See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317751847

EME2 pavement and mix design

Article  in  Road and Transport Research · December 2016

CITATIONS READS

2 376

4 authors, including:

Laszlo Petho Erik Denneman

Fulton Hogan Industries Australian Asphalt Pavement Association
16 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS    33 PUBLICATIONS   157 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ultra thin concrete pavements View project

Asphalt pavement research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Laszlo Petho on 01 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


EME2 pavement and mix
design
Laszlo Petho, Peter Bryant, Jason Jones
and Erik Denneman
Peer reviewed paper
This hitherto unpublished paper was originally
prepared for presentation at the 27th ARRB
Conference, Melbourne, November 2016. It has been
accepted for publication, with revisions, after being
critically reviewed by at least two recognised experts
in the relevant field.
3
Abstract
Enrobés à Module Élevé (EME), which means high
modulus asphalt, was developed in France over 30
years ago. It is primarily intended to reduce the
thickness of full depth asphalt pavements whilst still
providing sound pavement performance through a
combination of high modulus, and superior fatigue,
deformation and moisture resistance. EME2 is the
highest class of EME in the French standards and
is being introduced into Queensland through
a collaborative effort involving Transport and
Main Roads (TMR), ARRB Group, the Australian
Asphalt Pavement Association (AAPA) and its
members, and Brisbane City Council. In addition,
the implementation into Queensland leverages off
related projects by Austroads and other Australian
road agencies.
In regard to mechanistic pavement design, an
extensive research program was carried out
under a TMR-ARRB NACoE project for the
development of structural design procedures for
pavements containing EME2. A Technical Note was
published, which is intended to facilitate the timely
implementation of EME2 on TMR projects.
The nationally agreed performance-based mix
design procedure for EME2, which is based on
Australian test methods and test conditions, was
implemented by TMR using a supplementary
specification called Project Specific Technical
Specification (PSTS) 107, High Modulus Asphalt
(EME2). This document provides specification limits
for workability, wheel tracking, flexural stiffness,
fatigue, and moisture sensitivity. The requirements
for manufacturing, paving and compliance are also
provided. The execution of a manufacturing and
paving trial in February 2014 in Brisbane, followed
by other EME2 projects nationwide, provided vital
input into the technology transfer.
This paper summarises the technical basis of the
implementation process, including procedures
to characterise the modulus of EME2 at different
Vol 25  No 4  December 2016  Road & Transport Research
EME2 pavement and mix design
4
temperatures and loading conditions, and the
development and validation of transfer functions for
pavement structures containing EME2. The paper
also discusses the performance-based mix design
philosophy and its implementation. Laboratory
and field data collected to date indicates that EME2
pavement performs as expected.
INTRODUCTION
Enrobés à Module Élevé (EME) technology was
developed in France in the early 1990s and is
now used extensively on main roads and airports
internationally. EME is primarily intended to reduce
the thickness of asphalt pavements whilst still
providing sound pavement performance through a
combination of high modulus, and superior fatigue,
deformation and moisture resistance.
Australian road agencies, the asphalt industry and
ARRB together embarked on a program to transfer
EME technology to Australia. This has included
development of a mix design framework, pavement
design procedure and local mix designs. This paper
focuses on the development of the mix design
framework and pavement design procedure as
outcomes of the following research projects:
•• Queensland Department of Transport and Main
Roads (TMR) – ARRB National Asset Centre of
Excellence (NACoE) project P9 – Development
of structural design procedures for pavements
containing EME2
•• TMR-ARRB NACoE project P10 – Characterisation
of asphalt fatigue at Queensland pavement
temperatures
•• Austroads project – High modulus high fatigue
asphalt (EME) technology transfer
•• Austroads project – Improved design methods
for asphalt pavements.
There are several classes of EME available in France.
However, road agencies and the asphalt industry
agreed early in the technology transfer to Australia
that the focus would be on EME Class 2 (EME2),
which is the highest class of EME in the French
standards. Additionally, only the 14 mm nominal
(19 mm maximum) aggregate size mix has been
transferred.
EME2 MIX DESIGN
Scope of the research work
The EME2 technology transfer in Australia was
launched in 2013 when Austroads funded an
explorative study, which provided an insight into
the complexity of the design of EME2 mixes. The
outcomes of the study were reported in AP-T249-
Vol 25  No 4  December 2016  Road & Transport Research
13 (Austroads 2013), which concluded that for a
successful technology transfer it is important to
select corresponding Australian standardised test
methods. This also provided the basis for setting
correct performance limits in specifications. Test
methods for the binder were readily available;
however, test methods for fillers, aggregates and
development of EME2 mix performance criteria
required substantial work in subsequent projects.
As part of the Australian Level 2 mix design system
(Austroads 2014a) performance-based test methods
were readily available. These test methods were
similar to those required by the French approach
as outlined by Delorme, Roche and Wendling
(2007) and in the European Norm (EN) (CEN 2007);
however, they were not identical. In order to develop
a nationally agreed specification framework based
on Australian test methods, Austroads launched
a three-year program. The outcomes of this work,
including the development of the Australian mix
design specification framework, were recorded
in Austroads publication AP-T283-14 (Austroads
2014b).
Building on the Austroads research work, technical
specification PSTS107 High Modulus Asphalt (EME2)
(DTMR 2015a) was developed in Queensland to
capture the requirements for EME2 mix design and
construction into a ready-to-use contract document
for use on pilot projects.
Mix design principles
The design of EME2 differs from conventional
volumetric-type asphalt mix design in that it
is strictly performance-based. The volumetric
properties of the design mix, such as air voids (AV),
voids in the mineral aggregate (VMA) and voids
filled with binder (VFB), are still important in the
mix design optimisation phase; however, they do
not form specification requirements.
As part of the research work, a specification
framework was drafted based on the French
methodology, which subsequently went through an
extensive development process. The early version
of the technical basis of the EME2 mix specification
in Australia was used for the first Australian EME2
demonstration trial placed in February 2014 in
Eagle Farm (Brisbane), Queensland. Findings
from this trial were incorporated into the updated
specification framework and extensively reviewed
by the Austroads Asphalt Research Working Group
(ARWG).
The mix design methodology for EME2 comprises
the following main steps:

1. Particle size (100% by mass passing the
19.0 mm sieve for a 14 mm nominal size mix).
2. Richness modulus (conceptually similar to
binder film thickness, and ensures a minimum
binder content in the design mix).
3. Workability using gyratory compaction
(maximum air void content after the specified
number of gyrations).
4. Moisture resistance (stripping potential).
5. Permanent deformation resistance (wheel-
tracking).
6. Flexural modulus (four-point bending,
although the indirect tensile modulus may
also be tested as a design aid).
7. Fatigue resistance (four-point bending).
A number of EME2 mixes were tested using both
Australian and French test methodologies, which
provided the basis for benchmarking of the mixes
and developing tentative specification limits
using Australian test methods. The performance
requirements of the mix according to the French
methodology were not altered.
Mix constituents
Binder
Australian bitumen suppliers are now able to
produce and supply hard penetration grade 15/25
binder, which is one of the grades used in France to
produce EME2. As there were no existing Australian
specification requirements for this type of binder,
it was suggested that the EN framework EN
13924–2006 (CEN 2006) should be applied, tested
according to the Australian Standard test methods.
Table 1 summarises the final requirements agreed
by the Austroads working group which includes
asphalt and binder suppliers, state road agency
representatives and ARRB.
Aggregates and filler
The requirements in Queensland for coarse and
fine aggregate are similar to conventional asphalt
in terms of strength and durability, with additional
requirements as per the French standards being
100% crushed coarse aggregate, more stringent
coarse aggregate flakiness index, minimum and
maximum voids in the dry compacted filler (Rigden
voids) and delta ring and ball test EN 13179–1–2000
(CEN 2000) which assesses the stiffening effect of
the filler on the binder.
There are no extra requirements for the fine
aggregate other than natural sand shall not be
EME2 pavement and mix design
5
used. There are no particle size distribution (PSD)
requirements specified other than 100% of aggregate
particles must pass the 19.0 mm sieve; however,
the asphalt manufacturer must nominate the design
PSD as this is used for quality assessments during
construction.
Minimum binder content
For EME2 mixes, a minimum richness modulus
(K value) of 3.4 is used for establishing the
minimum binder content. The richness modulus is
conceptually similar to the binder film index, which
has been commonly used in Australia in volumetric
mix design as a guide to the incorporation of
sufficient binder. The K value is calculated as per
Equation 1:
(1)
where:
B = binder content (% by mass of the
total asphalt mix)
α = 2.65/ρa
ρa = particle density of the combined
mineral aggregate using AS/NZS
2891.8 (t/m3)
Σ = (0.25G + 2.3S + 12s + 150f)100
where:
G = percentage of aggregate particles
greater than 6.30 mm
S = percentage of aggregate particles
between 6.30 mm and 0.250 mm
s = percentage of aggregate particles
between 0.250 mm and 0.075 mm
f = percentage of aggregate particles
less than 0.075 mm.
G, S and s may be interpolated using a linear
relationship from the grading curve using
Australian standard sieves, which differ from
the EN sieves.
MIX PERFORMANCE TESTS
Workability
The workability of the mix is an important part of
the mix design; it is to ensure that low in situ air
voids content can be achieved in the field, which
provides a long-lasting and high performance
Vol 25  No 4  December 2016  Road & Transport Research
EME2 pavement and mix design

6
Table 1
Australian and Queensland specification requirements for 15/25 pen bitumen
Property Test method Unit Limit
Penetration at 25°C AS 2341.12 pu(1) Minimum 15
(100 g, 5 s) Maximum 25
Softening point AS 2341.18 °C Minimum 56
Maximum 72
Viscosity at 60°C(2) AS 2341.2 Pa.s Minimum 900
Mass change AS/NZS 2341.10 % Maximum 0.5
Retained penetration(3) AS/NZS 2341.10 and % Minimum 55
AS 2341.12
Increase in softening point after rolling AS/NZS 2341.10 and °C Maximum 8
thin film oven (RTFO) treatment(4) AS 2341.18
Viscosity at 135°C AS/NZS 2341.2, Pa.s Minimum 0.6
AS 2341.3,
AS/NZS 2341.4 or
AGPT-T111
Matter insoluble in toluene AS 2341.8 % mass Maximum 1.0
Penetration index(5) N/A N/A N/A Report
Viscosity at 60°C after RTFO(2) AS/NZS 2341.10 and Pa.s N/A Report
AS/NZS 2341.2
Viscosity at 60°C, percentage of original AS/NZ 2341.10 and % N/A Report
after RTFO treatment AS/NZS 2341.2
1 One pu equals 0.1 mm.
2 Test shall be performed using an Asphalt Institute viscosity tube.
3 Retained penetration shall be calculated using the equation: (penetration at 25°C after RTFO × 100) / (penetration at 25°C before
RTFO).
4 Increase in softening point after RTFO treatment shall be calculated using the equation: Softening point after RTFO – softening
point before RTFO.
5 The penetration index (PI) is calculated in accordance with Annex A of EN 13924 (EN 13924–2006).

pavement. For EME2 mixes, the air voids have to be Wheel-tracking

less than 6% (mensuration) at 100 gyratory cycles.
The parameters in the Australian gyratory
compaction test method AS 2891.2.2 relate to a
significantly lower contact pressure of 240  kPa
compared to European methods. It was decided to
use the European settings for gyratory compaction
– a vertical loading stress of 600±18 kPa, gyratory
angle of 0.82±0.02, and a rate of gyration of 30±0.5
revolutions per minute. In Australia, there are two
gyratory compactors available, the Gyropac and
the Servopac, and these settings can be achieved
only by the latter.
Rut resistance of asphalt in Australia is usually
assessed using the wheel-tracking test in accordance
with Austroads test method AGPT-T231, instead
of the large wheel-tracking device as required for
EME2 in France. The Queensland specification
includes limits for testing using either method.
The EME2 working group preferred to retain
the current Australian approach of setting the
specification limit by using absolute rut depth in
millimetres instead of the proportional rut depth in
percentage, as specified by the French standards.
The French standards were therefore converted
into absolute values. The French specification
requirement of 7.5% proportional rut depth at

Vol 25  No 4  December 2016  Road & Transport Research


30 000 cycles was determined to equate to a 7.5 mm
rut depth in a 100 mm thick slab. The Australian
test method requires a 50 mm thick slab for 14 mm
mixes and, based on regression analysis, the French
requirements were converted to 6 mm rut depth
when using the Australian test method at 30 000
cycles. This is significantly more loading than
typically used with the Australian test method,
which only requires 10 000 passes (5000 cycles)
at 60°C.
Moisture sensitivity
The moisture sensitivity of EME2 is assessed in
France using the Duriez test according to European
Norm EN 12697-12, while in Australia the modified
Lottman test (AGPT-T232) is generally used for this
purpose. The Queensland specification includes
limits for both test procedures, with a minimum
tensile strength ratio (TSR) requirement of 80%
(with freeze-thaw conditioning) where the
Australian method is used.
Flexural stiffness
The French specifications require flexural stiffness
testing to be performed according to EN 12697-26,
using the two-point bending test on trapezoidal
specimens. Due to the lack of two-point bending
equipment in Australia, flexural stiffness testing
was performed using the four-point bending test
according to AGPT-T274, using the sinusoidal
loading.
Beams were prepared according to AGPT-T220 and
were tested for a temperature-frequency sweep
using a wide range of loading frequencies and
temperatures of 5, 15, 25 and 30°C. The rationale
behind this was that at the early stage of the works
it was unclear which temperature should be used for
specification limits. As more data was collected, it
was decided to retain the temperature and frequency
value set in the French specifications, therefore a
minimum of 14 000 MPa at 15°C and 10 Hz using
the four-point bending equipment was required.
Flexural fatigue
The French specifications require fatigue testing
to be performed at 10°C, 25 Hz using sinusoidal
loading according to EN 12697-24, by using the
two-point bending test on trapezoidal specimens.
At the time work was undertaken, fatigue testing in
Australia was in transition after it was confirmed that
haversine displacement control testing using the
AGPT/T233 protocol in effect produces a sinusoidal
strain response of half the intended amplitude
(Pronk, Poot, Jacobs & Gelpke 2010; Denneman
2013). As part of a comprehensive study it was
EME2 pavement and mix design
7
proposed to change the loading mode in the test
method from haversine to sinusoidal; works started
under the EME2 project confirmed the need for
this change in the test method. Findings collected
from sinusoidal fatigue testing as part of the EME2
project provided input into the development of the
updated test method AGPT/T274.
The fatigue criteria for EME2 using the four-point
bending test method at 20 °C, 10 Hz to 50% stiffness
reduction requires a minimum of 150 microstrain at
one million cycles. The utilisation of six specimens
at three strain levels and the interpolation of the
strain value at one million cycles is specified.
Mix design criteria
The mix design criteria using the Australian
test methods are summarised in Table 2. The
Queensland specification includes options for using
either European or Australian test methods; the
French specification requirements according to
the European specifications can be found in NF
EN 13108–1 (CEN 2007). The background and
development of Table 2 is discussed in detail in
Austroads report AP-T283-14 (Austroads 2014b). In
Australia, the bulk density of the asphalt specimen
is determined using the saturated surface dry
(SSD) method and therefore it was decided that
specimens prepared for wheel-tracking, flexural
stiffness and fatigue should be tested by using the
SSD method. Based on a statistically large number
of samples (more than 70) prepared and tested for
this project, it was found that there is a difference of
1.5% between the SSD and mensuration air voids.
Therefore, specimens prepared for wheel-tracking,
flexural stiffness and fatigue should have SSD air
void contents of 1.5 to 4.5% compared with the
French requirements of 3 to 6%.
Mix design registration
In Queensland, TMR registers asphalt mixes for
use on TMR projects. At the time of writing this
paper, at least one EME2 mix had been registered,
and it is known that other asphalt manufacturers
are actively developing EME2 mixes.
EME2 PAVEMENT DESIGN
Research was carried out under the TMR-ARRB
National Asset Centre of Excellence (NACoE)
project P9 for the development of structural design
procedures for pavements containing EME2. This
included the positioning and function of EME2
layers in typical Queensland pavement designs,
procedures to characterise the modulus of EME2 at
different temperatures and loading conditions, and
the development and validation of transfer functions
Vol 25  No 4  December 2016  Road & Transport Research
EME2 pavement and mix design

8
Table 2
Mix design criteria for EME2 in Australia and Queensland
Property Test method Unit Limit Value
Air voids in specimens compacted EN 12697-31
by gyratory compactor at 100 cycles % Maximum 6
AS/NZS 2891.2.2
Water sensitivity EN 12697-12 % Minimum 70
AG:PT/T232 % Minimum 80
Wheel- 30 000 cycles
EN 12697-22 % Maximum 7.5
tracking at (60 000 passes)
60°C
30 000 cycles
4.0
(60 000 passes)
AG:PT/T231 mm Maximum
5000 cycles
2.0
(10 000 passes)
Flexural stiffness
at 50 ± 3 µε, EN 12697-26 method A MPa Minimum 14 000
15°C and 10 Hz AG:PT/T274 MPa Minimum 14 000
Fatigue resistance
at 10°C, 25 Hz, 106 cycles EN-12697-24 method A µε Minimum 130
at 20°C, 10 Hz, 106 cycles AG:PT/T274 µε Minimum 150

for pavement structures containing EME2. While
the French design system for flexible pavements
directly applies inputs from performance-based
mix design, immediate implementation of such
a system in Queensland was inhibited by the
existing Austroads pavement design methodology
which does not make such links. The Queensland
research project investigated the technical solutions
to overcome these issues; the following sections
of this paper summarise the technical basis of the
implementation process, and recommends an
interim pavement design procedure to facilitate
implementation of the technology in Queensland.
French pavement design
Overview
In the French context, the design of pavement
structures should be conducted according to
the French Technical Guide (LCPC 1997) which
has recently been updated and published in the
French standard NF P 98-086. Both documents
provide the background and general principles of
the mechanistic pavement design. They cover the
different aspects affecting pavement performance
and the design; these are the traffic loading,
environment, climatic conditions, underlying
bearing capacity, pavement materials and the work
quality considerations.
However, for typical pavement design configurations,
the mechanistic pavement design approach has
been used to develop a catalogue of pavement
structures (LCPC-Setra 1998) which provides an
alternative comprehensive and straightforward
thickness design option for relatively standard
situations. It provides the same outcomes as the
mechanistic pavement design; however, it saves
the multi-step process.
Estimated strains under design loading within
the pavement are evaluated using the following
calculations:
•• Fatigue failure of the base of bituminous
layers: the calculated strain εt at the base of the
bituminous layers must remain lower than the
allowable value εt,allow calculated according to
Equation 2.
•• The permanent deformation of the unbound
layer (subgrade or improved subgrade, referred
to as the foundation): the calculated reversible
vertical strain εz on the surface of the unbound
layers must remain lower than the limit value
εz,allow.
Only asphalt fatigue is discussed further in this
paper. The allowable strain in the asphalt base layer
εt,allow is calculated according to Equation 2.

Vol 25  No 4  December 2016  Road & Transport Research


(2)
where
ε6(10°C; 25 Hz) = fatigue resistance of the
asphalt mix, determined at 106 loading
cycles; in France the test is carried out
according to EN 12697-24, Annex A at
10°C and 25 Hz.
b = slope of the fatigue line (-1 < b < 0)
E(10°C; 10 Hz) = stiffness of the asphalt
material at 10°C and 10 Hz, tested according
to EN 12697-26, Annex A
E(θeq; 10 Hz) = stiffness of the asphalt
material at the equivalent temperature θeq
and 10 Hz, tested according to EN 12697-26,
Annex A
NE = traffic loading in equivalent standard
axles
kc, kr, ks = coefficients to account for
differences in laboratory to field
performance, scatter in fatigue test results,
and variability in foundation (subgrade)
support.
Material characterisation in the design
procedure
EME2 mixes are characterised according to the
performance-based mix design methodology
previously outlined. The mix-specific stiffness
and fatigue values (which must meet the French
requirements in Table 2) are established and may
be used in the pavement design according to
Equation 2. Default values may be used to carry out
a pre-pavement design before obtaining the results
of tests carried out in a laboratory on the material
in question. Mix-specific design is also constrained
by maximum allowable design values for modulus
and fatigue as per NF P 98-086.
In the French method, both the modulus and fatigue
properties are adjusted to suit the temperature
environment for the project being designed. The
method can be used over a fairly broad range of
positive temperatures, based on the calculation that
the approximate value for the dependency of the
modulus E and the strain can be obtained from
Equation 3 (LCPC 1997).
ε6(θ) × E(θ)n = constant (3)
where
EME2 pavement and mix design
9
ε6(θ) = fatigue resistance of the
asphalt mix, determined at 106
loading cycles at the equivalent
temperature θ
E(θ) = stiffness of the asphalt material at
the equivalent temperature θ
n = material constant.
In the absence of results of fatigue tests for a given
material at different temperatures, a mean value of
0.5 can be selected for n and the equation can be
re-organised as in Equation 4.
(4)
By using Equation 4, the fatigue properties at any
given equivalent temperature can be calculated,
given that the standardised fatigue test at 10°C,
25  Hz and a temperature-frequency sweep
for flexural stiffness has been completed. The
equivalent temperature is such that the cumulative
damage to the pavement over a year, for a given
temperature distribution, is equal to the damage
that the pavement would undergo with the same
traffic but for a constant equivalent temperature
(LCPC 1997).
Pavement support, categories of the subgrade
(formation)
According to the French design manual for
pavement structures (LCPC 1997) (the Manual),
the pavement foundation is built up from two parts:
1. subgrade, usually the top 1 m of the natural
ground, cut or imported material, and
2. an overlying capping layer.
For the pavement structural design, the formation
is characterised by its expected long-term
performance:
•• the material properties of the subgrade over the
depth of the top part of the earthworks (1 m)
•• the type of materials chosen for the capping layer
and its thickness.
The design method is adjusted by taking the
mechanical characteristics that correspond to the
most unfavourable moisture conditions for the
pavement; seasonal variations are ignored. The
Manual provides examples of how to increase
the bearing capacity of the subgrade by applying
different material properties and thicknesses
for the capping layer; by using this method in
the pavement design, the subgrade and capping
Vol 25  No 4  December 2016  Road & Transport Research
EME2 pavement and mix design
10
layer are treated together as the semi-infinite
layer. Typical treatments in the French Manual for
common subgrades include 500 to 800 mm selected
unbound fill, or 300 to 500 mm in situ or plant-
mixed stabilised soil. Such treatments are required
to provide a semi-infinite design bearing capacity
of at least 120 MPa under EME2 pavements.
Typical pavement structures
The French catalogue (LCPC-Setra 1998) can
be used to compare heavy duty (GB3) and high
modulus (EME2) pavement structures. For example,
for traffic category TC730 (30-year design life) and
foundation class PF3 (120  MPa), a total asphalt
thickness of 410 mm is required when conventional
GB3 heavy duty asphalt is used in the base. For the
same situation, using EME2 in the base, the total
asphalt thickness is reduced to 330 mm, equating
to a reduction of approximately 20% in total asphalt
thickness. The base asphalt thickness is reduced
by approximately 25%, from 310 mm to 230 mm.
Transferring the French design procedures to
Queensland
Successful EME2 technology transfer requires the
development of an applicable and reliable pavement
design methodology in Queensland so that the full
benefits of the EME2 technology can be realised.
There were three options considered for pavement
design using EME2. While developing the strategy
for implementation, it should be emphasised that
the introduction of a new technology always
requires a period of transition. The three options
are summarised as Options 1, 2 and 3.
Option 1: Improved Austroads method – Option 1
recommends utilising the pavement design method
described in the Austroads Guide (Austroads 2012)
with an updated transfer function for asphalt
fatigue. The first step in coupling the asphalt mix
design and pavement design is that the default
general laboratory fatigue life model should be
replaced with a mix-specific model (Denneman
& Moffatt 2014). A possible utilisation of this
methodology is provided in Equation 2. However,
the laboratory-to-field shift factors, as indicated
in Equation 2, have to be validated for Australian
conditions. Also, Equation 2 has to be simplified
and re-arranged to be compatible with CIRCLY
calculations. Additionally, in the current Austroads
method, the design reliability is incorporated in
the reliability factor (RF), which represents a
combination of a laboratory-to-field shift factor
and a material safety factor (Denneman & Moffatt
2014). These two measures are clearly separated
in the French design method. While this option
Vol 25  No 4  December 2016  Road & Transport Research
represents a possible future direction, it was not
considered mature enough for immediate adoption
for implementation of EME2 in Queensland.
Option 2: The French method (in full) – The
second option considered was to use the French
method as outlined previously. While this option
would be possible, it differs significantly from the
current Austroads procedures and would not be
straightforward for immediate implementation.
Differences are not only in asphalt fatigue modelling,
but in other areas including traffic modelling and
calculations, material characterisation, temperature
modelling, and foundation materials and design.
On this basis, it was concluded that immediate
implementation would more practically be achieved
by using the existing Austroads procedure and
benchmarking designs with those using the French
methodology. This option is discussed in Option 3
below.
Option 3: Current Austroads method (benchmarked
against the French method) – Option 3 uses the
current pavement design method as outlined in
Austroads (2012) and the TMR Pavement Design
Supplement (Department of Transport and Main
Roads 2013). By application of the current Austroads
(2012) methodology as an interim measure, the
utilisation of EME2, within the existing pavement
design framework, is facilitated. Unlike Options 1
and 2, immediate implementation is possible. The
trade-off with this approach, however, is that the
full benefits of EME2 may not be realised as this
methodology only uses the volumetric properties
and one performance parameter, i.e. the stiffness
of the EME2 mix. Therefore, the designer may not
be prompted to develop the most cost-effective
mix and pavement design. This is not considered
to be a significant deterrent for interim use.
Benchmarking of the Option 3 procedure with the
French procedure has demonstrated that it results
in realistic outcomes relative to existing heavy duty
asphalt pavements. As the method can be readily
applied within the current Austroads pavement
design framework, it allows direct comparison
with conventional pavement options. To adopt this
method, presumptive stiffness and binder volumes
needed to be determined. The recommended values
(Table 3) were determined from an analysis of data
for currently available Australian EME2 mixes,
and a French EME2 mix that was produced in
France and tested in Australia. The determination
of presumptive stiffness and binder volumes is
discussed in more detail in Petho and Bryant (2015).
By using the presumptive parameters, an extensive
sensitivity analysis was undertaken, which
determined total asphalt thickness reductions of

Table 3
Presumptive values for elastic characterisation of EME2 at a WMAPT of 32°C
Asphalt Volume of
mix type Binder type binder (%)
EME2 EME binder (15/25 pen) 13.5
around 20% (and base thickness reductions of 20–
30%) for a wide range of design traffic (volumes,
loadings and speeds), subgrade conditions and
pavement temperatures. The reductions in thickness
are similar to those outlined in the French system.
An example of the sensitivity analysis for a range of
traffic loadings is provided in Figure 1, which shows
EME2 thicknesses compared with conventional
20 mm dense graded asphalt (with both Class 320
and Class 600 bitumen) for typical roads in south
east Queensland.
Interim pavement design procedure and future
directions
The recommended procedure to enable immediate
implementation of EME2 is Option 3. A practical
guide to the design of EME2 pavements using the
recommended method was developed as part of
the research project and is published in Technical
Note 142 High Modulus Asphalt (EME2) Pavement
Design (DTMR 2015b), available for free download
from the TMR website.
Research efforts in Queensland are now focussed
on developing a pavement design procedure
which links with the performance-based mix
EME2 pavement and mix design
11
Asphalt modulus at heavy vehicle
operating speed (MPa)
10 km/h 30 km/h 50 km/h 80 km/h
2000 3000 3600 4200
Figure 1
Base asphalt thickness
comparison
parameters of stiffness and fatigue, and which
is compatible with the existing Austroads and
TMR pavement design guidelines. The research
is aiming to utilise mix-specific flexural modulus
master curves and temperature dependent flexural
fatigue relationships. Such a methodology would
not need to be confined to EME2 mixes, and could
be used more broadly with all asphalt mix types.
As an example, results from laboratory tests on
two mixes are presented below; an EME2 mix
and a conventional DG20HM mix with Class
600 bitumen. Both materials were sourced from
the EME2 demonstration project constructed in
Brisbane in February 2014.
Flexural modulus tests were performed at 5, 15,
25 and 30°C and at a wide range of frequencies
between 0.1 and 20 Hz. These test results were
used for the construction of the flexural modulus
master curves of the two mixes (Figure 2). The
EME2 mix shows different characteristics to the
DG20HM mix; it has very high flexural modulus at
the high temperature or low frequency range, which
is desirable in the sub-tropical climatic conditions
in Queensland.
Vol 25  No 4  December 2016  Road & Transport Research
EME2 pavement and mix design
12
The flexural fatigue test was carried out at 20°C and
10 Hz using the four-point bending test method
for the DG20HM and the EME2 mix. The fatigue
lines, based on testing of 15 beams for the DG20HM
mix and 18 beams for the EME2 were constructed
(Figure 3) based on non-linear regression analysis.
Although the calculated allowable strains at one
million cycles are similar for both mixes, there is
a significant difference in the slope of the fatigue
curves, resulting in a much higher load repetition
at low strain levels for the EME2 mix.
SUMMARY
The paper summarises the successful EME2
technology transfer to Australia. Based on the
delivery of a nationally agreed specification
framework, which utilises readily available
Vol 25  No 4  December 2016  Road & Transport Research
Figure 2
Flexural stiffness master
curves of DG20HM control
mix and the EME2 trial mix
Figure 3
Flexural fatigue of DG20HM
control mix and the EME2
trial mix
Australian test equipment and test methods, the
performance-based EME2 mix design has been
implemented in Australia.
The paper describes the development of the
specification framework and provides further insight
into the research methodology for developing
specification limits. The outcomes are based on
performance-based laboratory testing which is
discussed in the paper. A technical specification
(PSTS107) for use on pilot projects has been
developed in Queensland.
The research program has successfully developed an
interim pavement design procedure to facilitate the
immediate implementation of EME2 in Queensland.
The recommended pavement design method aligns
with the current Austroads procedure, and includes

presumptive design inputs for stiffness and binder
volume.
It has been demonstrated that thickness reductions
using the interim procedure, relative to conventional
asphalt mixes, are in line with the expected
reductions based on the full French methodology.
It is anticipated that future improvements in
Australian pavement design procedures for asphalt
pavements will lead to pavement designs being
linked directly to mix-specific performance-based
testing undertaken during the mix design stage,
which would be in line with the French pavement
design system. Further research is required before
such a development can be implemented into
routine pavement design.
REFERENCES
Austroads 2012, Guide to Pavement Technology – Part 2:
Pavement Structural Design, 3rd edn, AGPT02-12, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2013, EME Technology Transfer to Australia: An
Explorative Study, AP-T249-13, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014a, Guide to Pavement Technology: Part 4b:
Asphalt, AGPT04B-14, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2014b, High Modulus High Fatigue Resistance
Asphalt (EME) Technology Transfer, AP-T283-14, Austroads,
Sydney, NSW.
CEN 2000, Tests for Filler Aggregate used in Bituminous
Mixtures: Part 1: Delta Ring and Ball Test, EN 13179–1–2000,
European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
CEN 2006, Bitumen and bituminous Binders, Specifications
for Hard Paving Grade Bitumens, EN 13924–2006, European
Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
CEN 2007, Bituminous Mixtures: Material Specifications:
Part 1: Asphalt Concrete, NF EN 13108–1–2007, European
Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
CEN 2007-2012, Bituminous Mixtures: Test Methods for Hot
Mix Asphalt, EN 12697 series, European Committee for
Standardization (CEN), Brussels.
EN 12697-12 Water sensitivity of bituminous
specimens (2008)
EN 12697-22 Wheel tracking test (2007)
Laszlo Petho
Laszlo is a registered professional engineer with over 15 years’ experience in
quality control, material characterisation, pavement performance assessment and
implementation of innovative technologies. Laszlo holds an MSc degree in civil
engineering and a PhD degree in asphalt mix design and pavement technology.
At the time of writing this paper, he was a principal engineer working in ARRB`s
Brisbane office where he was the technical leader for various Austroads, TMR
and MRWA research projects. He is now Pavements Manager at Fulton Hogan
Industries.
EME2 pavement and mix design
13
EN 12697-24 Resistance to fatigue (2012)
EN 12697-26 Stiffness (2012)
EN 12697-31 Specimen preparation by gyratory
compactor (2007).
Delorme, J, Roche, C & Wendling, L, 2007, LPC Bituminous
Mixtures Design Guide, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et
Chaussées, Paris, France.
Denneman, E, 2013, ‘Review of AG/PT-233 fatigue test
protocol and its link to structural pavement design’, 15th
AAPA International Flexible Pavements Conference, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia, Australian Asphalt Pavement
Association (AAPA), Toowong, Qld.
Denneman, E & Moffatt, M, 2014 ‘Position paper: improved
design procedures for asphalt pavements’, unpublished,
ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic.
DTMR 2013, Pavement Design Supplement: Supplement to
‘Part 2: Pavement Structural Design’ of the Austroads Guide to
Pavement Technology, Department of Transport and Main
Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
DTMR 2015a, High Modulus Asphalt (EME2) 2015, Project
Specific Technical Specification PSTS107, Transport and
Main Roads Specifications, Department of Transport and
Main Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
DTMR 2015b, High Modulus Asphalt (EME2) Pavement
Design, Technical Note 142 Department of Transport and
Main Roads, Brisbane, Qld.
LCPC 1997, French Design Manual for Pavement Structures,
Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, France.
LCPC-Setra 1998, Réseau Routier National – Catalogue des
Structures Types de Chaussées Neuves (National Highway
System – Catalogue of typical new pavement structures),
Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées-Setra, Paris,
France.
Petho, L and Bryant, P 2015, High modulus asphalt (EME2)
pavement design in Queensland, 16th AAPA International
Flexible Pavements Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland,
Australia.
Pronk, AC, Poot, MR, Jacobs, MMJ & Gelpke, RF 2010,
‘Haversine fatigue testing in controlled deflection mode: is
it really possible?’, Proceedings of the Transportation Research
Board 89th Annual Meeting, Washington, US.
Standards Australia (various dates), Methods of Testing
Bitumen and Related Roadmaking Products, AS 2341 series,
Standards Australia, Sydney.
Vol 25  No 4  December 2016  Road & Transport Research
 EME2 pavement and mix design

14
Peter Bryant
Peter is a registered professional engineer with almost 20 years’ experience in private
and public sectors both in Australia and abroad. Peter is currently the Principal
Pavement Design Engineer for the Queensland Department of Transport and Main
Roads and is responsible for departmental pavement design procedures. As well as
a degree in civil engineering, Peter holds a Master of Technology (Pavements) and
a Graduate Certificate (Business).

Jason Jones
Jason is a registered professional engineer with over 15 years’ experience in design,
construction and maintenance of road pavements in Queensland and currently holds
the position of Principal Engineer (Asphalt and Surfacings) with the Queensland
Department of Transport and Main Roads. Jason has been instrumental in the
introduction and implementation of a number of asphalt technologies (such as
warm mix asphalt) into Queensland and represents TMR on a number of Austroads
working groups relating to asphalt and sprayed seal technology.

Eric Denneman
As Director of Technology and Leadership with the Australian Asphalt Pavement
Association, Erik Denneman (PhD, CPEng, RPEQ) supports industry in the
implementation of innovative pavement solutions. Before joining AAPA in July 2016,
Erik led the ARRB Pavement Technology and Asset Management team in Brisbane.
He specialises in performance based design and specification of bituminous materials,
and the development of design models for these materials. Erik has worked in the
Netherlands, South Africa, the USA and, since 2012, Australia.

CONTACT
Dr Laszlo Petho
Pavements Manager, Fulton Hogan
Stapylton, Queensland
Tel: +61 3827 7922
Email: Laszlo.Petho@fultonhogan.com.au

Vol 25  No 4  December 2016  Road & Transport Research

View publication stats