R2=0.7874

43
 FAILURE STRAIN- LAB VS FIELD
2500

2000
failure strain in microstrain

1500

1000

500

0
PROJECT 8 PROJECT 9 PROJECT 10 PROJECT 11 PROJECT 12
LAB 1127.54 1035.75 901.54 1179.76 1831.91
Field 937.92 1268.68 1178.81 1701.28 2369.74

Figure 4-13. Comparison between field and laboratory failure strain [Photo courtesy of
author]

FAILURE STRAIN - LAB VS FIELD

2,000.00

1,800.00
y = 0.5679x + 368.39
R² = 0.7874
Lab failure Strain in microstrain

1,600.00

1,400.00

1,200.00

1,000.00

800.00

600.00
900.00 1,100.00 1,300.00 1,500.00 1,700.00 1,900.00 2,100.00 2,300.00 2,500.00
Field in microstrain

Figure 4-14. Failure strain correlation [Photo courtesy of author]

44
 4.8 Energy Ratio

Energy ratio illustrates best the trend between the laboratory compacted specimen

and the field compacted specimens. Energy ratio seems to be the most sensitive

parameter that defines the effect of compaction on asphalt mixtures. It was always

lower for the laboratory specimens compared with the field specimens as shown in

Figure 4-15. All the laboratory compacted mixtures however met the minimum

requirement of 1.0 for a mixture to be accepted. The relatively lower energy ratio value

for the field compacted specimen in Project 10 could be explained by its higher air void

content as seen in Figure 4-1. The correlation between field and laboratory energy ratio

shown in Figure 4-16 highlights this trend as project 10 was far from the equality line.

The energy ratio parameter generally showed a good correlation between the field and

the laboratory for the entire project sections as seen in Figure 4-16 except for project

10, which has been explained above with a correlation coefficient of R2=0.6626.

ENERGY RATIO - LAB VS FIELD

7

4
ER

0
PROJECT 8 PROJECT 9 PROJECT 10 PROJECT 11 PROJECT 12
LAB 1.76 3.43 3.43 2.5 2.02
FIELD 2.69 5.79 3.86 3.99 3.02

Figure 4-15. Comparison between field and laboratory failure strain [Photo courtesy of
author]

45
 ENERGY RATIO - LAB VS FIELD
4.00

y = 0.5257x + 0.5935
R² = 0.6626
3.50
Lab Energy ratio

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50
2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Field Energy Ratio

Figure 4-16. Energy ratio correlation [Photo courtesy of author]

46
 CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION

5.1 Summary of Findings

This chapter provides the findings of this report and the issues arising out of the

research. Laboratory compacted plant mix specimens were tested at 10°C to evaluate

its mixture properties. The results of the evaluation were compared with field compacted

specimens at same temperature. It was evident from the experimental procedure that

the energy ratio which is a function of the fracture energy and the creep compliance is

the key parameter to compare the compaction effect of laboratory and field. It was

observed that laboratory compaction generally produces conservative predictions even

though they met the minimum requirements needed for an acceptable mixture. The

results also confirmed that resilient modulus and strength parameters may not be ideal

for crack performance prediction.

5.2 Issues

Several issues may have affected the validity of the results. Due to the

unavailability of materials, comparisons were only made using five project sections.

5.3 Future Research

Future research into this area would be helpful and informative using the original

Superpave aggregates and binders for a wide range of project sections for different

layers and at different testing temperatures. Binder extraction from the laboratory

compacted specimens should be made to assess its fracture performance using the

newly developed fracture test protocol at the University of Florida.

47
 APPENDIX A
LABORATORY GRADATION

Table A-1. Aggregate gradation for project 8

Milled S1 A S1 B New Mill Control Restricted
Sand JMF
Material Stone Stone Screening Points Zone
No 10% 15% 50% 10% 15% JMF CP RZ
19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12.5 98 60 100 100 100 94 90-100
9.5 95 39 100 100 100 90
4.75 73 7 52 97 100 59
2.36 59 6 8 65 99 32 28-58 39.1-39.1
1.18 50 5 3 48 89 25 25.6-31.6
600 46 4 3 37 50 18 19.1-23.1
300 40 3 3 26 20 12
150 27 3 2 18 7 7
75 10.9 3 2 8.7 1 4.5 2-10

Table A-2. Aggregate gradation for project 9

# 67 #89 W-10 M-10 Local Control Restricted

JMF
Stone Stone Screening Screening Sand Points Zone

No 15% 15% 20% 40% 10% JMF CP RZ

19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12.5 65 100 100 100 100 95 90-100
9.5 38 93 100 100 100 90
4.75 10 33 93 94 100 73
2.36 4 5 63 74 100 54 28-58 39.1-39.1
1.18 2 3 40 53 92 39 25.6-31.6
600 2 2 23 37 85 29 19.1-23.1
300 2 1 12 26 55 19
150 2 1 6 17 10 9
75 1.3 0.9 3.6 10.8 1.6 5.5 2-10

48
Table A-3. Aggregate gradation for project 10

#78 #89 W-10 M-10 Control Restricted

Sand JMF
Stone Stone Screening Screening Points Zone

No 30% 10% 20% 30% 10% JMF CP RZ

19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12.5 93 100 100 100 100 98 90-100
9.5 60 100 100 100 100 88
4.75 10 35 100 100 100 67
2.36 4 5 64 68 100 45 28-58 39.1-39.1
1.18 2 4 44 50 100 35 25.6-31.6
600 1 3 27 40 88 27 19.1-23.1
300 1 2 15 23 60 16
150 1 1 8 17 12 8
75 1 1 4 12 2 5.4 2-10

Table A-4. Aggregate gradation for project 11

Milled #67 #89 W-10 M-10 Control Restricted

JMF
Material Stone Stone Screening Screening Points Zone

No 15% 17% 30% 26% 12% JMF CP RZ

19 100 98 100 100 100 100 100
12.5 99 56 100 100 100 92 90-100
9.5 98 35 96 100 100 87
4.75 83 4 40 90 90 59
2.36 64 2 6 63 64 36 28-58 39.1-39.1
1.18 54 1 5 38 43 25 25.6-31.6
600 46 1 4 25 30 18 19.1-23.1
300 38 1 3 14 21 13
150 24 1 2 6 14 8
75 12.9 1 1 3.9 10.4 4.7 2-10

49
Table A-5. Aggregate gradation for project 12

W-10 Control Restricted

#78 #89 Sand JMF
Screenings Points Zone

No 25% 28% 27% 20% JMF CP RZ

19 100 100 100 100 100 100
12.5 93 100 100 100 98 90-100
9.5 60 100 100 100 90
4.75 10 35 100 100 59
2.36 4 5 66 100 40 28-58 39.1-39.1
1.18 2 3 46 100 34 25.6-31.6
600 1 2 29 89 26 19.1-23.1
300 1 2 17 28 11
150 1 1 9 6 4
75 1 1 4.5 1 3.5 2-10

50
 APPENDIX B
FIELD GRADATION

Table B-1. Aggregate gradation for project 8

Gradation Control Points Restricted Zone

No CP RZ
19 98.58 100
12.5 92.32 90-100
9.5 87.62
4.75 61.88
2.36 35.95 28-58 39.1-39.1
1.18 25.77 25.6-31.6
600 18.33 19.1-23.1
300 11.75
150 10.34
75 5.82 2-10

Table B-2. Aggregate gradation for project 9

Gradation Control Points Restricted Zone

No CP RZ
19 99.37 100
12.5 95.30 90-100
9.5 91.23
4.75 74.17
2.36 52.42 28-58 39.1-39.1
1.18 37.38 25.6-31.6
600 28.93 19.1-23.1
300 18.23
150 8.80
75 5.43 2-10

51
Table B-3. Aggregate gradation for project 10

Gradation Control Points Restricted Zone

No CP RZ
19 100 100
12.5 99.63 90-100
9.5 89.21
4.75 67.29
2.36 49.18 28-58 39.1-39.1
1.18 34.48 25.6-31.6
600 26.07 19.1-23.1
300 16.24
150 8.88
75 5.42 2-10

Table B-4. Aggregate gradation for project 11

Gradation Control Points Restricted Zone

No CP RZ
19 97.27 100
12.5 90.51 90-100
9.5 86.48
4.75 61.09
2.36 37.45 28-58 39.1-39.1
1.18 24.61 25.6-31.6
600 17.44 19.1-23.1
300 12.13
150 7.50
75 4.88 2-10

52
Table B-5. Aggregate gradation for project 12

Gradation Control Points Restricted Zone

No CP RZ
19 100 100
12.5 99.28 90-100
9.5 91.78
4.75 58.39
2.36 40.44 28-58 39.1-39.1
1.18 31.62 25.6-31.6
600 25.61 19.1-23.1
300 13.01
150 5.60
75 3.53 2-10

53
 APPENDIX C
T-TEST DATA

Table C-1. Project 8

Std. Std. Error
Mean N Deviation Mean t statistic Sig. (2-tailed)
Resilient Laboratory 10.407 3 0.032 .01856
Modulus Field 11.550 3 0.000 0.00000 -61.605 .00026
Strength Laboratory 2.077 3 0.110 .06333
Field 2.230 3 0.000 0.00000 -2.421 .13652
a
Creep Laboratory 1.4260 1 0.000 0.00000
Compliance Field .8290
a
1 0.000 0.00000 N.A N.A
a
Creep Rate Laboratory 3.6000E-009 1 0.000 0.00000E+00
a
Field 1.8900E-009 1 0.000 0.00000E+00 N.A N.A
Failure Strain Laboratory 1127.535 4 236.978 118.48885
Field 937.920 4 0.000 0.00000 1.600 .20785
a
Fracture Energy Laboratory 1.6000 1 0.000 0.00000
a
Field 1.4000 1 0.000 0.00000 N.A N.A
a
Energy Ratio Laboratory 1.7600 1 0.000 0.00000
a
Field 2.6900 1 0.000 0.00000 N.A N.A
a. The correlation and t cannot be computed because the standard error of the
difference is 0.

Table C-2. Project 9

Std. Std. Error t sig (2-
Mean N Deviation Mean statistic tailed)
Resilient Laboratory 11.8433 3 .05033 .02906
Modulus Field 12.1300 3 0.00000 0.00000 -9.865 .0101
Strength Laboratory 2.4133 3 .04163 .02404
Field 2.3900 3 0.00000 0.00000 .971 .434
a
Creep Laboratory .8490 1 0.00000 0.00000
Compliance Field .6580
a
1 0.00000 0.00000 N.A N.A
Creep Rate Laboratory 1.8800E- 1 0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00
a
009
Field 1.5200E- 1 0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00
009
a
N.A N.A
Failure Laboratory 1035.7525 4 139.57936 69.78968
Strain Field 1268.6800 4 0.00000 0.00000 -3.338 .0445
a
Fracture Laboratory 1.8000 1 0.00000 0.00000
Energy Field 2.3000
a
1 0.00000 0.00000 N.A N.A
a
Energy Laboratory 3.4300 1 0.00000 0.00000
Ratio Field 5.7900
a
1 0.00000 0.00000 N.A N.A
a. The correlation and t cannot be computed because the standard error of the
difference is 0.

54
Table C-3. Project 10
Std. Error
Mean N Std. Deviation Mean t- statistic Sig (2-tailed)
Resilient Laboratory 16.5933 3 .03512 .02028
Modulus Field 14.6400 3 0.00000 0.00000 96.338 .000
Strength Laboratory 3.0200 3 .34511 .19925
Field 3.0100 3 0.00000 0.00000 .050 .965
a
Creep Laboratory .7270 1 0.00000 0.00000
Compliance Field .9050
a
1 0.00000 0.00000
N.A N.A
a
Creep Rate Laboratory 1.9000E-009 1 0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00
a
Field 2.7200E-009 1 0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00 N.A N.A
Failure Strain Laboratory 901.5400 4 118.59635 59.29817
Field 1178.8100 4 0.00000 0.00000 -4.676 .018
a
Fracture Laboratory 1.8000 1 0.00000 0.00000
Energy Field 2.4500
a
1 0.00000 0.00000 N.A N.A
a
Energy ratio Laboratory 3.4300 1 0.00000 0.00000
a
Field 3.8600 1 0.00000 0.00000 N.A N.A
a. The correlation and t cannot be computed because the standard error of the
difference is 0.

Table C-4. Project 11

Std. Error
Mean N Std. Deviation Mean t-statistic Sig.(2-tailed)
Resilient Laboratory 13.9367 3 .05508 .03180
Modulus Field 13.3900 3 0.00000 0.00000 17.192 .003
Strength Laboratory 2.9667 3 .21939 .12667
Field 3.2700 3 0.00000 0.00000 -2.395 .139
a
Creep Laboratory 1.3350 1 0.00000 0.00000
Compliance Field 1.2950
a
1 0.00000 0.00000 N.A N.A
a
Creep Rate Laboratory 3.6000E-009 1 0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00
a
Field 3.8300E-009 1 0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00 N.A N.A
Failure Strain Laboratory 1179.7550 4 181.61080 90.80540
Field 1701.2800 4 0.00000 0.00000 -5.743 .010
a
Fracture Energy Laboratory 2.4000 1 0.00000 0.00000
a
Field 3.9500 1 0.00000 0.00000 N.A N.A
a
Energy Ratio Laboratory 2.5000 1 0.00000 0.00000
a
Field 3.9900 1 0.00000 0.00000 N.A N.A
a. The correlation and t cannot be computed because the standard error of the
difference is 0.

55
Table C-5. Project 12
Std. Error
Mean N Std. Deviation Mean t-statistic Sig. (2-tailed)
Resilient Laboratory 10.5000 3 .11358 .06557
Modulus Field 10.3200 3 0.00000 0.00000 2.745 .111
Strength Laboratory 2.3167 3 .11930 .06888
Field 2.4000 3 0.00000 0.00000 -1.210 .350
a
Creep Laboratory 2.4570 1 0.00000 0.00000
Compliance Field 2.2570
a
1 0.00000 0.00000 N.A N.A
a
Creep Rate Laboratory 8.2100E-009 1 0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00
a
Field 6.9300E-009 1 0.00000E+00 0.00000E+00 N.A N.A
Failure Strain Laboratory 1831.9100 4 453.09854 226.54927
Field 2369.7400 4 0.00000 0.00000 -2.374 .098
a
Fracture Laboratory 3.1000 1 0.00000 0.00000
Energy Field 4.3000
a
1 0.00000 0.00000 N.A N.A
a
Energy Ratio Laboratory 2.0200 1 0.00000 0.00000
a
Field 3.0200 1 0.00000 0.00000 N.A N.A
a. The correlation and t cannot be computed because the standard error of the
difference is 0.

56
 LIST OF REFERENCES

Alistair, E. H., Liam, M., and Gordon, D. A. (2009). “Effect of Compaction Mode on the
mechanical performance and variability of asphalt mixtures,” Journal of
transportation engineering.

Fabricio L., and Randy C. W. “Relationships Between Laboratory Measured

Characteristics of HMA and Field Compatibility.”

Gibb, J.M. (1996). “Evaluation of Resistance to Permanent Deformation in The Design

of Bituminous Paving Mixtures.” Ph.D. thesis, School of Civil Engineering,
University of Nottingham.

Masad, E., M., Shashidhar, B., and Harman, T. (2009) “Quantifying Laboratory
Compaction Effects on the Internal Structure of Asphalt Concrete.”

Masahiko, I. (2009), “Influence of Specimen Size and Orientation on the Mechanical

Properties of Laboratory Compacted Asphalt Specimens,” Masters’ Thesis,
University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.

National Center for Asphalt Technology. (2009). “Hot-Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture
Design and Construction,” Third edition.

Philip B. B., Mahboub, K.C., and Huber, G.A. (1994), “Rational Method for Laboratory
Compaction of Hot-Mix Asphalt”, In Transportation Research Record, The Journal
of Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
Vol. 1454, pp.144-153.

Sousa, J.B., Deacon, J. A., and Monismith, C. L. (1991) “Effects of Laboratory

Compaction Method on Permanent Deformation Characteristics of Asphalt-
Aggregate Mixtures.” Electron. J. Association. Asphalt Paving Technology., Vol.
60, pp. 533-585.

Vallerga, B. (1951), “Recent Laboratory Compaction Studies of Bituminous Paving

Mixtures,” The Journal of Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists., Vol. 20,
pp.117-153.

57
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Michael Ankamah Bekoe is pursuing his master’s degree in civil engineering

(materials) at the University of Florida. He was born in Ghana and obtained his

bachelor’s degree in the same field at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and

Technology in 2005. Before coming to the United States, he worked as a maintenance

engineer with the Department of Urban Roads, a road agency under the Ministry of

Roads and Highways, Ghana. He has the desire to pursue a doctorate degree in civil

engineering (materials) and looks forward to that challenge.

58