UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

i
MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
(TRANSPORTATION)

CE 462

SUPERPAVE HOT MIX ASPHALT DESIGN

Presenter
OTWANI J. A
F56/67543/2013

NOVEMBER 2013
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Background :
 Superpave stands for SUperior PERforming
asphalt PAVEments. (FHWA:US-DoT)
 Developed in the US (1987 – 1993) through
the Strategic Highway Research
Programme (SHRP)
 Adopted in SA in 2001 – blend of Marshall
and Superpave.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2
1.2 Problem statement
 Increasing traffic loads, traffic volumes
and tyre contact stresses have resulted
in increased incidences of premature
distress (rutting, ravelling, cracking and
potholes)
 Marshall method does not satisfactorily
address secondary compaction.
 1.0 INTRODUCTION
3
1.3 Research Questions
 What are the inherent deficiencies in
the Marshall method of mix design?
 How does the superpave design
method address the deficiencies in the
Marshall method?
 1.0 INTRODUCTION
4
1.3. Study objectives
 To outline inherent deficiencies in the
Marshall method of HMA design.
 To illustrate how the superpave
method addresses inherent deficiencies
in the Marshall method of HMA design.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
5

1.4. Scope and Limitations of Study

The study covers the superpave method
of HMA design adopted from SA.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
6

2.1 Overseas Road Note 19

 Details the types of HMA
 Materials specifications for HMA
 Marshall design method
 Superpave design method
 Mix design specifications.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
7
2.2 Strategic Highway Research
Programme (FHWA, 1998)
 Initiated in 1987 by the US Congress
 5-year, $150 million applied research

program
 Aimed at improving the performance,

durability, safety, and efficiency of the

 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
8
2.2 Strategic Highway Research
Programme (FHWA, 1998)- cont……
Three primary objectives:
 Investigate why some pavements perform
well, while others do not.
 Develop tests and specifications for
materials
 Work with highway agencies and industry to
 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
9
2.2 Strategic Highway Research Programme
(FHWA, 1998) – cont…..
Results of SHRP:
 Superpave HMA design method.
 Three levels of design for low, intermediate
and high traffic volumes (ESA).
 Complexity of mix design increases from level
1 to 3
 Performance based criteria used to select mix
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.1 FLOW CHART
10
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.1 Selection of bitumen and source of aggregates

11
 Bitumen grade selected to suit
temperature conditions and traffic
loading.(Pen, Softening point)
 Aggregates tested to confirm compliance
with specs (LAAV, SSS, FI, ACV)
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.1 Grading of aggregates

12
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.1 Grading of aggregates cont

13
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.1 Grading of aggregates cont

14
Aggregate single size and combined grading

Agg size 14-30mm 6-14mm 3-6mm 0-3mm Filler GRADING

Proportions Theoretical Actual Control points

Sieve 39 20 12 29 0 grading grading sieve min max

37.5 100 100 100 100 100 100 37.5 100
28 100 100 100 100 100 99 25 90 100
20 64 100 100 100 86 88 19 90
14 29 100 100 100 72 73 2.36 19 45
6.3 0.5 4 100 100 42 43 0.075 1 7
2 1 75 22 21 Caution zone
1 47 14 13 sieve min max
0.3 25 7 7 4.75 39.5 39.5
0.075 11 3.2 3 2.36 26.8 30.8
1.18 18.1 24.1
0.6 13.6 17.6
Flakiness
Index 18.6 25 17.5 0.3 11.4 11.4
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.1 Grading of aggregates cont

15
COMBINED AGGREGATE GRADING FOR DBM 0/30MM SUPER PAVE

100

90

80

70

60
% Passing

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Sieve Size (mm)

caution zone ACTUAL CURVE Control points limits

4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.1 Compaction of superpave mix design

16
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.1 Compaction of superpave mix design cont’d

17
 Constant pressure of 600 kPa on compacting
ram.
 Constant rate of rotation of the mould at 30
gyrations per minute
 Mould positioned at compaction angle of
1.25 degrees.
 Compaction effort depends on design traffic
loading
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.1 Compaction of superpave mix design cont’d

18
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.1 Compaction of superpave mix design cont’d

19
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.2 Refusal density determination

20
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.2.1 Mix properties at refusal density

21

Refusal density Test by Vibrating Hammer Method

Binder content 3.5 4.0 4.5

Refusal density 2.225 2.249 2.26

Maximum specific gravity 2.380 2.364 2.348

Refusal voids in mix 6.5 4.9 3.7

Voids in mineral aggregates 13.4 12.9 13.0

Voids filled with Binder 51.5 62.5 71.2

4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.2.2 Refusal density property curves

22
Refusal voids
7.0 V.M.A
14.0
6.0
Refusal voids

5.0 13.0

V.M.A
4.0 12.0
3.0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 11.0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5
% Binder by wt of mix
% Binder by wt of mix

V.F.B
75.0
70.0
65.0
V.F.B

60.0
55.0
50.0
45.0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5
% Binder by wt of mix
4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.2.3 Determination of optimum bitumen content

23

Parameter BC

1. At 4.0% Refusal voids 4.4

2. A 13.0 %Voids in Mineral Aggregates 3.9

3. At 65% Voids Filled With Binder 4.1

Total 12.4

Average 4.1

Design binder content from vibrating hammer test 4.1%

4.0 SUPERPAVE HMA DESIGN METHOD CONT’D
4.2.4 Mix properties at design binder content

24

Summary of DBM mix properties at the design binder content (4.1%)

Parameter Unit Result Specifications

Min Max
Marshall stability @ 60°C KN 12.8 5
Flow (mm) 3.4 2 5
Voids in Mix from marshall test (%) 6.9 4 10

Voids in Mix from V.H test (%) 4.7 3

Voids in mineral aggregates (%) 12.9 12

Voids filled with bitumen (%) 65 65 75

 4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.3.1 Marshall test data

25

Marshall Test Data

Binder Content (%) 3 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Theoretical Max. Relative Density 2.397 2.381 2.365 2.348 2.333

Bulk Relative Density 2.172 2.191 2.193 2.209 2.203

Voids in mix(%) 9.4 8.0 7.3 5.9 5.6

Voids in mineral aggregates(%) 15.0 14.7 15.1 14.9 15.6

Voids filled with Binder(%) 37.5 45.9 52.0 60.2 64.4

Stability (KN) 12.65 13.09 12.51 12.15 10.59

Flow(mm) 2.7 3.3 3.5 3.9 3.5

4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.3.2 Marshall design curves

26
Bulk density 14 STABILITY (KN)
2.216
2.208
13
2.200
Bulk density

2.192

Stability(KN)
12
2.184
2.176 11
2.168
2.160 10
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
% Binder by wt of mix % Binder by wt of mix

10.0 % VIM 16.0 VMA(%)

9.0
8.0 15.0
% VIM

7.0 VMA(%)
6.0 14.0
5.0
4.0 13.0
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
% Binder by wt of mix % Binder by wt of mix
4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.3.2 Marshall design curves cont…
27
FLOW (mm)
4.5
4.0
Flow(mm) 3.5
3.0
2.5
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
% Binder by wt of mix

VFB(%)
80.0
70.0
60.0
VFB(%)

50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
% Binder by wt of mix
4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.3.3 Determination of optimum bitumen content.
28
From the Marshall design curves:

Parameter BC
1. At maximum Density
4.6
2. At maximum Stability
3.5
3. At 7% VIM
4.0
4. At 3.5 mm Flow
4.3
5. At 14.9% VMA
3.5
6. At 65% VFB
5
TOTAL 24.9

Average = 4.2
Therefore, the Optimum Binder Content from the Marshall test is, 4.2%
4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.3.4 Calculation of Voids In Mineral Aggregates
(VMA).
29
4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.3.5 Calculation of Voids In Mix (VIM).
29
4.3 MARSHALL HMA DESIGN METHOD
4.3.6 Calculation of Voids Filled with Bitumen (VFB)
29
 30

THANK YOU

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS
AND SUGGESTIONS