The National Academies Press: Aggregate Quality Requirements For Pavements

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25205 SHARE

   
Aggregate Quality Requirements for Pavements
DETAILS
96 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-48222-6 | DOI 10.17226/25205
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Erol Tutumluer, Maziar Moaveni, and Issam I. A. Qamhia; National Cooperative
Highway Research Program; National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Synthesis Program; Synthesis Program; Transportation Research Board; National
FIND RELATED TITLES Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP SYNTHESIS 524

Aggregate Quality
Requirements for Pavements
A Synthesis of Highway Practice
Erol Tutumluer
Maziar Moaveni
Issam I. A. Qamhia
Advanced Transportation Geotechnics Solutions, LLC
Champaign, IL
Subscriber Categories
Highways • Materials • Pavements
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2018
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 524

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve Project 20-05, Topic 48-10
many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, ISSN 0547-5570
highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by ISBN 978-0-309-39045-3
highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state Library of Congress Control Number 2018947152
universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway
© 2018 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide inter-
est to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a
coordinated program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research published or copyrighted material used herein.
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
United States Department of Transportation.
or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited
Cover photo: This composite image illustrates different kinds of aggregates.
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com-
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- NOTICE
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
directly to those in a position to use them. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
program sponsors.
departments, by committees of AASHTO, and by the Federal Highway
Administration. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
Special Committee on Research and Innovation (R&I), and each year and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein
R&I’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Direc- solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
tors and the National Academies. Research projects to address these
topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are
selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of
research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Academies
and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.
Published reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from
Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

http://www.national-academies.org
and then searching for TRB
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that
is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 524

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer
Deborah Irvin, Program Coordinator
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
Linda A. Dziobek, Senior Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

Brian A. Blanchard, Florida DOT, Tallahassee, FL (Chair)
Stuart D. Anderson, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Socorro “Coco” Briseno, California DOT, Sacramento, CA
David M. Jared, Georgia DOT, Forest Park, GA
Cynthia L. Jones, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH
Malcolm T. Kerley, NXL, Richmond, VA
John M. Mason, Jr., Auburn University, Auburn, AL
Roger C. Olson, Minnesota DOT, Bloomington, MN (retired)
Benjamin T. Orsbon, South Dakota DOT, Pierre, SD
Randall R. Park, Utah DOT, Salt Lake City, UT
Robert L. Sack, New York State DOT, Albany, NY
Francine Shaw Whitson, FHWA, Washington, DC
Joyce N. Taylor, Maine DOT, Augusta, ME
Jack Jernigan, FHWA Liaison
Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison
TOPIC 48-10 PANEL

Sheila Beshears, Illinois DOT, Springfield
Michael Dawidczik, Texas DOT, Austin
Larry Ilg, Oregon DOT, Salem
Thomas J. Kazmierowski, Golder Associates Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Leslie A. McCarthy, Villanova University, Villanova, PA
Derek Nener-Plante, Maine DOT, Augusta
Roger C. Olson, Bloomington, MN
John P. Shoucair, Florida DOT, Gainesville
Michael Arasteh, FHWA Liaison
Richard C. Meininger, FHWA Liaison
Amir N. Hanna, TRB Liaison
Nancy M. Whiting, TRB Liaison

FOREWORD
Highway administrators, engineers, and researchers often face problems for which information
already exists, either in documented form or as undocumented experience and practice. This infor-
mation may be fragmented, scattered, and unevaluated. As a consequence, full knowledge of what has
been learned about a problem may not be brought to bear on its solution. Costly research findings
may go unused, valuable experience may be overlooked, and due consideration may not be given to
recommended practices for solving or alleviating the problem.
There is information on nearly every subject of concern to highway administrators and engineers.
Much of it derives from research or from the work of practitioners faced with problems in their day-
to-day work. To provide a systematic means for assembling and evaluating such useful information
and to make it available to the entire highway community, the American Association of State High-
way and Transportation Officials—through the mechanism of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program—authorized the Transportation Research Board to undertake a continuing study.
This study, NCHRP Project 20-05, “Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems,” searches
out and synthesizes useful knowledge from all available sources and prepares concise, documented
reports on specific topics. Reports from this endeavor constitute an NCHRP report series, Synthesis
of Highway Practice.
This synthesis series reports on current knowledge and practice, in a compact format, without the
detailed directions usually found in handbooks or design manuals. Each report in the series provides
a compendium of the best knowledge available on those measures found to be the most successful
in resolving specific problems.
PREFACE
By Jo Allen Gause
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
Constructing and maintaining pavements requires an abundant and dependable supply of qual-
ity aggregates. Aggregate comes from a wide range of materials, including quarried rock, sand, and
gravel, and materials such as slag, reclaimed asphalt pavement, and recycled concrete aggregate. While
all transportation agencies have specifications for aggregate quality, there is wide variation in what
different agencies consider suitable aggregates for specific applications. This synthesis documents
transportation agency requirements for the quality of aggregates for various pavement types.
Information used in this study was gathered through a literature review and a survey of state
departments of transportation and Canadian provincial transportation agencies.
Erol Tutumluer, Maziar Moaveni, and Issam I. A. Qambia, Advanced Transportation Geotechnics
Solutions, LLC, collected and synthesized the information and wrote the report. The members of
the topic panel are acknowledged on page iv. This synthesis is an immediately useful document that
records the practices that were acceptable with the limitations of the knowledge available at the time
of its preparation. As progress in research and practice continues, new knowledge will be added
to that now at hand.


CONTENTS
1 Summary
3 Chapter 1 Introduction
3 1.1 Introduction and Background
4 1.2 Study Approach
5 1.3 Outline of the Chapters
8 Chapter 2 Aggregate Sources, Recycling, and Blending

8 2.1 Introduction
8 2.2 Aggregate Types and Sources
13 2.3 Aggregate Applications in Pavement Construction
14 2.4 Tests to Check Source Properties for Aggregate Quality
24 2.5 Blending to Meet Aggregate Quality Requirements
26 2.6 Special Provision for Using Nontraditional or Marginal Aggregate Sources
29 Chapter 3 Aggregate Sampling, Testing,

and Quality Assurance
29 3.1 Introduction
29 3.2 Aggregate Sampling and Testing
42 3.3 Quality Assurance Practices
44 Chapter 4 Procedures for Approving Aggregate Sources

44 4.1 Introduction
44 4.2 Methods Used to Approve Aggregate Sources
46 4.3 Aggregate Quality Classes
49 4.4 Aggregate Quality Classes for Pavement Layer Applications
59 Chapter 5 Aggregate Quality Affecting

Pavement Performance
59 5.1 Introduction
59 5.2 Pavement Distresses and Aggregate Quality
67 5.3 Aggregate Quality Indicators Linked to Pavement Performance
73 5.4 Performance Concerns of Recycled and Artificial/Byproduct Aggregates
77 Chapter 6 Conclusions
77 6.1 Objectives and Scope of Synthesis Study
77 6.2 Summary of Key Findings
80 6.3 Conclusions and Gaps in Knowledge
80 6.4 Suggestions for Further Research

81 Bibliography
82 Glossary
85 References
92 Appendices A–D
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

Summary
Aggregate Quality Requirements

for Pavements
Aggregates encompass a wide range of materials including quarried rock, sand, and gravel in
addition to recycled/artificial/byproduct materials such as reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP)
and recycled concrete aggregate (RCA), steel furnace slag (SFS), blast furnace slag (BFS), and
quarry byproducts (QB). Aggregate type and quality are important factors for determining use
and placement within different layers of the pavement structure. There are wide variations in
what transportation agencies consider suitable aggregates for specific pavement applications.
This synthesis gathered information and presents information related to aggregate quality
requirements for pavement construction. Both current agency practices as well as state-of-
the-art research findings on sources, locations, standards/provisional testing methods, and
ranges for different types of aggregates used in North America are provided. This includes
quality assurance methods as well as frequency of sampling and testing established. This syn-
thesis also provides information on how aggregate quality has been documented and linked
to both structural and functional pavement performance in the field through agency prac-
tices and experience. Environmental concerns such as leaching and potential risk to ground
or outfall waters are discussed. Finally, knowledge gaps related to characterizations and clas-
sifications of different types of aggregates, including lack of performance-based specifications
and implementation of effective aggregate quality assurance programs, are identified.
The synthesis survey questionnaire (Appendix A) on aggregate quality requirements
for pavements included 34 questions posed to transportation agencies in four categories:
(1) aggregate sources and properties; (2) aggregate sampling, quality control, tests, and
ranges; (3) procedures for approving aggregate sources; and (4) aggregate-related perfor-
mance records. Survey questionnaires were sent out to all 50 U.S. Departments of Transpor-
tation (DOTs) and 12 Canadian provincial agencies. Appendix B is a list of all U.S. DOTs and
Canadian provincial agencies that provided responses. A response rate of 90% was achieved
with U.S. DOTs. In total, 45 U.S. DOTs and eight Canadian provincial agencies (Alberta,
British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan,
and Yukon) participated in the survey. Twenty-seven U.S. DOTs as well as Ontario and
Yukon provided their approved lists of aggregates. A detailed compilation of the compre-
hensive survey responses provided by participating agencies may be found in Appendix C. In
addition, links to agency-approved lists of aggregates/specifications are provided in Appen-
dix D. The appendices are not printed as part of this report but are available for download
from the TRB website (www.trb.org) by searching for NCHRP Synthesis 524.
Based on the reviews of the survey responses and follow-up communications with agency
contacts, differences exist among transportation agencies when it comes to the methods for
approving aggregate materials and quality assurance programs. Alaska, Illinois, Indiana,
Ohio, Ontario, and Texas were found to have some of the most comprehensive aggregate
1

2 Aggregate Quality Requirements for Pavements
classification systems with diverse quality classes associated with each aggregate type and
pavement layer application. The findings also indicated that only 44% of the agencies classify
aggregates to meet certain quality requirements for pavements. Furthermore, 32 U.S. DOTs
and seven Canadian provinces indicated that they do not collect information for checking
how the quality of aggregate used may affect pavement end performance. More than 50%
of the surveyed agencies reported that they do not implement pavement materials charac-
terization and performance testing in their specifications to check and control the end per-
formances of different qualities of aggregates. Application of RAP in pavement construction
was found to be more common when compared with uses of RCA, SFS, BFS, and QB. This
was to some extent due to environmental concerns as well as to lack of sufficient knowledge
and research findings related to material characterization and field performance of these
aggregate sources. The outcome of the survey showed that transportation agencies com-
monly blend marginal aggregates and QB with virgin aggregates. Nonetheless, they reported
different procedures to control the quality of those blended aggregate products such as for
controlling the quality of individual components or the entire blend as one product.
Detailed information presented in this synthesis is a compilation of literature review and
survey data intended to inform transportation agencies about the common practices and
specifications being implemented related to effective classifications of aggregate sources
used for pavement construction. Based on the findings of this synthesis, further research
and investigation may need to be directed toward developing a comprehensive, consistent,
and sustainable aggregate quality management system in North America. Related research
activities may focus on establishing implementation strategies for such an aggregate quality
management system to achieve satisfactory pavement performance and at the same time
reduce detrimental environmental impacts.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Introduction and Background

Aggregates constitute 70% to 100% by weight of all bound and unbound pavement layers
in road applications and, accordingly, their types and properties significantly affect the end
performance. This synthesis topic addresses the need to organize and compress available infor-
mation related to different aggregate approval procedures and testing methods for construction
of pavement layers. Recent advances were drawn from surveys of state specifications and
also gathered from research publications to cover the current aggregate production and source
information, agency selection practices, and use of different quality classes of aggregate materials
in pavement layer construction, including sustainable practices dealing with recycled and blended
aggregates and locally available and, as appropriate, marginal aggregate sources. Typical value
ranges for aggregate quality tests were investigated to assess agency aggregate quality requirements
and how they relate to end performance.
Transportation agencies have diverse specifications and criteria for qualifying virgin as well as
recycled aggregate sources. Sharing this information among the agencies may lead to better pave-
ment design and construction practices, with improved resource utilization. Initial design as well
as long-term and life-cycle performance requirements of the project can be linked to the quality of
the construction materials used. As an example, aggregates with hard minerals and high abrasion/
polishing resistance under traffic are preferred for the construction of wearing surfaces of pave-
ments and bridges. Note that particle size distribution or gradation is only determining single
particle or aggregate assembly size requirements, which are not quality indicators. The concept of
classifying aggregates in terms of quality is described in Figure 1-1 (Meininger and Stokowski 2011).
As defined by the ASTM International in ASTM D8, an aggregate is “a granular material of min-
eral composition such as sand, gravel, shell, slag, or crushed stone, used with a cementing medium
to form mortars or concrete, or alone as in base courses, railroad ballasts, etc.” According to NCHRP
Report 453: Performance Related Tests of Aggregate for Use in Unbound Pavement Layers (Saeed
et al. 2001), unbound aggregate layers in flexible and rigid pavements generally serve to provide
(1) a working platform, (2) structural layers for the pavement system, (3) drainage layers, (4) frost-
free layers, and (5) “select fill” material (sometimes as part of the pavement working platform).
Figure 1-1 lists unbound aggregate layers on the lower end of aggregate quality requirements where
there is room to engineer effective and bulk volume uses of locally available and recycled aggregates.
For example, as a working platform, unbound aggregate layers are often constructed on soft, unstable
subgrade soils or bases to provide sufficient stability and adequate immediate support for equip-
ment mobility and paving operations without developing excessive rutting. In flexible pavements,
dense-graded unbound aggregate base/subbase layers serve as major structural components of the
pavement system to provide load distribution, that is, dissipation of high wheel load stresses with
depth, and ensure adequate support and stability for the asphalt surfacing. In contrast, open-graded
3

Quality Application
Lower Backfill and Bedding
Subbase, Select Material, and Subgrade Improvement
Base Course (Unbound and Stabilized)

Stabilized (Asphalt, Portland Cement, and Lime-Fly Ash)
Dense Graded
Open Graded
Aggregate Surfaced Roads (Gravel Roads)
Chip Seal, Cover Material
Portland Cement Concrete

Lean Concrete Base (Dense or Open Graded)
Structural Concrete
Concrete Pavement
Hot-Mix Asphalt and Warm-Mix Asphalt

Dense Graded
Open Graded
Drainage and Riprap
Higher Filter Aggregates
Figure 1-1. Aggregate use and relative level of quality needed

(modified from Meininger and Stokowski 2011).
granular layers are constructed in both rigid and flexible pavements for primarily drainage and frost
protection purposes. Unbound aggregate base/subbase layers used in rigid pavement structures
primarily provide uniform support conditions to the concrete slabs; the structural contribution
of such layers is often not the primary design aspect. However, in both the asphalt concrete and
Portland cement concrete (PCC) bound layer applications, aggregates play a major role not only in
the volumetric design of these layers but also in their strength, stability, and performance. Coarse
and fine aggregates are the construction building blocks of any pavement layer, unbound or bound,
and are primarily responsible for the load-supporting capacity of a pavement.
This synthesis report will focus on different aspects and quality requirements associated with
the use of different sources of aggregates for pavement construction purposes. As a result, sig-
nificant benefits could be derived from broader application and implementation of major find-
ings from this synthesis. The report should be useful to transportation agencies in their efforts
to identify, appraise, and use available aggregate sources in the most economical ways for the
sustainability of intended roadway applications, especially when the availability of high-quality
natural aggregates is decreasing and posing a challenge to many agencies (ACPA 2009, Langer
2011). Such advances will bring sustainability and offer economic and environment-friendly
alternatives for road construction.
1.2 Study Approach

Agency surveys and a review of research publications were conducted to identify different
aggregate quality requirements/specifications and compiled into this synthesis report. Informa-
tion was gathered through literature review on state, local, and international practices concerning

Introduction 5
different aspects of aggregate quality requirements to satisfy desired pavement performance. The
survey questionnaire had separate parts relevant to different aggregate quality requirements and
approval procedures. The questionnaire was purposely designed to be comprehensive and at the
same time brief, in an attempt to increase the survey response rate.
The information was requested to encompass all engineering aspects highlighted in the previ-
ous introduction and background section, primarily in the following categories: (a) aggregate
selection process/guidelines for virgin, marginal, nontraditional as well as recycled, and blended
aggregate sources; (b) the processes that are followed in controlling the quality of different sources
of aggregates for pavement applications, with special focus on material properties and testing
techniques/ranges; (c) current practices, innovations, and provisional standards that may allow
the use of recycled, marginal aggregate sources for construction of pavement layers; (d) aggregate
quality improvement techniques such as stabilization and blending that may allow the use of non-
traditional large size and marginal aggregates; and, finally, (e) aggregate quality-related pavement
distresses as well as environmental and performance concerns related to the use of recycled and
artificial/byproduct aggregate sources.
The synthesis survey questionnaire (see Appendix A) on aggregate quality requirements for
pavements was sent to all 50 U.S. DOTs and 12 Canadian provincial agencies. The survey was not
sent to any U.S. territories such as Guam or Puerto Rico. Figure 1-2 shows a map of the United
States and Canada with all the surveyed states or provinces highlighted. In total, 45 state DOTs in
the United States and eight Canadian provincial agencies (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
New Brunswick, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, and Yukon) responded to the
survey questionnaire (see Appendix B). A detailed compilation of all agency responses to the
questionnaire is provided in Appendix C.
1.3 Outline of the Chapters

This synthesis consists of six chapters: The description and production methods of recycled
aggregate sources—including RAP, RCA, and artificial sources such SFS and BFS—are provided
in Chapter 2. This chapter also summarizes findings from the survey for the quantities, types,
and sources of aggregates used for pavement construction, as well as for the different methods
taken by transportation agencies for evaluating use of nontraditional and marginal aggregate
sources such as revising specifications and developing new and provisional testing methods.
Chapter 3 covers the sampling techniques for quality assurance (QA) and quality checks on
aggregates used in field applications. This chapter summarizes important aggregate properties,
including mineralogy and physical, chemical, and mechanical properties, which make certain
aggregate materials pass agency specifications for pavement applications. Different AASHTO,
ASTM, and specialized agency specifications to identify different aggregate properties with a
focus on quality and performance are listed. Aggregate shape, texture, and angularity properties
affecting hot-mix asphalt (HMA) or concrete layer performance are discussed. Furthermore, the
related quality tests are briefly reviewed and listed for importance according to agency practices.
Chapter 3 also covers findings from the survey related to different numbers of samples and pro-
cedures associated with a certain aggregate source used by each transportation agency. Finally,
this chapter highlights currently used and new/emerging quality tests to characterize and accept
nontraditional, marginal, recycled, and blended aggregate materials for pavement applications.
Chapter 4 provides further details on how differently transportation agencies approve and/or
certify different sources of aggregates. Whether an approved list of aggregates is available for
use by an agency will be determined. A tiered approach was adopted to study and document
different aggregate quality classes associated with specific pavement layer applications; for exam-
ple, in the case of Superpave, mixture designs of surface and binder courses from aggregate

Figure 1-2. Map of the United States and Canada showing all surveyed agencies (AB = Alberta, BC = British
Columbia, MB = Manitoba, NB = New Brunswick, ON = Ontario, PE = Prince Edward Island, SK = Saskatchewan,
and YT = Yukon).
quality perspectives are reviewed. Moreover, material sampling and laboratory testing proce-
dures adopted by agencies, aggregate geology and mineralogy assessment, project acceptance
criteria and performance requirements, prequalification, disqualification, and requalification
techniques are included. Chapter 4 summarizes all the factors and properties that different
transportation agencies consider when it comes to aggregate source approval and certification.
Chapter 5 reports aggregate-related pavement performance records. The content of this chap-
ter is based on findings from an extensive review of published literature, survey responses, and
follow-up communications with the responding agencies. As part of the survey scope, it was
also determined if an agency documents the overall impacts of using nontraditional, blended,
and marginal aggregates. This chapter highlights the effectiveness of aggregate source approval
procedures, certification policies, and performance-based specifications established by trans-
portation agencies to ensure satisfactory field performance. This includes performance trends
of in-service pavements (and experimental test sections) constructed with different aggregate
sources. Techniques used by transportation agencies to measure performance of aggregates
used in different pavement layers are discussed. Survey results regarding potential savings in
cost, energy, and environmental impacts that emerge from using nontraditional and marginal

Introduction 7
aggregate sources are also discussed by presenting performance metrics and case histories from
previous and ongoing projects.
Chapter 6 includes the conclusion and suggestions for future research, as well as knowledge
gaps. This chapter portrays the current state of the practice in aggregate quality requirements for
pavement design and construction through a technical assessment of the facts and information
presented in Chapters 1 to 5. A short summary of the most important findings in each chapter
is presented, and limitations for widespread implementation of promising methods or practices
for classifying aggregate based on quality requirements are discussed.

CHAPTER 2
Aggregate Sources, Recycling,

and Blending
2.1 Introduction
Both short- and long-term performance of any constructed pavement system largely depends
on the quality of materials used in different layers. To ensure adequate performance of pavements
under traffic loading and environmental conditions, transportation agencies have developed
specifications to check source properties considering aggregate quality. This chapter provides
a brief introduction to different types of aggregate materials available as natural resources and
mined from sand and gravel pits and crushed stone quarry operations throughout the United
States. Furthermore, important aggregate properties with respect to application in a certain
pavement layer, types, sources, tests, and quality aspects used by transportation agencies are
described. Finally, quality-related source properties, provisional testing methods, and restric-
tions put in place for using recycled, artificial/byproduct aggregates as well as blended and sta-
bilized aggregates are presented.
2.2 Aggregate Types and Sources

Based on the nature of their extraction from natural resources, the Aggregate Handbook
(2nd ed.) divides aggregates used in pavement applications into two broad categories: stone
deposits and sand and gravel deposits (National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association 2013).
Industrial byproduct materials, such as slags, have also been specified and used in bound,
asphalt concrete and concrete, and unbound, granular base/subbase, pavement layer applica-
tions in some states (Morian et al. 2012, Stroup-Gardiner and Wattenberg-Komas 2013a).
2.2.1 Stone Deposits

Stone deposits can be broadly classified based on origin into the following three categories:
(a) sedimentary rocks, (b) igneous rocks, and (c) metamorphic rocks (Langer 1988). A brief
discussion of the mechanism of formation for these three rock types is presented below, along
with examples of each rock type.
Sedimentary Rocks. These rock types are formed by chemical precipitates and the settlement of
sediments or organic matter at or near the earth’s surface and usually within bodies of water.
Examples of sedimentary rocks include limestone, dolomite or dolostone, shale, and sand-
stone. Limestone and dolomite constitute approximately 70% of crushed stone production
in the United States (Willett 2011).
Igneous Rocks. These rock types are formed by the cooling and solidification of magma or
lava. Igneous rocks formed below the earth’s surface are called intrusive or plutonic rocks,
whereas igneous rocks formed on the earth’s surface are called extrusive or volcanic rocks.

Aggregate Sources, Recycling, and Blending 9
Intrusive igneous rocks have a chance to grow large enough minerals to give it a coarse-
grained texture, whereas extrusive igneous rocks cool more rapidly and can be more fine
grained. Igneous rocks often have high amounts of silica. Examples of igneous rocks used in
pavement applications include granite (intrusive), basalt (extrusive), and rhyolite (extrusive).
Granites account for approximately 16% of crushed stone production in the United
States (9% of total aggregate production). Granite is usually classified as excellent crushed
stone, but some granitic type aggregates are weak and brittle due to their poorly bonded
mineral grains. Fine-grained igneous rocks are often “trap rocks,” which are dark-colored,
fine-grained, volcanic rocks, and which make up about 9% of the crushed stone production
(5% of the total aggregate production) (Tutumluer 2013). Examples of trap rock are basalt and
diabase. Trap rocks are classified as excellent crushed stone materials due to their resistance to
chemical reactions and ability to withstand high mechanical stresses (Willett 2011).
Metamorphic Rocks. These rock types are formed by the transformation of existing rocks (may
be sedimentary or igneous) under heat and pressure. Examples of metamorphic rocks
include quartzite, marble, slate, and gneiss. Metamorphic rocks as aggregates can have widely
variable characteristics. Many quartzite and gneiss aggregates can have properties similar to
granite, whereas shale can be slabby and schist can be soft and flaky because of its high mica
content (National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association 2013).
2.2.2 Sand and Gravel Deposits

Apart from crushing, aggregates are also extracted from sand and gravel pits where the par-
ent material has been transported from another location either by fluvial, glacial, or alluvial
processes to form loose deposits of natural sand and gravel. They are usually found in existing
or historic river valleys or older, consolidated bedrock, glacial deposition, and mountain allu-
vial fans. Sand and gravel make up approximately 42% of the total aggregate production in the
United States (Langer 2011).
Apart from the above two types of natural sources, other sources of aggregates include
recycled materials and industrial byproducts. A detailed discussion on different recycled materi-
als and industrial byproducts used in the construction of pavement layers will be presented later
in this chapter.
2.2.3 Aggregate Source Selection

Figure 2-1 shows the relative locations of aggregate resources in the contiguous United States
(Langer 2011). As indicated, there is a limited supply of natural aggregates in the Coastal Plain
and Mississippi embayment, Colorado Plateau and Wyoming Basin, glaciated Midwest, High
Plains, and the nonglaciated Northern Plains. As a result, construction projects in these regions
often require transportation of “good quality” natural aggregates from far away sources to be
used in pavement applications.
The locations and sources of different types of aggregates in each state play an important
role in achieving cost-effective and efficient pavement construction. Aggregates Industry Atlas
provides one good source, which includes state maps identifying the locations of crushed stone
and sand/gravel sources relative to the available highway network (Aggregates Manager 2016,
http://www.aggman.com/).
The survey questionnaire included questions related to aggregate source and properties.
About 55% of the respondent agencies (27 U.S. DOTs as well as Ontario and Yukon provinces)
indicated they have lists of approved aggregate types or sources in their prospective agencies for
different pavement construction applications, while 38% (17 state DOTs and three Canadian

Figure 2-1. Generalized locations of aggregate resources in the contiguous

United States (Langer 2011).
provinces) reported that they do not have any approved lists of aggregates. Additionally, 17%
(seven U.S. DOTs in addition to British Columbia and Saskatchewan provinces) indicated some
other alternatives regarding approved list of aggregate sources. These included (1) an approval
process for aggregates used in HMA and PCC pavements and testing aggregates per project used
in unbound layers; (2) specifications for aggregates to be used for base, subbase, asphalt concrete,
and so forth, considering that an agency owns a number of gravel pits that have been used on
various projects; (3) once a certain aggregate source is approved on a project, using some
aggregates in some cases for other projects for up to a year; or (4) pre-approving the aggregate
producers but still requiring quality testing.
Among the transportation agencies that have an approved list of aggregate types and sources,
93% (26 state DOTs and Ontario province) indicated that they update their list periodically to
include new/other materials into the list of their approved aggregate sources. These transporta-
tion agencies also reported the frequencies when they update their approved list (see Table 2-1).
Only 7% (Washington State DOT and Yukon province) reported that they do not allow new
materials into their approved list of aggregates.
The use of different sources of crushed stone sources was also investigated. The results
are summarized in Figure 2-2, which indicates that the majority of the respondent agencies
use crushed stone aggregates. Half of the participating agencies reported that they use igne-
ous (extrusive) rocks (e.g., basalt or scoria). Note that only Saskatchewan province indicated
that they do not have crushed stone sources. Additionally, New Jersey DOT reported that they
exclude shale, schist, slate, and most sandstones although these sources could be approved if
classified as quartzite and meet physical test requirements.
As discussed in the previous section, the geology and rock origin of natural virgin aggregates is
an important controlling factor of the quality of aggregates. Survey results show that 60% of the

Table 2-1. Frequencies when transportation agencies update

their approved aggregate lists.
Frequency or Condition for Updating Approved
Transportation Agency
Aggregate List
Ohio and Oklahoma Daily
Wisconsin Every 2 to 4 weeks
Alabama and New York Monthly
Updated on a monthly basis based on prequalification
Kansas
procedures
Illinois and Maryland Every 3 months
North Carolina, South
Carolina, Arkansas, and Annually or on request
Rhode Island
Contractors or suppliers may add sources when they
Idaho
need them. Approval is good for a 2-year period.
Proposed by contractor and approved by agency
Arizona (Section 1001 material sources of Arizona standard
specifications for road and bridge construction)
New Jersey, Georgia,
Continually, depending on requests and successful
Nebraska, Pennsylvania,
approvals or re-approvals
Mississippi, Iowa, and Indiana
Through aggregate quality monitoring program. List
Texas
is updated in June and December.
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Updated as new sources are approved or changes
Virginia need to be made to existing sources.
Michigan Very infrequently
respondents (26 U.S. DOTs and five Canadian provinces) do not receive information regarding
the geologic origins of natural (virgin) aggregates from producers, and 40% (19 U.S. DOTs and
two Canadian provinces) do. Among those agencies that do not receive information regarding the
geologic origins of natural (virgin) aggregates, 71% (19 U.S. DOTs and three Canadian provinces)
indicated that this information is not required/requested by their corresponding agency, while
only 29% (seven U.S. DOTs and two Canadian provinces) reported that geologic origin is identified
in-house by a geologist or petrographer working for the agency.
Information related to different sources of sand and gravel used by participating agencies is
summarized in Figure 2-3. Approximately 71% of the respondent agencies use glacial and fluvial
Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40 50
Other 1 2% 53 survey respondents
Metamorphic rocks (e.g., quartzite, gneiss) 38 72%
Igneous (intrusive) rocks (e.g., granite, gabbro) 43 81%
Igneous (extrusive) rocks (e.g., basalt, scoria) 27 51%
Sedimentary rocks (e.g., limestone, dolomite,

45 85%
sandstone)
Do not have crushed stone sources 1 2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percentage of Survey Respondents
Figure 2-2. Crushed stone sources reported in agency surveys.

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40 50
Eolian (windblown) deposits 16 31%
Fluvial (river) deposits 43 83%
Lacustrine (lake) deposits 20 39%
Marine deposits 14 27%
Glacial deposits 37 71%
Do not have gravel sources 2 4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 2-3. Sand and gravel sources reported in agency surveys.
(river) deposits. On the other hand, use of marine, lacustrine (lake), and eolian (windblown)
deposits was found to be less common. Arizona and New Mexico DOTs did not report about
gravel sources, probably because gravel particles can sometimes be found in large sizes and
crushed to be called rock in these states. This is often the case for coarse aggregate materials when
they are referred to as “sand and rock” in the western United States.
In addition to virgin aggregate sources, large quantities of construction and demolition wastes
are produced each year in the United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
estimated that 534 million tons of construction and demolition waste quantities were generated
in the United States in 2014 alone. As shown in Figure 2-4, out of these 534 million tons, 70%
was concrete and 14% was asphalt concrete (EPA 2016).
Figure 2-4. Composition of construction and demolition waste generation

in 2014 in the United States by material before recycling (EPA 2016).

2.3 Aggregate Applications in Pavement Construction

As discussed in Section 1.1, many highway agencies have already established certain aggre-
gate quality requirements associated with specific applications of aggregates in pavement
construction. Accordingly, transportation agencies were asked to indicate which pavement
layers are constructed with specific aggregate quality requirements. Figure 2-5 shows in per-
centages the different types of pavement layers constructed with aggregates satisfying certain
quality requirements. A great majority of the responses includes construction of asphalt
concrete including surface and binder (or base) courses (100%), PCC (87%), and unbound/
stabilized aggregate base course (94%). Nearly half of the responding agencies indicated
they commonly build open-graded drainage layers, and about one fourth of all respondents
often constructed pavement working platforms for subgrade stability applications. The
“others” category in the survey summary graphs presented in this synthesis comprise miscel-
laneous responses reported by the surveyed agencies in lieu of the alternatives included in the
questionnaire. A detailed compilation of all agency responses to the questionnaire is provided
in Appendix C.
The survey also collected information on whether any pavement layer was constructed with
aggregate materials without checking aggregate quality requirements. According to the recorded
responses, 91% (40 U.S. DOTs and eight Canadian provinces) indicated that they check aggre-
gate quality requirements for construction of all pavement layers. However, 9% (five U.S. DOTs)
do not check the aggregate quality for construction of a certain pavement layer in some spe-
cial cases. This includes (1) checking only gradation requirements for construction of recycled
pavement foundation applications—for example, crushed concrete, bituminous millings; (2) low
quantities of asphalt and aggregates in minor construction projects that may be accepted by
visual discretion of an engineer; and (3) pavement construction jobs for municipalities in order
to keep the cost down.
Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40 50
Others such as streambed aggregates, drainable
3 6%
stable base 53 survey respondents
Pavement working platforms for subgrade stability
14 26%
applications
Separator/filter layer 19 36%
Open graded drainage layer 30 57%
Stabilized subbase course 31 59%
Unbound aggregate subbase course 40 76%
Stabilized (admixture treated) base course 36 68%

94%
Unbound aggregate base course 50
94%
Surface Treatment (ST) 50
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) 46 87%

Asphalt Concrete (AC) including surface and base 100%
53
course
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Figure 2-5. Pavement layers constructed with specific aggregate quality requirements.

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40 50
Other sources 2 4% 53 survey respondents
Blended aggregates (virgin and recycled/artificial) 29 55%
Blended virgin aggregates 37 70%
Nontraditional aggregate (e.g., large size aggregates, primary

11 21%
crusher run)
Marginal aggregates (out of specification) 8 15%
Artificial/Byproduct aggregates such as Steel Furnace Slag (SFS), Blast

24 45%
Furnace Slag (BFS), and Light Weight Aggregates (LWA)
Recycled aggregates – Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) 29 55%

94%
Recycled aggregates – Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) 50
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 2-6. Aggregate types and sources used in pavement layer construction.
As part of the questionnaire, the frequency in utilizing different aggregate sources in pave-
ment construction was investigated. Figure 2-6 summarizes transportation agency responses,
in which 94% indicated the use of RAP and almost 70% indicated the utilization of blended
virgin aggregate sources. Additionally, 15% of the agencies reported the use of marginal
aggregates while 21% of the respondents indicated that they use nontraditional large-sized
aggregates. Also, about half of all responding agencies indicated that they use RCA in pave-
ment applications. Artificial/byproduct and manufactured aggregates, such as SFS, BFS, and
lightweight aggregate (LWA), were reported to be used by 45% of the responding agencies.
The required quality tests for each of these aggregate sources will be further discussed in this
synthesis report.
2.4 Tests to Check Source Properties

for Aggregate Quality
Agency specifications for aggregate usage in pavement applications include requirements
related to particle size distribution, degree of crushing (percentage crushed or uncrushed
and/or number of fractured faces), liquid limit (LL) and plasticity index (PI), durability, and
soundness (National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association 2013). Commonly used specifications
include those developed by AASHTO, ASTM, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and individual
state and provincial transportation agencies. Different tests can be required for different applica-
tions and different aggregate types/sources. This section lists the most commonly used AASHTO
and ASTM standards for virgin and recycled aggregates used in pavement applications.
2.4.1 Quality-Related Source Properties of Virgin Aggregates

Several standard test methods are used to determine the physical properties of virgin aggre-
gates used in pavement applications. For measuring the specific gravity, degree of absorption,
unit weight, and voids content of coarse and fine aggregates, the following test methods are used:

• For coarse aggregates, AASHTO T 85 or ASTM C127, Standard Method of Test for Specific
Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate, is used. For example, Oklahoma DOT requires
this test to be conducted on coarse aggregates at the quarries in order to qualify these materials
to be used in construction projects (Oklahoma DOT 2016). Measuring bulk specific gravity
and water absorption of LWA materials is needed, especially for concrete applications to
acquire proper mix proportions (Byard and Schindler 2010, Deshpande and Hiller 2012, Kim
et al. 2012). Bulk specific gravity is also measured for coarse aggregates used in HMA in
order to achieve proper volumetrics.
• For fine aggregates, AASHTO T 84 or ASTM C128, Standard Method of Test for Specific
Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregate, is used. This test needs to be conducted on LWA
used in pavement applications (particularly concrete applications) to ensure proper mix pro-
portioning and the additional quantity of water required for the mix (Byard and Schindler
2010, Henkensiefken et al. 2010).
• AASHTO T 19M/T 19 or ASTM C 29/C29M, Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (Unit
Weight) and Voids in Aggregate.
Several AASHTO and ASTM standards are designated to measure the morphological shape
properties of coarse aggregates used in pavement applications. Morphological shape properties
include angularity and flat and elongated ratio. The most common standards are
• ASTM D4791, Standard Test Method for Flat Particles, Elongated Particles, or Flat and Elongated
Particles in Coarse Aggregate. For example, Oklahoma DOT uses this test for open-graded
Portland cement stabilized bases and has a limit of less than 10% (Oklahoma DOT 2009).
• Standards for coarse aggregate angularity include AASHTO TP 61, Standard Method of Test
for Determining the Percentage of Fracture in Coarse Aggregate, and ASTM D5821, Standard
Test Method for Determining the Percentage of Fractured Particles in Coarse Aggregate.
• Fine aggregate angularity (FAA) can be required for some pavement applications, such as
Superpave asphalt concrete mix design (Prowell et al. 2005). Standard test methods include
AASHTO T 304, Standard Method of Test for Uncompacted Void Content of Fine Aggregate,
or ASTM C1252 Method A, Standard Test Methods for Uncompacted Void Content of Fine
Aggregate (as Influenced by Particle Shape, Surface Texture, and Grading).
The following test methods are used to characterize the durability and soundness of aggregate
materials used in pavement applications:
• AASHTO T 210 or ASTM D3744/D 3744M, Standard Method of Test for Aggregate Durabil-
ity Index. For example, Oklahoma DOT requires this test for coarse aggregates at the quarries
for qualifying their materials to be used in Oklahoma DOT construction projects (Oklahoma
DOT 2016).
• AASHTO T 104, Standard Method of Test for Soundness of Aggregate by Use of Sodium
Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate.
• AASHTO T 103, Standard Method of Test for Soundness of Aggregates by Freezing and
Thawing.
The following test methods are used to characterize the resistance to abrasion and the
toughness of aggregate materials for various pavement applications:
• AASHTO T 327 or ASTM D6928, Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Coarse Aggre-
gate to Degradation by Abrasion in the Micro-Deval Apparatus. For example, Kansas DOT
requires this test as one of the quality tests for their coarse aggregates (Kansas DOT 2017).
• AASHTO T 96 or ASTM C131, Standard Method of Test for Resistance to Degradation of
Small-Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine. For example,
Kansas and Oklahoma DOTs require this test as one of the quality tests for coarse aggregates
(Kansas DOT 2017, Oklahoma DOT 2016).

Test methods are used for determining the quality of fines or finer particles (e.g., plasticity
and degradation) and the quantities of deleterious materials in aggregates such as highly reactive
clays, organic matter, and friable particles. These methods include the following:
• The standard test methods for measuring the LL, plastic limit (PL), and PI are AASHTO T 89,
Standard Method of Test for Determining the Liquid Limit of Soils, AASHTO T 90, Standard
Method of Test for Determining the Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils, and ASTM D4318,
Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. Some agen-
cies also use limits on the PI of fine aggregate materials used in certain applications (Prowell
et al. 2005). For example, a PI limit of 6 is specified by Illinois DOT for unbound aggregate base
course materials.
• AASHTO T 21 or ASTMC40/C40M, Standard Test Method for Organic Impurities in Fine
Aggregates for Concrete, is used by Kansas DOT as the standard test procedure when required
by a project or an application (Kansas DOT 2017).
• AASHTO T 176, Standard Method of Test for Plastic Fines in Graded Aggregates and Soils by
Use of the Sand Equivalent Test, or ASTM D2419, Standard Test Method for Sand Equivalent
Value of Soils and Fine Aggregate, also is used for this purpose. Sand equivalent test to deter-
mine the ratio of plastic fines and/or clayey materials is required for Superpave as a standard
test method for fine aggregates used in HMA mixes (Prowell et al. 2005).
• Methylene blue test can be used to determine the amounts of harmful materials in fines,
such as montmorillonite and organic matter (International Slurry Surfacing Associa-
tion 1989). Standard test methods include AASHTO T 330, Standard Method of Test for
the Qualitative Detection of Harmful Clays of the Smectite Group in Aggregates Using
Methylene Blue. ASTM test designation for Methylene blue is ASTM C837, Standard Test
Method for Methylene Blue Index of Clay; or ASTM C1777, Standard Test Method for
Rapid Determination of the Methylene Blue Value for Fine Aggregate or Mineral Filler
Using a Colorimeter, which is required for Superpave mixes (Prowell et al. 2005).
• ASTM C142/C142M, Standard Test Method for Clay Lumps and Friable Particles in
Aggregates, is used by Oklahoma DOT to test aggregates used in bituminous surface treat-
ments (Oklahoma DOT 2009). Indiana DOT also uses AASHTO T 112 for their aggregate
specification and requirements (Indiana DOT 2017a).
• ASTM D7428, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Fine Aggregate to Degradation by
Abrasion in the Micro-Deval Apparatus.
Transportation agencies also identified the quality-related natural (virgin) aggregate properties
that they collect from aggregate producers. The results are shown in Figure 2-7. Specific gravity,
absorption, resistance to degradation, particle shapes, and percent deleterious materials were among
the most common quality properties collected by the respondent agencies. Also, expansion from
hydration reaction, harmful clay content, for example, through the use of Methylene blue test, and
mineralogical composition turned out to be not so common properties collected by producers.
Three transportation agencies reported specific tests or protocols that were required for
determining the aggregate quality properties. These include
• Iowa Pore Index, Iowa Quality Number, X-ray Fluorescence (XRF), X-ray Powder Diffraction
(XRD), and Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA);
• Missouri DOT Test Method TM-14 Water/Alcohol Freeze Test; and
• Alaska Nordic Abrasion test (ASTM 312). The test is performed to measure hardness of coarse
aggregate to be used in surface course HMA. The Alaska Nordic abrasion test is similar to the
micro-deval test but uses a larger drum, with three metal strips in the drum.
Transportation agencies were asked to report if they used natural (virgin) aggregate sources from
other states/provinces. Out of 53 agencies, 83% (41 U.S. DOTs and three Canadian provinces) indi-
cated that they used natural (virgin) aggregates from other sources, while 17% (four U.S. DOTs

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40
Other 9 19%
47 survey respondents
Expansion from hydration reaction 6 13%
Alkali Silica Reactivity or Alkali Carbonate Reactivity
(ASR and/or ACR) 23 49%
92%
Specific gravity and absorption 43
Durability, e.g., freeze-thaw resistance test 22 47%

Particle shape properties such as angularity, surface
texture, flatness and elongation 37 79%
Harmful clay content, e.g., Methylene Blue test 11 23%
Cleanliness, e.g., Sand Equivalent test 31 66%
Mineralogical composition 7 15%

Plasticity properties such as Atterberg limits (LL, PI)
of portion passing No. 40 (0.42 mm) 26 55%
Percent deleterious materials 35 75%

Resistance to polishing and degradation, e.g., Micro-
Deval test 24 51%
Resistance to degradation, e.g., Los Angeles Abrasion
test 38 81%
Resistance to weathering by Na2SO4/MgSO4
Soundness 31 66%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 2-7. Quality-related natural (virgin) aggregate properties collected from aggregate producers
by transportation agencies.
and five Canadian provinces) reported that they do not. Those agencies that use aggregates from
other states or provinces were asked to indicate the reasons for this practice. Figure 2-8 presents
the results. Nearly half of the agency respondents indicated that they use natural (virgin) aggregates
from other states or provinces due to budgetary or environmental concerns, while one fourth of
the agency respondents reported the reason as “the need for a better quality aggregate source.” Half
of the agency respondents stated other reasons for using aggregates from other sources. Some of
these reasons are as follows:
• Adding competition to the market, lowering prices, and improving quality.
• Due to request from source near the state border.
• Location of the job site being close to the border of other state.
• Contractor’s decision to use sources in nearby states after meeting the quality requirements
set by the project state.
• Not having any aggregate quarries in the state.
• Producers propose and use out-of-state sources.
2.4.2 Quality Related Source Properties of RAP

RAP particles are created from the impact removal and/or reprocessing of existing asphalt
layers. RAP particles contain a combination of asphalt and aggregates with varying degrees of

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40
Other 23 52% 44 survey

respondents
Due to economical/environmental concerns 21 48%
Due to the need for a better quality aggregate

11 25%
source
Due to lack of adequate aggregate sources 15 34%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 2-8. Reasons why one agency may use natural (virgin) aggregate
from other states or provinces.
coating and morphology. Particle size and shape properties, amount of asphalt coating the RAP
particles, and the binder content of the RAP are among the important engineering properties that
control the quality of this material. Since a principal constituent of RAP is its mineral aggregates,
the overall chemical composition of RAP is similar to that of the mineral aggregates. RAP can
be used as a granular base or subbase material in pavement structures (Bennert et al. 2000),
in asphalt mixes (Copeland 2011), and in concrete mixes (Huang et al. 2005). When RAP
is used as an aggregate in an unbound application, the volume of asphalt in the RAP reduces
the specific gravity and the presence of asphalt seals most of the surface area of the particles.
These characteristics result in a lower unit weight and a reduced amount of water needed to
achieve the desired compaction level.
The National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) lists as standard test methods
AASHTO T 308, Standard Method of Test for Determining the Asphalt Binder Content of Hot
Mix Asphalt (HMA) by the Ignition Method, and ASTM D6307, Standard Test Method for
Asphalt Content of Asphalt Mixture by Ignition Method, for recovering aggregates and calculat-
ing the binder content in RAP. These tests are considered quick and easy to perform but require
information about a correction factor for aggregates. Moreover, the asphalt binder content of
the RAP to replace virgin binder in asphalt mixes containing RAP can be determined by using
AASHTO T 164 or ASTM D2172/D2172M, Standard Test Methods for Quantitative Extraction
of Asphalt Binder from Asphalt Mixtures. The use of propyl bromide and other nonhalogenated
solvents is also mentioned by NAPA (National Asphalt Pavement Association 2015).
The theoretical maximum specific gravity of RAP can be determined by using the standard
test method of AASHTO T 209 (R2016), Standard Method of Test for Theoretical Maximum
Specific Gravity (Gmm) and Density of Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA). For RAP recovery, the standard
specifications used are AASHTO R 59 or ASTM D1856, Standard Specification for Recovery of
Asphalt Binder from Solution by Abson Method. If the viscosity of the extracted binder needs
to be measured, the standard specifications to be followed are AASHTO T 202 or ASTM D2171/
D2171M, Standard Method of Test for Viscosity of Asphalts by Vacuum Capillary Viscometer.
The transportation agencies were asked to indicate if they used RAP materials in the construction
of pavement layers and also to report which quality-related source properties RAP materials were
screened for. The findings are summarized in Figure 2-9. It was also found that most of the agencies
examine the residual asphalt binder content of RAP sources. Moreover, specific gravity, residual
asphalt binder property, and source properties of the aggregates were reported as the common

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40 50
Other 13 27%
Freeze-thaw resistance 2 4%
Percent deleterious/contamination 6 13%
Polishing properties, e.g., Micro-Deval loss 6 13%
Specific gravity (bulk) 28 58%
Residual asphalt binder property 22 46%
Residual asphalt binder content 42 88%
Source properties of the aggregate 18 38%
Do not utilize RAP 2 4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 2-9. Quality-related source properties for RAP materials examined by

transportation agencies for pavement construction purposes.
quality-related properties that are investigated by respondent agencies. Some agencies mentioned
other quality-related properties associated with utilization of RAP that are listed as follows:
• Effective specific gravity backcalculated from theoretical maximum specific gravity (Rice
method) and asphalt content.
• Decant, PI of fine portion.
2.4.3 Quality-Related Source Properties of RCA

RCA is produced by crushing old concrete from sidewalks, pavements, and curbing and build-
ing slabs into smaller pieces. According to the American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA
2009), RCA is often very angular with higher water absorption capacity, lower specific gravity, lower
strength, and lower abrasion resistance than conventional construction aggregates. Due to these
properties, specific provisions might be needed for using RCA in pavement applications, especially
in concrete mixes. AASHTO MP 16 and American Concrete Institute (ACI) 555R-01 can be used to
check RCA performance in concrete pavements (AASHTO 2015, ACI 2001, Reza and Wilde 2017).
ASTM C33/C33M, Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates, is used by ACI Commit-
tee 555 to check the quality of RCA used in concrete layers. For coarse aggregates, this standard
provides procedures and ranges for tests of soundness, deleterious substances, and alkali-silica
and alkali-carbonate reactions (ACI 2001). For RCA absorption, AASHTO MP 16 refers to the
use of AASHTO T 85, Standard Method of Test for Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse
Aggregate, which is similar to ASTM C27, Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density
(Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate (AASHTO 2015).
If required by an agency or a project, ASTM C1567 provides guidance to check the effective-
ness of alkali silica reactivity (ASR) mitigation. Additionally, for ensuring appropriate resistance
of coarse and fine RCA particles to freezing and thawing, ASTM C33 and ACI 555R-01 lists
ASTM C88, Standard Test Method for Soundness of Aggregates by Use of Sodium Sulfate or

Magnesium Sulfate (ACI 2001). However, FHWA Technical Advisory Circular T 5040.37 men-
tions using ASTM C666, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing
and Thawing, for locations where freeze-thaw resistance needs to be checked (FHWA 2007).
Similarly, the AASHTO MP 16 (2015) document lists several tests based on the expected
distresses in the constructed concrete. For example, when D-cracking is a potential distress,
AASHTO MP 16 proposes using AASHTO T 161, Standard Method of Test for Resistance of
Concrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing, as the test procedure (AASHTO 2015, Reza and
Wilde 2017).
For RCA aggregates where alkali-silica reactions and alkali-carbonate reactions are possible,
AASHTO MP 16 states the uses of AASHTO T 303, Accelerated Detection of Potentially Delete-
rious Expansion of Mortar Bars due to Alkali-Silica Reaction, and ASTM C586, Standard Test
Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Carbonate Rocks as Concrete Aggregates (Rock-Cylinder
Method), as standard test methods, respectively (Reza and Wilde 2017). ACI 555R-01 lists plaster,
asphalt, wood, soil, gypsum, plastic, and rubber as some of the contaminants of RCA that can cause
reductions in concrete compressive strength.
Transportation agencies also reported whether they used RCA in pavement layer construction
and also to indicate which quality-related source properties they screen for RCA sources. Figure 2-10
summarizes the results. About 40% of the respondents (15 U.S. DOTs and four Canadian provinces)
reported that they did not use RCA in pavement construction. Moreover, Los Angeles Abrasion
(LAA) loss, percent deleterious/contamination, and specific gravity (bulk)/absorption were found
to be the most common quality properties of RCA that are generally screened by agencies. Only
9% of the agencies stated that they identified ASR for RCA sources. Some agencies also indicated
that they checked the following quality properties related to RCA:
• Aggregate durability index, AASHTO T 210
• Decant, organic impurities
• Florida’s limerock bearing ratio test, similar to continuously reinforced concrete
• Plasticity of fine particles
• Washington State DOT degradation test
Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40 50
Other 15 32%
Alkali Silica Reactivity (ASR) 4 9%

Percent deleterious/contamination 10 21%

Polishing properties, e.g., Micro-Deval
4 9%
loss
Specific gravity (bulk)/Absorption) 8 17%
Los Angeles Abrasion loss 15 32%
Source properties of the aggregate 8 17%
Do not utilize RCA 19 40%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 2-10. RCA properties examined by transportation agencies.

2.4.4 Quality-Related Source Properties

of Artificial/Byproduct Aggregates
Common byproduct materials used in pavement applications are SFS, BFS, and QB. Ferrous
slags (e.g., SFS and BFS) are obtained from the production of steel. SFS is a nonmetallic product
consisting essentially of calcium silicates and ferrites combined with fused oxides of iron, aluminum,
manganese, calcium, and magnesium that are developed simultaneously with steel in a basic
oxygen furnace (BOF), electric arc furnace (EAF), or open-hearth furnace (OH). During the
period of cooling and hardening from its molten state, BFS can be cooled in several ways to form
any of several types of BFS products, including granulated slag (slag cement), air-cooled slag,
pelletized or expanded slag, and air-cooled blast furnace quote.
NCHRP Synthesis 435: Recycled Materials and Byproducts in Highway Applications: Volume 5: Slag
Byproducts (Stroup-Gardiner and Wattenberg-Komas 2013a) lists some standards used to charac-
terize SFS and BFS with their typical ranges for the engineering properties. Some of these standards
that are also commonly performed on virgin aggregates listed previously include ASTM C127 and
ASTM C128 for density, specific gravity and absorption, ASTM D6928 for micro-deval, ASTM C88
for sodium sulfate soundness, and ASTM C131 for LAA (Stroup-Gardiner and Wattenberg-Komas
2013a). Additional tests for BFS and SFS listed in NCHRP Synthesis 435: Volume 5 include
• ASTM C566, Standard Test Method for Total Evaporable Moisture Content of Aggregate by
Drying
• ASTM D3319, Standard Practice for the Accelerated Polishing of Aggregates Using the British
Wheel
• AS 1141.22, Australian Test Method for Wet/Dry Strength Variation
Aggregate quarry processes such as blasting, crushing, and screening of coarser grade aggre-
gates produce byproduct mineral fine materials, commonly known as QB or quarry dust. QB
are typically less than 6 mm (0.25 in.) in size and consist of mostly coarse, medium, and fine
sand-sized particles, as well as small fractions of clay and silt-sized particles. Gradation of quarry
fines can vary depending on the rock type quarried. Kalcheff and Machemehl (1980) investigated
average particle size distributions for different types of rocks (flint, trachyte, limestone, diabase,
granite, BFS, and quartzite). They reported similar trends for particle distributions from differ-
ent rock types, with particles passing the No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve ranging from 6% to 12%.
According to Dumitru et al. (2001), mineralogical tests such as X-ray diffraction analysis should
be conducted to determine the compositions of secondary minerals and to quantify amounts of
harmful content that can be detrimental in some applications of QB. Many standard test meth-
ods conducted on QB are similar to those conducted on fine virgin aggregates discussed above.
NCHRP Synthesis 435: Recycled Materials and Byproducts in Highway Applications: Volume 4:
Mineral and Quarry Byproducts summarizes the common standard tests conducted on mineral
and QB materials (Stroup-Gardiner and Wattenberg-Komas 2013b). See also MIST project report
(Manning 2004).
Lightweight aggregates are used for replacement of normal-weight fine and coarse aggregates
in pavement applications. LWAs can come from different sources and are manufactured from
different materials, including expanded shale, expanded clay, expanded slate, expanded perlite,
expanded slags, and waste fly ash with plastic, among others (Byard and Schindler 2010,
Mallick et al. 2004). They are especially used in concrete applications to reduce internal stresses
from autogenous shrinkage cracking (Byard and Schindler 2010). LWAs are also used for seal
coat and chip seal applications. Kim et al. (2013) compared the performance of chip seal pave-
ments containing different types of LWA or granite aggregates and concluded that pavements
constructed with LWA had a higher initial mean profile depth but a higher drop rate in mean
profile depth with traffic loading. Rahman et al. (2012) reported that the retention rate of LWA
in chip seals was dependent on the source properties and the type of emulsion. According to

the Expanded Shale, Clay and Slate Institute (ESCSI), LWA use in chip seals, compared with
conventional aggregates, results in safer, cheaper, and longer lasting seal coats. This then results
in better skid resistance, with higher skid numbers for LWAs used in chip seal and HMA appli-
cations when compared with the case with limestone aggregates (ESCSI 2017).
Browning et al. (2011) reported that using prewetted vacuum-saturated LWA in concrete
exhibited less shrinkage after 1 year as compared with concretes with normal weight aggregates
without a significant reduction in compressive strength. Higher curing time was also reported
to result in less shrinkage (Browning et al. 2011). Mallick et al. (2004) reported enhancement
for stiffness, rutting resistance, and susceptibility to moisture damage for HMA mixtures with
up to 15% synthetic LWA (made with plastic and waste fly ash) by weight. Mixes with
higher quantities of LWA (20%), on the other hand, were reported to have high absorption
(Mallick et al. 2004). A similar trend for reduction in plastic shrinkage cracking was reported by
Henkensiefken et al. (2010) for fine, manufactured expanded shale, and prewetted LWA volume
replacement up to 33%. Deshpande and Hiller (2012) concluded that helium pycnometry could
estimate the absorption of manufactured LWA more accurately than the standard ASTM C127
test with 24 hours of immersion, due to the higher ability of the helium gas to fill the smaller
voids when compared with water (Deshpande and Hiller 2012). AASHTO M 195 and ASTM
C330 standards cover specifications and procedures for LWA used in structural concrete. Some
of the standards that can be performed for testing LWA, which are also applicable to virgin
aggregates, include ASTM D6928 for micro-deval, ASTM C88 for sodium sulfate soundness,
and ASTM C131 for LAA. Due to the LWA high porosity and the long duration it takes to fill all
the voids when immersed in water, ASTM C127 and ASTM C128 standards for density, specific
gravity, and absorption are not commonly used for LWA.
Information was collected from transportation agencies to determine whether artificial/
byproduct aggregates such as SFS and BFS were used in pavement layer construction and also
which quality-related source properties were examined for these materials. The results are pre-
sented in Figures 2-11 and 2-12. It was found that more than half the survey respondents do not
use SFS or BFS in pavement construction. Agencies that used SFS or BFS reported that specific
Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40
Expansion properties 7 17%

Polishing and degradation properties,

4 10%
e.g., Micro-Deval loss
Mineralogical properties 2 5%
Chemical composition 7 17%
Do not utilize 23 55%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 2-11. SFS properties examined by transportation agencies.

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40
Expansion properties 6 14% 44 survey respondents
Polishing and degradation properties, 5 11%

e.g., Micro-Deval loss
Mineralogical properties 2 5%
Chemical composition 7 16%
Do not utilize 23 52%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 2-12. BFS properties examined by transportation agencies.
gravity, freeze-thaw resistance, and expansion properties were the common quality properties
that were tested or screened. Note that expansion properties here refer to general expansion
regardless of use in PCC or HMA. High contents of free calcium and magnesium oxides in SFS
expand when hydrated (Brand and Roesler 2015). Only nine agencies reported that they check
mineralogical properties and chemical compositions of SFS and BFS sources. Alabama DOT
and Texas DOT require both the SFS and BFS materials to undergo all tests that a virgin coarse
aggregate would to be considered for source approval. Furthermore, nine agencies reported
other/additional quality properties associated with SFS and BFS that are listed below:
• SFS: LAA, soundness, wear, specific gravity, and absorption
• BFS: Flat and elongated (F&E) ratio, LAA, wear, soundness, specific gravity, and absorption.
2.4.5 Restrictions for Utilizing Recycled

and/or Artificial/Byproduct Aggregates
Transportation agencies were asked to report any restrictions that they have put in place
regarding the use of recycled and/or artificial/byproduct aggregates in pavement construction.
The findings are summarized in Table 2-2.
There are some technical and environmental issues associated with using recycled and/or
artificial/byproduct aggregates in pavement construction. RCA contains calcium hydroxide
from the original cement hydration reaction. It is water soluble and when water flows through
an RCA stabilized base/subbase, some calcium hydroxide will dissolve into water. Eventually,
it interacts with atmospheric carbon dioxide to form calcium carbonate, precipitating out of
solution and leaving deposits where the water flows. This can cause problems if the precipitate
clogs up components of a pavement drainage system such as filter fabrics, drainage pipes, and
outlets (ACPA 2009).
The volumetric instability of SFS granular base (due to lime and dolomite hydration reactions)
may result in expansive reactions (Chesner et al. 1998). BFS is brittle and easy to breakdown
when subjected to impact loading. No correlation between LAA test for BFS and its degradation

Table 2-2. Restrictions on the use of RAP, RCA, SFS, or BFS.

Transportation Restriction Considering Quality Concerns for Using RAP, RCA,
Agency SFS, or BFS
Arkansas RCA: Only used in unbound base courses.
British RCA: Only for base and subbase.
Columbia RAP: Only for asphalt pavement.
RAP: Minimum 4% AC and mix must meet Florida DOT specifications.
Minimum 2.5% AC for coarse portion above No. 4 sieve if fractionated.
Florida RCA: Not permitted in new concrete pavement. In addition, RCA is not
permitted in new asphalt pavement unless the concrete came from a
Florida DOT project.
Illinois RAP and SFS: Not allowed in concrete pavement.
RAP: Only allowed as part of the aggregate blend for asphalt layers.
Kentucky
SFS: Only allowed in asphalt surface layers.
RCA: Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure may be required.
Maryland Specific gravity and LAA are performed routinely.
BFS: Only in concrete to remediate. ASR is an issue in concrete.
SFS: Not permitted in asphalt or concrete pavement.
Michigan
BFS: Not permitted in concrete pavements.
Nebraska RCA: Not used in PCC or AC.
New RAP: Dust-to-asphalt ratio as identified in AASHTO M 323; stockpiles
Hampshire must be tested for gradation and asphalt content every 1,000 tons
during manufacture.
New Jersey RCA: Allowed only in subbase.
RCA: Limited to use in base applications. Have not allowed to be used
North Carolina
in concrete mixes.
SFS: Only allowed in intermediate mixes.
Ohio
BFS: Allowed in asphalt surface and intermediate mixes.
Oklahoma RCA: Only as an unbound aggregate base course layer.
Ontario SFS: Not allowed in HMA.
RCA: Only used for subbase and fill.
Pennsylvania
SFS and BFS: Only for subbase and fill.
Utah RCA: Not allowed for concrete use.
RCA: Not used as subbase or aggregate base when any subsurface
Virginia drainage system is present except when crushed hydraulic cement
concrete is cement stabilized.
SFS and BFS: May be used as base but must be blended with virgin
Wisconsin
aggregate.
Yukon Does not use RCA, BFS, or SFS.
performance in field has been reported. Therefore, some agencies do not consider the degra-
dation requirements based on LAA testing for utilization of BFS [Recycled Materials Resource
Center (RMRC) 2008]. Leachate from BFS poses a potential risk to the environment and remains
an aesthetic concern. Therefore, the odor and discoloration of water need to be checked and the
properties of leachate from BFS such as pH and redox conditions need to be determined (Chesner
et al. 1998).
2.5 Blending to Meet Aggregate Quality Requirements

NCHRP Synthesis 445: Practices for Unbound Aggregate Pavement Layers states that pavement
projects using granular layers will have to be sustainable and cost effective by (1) making more
effective use of locally available materials through beneficiation and use of marginal aggre-
gate materials, where appropriate; (2) increasing effective use of RCA and reclaimed asphalt
pavement (RAP); and (3) targeting long life and improvement in pavement performance
(Tutumluer 2013).
Bennert et al. (2000) evaluated RCA and RAP for resilient modulus and permanent deforma-
tion trends and compared performance with a dense-graded aggregate base course (DGABC)
material commonly used in roadway base applications in New Jersey. Both RCA and RAP were

mixed at various percentages with the DGABC to evaluate whether an optimum mix blend
could be formulated. They reported that RAP, RCA, and DGABC-blended materials obtained
higher resilient modulus values than the currently used virgin aggregates, while RCA mixed
samples resulted in the lowest amount of permanent deformation. Similarly, Arulrajah et al.
(2012) reported that in terms of usage in pavement subbases, RCA and waste rock have geotech-
nical engineering properties equivalent or superior to those of typical quarry granular subbase
materials. Other research has reported similar findings for the use of RAP, RCA, or blends with
virgin aggregates for unbound applications (Arulrajah et al. 2013) and cement-treated applica-
tions (Mohammadinia et al. 2014).
Kazmee and Tutumluer (2015) evaluated the field performance of blended RCA and RAP
test sections, mixed at a ratio of 3:2, respectively, and tested for construction platform and low-
volume road applications using accelerated pavement testing. Laboratory evaluations showed
lower abrasion loss for this blend, compared with other virgin materials inspected. The RCA–RAP
blend exhibited a relatively higher field modulus compared with other constructed test sections
and accumulated the least amount of permanent deformation after a specified number of wheel
passes (Kazmee and Tutumluer 2015).
A recent study by Qamhia et al. (2017a) evaluated construction platforms and subbase
applications of blended materials, QB, and primary crusher run aggregates (PCR), having a
top size of 6 in. to improve stability. To study the packing of the QB with the PCR and deter-
mine the optimum quantities of QB to be mixed, a laboratory study was conducted using a
steel box with dimensions conforming to ASTM recommendations. The large aggregates were
added in one or two equal lifts, and the QB materials were evenly spread on the surface and
then compacted. Preliminary test results from the accelerated pavement testing (a short-term
field test) showed satisfactory performance of the 25% QB blend by weight of the PCR con-
structed in two lifts and 17% QB blend constructed in one lift. Test sections survived 20,000
load repetitions of a 455/55R22.5 super-single tire without accumulating more than 76-mm
or 3-in. rutting, using a wheel load of 10 kips and a tire pressure of 110 psi (Qamhia et al.
2017a, 2017b, 2017c).
Blending of different aggregate sources for Portland cement applications is also a common
practice to achieve the required properties/quality when marginal or recycled aggregates are
used. Reza and Wilde (2017) suggested blending RCA aggregates with high quality conven-
tional aggregates to mitigate the higher likelihood of alkali-silica reactions and issues with
freeze-thaw due to the use of RCA. They proposed using “mechanical interlock blending” or
“belt blending” to ensure the uniformity of mixing for the different aggregate sources. Brand et al.
(2012) evaluated the use of fractionated RAP (FRAP) in concrete mixes, blended with virgin
coarse aggregates in ratios of 0%, 20%, 35%, and 50% by weight of the coarse aggregates. The
FRAP was found to reduce the concrete (compressive, split tension, and flexural) strength,
elastic and dynamic modulus, and the unit weight but increase the workability of the mixes.
Such blending application aims to use the ever-increasing quantities of RAP being produced
due to rehabilitation activities while maintaining the quality of the produced concrete. Results
indicated acceptable paving concrete could be produced for up to 50% FRAP replacement
(Brand et al. 2012).
Agencies can have different requirements for blending. For example, the state of Minnesota’s
standard specification book mentions that if the magnesium sulfate soundness requirement of
<15% loss for coarse aggregates used in Portland cement concrete applications is not met after
five cycles for one aggregate source, then blending of materials from two sources is not permitted
for achieving this requirement (Minnesota DOT 2005). For HMA, Michigan DOT determines
that the aggregate blend used in the mix meet specifications for the content of soft particles and
sand equivalent minimum requirements (Michigan DOT 2014). Kansas DOT, on the other

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40
Other 9 22%
To utilize quarry byproduct 13 32%
To utilize marginal or out of specification

19 46%
aggregate sources
To meet target gradation specification for concrete
28 68%
mixture design
To meet target gradation specification for asphalt
38 93%
mixture design
To meet target gradation specification for unbound
16 39%
subbase/base course
To improve the quality 26 63%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 2-13. Reasons stated for blending aggregates by transportation agencies.
hand, does not allow blending any two aggregate sources for mineral fillers used in HMA mixes
and limits the usage to one mineral filler source per HMA design (Kansas DOT 2015).
Out of the 53 agencies who responded, 77% (35 U.S. DOTs and six Canadian provinces)
blend aggregate from different sources while 23% (10 U.S. DOTs as well as Alberta and Prince
Edward Island provinces) do not. Reasons for blending aggregates are shown in Figure 2-13.
As indicated, most of the agencies blend aggregates to meet either asphalt or concrete mixture
design requirements. Additionally, 63% of the agencies indicated that they blend aggregates to
improve quality. Nearly half of the agencies blend aggregates to use marginal aggregate sources.
Some agencies also reported the following other reasons for blending aggregates:
• Conserving pure silica sand sources for concrete pavement and Surface Aggregate Classifica-
tion “A” for asphalt pavements.
• Supporting batch plants that are not near pit sources.
Information related to different types of materials that are generally used for blending in order to
meet aggregate quality requirements for constructing pavement layers is presented in Figure 2-14.
Most of the transportation agencies blend virgin aggregates with either other virgin materials or
with recycled aggregates, for example, RAP, RCA, or artificial aggregates. In addition, 28% of the
agencies blend virgin aggregates with QB.
2.6 Special Provision for Using Nontraditional

or Marginal Aggregate Sources
Nontraditional large size aggregates might be pit-run, quarry-run, or crusher-run materials
that may be used for different purposes. A research study recently conducted at the Illinois
Center for Transportation evaluated the performance of large-size virgin and recycled
aggregate materials used as subgrade replacement or granular subbase over weak subgrade soils.
The findings clearly showed that penetration of these large rocks, referred to as aggregate
subgrade by Illinois DOT, into very soft subgrade improved the weak subgrade soils and

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40
Virgin + Quarry Byproduct 11 28%
Virgin + Recycled (RAP or RCA or artificial

32 80%
aggregates)
Virgin + Marginal 15 38%

95%
Virgin + Virgin 38
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 2-14. Materials used for blending to meet aggregate quality requirements.
effectively established a stable working platform for pavement construction (Kazmee and
Tutumluer 2015).
Transportation agencies were asked to indicate if they had any special provision for using
nontraditional or marginal aggregate sources such as recycled glass, recycled aggregates, QB,
and large size aggregates for pavement construction. The results are summarized in Figure 2-15,
which shows that only 26 agencies out of 53 survey participants have specifications or provisions
for utilizing alternative materials. Note that out of eight agencies that marked “other,” three
agencies, that is, Arizona and New Brunswick and Yukon provinces, reported that they do not
have any standard for using nontraditional or out-of-specification aggregate sources. The other
five agencies and their considerations are listed in Table 2-3.
Number of Responses
0 10 20
Other 8 31%
Recycled glass, as a base material 8 31%
Filter aggregates, e.g., for pavement interlayers 3 12%
Quarry byproduct (less than 6 mm in size) 8 31%
Nontraditional aggregate, e.g., large size virgin or

recycled aggregate, e.g., above 1.5-in. top size 9 35%
or primary crusher run size material
Marginal (out of specification) recycled aggregate 4 15%
Marginal (out of specification) virgin aggregate 6 23%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 2-15. Agencies with specifications or special provisions for constructing pavement
layers with nontraditional and/or out-of-specification aggregate sources.

Table 2-3. Agencies with certain procedures for using nontraditional

and/or out-of-specification aggregate sources.
Transportation Restriction Considering Quality Concerns
Agency
Up to 10% by weight crushed glass (cullet) smaller than 3/8 in. may be
blended uniformly with natural soil-aggregate material before project
Alaska delivery and placement. Blended material should meet the gradation
specification requirements of the layer in question (base, subbase, and
so forth).
British
Must meet specifications.
Columbia
Glass application has stopped after federal bonus payment was
New Jersey
removed. Use 15% RAP in surface course and 25% in base course.
For asphalt and concrete aggregates, quality requirements need to be
Pennsylvania met before being incorporated. How and with what that is done are
proposed in a quality control plan and approved/rejected.
Washington See Washington State DOT standard specification 9-03.21(1)C and
State 9-03.21(1)E.

CHAPTER 3
Aggregate Sampling, Testing,

and Quality Assurance
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents different approaches used by transportation agencies for sampling,
testing, and controlling the quality of aggregates used in pavement construction. QA methods
have been established by many transportation agencies to ensure that the aggregate materials
received on the job site have properties to meet desired criteria for utilizing them in con-
struction of a certain pavement layer. Protocols or specifications used by transportation
agencies to ensure aggregate quality include (1) method specifications, (2) material speci-
fications, and (3) end-result specifications (Dukatz and Marek 1986). Findings from the
survey related to different testing types, frequencies, and procedures performed by agen-
cies on virgin coarse and fine aggregates, RAP, RCA, SFS, and BFS are summarized in this
chapter. Finally, the procedures used to control the quality of blended aggregate products
are discussed.
Participating agencies identified the responsible authority who they put in charge for test-
ing aggregate materials and providing aggregate properties for the design of pavement layers.
Figure 3-1 presents the results.
Figure 3-1 indicates that 81% of the respondents use in-house geotechnical or material labo-
ratories to control the aggregate quality. Additionally, 42% rely on contractor’s laboratory and
testing. And about 30% of the agencies use testing results from producers or external geotechni-
cal laboratories/private consultants for quality assurance purposes. The alternatives included
in Figure 3-1 are considered as the first stage in aggregate quality assurance since in case of a
dispute, private testing laboratories or third parties are often hired to confirm the results. Note
that multiple option selections were made by survey respondents.
3.2 Aggregate Sampling and Testing

Transportation agencies provided information on the frequencies of quality assurance tests
conducted on aggregate materials. Results are presented in Figure 3-2. Out of 52 respondents,
24 agencies or 46% check the acceptance of materials once a year while 20 agencies or 39% check
the quality on every major construction project.
Forty percent of the agencies indicated other approaches or procedures for aggregate material
acceptance according to the following general categories:
• Based on source history, location, tons of aggregates produced, or volume used in the project;
• Depending on what the aggregate is being used for;
• During both production and design phase;
29

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40 50
Other 9 17%
Contractor testing and
22 41%
laboratory
Aggregate producer 16 30%
University laboratory (under

3 6%
research subcontract)
Retained external geotechnical

17 32%
consultant/materials laboratory
In-house geotechnical/material
43 81%
laboratories
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 3-1. Responsibility for testing aggregate materials and providing

aggregate properties.
• Through producer’s QC program at the quarry and according to reduced frequency verification
tests mandated by transportation agency; and
• Out-of-state quarries are verified quarterly. However, out-of-country quarries are mandato-
rily tested at redistribution terminals.
Sampling requirements also varied among different agencies. Most agencies specify sampling
techniques for aggregates that comply with a standard, such as AASHTO T 2 (which refers to
ASTM D75), Standard Method of Test for Sampling of Aggregates. For example, Washington
State DOT specifies AASHTO T 2 for sampling requirements for a source approval and requires
limits on aggregate sample cleanliness, sample sizes, and aggregate top sizes based on the aggre-
gate type/application, as indicated in Table 3-1 (Washington State DOT 2017). Similarly, North
Dakota DOT lists AASHTO T 2, AASHTO R 76, and ND T 248 for aggregate sampling and
Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40 50
Other 21 40%
Less than once a year 5 10%
Once a year 24 46%
Twice every year 2 4%
More than twice every year 6 12%
Prior to use on every

20 39%
major construction project
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 3-2. Frequency of aggregate acceptance checks.

Aggregate Sampling, Testing, and Quality Assurance 31
Table 3-1. Washington State DOT requirements for sampling sizes

and sampling locations.
reducing samples of aggregates to testing sizes. Their specification includes standard proce-
dures for sampling aggregates from a roadway, flowing stream, conveyor belt, stockpile, or
truck to ensure representative samples (North Dakota DOT 2015). The State of Alaska also
uses AASHTO T 2 for aggregate sampling (Alaska DOT 2016).
The Illinois DOT manual of test procedures for materials includes detailed procedures for
sampling aggregates from a belt-stream, bin discharge, truck dumps, and stockpile sampling
(Illinois DOT 2015). New Jersey DOT requires obtaining, over a period of several weeks, three
samples from each aggregate size for testing before any source approval (New Jersey DOT 2015).
Idaho DOT requires that the testing of aggregates is performed by an independent laboratory
approved by the agency (Idaho Transportation Department 2014).
North Carolina DOT and North Carolina Aggregates Association (NCAA) jointly published
a comprehensive aggregate QA program that lists procedures and requirements for sampling at
aggregate production and construction sites. The program includes requirements for sampling,
record keeping, sampling checks, verification sampling at the source and job site, and AASHTO or
ASTM tests that are performed on aggregates (North Carolina DOT and NCAA 2017). Additionally,
several agencies provide lists of qualified suppliers/producers, which have been pre-approved
as sources for aggregates in pavement applications. Texas DOT’s aggregate quality monitoring
program, for example, published a list of qualified sources for aggregates for bituminous and
concrete rated applications. Typical source property values are summarized in these catalogs.
Examples of these source qualities include LAA, magnesium sulfate soundness, and micro-deval
(Texas DOT 2007).
Agencies may also require the contractors to perform tests to check the quality of the aggre-
gate materials being constructed. For example, Arizona DOT requires several quality control
test results from contractors, including the sand equivalent test and fractured coarse aggregate
particles for mineral aggregates, as listed in Table 3-2 (Arizona DOT 2008).
Transportation agencies reported how they obtained aggregate samples from project sites to
perform required tests. Figure 3-3 presents the results.
Figure 3-3 shows that 81% of the responding agencies obtain samples and perform quality tests in
their own material laboratories. Moreover, 18 agencies (34%) do the sampling and checking at the

Table 3-2. Arizona DOT quality control testing

requirements for contractors.
Minimum
Sampling
Type of Test Test Method Testing
Point
Frequency
Crusher belt 1 per stockpile
Gradation ARIZ 201
or stockpile per day
Sand equivalent AASHTO T 176
Fractured course Crusher belt 1 per 2,000 tons
ARIZ 212
Aggregate particles or stockpile of total
aggregate
Uncompacted void
ARIZ 247
content
source (quarry) location while 13 agencies (25%) accept samples shipped from aggregate producers
for testing in their agency laboratories. Some agencies assign the sampling to the contractor and then
the quality tests are performed by a consultant/contractor. Finally, there were again multiple option
selections made by survey respondents. This implies that different practices may be taking place
in one agency, depending on what pavement application that aggregate source is used for.
3.2.1 Quality Tests Conducted on Virgin Aggregates

Chapter 2 introduced the major tests used to check the quality of virgin, recycled, artificial,
and byproduct aggregate materials used in various pavement applications. This section discusses
typical test ranges and some DOT specifications and tests required for individual pavement layers.
3.2.1.1 Virgin Coarse Aggregates

Out of 51 responding agencies, 96% (42 U.S. DOTs and seven Canadian provinces) reported
that they perform at least one test for checking virgin aggregate quality requirements for
construction of pavement layers. Those 49 agencies were asked to indicate if they performed
any virgin coarse aggregate quality tests for Na2SO4/MgSO4 soundness, deleterious materials,
particle angularity, flat and elongated ratio, freeze-thaw, polishing/skid resistance, LAA loss,
Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40 50
Other 7 13%
Samples checked/inspected
at the source (quarry) 18 34%
location
Samples obtained by agency

and tested in agency (DOT) 43 81%
lab
Samples shipped from

aggregate producer and 13 25%
tested in agency (DOT) lab
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 3-3. Procedures for obtaining aggregate samples from project sites for
quality tests.

Table 3-3. Number of agencies performing or not performing selected

quality tests on virgin coarse aggregates.
Test Procedure No Test
AASHTO ASTM
Quality Test Name by Agency Required
Number of Respondents
Na2SO4/MgSO4 soundness 31 4 9 4
LAA loss 41 6 5 0
Deleterious materials 19 6 18 5
Particle angularity 25 11 12 4
Flat and elongated ratio 14 22 14 1
Durability: freeze-thaw 13 6 10 11
Polishing/skid resistance 6 4 7 12
Porosity 6 1 4 17
and porosity to also report the testing procedures, for example, ASTM, AASHTO, or agency-
developed specification. The number of agencies at each category for individual tests are
summarized in Table 3-3.
Table 3-3 indicates that 17 agencies do not perform porosity tests on the virgin coarse aggre-
gates and that more than 10 agencies do not run polishing/skid resistance and freeze-thaw tests
on their coarse virgin aggregate sources. Accordingly, 41 agencies follow the AASHTO procedure
to conduct LAA testing, while 22 agencies follow the ASTM test procedure for measuring flat and
elongated ratios of virgin coarse aggregate samples. Moreover, 18 agencies have their own pro-
cedures for determining deleterious materials. Refer to Appendix C for a detailed compilation of
the results given in Table 3-3. Additional tests following other specific test procedures performed
by agencies to determine quality of virgin coarse aggregates are listed in Table 3-4.
Kansas DOT requires some agency specific test procedures for coarse aggregates in order for
an aggregate source to pass their quality requirements. These test procedures are KTMR-21 for
soundness, KT-6 for specific gravity and absorption and, if requested, KTMR-28 for acid insolu-
ble residue. For coarse aggregates used in concrete applications, Kansas DOT also requires addi-
tional tests for durability (KTMR-22) and wetting and drying (KTMR-23) (Kansas DOT 2017).
Alaska DOT runs its own test method (ATM 306) for determining the percentage of flat and
elongated particles in coarse aggregate (Alaska DOT 2016). The state of Arizona conducts its
own test method for fractured coarse aggregate particles, known as ARIZ 212, and ARIZ 251 for
the dry and bulk specific gravity (Arizona DOT 2008). Different quality test ranges, as required
by Arizona DOT in asphaltic concrete are shown in Table 3-5. Different pavement applications
can have different ranges for acceptance by Arizona DOT.
The specifications and ranges for a test vary significantly from one agency to another agency.
A survey by Prowell et al. (2005) indicated different ranges for acceptance of aggregate materials
to be used in Superpave HMA mixtures. As shown in Figure 3-4, most states specify an LAA loss
limit of 40% for HMA mixes, with limits varying from 30% to 55%. Some states also specify LAA
loss limits based on the class of the road, the equivalent single-axle loads, or the type of aggregates
(Prowell et al. 2005).
3.2.1.2 Virgin Fine Aggregates

According to NCHRP Report 539: Aggregate Properties and the Performance of Superpave-
Designed Hot Mix Asphalt, 85% of the surveyed agencies specified the standard tests for
fine aggregates angularity (AASHTO T 304 or ASTM C1252) for Superpave asphalt mixes.
However, Oregon DOT discontinued running this test, California DOT has its own procedure
of CTM 205, Texas DOT substituted the fine aggregate angularity (FAA) test with running the
Hamburg test, and five states do not require the measurement of FAA for Superpave asphalt
mixes (Prowell et al. 2005).

Table 3-4. Additional quality tests performed on

virgin coarse aggregates.
Description of the Test or Testing Procedure
Property AASHTO ASTM Agency Specification
Idaho IT-15, Alaska
Test Method 313,
Degradation - - Chapter 8 of Wisconsin
DOT Construction and
Materials Manual
Specific gravity and maximum T 85
- -
absorption Modified
Micro-deval durability T 327 - -
Sand equivalent T 176 - -
Organic impurities, coal and
T 21 - -
lignite
Lightweight chert T 19 - -
Aggregate durability index T 210 - -
Crushed fragments - D5821
Silicon dioxide, insoluble
- C114 -
residue
Nordic abrasion value of Alaska Test Method
- -
coarse aggregates 312
Nebraska NDR T 504,
Clay lumps, shale, soft
- - Pennsylvania Testing
particles, and friable particles
Manual 620
Magnesium oxide/insoluble Division 300 and 400 of
residue to determine Illinois DOT Standard
- - Specifications for Road
limestone/dolomite and
sandstone and Bridge Construction
Air degrade - - Oregon TM 208
Oklahoma Department
Test Methods (OHDL)
Deleterious materials - -
9, Pennsylvania
Testing Manual 519
Oklahoma Department
Insoluble residue - - Test Methods (OHDL)
25
Pennsylvania Testing
Metallic iron - -
Manual 518
General Provisions and
Contract Specifications
for Highway
Petrographic number - -
Construction Manual
for Prince Edward
Island
Note: Hyphens indicate not applicable.
Table 3-5. Arizona DOT quality assurance testing requirements

for mineral aggregates used in asphaltic concrete.
Mineral Aggregate
Test Method Requirement
Characteristics
Combined Bulk Oven
Arizona Test Method 251 2.350–2.850
Dry Specific Gravity
Combined Water
Arizona Test Method 251 0–2.5%
Absorption
100 Rev., Max 9%
Abrasion AASHTO T 96
500 Rev., Max 40%
AASHTO T 176
(After thoroughly sieving the
Sand Equivalent sample, no additional cleaning Minimum 55%
of the fines from the Plus No. 4
material is required.)
Fractured Coarse Minimum 70%
Arizona Test Method 212
Aggregate Particles (Plus No. 4 material)
Source: Arizona DOT 2008.

Figure 3-4. Ranges for AASHTO T 96 maximum abrasion loss by

different agencies (Prowell et al. 2005).
Furthermore, Kansas DOT requires agency specific test procedures for fine aggregates: KT-6
for specific gravity and absorption, KTMR-26 for mortar strength, and KTMR-28 for acid
insoluble residue, if requested (Kansas DOT 2017).
As noted in the previous section, survey respondents from 42 U.S. DOTs and seven Canadian
provinces reported that they performed at least one test for checking virgin aggregate quality
requirements. These agencies were asked to indicate if they performed the following virgin fine
aggregate quality tests including Na2SO4/MgSO4 soundness, Atterberg limits, deleterious materials,
uncompacted void content, micro-deval for degradation and polishing properties, and sand equiv-
alent. The agencies were asked to report the testing procedures that they followed, and the results
are presented in Table 3-6. Refer to Appendix C for a detailed compilation of the results given in
Table 3-6.
Table 3-6 indicates that 16 agencies do not run micro-deval tests on fine aggregates for measur-
ing degradation and polishing properties and that 29 agencies follow the AASHTO method for
performing sand equivalent test on fine aggregates. Only four agencies use the ASTM procedure.
Moreover, similar to the case for virgin coarse aggregates, 13 agencies have their own procedures
for running deleterious materials test on fine aggregates. Additional tests following other specific
test procedures performed by agencies to determine quality of virgin fine aggregates are listed in
Table 3-7.

quality tests on virgin fine aggregates.
AASHTO ASTM
Na2SO4/MgSO4 soundness 24 5 7 9
Atterberg limits 25 4 6 7
Uncompacted void content 27 5 3 8
Micro-deval for degradation
10 4 7 16
and polishing properties
Sand equivalent 29 4 10 3

Table 3-7. Additional quality tests performed on

virgin fine aggregates.
Section 5.2 of Alberta
Infrastructure and
Transportation
Dry strength - -
Standard
Specifications for
Highway Construction
Degradation - - Idaho IT-15
Sand-sized acid insoluble D3042
- -
residue content modified
Organic impurities T 21, T 71 - -
Specific gravity and absorption T 84, T 85 - -
Clay lumps Nebraska NDR T504
Hydrometer for clay-sized Division 300 and 400 of
material, color for organics of Illinois DOT Standard
- -
natural sands, and mortar Specifications for Road
strength if color is too high and Bridge Construction
Saskatchewan STP
Lightweight and clay content - -
206-09, STP 206-15
Air degrade - - Oregon TM 208
Deleterious - - Oklahoma OHD L 9
California bearing ratio - - Virginia VTM-7
3.2.2 Quality Tests Conducted on RAP

According to NCHRP Report 452, the binder content and physical properties of RAP aggregates,
including particle shape, texture, and angularity, are required for use in mixture design. These
factors also control RAP performance for stiffness, crack resistance, modulus, and deformation
characteristics (McDaniel and Anderson 2001). NAPA recommends the following tests on RAP
to ensure appropriate quality requirements for asphalt mixtures (West 2015):
• Asphalt binder content of the RAP

• Bulk specific gravity of the RAP aggregate
• Consensus properties of the aggregate recovered from the RAP
• RAP asphalt binder properties
Common methods for determining the asphalt content of RAP include ignition method
(AASHTO T 308 or ASTM D6307) and solvent extraction method (AASHTO T 164). Depend-
ing on pavement layer and traffic conditions of the project where RAP is used, additional qual-
ity tests might be required to ensure satisfactory performance. For example, if RAP is used in
a surface mix exposed to high-speed traffic, the polishing or mineralogical composition of the
RAP aggregate might need to be determined.
Deniz et al. (2010) evaluated the expansion properties of RAP aggregates, steel slag RAP, and
virgin aggregates used in Illinois for use as a base or subbase material. ASTM D2940, Standard
Specification for Graded Aggregate Material for Bases or Subbases for Highways or Airports, limits
expansion values to no greater than 0.50% at 7 days when tested in accordance with ASTM D4792,
Standard Test Method for Potential Expansion of Aggregates from Hydration Reactions. Accord-
ing to the findings, stone mastic asphalt RAP, steel slag RAP, surface binder RAP with 60% steel
slag, and surface RAP with 92% steel slag can be safely used as base or subbase materials. However,
porous and nonporous steel slag should not be used without proper curing that satisfies the limita-
tion specified by ASTM D2940 (Deniz et al. 2010).


quality tests on RAP.
AASHTO ASTM
Residual asphalt binder
21 3 10 13
content
Micro-deval for polishing and
4 - 1 12
degradation properties
Deleterious materials 3 - 4 0
Expansion properties 1 - - 13
Flat and elongated ratio 5 1 1 10
Durability: freeze-thaw 2 - - 13
Transportation agencies were asked about tests they perform for checking RAP quality require-
ments for construction of pavement layers. In total, 28 U.S. DOTs and five Canadian provinces
reported that they perform tests for checking RAP quality requirements. These agencies were
asked to identify if they performed any of the RAP quality tests including residual asphalt binder
content, micro-deval for polishing and degradation properties, deleterious materials, expansion
properties, flat and elongated ratio, and freeze-thaw tests. The agencies were also asked to report
the test procedures, for example, ASTM, AASHTO, and agency-developed test procedure that
they followed. The results are summarized in Table 3-8. Refer to Appendix C for a detailed
compilation of the results given in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8 presents data to indicate that 13 agencies do not evaluate freeze-thaw and expan-
sion properties for their RAP sources, 21 agencies measure residual asphalt content in RAP as a
quality indicator following the AASHTO test procedure, while only three agencies use the ASTM
method. Also, 10 agencies mentioned that they have their own procedures for identifying resid-
ual asphalt content in RAP. Additional tests following other specific test procedures performed
by agencies to determine quality of RAP aggregates are listed in Table 3-9.
3.2.3 Quality Tests Conducted on RCA

The quality tests conducted on RCA are dependent on the application in pavement construction.
For using RCA in concrete pavements, ACI 555R-01 lists quality checks for aggregate density, water
absorption, LAA loss, sulfate soundness, and contaminants. For LAA, ACI 555R-01 lists ASTM C33
standard procedure for aggregates in concrete with abrasion loss values lower than 50% for general
construction and lower than 40% for RCA used in crushed stone layers beneath pavements. These
LAA loss values are the same standard values for virgin aggregates used in concrete. Regarding RCA
absorption, ACI 555R-01 specifies that the absorption be limited to 10% (ACI 2001).
For the allowable quantities of contaminants such as plaster, asphalt, wood, soil, gypsum, plastic,
and rubber in RCA aggregates used in concrete pavement applications, ACI 555R-01 lists some
limits based on research conducted on recycled aggregates (ACI 2001 and Hansen 1986). For both
Table 3-9. Additional quality tests performed on RAP.

Degradation - - Idaho IT-15
Consensus properties M 323 - -
Specific gravity and absorption T 84, T 85 - Saskatchewan STP 204-09

recycled coarse and fine aggregates, these limits are 10 kg/m3 for impurities such as plasters, clay
lumps and other impurities of densities less than 1,950 kg/m3, and 2 kg/m3 for asphalt, plastics,
paints, cloth, paper, wood, and similar material particles retained on 1.2 mm sieve, as well as other
impurities of densities less than 1,200 kg/m3 (ACI 2001, Hansen 1986). Illinois DOT considers RAP
as a contaminant for RCA and limits its quantity to 5% for Class C crushed concrete aggregates
used for embankments, subbases, stabilized subbases, bases, gravel roads, and shoulders, and to 2%
for Type B crushed concrete aggregates used for wedge shoulders (Illinois DOT 2017).
FHWA’s Technical Advisory Circular T5040.37 restricts RCA to have not more than 1% asphalt
and requires 90% of all the aggregates to be “cement paste and aggregate” (FHWA 2007). The
Technical Advisory Circular also requires the RCA to be free from chlorides and reactive materials
unless mitigation measures are taken to prevent recurrence of materials related to distresses in
the new concrete. Chloride content is limited to 0.04 kg chloride ion/m3 (0.06 lb chloride ion/yd3)
for the RCA to be used in new continuously reinforced concrete pavement or jointed reinforced
concrete pavement to slow the corrosion of steel (FHWA 2007). The use of higher chloride con-
tents, however, is permitted for jointed plain concrete pavements with epoxy-coated dowel bars.
AASHTO MP 16-13 (AASHTO 2015) also divides RCA for concrete pavement applications
into three classes based on the maximum allowable quantities of deleterious materials; these
quantities are summarized in Table 3-10 (AASHTO 2015, Reza and Wilde 2017). In Table 3-10,
class designations refer to the weathering exposure categories: Severe (A), Moderate (B), and
Negligible (C).
AASHTO MP 16-13 (2015) lists ranges and levels of different quality tests for RCA used in
concrete applications. These ranges are a maximum LAA loss of 50%; a maximum fines content
[passing sieve No. 200 (0.075 mm) of 1.5%]; a maximum chloride content of 0.6 lb/yd3; and
a maximum sodium sulfate soundness loss of 12% if this test is applicable by local experience
(AASHTO 2015, Reza and Wilde 2017).
In total, 19 U.S. DOTs and British Columbia province indicated that they perform at least
one test for checking RCA quality requirements for construction of pavement layers. Those
20 agencies were asked to identify which of the following RCA quality tests they performed,
including LAA loss, absorption, deleterious materials, ASR, micro-deval for polishing and deg-
radation properties, freeze-thaw, and specific gravity. The agencies were also asked to indicate
which testing procedures they followed. Table 3-11 summarizes the results. Only Pennsylvania
DOT reported that it performs similar tests on both RCA and virgin coarse aggregates, and
five agencies reported they do not run micro-deval, ASR, deleterious, and absorption tests on
their RCA sources. Additionally, 14 agencies perform LAA tests following the AASHTO test
Table 3-10. Maximum allowable percentages of impurities for RCA

in concrete pavements.
Note: sp gr SSD = specific gravity saturated surface dry.

Source: AASHTO 2015, Reza and Wilde 2017.

Table 3-11. Number of agencies performing or not performing

selected quality tests on RCA.
AASHTO ASTM
LAA loss 14 2 3 1
Absorption 6 2 1 5
ASR 3 3 1 5
2 1 3 5
Specific gravity 6 3 3 4
procedure, while two agencies run LAA tests following the ASTM method and three other agen-
cies follow their own specifications. Although the ASR test has been reported in the literature as
an important quality indicator of RCA materials and as one of the predominant deterioration
means of concrete (Thomas et al. 2013), only seven agencies measure this property for RCA
sources using different test methods. Florida DOT reported that they do not perform sound-
ness on RCA because of a possible chemical reaction with the paste. Refer to Appendix C for a
detailed compilation of the results given in Table 3-11.
3.2.4 Quality Tests Conducted on Artificial/Byproduct Aggregates

NCHRP Synthesis 435: Volume 5: Slag Byproducts lists some of the quality test ranges for common
types of SFS and BFS based on the research findings by John Yzenas and the Recycled Materials
Resource Center (RMRC 2008, Stroup-Gardiner and Wattenberg-Komas 2013a). These physical,
quality, and engineering properties are summarized in Tables 3-12 and 3-13 (Stroup-Gardiner and
Wattenberg-Komas 2013a).
Table 3-12. Engineering properties for iron and steel slags.

Blast Furnace
Steel Furnace Slag
Physical Property Slag Test Method
ACBFS BOF EAF
Open Graded
Blast furnace slag is from the first furnace; steel furnace slag is from the second furnace.

Table 3-13. Typical quality and engineering properties for iron

and steel slag materials.
Iron Slag Steel Slag

Property ACBFS (type not identified)
SFS is obtained during the steel-making process. SFS is primarily composed of lime, iron oxide,
and silica. The mechanical properties of SFS such as EAF steel slag satisfy (and normally exceed)
the aggregate requirements for granular aggregate subbase or base for permanent deformation,
stiffness modulus, and fatigue (Pasetto and Baldo 2010). Additionally, Yi et al. (2012) indicated
that using SFS as a coarse aggregate in HMA enhances the mechanical properties and using
SFS in cold in-place recycling mixes improves Marshall stability, resilient modulus, and tensile
strength, and reduces the susceptibility to moisture damage and permanent deformation. Using
SFS in refractory concrete mixes was also found to have comparable mechanical properties to
virgin aggregates when the SFS is heated to a high temperature before use (Yi et al. 2012). BFS
can be considered similar to conventional aggregate for application in pavement construction.
The high stability of BFS aggregates and their ability to lock up can be useful in construction over
weak subgrade. Additionally, the compacted unit weight of BFS aggregates is relatively smaller
than the natural aggregates, and the material characteristics produce the greater volume for the
same weight (Chesner et al. 1998).
In total, 15 U.S. DOTs reported that they perform at least one test for checking SFS or BSF
quality requirements for construction of pavement layers. These agencies were asked which of the
following quality tests they performed for SFS/BFS, including chemical composition, mineralogi-
cal properties, specific gravity, micro-deval for polishing and degradation properties, expansion
properties, and freeze-thaw. Additionally, they were asked to report which testing procedures
they followed. The results are summarized in Tables 3-14 and 3-15. Refer to Appendix C for a
detailed compilation of the results given in Tables 3-14 and 3-15.
The survey findings showed that four agencies do not check expansion properties of SFS and
BFS. Eight agencies perform specific gravity tests on SFS following the AASHTO procedure
and two agencies follow the ASTM method. Additionally, four agencies reported that they have
developed their own procedures for measuring specific gravity of SFS sources. Moreover, seven
Table 3-14. Number of agencies performing or not performing

selected quality tests on SFS.
Test Procedure by No Test
AASHTO ASTM
Quality Test Name Agency Required
Chemical composition 2 2 2 2
Mineralogical properties - 2 - 3
Specific gravity 8 2 4 -
1 - 2 3
Expansion properties 2 1 3 4
Note: Hyphens indicate zero (0) number of respondents.


quality tests on BFS.
Test Procedure by No Test
AASHTO ASTM
Quality Test Name Agency Required
Chemical composition 1 1 1 3
Mineralogical properties - 2 - 3
Specific gravity 7 1 3 1
1 - 2 3
Expansion properties 2 2 1 4
Note: Hyphens indicate zero (0) number of respondents.
agencies perform specific gravity tests on BFS following the AASHTO procedure and only one
agency follows the ASTM method. Additionally, three agencies have developed their own pro-
cedures for measuring specific gravity of BFS. Although mineralogical and chemical properties
need to be considered as important quality indicators for both SFS and BFS aggregate sources
(Lewis 1982), few agencies reported that they check this property. Also, it was found that not
many agencies evaluate the freeze-thaw properties of SFS and BFS aggregates.
Arkansas DOT indicated that the DOT performs LAA testing on SFS and BFS aggregate sources.
Pennsylvania DOT checks the quality of SFS and BFS aggregate sources with similar tests per-
formed on natural coarse aggregates. They have also developed the PMT 130 test procedure for
evaluating expansion characteristics of SFS aggregates.
3.2.5 Quality Tests Conducted on Blended/Stabilized Aggregates

NCHRP Report 598: Performance-Related Tests of Recycled Aggregates for Use in Unbound Pave-
ment Layers evaluated the engineering performances of different mixes of RCA, RAP, and virgin
aggregates (limestone, granite, and gravel). The blended materials evaluated included RCA
with limestone from Illinois (RCA-LS-IL), RCA with gravel from Louisiana (RCA-GV-LA),
RCA with granite from South Carolina (RCA-GR-SC), RAP with limestone from Mississippi
(RAP-LS-MS), RAP with granite from Colorado (RAP-GR-CO), and RAP with gravel from
Louisiana (RAP-GV-LA). Quality tests evaluated included frost susceptibility by tube suction
test and index method, micro-deval toughness, and Canadian freeze-thaw for durability. Typical
50:50 blended mixes of recycled and virgin materials showed lower LAA loss than RCA and RAP
individually. Additionally, 50:50 blends of RCA and virgin aggregates and RCA exhibited higher
material loss than other blends due to higher percentages of fines in the as-received condition
(Saeed 2008).
Kazmee et al. (2012) evaluated the effectiveness of RCA, derived from crushing an old airport
concrete pavement, when blended with virgin crushed dolomite aggregates for pavement base
or subbase application. RCA specimens consistently gave the highest strength and modulus and
the lowest permanent deformation accumulation. Crushed dolomite showed the highest degree
of moisture sensitivity due to its 13% fines content when compared with the RCA with 8% fines.
The research findings showed that the single source materials, either RCA or virgin aggregates
alone, performed consistently better than the aggregate blends by achieving higher strength and
modulus and lower permanent deformation (Kazmee et al. 2012).
For asphalt concrete mixes, the Bailey method can be used to ensure conformance of blended
aggregate mix to required quality. The Bailey method is a method for mix design that ensures
the aggregate interlock and optimum packing (controlled by changing the fine aggregate coarse
fraction ratio and the fine aggregate fine fraction ratio), to meet the required volumetric design

Table 3-16. Procedures to control the quality of the blended

aggregate product.
Agency Procedures
All aggregates must be approved before blending. This will
Alabama allow for confidence that all aggregates meet the minimums of
the standard specifications.
Mechanical blending through interlocked feeders at the
Illinois
production site.
Kansas, Montana,
Blend must meet specification requirements for intended use.
and Virginia
Maine Periodic agency tests on material sampled during construction.
Both components of the blend must be tested individually as
well as the final product. The producer must also address the
New York blending process in their operations plan as well as adhere to
individual requirements determined by the specific reason for
blending material.
The product must be blended by pugmill to a consistent ratio
Ohio and tested according to that specific blend. Aggregates are
blended and stockpiled prior to delivery to an asphalt plant.
Oregon and South Blended sample must pass all quality tests as unblended
Dakota sample would.
Pennsylvania and Quality control plan is submitted and approved/disapproved by
Vermont the district material’s engineer/manager.
Natural pit run filler from other sources may be required to bring
Wyoming volumetric properties into specification. There is a specification
for the requirements of pit run filler.
criteria of Superpave, while the method also ensures good performance (Vavrik et al. 2002). For
Portland cement concrete applications, NCHRP Research Results Digest 281: Aggregate Tests for
Portland Cement Concrete Pavements: Review and Recommendations lists both direct and indirect
tests to be used for aggregate blends in concrete.
Indirect tests are those in which concrete specimens are tested. Tests are also divided into
Level I tests (essential) and Level II tests (optional, based on the outcome of Level I tests). Level
I tests include absorption, gradation, properties of fines passing No. 200 sieve (quantity and
plasticity), shape, angularity and texture, thermal expansion of aggregates, aggregate abrasion,
elastic modulus, polishing, aggregate strength and mineralogy, and ASR as well as freezing and
thawing resistance (D-cracking). Level II tests include Methylene blue test for clays, XRD, XRF,
and TGA for aggregate mineralogy as well as other alternative tests for ASR and D-cracking
(Hanna 2003).
Participating transportation agencies were asked to indicate whether they blend aggregate
to improve quality (e.g., virgin + marginal, virgin + quarry byproduct, etc.). It was found that
36% (13 U.S. DOTs and three Canadian provinces) blend different aggregate types to improve
the quality. Subsequently, those 16 agencies were requested to report if they had certain proce-
dures to control the quality of the blended product. The descriptions of the different procedures
reported by the agencies are listed in Table 3-16.
3.3 Quality Assurance Practices

Different agencies have developed guidelines for statistical analyses of the results and ranges
obtained from laboratory quality testing on aggregate sources. Quality assurance is required to
address accuracy, precision, and capability. Accuracy means the average of all measurements falls
relatively close to an understood point (or target). Precision indicates that all of the measure-
ments over time are very close together. Capability is achieved if the process is both accurate and
precise such that the process remains within specification or other predetermined limits with a
high degree of confidence. As an example, Indiana DOT defines aggregate quality control as the

prediction of product performance within pre-established limits for a desired portion of the out-
put (Indiana DOT 2017b) and proposes two principles included in an aggregate quality control
program: making sure that the correct target quality values are understood and achievable, and
controlling variability within pre-established limits.
Indiana DOT illustrates the process of managing and implementing an aggregate quality con-
trol program into an agency, as shown in Figure 3-5.
EMPLOYEE INPUT
MEASUREMENTS VISUAL
CURRENT PROCESS
OVER TIME OBSERVATIONS
IDENTIFY KEY PROCESS ESTABLISH ELIMINATE SPECIAL CAUSES OF

VARIABLES STANDARDS VARIABILITY
NEW STABLE PROCESS
MAKE MEASUREMENTS AND

COMMUNICATE WITH CUSTOMERS
ASSESSMENTS
DECISION MAKING
ESTABLISH PRODUCT TARGETS

AND LIMITS
REDUCE COMMON CAUSES OF
VARIABILITY
NEW CAPABLE PROCESS
PROCESS
CONTROL
Figure 3-5. Stages for managing and implementing an aggregate quality program in an agency.

CHAPTER 4
Procedures for Approving

Aggregate Sources
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents information related to the procedures used by transportation agencies to
approve or certify aggregate sources. Agencies often consider various criteria or guidelines to allow a
certain type of aggregate source to be used in construction of a specific pavement layer. Appropriate
classification and use of different aggregate materials—for example, by considering different
aggregate quality classes when building bound and unbound pavement layer applications—
will dictate the end performance under different loading and environmental conditions. The
frequency of aggregate approval and the number of quality classes defined for construction of
individual pavement layers are discussed in this chapter.
4.2 Methods Used to Approve Aggregate Sources

Methods of approving an aggregate source vary depending on the agency practices. Transpor-
tation agencies commonly provide lists of pre-approved/approved sources of aggregates for use in
pavement construction on their website. Approving an aggregate source may require that certain
aggregate materials pass some quality requirements from that aggregate source. For example,
Kansas DOT requires both DOT laboratory inspection and contractor’s inspection of aggregates,
and the contractor is held responsible in case any material fails the quality tests at the job site
(Kansas DOT 2017). Oklahoma DOT requires both a geologic assessment report and several labo-
ratory test results for each coarse aggregate material, and supplemental testing is often necessary
to consider an aggregate source to be qualified for use in Oklahoma DOT construction projects
(Oklahoma DOT 2009).
The source approval procedure is often straightforward. For example, New Jersey DOT
procedure for aggregates source approval starts with a request from the aggregate producer.
The request includes full contact information, rock type, and the reporting of the New Jersey
DOT standard test results for several aggregate samples collected over several weeks with tests
performed by the producer’s laboratory or an independent laboratory. The agency office in
charge, often the bureau of materials at agency offices, evaluates the sources, obtains several
samples (minimum of three) from the source for testing over a period of several weeks, and
then approves the source if the three samples comply with the specifications of the agency. New
Jersey DOT also has acceptance requirements at the project level for aggregates used in concrete
and HMA mixes and an approved mix design (New Jersey DOT 2015).
For unsurfaced pavements, the FHWA’s 2015 gravel roads, construction, and maintenance
guide proposes following state specifications to ensure that approved high quality aggregates
are being received from the different sources. For example, a “Class I Surface Aggregate” with
44

Procedures for Approving Aggregate Sources 45
Number of Responses
0 10 20 30 40 50
Approval by Agency Lab: Aggregate samples collected from

producer and tested at your agency lab for approval on a periodic 38 72%
basis.
Preapproval – Option B: Aggregate source property data are
collected from a third-party certified aggregate testing 3 6%
laboratory on a periodic basis.
Preapproval – Option A: Aggregate source property data are
collected from producer and checked for approval on a periodic 16 30%
basis.
No Approved List of Aggregates: Aggregates are tested prior to

16 30%
use on every major pavement construction job.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 4-1. Methods used by transportation agencies to approve aggregates.
specific state quality requirements shall be tested to qualify for the surface course use for gravel
roads (FHWA 2015).
The methods used by transportation agencies to approve aggregates are summarized in
Figure 4-1 above. The results show that 72% of the responding agencies use their own laborato-
ries for approving aggregates, and 30% of the responding agencies do not have an approved list
and test aggregates prior to use on every major construction job. Only Maryland, New Mexico,
and North Dakota state DOTs reported that they use “Pre-approval—Option B,” which is
collecting aggregate source property data from a third party certified aggregate testing lab
on a periodic basis. Furthermore, only eight agencies (15%) mentioned other methods for
approving aggregate sources, as listed in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1. Alternative aggregate approval procedures.
Agency Description of Aggregate Approval Procedure

British
Meet specifications; contractor may select a source other than specified.
Columbia
Qualified aggregate material source list is maintained for asphalt mixture aggregate,
Idaho
concrete aggregate, and base aggregate. Contractor must reapply every 2 years.
Pre-approval samples are collected and tested at our lab to add source to the list of
approved materials. Site visits and collection of samples are conducted annually at each
Kentucky
source to ensure quality. Acceptance samples are collected on material supplied to state
projects and tested at our labs.
Source approval is performed by department; subsequent physical testing is performed
Montana by independent laboratories and reviewed by the department.
Pre-approved but still tested on a project level basis at freq uencies specified in material
Nebraska
sampling guide.
Sources are prequalified to businesses by meeting personnel testing and quality control
Ohio requirements. Aggregates are approved through an initial battery of tests and a continued
tonnage and risk-based approach.
Active commercial sources are routinely tested year round; irregularly used sources are
Oregon
tested prior to paving.
Ministry does not have any requirement for approval of aggregate source. Regular QA
Saskatchewan
testing is done during the course of project.

Number of Responses
0 10 20 30
Other frequencies 11 32% 34 survey respondents
Based on producer
6 18%
requests
Once every three years 1 3%
Once every two years 4 12%
Once a year 16 47%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 4-2. Frequency of aggregate approval by agencies using Preapproval

Option A or B or Approval by Agency Lab.
Those agencies that indicated that they used Preapproval Option A or B or Approval by
Agency Lab (see Figure 4-1) were asked to report how often they performed the approval process.
The results are presented in Figure 4-2. It was found that 47% of the agencies do the approval
once a year, while 18% of the agencies perform the approval based on the producer request.
Only Maryland DOT indicated approval of aggregate sources once every 3 years. Eleven agen-
cies (32%) mentioned other frequencies for approving aggregate sources, as listed in Table 4-2.
4.3 Aggregate Quality Classes

Agencies have established aggregate quality classes associated with the use of aggregate material
in a certain pavement layer application. For example, Indiana DOT has three general ratings for
fine aggregates: A5 is for natural sands approved in all pavement applications; B5 is for applica-
tions that allow usage of manufactured sands or fine aggregates; and G5 is for fine aggregates that
Table 4-2. Alternative frequency and conditions for approving aggregate sources.
Agency Frequency for Approving Aggregates

Alaska Once during the preconstruction/design phase of the specific project.
British Columbia Before material used on a project or historical results of alternative sources.
Approved aggregate sources remain in effect unless mine commits an infraction.
Florida
Certification of products is continuously based on QA program 23CFR627B.
Manitoba Once on design–build project.
Montana Department performs testing for initial source approval and boundary extensions.
As indicated in material sampling guide, every 3,000-ton or 6,000-ton depending on
Nebraska
mix design.
Once a year but AASHTO T 161 “Freeze thaw testing of concrete aggregates” is
Oklahoma
performed less frequently.
Tennessee Twice per year.
Contractors are required to submit producer or third party testing from state certified
Utah
labs prior to start of any project.
Washington 1 year for quarry spalls, riprap, scour, and rock for rock walls and 5 years for mineral
State aggregate and concrete aggregate. Quality concern sources are on stockpile approval.
Wisconsin Every 3 years for quarries and every 5 years for pits.

Table 4-3. Aggregate classes and quality requirements for surface and base virgin aggregates.
Quality Requirements for Virgin Materials

Class
Requirements
1 and 2 (%) 3 and 4 (%) 5 and 5Q (%) 6 (%)
Max Shale, if No. 200 7 % by mass NA 10.0 10.0 7.0
Max Shale, if No. 200 7 % by mass NA 7.0 7.0 7.0
Minimum crushing requirements* NA NA 10 15
Maximum Los Angeles Rattler loss from
carbonate quarry rock 40 40 40 35
Maximum insoluble residue for the

portion of quarried carbonate aggregates 10 10 10 10
passing the No. 200 sieve
Note: NA indicates not applicable, which means that no limit or quality measurement has been specified for that property.
*Material crushed from quarries is considered crushed material.
are not approved for usage (Indiana DOT 2017a). Indiana DOT has more detailed quality class
designations for coarse aggregates, including Class AP (highest quality aggregates that meet the
specifications for any use), Class AS, and Classes A, B, C, D, and F. Indiana DOT also requires an
absorption value measurement not to exceed 5% for those aggregates to be classified in Classes
AP, AS, A, B, or C (Indiana DOT 2017a). Refer to Appendix D, in which there are links provided
to detailed aggregate specifications as well as material approval lists for different agencies.
Minnesota DOT divides the virgin aggregates used for base and surface applications into seven
quality classes. These are Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5Q, and 6. The different quality requirements are
listed in Table 4-3 (Table 3138-1, Minnesota DOT 2016). For recycled materials used in base and
surface applications, Minnesota DOT also defines six quality classes, that is, Classes 1, 3, 4, 5, 5Q,
and 6. The requirements for these classes are listed in Table 4-4 [as defined by Minnesota DOT
2016 (Table 3138-2)].
Michigan DOT has published comprehensive requirements for different aggregate classes
qualified as coarse aggregates, open-graded aggregates, and dense-graded aggregates. Table 4-5
Table 4-4. Aggregate classes and quality requirements for surface and base recycled aggregate
materials, as specified by Minnesota DOT.

Table 4-5. Aggregate classes and limits on physical properties for gravel, crushed stone, crushed concrete aggregate, and slag in Michigan.
Gravel, Stone, and Crushed Concrete Slag (a)

Freeze-Thaw
Los Freeze-Thaw
Series/ Crushed Soft Sum of Soft Sum of Coke and Dilation, Flat and Elongated
Material % max, Los Chert, Dilation,
Class Material, Particles, Particles and Coal Particles, % per 100 cycles Particles, ratio-
Angeles % max % per 100 cycle
% min % max Chert, % max % max max % max
Abrasion (MTM 110) max
(MTM 117) (MTM 110) (MTM 110) (MTM 110) (MTM 115) (d) (ASTM D4791)
(MTM 102) (MTM 115) (d)
Coarse
Aggregates
Dense-
Graded
Aggregates
(1)
Open-Graded
Aggregates
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
presents a summary of the different aggregate classes and the physical property and quality
requirements for different aggregate materials. Limits and physical properties are included for
gravel, crushed stone, crushed concrete aggregate, slag materials, and other types of aggregates.
Physical properties include LAA loss, freeze-thaw dilation, percentage crushed materials, and
flat and elongated ratio of particles (Michigan DOT 2009).
In total, 18 agencies indicated that they have established at least one quality class for one
of the following aggregate types: coarse and fine virgin aggregates, RAP, RCA, SFS, and BFS.
Table 4-6 lists the different number of quality classes established for each aggregate type by
the 18 transportation agencies.
Agencies that are not listed in Table 4-6 did not report any defined quality classes for the types
of aggregates mentioned above. For further details related to the number of quality classes listed
in Table 4-6, refer to Appendix D, in which the links to agency specifications are provided.
4.4 Aggregate Quality Classes for Pavement

Layer Applications
The survey results showed that 18 U.S. DOTs and five Canadian provinces classify aggregate
quality based on utilization of aggregate in a certain pavement layer. Subsequently, those
23 agencies identified individual pavement layers and the associated aggregate quality class
numbers required by their agencies. The results related to each pavement layer are presented in
the following subsections.
4.4.1 Asphalt Surface Coarse

Minnesota DOT divides aggregates into five different quality classes for concrete applications.
Four classes (Class A through Class D) are for virgin aggregates, based on the degree of crushing
Table 4-6. Number of quality classes used by transportation agencies for different
aggregate types.
Type of Aggregate
Agency Fine Coarse
RAP RCA SFS BFS
Virgin Virgin
Alaska - Five - - - -
Alberta - Five - - - -
Florida One One One One - -
Illinois Three Four Two Four One Four
Indiana One One One - - -
Kentucky Three Five - - One One
Mississippi Three Three - - - -
Montana One One One One - -
Nevada One One One - - -
New York One One One One One One
New Brunswick Two Two - - - -
Ontario Five Five Two - - -
Oregon One One - - - -
Pennsylvania Five Three One One One One
Tennessee - Fou r - - Four -
Wisconsin One One One One One One
Wyoming Five Five - - - -
Yukon Three Three - - - -
Note: Hyphens indicate zero (0) quality class for certain types of aggregate.

and the geological origin, and the fifth class (Class R) is for recycled concrete aggregates. Qual-
ity requirements for aggregates used in concrete include limits on gradations and quantities of
deleterious materials. Quality tests with which the aggregates must comply include LAA loss
(<40%), freeze-thaw loss after 16 cycles (<12%), and magnesium sulfate soundness loss for the
coarse fractions after five cycles (<15%) (Minnesota DOT 2005, 2016).
For HMA layers, Iowa DOT specifies five different aggregate classes (Types 1–5), mainly based
on frictional characteristics. Aggregates within Type 1 have the best frictional properties and have
the highest hardness values, ranging from 7 to 9 on Mohs scale of hardness. Type 1 includes sev-
eral synthetic aggregates, Type 2 natural aggregates include crushed quartzite, Type 3 is crushed
gravel with >40% igneous and metamorphic rocks, and Types 4 and 5 are crushed dolomite and
limestone, respectively. Iowa DOT accepts the use of any aggregate material of the five types in
their HMA mixes unless otherwise specified in the contract to use a certain class of aggregates
(Iowa DOT 2016). Furthermore, Iowa DOT also divides aggregates for HMA into two broader
types: Type A and Type B. Type A is for higher volume road applications and surface coarse
mixtures (Iowa DOT 2017). Note that some agencies do not allow (or limit) the utilization of
a certain aggregate for construction of a specific pavement layer. For example, Minnesota DOT
specifications do not allow the use of crushed concrete aggregates or RCA in wearing surface
courses (Minnesota DOT 2016).
Participating transportation agencies reported the required quality classes for different types
of aggregates used for the construction of asphalt surface course. The results are summarized
in Table 4-7. The number of quality classes established by different agencies have been listed
in Table 4-6.
4.4.2 Asphalt Base Course

Iowa DOT has two general classes for aggregates in HMA: Type A (higher quality) and Type B
(lower quality). The use of Type B aggregates is listed for asphalt base course applications as well as
Table 4-7. Quality classes for aggregates used in asphalt surface course.
Type of Aggregate
Agency
Fine Virgin Coarse Virgin RAP RCA SFS BFS
Alaska - A, B, Superpave - - - -
Designation 1
Alberta - Classes 10,12.5, - - - -
16 mm
Illinois B B B B B B
Indiana - B - - B B
Traffic RAP from
Traffic
Categories A, Category D and
Ontario Categories A, B, - - -
B, C, D, E Category E
C, D, E
mixes
1, 2, 3,
Tennessee 1, 2, 3, 4 - - - -
4
Surface
Aggregate
Texas - Classification A - - - -
or B as indicated
by plans
Paving
Yukon Sand mix Aggregate - - - -
12.5 mm
Note: Hyphens indicate no quality class has been established for certain types of aggregates. Refer to Appendix D,
in which links to agency specifications are provided.

for low-volume and secondary roads (Iowa DOT 2017). Minnesota DOT permits the use of sev-
eral different aggregate classes for plant-mixed asphalt mixtures, including (1) Class A crushed
igneous rocks; (2) Class B crushed rock other than Class A; (3) Class C natural or partially
crushed gravel; (4) Class D crushed natural gravel; (5) Class E mixture of two or more aggregates
from Classes A, B, and D; (6) steel slag in a proportion of 25% or less of the total aggregates mix;
(7) RAP, for which the quality must be checked for the final angularity of the mixture, Los Angeles
Rattler test (Minnesota DOT Procedure 1210) and soundness (Minnesota DOT Procedure
1219), spall materials and lumps (Minnesota DOT Procedure 1219), as well as insoluble residue
test (Minnesota DOT Procedure 1221); and (8) RCA or crushed concrete with a proportion not
exceeding 50% of the total mix (Minnesota DOT 2016).
Participating transportation agencies reported the required quality classes for fine and
coarse virgin aggregates, RAP, RCA, SFS, and BFS used for construction of asphalt base
course. The results are summarized in Table 4-8. Note that the description for each aggre-
gate quality class can be found in the relevant agency specifications with links provided in
Appendix D.
4.4.3 Asphalt Surface Treatment

Different agencies have specifications for the quality of the aggregate materials used for asphalt
surface treatments. For example, Michigan DOT specifies requirements for fine aggregates used
in HMA and surface treatments. For slurry seals, Michigan DOT requires using a fine aggregate
material complying to their 2FA gradation band. The fines can consist of crushed material,
gravel, slag, or a blend and must have LAA loss not exceeding 45%. For microsurfacing, Michigan
DOT allows using 2FA or 3FA fine gradations and the fine aggregate material must have an
angularity index exceeding 4, a sand equivalent exceeding 60%, and LAA loss not exceeding 45%
(Michigan DOT 2009). Virginia DOT uses emulsion asphalt and aggregates conforming to the
No. 8 or No. 8P gradations for surface treatment (Virginia DOT 2012).
For microsurfacing treatments, Minnesota DOT specifies the use of Class A aggregates or
taconite tailings. A blend of Class A and Class B aggregates is also allowed if the quantity of
material passing the 3/8-in. (9.5 mm) sieve and retained on sieve mesh No.16 (1.18 mm) is 90%
or greater by weight from the Class A aggregates, taconite tailings, or a mixture of both (Minnesota
DOT 2016). The quality requirements for durability for aggregates used for microsurfacing are
listed in Table 4-9, which is adapted from Minnesota DOT (2016).
Table 4-8. Quality classes for aggregates used in construction of asphalt base course.
Type of Aggregate
Agency
Alaska - A, B, Superpave - - - -
Designation 1
Alberta - - - - -
Class 25 mm
Illinois C C C C - C
Indiana - D - - D D
Traffic Traffic
Ontario Categories A, B, Categories A, B, - - - -
C, D, E C, D, E
Fines
Yukon between 3%– Granular "A" - - - -
10%
in which the links to agency specifications are provided.

Table 4-9. Minnesota DOT aggregate quality requirements for aggregates used
in microsurfacing applications.
Microsurfacing Aggregate Durability Requirements

(originally Table 3139-11 in specification)
Tests on Aggregate Test Requirement, %
Sand equivalent AASHTO T 176 ≥ 60
Abrasion and resistance* AASHTO T 96 ≤ 30
Soundness (using MgSO4)+ AASHTO T 104 ≤ 25
* Use Grade C for Type 3 material. Use Grade D for Type 1 and Type 2 material.
+ Perform the soundness test on the Class B aggregate of the blend, if applicable.
Participating transportation agencies reported the required quality classes for fine and coarse
virgin aggregates, RAP, RCA, SFS, and BFS used for construction of asphalt surface treatment.
The results are summarized in Table 4-10.
4.4.4 Portland Cement Concrete

For coarse aggregates used in PCC, AASHTO M 80, Standard Specification for Coarse Aggre-
gate for Hydraulic Cement Concrete, divides aggregates into five classes from A to E, based on
abrasion resistance, sodium sulfate soundness, quantities of clay lumps and deleterious materials,
and the percentage of fines passing No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve. The specification proposes using
the Types A through C for concrete bridge decks and Types B through D for concrete pavements,
based on the degree of exposure to weathering (severe, moderate, or negligible), with higher
quality aggregates used for higher severity of weathering. These five classes of aggregates and the
quality requirements for each class are given in Table 4-11 (AASHTO 2013).
For RCA aggregates used in hydraulic cement concrete applications, including PCC pavements,
AASHTO MP 16 divides the RCA aggregates into three classes based on the maximum allow-
able quantities of deleterious materials found in the aggregates. These three classes are listed
in Table 4-12 (Reza and Wilde 2017, adapted from AASHTO 2015), and the quantities of
Table 4-10. Quality classes for aggregates used in construction of asphalt

surface treatment.
Type of Aggregate
Agency
Alaska A to G gradations - - - -
Seal Coat - Designation 3
Alberta - Classes 12.5A, 12.5B, - - - -
12.5C, and 16 mm
Illinois B B - B B B
Indiana - B - - B B
Gradation Gradation
Ontario - - - -
Classes 2, 4 Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Surface Aggregate
Texas - Classification A or B as - - - -
indicated by plans
Fines not Coarse

Yukon - - - -
more than 5% aggregate 20 mm
in which links to agency specifications are provided.

Table 4-11. Aggregate classes and aggregate quality requirements for coarse
aggregates used in concrete pavements.
Maximum Allowable (%)

Chert Sum of Clay Material
Clay
(≤ 2.40 Lumps, Friable Finer than Coal Sodium
Class Lumps
Specific Particles, and 75-µm and b Sulfate
Designation and Abrasion
Gravity Chert (≤ 2.40 (No. 200) Lignite Soundness
Friable
SSD)a Specific Gravity Sieve (5 Cycles)c
Particles
SSD)a
d
A 2.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 0.5 50 12
d
B 3.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 0.5 50 12
d
C 5.0 5.0 7.0 1.0 0.5 50 12
d
D 5.0 8.0 10.0 1.0 0.5 50 12
d
E 10.0 — — 1.0 1.0 50 —
Note: SSD = saturated surface dry. Dashes represent that no limit has been established.
a These limitations apply only to aggregate in which chert appears as an impurity. They are not applicable to gravels that
are predominantly chert. Limitations on soundness of such aggregate must be based on service records in the
environment in which they are used.
b Crushed air-cooled, BFS is excluded from the abrasion requirements. The unit mass (by rodding or jigging) of crushed
air-cooled, BFS shall be not less than 1,120 kg/m3 (70 lb/ft3). The grading of slag used in the unit mass test shall
conform to the grading to be used in the concrete. Abrasion loss of gravel, crushed gravel, or crushed stone shall be
determined on the test size or sizes most nearly corresponding to the grading or gradings to be used in the concrete.
When more than one grading is to be used, the limit on abrasion loss shall apply to each.
c The allowable limits for soundness shall be 18% if magnesium sulfate is used. If the salt to be used is not designated,
the aggregate will be acceptable if it meets the indicated limit for either sodium sulfate or magnesium sulfate.
d In the case of crushed aggregates, if the material finer than the 75-µm (No. 200) sieve consists of the dust fraction,
essentially free from clay or shale, this percentage may be increased to 1.5.
deleterious substances for each quality class were previously listed in Table 3-8 (AASHTO 2015).
Similarly, Butler et al. (2013) proposed to divide RCA aggregates into four quality classes, in
which an aggregate material must meet at least three of the four quality property requirements
to be associated with a class, as listed in Table 4-13 (adapted from Butler et al. 2013).
Iowa DOT divides coarse aggregates used in concrete pavements into three classes based on
durability levels as Class 2, Class 3, and Class 3i, in which Class 3i is the most durable one. Dura-
bility of aggregates is determined based on performance monitoring and results of laboratory
testing (Iowa DOT 2016).
Minnesota DOT divides aggregates used in PCC into five classes. Class A includes crushed
aggregates from quarries with rock types such as gneiss (metamorphic rock), quartzite, and
granite. Class B typically covers all non-Class A crushed rocks. Class C includes natural and
partially crushed gravels, while Class D is a mixture of two or more classes of aggregates. Finally,
Class R is for RCA aggregates and requires a concrete engineer to decide on the possibility and
proportioning of these aggregates that can be used in PCC applications (Minnesota DOT 2016).
virgin aggregates, RAP, RCA, SFS, and BFS used for construction of PCC slabs. The results are
Table 4-12. Aggregate classes for RCA in concrete applications.

Table 4-13. Proposed aggregate property limits for RCA classes

considering performance.
Numbera Aggregate Property Class A1 Class A2 Class B Class C

Relative density (oven Refer to Part 2 of
1 2.3 and above 2.0 to 2.3 Below 2.0
dry) Table 4-13
2 % adhered mortarb below or to the 50 and below Above 50 Above 50
Canadian Standards
3 Absorption (%) 3 or less 3 to 6 6 or greater
Association
Abrasion loss (micro - CAN/CSA A23.1-09
4 19 to 22 22 to 25 Above 25
deval method) (%) (2009)
a To be designated as Class A2, B, or C, at least three of the four aggregate properties tested must fall within the
range defined by a specific class.
b Determined by using thermal treatment method (Fathifazl 2008) or other suitable method that ensures complete
removal of adhered mortar.
Natural
Coarse Aggregate Property Aggregates RCA-1 RCA-2 RCA-3
Adhered mortar content (%)a na 46 56 50

Relative density (SSD) 2.71 2.48 2.43 2.41
Relative density (oven dry) 2.67 2.36 2.28 2.22
Oven-dry rodded bulk density (kg/m3)b 1,744 1 ,536 1,458 1,395
Absorption % (by mass) 1.52 4.66 6.15 7.81
Absorption rate (h)c 2 4 7 8
Abrasion resistance (%)d 11.9 15.1 22.1 25.0
Aggregate crushing value 18.2 23.1 26.0 28.5
Note: na = not applicable; natural aggregates contain no adhered mortar.
a
Based on the thermal expansion method proposed by De Juan and Gutiérrez (2009).
b
To convert from kg/m3 to lb./yd3 multiply values by 1.69.
c
Time required for the aggregate to reach its SSD condition.
d
Abrasion loss was determined using the micro-deval method (percent mass loss).
summarized in Table 4-14. Note that the description for each aggregate quality class can be
found in the relevant links to agency specifications presented in Appendix D.
4.4.5 Aggregate Base Course

The following properties of recycled aggregates have been identified by NCHRP Report 598 as
relevant to their use in unbound pavement layers (Saeed 2008): (1) shear strength, (2) California
bearing ratio (CBR), (3) cohesion and angle of internal friction, (4) resilient or compressive
modulus, (5) density, (6) permeability, (7) frost resistance, (8) durability index, and (9) resistance
to moisture damage (Saeed 2008).
California DOT (Caltrans) specifies the use of two aggregate classes for base course materials
according to Class 2 and Class 3 designations. The classes are based on aggregate gradation,
Table 4-14. Quality classes for aggregates used in Portland cement

concrete pavements.
Type of Aggregate
Agency
Illinois A A - A - A
Indiana - AP - - AP AP
Types 1, 2,
Tennessee - Types 1, 2, 3, 4 - - -
3, 4
Note: Hyphens indicate no quality class has been established. Refer to Appendix D, in which links to agency specifications
are provided.

compliance to certain operational criteria, property ranges, and contract compliance for the
sand equivalent, durability index, and R-value tests. Caltrans requires that the durability tests
be conducted on the untreated aggregates for eligibility of use in treated base applications. For
example, the grain size distribution and the quality requirements for a Class 2 aggregate used for
base materials are listed in Table 4-15 (Caltrans 2015).
Similarly, Colorado DOT identifies seven classes for aggregates used in base layers, with
Aggregate Base Course (ABC) Class 6 being the predominant class of aggregates used through-
out the state. According to Colorado DOT, the PI for aggregates used in ABC layer does not
exceed 6. Additionally, the LL values for aggregates used in ABC do not exceed 36 for aggregate
Class 1, 2, and 3 or Class 30 for aggregate Classes 4 through 7 (Locander 2009). Locander (2009)
also proposed that the requirements for RAP used as a base course material had to be similar to
those of Classes 4 through 7, with a PI of less than 6 and an LL lower than 30.
NCHRP Synthesis 598 studied the feasibility of using RAP as a construction material in unbound
layers. Laboratory tests conducted on blends of RAP and other virgin aggregates indicated that
based on toughness, stiffness, and monotonic triaxial testing-based strength characteristics, RAP
was identified as a suitable construction material in unbound aggregate layers for high-volume
roads in nonfreezing conditions. Repeated load triaxial tests indicated the suitability of RAP in
unbound layers for moderate traffic levels in nonfreezing temperatures (Saeed 2008).
Different agencies have different regulations regarding the usage of RAP and its proportioning
in unbound aggregate layers (Hoppe et al. 2015). Hawaii DOT allows use for up to 10% RAP by
weight in base course layers but requires information on the composition of the stockpiled RAP
before usage and limits the maximum quantity of deleterious materials in RAP to 3%. Composi-
tion might be known for previous DOT projects, and when the composition is unknown, samples
are collected to check the gradation and the quantities of deleterious materials. Minnesota DOT
allows a maximum of 3.5% of binder content in aggregate base layers (determined by extraction).
Table 4-15. Aggregate gradation and quality requirements for a Class 2 aggregate
material used as a base course material by California DOT (Caltrans).
Percentage Passing
1-1/2" Maximum 3/4" Maximum
Sieve
Size Operating Contract Operating Contract
Range Compliance Range Compliance
2" 100 100 - -

1-1/2" 90–100 87–100 - -
1" - - 100 100
3/4" 50–85 45–90 90–100 87–100
No. 4 25–45 20–50 35–60 30–65
No. 30 10–25 6–29 10–30 5–35
No. 200 2–9 0–12 2–9 0–12
Requirement
Test for Aggregate Quality Operating Range Contract
Compliance
Resistance (R-value, minimum) - 78

Sand equivalent (minimum) 25 22
Durability index (minimum) - 35
Note: Hyphens indicate no quality class has been established.

Texas DOT and Washington State DOT allow a maximum of 20% RAP by weight in unbound
aggregate bases. Texas DOT allows up to 50% RAP by weight in cement-treated base layers.
Wisconsin DOT has no limits on the quantity of RAP used in 1¼-in. and 3-in. top size dense-
graded aggregate base layers.
virgin aggregates, RAP, RCA, SFS, and BFS used for construction of aggregate base course. The
results are summarized in Table 4-16. Note that the description for each aggregate quality class
can be found in the relevant links to agency specifications presented in Appendix D.
4.4.6 Aggregate Subbase Course

Michigan DOT is one of the few agencies that provide specifications for aggregate materi-
als used in subbase layers. Michigan DOT requires aggregates used for subbase layers to pass
their permeability design considerations and does not allow materials with cementitious
properties or foundry sands to be used as a subbase or fill material (Michigan DOT 2009). As
summarized by Hoppe et al. (2015), Hawaii DOT allows usage for up to 25% RAP by weight
in unbound subbase layers but requires information on the composition of the stockpiled
RAP before use and limits the maximum quantity of deleterious materials in RAP to 5%.
Idaho Transportation Department allows mixing RAP with other granular materials for up
to 50:50 proportion and limits the maximum RAP aggregates size to 3 in. (76 mm). Iowa
DOT allows up to 50% of RAP by weight in unbound aggregate subbases. Minnesota DOT
allows a maximum of 3% of binder content in aggregate subbase (determined by extraction)
(Hoppe et al. 2015).
virgin aggregates, RAP, RCA, SFS, and BFS used for construction of aggregate subbase course. The
results are presented in Table 4-17. Note that the description for each aggregate quality class can
be found in the relevant links to agency specifications presented in Appendix D.
4.4.7 Permeable Drainage Layer

Kazmierowski et al. (1994) evaluated the field performances of several types of open-graded
base course permeable layers, including layers stabilized with 200 and 300 lb/yd3 cement, asphalt
stabilized with 1.8% binder content, and unstabilized aggregates. The quality was checked for
all the aggregates used with 100% crushed faces. All the layers showed relatively low falling
Table 4-16. Quality classes for aggregates used in construction of aggregate

base course.
Type of Aggregate
Agency
Alaska - C-1 and D-1 gradations - - - -
Designation 2 Class 20,
Alberta - - - - -
Class 25, and 40 mm
Illinois - D - D - D
Indiana - D - - D D
Ontario - Granular A, M, or O - - - -
Fines not
Yukon more than Granular A - - - -
6%
Note: Hyphens indicate no quality class has been established. Refer to Appendix D, in which links to agency
specifications are provided.

Table 4-17. Quality classes for aggregates used in construction of aggregate

subbase course.
Agency Type of Aggregate

Alaska - A to E gradations - - - -
Designation 6 Class
Alberta - - - - -
80 or 125 mm
Illinois - D - D - D
Indiana - D - - D D
Ontario - Granular BI, BII, or BIII - - - -
Fines not
Granular
Yukon more than - - - -
B, C, or E
8%
weight deflectometer deflections on top of the drainage layers. These were typically 19 mils for
the unstabilized aggregates and 13 mils for the cement-stabilized open-graded drainage layers
(Kazmierowski et al. 1994).
Michigan DOT allows four classes of granular materials, I through IV, with gradations as
listed in Table 4-18 (adapted from Grove 2004), to be used for porous fill materials.
Participating transportation agencies reported on the required quality classes for fine
and coarse virgin aggregates, RAP, RCA, SFS, and BFS used for construction of permeable
drainage pavement layer. The results are summarized in Table 4-19. Although Michigan
DOT did not report any quality classes, their aggregate specification lists four different
gradation-based classes.
Table 4-18. Aggregate gradations for aggregate classes used as a porous

fill in Michigan.
Total Percent Passing Sieve Size (%) Loss by

Material
Washing*
Class 3 in. 2.5 in. 2 in. 1 in. 0.5 in. No. 4 No. 30 No. 100 (%)
(75 (63 (50 (25 (12.5 (4.75 (0.595 (0.149
mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm)
I 100 45–85 20–85 5–30 0–5
II 100 60–100 0–30 0–7
III** 100 0–10
IV*** 100 0–25
* Loss by washing had to be determined on the portion of the sample passing the 1.5-in. sieve.
** Maximum size could be increased to 6 in. if used as peat swamp backfill.
*** Could be used only for fill or backfill below the bottom of subbase at locations on the plans or if authorized.
Table 4-19. Quality classes for aggregates used in construction of permeable

drainage pavement layer.
Type of Aggregate
Agency
Illinois B D - D - D
Indiana - D - - D D

Figure 4-3. Filter layer used in permeable subbases as the foundation of

concrete pavements.
4.4.8 Filter Material for PCC Pavements

Permeable subbases are generally constructed as the foundation of concrete pavements by
using crushed aggregates with reduced amount of fines. They are often constructed where previ-
ous experience has indicated pavement faulting and pumping are observed distresses of concern.
Most agencies place a layer of dense graded aggregates between the permeable subbase and
subgrade to act as a filter layer (see Figure 4-3) (ACPA 1995). The filter materials used in these
layers need to satisfy certain aggregate quality and gradation requirements.
Participating transportation agencies reported on the required quality classes for fine and
coarse virgin aggregates, RAP, RCA, SFS, and BFS used for construction of filter layer. Illinois
DOT reported that they use “quality Class B” for virgin fine aggregates and “quality Class D” for
coarse virgin, RCA, and BFS aggregates used in filter layer. Additionally, Alberta province indi-
cated that they use “Designation 8 Class 25 mm” for coarse virgin aggregates for the construction
of filter layer. Further details about these quality classes can be found in Appendix D, in which
the links to agency specifications are provided.

CHAPTER 5
Aggregate Quality Affecting

5.1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the aggregate-related pavement performance records and how qual-
ity may be linked to the behavior of individual pavement layers under traffic loading and envi-
ronmental conditions. This includes effects of aggregate quality and source issues on strength,
modulus, permanent deformation, and durability characteristics of bound and unbound layers
in constructed pavement structures. The common aggregate quality-related pavement distresses
reported by transportation agencies will also be presented herein. Finally, environmental
and performance-related concerns experienced by transportation agencies regarding the use of
recycled (e.g., RAP and RCA) and artificial/byproduct aggregates (e.g., SFS, BFS, and quarry
byproducts) will be discussed.
Aggregate quality checks are needed to ensure good performance of aggregates in various pave-
ment layer applications. Source properties affecting the quality of individual aggregate particles
and the ultimate performance of the pavement structure can be related to aggregate’s physical,
chemical, and mechanical properties. In NCHRP Report 598, Saeed (2008) summarized the main
source properties in recycled aggregates that can influence the performance of different layers of
pavement. These properties also apply to virgin aggregate materials used in pavement applications
and are summarized in Table 5-1 (after Saeed 2008). Shear strength of aggregates (mainly recycled
aggregates) was identified as the main quality performance measure when used in structural layers
of flexible and rigid pavements (Saeed 2008). A list of aggregate properties and their influences on
the different pavement layer applications is presented in Table 5-2 (after Saeed 2008).
5.2 Pavement Distresses and Aggregate Quality

5.2.1 Flexible Pavements
Because aggregate materials constitute more than 90% of flexible pavements, they can highly
influence the overall performance, load carrying capacity, and type and rate of distresses in
asphalt concrete layers. The two common distresses for asphalt pavements are rutting and fatigue
cracking. Several aggregate properties can influence the type and severity of distresses that develop
in flexible pavements. NCHRP Report 598 studied some of the main distresses that appear in
flexible pavements, the recycled aggregate source properties that influence these distresses, and
the related quality measures to check these source properties (Saeed 2008). A summary of the
findings is presented in Table 5-3 (after Saeed 2008).
NCHRP Report 539 evaluated several aggregate properties that can influence the perfor-
mance of HMA mixtures designed by the Superpave method. The aggregate properties that
influence performance are (1) coarse aggregate angularity, (2) flat and elongated particles,
59

Table 5-1. Recycled aggregates source properties that can influence

pavement performance.
Physical properties Chemical properties Mechanical properties
Table 5-2. Relevance of recycled aggregates source properties to different

pavement layer applications.
Relevance of Mass Property to the Use of Recycled Material as

Mass Property of
Material Structural Construction Drainage Frost Control Select fill
layer platform layer blanket pumping
Table 5-3. Flexible pavement performance measures and the link

to recycled aggregate source properties.
Performance Related aggregate Test measures

parameter property

Aggregate Quality Affecting Pavement Performance 61
(3) fine aggregate angularity, and (4) sand equivalent (Prowell et al. 2005). Other source
properties tested include abrasion loss by LAA or micro-deval, sulfate soundness, and the
quantities of deleterious materials. The aggregate consensus properties are also determined
for the aggregate blends used in HMA mixes. NCHRP Report 539 states that coarse aggregate
angularity influences the rutting performance of HMA mixes, but it is uncertain if fine
aggregate angularity relates to rutting performance of HMA mixes. The sand equivalent
test relates to the possibility of moisture damage of asphalt mixtures due to poor adhesion
of the binder to the aggregates coated by clay-size particles. The correlation between flat
and elongated ratio and fatigue resistance of asphalt mixtures is controversial as mentioned
in different studies, while the properties of the fine aggregates in HMA can predominantly
control fatigue cracking resistance (Prowell et al. 2005).
Aggregate particle angularity or number/percentage of fractured surfaces has been reported as
one of the most significant factors affecting rutting performance of asphalt pavements (Parker
and Brown 1998). They concluded that mixes with crushed aggregates and highly angular natu-
ral sand showed better rutting performance. Similarly, it was identified through field evaluation
that using rounded coarse aggregates and uncrushed natural aggregates in asphalt mixtures is
one of the main factors contributing to rutting (Button et al. 1990).
A state-of-the-art study by Zaumanis and Mallick (2015) for using high RAP contents (> 40%)
in asphalt plant mixes proposed putting extra efforts into the design and evaluation of RAP,
including proper mixing with the virgin aggregates, the evaluation of the RAP aggregate prop-
erties after binder extraction, and checking the dust content of the RAP, to ensure good field
performance for rutting, fatigue, and longevity (Zaumanis and Mallick 2015). Abdelrahman
et al. (2010) reported a strong relation between the quality of coarse aggregates used in HMA and
performance: aggregate chemical composition can affect moisture susceptibility and bonding to
the asphalt binder; weak bonding between the aggregates and binder in the presence of excessive
deleterious materials such as clay lumps can result in spalling, raveling, and stripping; pavement
aggregate abrasion can be highly correlated to magnesium sulfate soundness and micro-deval
abrasion (Abdelrahman et al. 2010).
The quality for aggregates used in HMA was reported to be influenced by the practices and
techniques adopted by the quarries, aggregate plants, asphalt mixing plant operations, and prac-
tices during construction, which ultimately influence the performance (Vazquez et al. 2010).
MS-16: Asphalt in Pavement Preservation and Maintenance related several asphalt pavement dis-
tresses to the quality of aggregates used in HMA mixes: block cracking can result from using
absorptive fine aggregates with low asphalt penetration, corrugations or shoving can result from
using rounded/smooth aggregates, polished aggregates at the surface can result from using soft
aggregates, and aggregate loss from surface treatments can result from using dusty aggregates
(Asphalt Institute 2009). Similarly, Adlinge and Gupta (2013) reported that corrugation, raveling,
and polishing can result from aggregate quality issues in HMA, including the use of smooth-
textured coarse aggregates, loss of adhesion between binder and aggregates, aggregate breakage,
and aggregate wear (Adlinge and Gupta 2013).
Pan (2006) investigated the effect of morphological shape properties (i.e., angularity, flat and
elongated ratio, and surface texture) on the rutting performance of 46 flexible pavement test
sections constructed at the National Center for Asphalt Technology test track. Each of the three
shape properties was individually correlated to the performance of the different test sections.
The University of Illinois Aggregate Image Analyzer (UIAIA) was used to acquire and process
images of aggregate particles to identify imaging-based shape properties. All three morpho-
logical shape properties individually showed good correlation with the rutting performance of
asphalt mixes. Surface texture showed the highest correlation, with coefficient of determination
equal to 0.94 and the lowest p-value for a statistical t-test (see Figure 5-1).

(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 5-1. Aggregate shape properties and rutting performance of National Center for Asphalt
Technology asphalt mixes showing (a) correlation with surface texture index, (b) correlation with flat
and elongated ratio, and (c) correlation with angularity index (Pan 2006).
Moaveni et al. (2014) combined the micro-deval weight loss values with the imaging-based
shape property results of two different imaging systems: Enhanced University of Illinois Aggre-
gate Image Analyzer and a second-generation Aggregate Imaging System (AIMS-II) for the
evaluation of the tendency of aggregates to polishing, breakage, and abrasion. The two systems
similarly classified 11 types of aggregates into four categories according to resistance to breakage
and abrasion (Moaveni et al. 2014).
This tendency to polishing correlates with the frictional properties of the asphalt surface layers
for aggregates used in HMA mixes, as reported by Mahmoud and Perales (2015). Mahmoud and
Ortiz (2014) developed aggregate polishing curves at different time intervals with micro-deval,
which proved that retention characteristics and changes in surface texture characteristics were
dependent on aggregates mineralogy.
In cold regions, if soft aggregate sources are used in the construction of flexible pavements,
depressions would be developed in the wheel paths (wear-induced rutting) due to excessive sur-
face abrasion caused by studded tires. The effect of using hard aggregates to reduce the flexible
pavement wear caused by studded tires has been studied in Alaska, where high-quality aggregates

are not readily available. According to the cost-effectiveness and performance records collected,
pavement performance could be increased by 1.4 to 1.9 times by using harder aggregates con-
forming to the Nordic abrasion specification (Frith et al. 2004).
Participating transportation agencies listed the aggregate quality-related flexible pavement
distresses they have experienced. In total, 29 U.S. DOTs and eight Canadian provinces indicated
at least one aggregate quality-related flexible pavement distress. The most commonly reported
distresses are listed as follows. Refer to Appendix C for a detailed compilation of the individual
distresses reported by each agency.
• Stripping, debonding, raveling, popouts/pickouts or breakdown of coarse aggregate
• Aggregate polishing
• Longitudinal cracking, block cracking, thermal cracking, joint cracking, and fatigue cracking
• Joint problems
• Rutting and shoving
• Aggregate moisture or freeze-thaw damage
• Rapid oxidation caused by using high amount of RAP aggregate
Stripping and polishing in flexible pavements were found to be the most common aggregate-
related distresses reported by agencies.
5.2.2 Rigid Pavements

Rigid pavements are very durable if adequately designed and high-quality materials and good
construction practices are used. The effect of aggregate on PCC pavement performance has been
well documented by many researchers (Delatte 2014). Moreover, service conditions such as
temperature, humidity, and induced loads are among the factors that add complexity to design
and construction of concrete pavements. PCC pavement performance can be assessed through
consideration of each aggregate-related distress type observed in predominant PCC pavement
types, including jointed plain concrete, jointed reinforced concrete, and continuously reinforced
concrete pavements. Poor performance of PCC pavements can often be attributed to different
qualities and properties of the aggregates used to construct the PCC. For example, NCHRP
Report 598 listed cracking, pumping, faulting, and roughness as the most common distresses of
rigid pavements constructed with recycled aggregates, along with aggregate source properties
that influence these distresses as well as the proposed quality measures to check them (Saeed
2008). A summary of the findings is presented in Table 5-4 (after Saeed 2008).
Darter et al. (1979) identified low aggregate quality as one of the major causes of distresses in
CRCP. Similarly, Hanna (2003) summarized aggregate quality aspects closely linked to predominant
Table 5-4. Rigid pavement performance measures and the link

to recycled aggregate source properties.
Performance Related aggregate

Test measures
parameter property

distresses in PCC pavements. According to Hanna (2003), the quality indicators for aggregates
that can significantly affect the performance of concrete pavements were mainly divided into
five categories: (1) physical properties, (2) mechanical properties, (3) chemical and petrographic
properties, (4) durability properties, and (5) others. The report summarizes common distress
types and the aggregate properties related to each distress type for all concrete pavements, specif-
ically for jointed plain concrete pavements (corner breaks and faulting) and CRCP (punchouts).
The summary of findings is presented in Table 5-5, which lists the aggregate properties that con-
tribute to common distresses or performance parameters and the mechanisms leading to those
distresses or parameters. A summary of the performance parameters and the corresponding
aggregate properties are also presented in Table 5-6. Mineralogy, morphological shape properties,
abrasion resistance, coefficient of thermal expansion, and texture are common aggregate
properties related to the different performance parameters in concrete pavements. In conclusion,
as indicated in Tables 5-5 and 5-6 (both after Hanna 2003), aggregate properties and the quality
significantly influence rigid pavement performance.
As part of the survey questionnaire, information was collected from participating trans-
portation agencies regarding rigid pavement distresses attributed to aggregate quality aspects.
Twenty-seven U.S. DOTs and four Canadian provinces indicated that at least one aggregate
quality aspect contributed to a rigid pavement distress. The commonly reported distresses are
listed as follows. Refer to Appendix C for a detailed compilation of the individual distresses
reported by each agency.
• ASR and resulting cracking issues
• Cracking associated with coefficient of thermal expansion of coarse aggregate
• Sulfate attack
• Carbonate reactivity of both coarse and fine aggregates
• Polishing of fine aggregate
• Durability cracking, freeze-thaw expansion, and staining
• D-cracking and map cracking
• Clay balls/lightweight pieces may affect concrete surface, strength, and durability
• Popouts and corner breaks
• Joint spalling, joint faulting, and scaling
ASR and resulting cracking issues were found to be the common rigid pavement distress
linked to aggregate quality reported by agencies. ASR usually results in random cracking at the
surface of the concrete and is caused by excessive internal expansion. The most reactive aggre-
gate contains opal, chalcedony, and certain forms of chert (opaline and chalcedonic cherts),
volcanic glass, or siliceous impurities. Many igneous rock types that are acidic are potentially
reactive (Thomas et al. 2013).
PCC is unique in the significant degree to which it can be adversely affected by the destructive
forces caused by cycles of freezing and thawing. With respect to the important effects of repeated
freezing and thawing, the colder winter months of the northern states are not necessarily more
unfavorable than the warmer southern winters of the southern regions. While freeze-thaw
related damage may be caused by as few as 2 or 3 cycles of freezing per year (Janssen et al. 1986),
greater numbers of freeze-thaw cycles generally lead to greater damage. Thus, a milder climate
with frequent thaws during the day can be more severe than a colder climate that stays frozen.
This can be especially true at higher elevations that thaw daily but re-freeze at night (Barksdale
1991, Vanderhorst and Janssen 1990). Aggregate-related freeze-thaw damage to concrete pave-
ments is often manifested by D-cracking that occurs at pavement joints and cracks, which results
in the eventual disintegration of the concrete near the joint.
Aggregates with D-cracking potential are often identified by testing with AASHTO T 161
(ASTM C666), though this procedure can take 8 weeks or more to complete. A rapid test

Table 5-5. Concrete pavement performance parameters and the corresponding aggregate properties.
Manifestation Mechanisms PCC properties Aggregate properties
type parameter

Table 5-6. Aggregate properties determining quality linked to corresponding concrete pavement
performance parameters.
Note: AAR = alkali-aggregate reactivity.

* Because roughness is affected by the presence of distresses, any aggregate properties that influence the development of those distresses will also influence the development
if roughness.
** Surface friction is mainly affected by the polish resistance of fine aggregates because of the presence of the mortar-rich layer at the top surface of PCC pavements.
procedure called the hydraulic fracture test was developed as part of the Strategic Highway
Research Program. This test procedure requires eight working days rather than eight weeks
to complete. Though not considered precise enough to use as an aggregate rejection test, the
procedure does have merit as a screening test (Janssen and Snyder 1994, Snyder et al. 1996).
The identification of some D-cracking aggregates has proved difficult because the aggregates
only appear to produce D-cracking after exposure to deicing salt. Some efforts have been made
to identify these aggregates by pretreating the aggregates with sodium chloride prior to making
AASHTO T 161 concrete specimens (Dubberke and Marks 1985).
Desta et al. (2015) described the redevelopment of the hydraulic fracture test equipment with
major renovations, sample preparation procedures, and analysis of results to produce a reliable
8-day test that predicts the results of the 90-day AASHTO T 161 test with significant accuracy.
Indiana DOT has developed a new testing specification based on the new hydraulic fracture test
(Desta et al. 2015). The new hydraulic fracture test is a simpler, quicker test using equipment that
is less expensive to buy and maintain than equipment used for AASHTO T 161, which can lead
to both cost reduction and cost avoidance. With a quicker test, aggregate quality can be ensured,
especially if the aggregate source needs to be changed during construction or for sources with
highly variable aggregate quality, making these sources a more viable option.

5.2.3 Unsurfaced Pavements

The Massachusetts Unpaved Roads Best Management Practices Manual: A Guidebook on How
to Improve Water Quality While Addressing Common Problems describes the main distresses in
unpaved roads as surface deteriorations and surface deformations. Deterioration can be caused
by losing fine materials to the air as dust or losing coarse aggregates from raveling. Deformation
distresses include rutting, depressions, corrugations, and the formation of potholes, caused by poor
gradations or excessive water due to high moisture content or drainage issues (Berkshire Regional
Planning Commission 2001). The FHWA’s gravel roads construction and maintenance guide notes
that the surface gravel used for the construction of unsurfaced pavements (gravel roads) has higher
percentages of sand-sized particles that will facilitate drainage and are easier to bind compared with
conventional base courses that have larger top size particles (FHWA 2015). Due to the criticality of
drainage and binding characteristics, aggregate quality checks are required for constructing good
performing gravel roads. Among the quality tests for aggregates, the percentages of materials passing
the No. 200 (0.075-mm) sieve with a commonly required value to fall between 4% and 15% and
the Atterberg limits test were listed (FHWA 2015).
Participating transportation agencies identified the aggregate quality-related surface treat-
ment or unpaved road distresses they have encountered. In total, 15 U.S. DOTs and six Canadian
provinces indicated at least one aggregate quality-related distress. Those commonly reported
distresses are listed as follows:
• Aggregate breakdown/popouts under traffic (too soft/deleterious), and dirty aggregate
• Bleeding
• Aggregate polishing and loss of frictional properties (most common)
• Chip seals debonding from roadway
• Raveling and delamination
• Rutting
• Surface cracking
• Oxidation
• Stripping of chert gravels
Refer to Appendix C for a detailed compilation of the individual distresses reported by each
agency.
5.3 Aggregate Quality Indicators Linked

to Pavement Performance
5.3.1 Aggregate Quality Indicators
Physical characteristics of the particles affecting load dissipation and interlocking aspects
often differentiate “good quality” from “poor quality” aggregates used in pavement construction.
Chemical properties of the aggregates controlling their durability and soundness are also critical
to ensure long-lasting pavement structures (Tutumluer 2013).
Participating transportation agencies indicated whether they link aggregate quality to the per-
formance of a certain pavement layer. The results showed that 32 U.S. DOTs and seven Canadian
provinces do not collect information regarding how the quality of aggregate used in construction
may affect pavement end performance. Whereas 11 U.S. DOTs and New Brunswick province
indicated that they record or link aggregate quality to the performance and reported certain
specific aggregate quality or source deficiency issues causing poor performance of a certain pave-
ment layer. Accordingly, Table 5-7 lists the number of transportation agencies that linked an
aggregate quality deficiency to a specific performance issue in a given pavement layer. The total

Table 5-7. Number of transportation agencies that reported a link between

an aggregate quality issue and poor performance of a given pavement layer.
Aggregate Quality Pavement Layer

Issue ASC ABC PCC BC SBC DR FI S_BC S_SBC ST
Source deficiency 6 2 5 2 - - - - - 3
Blending 1 - - - - - - - - -
RAP use 6 5 - - - - - - - 2
RCA use - - 1 1 1 - - - - -
SBS use 2 1 1 - - - - - - 1
BFS use 1 - - - - - - - - -
Weathering
3 2 1 - - - - - - 1
soundness
Degradation
2 1 2 1 - - - - - 2
resistance
Polishing resistance 8 - 3 - - - - - - 4
Plasticity of fines 3 2 1 1 - - - - - 1
Mineralogical
1 1 1 - - - - - - 1
composition
Clay content 2 1 2 1 - - - - - 1
Particle shape 1 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Durability:
2 1 5 - - - - - - 1
Freeze-thaw
ASR - - 6 - - - - - - -
Note: Hyphens indicate zero (0) transportation agency. ASC = asphalt surface course, ABC = asphalt base course,
BC = base course, DR = drainage layer, FI = filter layer, SBC = subbase course, S_BC = stabilized base course,
S_SBC = stabilized subbase course, and ST = surface treatment.
is 12 respondents. Refer to Appendix C for a detailed compilation related to individual responses

reported by each agency.
Under repeated traffic loading and environmental conditions, aggregate particles are continu-
ously subjected to degradation through attrition, impact, and grinding- and polishing-type
mechanisms. Physical and chemical properties of aggregates can affect strength, durability,
modulus, and deformation behavior in unbound and bound pavement layers (Tutumluer 2013).
A summary on the physical properties affecting aggregate quality is presented in the following text.
NCHRP Report 405: Aggregate Tests Related to Asphalt Concrete Performance in Pavements
(Kandhal and Parker 1998) identified several aggregate properties that affect the performance
of HMAs. These properties are (1) gradation and size; (2) particle shape, angularity, and surface
texture; (3) porosity and absorption; (4) cleanliness and deleterious materials; (5) toughness and
abrasion; (6) durability and soundness; (7) expansive characteristics; (8) polish resistance and
frictional characteristics; (9) mineralogy and petrography; and (10) chemical properties. The study
investigated several aggregate properties such as particle shape, angularity, and surface texture,
toughness and abrasion, durability and soundness, as well as the properties of fine materials pass-
ing No. 200 (0.075-mm) sieve. According to NCHRP Report 405, the following nine properties of
aggregates are linked to the performance of HMA pavement layers: (1) sieve analysis/gradation is
related to fatigue and permanent deformation; (2) uncompacted voids content of coarse aggregates
is related to fatigue and permanent deformation; (3) flat and elongated ratio of coarse aggregate is
related to fatigue and permanent deformation; (4) uncompacted voids content of fine aggregates
is related to fatigue and permanent deformation; (5) Methylene blue test is related to stripping
and permanent deformation; (6) D60 and D10 gradation properties are related to stripping and
permanent deformation; (7) Methylene blue test of materials passing sieve No. 200 (0.075 mm)

is related to stripping and permanent deformation; (8) micro-deval test is related to potholes,
raveling, and popouts; and (9) magnesium and sulfate soundness are related to potholes, ravel-
ing, and popouts (Kandhal and Parker 1998).
A summary of the aggregate performance tests and correlation values is given in Table 5-8
(Kandhal and Parker 1998). In this table, the correlation coefficient (R) ranges between –1 and 1
and refers to the linear dependence or goodness of fit between a specific test and the performance
of the HMA layer. The significance level (P) refers to the probability of rejecting the null hypoth-
esis when it is true. Higher absolute values of R and lower P values indicate a better correlation
between the prospective test and the performance of the HMA layer.
The research in NCHRP Report 557: Aggregate Tests for Hot-Mix Asphalt Mixtures Used in
Pavements (White et al. 2006) investigated several aggregate performance tests for aggregates
used in asphalt pavements. The study concluded that micro-deval and magnesium sulfate
soundness were important aggregate performance tests for all materials, traffic conditions, and
climates. Accordingly, White et al. (2006) proposed maximum limits of 15% and 20% for micro-
deval and magnesium sulfate soundness tests, respectively.
5.3.2 Mineralogy
Mineral composition of aggregates has a significant effect on the physical and chemical char-
acteristics that ultimately govern the performance of unbound aggregate base or subbase layers
under loading. This is particularly true as far as degradation and polishing due to interparticle
friction is concerned. Calcareous aggregates like limestone and dolomite show significantly lower
resistance to particle degradation and polishing. Therefore, unbound aggregate base or subbase
Table 5-8. Aggregate performance tests and correlation coefficients related

to HMA pavement layer performance.

layers constructed using these aggregates are likely to undergo significant changes in gradation
during compaction and subsequently under traffic loading (Tutumluer 2013).
5.3.3 Plasticity of Fines

Increasing the percentage of fines passing the No. 200 sieve (0.075 mm) in a mix reduces the
permanent deformation resistance (Barksdale 1972, 1991, Thom and Brown 1988). The type
of fines (nonplastic or plastic) in an aggregate layer has also been found to significantly affect
the performance. The results from the Illinois DOT field study, Experimental Feature IL 03-01,
indicated that increased aggregate fines had a significant effect on their performance in working
platform applications (Illinois DOT 2005).
Tutumluer et al. (2009) investigated the effect of the plasticity of fines on the performance of
three different types of unbound aggregates (limestone, dolomite, and uncrushed gravel) under
repeated loading (resilient modulus and permanent deformation tests) and the effect of the
plasticity of fines on moisture susceptibility and strength. The study found that (1) the presence
of low amounts of nonplastic fines in an aggregate layer may not adversely affect the pavement
performance. For plastic fines, however, the values of the immediate bearing value showed
rapid decrease with moisture contents even at low fines contents, thus indicating increased
moisture sensitivity; (2) increasing the amount of fines did not result in significant decreases in
aggregate modulus and strength behavior in the case of nonplastic fines but had a drastic effect in
the case of plastic fines; (3) plasticity of fines (with PI > 10) is the second most important property
that affected aggregate behavior (after particles angularity). High amounts of plastic fines at wet
of optimum quickly destruct the aggregate load transfer matrix and result in excessive permanent
deformations; and (4) for low percentages of nonplastic fines, moisture content did not have
a significant effect on aggregate performance and often aggregate type or angularity was the
governing factor. However, for aggregates with plastic fines, moisture becomes the most governing
factor for aggregate behavior (Tutumluer et al. 2009)
5.3.4 Particle Shape, Surface Texture, and Angularity

The morphological or shape properties of aggregate particles significantly affect the perfor-
mance of unbound/bound layers used as highway pavements. Such constructed aggregate layers
were evaluated in terms of shear strength, modulus, and permanent deformation characteris-
tics (Kandhal and Parker 1998, Meininger 1998, Tutumluer and Pan 2008). Road safety from
the perspective of frictional resistance is a function of pavement microtexture, which is highly
influenced by the magnitude of aggregate surface texture and angularity (Dunford 2013, Forster
1989, Luce et al. 2007).
Increasing particle angularity and roughness was found to increase the resilient modulus and
decrease the Poisson’s ratio (Hicks and Monismith 1971, Allen and Thompson 1974), Thom
(1988, Thom and Brown 1988), Allen (1973) and Barksdale and Itani (1989) found that angular
materials resisted permanent deformation better than rounded particles because of the improved
particle interlock and higher angle of shear resistance between particles. Thom and Brown (1988)
observed that permanent deformation was primarily affected by visible roughness of particles.
Barksdale and Itani (1989) also concluded that blade-shaped, crushed particles are slightly more
susceptible to rutting than other types of crushed aggregate and that cube-shaped, rounded river
gravel with smooth surfaces is more susceptible to rutting than crushed aggregates. Saeed et al.
(2001) showed a linkage between aggregate properties and unbound layer performance and that
aggregate particle angularity and surface texture mostly affected shear strength and stiffness.
Angularity index values measured with UIAIA for 50-50 blends of the crushed stone and
gravel correlated well with the shear strength properties from triaxial tests (Rao et al. 2002).

Furthermore, Pan et al. (2006) studied the effects of particle angularity and surface texture for
21 blends of uncrushed and crushed aggregate sources on the resilient modulus and permanent
deformation behavior of unbound granular materials and concluded that both angularity and
surface texture were closely linked to modulus and deformation.
The effect of aggregate shape, texture, and gradation on the performance of fresh concrete has
also been investigated by Quiroga and Fowler (2004), who observed that aggregate blends with
cubical shape and rounded and smooth particles required less paste at a given slump as opposed
to blends with flat, elongated, angular, and rough-surfaced particles. The effects of shape prop-
erties of aggregates quantified by digital image processing has been studied on the compressive
strength properties of cement concrete (Polat et al. 2013). The study concluded that spherical
particles were desirable for increased compressive strength, unit weight and slump.
The research in NCHRP Synthesis 539 focused on aggregate properties and the performance of
Superpave-designed HMA (Prowell et al. 2005). The study showed that increasing coarse aggregate
fractured faces or angularity increased rutting resistance. Additionally, increased particle index
value or uncompacted voids in coarse aggregates also provided increased rutting resistance. The
latter combines the effect of form (particle shape and often 3-D geometry), angularity, and surface
texture associated with each particle.
The relationship between aggregate surface texture and asphalt pavement skid resistance
was studied by Masad et al. (2007) in Final Report for Highway IDEA Project 114 by using
a second generation of aggregate imaging system (AIMS-II). The findings verified that skid
resistance not only was related to the average aggregate surface texture but also to the texture
distribution within an aggregate sample. Accordingly, aggregate surface texture distribution
could be considered in developing accurate performance models to predict asphalt pavement
skid resistance.
Frictional resistance or skid resistance is an indicator for the performance of asphalt pavements
(Mahmoud and Perales 2015). The frictional resistance is a function of the macrotexture and
microtexture of the pavement surface (Dahir 1979, Mahmoud and Perales 2015). The macro
texture is primarily influenced by the aggregate shape properties of the mix, and the polishing
resistance of aggregates needs to be tested to ensure the quality of the aggregates that are being
used for the surface coarse HMA mixes. Mahmoud and Perales (2015) concluded that surface
texture is a better indicator of aggregates quality to use for ranking aggregate materials for
performance when compared with angularity.
5.3.5 Resistance to Degradation

The most important factors that cause in-service aggregate degradation include (1) material
source properties including mineralogy and petrography, (2) shape and angularity of aggregate
particles, (3) initial size distribution and arrangement of particles, (4) force concentration on
particle surfaces, and (5) aggregate layer maintenance operations and environmental conditions
(Tolppanen 2001).
Saeed et al. (2001) reported in NCHRP Report 453 that LAA and micro-deval testing were
among the most important tests that influence the performance of aggregates used in unbound
pavement layers. Several abrasion/degradation testing procedures for correlating the laboratory
testing results with the field performance of asphalt pavement (Wu et al. 1998) were compared.
The results showed that micro-deval and magnesium sulfate soundness tests provide the best
correlations with field performance.
Several studies in the literature investigated the characterization of aggregate degradation and
its effects on the bearing capacity of unbound/bound layer from the perspectives of change in

size distribution or decrease in coarse-to-fine fraction ratio (Gatchalian et al. 2006, Lynn et al.
2007, Pintner et al. 1987). It is important to note that, on the one hand, aggregate degrada-
tion can cause abrasion, which results in particles losing their angularity and surface texture or
becoming more rounded and spherical. Aggregate degradation changes the void ratio or packing
properties and ultimately influences the performance. On the other hand, aggregate particles
after breakage possess fresh surfaces that might have sharp edges and rougher surface texture
(Moaveni 2015).
Several studies also focused on comparing LAA wear, micro-deval, and impact and crushing
wear. Brandes and Robinson (2006) reported that micro-deval correlated best with magne-
sium and sodium soundness degradation for aggregates used in HMA when compared with
LAA and another dry test, such as impact and crushing, which showed a lower correlation.
Test results for degradation of coarse aggregates used in the state of Virginia showed less vari-
ability and more repeatability with micro-deval as compared with soundness test. Micro-deval
showed better ability to differentiate the quality of good-performing and poor-performing
aggregates (Hossain et al. 2008a). Another study for the durability of fine aggregates in
Virginia proposed micro-deval over other conventional durability tests due to higher pre-
cision and correlation to performance from 10 aggregate sources (Hossain et al. 2008b).
Similarly, Rangaraju and Edlinski (2008) reported a high correlation between aggregate per-
formance and micro-deval with 18% permissible loss, while sulfate soundness and LAA did
not correlate well with performance given South Carolina DOT’s specifications of 15% and
55% loss, respectively, for these tests. The study also reported higher micro-deval loss for
aggregates with finer gradations (finer micro-deval-C versus micro-deval-B/micro-deval-A
gradations were investigated) (Rangaraju and Edlinski 2008). Similar effect of grain size dis-
tribution on micro-deval loss was also reported for aggregates from 72 sources in the state of
Maine (Nener-Plante 2013).
Erichsen et al. (2011), on the other hand, concluded that a suitable durability test is dependent
on aggregate quality and the method of degradation in the field: LAA test correlates better with
degradation by fragmentation while micro-deval and Nordic abrasion tests correlate better to
degradation by wearing, in which a more poorly graded gradation curve is obtained after the
tests (Erichsen et al. 2011). Similarly, Cooley and James (2003) tested aggregates from 72 sources
in eight states with micro-deval and LAA and reported a poor correlation between micro-deval,
sodium sulfate soundness, and LAA for the same aggregates, indicating that these tests are essen-
tially measuring different properties, depending on the aggregate source. A study for aggregates
used in Alaska concluded better correlation between performance of aggregates in HMA and
micro-deval test when compared with the Washington degradation test that is currently used in
the state (Liu et al. 2017).
5.3.6 Aggregate Performance Tests

Shear strength tests (triaxial tests conducted on wet and dry samples) as well as stiffness tests
(resilient modulus conducted on wet and dry samples) have been reported as the most relevant
tests for characterizing the strength, modulus, and permanent deformation behavior of aggre-
gates used in pavement layers (Saeed et al. 2001). Participating transportation agencies identified
as the performance-related laboratory tests that they performed on aggregate sources before use
in pavement construction, as shown in Figure 5-2.
Out of the seven agencies that marked other alternatives to evaluate the field performance
of aggregates, two agencies did not report any test, while Alaska DOT reported that it performs
AASHTO T 307 only for research purposes. The other four agencies mentioned the specific tests
listed in Table 5-9.

Number of Responses
0 10 20
Other 7 33%
Repeated load triaxial permanent 21 survey respondents

2 10%
deformation test
Repeated load triaxial resilient modulus
9 43%
test (AASHTO T 307, *NCHRP 1-28)
Triaxial shear strength tests 6 29%
Skid resistance tests, e.g., British

12 57%
Pendulum or similar
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 5-2. Performance-related laboratory tests performed on aggregate

sources before use in pavement construction (*MR test procedure).
5.4 Performance Concerns of Recycled

and Artificial/Byproduct Aggregates
Several limitations exist for using QB as aggregates in pavement applications, mainly due to
performance concerns and other logistical factors. NCHRP Synthesis 435: Volume 4 lists some
of the performance concerns for using QB: (1) consistency of the composition of QB and pos-
sible variabilities are not well studied or understood, (2) guidelines for best practice of using QB
are not readily available, (3) physical and mineralogical information of QB can be limited or
unavailable, (4) knowledge about local sources can be limited, and (5) higher absorption values
than other aggregates can lead to excessive Portland cement or binder requirements depending
on the application (Stroup-Gardiner and Wattenberg-Komas 2013b).
For using RAP as a recycled aggregate in pavement applications, the quality of the binder
and aggregates can be questioned. This issue may concern many agencies and cause them to
strictly use RAP coming from their own projects (Hoppe et al. 2015). Some agencies limit
the quantity of RAP used in asphalt to control the dust content. One limitation of using RAP
in asphalt mixtures is the quantity of dust associated with the milling process of RAP. Agen-
cies can also specify limited quantities of RAP in asphalt mixtures based on the total binder
content required and the percentage of binder replacement from the RAP due to possible
changes in the performance grade with the use of aged binder from RAP (National Asphalt
Pavement Association 2015). For example, the brittle and stiff behavior of mixes contain-
ing RAP and adjustment requirement to the virgin binder was indicated by New York DOT
(Wagoner et al. 2005). The higher quantities of fines passing the No. 200 (0.075-mm) sieve
associated with RAP was also reported as one of the main limitations to Superpave mixes
(Stroup-Gardiner and Wattenberg-Komas 2013c).
Table 5-9. Alternative aggregate performance-related tests considered

by participating transportation agencies.
Agency Aggregate Performance-Related Test

Alabama British pendulum only on limestone aggregates
AASHTO T 283, Resistance of Compacted Bituminous
New Mexico
Mixture to Moisture Induced Damage for Superpave
Insoluble residue test as a measure of skid (polishing)
Oklahoma
resistance in asphalt surface layer
Wyoming R-value testing

Findings from the Transportation Pooled Study TPF-5(129) (Edil et al. 2012) showed that
although RAP materials could show very high resilient modulus values, unbound aggregate
specimens tested in the laboratory and base/subbase layers constructed in the field using 100%
RAP materials often accumulated high permanent deformations. A similar finding was also
reported for using 100% RAP in construction platforms by researchers at the Illinois Center for
Transportation (Kazmee and Tutumluer 2015, Kazmee et al. 2017).
Expansion of RAP is particularly critical when it contains expansive components like steel
slag. Steel slag aggregates are often used in HMA surface courses because of their high fric-
tional characteristics. Therefore, any RAP material obtained from these surface courses with
steel slag aggregates may potentially lead to expansion and resulting pavement heave when used
in unbound aggregate base/subbase courses. Recent experiences with volume changes of up to
10% or more have been attributable to hydration of the calcium and magnesium oxides in the
recycled steel slag aggregate when water was encountered in the pavement base layer (Collins
and Ciesielski 1994). The free lime hydrates rapidly and can cause large volume changes within
a few weeks, while magnesium oxide hydrates more slowly and contributes to long-term expan-
sion that may take years. The potential expansion depends on the origin of the slag, grain size
and gradation, and the age of the stockpile (Rohde et al. 2003).
Deniz et al. (2010) reported that RAP materials had much lower tendencies to expand when
compared with the expansion potentials of virgin steel slag aggregates, likely due to the asphalt
coating around the aggregates that prevents any significant ingress of water into them. Depend-
ing on the level of expansion and the material gradation, dense-graded aggregate base applica-
tions with steel slag may have to be avoided (Deniz et al. 2010).
Ooi et al. (2011) listed the following criteria for using RCA as a base course. The criteria are to
(1) allow only uncrushed concrete that can be visually inspected for use as RCA, (2) accept RCA
only from suppliers that can guarantee the quality, (3) not accept RCA from unknown sources
unless certified by a qualified engineer or scientist as being free from deleterious materials (such
as aluminum), (4) avoid using building demolition RCA, (5) require a paper trail to document
the RCA source, and (6) use a nonferrous metal detector to determine whether aluminum is
present and also to inspect the RCA visually before use.
Reza and Wilde (2017) mentioned some quality concerns regarding the use of RCA in Portland
cement applications. These pertained to concerns over the source of the RCA and possible dis-
tresses in the RCA, exhibited due to material quality, such as D-cracking and ASR. Other con-
cerns included issues with workability and product quality related to the use of RCA in concrete
pavements. High absorption, durability concerns, higher drying shrinkage, and lower modulus
of elasticity are also among the quality concerns related with the use of RCA in PCC (Reza and
Wilde 2017). Several studies also reported leaching to groundwater and high pH levels as issues
with RCA (Engelsen et al. 2012, Reza and Wilde 2017, Sani et al. 2005).
NCHRP Synthesis 435: Volume 5 identified several limitations for using iron and steel slags
in pavement applications including use in HMA and PCC layers, as summarized in Table 5-10,
for BFS, SFS, and other types of slags. Table 5-10 lists slag availability, slag material properties,
and regulations as the most frequent barriers for using combustion byproducts in pavement
applications. Undesirable material properties include high specific gravity, high absorption, and
issues with freeze thaw. One limitation for steel slags is that it can lead to decreased compatibility
and workability and high hauling costs due to its high specific gravity and unit weight (Stroup-
Gardiner and Wattenberg-Komas 2013a).
Due to leaching, expansion, and other past issues experienced by agencies with the use of steel slag,
the 17 agencies that use steel slag aggregates, as listed in NCHRP Synthesis 435: Volume 5, adopted
different criteria for acceptance in applications other than HMA. Some agencies specified an

Table 5-10. Limitations for using combustion byproducts in pavement applications.
Question: Comment on barriers to the use of combustion byproducts in highway applications that have been either
overcome or still exist
States with barrier
Barrier category Reasons for classification as barrier
responses
expansion test either by the DOT or by the supplier (Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, South
Carolina, and West Virginia) and some states required moisture curing prior to use. For example,
Ohio requires 1-month moist curing, Missouri requires 3 months, while South Carolina and
West Virginia require 6 months. None of the states listed above permit using steel slag aggregates
in PCC (Washington State DOT 2015). For slag use in concrete pavements, it has been reported
that dissolution of calcium sulfide in air-cooled BFS might lead to paste expansion and cracking,
but the extent is not well known. Concrete toughness, loss of workability, and maintenance
costs (which can be twice as high compared with using natural aggregates from the experience
of Michigan DOT) have been cited as issues for using BFS (Morian et al. 2012).
Leachate from BFS poses a potential risk to the environment and remains an aesthetic concern.
This requires checking the odor and discoloration of water and determining the properties of
leachate from BFS such as pH and redox conditions. The Recycled Materials Resource Center
lists several quality assurance measures to reduce leachate issues, including stockpiling the air-
cooled BFS for a minimum of 1 month before usage and using air-cooled BFS above grade only and
in areas were drainage is not problematic and the BFS is not immersed in water (RMRC 2017). For
example, bucket test for leachate determination can be performed prior to construction, which is
the current practice by Illinois DOT (Illinois DOT 2015, RMRC 2017).
Additionally, the hardness of BFS can be measured by Moh’s scale ranges from 5 to 6, which is
similar to that of durable igneous rock. Nevertheless, BFS is brittle and easy to breakdown when
subjected to impact loading (RMRC 2017). No correlation between LAA test for BFS and its
degradation performance in the field has been reported (Chesner et al. 1998). Therefore, some
of the states do not consider the degradation requirements based on LAA testing for utilization
of BFS. On the other hand, the EPA studied the leachate results of SFS along with the toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure regulatory limits. The results showed that the average values
of metals under consideration did not violate the limits set in toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure regulation levels (Stroup-Gardiner and Wattenberg-Komas 2013a). Therefore, it was

Table 5-11. Environmental or performance issues reported by agencies using RAP,

RCA, or artificial/byproduct aggregates (SFS and BFS) in pavement construction.
Description of Environmental and/or Performance

Agency Concern
Alberta, British
Columbia, Kentucky,
Maine, Pennsylvania, Concerned with potential leaching with RCA.
Tennessee, and
Washington State
Concerned with RCA in rigid or flexible pavement due to amount of fines from
Arkansas
crushing.
British Columbia, Idaho,
Kansas, Kentucky, Too high of a RAP content (50% range) resulted in premature cracking.
New York, and Utah
Any recycled materials used in base courses must be tested for environmental
Connecticut
compliance by a contractor prior to delivery.
Delaware Not allowing RCA in concrete due to the fact it may have ASR in it.
Florida and Maryland Higher pH of RCA if used in same area as metallized pipe.
Illinois and Indiana Leaching of steel furnace slag.
Michigan, Montana, and
RCA cannot be used in ephemeral drainages or high-water table conditions.
South Dakota
Bituminous mixtures replacing 20% of the binder with RAP experiencing
Missouri
raveling and early oxidation making the mix brittle and prone to cracking.
Leaching. However, mostly large stockpile of RAP stored at quarry as by
New Jersey
product of milling.
Leaching of high pH water leaving the right-of-way from the use of
Ohio RCA and BFS. The formation of tufa in underdrains due to the use of
RCA.
Hot Mix: Polishing of coarse aggregates caused by the contractor using a
higher percentage and less quality RAP in our premium surface courses than
Ontario is indicated in the mix design. Unbound Base Layers: Leaching of blast
furnace slag.
Rhode Island Concerned with loss of fatigue resistance in surface courses when using RAP.
Need to meet requirements included in Specification: DMS-11000: Evaluating
Texas
and Using Nonhazardous Recyclable Materials Guidelines.
concluded that the use of SFS was safe and did not induce any contamination even in areas where
the groundwater table was shallow.
Participating transportation agencies indicated whether they have any environmental (e.g.,
leaching) or performance (e.g., cracking) concerns regarding the use of recycled aggregate (RAP
and RCA) or artificial/byproduct aggregates (SFS and BFS) in pavement construction. It was
found that 57% (26 U.S. DOTs and three Canadian provinces) have experienced at least one
environmental or performance-related concern. Those 29 agencies described any environmental
or performance issues of their concern, and their concerns are listed in Table 5-11. Using RAP
and RCA in pavement applications was linked to the two most commonly encountered concerns
among different agencies. High percentages of RAP were reported to create premature asphalt
cracking while using RCA involved higher pH and leaching concerns.
Refer to Appendix C for a detailed compilation related to individual responses reported by
each agency.

CHAPTER 6
Conclusions
6.1 Objectives and Scope of Synthesis Study

The primary objective of this synthesis was to gather the latest information and present
current practices implemented by transportation agencies related to aggregate quality require-
ments for pavements. The most recent and relevant research findings on the sources and types
of aggregates influencing quality were gathered. Information related to aggregate QA proce-
dures established by agencies including testing methods (e.g., AASHTO, ASTM, or agency
specific methods) and typical ranges/passing criteria were collected and synthesized. Moreover,
aggregate approval processes as well as testing frequencies to certify aggregate sources for use
in a certain layer of pavement were examined. Quality indicators of aggregates affecting pave-
ment performance were discussed to establish linkages between related laboratory and field
tests and the aggregate quality and performance. Environmental, economic, and performance-
related concerns considered or experienced by agencies due to utilizing alternative sources of
aggregates were presented.
The data used to develop this synthesis were gathered through an extensive literature review
and comprehensive survey responses collected from 45 U.S. DOTs and eight Canadian pro-
vincial agencies. Follow-up interviews with selected agencies were also conducted to illustrate
examples of implementing aggregate quality practices.
6.2 Summary of Key Findings

The summary of key findings has been organized into four subsections corresponding to the
information presented in Chapters 2 through 5 and is described below.
6.2.1 Aggregate Source Selection and Quality Properties

Information related to sources, locations, tests, and quality properties of virgin (natural) aggre-
gates used in North America were synthesized. Additionally, different quality-related properties
for recycled aggregates such as RAP and RCA as well as artificial/byproduct aggregates such as
SFS, BFS, and QB were also investigated. Blending of different aggregate sources to meet quality
requirements was discussed and the restrictions that transportation agencies have put in place for
utilizing different aggregate sources for constructing certain pavement layers were highlighted.
The main findings include the following:
• More than half of the agencies that participated in the survey questionnaire indicated they
have a list of approved aggregate types or sources available that are routinely used in their
state or province for selecting/approving aggregate materials for use in different pavement
applications.
77

• Uniform practice does not exist among different agencies regarding the use of RAP,
RCA, SFS, and BFS in pavement construction. Furthermore, transportation agencies fol-
low different restrictions considering quality concerns for using recycled and artificial
aggregates.
• Ninety-four percent (94%) of the responding agencies confirmed the use of RAP in pave-
ment applications. Residual asphalt binder property and source properties of RAP aggregates
were reported as the common RAP quality indicators that are investigated by transportation
agencies.
• Forty percent (40%) of the agencies reported that they do not use RCA in pavement
construction.
• Artificial/byproduct and manufactured aggregates, such as SFS, BFS, and LWA, were reported
to be used by 45% of the responding agencies.
• Transportation agencies indicated that they commonly blend marginal aggregates and QB
with virgin aggregates. Out of the 53 agencies, 77% reported that they blend aggregate from
different sources.
• Additionally, 15% of the agencies reported the use of marginal aggregates, while 21% of the
respondents indicated that they use nontraditional large size aggregates.
6.2.2 Aggregate Quality Assurance and Testing

The responsible authority in charge of testing aggregate materials, types, and frequencies of
quality assurance tests on aggregates, with a focus on quality assessment, along with aggregate
sampling procedures were discussed. Important and common aggregate properties affecting
qualities of different aggregate sources, including coarse and fine virgin natural aggregates, RAP,
RCA, SFS, and BFS, used in pavement construction were investigated. The main findings include
the following:
• QA methods have been established by agencies to ensure that the aggregate materials
received on the job site meet the criteria for utilizing them in construction of a certain
pavement layer.
• Using in-house geotechnical or material laboratories was found to be the most common way
to test and check qualities of aggregate materials by transportation agencies.
• AASHTO test procedures were found to be the preferred aggregate testing methods more
commonly adopted and used by agencies when compared with the ASTM and agency devel-
oped test procedures.
• Sampling requirements and frequencies of quality assurance tests on aggregate materials can
vary significantly among different agencies.
• Review of National Slag Association publications showed that mineralogical, chemical, and
freeze-thaw properties for both SFS and BFS aggregate sources need to be considered as impor-
tant quality indicators that affect performance. The findings of the survey showed that only few
agencies routinely check these properties.
• Transportation agencies have established different procedures to control the quality of
blended aggregate products. Some common alternatives include controlling the quality of
individual components or the entire blend as one product.
6.2.3 Approval Procedures and Aggregate Quality Classes

Aggregate materials approval or certification procedures adopted and commonly used by
North American transportation agencies to assess quality classes were discussed. Furthermore,
the ranges of aggregate quality classes defined by many agencies and how some of these agencies
have established a tiered approach to assign these quality classes to a certain layer of pavement

Conclusions 79
were investigated. Aggregate quality requirements published by different transportation agen-

cies were reviewed, with a special focus on practices or criteria put in place to classify differ-
ent aggregate types and sources including coarse and fine virgin aggregates. The main findings
include the following:
• Approximately 72% of all participating agencies use their own laboratory for approving
aggregates, while 30% reported that they do not have an approved aggregate list and only test
aggregates prior to use on every major construction job.
• The outcome of the survey showed that only 44% of the participating agencies classify aggre-
gate quality based on utilization in a certain layer of pavement (tiered approach).
• Agencies often list and include aggregate gradation as a criterion for aggregate quality
classification. Aggregate particle size distribution is in fact a performance-based engineering
recipe or requirement for certain layer applications but not a quality aspect.
• The findings from the survey showed that transportation agencies follow different methodologies,
designations, and criteria for aggregate property evaluation and classification based on required
quality levels. Alaska, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Ontario, and Texas were found to have some of
the most comprehensive and diverse aggregate classification systems, with diverse quality classes
associated with each aggregate type and application.
6.2.4 Aggregate Quality and Performance

Pavement distresses in different types of pavements and how they relate to aggregate qual-
ity properties were discussed. Additionally, aggregate performance tests that are considered by
transportation agencies to relate laboratory and field performance were investigated. Finally,
environmental and performance-related pavement distresses experienced by different agen-
cies and potentially caused due to poor aggregate quality or utilizing RAP, RCA, and artificial/
byproduct aggregates such as SFS and BFS were presented. The summary of key findings of this
chapter are presented as follows:
• Thirty-nine agencies out of 51 survey question respondents reported that they do not track
or keep a record with the intent to relate the aggregate quality aspects to observed pavement
performance trends in the field.
• Review of the literature proved that standard mechanistic-based as well as innovative pave-
ment materials characterization and performance tests such as resilient modulus, permanent
deformation, shear strength, or advanced skid resistance (e.g., imaging-based surface texture,
or variable speed friction test) have been developed by different research institutions. The
survey results showed that more than half of the surveyed agencies reported that they do not
implement these performance-based tests in their specifications to check and control the end
performances of different qualities of aggregates.
• Stripping and polishing were found to be the most common aggregate-related flexible
pavement distresses reported by transportation agencies.
• Fifty percent (50%) of agencies linked an aggregate quality deficiency to a specific performance-
reported ASR as the main quality concern and the resulting cracking as the most common
aggregate quality-related rigid pavement distress.
• Agencies reported poor performance in different pavement layers, that is, primarily asphalt
surface course, asphalt base course, PCC, and surface treatment, resulting from aggregate
quality issues.
• The use of RAP and polishing resistance-related degradation were reported by participating
agencies as the common aggregate quality issues affecting pavement performance.
• Mineralogy, plasticity of fines, aggregate particle shape, texture and angularity, and resistance
to degradation were reported by researchers as important aggregate properties affecting
performance in both bound and unbound pavement layer applications.

• The use of high percentages of RAP was reported by the survey responding agencies to have
caused premature asphalt cracking. Also, the use of RCA in pavement layer applications was
offered as a possible cause of high pH and leaching issues. Accordingly, the survey results
showed that performance-related concerns have led agencies to limit the increased use of
RAP, while environmental and durability-related concerns are the most prevalent when it
comes to utilizing RCA, SFS, and BFS in pavement construction.
• According to the findings from the reviewed literature, expansion of the RAP material was
particularly a concern when RAP contained expansive components like steel slag.
6.3 Conclusions and Gaps in Knowledge

The outcome of this synthesis shows that aggregate QA practices and approval procedures can
greatly vary from one transportation agency to another, while performance-based aggregate specifi-
cations and testing are not common. Clear gaps in knowledge were found to exist on how to develop
and implement performance-based aggregate specifications that would potentially benefit agencies,
users, and stakeholders. Additionally, based on the survey results and literature review,
gaps in knowledge were observed on how to develop new and innovative testing methods
to better assess the quality of virgin, recycled, and artificial/byproduct aggregates and aggregate
blends. For example, 52 agencies, that is, nearly all survey participants, specified the LAA test for
checking the durability of virgin aggregate, while research studies conducted by many universities
and transportation agencies concluded that micro-deval test results could better correlate to
field performance in terms of aggregate surface friction course requirements. This conclusion
shows the ongoing need to develop or adopt new and advanced testing methods that may better
relate to the actual field mechanisms of aggregate degradation (e.g., fracture and wear) and, at the
same time, adequately assess the effectiveness of the most commonly used laboratory tests such as
the LAA and magnesium and sodium sulfate soundness to establish aggregate quality properties.
6.4 Suggestions for Further Research

The factual data gathered in this synthesis study indicate that the availability of high quality
aggregate materials is decreasing in many parts of North America as sand and gravel mines and
rock quarries are depleted or lost to other land uses. Based on the findings of this synthesis,
further research and investigation may need to be directed toward developing a comprehensive,
consistent, and sustainable aggregate quality management system in North America. Related
research activities may focus on establishing implementation strategies for such an aggregate
quality management system to achieve satisfactory pavement performance and at the same time
reduce detrimental environmental impacts. Sharing success and failure stories among agencies
may help eliminate some gaps in knowledge, improve sustainable construction practices for the
targeted end performance, and address prevailing aggregate quality issues.
Finally, the high quantities of construction and demolition debris produced every year in
North America necessitate conducting more research to establish sustainable and alternative
aggregate resources for pavement construction. In addition to RCA and RAP, which are the most
commonly used, artificial/byproduct aggregates, such as SFS, BFS, QB, and manufactured LWA,
as well as local/marginal and large unconventional aggregates (e.g., primary crusher runs) can
be further studied especially for their uses in pavement construction platforms and secondary
roads. If undertaken, such future research should be directed toward investigating and defining
strategies, assessment methods, and performance requirements that will enable pavements to be
constructed or rehabilitated with available aggregates used in such a way as to best take advan-
tage of their potential in pavement construction.

Bibliography
Coree, B. J., and W. P. Hislop. (2000). A Laboratory Investigation into the Effects of Aggregate-Related
Factors on Critical VMA in Asphalt Paving Mixture. Project 98-20. Center for Transportation Research
and Education, Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames.
Gholamreza, F. (2007). Structural Performance of Steel Reinforced Recycled Concrete Members. PhD dissertation.
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Janoo, V. (1998). Quantification of Shape, Angularity, and Surface Texture of Base Course Materials. Spe-
cial Report 98-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,
Hanover, N.H.
LaHucik, J., S. Schmidt, E. Tutumluer, and J. Roesler. (2016). Characterization of Cement Treated Base Course
Using Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement, Aggregate By-Products, and Macro-Synthetic Fibers. Geo-Chicago 2016:
Geotechnics for Sustainable Energy, 523.
Lekarp, F., U. Isacsson, and A. Dawson. (2000a). State of the Art. I: Resilient Response of Unbound Aggregates. Journal
of Transportation Engineering, 126(1), 66–75.
Lekarp, F., U. Isacsson, and A. Dawson. (2000b). State of the Art. II: Permanent Strain Response of Unbound
Aggregates. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 126(1), 76–83.
Masad, E., T. Al-Rousan, J. Button, D. Little, and E. Tutumluer. (2007). NCHRP Report 555: Test Methods for
Characterizing Aggregate Shape, Texture, and Angularity. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Mwumvaneza, V., H. Wenting, H. Ozer, E. Tutumluer, I. L. Al-Qadi, and S. Beshears. (2015). Characterization and
Stabilization of Quarry Byproducts for Sustainable Pavement Applications. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2509, 1–9.
Puppala, A., S. Saride, and S. Sirigiripet. (2008). Evaluation of Cemented Quarry Fines as a Pavement Base
Material. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 177, Geo-Congress 2008, New Orleans, La., 312–319.
Rupnow, T., V. R. Schaefer, and D. J. White. (2010). An Investigation of the Use of Limestone Screenings in
Roadway Construction. In Proceedings of 89th Annual Transportation Research Board Meeting (CD-ROM),
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Taha, R., G. Ali, A. Basma, and O. Al-Turk. (1999). Evaluation of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Aggregate in
Road Bases and Subbases. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1652, 264–269.
Uthus, L., E. Tutumluer, I. Horvli, and I. Hoff. (2007). Influence of Grain Shape and Surface Texture on the
Deformation Properties of Unbound Aggregates in Pavements. International Journal of Pavements, 6(1).
Witczak, M. (2003). Harmonized Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Resilient Modulus for Flexi-
ble Pavement Design. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP01-28A_FR-
Vol1.pdf.
Woodbridge, M. (1999). Use of Soft Limestone for Road-Base Construction in Belize. Seventh International
Conference on Low-Volume Roads, Baton Rouge, La.
Woolf, D. O. (compiler) (1953). Results of Physical Tests of Road-Building Aggregate, to Jan. 5, 1951. Physical
Research Branch, U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, Washington, D.C.
81

Glossary
Absorption Absorption is a measure of the amount of water that an aggregate can

absorb into its permeable pore structure. Pores that absorb water are
also referred to as “water permeable voids.” Absorption of an aggre-
gate particle is the weight of water absorbed divided by the dry weight
of the aggregate, expressed as a percentage.
Alluvium Loose, unconsolidated (not cemented together into a solid rock) soil
or sediments, which has been eroded, reshaped by water in some form,
and redeposited in a non-marine setting.
Artificial Mineral-based materials that are artificially processed using thermal or
aggregate source chemical means to produce a granular material.
Asphalt surface Application of a layer of asphalt or asphaltic mixture with or without
treatment aggregate to a pavement surface. Examples include, but are not limited
to, fog seal, sand seal, chip seal, slurry seal, cape seal, microsurfacing, and
nova chip.
Blast furnace slag Obtained by quenching molten iron slag (a byproduct of iron and steel-
making) from a blast furnace in water or steam, to produce a glassy,
granular product.
Blending Combining different types of aggregates from two or more sources
with certain proportions to satisfy a target gradation or set of quality
requirements.
Bound pavement Layers of a pavement structure consisting of aggregate materials mixed
layer with adding an external binding agent such as asphalt binder, Portland
cement, fly ash, etc. Examples of bound pavement layers include, but are
not limited to, asphalt concrete, Portland cement concrete, and stabilized
subbase/base.
Bulk specific gravity Ratio of the mass of a unit volume of aggregate, including the water per-
meable voids, at a stated temperature to the mass of an equal volume of
gas-free distilled water at the stated temperature.
Chip seal A pavement surface treatment that combines one or more thin layer(s)
of asphalt binder with one or more layer(s) of fine aggregate.
Deleterious material Clay lumps, shale, soft, friable, or laminated particles, vegetable matter,
or other objectionable material.
Flexible pavement Defined as a mixture of asphaltic or bituminous material and aggregates
placed on a bed of compacted granular material of appropriate quality
in layers over the subgrade.
82

Glossary 83
Fluvial In geography and geology, fluvial processes are associated with rivers
and streams and the deposits and landforms created by them.
Glacier A thick, long-lasting mass of ice accumulated on land surfaces.
Leachate Any liquid material that drains from land or stockpiled material and
contains significantly elevated concentrations of undesirable material
derived from the material that it has passed through.
Lightweight Produced from materials such as clay, shale, slate, perlite, and slags.
aggregate The raw material is expanded to about twice the original volume of the
raw material. The expanded material has properties similar to natural
aggregate, but is less dense and therefore yields a lighter product.
Marginal Any aggregate that is not normally usable because it does not have the
aggregate characteristics required by an agency’s specification, however, could be
source used successfully by modifying normal pavement design and construc-
tion procedures through research and investigation.
Mineralogy A subject of geology specializing in the scientific study of chemistry,
crystal structure, and physical (including optical) properties of minerals
and mineralized artifacts.
Morphological Aggregate shape properties including forms such as flatness and elon-
aggregate properties gation or sphericity, angularity, and surface texture.
Nontraditional Aggregate materials with maximum particle sizes up to 8 in. (203 mm)
large size aggregates generally used as rock fills to improve bearing capacity of soft subgrades.
Polishing Polishing relates to the loss of aggregate surface texture, which can affect
pavement’s microtexture and influence its skid resistance.
Porosity Porosity is the dominant pore size and pore size distribution of aggre-
gate particles. Porosity is expressed as the ratio of volume of voids to
the total volume of rock. Porosity of an aggregate particle refers to the
percentage of the particle that is porous by volume. (Absorption % ×
Specific Gravity = Porosity %)
Provisional These are standards that have been adopted on a temporary basis for a cer-
standard tain period. Provisional standards may or may not become a full standard.
p-value In statistical analysis and testing, the p-value or probability value is the
probability for a given statistical model that, when the null hypothesis
is true, the statistical summary (such as the sample mean difference
between two compared groups) would be the same as or of greater mag-
nitude than the actual observed results.
Qualified/Approved Aggregate materials obtained from a specific source such as a quarry
aggregate source that has met the requirements established by an agency for use in a
certain application.
Quality assurance All those planned and systematic actions necessary to provide confi-
dence that a product or facility will perform satisfactorily in service; or
making sure the quality of a product is what it should be.
Quarry byproducts/ Mineral fine materials resulting from different stages in production of
byproduct aggregate aggregates; quarry fines may cover a range of aggregates with maximum
sieve sizes of 0.079 to 0.25 in. (2 to 6.25 mm).
Reclaimed asphalt Removed and/or reprocessed pavement materials containing asphalt
pavement and aggregates.

Recycled aggregate Aggregate source produced by crushing asphalt and/or cement concrete
source to reclaim the aggregate.
Recycled concrete Crushed old concrete particles from sidewalks, pavements, curbing,
aggregate and building slabs. After being compiled, the concrete is processed and
screened, which includes crushing the concrete into smaller pieces.
Rigid pavement Constructed from cement concrete or reinforced concrete slabs.
Soundness Aggregate’s resistance to disintegration by weathering and, in particular,
freeze-thaw cycles.
Statistical t-test A t-test is an analysis of two population means through the use of sta-
tistical examination; a t-test with two samples is commonly used with
small sample sizes and testing the difference between the samples when
the variances of two normal distributions are not known.
Steel furnace slag A byproduct of the steelmaking and steel refining processes. Calcium
oxide and iron oxide are the two major chemical constituents.
Theoretical Theoretical maximum specific gravity is determined by taking a sample
maximum of loose HMA (i.e., not compacted), weighing it, and then determining
specific gravity its volume by calculating the volume of water it displaces. Theoreti-
(Rice method) cal maximum specific gravity is then the sample weight divided by its
volume.
Unbound pavement Layers of a pavement structure consisting of aggregate materials without
layer adding binding agent.
Unsurfaced Gravel or dirt road with no surface material added and constructed
pavement with gravel.
Virgin/natural An aggregate source consists of rock fragments in their natural state
aggregate source that have been subjected to mechanical processing such as crushing,
washing, and sizing.
Note: See also AASHTO Transportation Glossary, 4th Ed. (https://bookstore.transportation.org/

item_details.aspx?ID=1394) and AASHTO Glossary of Highway-Related Drainage Terms (https://
bookstore.transportation.org/imageview.aspx?id=689&DB=3).

References
2016 Aggregates Industry Atlas. Aggregates Manager. Available: https://www.aggmanatlas.com/.

Abdelrahman, M., A. Hardy, and A. Saboori. (2010). A Property-Based Specification for Coarse Aggregate in
Pavement Applications. Report MN/RC 2010-3. Research Services Section, Minnesota Department of Trans-
portation, Saint Paul.
Adlinge, S., and A. Gupta. (2013). Pavement Deterioration and Its Causes. International Journal of Innovative
Research and Development, 2(4), 437–450.
Alaska DOT. (2016). Alaska Test Methods Manual. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Juneau.
Allen, J. (1973). The Effect of Non-Constant Lateral Pressures of the Resilient Response of Granular Materials. PhD
dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
Allen, J., and M. R. Thompson. (1974). Resilient Response of Granular Materials Subjected to Time-Dependent
Lateral Stresses. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 510, 1–13.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2013). Standard Specification
for Coarse Aggregate for Hydraulic Cement Concrete, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, D.C.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). (2015). Standard Specification for
Reclaimed Concrete Aggregate for Use as Coarse Aggregate in Hydraulic Cement Concrete, Provisional Standard
MP16-13, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2001). Removal and Reuse of Hardened Concrete, ACI 555R-01. American
Concrete Institute Committee 555, Farmington Hills, Mich.
American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA). (1995). Subgrade and Subbase for Concrete Pavements.
Concrete Paving Technology. Available: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/projectdelivery/pdp/tools/
subgrade-subbase.pdf.
American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA). (2009). Recycling Concrete Pavements. Available: http://
1204075.sites.myregisteredsite.com/downloads/TS/EB043P/TS043.3P.pdf.
Arizona DOT (2008). Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. Arizona Department of Trans-
portation, Phoenix.
Arulrajah, A., J. Piratheepan, and M. Disfani. (2012). Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Properties of
Recycled Construction and Demolition Materials in Pavement Subbase Applications. Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering, 28(8), 1077–1088.
Arulrajah, A., J. Piratheepan, and M. Disfani. (2013). Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement and Recycled Concrete Aggregate
Blends in Pavement Subbases: Laboratory and Field Evaluation. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
26(2), 349–357.
Asphalt Institute (2009). MS-16: Asphalt in Pavement Preservation and Maintenance. Available: https://
bookstore.asphaltinstitute.org/catalog/book/ms16. Summary of distresses available: http://archive.is/zw3j1.
Barksdale, R. (1972). Laboratory Evaluation of Rutting in Base Course Materials. In Proceedings of the Third
International Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements, London, England, 161–174.
Barksdale, R. (1991). The Aggregate Handbook. National Stone Association, Washington, D.C.
Barksdale, R., and S. Itani. (1989). Influence of Aggregate Shape on Base Behavior. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1227, 173–182.
Bennert, T., W. Papp, A. Maher, and N. Gucunski. (2000). Utilization of Construction and Demolition
Debris Under Traffic-Type Loading in Base and Subbase Applications. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board., No. 1714, 33–39.
Berkshire Regional Planning Commission. (2001). The Massachusetts Unpaved Roads Best Management Practices
Manual: A Guidebook on How to Improve Water Quality While Addressing Common Problems. Project 98-06/319.
Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Resource Protection.
85

Brand, A. S., and J. R. Roesler. (2015). Steel Furnace Slag Aggregate Expansion and Hardened Concrete Proper-
ties. Cement and Concrete Composites, 60, 1–9.
Brand, A., J. Roesler, I. Al-Qadi, and P. Shangguan. (2012). Fractionated Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (FRAP) as
a Coarse Aggregate Replacement in a Ternary Blended Concrete Pavement. Illinois Center for Transportation,
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Rantoul.
Brandes, H., and C. Robinson. (2006). Correlation of Aggregate Test Parameters to Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement
Performance in Hawaii. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 132(1), 86–95.
Browning, J., D. Darwin, D. Reynolds, and B. Pendergrass. (2011). Lightweight Aggregate as Internal Curing
Agent to Limit Concrete Shrinkage. ACI Materials Journal, 108(6), 633–644.
Butler, L., S. Tighe, and J. West. (2013). Guidelines for Selection and Use of Coarse Recycled-Concrete Aggre-
gates in Structural Concrete. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2335, 3–12.
Button, J., D. Perdomo, and R. Lytton. (1990). Influence of Aggregate on Rutting in Asphalt Concrete Pavements.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1259, 141–152.
Byard, B., and A. Schindler. (2010). Cracking Tendency of Lightweight Concrete. Highway Research Center, Auburn
University, Ala.
Caltrans (2015). Standard Specifications. California State Transportation Agency, Department of Transpor-
tation, Sacramento.
Chesner, W., R. Collins, and M. MacKay. (1998). User Guidelines for Waste and By-Product Materials in Pave-
ment Construction. Report FHWA-RD-97-148. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Collins, R. J., and S. K. Ciesielski. (1994). NCHRP Synthesis 199: Recycling and Use of Waste Materials and
By-Products in Highway Construction. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Cooley Jr, L., and R. James. (2003). Micro-Deval Testing of Aggregates in the Southeast. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board:, No. 1837, 73–79.
Copeland, A. (2011). Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in Asphalt Mixtures: State of the Practice. Report FHWA-HRT-11-021.
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Dahir, S. (1979). A Review of Aggregate Selection Criteria for Improved Wear Resistance and Skid Resistance
of Bituminous Surfaces. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 7(5), 245–253.
Darter, M., S. A. LaCoursiere, and S. A. Smiley. (1979). Structural Distress Mechanisms in Continuously Reinforced
Concrete Pavement. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 715, 1–7.
De Juan, M., and P. Gutiérrez. (2009). Study on the Influence of Attached Mortar Content on the Properties of
Recycled Concrete Aggregate. Construction and Building Materials, 23(2), 872–877.
Delatte, N. J. (2014). Concrete Pavement Design, Construction, and Performance. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.
Deniz, D., E. Tutumluer, E., and J. Popovics. (2010). Evaluation of Expansive Characteristics of Reclaimed
Asphalt Pavement and Virgin Aggregate Used as Base Materials. Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2167, 10–17.
Deshpande, Y., and J. Hiller. (2012). Pore Characterization of Manufactured Aggregates: Recycled Concrete
Aggregates and Lightweight Aggregates. Materials and Structures, 45(1), 67–79.
Desta, B., N. Whiting, J. Olek, M. Snyder, and T. Nantung. (2015). Quick Determination of Freeze-Thaw
Durability of Concrete Aggregates Using the Indiana Department of Transportation Hydraulic Fracture
Test Equipment. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2509,
40–45.
Dubberke, W., & Marks, V. (1985). The Effect of Deicing Salt on Aggregate Durability. Transportation Research
Dukatz, Jr, E. L., and C. R. Marek. (1986). Quality Control Aspects of Producing and Handling Aggregates for Use
in Asphaltic Concrete Mixtures (with Discussion and Closure). Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists
Proceedings, 55, 238–249.
Dumitru, I., T. Zdrilic, and G. Johnson. (2001). Further Investigations of Soil Remineralization Using Quarry
Fines in Australia. ICAR 9th Annual Symposium, Austin, TX.
Dunford, A. (2013). Friction and the Texture of Aggregate Particles Used in the Road Surface Course. University of
Nottingham, England.
Edil, T. B., J. M. Tinjum, and C. H. Benson. (2012). Recycled Unbound Materials (No. MN/RC 2012-35). Available:
http://www.lrrb.org/pdf/201235.pdf.
Engelsen, C., G. Wibetoe, H. van der Sloot, W. Lund, and G. Petkovic. (2012). Field Site Leaching from Recycled
Concrete Aggregates Applied as Sub-Base Material in Road Construction. Science of the Total Environment,
427, 86–97.
EPA (2016). Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2014 Fact Sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Erichsen, E., A. Ulvik, and K. Sævik. (2011). Mechanical Degradation of Aggregate by the Los Angeles, the
Micro-Deval and the Nordic Test Methods. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 44(3), 333.

References 87
ESCSI (2017). Lightweight Chip Seal and Other Uses with Asphalt on Road Surfaces. Available: http://
www.escsi.org/ContentPage.aspx?id=69.
Fathifazl, G. (2008). Structural Performance of Steel Reinforced Recycled Concrete Members. PhD dissertation.
Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
FHWA (2007). Technical Advisory T 5040.37: Use of Recycled Concrete Pavement as Aggregate in Hydraulic-
Cement Concrete Pavement. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C.
FHWA (2015). Gravel Roads, Construction and Maintenance Guide. Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Forster, S. W. (1989). Pavement Microtexture and its Relation to Skid Resistance. Transportation Research Record:
Frith, D. J., D. A. Morian, S. M. Stoffels, and S. Saboundjian, S. (2004). Hard Aggregate Resistance to Studded Tires.
Gatchalian, D., E. Masad, A. Chowdhury, and D. Little. (2006). Characterization of Aggregate Resistance to Degra-
dation in Stone Matrix Asphalt Mixtures. Report 204-1F. International Center for Aggregates Research, The
University of Texas at Austin.
Grove, H. (2004). The Evolution and Application of MDOT Aggregate Specifications. Michigan Department of
Transportation, Lansing.
Hanna, A. (2003). NCHRP Research Results Digest 281: Aggregate Tests for Portland Cement Concrete Pavements:
Review and Recommendations. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Hansen, T. (1986). Recycled Aggregates and Recycled Aggregate Concrete Second State-of-the-Art Report Devel-
opments 1945–1985. Materials and Structures, 19(3), 201–246.
Henkensiefken, R., P. Briatka, D. Bentz, T. Nantung, and J. Weiss. (2010). Plastic Shrinkage Cracking in Internally
Cured Mixtures Made with Pre-wetted Lightweight Aggregate. Concrete International, 32(2), 49–54.
Hicks, R., and C. Monismith. (1971). Factors Influencing the Resilient Properties of Granular Materials.
Hoppe, E., D. Lane, G. Fitch, and S. Shetty. (2015). Feasibility of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Use as
Road Base and Subbase Material. Report VCTIR 15-R6. Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and
Research, Charlottesville.
Hossain, M., D. Lane, and B. Schmidt. (2008a). Results of Micro-Deval Test for Coarse Aggregates from Virginia
Sources. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2059, 1–10.
Hossain, M., D. Lane, and B. Schmidt. (2008b). Use of the Micro-Deval Test for Assessing Fine Aggregate
Durability. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2059, 11–19.
Huang, B., X. Shu, and G. Li. (2005). Laboratory Investigation of Portland Cement Concrete Containing Recycled
Asphalt Pavements. Cement and Concrete Research, 35(10), 2008–2013.
Idaho Transportation Department (2014). Quality Assurance Manual. Idaho Transportation Department,
Boise.
Illinois DOT (2005). Subgrade Stability Manual. Bureau of Bridges and Structures, Illinois Department of
Transportation, Springfield. Available: http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Doing-Business/
Manuals-Guides-&-Handbooks/Highways/Bridges/Geotechnical/Subgrade%20Stability%20Manual.pdf.
Illinois DOT (2015). Manual of Test Procedures for Materials. Bureau of Materials and Physical Research,
Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield.
Illinois DOT (2017). Policy Memorandum: Recycling Portland Cement Concrete into Aggregate (2014).
Available: http://www.idot.illinois.gov/Assets/uploads/files/Doing-Business/Manuals-Guides-&-Handbooks/
Highways/Materials/Aggregate/7-08.2recyclingportlandcementconcrete.pdf.
Indiana DOT (2017a). Aggregate Specifications and Requirements. Available: https://www.in.gov/indot/files/
CHAPTER5_InspAggregate.pdf.pdf.
Indiana DOT (2017b). Statistical Quality Control for Aggregate Processing. Chapter 6. Available: http://
www.ai.org/indot/files/chapter_06.pdf.
International Slurry Surfacing Association (1989). Test Method for Determination of Methylene Blue Absorption
Value (MVB) of Mineral Aggregate Filler and Fines. ISSA Bulletin No. 145. International Slurry Surfacing
Association, Annapolis, Md.
Iowa DOT (2016). Matls. IM T203: General Aggregate Source Information. Office of Materials, Iowa Department of
Transportation, Boise.
Iowa DOT (2017). Level II Hot Mix Asphalt. Technical Training and Certification Program, Iowa Department of
Transportation, Boise.
Janssen, D., and M. Snyder. (1994). SHRP Report C-391: Resistance of Concrete to Freezing and Thawing.
Janssen, D., J. DuBose, A. Patel, and B. Dempsey. (1986). Predicting the Progression of D-Cracking. Civil Engineering
Studies, Transportation Engineering Series No. 44, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.

Kalcheff, I., and C. Machemehl, Jr. (1980). Utilization of Crushed Stone Screenings in Highway Construction.
Presented at 59th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Kandhal, P. S., and J. F. Parker, J. F. (1998). NCHRP Research Report 404: Aggregate Tests Related to Asphalt Concrete
Performance in Pavements. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Kansas DOT (2015). Aggregates for Hot Mix Asphalt (Section 1103). Kansas Department of Transporta-
tion, Topeka. Available: https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/burConsMain/specprov/
2015/1103.pdf.
Kansas DOT (2017). Aggregates (Part V, Section 5.6, Construction Manual). Kansas Department of Transpor-
tation, Topeka. Available: https://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/bureaus/burConsMain/Connections/
ConstManual/2018/zzzPart_V_Entire_Version_w_links_final.pdf.
Kazmee, H., and E. Tutumluer. (2015). Evaluation of Aggregate Subgrade Materials Used as Pavement Subgrade/
Granular Subbase. Illinois Center for Transportation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign,
Rantoul.
Kazmee, H., E. Tutumluer, and S. Beshears. (2017). Evaluating Constructed Aggregate Layers of Working Platforms
and Flexible Pavements: Adequacy of In-Place Quality Control and Quality Assurance Techniques. Transporta-
tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2655, 1–12.
Kazmee, H., E. Tutumluer, D. Mishra, H. Boler, and J. R. Roesler. (2012). Effects of Material Blending on Strength,
Modulus, and Deformation Characteristics of Recycled Concrete Aggregates. TRB Annual Meeting Compen-
dium of Paper No. 12-3495. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Kazmierowski, T., A. Bradbury, and J. Hajek. (1994). Field Evaluation of Various Types of Open-Graded Drainage
Layers. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1434, 29–36.
Kim, H., J. Jeon, and H. Lee. (2012). Workability, and Mechanical, Acoustic and Thermal Properties of Light-
weight Aggregate Concrete with a High Volume of Entrained Air. Construction and Building Materials, 29,
pp. 193–200.
Kim, Y. R., J. Adams, J. H. Im, and J. Lee. (2013). Performance Evaluation of Chip Seals. Progress Toward
Performance-Graded Emulsified Asphalt Specifications, 38–67.
Langer, W. (2011). Aggregate Resources Availability in the Conterminous United States, Including Suggestions
for Addressing Shortages, Quality, and Environmental Concerns. Open File Report 2011-1119. U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va.
Langer, W. H. (1988). Natural Aggregates of the Conterminous United States. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
Lewis, D. W. (1982). Properties and Uses of Iron and Steel Slags. Presented at Symposium on Slag National Institute
for Transport and Road Research South Africa. National Slag Association, Pleasant Grove, Utah.
Liu, J., S. Zhao, and A. Mullin. (2017). Laboratory Assessment of Alaska Aggregates Using Micro-Deval Test.
Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 11(1), 27–34.
Locander, R. (2009). Analysis of Using Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) as a Base Course Material.
No. CDOT-2009-5. DTD Applied Research and Innovation Branch, Colorado Department of Transporta-
tion, Denver.
Luce, A., E. Mahmoud, E. Masad, and A. Chowdhury. (2007). Relationship of Aggregate Microtexture to Asphalt
Pavement Skid Resistance. Journal of Testing and Evaluation ASTM, 35(6), 578–588.
Lynn, T., R. S. James, P. Y. Wu, and D. M. Jared. (2007). Effect of Aggregate Degradation on Volumetric Proper-
ties of Georgia’s Hot-Mix-Asphalt. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1998, 123–131.
Mahmoud, E., and E. Ortiz. (2014). Implementation of AIMS in Measuring Aggregate Resistance to Polishing, Abra-
sion, and Breakage. Illinois Center for Transportation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Rantoul.
Mahmoud, E., and G. Perales. (2015). Investigation of Relationships Between AIMS Shape Properties and VST
Friction Values. Illinois Center for Transportation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Rantoul.
Mallick, R., F. Hooper, S. O’Brien, and M. Kashi. (2004). Evaluation of Use of Synthetic Lightweight Aggre-
gate in Hot-Mix Asphalt. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1891, 1–7.
Manning, D. (2004). Exploration and Use of Quarry Fines. Mineral Solutions. Report 087/MIST2/DACM/
01. MIST Project Reference: MA/2/4/003. Manchester, England.
Masad, E., A. Luce, E. Mahmoud, and A. Chowdhury. (2007). Relationship of Aggregate Texture to Asphalt Pave-
ment Skid Resistance Using Image Analysis of Aggregate Shape. Final Report for Highway IDEA Project 114.
McDaniel, R., and R. Anderson. (2001). NCHRP Report 452: Recommended Use of Reclaimed Asphalt
Pavement in the Superpave Mix Design Method: Technician’s Manual. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C.
Meininger, R. C. (1998). Aggregate Tests Related to Performance of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement. Unpublished
Final Report for NCHRP Project 4-20A. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

References 89
Meininger, R., and S. Stokowski. (2011, September/October). Wherefore Art Thou Aggregate Resources for
Highways? Public Roads, 75(2). Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/11septoct/
06.cfm.
Michigan DOT (2009). Procedures for Aggregates Inspection. Construction and Technology Division, Michigan
Department of Transportation, Lansing.
Michigan DOT (2014). HMA Production Manual. Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing.
Minnesota DOT (2005). Standard Specifications for Construction, DIVISION III Materials: Aggregate for Surface
and Base Coarses. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul.
Minnesota DOT (2016). Standard Specifications for Construction. Minnesota Department of Transportation,
Saint Paul.
Moaveni, M. (2015). Advanced Image Analysis and Techniques for Degradation Characterization of Aggregates.
PhD dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Moaveni, M., E. Mahmoud, E. Ortiz, E. Tutumluer, and S. Beshears. (2014). Use of Advanced Aggregate Imaging
Systems to Evaluate Aggregate Resistance to Breakage, Abrasion, and Polishing. Transportation Research
Mohammadinia, A., A. Arulrajah, J. Sanjayan, M. M. Disfani, M. W. Bo, and S. Darmawan. (2014). Laboratory
Evaluation of the Use of Cement-Treated Construction and Demolition Materials in Pavement Base and
Subbase Applications. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 27(6). Available: https://ascelibrary.org/toc/
jmcee7/27/6.
Morian, D., T. Van Dam, and R. Perera. (2012). Use of Air-Cooled Blast Furnace Slag as Coarse Aggregate in
Concrete Pavements. Report FHWA-HIF-12-008. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C.
National Asphalt Pavement Association (2015). Best Practices for RAP and RAS Management. National Asphalt
Pavement Association, Lanham, Md.
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (2013). Aggregates Handbook, 2nd Edition. National Stone, Sand
and Gravel Association, Washington, D.C.
Nener-Plante, D. (2013). Durability Assessment of Coarse Aggregates for Hot-Mix Asphalt in Maine. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,, No. 2335, 29–36.
New Jersey DOT (2015). MAP Number: 101-15: Materials Approval Procedures. Bureau of Materials, New Jersey
Department of Transportation, Trenton.
North Carolina DOT and NCAA (2017). Aggregate Quality Control/Quality Assurance Program. North Carolina
Department of Transportation and North Carolina Aggregates Association, Raleigh.
North Dakota DOT (2015). ND T 2—Sampling of Aggregates. North Dakota Department of Transportation,
Bismarck. Available: http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/materials/testingmanual/t2.pdf.
Oklahoma DOT (2009). Oklahoma 2009 Transportation Commission Document. Oklahoma Department of
Transportation, Oklahoma City.
Oklahoma DOT (2016). ODOT Coarse Aggregate Source Approval Policy. Oklahoma Department of Transportation,
Oklahoma City.
Ooi, P., F. Rajabipour, A. Shafaatian, and S. Joo. (2011). Forensic Investigation of Distressed Pavement Supported
on a Base Course Containing Recycled Concrete Aggregate. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 2253, 22–31.
Pan, T. (2006). Investigation of Coarse Aggregate Morphology Affecting Hot Mix Behavior Using Image Analysis. PhD
dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Pan, T., E. Tutumluer, and J. Anochie-Boateng. (2006). Aggregate Morphology Affecting Resilient Behavior of
Unbound Granular Materials. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1952, 12–20.
Parker, F., and E. Brown. (1998). Effects of Aggregate Properties on Flexible Pavement Rutting in Alabama. ASTM
International. Available: https://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/STP/PAGES/STP24212S.htm.
Pasetto, M., and N. Baldo. (2010). Experimental Evaluation of High Performance Base Course and Road Base
Asphalt Concrete with Electric Arc Furnace steel Slags. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 181(1), 938–948.
Pintner, R. M., T. S. Vinson, and E. G. Johnson. (1987). Nature of Fines Produced in Aggregate Processing. ASCE
Journal of Cold Regions Engineering, 1(1), 10–12.
Polat, R., M. M. Yadollahi, A. E. Sagsoz, and S. Arasan. (2013). The Correlation Between Aggregate Shape and
Compressive Strength of Concrete: Digital Image Processing Approach. International Journal of Structure and
Civil Engineering Research, 2(3), 62–80.
Prowell, B. D., J. Zhang, E. R. Brown. (2005). NCHRP Report 539: Aggregate Properties and the Performance of
Superpave-Designed Hot-Mix Asphalt. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Qamhia, I., H. Kazmee, E. Tutumluer, and H. Ozer. (2017a). A Sustainable Application of Quarry Byproducts Mixed
with Large Size Unconventional Aggregates for Improved Performance. International Congress and Exhibition:
Sustainable Civil Infrastructures: Innovative Infrastructure Geotechnology, Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, 262–273.

Qamhia, I., E. Tutumluer, H. Ozer, and H. Kazmee. (2017b). Field Performance Evaluation of Pavement Con-
struction Platforms Utilizing Unconventional Large Size Aggregates Packed with Quarry Byproducts, and
Higher Fines Aggregate Subgrade Layers. Presented at International Conference on Highway Pavement and
Airfield Technology, Philadelphia, Pa.
Qamhia, I., E. Tutumluer, H. Ozer, and H. Kazmee. (2017c). Sustainable Field Applications of Quarry Byproducts
Mixed with Large Size Unconventional Aggregates. International Congress and Exhibition: Sustainable Civil
Infrastructures: Innovative Infrastructure Geotechnology. 10th International Conference on the Bearing
Capacity of Roads, Railways, and Airfields, Athens, Greece, 262–273.
Quiroga, P. N., and D. W. Fowler. (2004). The Effects of Aggregate Characteristics on the Performance of Portland
Cement Concrete. ICAR Research Report No. 104-1F. The University of Texas at Austin.
Rahman, F., M. Islam, H. Musty, and M. Hossain. (2012). Aggregate Retention in Chip Seal. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2267, 56–64.
Rangaraju, P., and J. Edlinski. (2008). Comparative Evaluation of Micro-Deval Abrasion Test with Other Toughness/
Abrasion Resistance and Soundness Tests. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 20(5), 343–351.
Rao, C., E. Tutumluer, and I. T. Kim. (2002). Quantification of Coarse Aggregate Angularity Based on
Image Analysis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1787,
117–124.
Reza, F., and W. Wilde. (2017). Evaluation of Recycled Aggregates Test Section Performance. Report MN/RC 2017-06.
Center for Transportation Research and Implementation, Minnesota State University, Mankato.
RMRC (2008). User Guidelines for Byproducts and Secondary Use Materials in Pavement Construction—Blast
Furnace Slag: Material Description. Recycled Materials Resource Center.
RMRC (2017). Blast Furnace Slag—Material Description. Available: http://rmrc.wisc.edu/ug-mat-blast-furnace-slag/.
Rohde, L., W. Peres Náñez, and J. Augusto Pereira Cera. (2003). Electric Arc Furnace Steel Slag: Base Material for
Low-Volume Roads. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1819,
201–207.
Saeed, A. (2008). NCHRP Report 598: Performance-Related Tests of Recycled Aggregates for Use in Unbound
Pavement Layers. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Saeed, A., J. W. Hall, and W. Barker. (2001). NCHRP Report 453: Performance-Related Tests of Aggregates for Use
in Unbound Pavement Layers. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Sani, D., G. Moriconi, G. Fava, and V. Corinaldesi. (2005). Leaching and Mechanical Behaviour of Concrete
Manufactured with Recycled Aggregates. Journal of Waste Management, 25(2), 177–182.
Snyder, M., D. Janssen, and W. Hansen. (1996). Adoption of a Rapid Test for Determining Aggregate Durability
in Portland Cement Concrete. Final Report to the Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing.
Stroup-Gardiner, M., and T. Wattenberg-Komas. (2013a). NCHRP Synthesis 435: Recycled Materials and Byproducts
in Highway Applications, Volume 5: Slag Byproducts. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Stroup-Gardiner, M., and T. Wattenberg-Komas. (2013b). NCHRP Synthesis 435: Recycled Materials and
Byproducts in Highway Applications, Volume 4: Mineral and Quarry Byproducts. Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C.
Stroup-Gardiner, M., and T. Wattenberg-Komas. (2013c). NCHRP Synthesis 435: Recycled Materials and
Byproducts in Highway Applications, Volume 6: Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement, Recycled Concrete Aggregate,
and Construction Demolition Waste. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Texas DOT (2007). Test Procedures for Aggregate Quality Monitoring Program. Tex-499-A. Texas Department of
Transportation, Austin.
Thom, N. (1988). Design of Road Foundations. PhD dissertation. University of Nottingham, Department of Civil
Engineering, Nottingham, England.
Thom, N., and S. F. Brown. (1988). The Effect of Grading and Density on the Mechanical Properties of a Crushed
Dolomitic Limestone. Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) Conference, Canberra, 14.
Thomas, M., B. Fournier, and K. Folliard. (2013). Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity (AAR) Facts Book. Report FHWA-
HIF-13-019. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Tolppanen, P. (2001). 3D Characterization and Degradation Analysis of Rock Aggregates Doctoral Thesis,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tutumluer, E. (2013). NCHRP Synthesis 445: Practices for Unbound Aggregate Pavement Layers. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Tutumluer, E., and T. Pan. (2008). Aggregate Morphology Affecting Strength and Permanent Deformation
Behavior of Unbound Aggregate Materials. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 20(9), 617–627.
Tutumluer, E., D. Mishra, and A. Butt. (2009). Characterization of Illinois Aggregates for Subgrade Replacement and
Subbase. Illinois Center for Transportation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Rantoul.
Vanderhorst, N., and D. Janssen. (1990). The Freeze-Thaw Environment: What is Severe? Paul Klieger Symposium
on Performance of Concrete. SP 122, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 181–191.
Vavrik, W., W. Pine, and S. Carpenter. (2002). Aggregate Blending for Asphalt Mix Design: Bailey Method.

References 91
Vazquez, C., J. Aguiar-Moya, A. Smit, and J. Prozzi. (2010). Laboratory Evaluation of Influence of Operational Toler-
ance (Acceptance Criterion) on Performance of Hot-Mix Asphalt Concrete. Report FHWA/TX-11/0-6045-1.
Research and Technology Implementation Office, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin.
Virginia DOT (2012). Surface Treatment Certification Study Guide. Materials Division, Virginia Department of
Transportation, Richmond.
Wagoner, M., W. Buttlar, G. Paulino, and P. Blankenship. (2005). Investigation of the Fracture Resistance of
Hot-Mix Asphalt Concrete Using a Disk-Shaped Compact Tension Test. Transportation Research Record:
Washington State DOT (2015). WSDOT Strategies Regarding Use of Steel Slag Aggregate in Pavements. Report
to the State Legislature in Response to 2ESHB 1299. Construction Division Pavements Office, Washington
State Department of Transportation, Olympia.
Washington State DOT (2017). Sampling for Aggregate Source Approval. WSDOT SOP 128. Washington State
Department of Transportation, Olympia.
West, R. (2015). Best Practices for RAP and RAS Management. Quality Improvement Series 129. National Asphalt
Pavement Association, Lanham, Md. Available: https://www.asphaltpavement.org/PDFs/EngineeringPubs/
QIP129_RAP_-_RAS_Best_Practices_lr.pdf.
White, T., J. Haddock, and E. Rismantojo. (2006). NCHRP Report 557: Aggregate Tests for Hot-Mix Asphalt
Mixtures Used in Pavements. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Willett, J. (2011). 2010 Minerals Yearbook: Stone, Crushed [Advance Release]. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey.
Wu, Y., F. Parker, and P. Kandhal. (1998). Aggregate Toughness/Abrasion Resistance and Durability/Soundness
Tests Related to Asphalt Concrete Performance in Pavements. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1638, 85–93.
Yi, H., G. Xu, H. Cheng, J. Wang, Y. Wan, and H. Chen. (2012). An Overview of Utilization of Steel Slag. Procedia
Environmental Sciences, 16, 791–801.
Zaumanis, M., and R. Mallick. (2015). Review of Very High-Content Reclaimed Asphalt Use in Plant-Produced
Pavements: State of the Art. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 16(1), 39–55.

Appendices A–D
Appendices A through D are not printed within the report but are available for download from
TRB’s website at www.trb.org by searching for NCHRP Synthesis 524. The appendices include
the following:
Appendix A: Survey Questionnaire
Appendix B: Survey Respondent Information
Appendix C: Compilation of Survey Responses Provided by Agency Respondents
Appendix D: Links to Approved Aggregate Lists and Specifications Published by Agencies
92

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NON-PROFIT ORG.
500 Fifth Street, NW
U.S. POSTAGE
Washington, DC 20001 PAID
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

90000
ISBN 978-0-309-39045-3
9 780309 390453

The National Academies Press: Aggregate Quality Requirements For Pavements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The National Academies Press: Aggregate Quality Requirements For Pavements

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press: Aggregate Quality Requirements For Pavements

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25205 SHARE

Aggregate Quality Requirements for Pavements

96 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP SYNTHESIS 524

A Synthesis of Highway Practice

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP SYNTHESIS 524

Published reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP SYNTHESIS 524

NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 PANEL

TOPIC 48-10 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Chapter 2 Aggregate Sources, Recycling, and Blending

29 Chapter 3 Aggregate Sampling, Testing,

44 Chapter 4 Procedures for Approving Aggregate Sources

59 Chapter 5 Aggregate Quality Affecting

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Aggregate Quality Requirements

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Aggregate Quality Requirements for Pavements

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.1 Introduction and Background

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Aggregate Quality Requirements for Pavements

Lower Backfill and Bedding

Subbase, Select Material, and Subgrade Improvement

Base Course (Unbound and Stabilized)

Aggregate Surfaced Roads (Gravel Roads)

Chip Seal, Cover Material

Portland Cement Concrete

Hot-Mix Asphalt and Warm-Mix Asphalt

Drainage and Riprap

Higher Filter Aggregates

Figure 1-1. Aggregate use and relative level of quality needed

1.2 Study Approach

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.3 Outline of the Chapters

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Aggregate Quality Requirements for Pavements

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Aggregate Sources, Recycling,

2.2 Aggregate Types and Sources

2.2.1 Stone Deposits

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

29 Chapter 3 Aggregate Sampling, Testing,

59 Chapter 5 Aggregate Quality Affecting

2.4 Tests to Check Source Properties